“Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one.”
― George Orwell, 1984
As a society the USA is not the one with raging henophia or what is called now "systemic rasism". It is socierty ruled by
financil oiligarchy which considereverybody as thier slaves, independent ofthe colorof thier skin. This is a society which elected
Barak Obama and which demonstrated strong support for Tulsi Gabbard.
But cries about "systemic racism" are a nice destruction from the realities of the brutal rule of the financial oligarchy.
The term "neoliberal identity politics" can also be used in a neutral, non-pejorative
sense to encompass ‘feminism, black liberation, gay rights, minorities right, nationalism, etc …’
Prejudices are essentially heuristics. The stereotype people based on simple visual clues. Unlike people, multinationals,
especially transnational financial institutions, are color-blind. For them everybody is a slave.
Neolib DemoRats given up "class warfare" for "identity politics". A Blairite would say: "we wanted to be
a party of power" => money. Identity politics led to "unilateral representation of ethnic minorities",
that is a politic decision based on race.
Identity politics has been co-opted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention from wealth
inequalities, the dominance of big corporations and financial oligarchy in politics, and the complete lack of democratic accountability
of elected officials.
This is why African Americans voters which have been just as let down by neoliberal politics by
Bill Clinton and Obama voted overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton, Obama and Hillary Clinton. Such
a nice politico-technological trick did them in.
This election identity politics did not work all the time. One resent and spectacular failure was Presidential elections of 2016.
Neoliberal establishment candidate -- a staunch neocon and warmonger Hillary Clinton with all her identity
politics tricks lost the election to Donald Trump who positioned himself as an independent candidate not controlled by financial
oligarchy:
For the last thirty years, there has been no left or right wing governments - not economically
or fiscally. Third way centrism (liberal progressiveness) embraced the primacy of unfettered market
capitalism and corporate globalism, and focused exclusively on using political power as a tool
to win the culture war instead.
That's fine if you've done materially very well out of unfettered
market capitalism and corporate globalism, and all that therefore matters to you is social justice
issues.
But if you were once in a secure job with a decent income and decent prospects for your
children, and all of that has been ripped away from you by unfettered market capitalism and corporate
globalism, and the people responsible for preventing that - or at least fixing it when it happens
- are more concerned with policing the language you use to express your fears and pain, and demonstrating
their compassion by trying to improve the life chances of people on other continents, then social
justice issues become a source of burning resentment, not enlightenment.
There has been a crushing
rejection of globalism and corporate plutocracy by Western electorates. The Western progressive
left will only survive if it has the courage to recognise that, and prioritises the fight for
economic and fiscal policies that promote the interests and prospects of its own poor and middle
class, over and above the cultural issues that have defined it for a quarter of a century.
We
should always remain vigilant, but the truth is that the culture war is won. It would be tragic
beyond words if that victory was reversed by an explosion of resentment caused by the left's determination
to guard old battle fields, while ignoring the reality that its thinkers and activists are needed
to right new injustices. Trump's success doesn't represent the victory of hate over hope, it just
represents the loss of hope. The left has to see that or its finished.
The left pandered to the margins. It is more important for them to impose a transsexual using
a rest room with my daughter in school than it is to just keep the boys with boys and girls with
girls.
One example, but my point is that this kind of policy alienates and offends more people
than it seeks to serve. The dems let us down by pandering to the margins of our society along
with prioritizing all sorts of things that simply just don't matter to the rank and file American.
I agree. I think looking at this through the prism of race and gender is a massive red herring.
Race and gender bias are symptoms of insecurity, not causes of it. The insecurity in this case
is the feeling that the country - economically, politically and culturally - has been stolen by
elites who care naught about ordinary, less privileged folk.
On another thread I also mentioned another issue which is how fractured society has become
in the West, how disconnected its different parts, a process which technology has fuelled. You
can get through your life today without dealing in any significant way with anyone who disagrees
with you, which is actually very, very dangerous.
The working classes have been stripped of their dignity, whole communities have become wastelands
and virtual ghettos. The working class don't trust the left to sort things out for them and that
is why and how a figure like Trump can come along and say 'I will save you all' and become President.
Meanwhile, the socialist left sit around scratching their heads, unable to work out what has happened
and squabble about the spirit of socialism and ideology that in all honesty, most working class
people don't give a toss about. They just want jobs that pay a decent wage, a nice house to own,
nice food on the table, two cars and nice holidays. They want to be middle class in other words.
But democrats are not left. They right wing too. If Americans think that Democrats are left, they
don´t know what left is at all. And what socialist goverment has USA had. I see Americans saying
tthat Democrats are socialists, really?.Hillary left and socialist?. Trump and Hillary are both
right wing, only that Trump is more extreme.
Guardian columnists such as Hadley Freeman, Lucia Graves, Wolff, Abramson, Freedland and company
should be forced to read this article. These columnists very rarely if ever talk about the Gilded
Age style inequality levels in the West, and the USA in particular. Instead it is all about identity
politics for them. Can these individuals start writing about the disastrous chasm between the
very rich and the rest please?
Definitely. Identity politics has been coopted by the neoliberal technocracy to divert attention
from wealth inequalities, the operation of big corporations in politics and the general lack of
democratic accountability in governance.
As for Apple, let's start with the statement that most Apple product are overrated and
overpriced. Despite price, they are more of a fashion statement then technology marvels. Owning
Apple is a lot like using Chanel por Dolche and Gabbana perfume. This is a statement that you are
special.
Now by adopting "woke bolshevism" Apple will inevitably slide deeper into mediocrity.
I'm biased, because I know Antonio Garcia-Martinez and something like the same thing once
happened to me, but the decision by Apple to bend to a posse of internal complainers and
fire him
over a passage in a five-year-old book is ridiculous hypocrisy. Hypocrisy by the complainers,
and defamatory cowardice by the bosses -- about right for the Invasion of the Body Snatchers
-style era of timorous conformity and duncecap monoculture the woke mobs at these places are
trying to build as their new Jerusalem.
Garcia-Martinez is a brilliant, funny, multi-talented Cuban-American whose confessional
memoir Chaos Monkeys
is to big tech what Michael Lewis's Liar's Poker was to finance. A onetime high-level Facebook
executive -- he ran Facebook Ads -- Antonio's book shows the House of Zuckerberg to be a cult
full of on-the-spectrum zealots who talked like justice activists while possessing the business
ethics of Vlad the Impaler:
Facebook is full of true believers who really, really, really are not doing it for the
money, and really, really will not stop until every man, woman, and child on earth is staring
into a blue-framed window with a Facebook logo.
When I read Chaos Monkeys the first time I was annoyed, because this was Antonio's third
career at least -- he'd also worked at Goldman, Sachs -- and he tossed off a memorable
bestseller like it was nothing. Nearly all autobiographies fail because the genre requires
total honesty, and not only do few writers have the stomach for turning the razor on
themselves, most still have one eye on future job offers or circles of friends, and so keep the
bulk of their interesting thoughts sidelined -- you're usually reading a résumé,
not a book .
Chaos Monkeys is not that. Garcia-Martinez is an immediately relatable narrator because in
one breath he tells you exactly what he thinks of former colleagues ("A week before my last
day, I had lunch with the only senior person at Goldman Sachs who was not an inveterate
asshole") and in the next explains, but does not excuse, the psychic quirks that have him
chasing rings in some of the world's most rapacious corporations. "Whenever membership in some
exclusive club is up for grabs, I viciously fight to win it, even if only to reject membership
when offered," he wrote. "After all, echoing the eminent philosopher G. Marx: How good can a
club be if it's willing to have lowly me as a member?"
... ... ...
At one point, as a means of comparing the broad-shouldered British DIY expert favorably to
other women he'd known, he wrote this:
Most women in the Bay Area are soft and weak, cosseted and naive despite their claims of
worldliness, and generally full of shit. They have their self-regarding entitlement feminism,
and ceaselessly vaunt their independence, but the reality is, come the epidemic plague or
foreign invasion, they'd become precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box
of shotgun shells or a jerry can of diesel.
Out of context, you could, I guess, read this as bloviating from a would-be macho man
beating his chest about how modern "entitlement feminism" would be unmasked as a chattering
fraud in a Mad Max scenario. In context, he's obviously not much of a shotgun-wielder himself
and is actually explaining why he fell for a strong woman, as the next passage reveals:
British Trader, on the other hand, was the sort of woman who would end up a useful ally in
that postapocalypse, doing whatever work -- be it carpentry, animal husbandry, or a shotgun
blast to someone's back -- required doing.
Again, this is not a passage about women working in tech. It's a throwaway line in a comedic
recount of a romance that juxtaposes the woman he loves with the inadequate set of all others,
a literary convention as old as writing itself. The only way to turn this into a commentary on
the ability of women to work in Silicon Valley is if you do what Twitter naturally does and
did, i.e. isolate the quote and surround it with mounds of James Damore references. More on
this in a moment.
After trying the writer's life, Antonio went back to work for Apple. When he entered the
change on his LinkedIn page, Business Insider did a short, uncontroversial
writeup . Then a little site called 9to5Mac picked up on
the story and did the kind of thing that passes for journalism these days, poring through
someone's life in search of objectionable passages and calling for immediate disappearance of
said person down a cultural salt mine. Writer Zac Hall quoted from Apple's Inclusion and
Diversity page:
Across Apple, we've strengthened our long-standing commitment to making our company more
inclusive and the world more just. Where every great idea can be heard. And everybody
belongs.
Hall then added, plaintively, "This isn't just PR speak for Apple. The company releases
annual
updates on its efforts to hire diversely, and it puts its money where its mouth is with
programs
intended to give voice to women and people of color in technology. So why is Apple giving
Garcia Martinez a great big pass?"
From there the usual press pile-on took place, with heroes at places like The Verge sticking
to the playbook. "Silicon Valley has consistently had a white, male workforce," they wrote,
apparently not bothered by Antonio's not-whiteness. "There are some in the Valley, such as
notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color
lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech ."
Needless to say, Antonio never wrote anything like that, but the next step in the drama was
similarly predictable: a group letter by Apple employees claiming, in seriousness, to fear for
their safety. "Given Mr. García Martínez's history of publishing overtly racist
and sexist remarks," the letter read, "we are concerned that his presence at Apple will
contribute to an unsafe working environment for our colleagues who are at risk of public
harassment and private bullying." All of this without even a hint that there's ever been
anything like such a problem at any of his workplaces.
Within about a nanosecond, the same people at Apple who hired Antonio, clearly having read
his book, now fired him, issuing the following statement:
At Apple, we have always strived to create an inclusive, welcoming workplace where
everyone is respected and accepted. Behavior that demeans or discriminates against people for
who they are has no place here.
The Verge triumphantly reported on Apple's move using the
headline , "'Misogynistic' Apple hire is out hours after employees call for investigation."
Other companies followed suit with the same formulation. CNN : "Apple
parts ways with newly hired ex-Facebook employee after workers cite 'misogynistic' writing."
CNET : "Apple reportedly cuts ties with employee amid uproar over misogynistic
writing."
Apple by this point not only issued a statement declaring that Antonio's "behavior" was
demeaning and discriminatory, but by essentially endorsing the complaints of their
letter-writing employees, poured jet fuel on headline descriptions of him as a misogynist. It's
cowardly, defamatory, and probably renders him unhirable in the industry, but this is far from
the most absurd aspect of the story.
I'm a fan of Dr. Dre's music and have been since the N.W.A. days. It's not any of my
business if he wants to make $3 billion
selling Beats by Dre to Apple , earning himself a place on the board in the process. But if
2,000 Apple employees are going to insist that they feel literally unsafe working alongside a
man who wrote a love letter to a woman who towers over him in heels, I'd like to hear their
take on serving under, and massively profiting from, partnership with the author of such
classics as "Bitches Ain't Shit" and "Lyrical Gangbang," who is also the subject of such
articles
as "Here's What's Missing from Straight Outta Compton: Me and the Other Women Dr. Dre Beat
Up."
It's easy to get someone like Antonio Garcia Martinez fired. Going after a board member
who's reportedly
sitting on hundreds of millions in Apple stock is a different matter. A letter making such
a demand is likely to be returned to sender, and the writer of it will likely spend every
evaluation period looking over his or her shoulder. Why? Because going after Dre would mean
forcing the company to denounce one of its more profitable investments -- Beats and Beats Music
were big factors in helping Apple turn
music streaming into a major profit center . The firm made $4.1 billion in that
area last year alone.
Speaking of profits: selling iPhones is a pretty good business. It
made Apple $47.9 billion last year, good for 53% of the company's total revenue. Part of
what makes the iPhone such a delightfully profitable product is its low production cost, which
reportedly comes from Apple's use of a smorgasbord of suppliers with a penchant for forced
labor -- Uighurs said to be shipped in by the thousand to help make
iPhone glass (Apple denies this), temporary "dispatch workers" sent in above
legal limits , workers in "iPhone city"
clocking excessive overtime to meet launch dates, etc. Apple also has a storied history of
tax avoidance, offshoring over a hundred billion in revenues, using Ireland as a corporate
address despite no physical presence there, and so on.
Maybe the signatories to the Apple letter can have a Chaos Monkeys book-burning outside the
Chinese facility where iPhone glass is made -- keep those Uighur workers warm! Or they can have
one in Dublin, to celebrate the €13bn tax bill a court recently ruled Apple didn't have to pay.
It's all a sham. The would-be progressives denouncing Garcia-Martinez don't seem to mind
working for a company that a Democrat-led congressional committee ripped for using " monopoly
power " to extract rents via a host of atrocious anti-competitive practices. Whacking an
author is just a form of performative "activism" that doesn't hurt their bottom lines or their
careers.
Meanwhile, the bosses who give in to their demands are all too happy to look like they're
steeped in social concern, especially if they can con some virtue-signaling dink at a trade
website into saying Apple's mechanically platitudinous "Shared Values" page "isn't just PR
speak." You'd fire a couple of valuable employees to get that sort of P.R.
When I was caught up in my own cancelation episode, I was devastated, above all to see the
effect it had on my family. Unlike Garcia-Martinez, I had past writings genuinely worth being
embarrassed by, and I felt that it was important, morally and for my own mental health, to
apologize in public. I didn't fight for my career and reputation, and threw myself on the mercy
of the court of public opinion.
I now know this is a mistake. The people who launch campaigns like this don't believe in
concepts like redemption or growth. An apology is just another thing they'd like to get, like
the removal of competition for advancement. These people aren't idealists. They're just
ordinary greedy Americans trying to get ahead, using the tactics available to them, and it's
time to stop thinking of stories like this through any other lens.
nobaloney 4 hours ago
[neo]Liberal white women are the worst. The death of America.
Nicholi_Hel 2 hours ago remove link
The main thing that " is on it's way out" are all of your "smart" schizophrenic liberal
hags. They are fleeing the big cities (especially CA) in droves because their psychopathic
politics turned their states into crime ridden, dangerous ****holes with costs of living they
can no longer afford.
Unfortunately they are flooding into red states like Texas bringing with them stale
Marxism, tired feminism, couched slogans, sad cliches and of course their anti depressants
and genital herpes.
gregga777 4 hours ago
Au contraire, mon ami! Look at how wondrously successful they've made US corporations like
General Motors and The Boeing Company! /obviously sarcasm
SummerSausage PREMIUM 3 hours ago
Let's not forget the wonderous leadership of Carly Fiorina (HP), Elizabeth Holmes
(Theranos) and Marissa Mayer (Yahoo)
McGantic 4 hours ago (Edited)
I completely disagree.
I find liberal women of certain other races to be far more offensive.
Nothing is worse than loud, uncouth jogger women with their in-your-face screaming and
howling.
The definition of unsophisticated and to be avoided at all costs.
These liberal white women at least have some semblance of manners and intelligence.
espirit 3 hours ago
Just different tribes of howler monkeys...
rawhedgehog 4 hours ago
precisely the sort of useless baggage you'd trade for a box of shotgun shells
I think that covers about 90% of the surface population currently, not just Bay Area
fems.
Agent Smith 3 hours ago
Not sure how many you'd get in exchange for an obese whining vaccine damaged genetic
mutant. Maybe you could tout them as self propelled food?
Fool's Gold 3 hours ago
Made me laugh 😅
Notenoughtoys 4 hours ago
Matt Taibbi is brilliant - Wish all the ZH articles were as well written as this !
Seriously_confused 3 hours ago
Taibbi is half and half. He wants to tell the truth, but he wants to keep his woke friends
so he often whimps and whiffs. He can write, but he has his head up his behind in much of his
thinking. Every once in a while he comes up for air and writes something like this. The rest
is wankerific
rawhedgehog 4 hours ago (Edited)
The company releases annual updates on its
efforts to hire diversely
Yet where is their annual report on their use of slave labor in China and how that makes
for a more inclusive and bright world. **** THIS CULTURE OF MORONS AND THOUGHT PUPPETS!
Matt, I enjoyed this article of yours but you need to make more noise exposing how slavery
and the commoditization of human lives is the bedrock of modern tech.
"They're just ordinary greedy Americans trying to get ahead, using the tactics available
to them, and it's time to stop thinking of stories like these through any other lens."
That about sums it up.
Calculus99 3 hours ago
What a miserable place Apple must be to work in, always having to watch yourself for fear
of the mob (even if you're part of that mob).
The internal moral in these giant corps must be shot to pieces.
skippy dinner 2 hours ago
Lots of other corporations sell cool gear. There is no need to buy Apple stuff.
It's only because of conformist acquiescence to peer-group pressures that people buy
it.
The problem is the ahoLes who buy sht from that fing company - AppleFaceBookGoogle.
It is so easy to dump thEm - it is literally no effort.
Problems is there are a lot of people who dont care - about anything.
Nicholi_Hel 3 hours ago
I have no sympathy for the peter puffers that worked or work for Goldman Sachs, Facebook
and or Apple.
This pickle smoocher worked for all three, now we are supposed to break out the tissues
and violins because a group of vicious, screeching Bolsheviks ankle bit one of their own.
Actor and Grammy Award winning musician Donald Glover says that television shows and movies
are becoming increasingly boring because "people are afraid of getting cancelled."
ZeroHedge
The Who legend Roger Daltrey says the 'woke' generation is creating a miserable world that
serves to stifle the kind of creative freedom he enjoyed in the 60s.
The iconic frontman made the comments during a recent appearance on Zane Lowe's Apple Music
1 podcast.
"I don't know, we might get somewhere because it's becoming so absurd now with AI, all the
tricks it can do, and the woke generation," said Daltrey.
"It's terrifying, the miserable world they're going to create for themselves. I mean, anyone
who's lived a life and you see what they're doing, you just know that it's a route to nowhere,"
he added.
The singer noted how he was lucky to have lived through an era where freedom of speech was
encouraged, not silenced.
"Especially when you've lived through the periods of a life that we've had the privilege to.
I mean, we've had the golden era. There's no doubt about that," he said.
The phenomenon of "cancel culture" is a toxic one metastasizing into a woke revolution war
empowered by Big Tech and Big Business. Those unfamiliar with being canceled involve publicly
shaming others and boycotting celebrities and companies. However, the art of canceling has
progressed well beyond canceling public figures and is now used to garget average folks. The
result can be devastating for ordinary people who may face the consequences of losing their
jobs, losing friends and family, or having their social media accounts terminated.
Comedian Dave Chappelle partook in a video interview with Joe Rogan on "The Joe Rogan
Experience" podcast about cancel culture. He told Rogan that he recognizes the change people
are attempting to bring through activism and accountability for prominent folks but denounced
cancel culture:
"I'm very lucky to be able to see people who are great at things up close," Chappelle said.
"Even on this podcast ... it's one of the joys of my life getting to know these people and
knowing and seeing them be human."
Chappelle said, "I hope we all survive it," while referring to the cancel culture storm
gripping society. "That's why that cancel culture shit bothers me. I'm not even opposed to the
ideas behind some of these cancelations. I get it."
Rogan said, "the inclination, all of it, is to make the world a better place." He said
social media and public shaming have "gotten abused and misused by the wrong people and bad
actors, but at the end of the day, the thing they think they're trying to do is eliminate bad
aspects of our culture."
Last year, Chappelle criticized cancel culture, saying audiences have become "too brittle,"
adding that "everything you say upsets somebody."
Chappelle hasn't been the only well-known person to speak out against cancel culture, Curtis
Jackson, known as "50 Cent," recently said cancel culture is "
unfair " and "targeting straight men" who "don't have any organizations to back them
up."
Jackson said he wouldn't get canceled because "hip-hop culture loves things that are
damaged. It loves people who are already broken from experience."
A study by a top education think tank, Civitas,
found that free speech at the world's leading universities is being eroded at a rapid rate
due to "cancel culture."
Cancel culture may have had good intentions to hold people accountable for things they did
or say. Instead, it has backfired and produced a toxic environment that limits freedom of
speech and alienates anyone with opposing views. Society can't move forward if liberals cancel
anyone they don't like - there needs to be an open forum where all voices are heard.
The people tearing down statues and being "woke" at every little thing seem to wander
about and flop around in a state of perpetual confusion. They have no guiding principles or
the hand of righteousness to steady them. They are hollow ! Every waking hour of their lives
is consumed with all this nonsense.
They want to smash everything without really knowing why. They are happiest when all is
ruin and then look around in dismay at what they have done and what they will now have to
live with. This fills their emptiness because there is nothing else to do so. Folks like this
burn out either destroyed by others, frequently destroying themselves, first the soul, then
the body. What kind of a jackass torches his own neighbourhood, in effect shits in his soup
bowl ?
The woke and cancel culture do ! It must be fun for them but after the laughter comes
those tears.
An advanced society functions by creating a series of institutions, telling them what it
wants them to do, and funding them to do it. Institutions like the police, fire departments,
courts and schools do the jobs society creates them to do. But one American institution --
higher education -- has decided to repurpose itself. It has set aside the job given to it by
society and substituted a different one.
Higher education had a cluster of related purposes in society. Everyone benefited from the
new knowledge it developed and the well-informed, thoughtful citizenry it produced. Individual
students benefited from the preparation they received for careers in a developed economy. Yet
these days, academia has decided that its primary purpose is the promotion of a radical
political ideology, to which it gives the sunny label "social justice."
That's an enormous detour from the institutional mission granted to higher education by
society -- and a problem of grave consequence. For the purpose that academia has now given
itself happens to be the only one that the founding documents of virtually all colleges and
universities take care to forbid pre-emptively. The framers of those documents understood that
using the campuses to promote political ideologies would destroy their institutions, because
ideologies would always be rigid enough to prevent the exploration of new ideas and the free
exercise of thought. They knew that the two purposes -- academic and political -- aren't simply
different, but polar opposites. They can't coexist because the one erases the other.
The current political uniformity of college faculty illustrates the point. It meets the
needs of the substitute purpose very well, but only by annihilating the authorized one.
Analytical thinking requires exploring a range of alternatives, but political crusades require
the opposite: exclusive belief and commitment. That's how far off course academia has gone in
its capricious self-repurposing.
Though most Americans aren't happy about this, academia has no qualms. No matter how many
times the lack of intellectual diversity on politicized, one-party campuses is decried as
unhealthy and educationally ruinous, the campuses won't listen. There was once internal debate
about higher education's direction between traditional academic scholars and radical political
activists, but that debate is long over. The activists, now firmly in control, have no interest
in what the dwindling ranks of scholars have to say.
Menthol cigarettes are racist. Regular flavored cigarettes don't kill as many black people
as menthol cigarettes and will henceforth be canceled. Because black people will ever only
smoke menthol cigarettes and never smoke regular flavored cigarettes, right?
On menthol, African American health groups and researchers say it is clear that Blacks
have been disproportionately hurt by the cigarettes, which studies show are more addictive
and
harder to stop using than non-menthol cigarettes.
In the 1950s, only about 10 percent of Black smokers used menthol cigarettes. Today, that
proportion is more than 85 percent, three times the rate for White smokers . African
Americans die of tobacco-related illnesses, including cancer and heart disease, at higher
rates than other groups, according to studies.
I smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day most of my adult life and I can tell you without
hesitation or qualification that anyone who believes canceling one kind of cigarettes will get
people to stop smoking should be fired for rank stupidity.
GodEmperor0fMankind 1 hour ago
He cant even get his son to stop smokin crack
ted41776 47 minutes ago
while naked in bed with underage relatives? allegedly
Hedgehog77 1 hour ago
But smoking meth and ****ting on the sidewalk is just fine.
onasip123 1 hour ago
When Menthol cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have Menthol cigarettes.
dukeofthefoothills 1 hour ago
Biden: "If you smoke regular cigarettes, you're not Black, man."
Nature_Boy_Wooooo 1 hour ago
This is so awesome.
awake283 1 hour ago
When I smoked, I really only smoked menthols. Does that mean I was appropriating black
culture?
-- ALIEN -- 1 hour ago
Reparations need to be made!
Gentleman Bastard 1 hour ago
Looks like a black market opportunity for menthol cigarettes just opened up.
HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 1 hour ago
Yep great minds think alike.
Lord Raglan 39 minutes ago (Edited)
Oregon legalized cocaine but they've outlawed straws.
Must be frustrating.
There's classic liberal logic for you.
holmes 1 hour ago
Blacks like menthol cigs better. So these cigs are racist. So does that make fried chicken
racist also?
the6thBook PREMIUM 1 hour ago
Shouldn't blacks be upset that they are banning their cigarettes? Trying to make blacks
smoke white cigarettes?
cowdiddly 37 minutes ago
Well, Obama did warn you that this Dotard was dumb as a rock.
In our summer of discontent, of protests and then riots in what many view as a racial reckoning following the death of
George Floyd at the hands of police, we've seen previously radical ideas such as defunding the police become the norm.
Not only that, we've seen liberal institutions such as The New York Times bow before "woke" mobs and cancel all who don't
conform to the whims of the radical left.
And we've seen corporate America almost universally endorse Black Lives Matter, a radical organization with Marxist roots.
Two writers in particular have risen in popularity on the left, dominating national bestseller lists while gathering
increased media attention: Robin DiAngelo, a lecturer and author of "
White
Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism
," and Ibram X. Kendi, director of the Center for
Antiracist Research at Boston University and author of "
How
to Be an Antiracist
."
Although their works are distinct, both writers promote an ideology they call "anti-racism."
These two authors are shaping the modern discussion over "wokeness" and the ideas that are becoming politically mainstream
in America, at least on the American left.
It's critical to have an understanding of what they believe.
For instance, why would a mob opposed to white supremacy attack statues of both a slaveholder and an abolitionist?
Is this an example of mindless, wanton destruction? Or perhaps the rioters are embracing a larger set of ideas that creates
a ruthless dichotomy between racists and anti-racists?
According to both DiAngelo and Kendi, there really are only two paths any person may take: racism or anti-racism. Being
"not racist," as Kendi writes, is not good enough, nor does it mean one isn't a racist.
DiAngelo defines "white fragility," the topic of her book, as a process whereby white people return to "our racial comfort,
and maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy."
"Though white fragility is triggered by discomfort and anxiety, it is born of superiority and entitlement," DiAngelo
writes. "White fragility is not weakness per se. In fact, it is a powerful means of white racial control and the protection
of white advantage."
Essentially, if a white person is uncomfortable talking about race or denies his fundamental whiteness, as well as his
racism, he is guilty of white fragility.
In fact, according to the arguments of both DiAngelo and Kendi, even a denial of racism can be construed as evidence of
racism.
As several other writers,
including
Mark Hemingway at The Federalist
, have noted, this is what's called a Kafka trap, a rhetorical device "where the more
you deny something, the more it's proof of your guilt."
Kendi and DiAngelo argue that racism is not just an individual act of discrimination or prejudice toward a person or a
people based on their race.
Instead, racism is redefined as a collective condition leading to inequities in society.
Kendi argues that those whom many Americans see as actual racists are far less dangerous than the real threat of widespread
acceptance of color blindness. He writes:
The most threatening racist movement is not the alt right's unlikely drive for a White ethnostate but the regular
American's drive for a 'race-neutral' one. The construct of race neutrality actually feeds White nationalist victimhood
by positing the notion that any policy protecting or advancing non-white Americans toward equity is 'reverse
discrimination.'
Kendi decries "assimilationists" as being essentially as bad as "segregationists."
Kendi opposes the assimilationists, as he defines them, because he says they attribute behavior to the unequal outcomes for
different races.
In fact, even asking the question of why different groups of people have statistically differing outcomes in a society may
be construed as racist.
DiAngelo adopts Kendi's construction of racism, writing that "if we truly believe that all humans are equal, then disparity
in condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination."
The argument essentially is that any racial discrepancies in society are examples of racism.
So, if a society has a disproportionate number of rich white people compared to rich black people, that is racism. If one
race has a higher mortality rate from a disease than another, again the culprit is racism.
Kendi is, of course, highly selective in the statistics he cites to demonstrate that "there may be no more consequential
White privilege than life itself."
As Coleman Hughes
wrote
for City Journal
: "By selectively citing data that show blacks suffering more than whites, Kendi turns what should be a
unifying, race-neutral battle ground -- namely, humanity's fight against deadly diseases -- into another proxy battle in the War
on Racism."
Hughes, like Kendi, is black.
2. Colorblindness Is the Problem, and Racist
The concept of equal opportunity is fundamentally rejected by the doctrines of DiAngelo and Kendi. They argue that in a
deeply racist society conditioned to white supremacy, equal opportunity under the law perpetuates only more inequality.
Both DiAngelo and Kendi rebuke the idea of colorblindness in how we treat race. DiAngelo does so more in a cultural sense.
She argues that colorblindness is essentially a sign of white privilege, a manipulation of the message of Martin Luther
King Jr. to perpetuate more racism.
"Color-blind ideology makes it difficult for us to address these unconscious beliefs," DiAngelo writes. "While the idea of
color blindness may have started out as a well-intentioned strategy for interrupting racism, in practice it has served to
deny the reality of racism and thus hold it in place."
White people must build their racial "stamina," DiAngelo argues, to overcome their white fragility.
The way for white people to do this is by recognizing, embracing, and critically examining collective "white identity" as
an antidote to white fragility. DiAngelo writes that "as an insider," she can speak for the white experience, but that she
uses her white identity as a way to "challenge racism."
DiAngelo lays on white people the responsibility -- the burden, one might say -- of attacking and defeating racism and
"whiteness."
3. Racism Is Solved Through Discrimination
Kendi leans more strongly into creating laws that specifically promote anti-racism. To be effective, he says, they must be
discriminatory.
Discriminatory laws, Kendi argues, can be desirable and in fact necessary as a way to promote equity:
If discrimination is creating equity, then it is anti-racist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.
Someone reproducing inequity through permanently assisting an overrepresented racial group into wealth and power is
entirely different than someone challenging that inequity by temporarily assisting an underrepresented racial group into
relative wealth and power until equity is reached. The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist
discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.
As long as the discriminatory finger is on the button of "equity," however Kendi and the anti-racists define it, it is
good.
Christopher Caldwell, author of "
The
Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties
,"
wrote
for
National Review that Kendi rejects the notion -- stemming from many civil rights advocates -- "that everything will be well as
long as we treat people with equality, neutrality, and respect."
"It is illegitimate. It is a 'racist' obstruction," Caldwell added.
Kendi proposes an anti-racist amendment to the Constitution,
which
he wrote about
in a short piece in Politico. It's worth quoting in full:
To fix the original sin of racism, Americans should pass an anti-racist amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
enshrines two guiding anti-racist principals [sic]: Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy and the different
racial groups are equals.
The amendment would make unconstitutional racial inequity over a certain threshold, as well as racist ideas by public
officials (with 'racist ideas' and 'public official' clearly defined). It would establish and permanently fund the
Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees.
The DOA would be responsible for preclearing all local, state, and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield
racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor
public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and
against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.
This proposal by Kendi effectively would end self-government and nullify the Bill of Rights. A cadre of intellectuals
ensconced in the Department of Anti-racism would have the power to decide who can and can't run for office, and which laws
can or can't be passed based on their interpretation of what is racist.
Again, racist being defined by Kendi as "one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inaction or
expressing a racist idea."
Which policies fall under the rubric of being racist or anti-racist?
"Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or
equity," Kendi writes.
For those who believe they can escape the ugly culture war implications of these ideas and focus on economic or fiscal
policies, it's worth noting that embracing socialism and fighting capitalism is a critical element in promoting
anti-racism.
Therefore, a supporter of lower capital gains taxes -- or even someone who isn't actively opposing lower capital gains
taxes -- may be barred from running for or serving in office by a team of unaccountable bureaucrats in a permanently funded
federal agency.
Gone is the very bedrock of the system created by the Founders, the Constitution that has bent the flawed but exceptional
American system toward liberty and justice.
"History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes" -- Mark Twain (attributed). This is a naked
fight for political power using very questionable means.
Marxist ideology revolving around class and special role of "proletariat" as the oppressed
class which strives for liberation and overthow "oppressors" in order to build more a just
society, is more or less replaced by race. In woke movement, blacks are the new proletariat.
Corporations, especially those headquartered in Georgia, have come out against the
legislation signed by Governor Kemp. Republicans describe the bill as one that addresses
election integrity while Democrats call it a voter suppression law – "Jim Crow 2.0".
Coca-Cola and Delta were among
the first to make a point to virtue-signal after the governor signed the bill, only to be
exposed as taking part in the process and giving input into the legislation. Both were fine
with the law until the governor signed it and grievance activists did their thing. Coke soon
discovered that not all of its consumers think that companies should be making policy –
that 's the job of lawmakers- and now it is trying to clean up the mess it made for itself.
Churches have increasingly played a part in American politics and this is an escalation of
that trend. Evangelical churches have shown support for conservative and Republican candidates
while black churches get out the vote for Democrats. This threat of bringing a large-scale
boycott over state legislation is a hostile action against the corporation. It's political
theatre. Groups like Black Voters Matter, the New Georgia Project Action Fund (Stacey Abrams),
and the Georgia NAACP are pressuring companies to publicly voice their opposition and the
religious leaders are doing the bidding of these politically active groups.
When SB 241 and HB 531 were working through the legislative process, the groups put pressure
on Republican lawmakers and the governor to abandon the voting reform legislation. They also
demanded that donations to any lawmakers supporting the legislation be stopped. The Georgia
Chamber of Commerce tried to remain bipartisan while still voicing support for voting rights
but then caved and expressed "concern and opposition" to some provisions . At the time,
several large Georgia companies were targeted by activists, including Aflac, Coca-Cola,
Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Southern Company and UPS.
The Georgia Chamber of Commerce previously reiterated the importance of voting rights
without voicing opposition against any specific legislation. In a new statement to CNBC, the
Georgia Chamber said it has "expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB
531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access" and "continues to engage in a
bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting
rights in our state."
Office Depot came out at the time and supported the Chamber's statement. The Election
Integrity Act of 2021, originally known as Georgia Senate Bill 202, is a Georgia law
overhauling elections in the state that was signed into effect by the governor and we know what
happened. Office Depot has not delivered for the activists as they demand so now the company
faces boycott drama. The
religious leaders are taking up where the activist groups left off.
African Methodist Episcopal Bishop Reginald Jackson said the company has remained "silent
and indifferent" to his efforts to rally opposition to the new state law pushed by
Republicans, as well as to similar efforts elsewhere.
" We just don't think we ought to let their indifference stand ," Jackson said.
The leader of all his denomination's churches in Georgia, Jackson had a meeting last week
with other Georgia-based executives to urge them to oppose the voting law, but said he's had
no contact with Home Depot, despite repeated efforts to reach the company.
Faith leaders at first were hesitant to jump into the boycott game. Now the political
atmosphere has changed and they are being vocal. Jackson focused on pressuring Coca-Cola first.
After that company went along to get along, before it realized its error, Jackson moved his
focus onto other companies.
"We believe that corporations have a corporate responsibility to their customers, who are
Black, white and brown, on the issue of voting ," Jackson said. "It doesn't make any sense at
all to keep giving dollars and buying products from people that do not support you."
He said faith leaders may call for boycotts of other companies in the future.
So, here we are with Home Depot in the spotlight. There are
four specific demands leveled at Home Depot in order to avoid further action from the
activists.
Rev. Lee May, the lead pastor of Transforming Faith Church, said the coalition is "fluid
in this boycott" but has four specifics requests of Home Depot: To speak out publicly and
specifically against SB 202; to speak out against any other restrictive voting provisions
under consideration in other states; to support federal legislation that expands voter access
and "also restricts the ability to suppress the vote;" and to support any efforts, including
investing in litigation, to stop SB 202 and other bills like it.
" Home Depot, we're calling on you. I'm speaking to you right now. We're ready to have a
conversation with you. You haven't been ready up to now, but our arms are wide open. We are
people of faith. People of grace, and we're ready to have this conversation, but we're very
clear those four things that we want to see accomplished ," May said.
The Rev. Timothy McDonald III, senior pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church, warned
this was just the beginning.
"It's up to you whether or not, Home Depot, this boycott escalates to phase two, phase
three, phase four," McDonald said. "We're not on your property -- today. We're not blocking
your driveways -- today. We're not inside your store protesting -- today. This is just phase
one."
That sounds a lot like incitement, doesn't it? Governor Kemp is speaking out, he has had
enough. He held
a press conference to deliver his comments.
"First, the left came for baseball, and now they are coming for Georgia jobs," Kemp said,
referring to MLB's decision to move this year's All-Star Game from Atlanta over the new laws.
"This boycott of Home Depot – one of Georgia's largest employers – puts partisan
politics ahead of people's paychecks."
"The Georgians hardest hit by this destructive decision are the hourly workers just trying
to make ends meet during a global pandemic. I stand with Home Depot, and I stand with nearly
30,000 Georgians who work at the 90 Home Depot stores and 15 distribution centers across the
Peach State. I will not apologize for supporting both Georgia jobs and election integrity,"
he added.
"This insanity needs to stop. The people that are pushing this, that are profiting off of
it, like Stacey Abrams and others, are now trying to have it both ways," Kemp said. "There is
a political agenda here, and it all leads back to Washington, D.C."
The governor is right. The activists are in it to federalize elections, not to look out for
Georgians, who will lose jobs over these partisan actions. The law signed by Kemp increases
voting rights, it doesn't limit them .
Well, hello there. I don't know if you've noticed, but we live in a vastly different worl d
than the last
time I posted here . The social landscape, political, and, it seems, everyday life is
trending vastly different since 2020, Covid, and the national elections.
A huge part of survival, prepping, and Nomad Strategies is getting done what needs to be
done with minimal interference or notice from those around us . The more eyes on your project,
the more people that can foul up our plans, throw a wrench in the works, or, nowadays, ruin
your life.
Have a secret identity.
So, we turn to lesson number one from the great bastion of literature: comic books.
What does almost every comic character have? A secret identity. And why? So they are not
having to fight, protect their family, and hide from the public all the time. That is a mighty
wise course of action. Life is not a movie. There are rarely times to take a bold, public stand
that will put you or your people in danger.
It is a blessing to live in the time and place we do that enables us to engage in such
vociferous debate levels with no real consequences. That is not the norm throughout history,
and, as we can see, it is changing in front of our eyes. All one needs to do is look at the
world outside of the U.S. for current or very recent historical examples. Take a look at
where Selco comes from
or Belfast just a couple of decades ago. Look at many areas of the Middle East, Syria , or Asia for current
displays of enforcement.
You don't have to share your opinions with everyone.
Keeping a low profile as long as possible is a crucial OpSec practice .
Note: I am not saying you are not allowed to have opinions. But, I am a firm believer in
only discussing them with known associates in private. It is also easier to keep seeing the
other party as still human if you do it in person. *Othering is a nasty thing to do and nastier
to be on the receiving end of. Remembering that the other side is not the devil incarnate helps
to identify actual enemies easier. Instead of jumping at every boogyman brought to your
attention, save your energy for real, in your face threats.
*The term Othering describes the reductive action
of labeling and defining a person as a subaltern native, as someone who belongs to the socially
subordinate category of the Other.
Choose your battles wisely, or don't battle at all
Another reason for concentrating on the mission: it's a waste of your time. Leave the
arguing and name-calling to others. Arguing lessens your productivity and may alienate
potential allies that could assist you. (Except for those pesky Facebook posts you made,
calling their kind evil and stupid.) Choosing not to participate in arguments and debates shows
that you have mental toughness, compassion, discernment, and, most importantly,
self-control.
In case you aren't aware, those and your integrity are essential things to keep intact. Both
for our own well being and for cultivating good, successful relationships. Keep your ego
intact, and if you can exercise the self-control required to not argue points with others that
don't matter in the day-to-day.
You will be more peaceful.
Fewer distractions = more time to work on numero uno
We want to give ourselves as much time as possible to work on various aspects of ourselves
that need the work.
Distractions from this can be costly. It can be costly in terms of time wasted on a needless
post, and at its worst, it can literally cost you everything you have worked for and built
up.
Stop throwing chum to the internet sharks.
An important but often overlooked aspect of any successful underground work is the ability
to escape notice. Therefore escaping issues that will negatively impact your ability to move
forward will help you complete whatever the mission at hand is.
Rather than willingly compromising your future, stop engaging with the sharks. Instead of
spending time engaged in activities that are not beneficial, use your time wisely. Allocate the
majority of your time to doing the work. Use your downtime to recharge, find the good, relax,
and keep your eyes on the prize.
There may be a time in the near future where we must elevate to a more offensive posture.
But now is not that time. What we do now is an important step in keeping us more even-keeled
and ready. Don't volunteer yourself for the enemies list. There are already plenty of people
that will gladly put some of us there.
1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
"Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners."
-- George Carlin play_arrow
Patmos 17 minutes ago
Ahhhh... George Carlin.... Back when liberals were liberals, and not "woke" regressive
morons.
Banker415 PRO 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
1. Get off Facebook
2. Delete your Instagram
3. Stop using douche apps like Snap and TikTok
4. Don't use WhatsApp--switch to Signal and Wickr
5. Migrate off of Google apps and Apple-related apps
6. Kill your Twitter
knopperz 1 hour ago remove link
Jack Dorsey is in cahoots with Signal.
He celebrated on Twitter when it went #1 after the Parler Ban.
Rather use Telegram.
Banker415 PRO 1 hour ago
I agree with you on Signal... but it's a short-term solution until better apps are
available. Telegram is ok but its subject to the same MITM attacks as the others.
Foe Jaws 1 hour ago
I have been using DuckDuckGo for a few years it is a fine replacement for Google.
AnonymousCitizen 58 minutes ago
You might want to look into the management team of DuckDuckGo. It may not be the search
engine you're looking for.
Onthebeach6 1 hour ago remove link
Sounds like the author is preparing to be a very quiet mouse and accept the coup d'etat
and the new illegitimate regime.
The new regime will consolidate quickly to eliminate any chance of organized resistance -
they may also try to make it impossible for states to secede.
Ted K. 6 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
So, is this where we're at? Now that we know 'political correctness' has grown up into
'cancel culture' with this takeover of the USA and Western society (because that's what it
is), we're simply reduced to understanding 'how to survive' in it?
For real? Really? REALLY?!?!
No fight at all? We're all just gonna lie down and show our bellies and accept this?
British comedy icon Rowan Atkinson has said online mob justice makes him "fear for the
future" and lashed out at the algorithmically generated outrage perpetuated by social media
platforms.
In a recent interview with the Radio Times magazine, Atkinson, 65, described online cancel
culture as the "digital equivalent of the medieval mob roaming the streets looking for
someone to burn," while detailing what he perceives as the increasing polarization of the
world and how it's exacerbated by online discourse.
Atkinson previously fell foul of the 'woke crowd' when he manned the battlements in the
culture war to champion the cause of free speech, and the right to offend and to criticise even
the most sacred cultural institutions.
"The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends
up creating a simplistic, binary view of society," Atkinson said, adding that it's
important to be exposed to a "wide spectrum of opinion" in the modern world.
"It becomes a case of either you're with us or against us, and if you're against us, you
deserve to be 'canceled,'" he opined.
Atkinson's latest comments received plenty of support online, including from Australian MP
Tim Wilson, who described the remarks as a "hole in one!"
Others felt Atkinson's self-imposed exile from online life might preclude him from
commenting on it.
"I love Mr. Bean, but I feel he might've missed a few things. Or, more than a few,"wrote
one Twitter user.
The Mr. Bean and Johnny English actor described online life as "a sideshow in my
world," while also discussing in the interview his lengthy career in British comedy,
including playing his most widely acclaimed character.
Atkinson said he finds playing Mr. Bean "stressful and exhausting," given he alone
must generate the majority of laughs from the audience using a character who rarely speaks.
He also alluded to a possible return in the role of the only character he created that he
enjoyed playing: the iconic Blackadder. Atkinson wrote the show with Ben Elton and Richard
Curtis, and it featured such British comedy luminaries as Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie.
However, possibly in reference to his views on contemporary culture, he added that it would
be hard to recreate "the creative energy we all had in the 80s."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Slezzkolen 7 hours ago 5 Jan, 2021 07:42 AM
Imagine Mel Brooks creating his brilliant films in today's snowf1ake world.
TheFishh Slezzkolen 3 hours ago 5 Jan, 2021 11:17 AM
If Brooks tried to make movies today, we would never hear of him at all, ever. He'd be shut
down by the woke police squad before he even started.
Ice_Man Slezzkolen 6 hours ago 5 Jan, 2021 08:03 AM
imagine the torrents of offended people . lol think i want to watch blazing saddles now.
mongo like candy!
Chris Pratt made a name for himself getting chased by dinosaurs in the Jurassic World
franchise films, but the woke are now out to get him for allegedly having what they deem to be
the political and cultural beliefs of a caveman.
Pratt originally shot to fame as the lovable lug Andy Dwyer on the NBC sitcom Parks and
Recreation , and went on to movie stardom as the leading man in the Jurassic World ,
Guardians of the Galaxy and The Lego Movie franchises. Unfortunately, he is now
squarely in the cancel culture crosshairs of the woke Twitter mob for potentially being a
secret, homophobic, Trump supporter.
This Pratt incident began when TV writer Amy Berg posted pictures of the four famous Chrises
– Chris Evans, Chris Pine, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pratt, on Twitter and said " one
has to go ."
In response, the Guardian readers of the Galaxy
attacked Pratt – claiming the star's Instagram bio ' radiated homophobic White
Christian supremacist energy '.
Pratt's bio that sparked that comment reads, " I Love Jesus, My wife and family! Seahawks
fanatic, MMA junky! " The horror. The horror.
This Pratt episode is amusing because while he is known for dinosaur movies, it is the woke
who are acting out of their lizard brains, as the evidence of Pratt being homophobic and a
white Christian supremacist is well entirely non-existent.
Last year, after actress Ellen Page attacked Pratt on Twitter for being a member of an "
infamously " anti-LGBTQ church, Pratt
responded , " It has recently been suggested that I belong to a church which 'hates a
certain group of people' and is 'infamously anti –LGBTQ.' Nothing could be further from
the truth. I go to a church that opens their doors to absolutely everyone ."
Of course, just because an emotionalist buffoon like Page says something doesn't make it so,
as she famously once gave a hysterical
speech on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert decrying the homophobia
and racism in America that led to the " attack " on Jussie Smollett. A claim that has
not held up particularly
well .
The lack of evidence regarding Pratt's homophobia hasn't deterred the Twitter mob from
marking Pratt for termination though, which is ironic since Pratt's father-in-law is former
Republican Governor of California
Arnold Schwarzenegger .
The other thing that seems to have galled the tiny Torquemadases of Twitter are Pratt's
ambiguous political beliefs.
Even though Pratt has never declared his support for Trump, the maniacal mob assumes he does
because he also hasn't said if he supports Biden. Although Pratt's wife, Katherine
Schwarzenegger, has publicly stated she will be voting for Biden.
The cancel culture clan point to Pratt's not attending an upcoming Avengers fundraiser for
Biden, and that he was also once photographed by a paparazzo wearing a
Gadsden Flag t-shirt that said 'Don't Tread on Me', as iron-clad proof of the star's evil
political intentions, but this seems like a short cut to thinking.
He was also
blasted by woke activists for joking about voting, with humorless morons branding him
insensitive and tone deaf. All Pratt had done was make a light-hearted quip about voting for
his kids' movie Onward at the People's Choice Awards. According to the fun police on Twitter,
this election is "too important" for such frivolity.
Pratt's lone, unambiguous statement on politics, besides his contribution of $1,000 to
Obama's campaign in 2012, was in 2017 in Men's Journal where he
said , " I really feel there's common ground out there that's missed because we focus on
the things that separate us I don't feel represented by either side. " What a monster!
The biggest issue with all of this nonsense is that people are furious not because of
anything Pratt has said or done, but because he hasn't said or done anything. Pratt isn't going
to a Biden fundraiser or a Trump fundraiser or a Groot fundraiser or a Thanos fundraiser he
isn't going to any fundraisers at all!
The idea that the mental midget McCarthy-ites on woke Twitter want to cancel Pratt because
he said and did nothing is absurd to the point of madness.
Chris Pratt has graciously kept his politics private, unlike a host of other
approval-addicted actors who flaunt their " fashionable " beliefs for 15 more minutes of
fame. Pratt shouldn't be excoriated for imagined beliefs that people project onto him, he
should only be judged by what he does and what he says in life.
For example, judge Pratt on his further
response to Ellen Page's baseless anti-LGBTQ claim,
" My faith is important to me but no church defines me or my life, and I am not a
spokesman for any church or group of people. My values define who I am. We need less hate in
this world, not more. I am a man who believes that everyone is entitled to love who they want
free from the judgement of their fellow man ."
He then wrote, " Jesus said, 'I give you a new command, love one another.' This is what
guides me in my life. He is a God of Love, Acceptance and Forgiveness. Hate has no place in my
or this world. "
That statement speaks glorious volumes about the quality and worth of Chris Pratt as a human
being.
The recent unwarranted vilification of Pratt speaks volumes too, not about him, but about
the vapid, vacuous and venal villains partaking in it.
I've never been much of a fan of Pratt's acting but this whole Twitter Pratt attack has left
me admiring the man for his groundedness and humility.
The bottom line is Chris Pratt seems like a genuine and decent guy and his detractors seem
like vile and repugnant Twitter tyrants.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
Peter Chamberlin 21 October, 2020 21 Oct, 2020 11:29 AM
Trump was brought to power in the last election to disrupt the politically correct culture,
advocated by the Democrats as "Democracy", when it is in actuality, a hidden form of
authoritarianism, where the people are subjected and controlled through applied peer pressure
on a national level. Neoliberal mainstream media has been at war with American culture since
the birth of the monster called "political correctness." The rage reaction against Trump has
been orchestrated from his first day in office, building in intensity until today, when we are
all called to be witness to the "crescendo" of the culture war. Democracy used to be when
everybody was entitled to their own opinions, as long as they did not force others to change
theirs. The arrival of so much partisan violence on both sides testifies to the abnormality of
our current situation and to the dangerous position we have allowed ourselves to be maneuvered
into. Whoever wins in two weeks, wins. Accept it and move forward.
intolerantslob 21 October, 2020 21 Oct, 2020 04:25 AM
Trump has tried to make peace - Biden is a war monger Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. He
is a self-centered old man - why anyone thinks he would make a good president is beyond me. It
is time for the minor US parties, such as the Libertarians and Greens, to break the 2 party
domination of US politics
Flyingscotsman 20 October, 2020 20 Oct, 2020 11:56 AM
These woke keyboard warriors , should be held to account for slander or incitement to violence/
harassment. The fact they believe they can attack from the shadows and never be held to
account, is the problem .
T. Agee Kaye 21 October, 2020 21 Oct, 2020 06:25 AM
Why hedge with 'seems'? His attackers don't use 'seems'. Say it. Chris Pratt is decent guy and
his detractors are vile and repugnant Twitter tyrants.
Jenny Morrill writes the UK nostalgia blog World of Crap . Follow her here @ theworldofcrap Win or lose, the woke outrage mob are still
on the warpath. Everyone, everywhere, is in danger of being canceled for the injustice of the
week. In my opinion, the media are to blame for their childish good-versus-evil narrative.
Last week, I committed the ultimate unforgivable sin – I expressed mild support for
Donald Trump on Twitter. This was in the context of suggesting that the election, which even
the US Congress has admitted contains " the presence of extensive voter
fraud , " might have had some voting irregularities. This, obviously, translated into
me being a 'Nazi' and a 'far-right Trump enabler', whatever that's even supposed to mean.
It's a story we've heard many times before – someone fails to toe the far left's
ideological line, and they are immediately 'canceled'. It's happened to people far more
important than me, and as a result most 'normal' people just keep their mouths shut and stay
out of it. We're used to seeing the pitchforks coming after celebrities for their imagined
crimes (often the same celebrities who not five minutes ago were doing the exact same thing),
but be under no illusion that they save their venom for the rich and famous. I'm a nobody, and
still they were outraged enough to come after me.
For what it's worth, I don't consider myself right wing or left wing. For the most part, I
support things that benefit the average voter. Making sure elections aren't rigged is pretty
high on my list of 'things that benefit the average voter'.
Unfortunately, the generation who were rewarded with fake internet points for tweeting about
avocados and gender studies have decided that they are the new 'voice of the people', and the
rest of us can go to hell for not already agreeing with their deeply held beliefs they've had
since Tuesday. These people cry over the plight of the 'working class', but as soon as one of
them has an opinion they don't like, they are told to shut up and know their place. And god
forbid one of them should ever meet a working-class person in the wild – they will
wrinkle their nose and tell them off for 'liking football and sausage rolls'. These are the
people who refuse to acknowledge that most voters are not in favor of banning speech and
defunding the police, because they are stupid ideas.
You can spot these people immediately if you know the signs. Their Twitter username includes
a barked virtue signal, all in caps (John 'WEAR A MASK!' Jackson). They are the men who wear
T-shirts that say " The future is female ," and make sure the world sees them wearing
it. They have an open-mouthed selfie of themselves holding a Funko. It's always Funkos.
The problem with these people is that they get the moral prism through which they view the
world from Harry Potter, the Marvel movies, and other franchises aimed at children, rather than
the nuances of real life. They are infantilized by the corporate blanketing of the 'good v
evil, and by the way we're the good guys, buy our stuff' narrative. Being surrounded on all
sides by this simplistic world view inevitably reduces a person's ability to think critically,
especially when the punishment for doing so is being ostracized by your peers. It must be
difficult being a revolutionary when you're surrounded by every corporation on the planet
patting you on the back and charging you for the privilege.
And yet I can't really blame these people. The finger should be pointed at the media for
encouraging this one-sided view of the world to the point where all opposing views are banned,
no matter how harmless. The people who over-consume this media have lost whatever ability they
had to fairly judge a situation which might include various shades of grey. That's why they
react so furiously to someone disagreeing with them, to the point that they will make personal
threats.
Which brings me back to my deplorable crime of suggesting Trump might not be literally evil
incarnate. I don't mind losing some Twitter followers for what I said, but I do mind people
threatening to 'find out where I live and pay me a visit', people trying to get my (completely unrelated) blog shut down, and
generally trying to make my life a misery in all my online spaces. Perhaps most shockingly,
they threatened to get my Redbubble page shut down. I hope they don't do that, because I'd lose
a whole 30p a month.
I fully expect to get canceled even further after writing this. But quite frankly I'm past
caring. I just wanted to write about old TV. I just wanted to laugh at kids' shows from the
'80s, and talk about nostalgia. But the woke mob has a way of dragging you into its demented
world. Well, I don't want to be part of that world, and at some point they're going to have to
grow up and stop trying to be king of the playground. It's time to take social media back from
these oversized children.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Franc shadow1369 2 hours ago 16 Nov, 2020 12:25 PM
It's even worse than intolerance and bigotry, it's intolerance and bigotry under the guise of
acceptance and goodwill. They've been indoctrinated, and if they were more organized we could
call them a legit religious cult.
volch 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 01:49 PM
One of the best op-eds written. In my view people need to pay more attention to the social
biologists. Humans will accept their own irationality delusion and hysteria if they feel
their social standing is nevertheless enhanced . It's a fundamental problem that will plague
society forever. The woke mobs won't begin to question themselves while their dopamine levels
are elevated.
Sapphire1 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 01:50 PM
My son lives in the States and he said that Woke culture has taken over. People were afraid
to say that they voted for Trump. The media has been taken over by the left and will not
report anything that goes against leftist propoganda. It is the end of free speech.
Lacus_Magnus DoubleKnot 2 hours ago 16 Nov, 2020 12:42 PM
(((They))) control what we hear, see and now (((they))) try to manage what we may say.
Remember the Koni experiment about 15 years ago? Within a week of social media campaigning
they had the kids up in arms over some obscure warlord in Africa. That was an excercise in
mob creation and manipulation.
benalls 58 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 02:04 PM
All living things are skeptical of that which is different from yourself. Government forced
tolerance, and mandatory race ratios has made the parents of this generation,angry, bitter,
and feeling unable to change things. This generation has by a majority been raised by a
single parent, at the border of poverty. The families wondering if there is enough left on
the maxed visa card to get enough gas to go to work and back today. They also find that after
they graduate high-school the choices are limited, lowering the bar to prevent accusations of
racism, their 4th grade reading and comprehension level disqualifies them for most of the few
jobs available
allan Kaplan 2 hours ago 16 Nov, 2020 12:47 PM
"Emperor's has new clothes" is so befitting to the real peeled off layer of an onion
Democrats and the fraudulent liberals that there's no more pretense, charades, and pretexts
left to dwell upon in their long run of fakeries of democracy, equal rights, and the rest of
the garbage! Kamala Harris is the living devil in disguise with all the subtle nuances, and
an unashamed sanctimonious holier-than-thou devil who would surpass any female leader of any
country in the past in her devilish turpitudes and depravity that the world has seen!
This is the really scary part. There used to be an unspoken rule that defense attorneys were
not supposed to be judged for their clients, even if they represent a despicable person. Serial
killers, terrorists, pederasts, etc. should not be cut off from the ability to have
representation in court.
A good law firm would be suing the Lincoln Project for harassment and defamation instead of
rolling over and showing their bellies to a bully. So it would seem that the loss of Porter
Wright as a member of the Trump team is probably for the best.
A law firm representing the Trump campaign's efforts to challenge the Pennsylvania election
results gave notice late Thursday that they are withdrawing from one of the cases.
While no reason was given for the decision by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP,
Bloomberg notes that it was one of two law firms targeted by the Lincoln Project - a group
of 'never-Trump' Republicans devoted to removing Trump from office.
On Tuesday, the group encouraged people to join LinkedIn and target individual employees of
Porter Wright and another law firm, Jones Day, and "Ask them how they can work for an
organization trying to overturn the will of the American people."
" Leftist mobs descended upon some of the lawyers representing the President's campaign and
they buckled ," said campaign communications director, Tim Murtaugh. "If the target were anyone
but Donald Trump, the media would be screaming about injustice and the fundamental right to
legal representation. The President's team is undeterred and will move forward with rock-solid
attorneys to ensure free and fair elections for all Americans."
Here's another 'cancel' crusader bragging about the left's latest scalp:
Another attorney who is not affiliated with Porter Wright will remain on the case in
Williamsport, Pennsylvania. A hearing on the state's motion to dismiss the suit in federal
court is scheduled for Tuesday.
The suit claims the state's election results are suspect because the campaign wasn't given
adequate access to observe the vote-counting in Democratic-leaning counties. A hearing in
that case has been scheduled for Nov. 17.
Porter Wright has also been representing the campaign in a case heading to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly challenging vote tallies based on poll observers' access
to the counting process. It additionally filed several county-level challenges seeking to
disqualify ballots it claimed were defective. It's unclear if Porter Wright also intends to
withdraw from those representations. -
Bloomberg
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The firm's work for the Trump campaign was led by Pittsburgh office partner Ronald Hicks,
co-chair of their election law practice.
takeaction , 1 day ago
This is Soros/Clinton money and strong arming that is doing this.
We are in a full MAFIA exposure.
This is going to get real interesting.
I have said it before, this is the FIGHT OF THE REPUBLIC....if Trump ends up losing, all
hopes of exposure are gone.
Obama spying on Trump, No big deal...
Hunter corruption buried...
Clinton crime family, off the hook...
Seal Team 6...forgotten...
Biden family enrichment, no repercussions...
SETH RICH, a hero, wiped from memory...
There is a lot more at play here than just the "Election" and our taxes going up.
NAV , 1 day ago
Good riddance to Jones Day: this is just an excuse to further delay and hurt Trump's case.
Already that firm has leaked private case information to the New York Times. Both these firms
have sabotaged President Trump.
Jones Day, the most prominent firm representing President Trump and the Republican Party
in its legal battle challenging the results of the election, earlier backstabbed Trump in the
back by leaking case information to the New York Times.
The activist rag, the Times, says those inside the firm are concerned about the propriety
and wisdom of working for Trump.
Trump needed to fire these unethical lawyers and one wonders why he didn't. Maybe he's
being sabatoged on so many fronts he doesn't know where to start. And just maybe information
is being kept from him by his "advisers."
The Times says these Jones Day subversives fear "Mr. Trump and his allies undermine the
integrity of American elections, according to interviews with nine partners and associates,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their jobs."
(Notice that Trump always is Mr.Trump, not President Trump, while Biden is President-elect
Biden.)
"At another large firm, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, based in Columbus, Ohio,
lawyers have held internal meetings to voice similar concerns about their firm's
election-related work for Mr. Trump and the Republican Party, according to people at the firm
. At least one lawyer quit in protest."
Trump has had 4 years to take action. I used to think like you but gave up about ...
hmmm... 4 years ago. He is just as zionist as ziohedge and the dems. Elections are
irrelevant. The CHAOS was always the plan.
takeaction is absolutely right in both comments. Great info in the first comment and a
great point in the second. We have one life, if you're not enjoying it, what's the point?
TheReplacement's Replacement , 1 day ago
Ah, a fundamental point of propaganda from the progressives that has successfully been
anchored in the psyche of the west. You need to have fun...
Life is a struggle that everyone will eventually lose. How rewarding the struggle is
depends of the effort you expend.
There are protests all across the country today. You can put down your childish things for
a few hours and go out to physically show support for Trump and the rule of law. You can meet
like minded people, network with them, and perhaps even begin preparing for struggles
ahead.
Or
Just keep doing what you have been doing. It has worked out sofa king great that the
communists are in their final push to take over not just this country but the entire
world.
It's up to you. No big deal. Have fun....
U_Wish_U_Were_This_Cool , 1 day ago
I suppose you have one?
Mine was to pass a constitutional amendment to forbid members of Congress from having any
income producing assets or source of income other that salary of office. Simply owning one
would by law immediately end their current term and disqualify them from any public office
from that point forward. No more corporate grift or self serving representatives in
office.
Of course it is difficult to convince a troll to support anything other than being a
troll.
Soylent Green tastes the same no matter which side of the fence you are on.
konputa , 1 day ago
If I may add an item to your excellent proposal:
Immediately ban anyone from public office that holds a foreign citizenship. I know this
will "unfairly" impact a number of people with dual citizenship in a certain ME country but I
feel it's for the better and allows us to focus on more pressing domestic issues.
kharrast , 1 day ago
The Troskyists are supported by the banking cartel. You can't get rid of the tyrants while
still using their monetary system.
wizteknet , 1 day ago
The committee was announced on December 17, 2019, in a New York Times op-ed by George
Conway, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver, and Rick Wilson.[5] Other co-founders include Jennifer
Horn, Ron Steslow, Reed Galen, and Mike Madrid.[6]. Sounds like a bunch McStains from what I
read.
MoreFreedom , 1 day ago
Big Democrat and RINO money is going up against Trump, and threatening the law firm
they'll lose their business with the traitors who bring in lots of revenue. That's what's
happening, and you are right; they are strong arming threats of force as well. It shows how
bad their case is they have to resort to thuggery and economic boycotts.
Cognitive Dissonance , 1 day ago
The Deep State/CIA's color revolution/coup proceeding as planned.
Hey Assholes , 1 day ago
Methinks that the obviousness of the fraud was intentional. Media crowns bidet, Trump
calling out the fraud. Whoever wins, the country is split and irreconcilable .
If Trump prevals, riots ensue and marshal law follows. We lose. If bidet steal succeeds,
70+ million become ungovernable, and civil war ensues.
I am a Tump supporter, but I am also an individualist and despise tyranny. The controllers
are trying to overturn the chess board and the setup is heads they win, tails we lose.
skizex , 1 day ago
Chairman of the Federal Election Commission says 'I Do Believe There Is
Voter Fraud Taking Place'...'Making This An Illegitimate Election' https://rense.com/general96/voter-fraud.mp4
Tirion , 1 day ago
All sorts of criminality has been obvious since the last election, but what has been done
about it? Nothing! So what makes you think they will lose? The rule of law is a pretense
only.
palmereldritch , 1 day ago
The CIA, at the highest level, is a Bankster infiltration and enforcement agency.
Goldblatz' Monster , 1 day ago
The bigger question is who in Hell wants more Trump (Kushner and Bibi)? Doesn't matter.
Bibi and Gates won. Harris stands before AIPAC spreading her love to Israel. The goy ain't
never gonna get it.
skizex , 1 day ago
Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight has come out in support of Donald Trump's claim
that Joe Biden is falsely declaring victory in last week's presidential election.
"My fellow Americans, I stand here with all the feel as I do disgusted with this lie that
Biden has been chosen." Voight began. "As if we all don't know the truth. And when one tries
to deceive we know that one can't get away with it, there will be a price to pay."
Voight warned Americans that they are now facing their "greatest fight since the civil
war" as the left are Satanists:
The ones who are jumping for joy now are jumping towards the horror they will be in for.
Because I know that the promises being made from the left to the American people will never
come to be. My friends of all colors, races, and religions, this is now our greatest fight
since the Civil War. The battle of righteousness versus Satan. Yes, Satan. Because these
leftists are evil, corrupt, and they want to tear down this nation.
This is the really scary part. There used to be an unspoken rule that defense attorneys
were not supposed to be judged for their clients, even if they represent a despicable person.
Serial killers, terrorists, pederasts, etc. should not be cut off from the ability to have
representation in court.
But in this new Lord of the Flies zeitgeist, if you get designated as an enemy of the
state, they can bring you up on whatever charges they want and no defense attorney will risk
being associated with you. So you'll stand alone against the full weight of the
government.
StuffyourVAXX , 1 day ago
So wait, this was done on Twitter and LinkedIn?
Organizing coordinated harassment and threats aren't against their TOS? Huh.
Zorch , 1 day ago
Not against TOS because these are patriotic Americans fighting a fascist dictator.
/sarc
InTheLandOfTheBlind , 1 day ago
Conservatives, most Republicans, and most importantly, Christians, are considered subhuman
by Twitter. They have no rights
TechnoCaveman , 1 day ago
I feel for the law firm and its employees.
This happened for two reasons - lack of morals from those who harassed the firm and a lack of
push back from US
Not only should the police get involved, but can we know the names and companies of who did
the harassing so we can abandon them?
No violence - do not stoop to their level. Instead tell them they are on the wrong side of
justice and the wrong side of history.
Seek the truth.
Stand with Trump
Stand with Trump supporters.
Stand against evil.
rlouis , 1 day ago
A lot of the people on the Lincoln Project have links to John McCain...
Silentwistle , 1 day ago
Everyone is missing the big tell here. You don't send your mob out to harass if there is
nothing to hide. All they are doing is circling their wagons around this corruption
Quia Possum , 1 day ago
And it looks like they're succeeding in that effort. From the old John Harrington
verse:
Do not harass or bully: We don't allow bullying or harassment. This includes abusive
language, revealing others' personal or sensitive information (aka "doxing"), or inciting
or engaging others to do any of the same.
So everyone involved in the Lincoln Project should be banned from LinkedIn.
I'm sure Microsoft will get right on that.
Original_Intent , 1 day ago
and they call us Fascists - straight out of Saul Alinsky's book...
tunEphsh , 1 day ago
If the election had been run honestly, the Democrats and their Lincoln Project "friends"
would not be pushing so hard to end an investigation. Honest people would say "Go ahead and
investigate all you want to, you are not going to find anything."
Whoa Dammit , 1 day ago
A good law firm would be suing the Lincoln Project for harassment and defamation instead
of rolling over and showing their bellies to a bully. So it would seem that the loss of
Porter Wright as a member of the Trump team is probably for the best.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
Unfortunately the corporatists have a tremendous amount of power.
Whoa Dammit , 1 day ago
Only if the power is given to them by not standing up for one's self and for the law. The
British had a lot of power here 244 years ago.
el_buffer , 1 day ago
Using intimidation and violence to foment political change is terrorism by definition.
I know you guys hate Facebook, so feel free to let your freak flag fly on that note.
Anyway, I commented on a Sun Times article on FB stating that the only qualifications for
Kamala were ticking the boxes of gender and race. She won zero delegates in the primaries,
and I don't know anyone who can even stand to hear her voice, let alone the words she is
forming with it. So a guy took a screenshot of my comment, proceeded to visit my personal
page, and messaged my employer saying that I am a racist, have no business representing the
company, and need to be fired immediately. As the page administrator I laughed at how
pathetic the guy was and deleted it. These people are out there in full force.
Countrybunkererd , 1 day ago
Every action you do will be under the cover of darkness and secrecy. Every day. Every
hour. Every minute. Every word carefully weighed as to ensure you don't say anything with
emotion or conviction. You don't speak to anyone about your thoughts or feelings because they
may use you to get out of some trouble where they were simply misunderstood by the given
power hungry individual for the current day. You never know what day you will be in trouble
for some misunderstood statement or worse.
You will give to the government everything they want and keep what they deem is enough to
sustain your meager lifestyle.
You can't afford to make a SINGLE mistake. Ever. So you cease talking with others except
for a very very select few.
EVERY SINGLE DAY. The lockdowns were a walk on the beach if and when we go this path.
Enjoy the Bolshevism, If you don't stand now on constitutional law, you deserve it. You
leftists have been played and are soon going to be deemed a useful idiot and executed by your
masters. It happens every single time, don't you read?
"... "There's no denying," Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote in 2017's The Once and Future Liberal, "that the movement's decision to use this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and its law-enforcement institutions and to use Mau Mau tactics to put down dissent and demand a confession of sins and public penitence played into the hands of the Republican right." ..."
Early in the Trump years, moderate columnists and strategists held that the mechanisms for
accomplishing what Biden evidently has would be an aggressive critique of progressive identity
politics. It was agreed specifically that Black Lives Matter and progressive activism on
policing and criminal justice could be crippling.
"There's no denying," Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote in 2017's The Once and Future Liberal, "that the movement's decision to use
this mistreatment to build a general indictment of American society and its law-enforcement
institutions and to use Mau Mau tactics to put down dissent and demand a confession of sins and
public penitence played into the hands of the Republican right."
Despite Democratic victories in 2018's midterms, the argument lived on long enough to worry
moderates who criticized Biden this year in the wake of the demonstrations and riots over the
killing of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. "In the crude terms of a presidential
campaign, voters know that the Democrat means it when he denounces police brutality, but less
so when he denounces riots," The Atlantic 's George Packer wrote in a
piece about the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
"To reach the public and convince it otherwise,
Biden has to go beyond boilerplate and make it personal, memorable."
A little over two months
later, it's actually quite difficult to remember what exactly Biden said that week. And he
never delivered grand denunciations of cancel culture, White Fragility, the 1619
Project, or any of the other culture war material moderates and conservatives suggested he
needed to address to make large gains among whites and white men in particular. Those gains
were clearly made anyway.
"... The hatred of Donald Trump, which certainly to some extent is legitimate if only due to his ignorance and boorishness, has driven a feeding frenzy by the moderate-to liberal media which has made them blind to their own faults. ..."
"... Just as the Israel Firsters in Congress and in the state legislative bodies have had great success in criminalizing any criticism of the Jewish state, the mainstream media's "fake news" in support of the "woke" crowd agenda has already succeeded in forcing out many alternative voices in the public space. ..."
"... This type of "thought control" has been most evident in the media, but it is beginning to dominate in other areas where conversations about policy and rights take place. Universities in particular, which once were bastions of free speech and free thought, are now defining what is acceptable language and behavior even when the alleged perpetrators are neither threatening or abusive. ..."
"... Recently, a student editor at the University of Wisconsin student newspaper was fired because he dared to write a column that objected to the current anti-police consensus. ..."
"... The worst aspect of the increasing thought control taking place in America's public space is that it is not only not over, it is increasing. To be sure, to a certain extent the upcoming election is a driver of the process as left and right increasingly man the barricades to support their respective viewpoints. If that were all, it might be considered politics as usual, but unfortunately the process is going well beyond that point. The righteousness exuded by the social justice warriors has apparently given them the mandate to attempt to control what Americans are allowed to think or say while also at the same time upending the common values that have made the country functional. It is a revolution of sorts, and those who object most strongly could well be the first to go to the guillotine. ..."
Once upon a time it was possible to rely on much of the mainstream media to report on
developments more or less objectively, relegating opinion pieces to the editorial page. But
that was a long time ago. I remember moving to Washington back in 1976 after many years of
New York Times and International Herald Tribune readership, when both those
papers still possessed editorial integrity. My first experience of the Washington Post
had my head spinning, wondering how front-page stories that allegedly reported the "news" could
sink to the level of including editorialized comments from start to finish to place the story
in context.
Today, Washington Post style reporting has become the norm and the New York
Times , if anything, might possibly be the worst exponent of news that is actually largely
unsubstantiated or at best "anonymous" opinion. In the past few weeks, stories about the
often-violent social unrest that continues in numerous states have virtually disappeared from
sight because the mainstream media has its version of reality, that the demonstrations are
legitimate protest that seek to correct "systemic racism." Likewise, counter-demonstrators are
reflexively described as "white supremacists" so they can be dismissed as unreformable racists.
Videos of rampaging mobs looting, burning and destroying while also beating and even killed
innocent citizens who are trying to protect themselves and their property are not shown or
written about to any real extent because such actions are being carried out by the groups that
the mainstream media and its political enablers favor.
The hatred of Donald Trump, which certainly to some extent is legitimate if only due to his
ignorance and boorishness, has driven a feeding frenzy by the moderate-to liberal media which
has made them blind to their own faults. The recent expose by the New
York Times on Donald Trump's taxes might well be considered a new low, with blaring
headlines declaring that the president is a tax avoider. It was a theme rapidly picked up and
promoted by much of the remainder of the television and print media as well as "public radio"
stations like NPR.
But wait a minute. Trump Inc. is a multi-faceted business that includes a great number of
smaller entities, not all of which involve real estate per se. Donald Trump, not surprisingly,
does not do his own taxes and instead employs teams of accountants and lawyers to do the work
for him. They take advantage of every break possible to reduce the taxes paid. Why are there
tax breaks for businesses that individual Americans do not enjoy? Because congress approved
legislation to make it so. So who is to blame if Donald Trump only paid $750 in tax? Congress,
but the media coverage of the issue deliberately made it look like Trump is a tax cheater.
And then there is the question how the Times got the tax returns in the first place. Tax
returns are legally protected confidential documents and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is
obligated to maintain privacy regarding them. Some of the files are currently part of an IRS
audit and it just might be that the auditors are the source of the completely illegal leak, but
we may never know as the Times is piously declaring "We are not making the records
themselves public, because we do not want to jeopardize our sources, who have taken enormous
personal risks to help inform the public." Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation
wryly observes that when it comes to avoiding taxes "I'll bet that the members of the
Times ' editorial board and its big team of reporters and columnists do the same thing.
They are just upset that they don't do it as well as Trump."
Just as the Israel Firsters in Congress and in the state legislative bodies have had great
success in criminalizing any criticism of the Jewish state, the mainstream media's "fake news"
in support of the "woke" crowd agenda has already succeeded in forcing out many alternative
voices in the public space. The Times has been a leader in bringing about this departure
from "freedom of speech" enshrined in a "free press," having recently forced
the resignation of senior editor James Bennet over the publication of an op-ed written by
Senator Tom Cotton. Cotton's views are certainly not to everyone's taste, but he provided a
reasonable account of how and when federal troops have been used in the past to repress civil
unrest, together with a suggestion that they might play that same role in the current
context.
This type of "thought control" has been most evident in the media, but it is beginning to
dominate in other areas where conversations about policy and rights take place. Universities in
particular, which once were bastions of free speech and free thought, are now defining what is
acceptable language and behavior even when the alleged perpetrators are neither threatening or
abusive.
Recently, a student editor at the University of Wisconsin student newspaper was fired
because he dared to write a column that objected to the current anti-police consensus.
Washington lawyer Jonathan Turley
observes how the case was not unique, how there has been " a crackdown on some campuses
against conservative columnists and newspapers, including the firing of a
conservative student columnist at Syracuse , the public condemnation of a
student columnist at Georgetown , and a
campaign against one of the oldest conservative student newspapers in the country at
Dartmouth. Now, The Badger Herald , a
student newspaper at the University of Wisconsin Madison, has dismissed columnist Tripp Grebe
after he wrote a column opposing the defunding of police departments." Ironically, Grebe
acknowledged in his op-ed that there is considerable police-initiated brutality and also
justified the emergence of black lives matter, but it was not enough to save him.
The worst aspect of the increasing thought control taking place in America's public space is
that it is not only not over, it is increasing. To be sure, to a certain extent the upcoming
election is a driver of the process as left and right increasingly man the barricades to
support their respective viewpoints. If that were all, it might be considered politics as
usual, but unfortunately the process is going well beyond that point. The righteousness exuded
by the social justice warriors has apparently given them the mandate to attempt to control what
Americans are allowed to think or say while also at the same time upending the common values
that have made the country functional. It is a revolution of sorts, and those who object most
strongly could well be the first to go to the guillotine.
Are you ready for this week's absurdity? Here's our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous
stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity and on
occasion, inspiring poetic justice.
Beethoven is a symbol of "exclusion and elitism"
The woke mob is attempting to cancel one of the most famous pieces of music in history
– Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
Their aim? To thwart "wealthy white men who embraced Beethoven and turned his symphony into
a symbol of their superiority and importance."
Come again?
Prior to Beethoven in the mid 1700s, lower class Europeans would regularly attend
symphonies. And they were apparently quite a rowdy bunch– hooting and hollering all
throughout the performance, like a modern day rock concert.
Around the time that Beethoven rose to prominence in the early 1800s, however, the lower
classes were excluded from attending symphonies because they didn't keep quiet and applaud at
the appropriate time.
So today's woke mob believes that by playing or enjoying Beethoven's Fifth, you are
glorifying the exclusion of poor people, and by extension, women and minorities.
ay_arrow
Billy the Poet , 5 hours ago
Jon Voight as Conrack introduces his students to Beecloven:
Movies where a white person educates poor children of color are racist, obviously.
Unknown User , 4 hours ago
War is Peace / Freedom is Slavery / Ignorance is Strength
Unknown User , 3 hours ago
"He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his
hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian,
the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded
to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise,
and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but
it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The *** saw them all, beat
them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no
weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive
mind. All things are mortal but the ***; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the
secret of his immortality?" - Mark Twain
yerfej , 5 hours ago
When low IQ reetaryds are manipulated to seize control they immediately attack everything
beyond their cultural status and eliminate it. The west is witnessing rich progressive elites
leveraging idiots to destroy society. What is funny is the idiots doing the manual
destruction and footwork will of course get nothing out of all their efforts. They too will
be culled, eventually, as always.
Bay Area Guy , 5 hours ago
But Beethoven was disabled (deaf at 26 or 27), so the woke crowd is prejudiced against the
hearing impaired. They better self-cancel because of that.
drjimi , 4 hours ago
People don't go to classical music concerts because of the behavioral expectations????
Seriously???
People don't go to classical music concerts because they don't like classical music.
i can just as validly argue hip hop is elitist and exclusionary because I don't care for
the chimp-like antics of its imbecilic fans.
MilwaukeeMark , 5 hours ago
Beethoven refuses to bow to the elites of his time. He demanded a place at their tables
with them. He refused to become their hired help. Of course the left is too stupid to know
that history.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 2 hours ago
The poem used in the last, choral, movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony was written by
Friedrich Schiller and is know as "An die Freude", translated as Ode To Joy. But Schiller
originally wrote the poem as "An die Freie" or "To the Free." Europe was in the grip of
antimonarchic sentiment. The poem was not permitted to be published in Austria by the
Emperor's censors. Schiller changed the word throughout the poem from Freie to Freude, and
the censors permitted it. But everybody in the audience would have known this story, and
realized the meaning of the poem.
Joe A , 3 hours ago
That is what communism does: it deconstructs and destroys history because it is all bad.
History is a reminder of the oppression of the poor and downtrodden, of the class struggle.
Everywhere in communist Europe they tore down churches and historical buildings and replaced
them with ugly concrete colossal monstrosities.
Communists are insane.
Savvy , 3 hours ago
Rap is the most racist violent 'music' there is and they go after Beethoven? LOL
Jethro , 4 hours ago
The left is too stupid realize that they are creating the monsters that they've been
autisticly screeching about.
Choomwagon Roof Hits , 4 hours ago
Sort of like the Old Bolsheviks back in the USSR...
Patmos , 5 hours ago
Their aim? To thwart "wealthy white men who embraced Beethoven and turned his symphony
into a symbol of their superiority and importance."
I understand the desire of youth to shake things up when things don't seem right, to break
out of the mold. It's James Dean, Rebel Without A Cause.
The modern "woke" mob isn't that though, it's rheetards without a clue.
Fox News
Fox News
5.73M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
White employees were informed that their so-called 'white' qualities were offensive and unacceptable.
#FoxNews
#Tucker
"... If your category is "white," bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy ("Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness"), which naturally means "a positive white identity is an impossible goal." ..."
"... DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except "strive to be less white." To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo's lecturing – what she describes as "leaving the stress-inducing situation" – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the "ordeal by water" (if you float, you're a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia. ..."
"... White Fragility is based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. ..."
"... It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one's intended point, but this isn't uncommon in White Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna Karenina. ..."
"... Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself "antiracism" – I think it deserves that name a lot less than "pro-lifers" deserve theirs and am amazed journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed groups, allies, and white oppressors. ..."
"... This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy, is the vision of "progress" institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why? Maybe because it fits. It won't hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars. ..."
"... For corporate America the calculation is simple. What's easier, giving up business models based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There's a deal to be made here, greased by the fact that the "antiracism" prophets promoted in books like White Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. ..."
"... Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction. ..."
"... If you're wondering what that might look like, here's DiAngelo explaining how she handled the fallout from making a bad joke while she was "facilitating antiracism training" at the office of one of her clients. ..."
"... DiAngelo doesn't grasp the joke flopped and has to be told two days later that one of her web developer clients was offended. In despair, she writes, "I seek out a friend who is white and has a solid understanding of cross-racial dynamics." ..."
"... After DiAngelo confesses her feelings of embarrassment, shame and guilt to the enlightened white cross-racial dynamics expert (everyone should have such a person on speed-dial), she approaches the offended web developer. She asks, "Would you be willing to grant me the opportunity to repair the racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?" At which point the web developer agrees, leading to a conversation establishing the parameters of problematic joke resolution. ..."
"... This dialogue straight out of South Park – "Is it okay if I touch your penis? No, you may not touch my penis at this time!" – has a good shot of becoming standard at every transnational corporation, law firm, university, newsroom, etc. ..."
"... One of the central tenets of DiAngelo's book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed through constant, "lifelong" vigilance, much like the battle with addiction . A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts -- in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever. ..."
"... Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that "anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the Writer's Union of Canada for the crime of "cultural appropriation," and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki "doesn't see the humanity of indigenous peoples." Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing to provide proof that she was Indigenous. ..."
"... People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of "anti-black racism" to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to start submarining each other's careers before they've even finished growing? ..."
This is part of a larger piece that will be made available to subscribers later this
week:
A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools in America since
the early nineties was the view that individual rights, humanism, and the democratic process
are all just stalking-horses for white supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like
former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility (Amazon's #1
seller !) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to
racial power contests.
It's been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it
surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today
cheered , "American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary
escapism." When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon
gushed , "I know everyone wants to talk to you right now!" White Fragility has been
pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of
George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except
this isn't a straightforward book about examining one's own prejudices. Have the people hyping
this impressively crazy book actually read it?
DiAngelo isn't the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual
horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race
theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal
human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but
only by our racial category.
If your category is "white," bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in
white supremacy ("Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities Whiteness has always
been predicated on blackness"), which naturally means "a positive white identity is an
impossible goal."
DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except "strive to be less white." To
deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo's
lecturing – what she describes as "leaving the stress-inducing situation" – is to
affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the "ordeal by water"
(if you float, you're a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.
DiAngelo's writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of
this type is built around the same principles as Orwell's Newspeak : it banishes
ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like
racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform , center and
silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices . Ironically,
Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like " AMAZING !" and "
SAD !" that are
simultaneously more childish and livelier.
Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly nouns out of ugly
verbs (there are countless permutations on centering and privileging alone). In a
world where only a few ideas are considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. "To be
less white is to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the comfort
of white people," or "Ruth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness,
describes whiteness as multidimensional "
DiAngelo writes like a person who was put in timeout as a child for speaking clearly. "When
there is disequilibrium in the habitus -- when social cues are unfamiliar and/or when they
challenge our capital -- we use strategies to regain our balance," she says ("People taken out
of their comfort zones find ways to deal," according to Google Translate). Ideas that go
through the English-DiAngelo translator usually end up significantly altered, as in this key
part of the book when she addresses Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream," speech:
One line of King's speech in particular -- that one day he might be judged by the content
of his character and not the color of his skin -- was seized upon by the white public because
the words were seen to provide a simple and immediate solution to racial tensions: pretend that
we don't see race, and racism will end. Color blindness was now promoted as the remedy for
racism, with white people insisting that they didn't see race or, if they did, that it had no
meaning to them.
That this speech was held up as the framework for American race relations for more than half
a century precisely because people of all races understood King to be referring to a difficult
and beautiful long-term goal worth pursuing is discounted, of course.
White Fragility is
based upon the idea that human beings are incapable of judging each other by the content of
their character, and if people of different races think they are getting along or even loving
one another, they probably need immediate antiracism training. This is an important passage
because rejection of King's "dream" of racial harmony -- not even as a description of the
obviously flawed present, but as the aspirational goal of a better future -- has become a
central tenet of this brand of antiracist doctrine mainstream press outlets are rushing to
embrace.
The book's most amazing passage concerns the story of Jackie Robinson:
The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism by
rendering whites, white privilege, and racist institutions invisible. Robinson is often
celebrated as the first African American to break the color line
While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as
racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson
finally had what it took to play with whites, as if no black athlete before him was strong
enough to compete at that level. Imagine if instead, the story went something like this:
"Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball."
There is not a single baseball fan anywhere – literally not one, except perhaps Robin
DiAngelo, I guess – who believes Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier because he
"finally had what it took to play with whites." Everyone familiar with this story understands
that Robinson had to be exceptional, both as a player and as a human being, to confront the
racist institution known as Major League Baseball.
His story has always been understood as a
complex, long-developing political tale about overcoming violent systemic oppression. For DiAngelo to suggest history should re-cast Robinson as "the first black man whites allowed to
play major league baseball" is grotesque and profoundly belittling.
Robinson's story moreover did not render "whites, white privilege, and racist institutions
invisible." It did the opposite. Robinson uncovered a generation of job inflation for mediocre
white ballplayers in a dramatic example of "privilege" that was keenly understood by baseball
fans of all races fifty years before White Fragility. Baseball statistics nerds have
long been arguing about whether to put asterisks next to
the records of white stars who never had to pitch to Josh Gibson, or hit against prime Satchel
Paige or Webster McDonald. Robinson's story, on every level, exposed and evangelized the truth
about the very forces DiAngelo argues it rendered "invisible."
It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the
mathematical opposite of one's intended point, but this isn't uncommon in White
Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal
read like Anna Karenina.
Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself "antiracism"
– I think it deserves that name a lot less than "pro-lifers" deserve theirs and am amazed
journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race
relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed
groups, allies, and white oppressors.
Where we reside on the spectrum of righteousness is, they say, almost entirely determined by
birth, a view probably shared by a lot of 4chan readers. With a full commitment to the
program of psychological ablutions outlined in the book, one may strive for a "less white
identity," but again, DiAngelo explicitly rejects the Kingian goal of just trying to love one
another as impossible, for two people born with different skin colors.
This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy,
is the vision of "progress" institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why?
Maybe because it fits. It won't hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades
now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts
since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars.
Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture, have already embraced this
performative race politics as a useful tool for disciplining apostates like Bernie Sanders.
Bernie took off in presidential politics as a hard-charging crusader against a Wall
Street-fattened political establishment, and exited four years later a self-flagellating,
defeated old white man who seemed to regret not apologizing more for his third house. Clad in
kente cloth scarves, the Democrats who crushed him will burn up CSPAN with homilies on
privilege even as they reassure donors they'll stay away from Medicare for All or the carried
interest tax break.
For corporate America the calculation is simple. What's easier, giving up business models
based on war, slave labor, and regulatory arbitrage, or benching Aunt Jemima? There's a deal to
be made here, greased by the fact that the "antiracism" prophets promoted in books like
White Fragility share corporate Americas instinctive hostility to privacy, individual
rights, freedom of speech, etc.
Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be
addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute
codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction.
If you're wondering what that might look like, here's DiAngelo explaining how she handled
the fallout from making a bad joke while she was "facilitating antiracism training" at the
office of one of her clients.
When one employee responds negatively to the training, DiAngelo quips the person must have
been put off by one of her Black female team members: "The white people," she says, "were
scared by Deborah's hair." (White priests of antiracism like DiAngelo seem universally to be
more awkward and clueless around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction
worker).
DiAngelo doesn't grasp the joke flopped and has to be told two days later that one of her
web developer clients was offended. In despair, she writes, "I seek out a friend who is white
and has a solid understanding of cross-racial dynamics."
After DiAngelo confesses her feelings of embarrassment, shame and guilt to the enlightened
white cross-racial dynamics expert (everyone should have such a person on speed-dial), she
approaches the offended web developer. She asks, "Would you be willing to grant me the
opportunity to repair the racism I perpetrated toward you in that meeting?" At which point the
web developer agrees, leading to a conversation establishing the parameters of problematic joke
resolution.
This dialogue straight
out ofSouth
Park – "Is it okay if I touch your penis? No, you may not touch my penis at this
time!" – has a good shot of becoming standard at every transnational corporation, law
firm, university, newsroom, etc.
Of course the upside such consultants can offer is an important one. Under pressure from
people like this, companies might address long-overdue inequities in boardroom diversity.
The downside, which we're already seeing, is that organizations everywhere will embrace
powerful new tools for solving professional disputes, through a never-ending purge. One of the
central tenets of DiAngelo's book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and
can only be managed through constant, "lifelong" vigilance, much like the
battle with addiction . A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced
toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts -- in the
fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.
Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar
to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three
years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was
denounced for expressing the opinion that "anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to
imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the
Writer's Union of Canada for the crime of "cultural appropriation," and denounced as a racist
by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki "doesn't see the
humanity of indigenous peoples." Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing
to provide proof that she was Indigenous.
Michael Korenberg, the chair of the board at the University of British Columbia, was
forced to
resign for liking tweets by Dinesh D'Souza and Donald Trump, which you might think is fine
– but what about Latino electrical worker Emmanuel Cafferty, fired
after a white activist took a photo of him making an OK symbol (it was described online as a
"white power" sign)? How about Sue Schafer, the heretofore unknown graphic designer the
Washington Post
decided to out in a 3000-word article for attending a Halloween party two years ago in
blackface (a failed parody of a different blackface incident involving Megyn Kelly)? She
was fired, of course. How was this news? Why was ruining this person's life necessary?
People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and
colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a
salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of
"anti-black racism" to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to
start submarining each other's careers before they've even finished growing?
"People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don't want people
like that to keep getting jobs," one 16 year-old said. "Someone rly started a Google doc of
racists and their info for us to ruin their lives I love twitter," wrote a different person,
adding cheery emojis.
A bizarre echo of North Korea's "
three generations of punishment " doctrine could be seen in the
boycotts of Holy Land grocery , a well-known hummus maker in Minneapolis. In recent weeks
it's been abandoned by clients and seen
its lease pulled because of racist tweets made by the CEO's 14 year-old daughter eight
years ago.
Parents calling out their kids is also in vogue. In Slate, "Making a Mountain Out of
a Molehill" wrote to advice columnist Michelle Herman in a letter headlined, " I
think I've screwed up the way my kids think about race ." The problem, the aggrieved parent
noted, was that his/her sons had gone to a diverse school, and their "closest friends are still
a mix of black, Hispanic, and white kids," which to them was natural. The parent worried when
one son was asked to fill out an application for a potential college roommate and expressed
annoyance at having to specify race, because "I don't care about race."
Clearly, a situation needing fixing! The parent asked if someone who didn't care about race
was "just as racist as someone who only has white friends" and asked if it was "too late" to do
anything. No fear, Herman wrote: it's never too late for kids like yours to educate themselves.
To help, she linked to a program of materials designed for just that purpose, a " Lesson
Plan for Being An Ally ," that included a month of readings of White Fragility.
Hopefully that kid with the Black and Hispanic friends can be cured!
This notion that color-blindness is itself racist, one of the main themes of White
Fragility , could have amazing consequences. In researching I Can't Breathe, I met
civil rights activists who recounted decades of struggle to remove race from the law. I heard
stories of lawyers who were physically threatened for years in places like rural Arkansas just
for trying to end explicit hiring and housing discrimination and other remnants of Jim Crow.
Last week, an Oregon County casually exempted "people of color
who have heightened concerns about racial profiling" from a Covid-19 related mask order. Who
thinks creating different laws for different racial categories is going to end well? When has
it ever?
At a time of catastrophe and national despair, when conservative nationalism is on the rise
and violent confrontation on the streets is becoming commonplace, it's extremely suspicious
that the books politicians, the press, university administrators, and corporate consultants
alike are asking us to read are urging us to put race even more at the center of our
identities, and fetishize the unbridgeable nature of our differences. Meanwhile books like
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird, which are both
beautiful and actually anti-racist, have been banned, for
containing the "N-word ." ( White Fragility contains it too, by the way). It's
almost like someone thinks there's a benefit to keeping people divided.
Looks like neoliberal Dems are playing with fire. Another couple of such success stories and
Biden can safely enroll to the assisted living senior citizen community where he belongs. This is
an excellent way to mobilize Trump voters. Just look at the comments section of this story.
This is somewhat similar to hysteria in Germany in 1930th.
Notable quotes:
"... And Costco was once a retail store. Bravo! Today transformed into a political party? ..."
Costco has halted sales of Palmetto Cheese, a popular brand of pimento cheese spread that
had been offered in over 120 of its stores, after the company's owner triggered outrage with a
Facebook post criticizing Black Lives Matter.
A sign posted at a store in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, indicates that Palmetto Cheese has
been discontinued and will not be ordered again by Costco. The retailer hasn't made a statement
on its decision, but the move came after consumers called for a boycott of the brand because of
social media comments by Palmetto Cheese's owner, Brian Henry.
"This BLM and Antifa movement must be treated like the terror organizations that they
are," Henry said in an August 25 Facebook post that has since been deleted. He wrote the
message in response to the alleged shootings of three white people by a black man in
Georgetown, South Carolina. He complained that BLM and Antifa were being allowed to
"lawlessly destroy great American cities and threaten their citizens on a daily basis"
and declared "All lives matter. There, I said it. So am I a racist now?"
The reaction on social media was swift, with commenters calling Henry a racist. Activists
jumped into action with a boycott campaign against Palmetto Cheese. A Twitter account was set
up mocking the company as "Appropriation Cheese," because of its use of a black woman on
its packaging who worked for the company before dying earlier this year.
Activists on the Appropriation Cheese page celebrated Costco's decision and pressed for
more. One commenter on Tuesday thanked Costco and demanded that Kroger, Lowes Foods and other
retailers cancel Palmetto Cheese. Another boycott supporter called on Publix Super Markets to
drop the product, saying: "Costco pulled Palmetto Cheese because of the open racism of its
owner. We are hoping you are considering the same." Still another said: "Attention
Corporate America. This is how you ally."
But others lamented Costco's move and the divisiveness it represents. "This is how
divided the country has become," one commenter tweeted. "Even store chains are picking
sides now. This is insane." There were those who defended Henry, saying that criticizing
the group doesn't mean that one is racist.
Henry, who also is mayor of the small South Carolina coastal town of Pawleys Island, may
have squandered a chance to inspire a boycott-backlash movement – like that which Goya
Foods enjoyed after its owner was vilified for praising President Donald Trump – when he
issued an apology on September 3.
He said his comments were "hurtful and insensitive."
"I spent the last 10 days listening and learning," Henry said. "The conversations
I have had with friends, our staff, the community and faith-based leaders provided me with a
deeper understanding of racial inequality and the importance of diversity
sensitivity."
Henry added that his family and company will donate $100,000 in the first year of a new
foundation set up to improve race relations, and Palmetto Cheese will rebrand its product
"to be more sensitive to cultural diversity." In addition to having a picture of a black
woman, the current packaging refers to Palmetto Cheese as "the pimento cheese with
soul."
The company sold more than 15 million units last year in about 4,000 stores. Henry warned
that a boycott would only hurt the hundreds of people employed by the company in South
Carolina.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
uncledon 8 hours ago
I
guess I'm a racist as I believe all lives matter! I believe that people have a reason and the
right to peacefully protest. People do not have a right to murder, to plunder, to destroy
properties and businesses, to loot and set fires! If these things are done under the BLM
movement it is lawlessness. If we are to have a peaceful and productive society we need law and
order not total chaos. If the BLM wants to make change, (and change is sorely needed) then sets
some rules in your organized protest that gives it strength and power. Every smashed window,
every fire, every looted business and every intimidation to innocent bystanders is a reason for
people like myself not to support your cause.
KarlthePoet 9 hours ago
It's too bad that the
American consumers haven't started a boycott of the Jewish Banking Cartel, which ultimately
controls the US government and Wall Street. A cheese spread isn't the problem in America.
JG1547 10 hours ago
And the stupidity continues. Sad
CrabbyB 7 hours ago
Avoid social media
other than trying to garner sales. Avoid any chit-chat or opinions, just bare minimum contact
that suits your business purpose and that's it. The mob harmed but using Fakebook as a soapbox
was the big mistake
VillageIdiot34 4 hours ago
Keep it up amerimutts.
With this rate of
acceleration we are talking civil war before Christmas. I can already see it; the corporate
communists, backed by every globalist for-profit corporations against "real capitalism has
never been tried" gang. Less fighting abroad, more fighting domestic. It's a win/win for
everyone else
Jack The Man 3 hours ago
Absolutely right and principled action by
Costco. And BTW, who on earth would like to eat this processed garbage anyway?
rightmove 5
hours ago
And Costco was once a retail store. Bravo! Today transformed into a political party?
I'm in Australia and won't be shopping at Costco. The customer can decide if the BLM impacts
their choice of merchandise, not the damn seller.
Mistermal 6 hours ago
According to Webster's
Dictionary: "The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political
purposes." Costco CEO simply told the truth. BLM is an openly racist, violent hate group.
Alan
Hart 3 hours ago
Will Costco also ban Israeli goods - because of their criticism of PLM
(Palestinian Lives Matter)...??
Flyingscotsman 3 hours ago
Simple, boycott Costco. I bet all
these so called republican white Supremacist racists spend more there , than all these keyboard
woke warriors!
"... The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily. ..."
"... They've conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out thoughtcrime, and it's established now that anything can be an offense ..."
On the other side of the political aisle, among self-described liberals, we're watching an
intellectual revolution. It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact,
but the American left has lost its mind. It's become a cowardly mob of upper-class social
media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching
reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.
The leaders of this new movement are replacing traditional liberal beliefs about
tolerance, free inquiry, and even racial harmony with ideas so toxic and unattractive that
they eschew debate, moving straight to shaming, threats, and intimidation. They are counting
on the guilt-ridden, self-flagellating nature of traditional American progressives, who will
not stand up for themselves, and will walk to the Razor voluntarily.
They've conned organization after organization into empowering panels to search out
thoughtcrime, and it's established now that anything can be an offense
A "cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts"? The "guilt-ridden, self-flagellating
nature of traditional American progressives, who will not stand up for themselves"? Geeeeee,
sure does remind me of someone....
"... Seeking to impose on others the conformity it enforces in its ranks, articulate only in a boilerplate of ritualized cant, today's lumpen intelligentsia consists of persons for whom a little learning is delightful. They consider themselves educated because they are credentialed, stamped with the approval of institutions of higher education that gave them three things: a smattering of historical information just sufficient to make the past seem depraved; a vocabulary of indignation about the failure of all previous historic actors, from Washington to Lincoln to Churchill , to match the virtues of the lumpen intelligentsia; and the belief that America's grossest injustice is the insufficient obeisance accorded to this intelligentsia. ..."
"... Today's cancel culture -- erasing history, ending careers -- is inflicted by people experiencing an orgy of positive feelings about themselves as they negate others. This culture is a steamy sauna of self-congratulation: "I, an adjunct professor of gender studies, am superior to U.S. Grant, so there." Grant promptly freed the slave he received from his father-in-law, and went on to pulverize the slavocracy. Nevertheless . . . ..."
"... Today's gruesome irony: A significant portion of the intelligentsia that is churned out by higher education does not acknowledge exacting standards of inquiry that could tug them toward tentativeness and constructive dissatisfaction with themselves. Rather, they come from campuses, cloaked in complacency. Instead of elevating, their education produces only expensively schooled versions of what José Ortega y Gasset called the "mass man." ..."
"... A barbarian is someone whose ideas are "nothing more than appetites in words," someone exercising "the right not to be reasonable," who "does not want to give reasons" but simply "to impose his opinions." ..."
"... The barbarians are not at America's gate. There is no gate. ..."
A nation's gravest problems are those it cannot discuss because it dare not state them. This
nation's principal problem, which makes other serious problems intractable, is that much of
today's intelligentsia is not intelligent.
One serious problem is that the political class is terrified of its constituents -- their
infantile refusal to will the means (revenue) for the ends (government benefits) they demand.
Another serious problem is family
disintegration -- e.g., 40 percent of all births, and 69 percent of all African American
births, to unmarried women. Families are the primary transmitters of social capital: the
habits, dispositions and mores necessary for flourishing. Yet the subject of disorganized
families has been entirely absent from current discussions -- actually, less discussions than
virtue-signaling ventings -- about poverty, race and related matters.
Today's most serious problem, which annihilates thoughtfulness about all others, is that a
significant portion of the intelligentsia -- the lumpen intelligentsia -- cannot think. Its
torrent of talk is an ever-intensifying hurricane of hysteria about the endemic sickness of the
nation since its founding in
1619 (don't ask). And the iniquities of historic figures mistakenly admired.
An admirable intelligentsia, inoculated by education against fashions and fads, would make
thoughtful distinctions arising from historically informed empathy. It would be society's
ballast against mob mentalities. Instead, much of America's intelligentsia has become a
mob.
Seeking to impose on others the conformity it enforces in its ranks, articulate only in
a boilerplate of ritualized cant, today's lumpen intelligentsia consists of persons for whom a
little learning is delightful. They consider themselves educated because they are credentialed,
stamped with the approval of institutions of higher education that gave them three things: a
smattering of historical information just sufficient to make the past seem depraved; a
vocabulary of indignation about the failure of all previous historic actors, from Washington to
Lincoln to
Churchill
, to match the virtues of the lumpen intelligentsia; and the belief that America's grossest
injustice is the insufficient obeisance accorded to this intelligentsia.
Its expansion tracks the expansion of colleges and universities -- most have, effectively,
open admissions -- that have become intellectually monochrome purveyors of groupthink. Faculty
are outnumbered by administrators, many of whom exist to administer uniformity concerning
"sustainability," "diversity," "toxic masculinity" and the threat free speech poses to favored
groups' entitlements to serenity.
Today's cancel culture -- erasing history, ending careers -- is inflicted by people
experiencing an orgy of positive feelings about themselves as they negate others. This culture
is a steamy sauna of self-congratulation: "I, an adjunct professor of gender studies, am
superior to U.S. Grant, so there." Grant promptly freed
the slave he received from his father-in-law, and went on to pulverize the slavocracy.
Nevertheless . . .
The cancelers need just enough learning to know, vaguely, that there was a Lincoln who lived
when Americans, sunk in primitivism, thought they were confronted with vexing constitutional
constraints and moral ambiguities. : Too much learning might immobilize the topplers with
doubts about how they would have behaved in the contexts in which the statues' subjects
lived.
The cancelers are reverse Rumpelstiltskins , spinning problems that
merit the gold of complex ideas and nuanced judgments into the straw of slogans. Someone
anticipated something like this.
Today's gruesome irony: A significant portion of the intelligentsia that is churned out
by higher education does not acknowledge exacting standards of inquiry that could tug them
toward tentativeness and constructive dissatisfaction with themselves. Rather, they come from
campuses, cloaked in complacency. Instead of elevating, their education produces only
expensively schooled versions of what José Ortega y Gasset called the "mass
man."
In 1932's "
The Revolt of the Masses ," the Spanish philosopher said this creature does not " appeal
from his own to any authority outside him . He is satisfied with himself exactly as he is.
. . . He will tend to consider and affirm as good everything he finds within himself: opinions,
appetites, preferences, tastes." (Emphasis is Ortega's.)
Much education now spreads the disease that education should cure, the disease of
repudiating, without understanding, the national principles that could pull the nation toward
its noble aspirations. The result is barbarism, as Ortega defined it, "the absence of standards
to which appeal can be made."
A barbarian is someone whose ideas are "nothing more than appetites in words," someone
exercising "the right not to be reasonable," who "does not want to give reasons" but simply "to
impose his opinions."
The barbarians are not at America's gate. There is no gate.
ou remember Ian Buruma, right? He was forced to resign as editor of The New York Review
of Books in 2018 after he published an essay by the Canadian broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi, who
was accused and acquitted of sexual assault. Now, Buruma talks to The Telegraph about his new book (on
Churchill and Britain's "special relationship" with America) and "cancel culture":
Having been toppled himself, he is worried that cancel culture will lead to 'a kind of
timidity and fear and caution on the part of people who edit and write. The whole point of
being a good editor is having the freedom sometimes to do something that might be
provocative, because that helps debate, and debate helps people think. And if you cancel that
out, you get a sort of boring and fearful conformity that is inimical to a lively
intellectual and artistic culture.'
He sees the new 'intolerance and puritanism' as a substitute for religion. 'It is
particularly strong in the New World, in Australia, Canada and the United States, and Britain
to a slightly lesser extent, than in non-English-speaking countries. There is a sort of
puritanical zeal that is very strong in America and the intolerance of unorthodoxy may be a
secular version of it.'
The point of Ghomeshi's article, he says, was to explore the question of how we set the
perimeters of the length and severity of the punishments doled out by the court of public
opinion. 'I deliberately did not want the article to be about what he had done, there was no
way that I wanted to stick up for that or defend it. I was interested in it because it was a
voice that hadn't been heard, somebody who'd actually had that experience.'
Is there not a danger that his viewpoint might be a bit too detached, I ask? Isn't there
an argument that the many abused women who never even get to see their abuser in court and
feel unheard are quite right to be angry that a liberal magazine should give a voice to
somebody like Ghomeshi?
'Well that's probably true, statistically, that most cases of abuse go unreported and
therefore we never hear about them. But it would be false to say that the voices of women, or
men for that matter, who've been abused in one way or another have never been heard –
we've heard quite a few, maybe not enough, but we've heard them. So I don't think that that
is right.'
Has being 'cancelled' affected him much? 'All I will say is that certain publications I
used to write for do not ask me any more because it would upset people – not so much
readers but people who work for those publications.
'I don't miss being in an office, I'm perfectly happy sitting in my own office writing
whatever I want, but I miss the job in the sense that I could have done something interesting
with [the NYRB] and I no longer can. I wanted to have more voices from South America, more on
Africa, Asia. I think the problem with a lot of American publications today is that they look
inward too much.'
In other news: Thomas Homer-Dixon says reading The Lord of the Rings made him a
better parent. He explains why in The
Walrus : "Many Christian commentators and scholars say Tolkien espoused a Christian hope
based on faith in redemption and God's ultimate intervention. (He was a devout Roman Catholic.)
By this view, hope, which in this case would be Estel, can remain secure because we know God
will take care of us in the end. Other Tolkien aficionados have argued that he eschewed hope
entirely: his protagonists keep going because of nothing more than their ardent commitment to
courage and cheer regardless of what the future seems to hold. Neither argument convinces me. I
see little hint of Christian eschatology in the pages of The Lord of the Rings, and the book's
life philosophy is deeply informed by Norse, Germanic, and Celtic myth. Indeed, to my mind,
Tolkien's heroes possess the Finnish virtue sisu , which translates roughly as 'fierce
tenacity' or 'toughness' and indicates inner strength in the face of daunting odds."
Richard Mabey reviews Helen Macdonald's
Vesper Flights : "I longed for a bird that was just itself, not a token of class war or
a sop to emotional neediness."
Richard Reinsch reviews George
Weigel's The Next Pope : "Weigel's book is an attempt to spell out spiritual criteria
for the next pope -- to explain, in his view, how the next pope should act in order to revive
the church's fortunes in the modern world. There are many elephants in the room here, but one
of the biggest, prudently left unnamed by Weigel, is Pope Francis's pontificate. Weigel drops
small vignettes throughout the book of what the next pope must do and not do."
What's wrong with the university today? Many things, but the main problem, Mario Biagioli
argues, is a preoccupation with gaming the
system rather than focusing on its core purpose: teaching and research. "According to
Goodhart's Law, as soon as a measure becomes a target, gaming ensues, which undermines its
function as a measure. Charles Goodhart, an economist, was referring to the gaming of economic
indicators, but his law applies equally well to all sorts of regimes of evaluation, including
the metrics that command so much authority in today's higher education. Universities are
investing ever more heavily in curating and occasionally faking figures that enhance their
national and global rankings, while simultaneously keeping those metrics in mind when deciding
anything from campus development projects to class size. (Architecturally ambitious campuses
attract alumni giving, which is a positive factor in the U.S. News & World Report rankings
of universities, as are classes capped at 19 students.) Now in full swing, this trend started
inconspicuously a few decades ago. Already in 1996, Northeastern University's president,
Richard Freeland, observed that 'schools ranked highly received increased visibility and
prestige, stronger applicants, more alumni giving, and, most important, greater revenue
potential. A low rank left a university scrambling for money. This single list [ ] had the
power to make or break a school.' Freeland quickly figured out which numbers Northeastern
needed to privilege. Ranked 162nd in 1996, Northeastern jumped to 98th in 2006 and, ten years
after his departure, 47th in 2016. This trend goes hand in hand with another distinctive
feature of the modern university: the discourse of excellence. Because 'excellence' is devoid
of a referent that can be either empirically or conceptually defined -- its meaning effectively
boiling down to 'being great at whatever one may be doing' "
Jeremy Seaton reviews a new edition of
Russell Kirk's Old House of Fear : "While the novel itself remains unaltered so far as I
can tell, the current edition features the addition of a wonderful introduction by James Panero
that offers much insight into both Kirk and his works. This edition also restores Kirk's
dedication of the volume: 'This Gothick tale, in unblushing line of direct descent from The
Castle of Otranto , I do inscribe to Abigail Fay.' This inscription, brief as it is, offers
valuable revelations regarding the Old House of Fear and its residents."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.407.2_en.html#goog_1874787619 Ad ends in 48s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Why time flies when you're old : "Over
a three-minute period, younger people can count down the seconds almost perfectly. Older
people, on the other hand, can be out by as much as forty seconds -- meaning that if they
counted seconds for an hour they'd think the task done with around the 47-minute mark. It
sounds paradoxical, but it's that slowing of the older person's body clock that leads to their
faster counting -- and their feeling that the rest of the world is speeding up."
In search of the English Proust :
"Writing to his publisher Gaston Gallimard, Proust opted for an unusually crisp register: 'I
refuse to let the English destroy my work.' He was protesting at translator C. K. Scott
Moncrieff's use of a pretty Shakespeare quotation ( Remembrance of Things Past ) for his
analytically more precise title ( À la recherche du temps perdu ), not to mention
the now iconic but misleading Swann's Way (for Du côté de chez Swann
). He softened, though his subsequent communications with Scott Moncrieff himself are best
represented as polite rather than cordial. Scott Moncrieff remains nevertheless the true hero
in the story of Proust in English, and any bad feeling on Proust's part is a mere bagatelle
compared to how he would have felt about John Middleton Murry's unintelligible proposition: 'No
English reader will get more out of reading Du côté de chez Swann in French
than he will out of reading Swann's Way in English.' It is, alas, the sort of thing that
also infected Conrad, who came up with the lunatic claim that Moncrieff's Proust was superior
to Proust's Proust."
Receive Prufrock in your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribehere.ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Micah Mattix is the literary editor of The American Conservative and an associate
professor of English at Regent University. His work has appeared in The Wall Street
Journal , National Review , The Weekly Standard , Pleiades , The
Washington Times , and many other publications. His latest book is The Soul Is a
Stranger in this World: Essays on Poets and Poetry (Cascade). Follow him on Twitter .
Ian Buruma highlighted something I've also noticed from the woke mob: Despite their
supposed advocacy of global societies and non-white voices, they completely ignore the
experiences, struggles, and contradictions of global people, especially the Global South. The
persecution of women and girls in Muslim societies is an inconvenient topic for the
intersectional mob, balancing feminism and anti-Christian sentiments. The extremely prominent
colorism of Latin American is inconvenient, balanced between an always uneasy coalition
between Latino and Black Americans.
"And if you cancel that out, you get a sort of boring and fearful conformity that is
inimical to a lively intellectual and artistic culture." In the old country, that was called
"the wooden tongue". You really can't do nothing with such an instrument...
"In moments of despair it had occurred to me that there was something of a medieval Dark Age
about the current mood: Extinction Rebellion with its child saints and the self-flagellating
Woke culture. Being given an apparently sound reason to disable the most notable manifestations
of that historical tradition which we are now being encouraged to denounce: what could be
better suited to the weird, vaguely hysterical, fashion of the times?
Fear may be the most dangerous contagion but I am coming around to the view that this is not
simple fear. It is a mass neurosis of which irrational and prolonged anxiety is a symptom: a
corrosive loss of confidence and understanding of one's role and identity which will, if it
prevails, ultimately undermine the quality of modern life more irrevocably than any virus.
It is not only our official cultural institutions that are at risk here. One of the most
fundamental principles of post-war liberal democracy is on trial – or, at least, coming
up for examination." The Telegraph
--------------
Yes, I know. I am becoming even more boring about this, but Daly has her finger on the
essence of the matter. The call to wokeness is a siren song enlisting neurotic adherence to
a cause that demands rejection of the world as we have known it and the creation of a utopian
cult that does not know its own creed.
That remains to emerge when the putative victors in the struggle for a woke world fall
upon each other for control. What would President Bidoharris do in such a circumstance?
IMO they would cave in and the street fanatics would rule a barren landscape that was once a
prosperous and well run country. pl
IMO, This phenomenon is not organic. Rather, it has been deliberately induced by the
enemies of democracy and of the US - some of these enemies are foreign powers, some are
foreign individuals and some are domestic, and of those, even within our own government.
Allies with a common objective for the time being.
The US govt began systematically developing mind control techniques in the 1950s that
built on the work of Bernays. Some of the programs were for controlling individuals (e.g.
MK-ULTRA) and some for controlling masses. Those programs have come to fruition and are being
applied to the US population. It's easy now with mass media, social media and everyone being
wired into their devices 24/7.
As much as the Democrats have a war room, that war room is taking orders from another one
that is higher up the chain of command, IMO.
The current panic/hysteria could be reversed or morphed into something more positive
within a year if the powers running this operation wanted it to be done, but they don't want
that. They want to wreak havoc and destruction. They make a James Bond villain look like
child's play.
A terrified world was ready to believe in the Zombie Apocalypse. What are the roots of
that predeliction?
"Covid" was not the trigger; only the spark that set off the tinder already gathered. Loss
of religion - substituting drugs for the pain of personal growth - broken families - mass
media - age of disinformation - retreats from the challenges of daily interpersonal
connection to interactions by choice behind the computer screens
Rollo May, in his book "Love and Will" nailed it in the 1960's - the Age of Aquarius will
become the Age of Addiction- life-affirming passion is being replaced by life-sapping
lust.
However, this describes only the malaise and our own choices to this this mainstream.
There are still incredible people out there that reject all of the above. As the 1960's
taught us, if we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. And part of the
problem may be tuning into the malaise ourselves and blocking out where the sunshine still
exists.
Mea culpa. Playing one of Eric Berne's Games People Play - "Ain't it Awful?"
What is the creed of the liberals, Colonel? Who are the liberal gods? Do you think the
problems facing western civilisation are a consequence of it turning its back on them? I have
a different thesis: The west didn't turn its back on the liberal gods. It embraced them
wholeheartedly, so much so it has now earned an audience with their prince, in his own abode
no less.
In the case of the ongoing George Fentanyl riots I would suggest that this is a mass
psychotic episode, caused by everything mentioned in the article plus drug use, especially
constant, long-term, vaporized marijuana use.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the worst of the rioting has occurred where
marijuana has either been legalized or effectively decriminalized.
You mean the Obamas and the Clintons? They do look a bit "alien" in the best sense of the
word. Barry rode a fantastic "train" of scholarships all the way to editor of the Harvard Law
Review. Michele and her brother were the beneficiaries of the Daly Machine's gratitude to her
father's role as a ward healer. This seems an amazing sequence of events in an indelibly
racist country.
Regarding the climatic aspects of it at least, there is some evidence in peer-reviewed
journals that there may be a Maunder Minimum beginning in the 2030, resulting in a
significant drop in average temperature. It's related to sunspot cycles. [Note: I'm citing a
popularization of it here:] https://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html
.
The detailed peer-reviewed article aboutmit in Nature is quite lengthy and technical.
Post 9-11, Dick Cheney pushed the One Percent Doctrine to justify invading Iraq - if there
is a one percent chance Saddam has nuclear weapons, the US must treat this as a 100%
chance.
This One Percent doctrine became widely discredited, and Ron Suskind wrote a book about it
- how indeed were government decisions made during the War on Terror?
How much of the One Percent Doctrine remains embedded in government decisions today, when
faced with the War on Covid? If it was discredited as the Cheney Doctrine as 100% overkill,
why is it still applied as our model for "covid" decision making?
Shut 100% down if there is a 1% risk -that some will die, and in fact some did die.
Shouldn't we be talking about this?
In the case of George Flloyd (et al) why has there been a pathologic avoidance in
virtually all media, right and left, to even mention resisting arrest and drug use as co
factors in these person's ultimate outcomes?
If one tried to raise these issues all one got back is "he did not deserve to die even if
he was a criminal high on drugs", "he did not deserve to be killed over passing a $20 bill"
......... that a death alone justifies the ongoing string of distortions.
What undergirds this intentional avoidance that prevents even the introduction of personal
responsibility for one's own outcomes? Liberal orthodoxy California-style requires only
blame; and shuns any possible hint that one set their own fate in motion by their own
choices. This bleeding hear overkill is oppressive.
The cult of victimization - is it now found in 99% of our society? Please, November 3,
show me I am wrong. Of course, my mind set is distorted by living in California. Asking for
personal responsibility is thee quickest way to get canceled and censored on any local blog
out here.
I vaguely remember when personal responsibility was a fundamental tenant of American life.
It was certainly the hall mark of my own growing up in the 1950's. In California.: When did
this change so dramatically? Was it LBJ and The Great Society?
Who was it that said fate is what life hands you; destiny is what you do with it. Fate is
being born a certain race, in a certain neighborhood to certain parents, or lack of them.
Destiny is certainly what one chooses to do with that fate. And well evidenced by the recent
RNC testimonies. Bravo.
The gist of this article;
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/schiff-pelosi-livid-after-intel-community-ditches-manipulated-election-briefings-written
Seems to be the marriage of convenience between the democrats and the intelligence community
is starting to fray, as the lightbulb over the head of the intelligence people has turned on,
that sticking to the, "Hillary as the rightful one," narrative for the last four years was
too many eggs in one basket and now they will be throwing the democrats under the bus.
Anyone sensing similar?
Does the 1955 Alan Ginbsurg beat poem "HowL" have any relevance to what is going on today?
Does "Rebel Without a Cause" speak the same message - rage, undefined, diffuse generational
rage .....at something.
Howl
BY ALLEN GINSBERG
For Carl Solomon
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in
the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness
of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on
tenement roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light
tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes on the windows
of the skull,
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burning their money in wastebaskets and
listening to the Terror through the wall,
who got busted in their pubic beards returning through Laredo with a belt of marijuana for
New York,
who ate fire in paint hotels or drank turpentine in Paradise Alley, death, or purgatoried
their torsos night after night
with dreams, with drugs, with waking nightmares, alcohol and cock and endless balls,
incomparable blind streets of shuddering cloud and lightning in the mind leaping toward
poles of Canada & Paterson, illuminating all the motionless world of Time between,
Peyote solidities of halls, backyard green tree cemetery dawns, wine drunkenness over the
rooftops, storefront boroughs of teahead joyride neon blinking traffic light, sun and moon
and tree vibrations in the roaring winter dusks of Brooklyn, ashcan rantings and kind king
light of mind,
who chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on
benzedrine until the noise of wheels and children brought them down shuddering mouth-wracked
and battered bleak of brain all drained of brilliance in the drear light of Zoo,..........
(etc, etc, etc)
Pat..come on. Tweaking the Obamas, Clintons and me the Cone Head Family are other
subjects. I was addressing your inference that the Trump family is running the country in a
well and prosperous manner. Hardly. Running the country on an overnight 4 trillion dollar
plus credit card charge and dribbling out dixi cups Less Taxes Kool Aid is pushing the
standard definition of a well run prosperous country.
It is the Democrat congressional party that wants to spend more funny money than Trump and
you know very well that if it had not been for the carefully encouraged CODIV panic and
shutdown the country would be hugely prosperous and Trump would have clear sailing to
re-election. As I have said before, I am quite good at taking a Le Carre style back-azimuth.
There is an ops room somewhere running The Resistance, always has been and at the bottom of
that chamber pot are painted familiar faces.
written by daniel
mcadams wednesday august 26, 2020
It was one of the most notorious cases of 'cancel culture' gone crazy. A young high school
student was relentlessly bullied and character-assassinated by the mainstream media because he
wore a MAGA hat while a bully screamed in his face. Nicholas Sandmann turned the tables and
walked away with millions of dollars after suing the media outlets that slandered him. But is
"cancel culture" going away? Or is it getting more violent? Watch today's Liberty Report:
"... White Fragility is the kind of book that can be written in two months, read in two days, and forgotten in two hours, but Robin DiAngelo's text is also a deeply pernicious piece of work, utterly contemptuous of the "normie" ..."
"... Whites it aims to convert to a more radical form of racial self-abnegation than they currently demonstrate. In fact, the work is so hostile and ideologically loaded that it can't help but present a kind of dialectic, wherein certain truths are revealed in spite of itself. As such, I have to confess that I learned something from White Fragility , even if it isn't what DiAngelo had in mind. ..."
"... In short, White Fragility is a horrifying call for Whites not simply to be paralyzed by White guilt, but to become active participants in their decline, and willing accomplices in their political and demographic destruction. ..."
"... I think this is a beautiful indictment of the demonstrative and showy nature of White anti-racists who simply love to engage in social theatrics in search of kudos, approval, and incentives without really understanding the deeper destructive meaning of anything they're doing. ..."
"... DiAngelo has contempt for people like this because they place all their energies into grandstanding instead of helping in the transfer of real power and wealth. I have contempt for them because they place all their energies into grandstanding for short-term personal benefits while stabbing their ancestors, contemporaries, and progeny in the back. ..."
"... It's important to bear in mind that we're still in the same totalitarian state that whacked JFK ..."
"... The purpose of removing Confederate symbols is to hide the commanding Zionist involvement in the slave trade business. This is the equivalent of using the Russian Collusion to hide the Zionist influence on the Trump election. ..."
"... Why is Critical Race Theory presented as The Absolute Truth? Not only is it not the truth, it isn't even a theory. ..."
Robin DiAngelo White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism Beacon
Press, 2018.
I first encountered Robin DiAngelo three years ago, during my
investigation of the Jewish origins and intellectual currents of Whiteness Studies.
DiAngelo was then just another relatively minor speaker and academic on the
university/consulting network in Whiteness Studies, and I was undecided then, and remain
undecided, as to whether DiAngelo is wholly, in part, or not at all Jewish. She didn't feature
in my essay at all, and, when I looked over my old notes a few days ago, she appeared only as a
name scribbled in the margins. As it happens, her ancestry is relatively inconsequential in
light of the fact that White Fragility , published in 2018 but reaching bestseller
status in the aftermath of George Floyd's death, is heavily and transparently influenced by
Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and
fortune. I don't make a habit of buying the texts of the opposition, but when certain of them
reach a significant level of academic or popular attention (look for it in your child's school
curriculum), it's probably necessary for someone among us to carry out some form of
intellectual reconnaissance, and to bring back for wider consideration the most essential of
the gathered information. This was
my approach to Jean-Paul Sartre's widely-read and overly-praised Anti-Semite and Jew
, and so, when I heard DiAngelo had managed to make herself a bestselling author, I headed to
my local bookstore, where dozens of copies had been helpfully stacked on a table devoted to
"in-demand" literature on race and racism.
My first action on picking up a copy of White Fragility was to turn to the
bibliography. I knew what I'd see, and it was a gratifying and familiar feeling to see so many
names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the
page like shunned relatives at a family reunion -- Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth
Frankenberg (described in White Fragility as "a premier white scholar in the field of
whiteness studies"), Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas
Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman.
These are DiAngelo's
mentors and intellectual forbears, and I could tell, scanning through this list of names and
works, that White Fragility was sure to boast very many references to "fellow Whites,"
and streams of inducements to abandon White ethnic interests.
These expectations weren't
disappointed. White Fragility is the kind of book that can be written in two months,
read in two days, and forgotten in two hours, but Robin DiAngelo's text is also a deeply
pernicious piece of work, utterly contemptuous of the "normie"
Whites it aims to convert to a
more radical form of racial self-abnegation than they currently demonstrate. In fact, the work
is so hostile and ideologically loaded that it can't help but present a kind of dialectic,
wherein certain truths are revealed in spite of itself. As such, I have to confess that I
learned something from White Fragility , even if it isn't what DiAngelo had in mind.
What is White Fragility?
"White Fragility," as a theory, is confirmation of my belief that inducing guilt in Whites
was never the end goal in itself. It's never simply been about making us feel bad about
ourselves or our ancestors. White Fragility, White guilt, and indeed Whiteness Studies as a
whole, is fundamentally about power. Those of you familiar with the New Testament will recall
the verse from John's third chapter, wherein John the Baptist declares that Christ "must
increase, but I must diminish." Power and influence never simply disappear, but rather
transfer. John (and it is entirely inconsequential whether you regard him as historical or
fictional) was aware that as a popular local mystic or holy man, his mere continued presence
was an obstacle to the local growth in power of Christ, and so he made a conscious decision to
diminish himself. Likewise, we are living in an age where Whites continue to have some social,
political, and economic power, but where large and growing numbers of non-Whites are seeking to
obtain what remains of this power. For them to "increase," it has been declared that we must
diminish. Whiteness Studies is fundamentally about making us willing and enthusiastic
participants in our own decline. When Blacks or Jews demand a reduction of, or end to, White
power or wealth, it means that they want that power or wealth. Despite all sloganeering, there
can be no equality in power among races. Not now, not ever; only ruthless and unceasing
competition.
White guilt, in itself, is certainly an act of psychological diminishment, but the message
of DiAngelo's text is fundamentally that this psychological diminishment has not led to a
desired correlation in material or structural diminishment. Whites merely feeling sorry for
themselves isn't enough for their competitors, if it isn't accompanied by a wholesale transfer
of power, land, and other resources. In this context, "White Fragility" is an indictment and
insult levelled at White progressives merely frozen by fear of racism accusations and White
guilt. In short, White Fragility is a horrifying call for Whites not simply to be
paralyzed by White guilt, but to become active participants in their decline, and willing
accomplices in their political and demographic destruction.
DiAngelo's introduction begins with accusation. America "began with the attempted genocide
of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of
kidnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendants." So far, so familiar. But the book very
quickly moves to an outline of the theory of White Fragility. I actually found this, and some
other chapters on the same theme, extremely interesting, because DiAngelo, and presumably other
Whiteness Studies activists, are keenly aware that Whites are peculiarly concerned with
morality and with appearing to be good people (all of which is very much in keeping with
the
arguments and research of Kevin MacDonald ). For example, DiAngelo writes on the fear White
progressives have of being perceived as racist: "We consider a challenge to our racial
worldview as a challenge to our very identities as good, moral people. Thus, we perceive any
attempt to connect us to the system of racism as an unsettling and unfair moral offence. One of
the greatest social fears for a white person is being told that we have said or done something
racially problematic."
Of course, the groundwork for the connections among White ethnocentrism
= Racism = Morally Bad were laid by Jewish academics over many decades. The problem for Jewish
activists and incentivized Whiteness Studies traitors is that this moral terror has resulted in
what they perceive to be paralysis and inaction.
Actual "racists" aren't really discussed in White Fragility , and where they are,
it's clear that they aren't the target of the title of the book. In fact, DiAngelo points out:
"Of course, some whites explicitly avow racism. We might consider these whites actually more
aware of, and honest about, their biases."
In other words, even if we're moral monsters in DiAngelo's eyes, we aren't "fragile." Again, because of the extremes of the some of the
dialectics here, certain truths emerge. DiAngelo remarks early in the book that "race matters,"
something that many of our readers would agree with, even if it's from a slightly different
angle than the author intends. She also argues that:
All humans have prejudice; we cannot avoid it. People who claim not to be prejudiced are
demonstrating a profound lack of self-awareness. Ironically, they are also demonstrating the
power of socialization -- we have all been taught in schools, through movies, and from family
members, teachers, and clergy that it is important not to be prejudiced. Everyone has
prejudice, and everyone discriminates.
I couldn't agree more: Whites have been uniquely affected by mass propaganda designed to
brainwash them into viewing as morally evil something that is natural and instinctive to all
humans.
The real targets of this book are White progressives who profess anti-racism, and because I
also possess many frustrations in relation to this demographic, I couldn't help but agree with
some of DiAngelo's characterizations. Take, for example, this gem:
I believe that white progressives cause the most daily damage to people of color. I define
a white progressive as any white person who thinks he or she is not racist, or is less
racist, or in the "choir," or already "gets it." White progressives can be the most difficult
for people of color because, to the degree that we think we have arrived, we will put our
energy into making sure that others see us having arrived. [emphasis added]
I think this is a beautiful indictment of the demonstrative and showy nature of White
anti-racists who simply love to engage in social theatrics in search of kudos, approval, and
incentives without really understanding the deeper destructive meaning of anything they're
doing.
DiAngelo has contempt for people like this because they place all their energies into
grandstanding instead of helping in the transfer of real power and wealth. I have contempt for
them because they place all their energies into grandstanding for short-term personal benefits
while stabbing their ancestors, contemporaries, and progeny in the back.
The book's first chapter, "The Challenges of Talking to White People About Race," is devoted
to convincing White progressives that they are in fact racist, and that they need to become
better allies in their own racial destruction. The message here is quasi-spiritual; Whites are
told that their quest for racial redemption will be lifelong, lasting until the day they die.
Their existence is an ontological problem, the only solution to which is an endless quest to
compensate for simply existing:
Interrupting the forces of racism is ongoing, lifelong work because the forces
conditioning us into racist frameworks are always at play; our learning will never be
finished.
I really wish more White moral grandstanders would understand that, ultimately, they will
never be given a "pass" by our enemies once they've accrued enough kudos, or groveled enough,
or displayed enough platform sympathy with Blacks, or any other ethnicity that happens to be
Victim of the Month. They will only ever be temporary tools, held in contempt as much for their
weakness as their whiteness.
Another interesting feature of the chapter is its attack on White individualism, presented
here as a myth that prevents Whites from taking collective responsibility for alleged
historical wrongs. For DiAngelo,
Individualism is a story line that creates, communicates, reproduces, and reinforces the
concept that each of us is a unique individual and that our group memberships, such as race,
class, or gender, are irrelevant.
DiAngelo's problem with White individualism is that it's a barrier to White guilt, and also
a barrier to Whites perceiving alleged advantages in employment and social advancement in a
society in which they enjoy a demographic majority. Again, due to the dialectic at play, I
happen to agree that individualism among Whites is a problem in certain contexts. It's just
that in my perspective it's a barrier to the explicit assertion of White ethnic interests and
collective action in pursuit of those interests. In fact, without widespread awareness of an
ethnic threat, it seems almost impossible to convince Whites to see themselves as a group and
to act as one. A further obstacle to White ethnocentrism is decades of social conditioning in
which Jewish propaganda is dominant. Even DiAngelo concedes that "reflecting on our racial
frames is particularly challenging for white people, because we are taught that to have a
racial viewpoint is to be biased." Unfortunately, DiAngelo doesn't ask who did the "teaching"
in this regard, and she certainly doesn't consider the broader implications of what she's
saying.
In the second chapter, "Racism and White Supremacy," DiAngelo trots out the "race is a
social construct" trope, with footnotes for her claims leading invariably to a section of
bibliography that reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list. Black academic Ibram Kendi is
quoted as arguing that "if we truly believe that all humans are equal, then disparity in
condition can only be the result of systemic discrimination." I agree, but I think the problem
isn't systemic discrimination but the belief that all humans are equal. Eliminate that belief
and disparity in condition is neither surprising nor subject matter for conspiratorial
conjecture. But alternative theories and beliefs like mine don't feature in DiAngelo's book,
which has the air of a religious text, and issues utterances with an authority that demands
faith rather than reason. There is an interesting section in the chapter denying that there can
be an anti-White racism, with DiAngelo remarking:
People of color may also hold prejudices and discriminate against white people, but they
lack the social and institutional power that transforms their prejudice and discrimination
into racism; the impact of their prejudice on whites is temporary and contextual.
Let's set aside that horrific last statement, and focus for a moment on the unstated premise
underlying the first. Isn't it more or less the stated goal of "Whiteness studies," White
guilt, the theory of "White Fragility," Black Lives Matter, and the massive power of
multicultural propaganda to lead to the further diminishment of White social and institutional
power? As stated at the outset of this review, this power is destined for the hands of ethnic
interlopers. We know full well which of these ethnic groups will take the lion's share of that
power, because they have their hands on most of it already. The question is therefore: why
should Whites hand what remains of their social and institutional power to hostile groups that
will unquestionably ensure that their prejudice is enacted on Whites in a way that is far from
"temporary and contextual"? What possible incentive could adequately convince Whites to sign up
to such a Devil's pact? Isn't the entirety of White guilt built on a psychotic and
media-induced fantasy -- the idea that if Whites would just give up all remaining power in
their hands the world would enter an age of racial peace and harmony? DiAngelo doesn't even
touch on areas like this, preferring instead to subject the reader to a steady stream of
meaningless gibberish, such as a lengthy rumination on the theories of Ruth Frankenberg who, we
are told, gave birth to such dazzling notions as "whiteness is multidimensional." DiAngelo then
caps the chapter by treating us to the heights of Jamaican philosophy, where one Charles W.
Mills advances a conspiracy theory titled "the racial contract" which involves:
A tacit and sometimes explicit agreement among members of the peoples of Europe to assert,
promote, and maintain the ideal of white supremacy in relation to all other people of the
world. It is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world what it is
today.
And there you have it -- this Jamaican genius has discovered the Protocols of the Elders
of Europa .
Charles W. Mills: A Caribbean Socrates
The same themes are repeated in the third chapter, "Racism After the Civil Rights Movement."
DiAngelo again attacks "fragile" Whites who claim to be color-blind, pointing out that they
merely believe that it's racist to acknowledge race and therefore flee into a denial of
reality. The only real novelty in the chapter, and one I found highly entertaining, was
DiAngelo's list of racist behaviors exhibited by fragile Whites. These include "acting nice"
and "being careful not to use racial terms or labels." But such phrasing is all the rage now,
as in the New York Times podcast series " Nice White
Parents " which explores hypocrisy among progressive Whites expressing all manner of
liberal pieties -- but moving heaven and earth to avoid sending their children to schools with
large numbers of POC.
The next chapter, "How Does Race Shape the Lives of White People?," is probably the
strangest of the book because, if DiAngelo is indeed White (and not someone with some Jewish
ancestry), then it represents a very disturbing and irrational detachment from reality and
common sense. For s start, DiAngelo seems to view even the mundane aspects of White ethnic
homogeneity as pathological. She writes:
As I move through my daily life, my race is unremarkable. I belong when I turn on the TV,
read best-selling novels, and watch blockbuster movies. I belong when I walk past the
magazine racks at the grocery store or drive past billboards. I belong when I see the
overwhelming number of white people on lists of the "Most Beautiful." I belong when I look at
my teachers, counsellors, and classmates. I belong when I learn about the history of my
country throughout the year and when I am shown its heroes and heroines -- George Washington,
Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Amelia Earhart, Susan B. Anthony, John
Glenn, Sally Ride, and Louisa May Alcott
All of this is presented as negative and sinister, to which one can only ask: what is the
alternative? To hand over one's nation and territory to others, so that you can cease to
belong? What then? DiAngelo comments:
It is rare for me to experience a sense of not belonging racially, and these are usually
very temporary, easily avoidable situations. Indeed, throughout my life, I have been warned
that I should avoid situations in which I might be a racial minority. These situations are
often presented as scary, dangerous, or "sketchy."
I can't image why. What I do suggest is that in order to help clarify her theoretical
framework, Robin DiAngelo should, with all reasonable haste, relocate to an area in which she
is most certainly not going to belong racially. Since she views "un-belonging" with great
enthusiasm, while confessing she has no real experience on which to base this view, she should
find the Blackest of Black areas and spend some quality time there -- time that isn't
"temporary, easily avoidable." I think, in the course of such an experiment, she will truly,
honestly, encounter some helpful folks that will be only too glad to show her how fragile she
can be.
By far the most entertaining chapter of the book comes within the last 50 pages. Titled
"White Women's Tears," it's an indictment of that infamous sight -- bawling, wailing, and
normally overweight White women clutching themselves in feverish grief over the death of some
poor Black gangbanger who just happened to get shot while rushing a police officer. DiAngelo is
probably correct in asserting that this is a self-indulgent demonstrative act designed to
heighten status ("I'm moral, good, and empathetic") and get attention from men of all races
("I'm vulnerable right now, and need attention and resources"). Some of the anecdotes in this
regard, from DiAngelo's "Whiteness" seminars are priceless, normally involving some weak-minded
woman breaking down at the revelation she's "racist," and they went some way to compensating me
for the purchase price and hideous ideology of the book. Above all, they confirmed to be that
what we see unfold before us is both tragedy and farce, and that our situation is no less
dangerous for that:
A black man struggling to express a point referred to himself as stupid. My
co-facilitator, a black woman, gently countered that he was not stupid but that society would
have him believe that he was. As she was explaining the power of internalized racism, a white
woman interrupted with, "I think what he was trying to say was " When my co-facilitator
pointed out that the white woman had reinforced the racist idea that she could best speak for
a black man, the woman erupted in tears. The training came to a complete halt as most of the
room rushed to comfort her and angrily accused the black facilitator of unfairness.
Meanwhile, the black man she had spoken for was left alone to watch her receive comfort.
Conclusion
DiAngelo scathingly remarks on incidents like this that "when we are mired in guilt, we are
narcissistic and ineffective." Essentially, the new direction of Whiteness Studies and its
intellectual corollaries will be to wean Whites away from demonstrative habits of virtue
signaling and into active participation in racial decline. We can expect to see in the near
future (and we already to some extent have with the Black Lives Matter riots) a greater
emphasis on Whites becoming active "anti-racists." It will become increasingly difficult for
Whites to appear simply as "not racist." Active, enthusiastic activity on behalf of the ethnic
power-grab will be demanded, and anything less will be portrayed with disdain as "fragility."
DiAngelo concludes her book with the blunt assertion that "a positive white identity is an
impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the
system of white supremacy." White identity is therefore to be destroyed wholesale, and White
ethnic interests crushed alongside it. DiAngelo proclaims with all the vigor of the subversive
or the brainwashed that she will "strive for a less white identity, for my own liberation and
sense of justice."
Liberation and justice. These words were uttered a long time ago in France. The beheadings
started soon after.
It's important to bear in mind that we're still in the same totalitarian state that
whacked JFK and then published shitloads of wistful essays on what that says about "us," by bignosed perv John Updike, by fudge-packing toff Mick Jagger, after all, "it was you and me,"
and everybody in between. The pressure to take the blame for state predation is a constant of
state-imposed American culture. Fuck that shit.
So of course some apple-polishing Jew or wop academic is going to tell us that it's not
cops and prosecutors and prisons fucking jigs over, it's you and me. The proper response to
this is Go fuck yourself. It's not me shooting jigs, strangling them, torturing them, framing
them, and locking them up to work for ten cents a day. It's this state that fucks them over,
not me. All I'm ever gonna do for blacks is destroy and shitcan this kleptocratic police
state, which fucks me over too, just somewhat less.
The purpose of removing Confederate symbols is to hide the commanding Zionist involvement
in the slave trade business. This is the equivalent of using the Russian Collusion to hide the Zionist influence on the
Trump election.
"I don't make a habit of buying the texts of the opposition, but when certain of them
reach a significant level of academic or popular attention (look for it in your child's
school curriculum), it's probably necessary for someone among us to carry out some form of
intellectual reconnaissance, and to bring back for wider consideration the most essential of
the gathered information."
Thank you for doing so. I myself have occasionally struggled with this same issue, i.e.,
the need to finance such people in order to access their material in full for the purpose of
a crafting a more fully informed critique of their ideas.
Robin DiAngelo has obviously rehearsed in her mind and put in book form the black
ass-kissing she'd launch into if she somehow found herself, say, getting on the wrong subway
in NY and having to get off in Harlem where the blacks mind-read her hatred and smell her
fear. It's her version of Monsters From the Id , or about overcoming–not white
European relations with their fellow black Americans–but her psychotic Jewish paranoia
over blacks one day recognizing how they've been played for fools by Jews like her and, with
eyes darting left and right a mile a minute, wheedling her way out of being given the South
African ritual by a gang of blacks with machetes. What a pathetic and paranoid little woman.
But for the Jewish MSM and publishing monopoly she'd have no more public existence than the
imaginary black boogeymen tormenting her psyche. Oy vey, the book's so clever and shmart that
she and her promoters didn't imagine blacks are intelligent enough to see this outrageous
insult of them not as a reflection on their relations with white Europeans, but as just more
condescending manipulation by the Jews.
My first action on picking up a copy of White Fragility was to turn to the bibliography.
I knew what I'd see, and it was a gratifying and familiar feeling to see so many names from
my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like
shunned relatives at a family reunion -- Noel Ignatiev
.. heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the
field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.
These are DiAngelo's mentors and intellectual forbears ..
The abolitionists of the 19th c. were passionate, energetic people whose relentless
agitation was a huge annoyance to political elites including Lincoln. The abolitionists were
nearly exclusively white, Enlightenment progressives, Christian or post-Christian. They bore
costs and took risks to set up and run the underground railroad. They are the pioneers, and
their efforts had a far more significant bearing on the future of USA race relations than the
1960's and later black and Jewish activists.
The author knows this, and omits it, thereby commiting a vile act of revisionism.
I you have a problem giving money to these people – and I certainly do myself and
wish to discourage others from doing so too – you can simply get the book from a
library, either public, or online via Library Genesis (which should cover most popular new
book needs and more besides – certainly I've found all the recently recommended
anti-white propaganda texts there).
I keep telling you people that White Chad Envy drives this effort to discredit America's
founders, especially the ones who owned slaves. It took a high-testosterone badass to enslave
Negroes and make them productive on his farm, and the white men who pulled this off had no
trouble finding white women who wanted to marry them and bear their children. Young single
and widowed white women in the British Isles and mainland European countries would even cross
the Atlantic on their own initiative to find these men to marry, sight unseen, despite the
notion that women in the era before female emancipation faced restrictions on their agency.
And despite the modern nonsense that white women show "empathy" with the "oppressed," when
they side with and select sexually the ones doing the "oppressing."
Those white men put today's soft, fear-ridden, risk-averse, often women-repelling white
American men to shame. Nothing about their record suggests "fragility" in the least.
Do black women cry as much as white women do? I was thinking about this in regards to the
quote about a white woman being comforted for crying, and I realized that I cannot recall
ever hearing black men complain about how much women cry.
Many of the abolitionists wanted to end slavery as a necessary first step in removing
Negroes from the country. They didn't necessarily want free Negroes hanging around after
their emancipation.
@Anonymous
Thanks for the link, I'd have missed it.
Delighted that this termite died in pain:
What killed Ignatiev, an intestinal blockage, is perfect justice and proves that God
does indeed have a sense of humor.
Interesting coincidence that he worked steel, at least in part, the same time I did. Not
in the same place, but my guess is he found blowing hot air at the Ivy League a lot more
profitable.
Connections! Fellow fragiles, we got to work on that. No way a mere white guy could have
pulled that off, not then, not ever.
Why buy a text and – through this voluntary act – sponsor the author and
his/her (almost certainly) jewish agent and publisher?
If you have the urge to read the poison of the enemy (I don't, since everything they write
is so predictable and thus boring, and new depths of depravity and dishonesty can easily be
noticed, if you are half-aware on sites like these), obtain it through other means.
I have read several good summaries/criticisms of White Fragility lately. Even
though current events led me down a path of exploring some pretty racist ideas, it all just
seems like a taboo more than anything. One of the last taboos in our culture the power to
really rile people up (mostly young white women who seem to be terrified of black men but
don't like to admit it). I am old enough to remember when being "gay" was still a taboo,
where people wouldn't just come out and admit they were gay. And then I have witnessed to
complete transformation of that taboo into a socially accepted, celebrated part of life. I am
also old enough to remember when someone having a black boyfriend would have been hilarious
and weird.
With race, there are a lot of intellectual tricks being played on people. For one thing, I
grew up when almost everyone in America was white. Since almost everyone was white, and
advertising was designed to appeal to people in demographically correct ways, I was subjected
to millions and millions of repetitions of white people in Ads buying things, to the point of
naturally coming to see white people as occupying certain positions in the capitalist
framework. Whiteness wasn't the primary aim of that repetitive advertising but the
expectation to see a white person in a certain way emerged naturally because I am white and
the ads were targeted to influence me. So now when I see ads where everyone is
demographically switched around, where, for example, a black woman is a car mechanic and
white guy is a mom, etc etc it's jarring. It's intentionally jarring. It's like they don't
want me to see the product or service being advertised but rather they want me to have an
experience of cognitive dissonance. But then I realize I am not the target of that ad at
all.
Which brings me to my point
Minimize your engagement with media and you will find that almost all of these topics
evaporate into thin air. News shows especially. With America's demographics changing,
everyone in the media and politics is scrambling to create content that is relevant to new
demographics, i.e. not you. So it all seems weird and jarring. If you just turn it off,
because it's not relevant to you anyway, you will find that you actually couldn't care less
if the hiring committee of some college a thousand miles away is trying to recruit a
wheel-chair bound Hispanic transgendered person for diversity and stuff like that.
We are also seeing the last gasp of these super conservative geezers who used to dominate
America as businessmen and local government Elks Club types where they would never hire a
long-haired guy with tattoos to do any kind of job, let alone a black person. These
last-gaspers still have a lot of money and influence in conservative media because they are
basically just sitting at home watching daytime tv or listening to Sirius XM all day.
So, racism is a taboo. Fine. I enjoy that taboo sometimes. Who really cares? Practically
no one outside of media, where people are hyping up this issue to get clicks and capture
attention. In real life almost no one I know really cares about any of this stuff.
The internet has birthed this ghoul and now it has a life in your mind. Just tune out. You
give it power by continuing to feed the frenzy online.
Yes, Richard B, D'Angelo's manipulation technique is closely related to the "Verbal Judo"
method taught to asshole cops: while coercing a citizen, obtrude random verbal chaff implying
options or choice to make the citizen internalize submission. Asshole cops take these methods
home to abuse their battered wives and fucked-up kids.
And yes, exactly, just like our asshole police awfisser, soon our asshole police state is
going to go home and take some stolen percocets and eat a gun. Good. Fuck the USA. Its
predation on blacks (and browns and whites) has got nothing to do with me.
Her point is well taken that "white supremacy" is not simply about white vs black but "it
is also the small number of rich whites over the much larger number of poor and working class
whites. In return for a guarantee that the latter group of whites will suffer the many
calamities of life afflicting working people in a capitalist society less intensely and less
frequently than do black people and people of color, the poor and working class whites will
not challenge the rule of the rich."
"White Fragility," as a theory, is confirmation of my belief that inducing guilt in
Whites was never the end goal in itself. It's never simply been about making us feel bad
about ourselves or our ancestors. White Fragility, White guilt, and indeed Whiteness
Studies as a whole, is fundamentally about power.
This quote is the heart of yet another great essay from Andrew Joyce.
Regarding The PQ – Power Question, not only does Jewish Supremacy Inc. (JSI) and its
Proxies demand to be,
but they have the power to effectuate those insane demands.
Thereby invalidating their claims about White power.
Worse, since Whites as a race have never once made those same demands, JSI also
invalidates their claims that the exercise of White power has been unjust.
DiAngelo's book isn't a courageous, honest, and intelligent search for the truth.
It's a cowardly, dishonest and unintelligent demand for power.
It's just another deposit of The Slave Revolt In Moralty.
JSI is simply too Hoax Dependent and Scapegoat-Driven to ever be able to exercise the
power they demand, and for the most part have, in a way that demonstrates a responsible
commitment to reality.
In other words, JSI represents the greatest danger, not just to Whites, but to humanity
itself.
That's why they're now declaring self-defense to be an act of terrorism.
For this reason and many others
Treason Against Jewish Supremacy Is Loyalty To Humanity
@advancedatheist
narrowly escaped lynching on Boston Common. For all the noise their leaders made,
Abolitionism was never more than a politically impotent lunatic fringe movement. But its
isolated firebrands provided a convenient imaginary enemy, like today's "terrorists", to
suppress dissent and command obedience in a white southern population that was growing
increasingly restive under the aristocratic rule of the slaveholding elite. It's one of the
great ironies of our history that the radicals so masterfully capitalized on the patriotic
rage that followed the insurgent attack on Old Glory at Sumter to push their agenda through
Congress and into law.
@anon
mention of the grim statistics of Black-on-Black violence. It doesn't fit The Narrative, you
see.
The government exists to truly make everyone equal. Does this man have only one leg? Then
we'll cut the leg off the man who has two. If we can't give a leg to the one-legged man, at
least then both men are equal. Silly, yes. But isn't this, in a nutshell, the ideology of the
current elite? Are some people too stupid to pass various types of qualification tests? Why,
then we'll just lower the bar until anybody, even a snake, can step over it! Or better yet,
just abolish the pretense of objective standards entirely and be done with it.
Andrew Joyce pens another penetrating article. Overrated and privileged snowflakes like
Robin DiAngelo deserve to be downgraded. Odious skunks such as Noel Ignatiev deserve to be
repudiated and disgraced. This article gets us moving in the proper direction. Thank you,
Andrew Joyce!
I learned from countless "I'm OK, You're OK" boomers that there's a wonderful feeling of
liberation and release from acknowledging and accepting your feelings and exorcising the
guilt for being who you are.
And you know, they were right. Countless white folks right now are at the point where they
can (at least privately) say "well, OK, so I am racist" and discover that they are still
perfectly good people. Or even make them realize that being regarded as a "bad person" frees
them to consider a lot of previously forbidden possibilities to reclaim their self-worth and
agency.
Books like this will actually help some people see the choice that is being forced on
them, and choose an alternative to the proffered solution.
After all, we made it through years of Prohibition only to realize that alcohol need not
be either illegal or immoral, if you're not. And drinking is far less natural to humans than
racism.
I would like to explain to Professor West a few things about this dread supremacy:
We have White Supremacy, Professor, because for 2500 years we, whites, have produced the
best minds on the planet, the greatest flourishing of the arts and sciences ever seen, the
most complex and organized societies. We have White Supremacy, whatever exactly it may be,
because we have been the earth's most successful race. No other has come close. Deal with
it.
We put probes on Mars and invented the thousands of technologies needed to do it. We
developed the symphony orchestra, the highest form of musical expression. We invented the
airplane, the computer, the internet, and tennis shoes. Putting it compactly, we invented the
modern world. A degree of privilege, however you may conceive it, goes with the
territory.
Blacks may not have the background to grasp the extent of our achievements. Still, permit
me a brief and very incomplete list of things white people have done or invented:
Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry.
Differential geometry. Calculus: Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical
chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle.
The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque
architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever
written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth
root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The
purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio.
Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening.
Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The
integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The
Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber.
Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that's nerve gas, and
maybe we didn't really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like
clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key
cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.
As a race, Cornel, we are happy for you, for anyone, to enjoy the benefits of our
civilization, but that is exactly what it is–our civilization. It has become a global
civilization because others among the competent–again, Chinese, Japanese, Indians,
Koreans–have found it to be in technical matters superior. It came from us. They, I
note, do not complain of White Supremacy or White Privilege. They are too busy making
computers and money.
Now, Cornel, I have often heard blacks demanding reparations for slavery. All right. I
agree. It is only fair. I will pay a half-million dollars to each of my slaves, and free them
immediately. I am not sure how many I have, but will try to give you an estimate in even
dozens. Further, I believe that all blacks are entitled to a similar amount for every year in
which they were slaves.
However, I think you owe us royalties for the use of our civilization, which can be
regarded as a sort of software. There should be a licensing fee. After all, every time you
use a computer, or a door knob, you are using something invented by us. Every time you
sharpen a pencil, or use one, or read or write, you infringe our copyright, so to speak. We
have spent millennia coming up with things–literacy, soap, counting–and it is
only fair that we receive recompense.
@Anon
of blackest cities in the Western World, so your theory is wrong.
But I agree you are submitting to peer pressure to adopt a certain point of view that you
call "anti-racist". Like how people used to go to Church and meet their their girlfriends,
it's pure lip service to the ideology. People conform outwardly and rebel inwardly. That's
always true of totalitarian systems of thought. The idea that everyone is going to keep
putting up with indulging these boring conversations about black people is absurd. Eventually
people get tired of playing along.
Thank you for reminding me to ignore Anon comments.
Amusing to see that the leftists understand it backwards. The poor whites unionise and try
to wrest better conditions from the rich whereas the blacks, the hispanics and other
immigrants sabotage them by accepting to work for worse conditions. Their refusal to join the
white unions or to create their own racialised unions and cooperating with white unions harms
the working class enormously.
I found highly entertaining, was DiAngelo's list of racist behaviors exhibited by
fragile Whites. These include "acting nice" and "being careful not to use racial terms or
labels."
According to the endarkened academic not using racial terms and acting nice is a symptom
of racism. But acting nasty towards coloured people and using slurs is also a symptom of
racism. So whites have no means of not being racist. What can they do then ? Logically they
should embrace the inner racist and establish a form of apartheid
The propaganda spewed by the endarkened academic is nothing new. 15 years ago some French
feminist journalist stated that men who fuck women of a different race are racist because
they assert their domination over that race through the bodies of the women. A few lines
further she stated that men who fuck white women only are racist because they remain closed
to the richness of experience brought by coloured women. Amen. Embrace the inner racist that
the woke believe lurks in you.
"... Among Americans without a high school diploma, for example, 27 percent self-censor. Among Americans who completed high school, this goes up to 34 percent. And among those who have attended college for at least a few years, 45 percent do. This suggests that Americans are socialized into learning to keep their mouth shut: the longer you spend in the educational system, the more you learn that it is appropriate to express some views, but not others. ..."
"... The implicit claim is that the good people, or at least the people with good taste and good manners, will abuse the bad people out of power is the social media version of "The King's advisors are corrupt!" The political "analysis" which reduces everything to the personal malice of your enemies and their conspiracies and all we need to do is the same politics that says all we need is good Christian leaders, except the morally trivial difference of who "we" are deemed to be. ..."
"... using the immoral methods you advocate is actively immoral in itself. Like Heinlein in Starship Troopers arguing that the whipping post was actually fairer, you're arguing the social media equivalent of pillory and stocks are fairer! ..."
"... reducing the whole issue of the current reliance on moral scandals about individuals in lieu of any principled politics to nothing more than the personal pique of the privileged (who alleged power is as likely to be imaginary as real, incidentally,) by waving away the problems, this is exactly what you are endorsing. ..."
I am sure that people restricting what they say because of a fear of ostracism is a thing
that happens, but there's no reason to suppose that this is restricted to liberals, or more
common among liberals
@147; @150: There is, apparently, some
recent data on
this. According to a survey conducted in 2019, a full 40% of Americans "don't feel free to
speak their minds." (The corresponding figures were 48% in 2015, and 13% in 1954, at the height
of McCarthyism. There are no figures for 2020.) Other relevant findings from that study: equal
numbers of R and D voters feel unable to speak their minds; but uneasiness about speaking
freely correlates most strongly with higher levels of education:
Among Americans without a high school diploma, for example, 27 percent self-censor.
Among Americans who completed high school, this goes up to 34 percent. And among those who
have attended college for at least a few years, 45 percent do. This suggests that Americans
are socialized into learning to keep their mouth shut: the longer you spend in the
educational system, the more you learn that it is appropriate to express some views, but not
others.
This finding (if valid) would seem to vindicate the functionalist interpretation of
self-censorship laid out by @150: that its purpose is to control the range of expression
permissible within the college-educated, broadly liberal PMC.
The figure in the Persuasion piece suggests that it's based on a longer paper. If
it's
this one , then it's still a preprint. But, still: at least something to go on.
I see this kind of thing multiple times every day. I suppose because these reviewers
haven't yet been shot and killed, this isn't really "cancel culture," not serious, I'm making
it up.
There is some strenuous gaslighting going on in this thread.
Jerry Vinokurov@143 wrote: "I'm sorry, I genuinely do not understand what you mean to say
here."
How curious Well then, to be blunt, defending "dragged on Twitter" is defending a storm of
abuse as useful political speech, which is ridiculous. It's defending the storm of abuse by
gamers of women, for one thing. Pretending it's not because those kind of people only want to
pretend this kind of rotten politics is only a problem when people they perceive as "left" do
it, doesn't change that. The same tactics used by the right too, for example, demonize Hilary
Clinton for thirty years may not be called PC or cancel culture, but that's what it is.
The implicit claim is that the good people, or at least the people with good taste and
good manners, will abuse the bad people out of power is the social media version of "The
King's advisors are corrupt!" The political "analysis" which reduces everything to the
personal malice of your enemies and their conspiracies and all we need to do is the same
politics that says all we need is good Christian leaders, except the morally trivial
difference of who "we" are deemed to be.
Moral reformation by abuse is not going to work. Frankly, the actual irrelevance of this
to ownership of the country is one reason why it is allowed, a way to neuter real opposition.
It prevents solidarity between the lowers, while fostering illusions about select masters.
Wasn't there some guy who actually wrote about the Obama presidency under the title We Were
Eight Years in Power?
And, by the way, if politics were simply just personal morality, then using the
immoral methods you advocate is actively immoral in itself. Like Heinlein in Starship
Troopers arguing that the whipping post was actually fairer, you're arguing the social media
equivalent of pillory and stocks are fairer!
You think for some reason stuff like some guy pulling a Norwegian flag because somebody
complained about a Confederate flag being displayed isn't a problem? Even worse, you really
think pulling Confederate flags is a real solution to anything? You think a judge who ruled
that Ashley Judd could sue Harvey Weinstein for retaliation and defamation (as in
blacklisting her,) but couldn't sue him for employer harassment when she wasn't his employee
should be purged from the judiciary? And that of course a judge should rule that Judd should
be able to sue him for employer abuse when she wasn't employed by him because that will allow
fishing expeditions into every employee's work history? You think the movie An Office and A
Spy should be canceled but that doesn't make you an anti-Dreyfusard?
Probably the pretense is that none of this was intended. But reducing the whole issue
of the current reliance on moral scandals about individuals in lieu of any principled
politics to nothing more than the personal pique of the privileged (who alleged power is as
likely to be imaginary as real, incidentally,) by waving away the problems, this is exactly
what you are endorsing.
"... You're not allowed to criticise it. And therefore, if you offer even a fairly mild criticism, it really does sound strident, because it violates this expectation that religion is out of bounds. ..."
Parental reports (on social media) of friend clusters exhibiting signs of gender dysphoria [1-4]
and increased exposure to social media/internet preceding a child’s announcement of a trans-
gender identity [1-2,9] raise the possibility of social and peer influences. In developmental psy-
chology research, impacts of peers and other social influences on an individual’s development
are sometimes described using the terms peer contagion and social contagion, respectively. The
use of "contagion" in this context is distinct from the term’s use in the study of infectious dis-
ease, and furthermore its use as an established academic concept throughout this article is not
meant in any way to characterize the developmental process, outcome, or behavior as a disease
or disease-like state, or to convey any value judgement. Social contagion [29] is the spread of
affect or behaviors through a population. Peer contagion, in particular, is the process where an
individual and peer mutually influence each other in a way that promotes emotions and behav-
iors that can potentially have negative effects on their development [30]. Peer contagion has
been associated with depressive symptoms, disordered eating, aggression, bullying, and drug
use [30-31]. Internalizing symptoms such as depression can be spread via the mechanisms of
co-rumination, which entails the repetitive discussion of problems, excessive reassurance seek-
ing (ERS), and negative feedback [30, 32-34]. Deviancy training, which was first described for
rule breaking, delinquency, and aggression, is the process whereby attitudes and behaviors asso-
ciated with problem behaviors are promoted with positive reinforcement by peers [35,36].
Peer contagion has been shown to be a factor in several aspects of eating disorders. There
are examples in the eating disorder and anorexia nervosa literature of how both internalizing
symptoms and behaviors have been shared and spread via peer influences [37-41] which may
have relevance to considerations of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria occurring in AY As.
Friendship cliques can set the norms for preoccupation with one’s body, one’s body image,
I posted the following tweet citing the well-known "social contagion" hypothesis forwarded
by Dr Lisa Littman's work on ROGD. This first person account by @SwipeWright of his academic cancelling is worth paying
attention to.
Reputational smears, job market sabotage, lies, etc. Brutal. Follow him for
thoughtful insights and smart analysis of scientific subjects. Unroll available on Thread
Reader
Directly getting people fired for their heterodox views.
Getting other academics to stay silent &/or avoid certain questions/topics out of
fear.
Causing heterodox students to avoid going into academia altogether.
As the following quote suggests that "woke ideology" is a secular religion"
"Yes, yes, I know," Dawkins interrupts. "I know. People say I'm shrill and
strident."
Dawkins has a theory about this, which is very persuasive.
"We've all been
brought up with the view that religion has some kind of special privileged
status. You're not allowed to criticise it. And therefore, if you offer even a
fairly mild criticism, it really does sound strident, because it violates this
expectation that religion is out of bounds."
I see this kind of thing multiple times every day. I suppose because these reviewers
haven't yet been shot and killed, this isn't really "cancel culture," not serious, I'm making
it up.
There is some strenuous gaslighting going on in this thread.
The Natalie Wynn transcript is very good, and I hadn't seen that before. Thank you.
It's worth wrestling with a bit, because it has the advantage of not framing the
question in terms of Free Speech. I think that the free speech framing often pushes people to
draw bright lines that confuse rather than clarify the debate. For example, various
statements that I've seen by Yascha Monk he tries to make a clear distinction between, "being
dragged on twitter" (which is not a free speech concern, in his opinion) and suffering
employment consequences. But that's a difficult distinction to maintain, and Natalie Wynn is,
correctly, concerned about to problems of being harassed on twitter.
I read her essay as being less about, "see how this suppresses speech" and more about,
"look at the way in which twitter encourages/amplifies/leans towards" bad arguments. That
people are engaging in speech but are doing it badly because they are being lazy or careless,
or just not inclined to see the people they're arguing with as persons.
Take these two passages (which I'm quoting in reverse order from which they appear in the
original).
I recently read a book by Sarah Schulman called Conflict is Not Abuse: Overstating
Harm, Community Responsibility and the Duty of Repair. Basically Schulman's argument is
that, in various contexts from romantic relationships to community infighting to
international politics, the overstatement of harm is used as a justification for cruelty
and for escalating conflict.
"Just look at the case of Denise Young Smith. Young Smith spent almost two decades working
her way up in Apple, becoming one of the few black people to ever reach its executive team.
She was named vice president of diversity and inclusion
Then she uttered the sentence that really got her into trouble: "And I've often told
people a story -- there can be 12 white blue-eyed blond men in a room and they are going to
be diverse too because they're going to bring a different life experience and life
perspective to the conversation," she noted.
Within a week, the uproar over her comments forced Young Smith to write an apology. A few
weeks later, her departure from the company was announced. She was replaced by Christie
Smith, a white woman."
Every day, many times a day. As far as I am concerned. Cancel culture is the overall
environment, the habitus, the totality of 2010+ media and communication. We all can get
ostracized and isolated at any time.
Like PC, the term cancel culture is an effort by right-wingers to re-brand their own
practices as something horrible when they are on the receiving end. As such, if cancel
culture were honestly applied what they do, some of us would agree that it is a bad thing.
Notably, everyone who has indignantly invoked their private property rights to delete
comments, shriek about trolls, ban commenters or even refuse comments, has agreed, whether or
not they concede the point, has agreed there is an active harm from it, even when it isn't
rape/death threats to women.
The real problem is not just that things like presumption of guilt, guilt by association,
etc. aren't moral. The real problem is they can't possibly do the job alleged. Causing mental
agony to people, even "bad" people, isn't political reform. Not only is this kind of thing a
diversion from politics, it is totally amenable to misuse, and everybody knows it. Making
excuses for Biden while harping about Trump is hypocritical gossip, partisanship, not
principle. Bill Cosby's accomplices got away scot free and Harvey Weinstein's stooges still
have their cheating Oscars! I suppose one of the biggest triumphs of cancel culture is
suppressing movies like the Gore Vidal biopic and the movie An Officer and a Spy. But what
kinds of victories is joining the anti-Dreyfusards?
To put it another way, cancel culture is the social media equivalent of the
criticism/self-criticism sessions on campuses in the Cultural Revolution. Except today's
version lacks any changes in party/state personnel, lacks any significant redirection of
resources to the people left behind, lacks any hint of fundamental political differences in
the future of the country. This current iteration of this kind of "politics" is even more apt
to disguise score settling or even puritanism. As near as I can tell, there isn't even a
strong case to be made that "puritanism" as such was helpful even to the Puritan revolution,
not like congregations paying their pastors.
And I don't think the pleasure of getting "our" own back on the reactionaries is enough to
pay for giving up any moral condemnation of the injustice of such methods, any more than
building clinics in the countryside in China was helped by criticism/self-criticism
sessions.
For those who favor cancel culture, here's a defense, in the particular case of
Aristotle: http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2020/07/apparently-aristotle-is-in-danger-of.html
There are a couple of funny things to this, notably the fact that Aristotle is already
canceled as far as popular culture goes. For the SF fans here, consider Neal Stephenson's
abuse of "Aristotle" in Anathem. Or the nearly universal assumption in popular discourse that
Aristotle was an enemy of science. (See The Lagoon.)
Also, despite being a professional, our Maoist friend seems to think Aristotle was a major
philosopher in ancient times, when as near as I can tell from reading Peter Adamson is that
Aristotle's preeminence was a product of Arab/Persian/Central Asian culture, and hence not
really a white thing at all. (And Black Athena, while documenting influence from Egypt, is
incomplete, neglecting the cultural influences on the Greek cities of Ionia, which were more
important originally than Athens.)
I may have missed something after a cursory reading of the thread, but neither Chris B.
nor any of the commenters have attempted to place strict definitional boundaries on "cancel
culture" in order to make the debate more manageable. So not surprisingly we get a bunch of
commenters who object to hypothetical extreme examples of the tendency that "cancel culture"
is only a narrow subset of.
Some examples of the general tendency that I and most civilized people vehemently
oppose:
–Damnatio memoriae (ancient Rome) and un-personhood (communist countries).
–Firing for political opinions held outside of the workplace.
–Hiring blacklisting based on political opinion.
–Death threats and other threats of violence against people with objectionable
opinions. (Of course, if the objectionable individual was the first to issue such threats,
then it is fully justified to issue retaliatory threats, action movie-style).
–Legalized segregation or physical exile targeting people with objectionable
opinions.
–Last, definitely not least and most obviously, the actual genocide of groups
based solely on their political opinions or actions (The legalized killing of individuals
based on their actions is another matter).
These are what the critics of cancel culture such as Sebastian H seem to have in mind. But
either they are projecting their own fears or they are dishonestly using straw men. What
we've seen of "cancel culture" in the U.S. so far is:
–Attempts in public education to re-write false history, the Lost Cause most
prominently.
–Pulling down statues and other memorials of people who should not have been "sainted"
in the first place.
–Renaming of places/institutions named after either people who are very far from
sainthood (e.g. Bragg and Hood of CSA Army infamy) or objectionable nicknames.
–Calls for boycotts of commercial products or franchises whose CEOs voice
anti-democratic cultural or political opinions (e.g. ChickFila and homophobia).
–Along the same lines, the refusal to grant media platforms and public speaking
engagements to individuals with such opinions.
–Refusal to allow blog comments from people with a past history of objectionable
opinions (e.g., Chris B. rightly keeping Ralph Musgrave away from this comment thread).**
–Social ostracism that is either absolute (refusal to be physically near an
objectionable person, especially if such a person has made inflammatory public comments) or
more conditional (same refusal, but with the precondition that said person refused to be
respectful or to consider other opinions in previous debate).
Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes
her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The
dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.
(I don't know where a young you-tuber probably not born before the millennium encountered
Shulamith Firestone's old partner in crime, but I am delighted that she did! I know it shows my
age, but I think that young activists today could benefit a lot from reading what my
generation's activists wrote. Also, from getting off my lawn.)
This is a shadow of USSR over the USA. Dead are biting from the grave.
Notable quotes:
"... Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019, fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We find that: ..."
"... those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging in more self-censorship ..."
"... fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and portentous. ..."
"... Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ..."
Over the course of the period from the heyday of McCarthyism to the present, the
percentage of the American people not feeling free to express their views has tripled. In 2019,
fully four in ten Americans engaged in self-censorship. Our analyses of both over-time and
cross-sectional variability provide several insights into why people keep their mouths shut. We
find that:
(1) Levels of self-censorship are related to affective polarization among the mass public,
but not via an "echo chamber" effect because greater polarization is associated with more
self-censorship.
(2) Levels of mass political intolerance bear no relationship to self-censorship, either at
the macro- or micro-levels.
(3) Those who perceive a more repressive government are only slightly more likely to engage
in self-censorship. And
(4) those possessing more resources (e.g., higher levels of education) report engaging
in more self-censorship .
Together, these findings suggest the conclusion that one's larger macro-environment has
little to do with self-censorship. Instead, micro-environment sentiments -- such as worrying
that expressing unpopular views will isolate and alienate people from their friends, family,
and neighbors -- seem to drive self-censorship.
We conclude with a brief discussion of the significance of our findings for larger democracy
theory and practice. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3647099
There can be little doubt that Americans today are deeply divided on their values, many
issue preferences, and their ideological and partisan attachments (e.g., Druckman and
Levendusky 2019). Indeed, these divisions even extend to the question of whom -- or what kind
of person -- their children should marry (Iyengar et al. 2019)!
A concomitant of these divisions is that political discourse has become coarse, abrasive,
divisive, and intense. When it comes to politics today, it is increasingly likely that even an
innocent but misspoken opinion will cause a kerfuffle to break out.
It therefore should not be surprising to find that a large segment of the American people
engages in self-censorship when it comes of expressing their views.1 In a nationally
representative survey we conducted in 2019 (see Appendix A), we asked a question about
self-censorship that Samuel Stouffer (1955) first asked in 1954, with startling results:
fully 40% of the American people today reported being less free to speak their minds than
they used to. That so many Americans withhold their political views is remarkable -- and
portentous.
... ... ...
===
1 Sharvit et al. put forth a useful definition of self-censorship (2018, 331): "
Self-censorship is defined as intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from
others in [the] absence of formal obstacles ." Studies of self-censorship have taken many
forms, ranging from philosophical inquiries (e.g., Festenstein 2018) to studies of those
withholding crucial evidence of human rights abuses (e.g., Bar-Tal 2017) to studies of
self-censorship among racial minorities (e.g., Gibson 2012).
I 1000% recommend that Natalie Wynn link. It is an excellent discussion of the queer
facebook/twitter/social media cancel culture that I see all the time. The discussion of the
step to abstraction plus essentialism is especially good and totally applicable to most of the
real cancelations (the step from 'here is research about violent vs. non-violent protests' to
'Shor is racist' is a classic).
I'm going to provide a lot of examples and I'll use the Wynn tropes. Not all of them have
all of the tropes, but I think it is a true cultural issue, so I'm not sure you need all of
them at the same time. One that I won't mention every time is the Transitive Property of
Cancellation. But you should realize that it exists in every case where someone does something
off the job, and the cancelers try to get them fired, because the logic is "your company is
horribly tainted by have X as a worker". There are a few cases using words that are forbidden.
I'm not going to type them outright only because I don't want to get dragged into the
discussion of the appropriateness of using them directly when discussing them, third hand.
However the appropriateness is important to the context (eg "dont call me a N!gg$%" or black
artists who deliberately use it to be provacative)
Shor. I won't recite the fact but the link (along with some of the names that Quiggin
wanted) is a good discussion of it. It exhibits problematic Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction,
Essentialism
Emmanuel Cafferty: power company worker fired because he allegedly gave the OK symbol which
is allegedly a white power symbol. This very obviously Hispanic man in San Diego says he has no
idea that the OK symbol is a white power symbol and that he was just cracking his knuckles. BTW
the OK symbol thing is it's own area of insanity, where WP groups intentionally troll us to
make us look like overreacting ninnies. It requires so much context to explain to the
non-hyper-woke that it would be way easier to just never take the bait–because if you can
strongly suggest someone is racist without it, just do so. If you can't it is definitely not
worth it. Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction, Essentialism, Dualism
Dominique Moran fired from Chipotle because she insisted on getting payment from a group of
black men who specifically had had their cards declined only 2 days before, and who she had
been warned that those specific men had "dine and dashed". She became an internet exemplar of
racism so much so that her mother found out about it across the country. It wasn't until later
that other internet sleuths demonstrated that Chipotle had been set up for an internet
anti-racist mob. (Note that the company itself never figured that out on their own).
Presumption of Guilt, Essentialism,
Marlon Anderson was a [black] security guard at a Wisconsin high school. He was repeatedly
taunted as being a N!gg$% by students. He told the students that they absolutely could not call
him a N!gg$%. The students accused him of using the word N!gg$%, and he was fired for using
racial slurs. The only good news is that this firing is so ridiculous that it has generated
some serious pushback. (I could not however find out what happened). Presumption of Guilt,
Abstraction, Pseudo-Moralism, No Forgiveness
Sarah Silverman fired from her movie because she appeared in blackface in her show from more
than a decade before . The piece clearly indicates that white people take blackface too
casually and that they are wrong to do so. Abstraction, Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, No
Forgiveness, Dualism.
Israel Morales. Jewish restaurant attacked for being Nazi sympathizers because they didn't
overreact to a patron wearing a shirt with the work "Luftwaffe" on it. The owner didn't believe
it was as clear as the accuser said and tried to stop a confrontation in the restaurant. The
most annoying part is the final paragraph "For its part, Kachka's owners says they fear the
rumors could lead racists and neo-Nazis to assume the restaurant is a place that welcomes their
views. "Our fear is that this misinformation could cause discriminatory groups to think Kachka
is a safe haven, which it most certainly is not," Israel Morales wrote in a statement to Eater.
"We would like to reiterate that we never kicked anyone out for speaking up, we had no idea
what the symbol on the shirt meant, and if we had known, we would not have served him."
Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction, Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, Dualism, Transitive Property
(serving someone in a restaurant must mean you're a Nazi sympathizer).
Ahmad Daraldik accused of anti-Semitism for his comment "stupid jew thinks he is cool" which
he posted in response to a photo which is now said to be staged of an Israeli soldier stepping
on a child. Daraldik was TWELVE and living in the Palestinian territories at the time. This one
is still very much in process as it was just reported in July of 2020. I presume he will not be
actually removed from FSU. But it exhibits many of the cancel culture tropes. Abstraction,
Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, No Forgiveness, Dualism.
Neal Caren. UNC associate professor of sociology. Accused of creating an unsafe environment
for students of color for asking a white student to role-play a black person in order to try to
better understand racial issues. This was reported in early 2020 so it is too soon to tell
where the investigation will go. Presumption of Guilt, Abstraction, Essentialism,
Pseudo-Intellectualism, Dualism.
Gary Garrels. Senior curator of painting and sculpture at the SF Museum of Modern Art.
Museum employees sent a petition saying "Considering his lengthy tenure at this institution, we
ask just how long have his toxic white supremacist beliefs regarding race and equity directed
his position curating the content of the museum?" This apparently was in response to his
statements that he wanted to increase diversity and "Don't worry, we will definitely still
continue to collect white artists".
This may require a new trope of 'gross exaggeration', but I guess that is a Presumption of
Guilt issue, Abstraction, Essentialism, Pseudo-Moralism, Dualism.
Jonathan Friedland. Removed from Netflix for saying in a meeting that certain words were not
OK to broadcast in comedy and specifically saying that the word N!gg$% was one of them (he said
it aloud in the meeting).
This one might not be directly cancel culture in that there was no internet furor, but it
exhibits many of the tropes so I included it. Essentialism, Dualism, No Forgiveness. It also
took place on the job, so I understand that it is more of an edge case.
Gordon Klein. Currently suspended from teaching at UCLA for the following response to an ask
that exams be delayed for black students to allow participation in local BLM rallies (which
continued every day for more than a month). He contributed a rather snarky response which I
will copy here in full so that no one accuses me of hiding it. But not a firing/suspension
offense.
Thanks for your suggestion in your email below that I give black students special
treatment, given the tragedy in Minnesota. Do you know the names of the classmates that are
black? How can I identify them since we've been having online classes only? Are there any
students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half black-half Asian? What do you suggest I
do with respect to them? A full concession or just half? Also, do you have any idea if any
students are from Minneapolis? I assume that they probably are especially devastated as well.
I am thinking that a white student from there might be possibly even more devastated by this,
especially because some might think that they're racist even if they are not. My TA is from
Minneapolis, so if you don't know, I can probably ask her. Can you guide me on how you think
I should achieve a "no-harm" outcome since our sole course grade is from a final exam only?
One last thing strikes me: Remember that MLK famously said that people should not be
evaluated based on the "color of their skin." Do you think that your request would run afoul
of MLK's admonition?
Thanks, G. Klein
He also noted elsewhere that "previously he had received a directive from his supervisor in
the undergraduate Accounting program that instructors should only adjust final exam policies
and protocols based on standard university practices regarding grading[:] {"If students ask for
accommodations such as assignment delays or exam cancellations, I strongly encourage you to
follow the normal procedures (accommodations from the CAE office, death/illness in the family,
religious observance, etc.)."
Gibson's Bakery. Black Oberlin student detained for shoplifting, Oberlin school hierarchy
involved in an attempt to portray the Bakery as racist. The good news is that school's behavior
was terrible enough to cause them to lose a lawsuit over it. The bad news is that it was that
terrible.
Kathleen Lowrey. Forced out of her job in the University of Alberta as undergraduate
programs chair for what she believes are her views on gender. Shockingly the school won't even
tell her who accused her or exactly of what.
Niel Golightly. Boeing communication officer, resigned after pressure centering around a 33
year old article he wrote objecting to women in combat. He said that the dialogue around that
article 33 years ago changed his mind on the issue. This one is interesting because it is in
one of the few kinds of positions that I might believe off the job behavior could be relevant.
But I tend to think that 33 year old articles (of fairly common positions for the time) might
not be enough. Essentialism, No Forgiveness, Dualism.
Iranian-Canadian atheist (raised Muslim) fired for being anti-Islamic in his personal
facebook page rant against honor killings. "In response to these killings, Corey wrote 'F***
Islam. F*** honour killing. And f*** you if you believe in any of these barbaric stone age
ideologies.'" The response after ordering him to take down the post (he complied) "Despite
Corey's compliance, Wray responded "Your anti-Islamic social media post is in direct
contradiction with Mulgrave School's and Canadian values. It is racist and highly offensive. As
a result, I am immediately terminating any further relationship with you. You will no longer be
allowed to [do business with our school] and you should not enter the school building under any
circumstances.""
This report has been anonymized, so I understand if you want to take it as less
demonstrative.
Brian Leach was fired for sharing on Facebook a Billy Connolly sketch which colleagues
complained was anti-Islamic.
It was from Connolly's "Religion is Over" stage act, and if you listen to it is just as hard
on Christians as it is on Islam. It is essentially an atheistic rant. (The link has the
clip)
This discussion is on the bizarre article run by the Washington Post which got a woman of no
public interest fired for wearing blackface to try to make fun of Megan Kelly's stupid comments
about blackface. It has Abstraction, Essentialism, No Forgiveness, Transitive Property (via 3rd
parties! this was apparently newsworthy because the person who threw the party that the
costumed person showed up at also works at a newspaper!) and dualism.
I forgot to include the Vox accusations. They have a bunch of the tropes.
Emily VanDerWerff accuses Matt Yglesias of making her feel less safe at work as a trans
person for signing the Harper's letter which she asserts contains "many dog whistles toward
anti-trans positions".
Her definition of anti trans dog whistles is included at the link. It has huge Presumption
of Guilt and Abstraction problems. She claims to not want any consequences for Yglesias, but
if that is the case she shouldn't have used "feel less safe at work" which is less of a dog
whistle and more of an alarm bell for Human Resources to immediately open an investigation
into the (for cause) firing of someone.
Natalie Wynn also refers to Jo Freeman's 1976 piece on "Trashing," in which she describes
her experience of being ostracized by fellow feminists for alleged ideological deviation. The
dynamic of cancellation predates the internet.
(I don't know where a young you-tuber probably not born before the millennium encountered
Shulamith Firestone's old partner in crime, but I am delighted that she did! I know it shows
my age, but I think that young activists today could benefit a lot from reading what my
generation's activists wrote. Also, from getting off my lawn.)
From @130 oldster's Natalie Wynn link (good find!), I now have a description of "cancel
culture" that satisfies me. YMMV.
I lifted these straight from Natalie's headings – they're mostly self-explanatory. The
whole transcript is well worth reading; the back half has a nightmarish
fractal-hall-of-mirrors quality that's a good illustration of what it describes.
Trope 1: Presumption of Guilt
Trope 2: Abstraction
Trope 3: Essentialism
Trope 4: Pseudo-Moralism or Pseudo-Intellectualism
Trope 5: No Forgiveness
Trope 6: The Transitive Property of Cancellation
Trope 7: Dualism
For people who want data, here is the longest list of real or alleged cancel culture
incidents that I have seen. 156 cases. Have fun analyzing.
I think the list has a mostly rightwing bias, so I didn't see Finkelstein or Salaita
listed ( though maybe I missed it.)
For myself, I would have to look into them before judging, but of the handful that I know
something about, some I agree are genuine cases of people being unfairly cancelled, and
others I might possibly cancel myself. There are also gray areas.
I found the list via a piece by Cathy Young, but am too lazy to go back and link her
piece.
This is a mopping-up operation that is a product of media-activated mass psychosis that
derives from the already existing witch hunts and purges that have going on for decades.
Moldbug is a Zionist ultra, but he explains it well:
It's actually not hard to explain the Brown Scare. Like all witch hunts, it's built on a
conspiracy theory. The Red Scare was based on a conspiracy theory too, but at least it was
a real conspiracy with real witches -- two of whom were my father's parents. (The nicest
people on earth, as people. I like to think of them not as worshipping Stalin, but
worshipping what they thought Stalin was.) Moreover, the Red Scare was a largely demotic or
peasant phenomenon to which America's governing intellectual classes were, for obvious
reasons, immune. Because power works and culture is downstream from politics -- real
politics, at least -- the Red Scare soon faded into a joke.
As a mainstream conspiracy theory, fully in the institutional saddle, the Brown Scare is
far greater and more terrifying. Unfortunately no central statistics are kept, but I
wouldn't be surprised if every day in America, more racists, fascists and sexists are
detected, purged and destroyed, than all the screenwriters who had to prosper under
pseudonyms in the '50s. Indeed it's not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of thousands
of Americans, perhaps even a million, are employed in one arm or another of this
ideological apparatus. Cleaning it up will require a genuine cultural revolution -- or a
cultural reaction, anyway. Hey, Americans, I'm ready whenever you are.
The logic of the witch hunter is simple. It has hardly changed since Matthew Hopkins'
day. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power. Power at its most basic level
is the power to harm or destroy other human beings. The obvious reality is that witch
hunters gang up and destroy witches. Whereas witches are never, ever seen to gang up and
destroy witch hunters. By this test alone, we can see that the conspiracy is imaginary
(Brown Scare) rather than real (Red Scare).
Think about it. Obviously, if the witches had any power whatsoever, they wouldn't waste
their time gallivanting around on broomsticks, fellating Satan and cursing cows with sour
milk. They're getting burned right and left, for Christ's sake! Priorities! No, they'd turn
the tables and lay some serious voodoo on the witch-hunters. In a country where anyone who
speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight
with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won't see a lot of witch-hunting and we
know there's a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and
lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the
weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.
"People can have their voices amplified or silenced by their wealth, connections or
prestige but also by other speech which aims to deny them the right to participate on equal
terms with others."
It's unclear if this refers to those at the receiving end of speech the author wants to
prevent or the speaker deserving of canceling.
"As Jeremy Waldron has argued in his book The Harm in Hate Speech, racist speech aims not
just at hurting the feelings of its victims or expressing a view but at reconstituting the
public arena of democratic debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a
proper part of it."
It is very dubious that most slurs "aim" to "reconstitute the public arena of democratic
debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a proper part of it." Do you
have any support for this theory?
"It says that those people are not a part of "us" and that their opinions and arguments
have no place as we decide where our country should go."
It's not clear how a racial slur "says" any of this. Perhaps the author is reading
subtext?
"Racist speech by some also legitimizes and emboldens racist speech and opinion by others,
telling bigots that they are not alone, that others think as they do, and strengthens an
ideal of exclusive community based on ethnic or racial lines."
On this point it's worth quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr: "Why would you entrust authority
with enlarged powers of regulating the speech of unpopular minorities unless you were
confident that unpopular minorities would be racists, not blacks?"
"Anti-racist speech, has the opposite effect, it affirms a view that those targeted by the
racists, be they black, or Asian, or Muslim, are full members of the democratic political
community in good standing with as good a right to a say as anyone.
"It also reinforces a social norm about what may not be said, telling those who are
tempted to stigmatize migrants or minorities that they will pay a price for doing so."
It also creates a precedent for excluding views by shaming based on current sentiment.
Only someone oblivious to history wouldn't see the danger in that precedent.
"The role that speech plays in defining who is and isn't included in our vision of
democratic community can have powerful real-world consequence."
Who to include as part of your community is an important issue that should be discussed
openly by all of society. What you're trying to do is to elevate advance your position
without having to defend it.
"One way to understand the ease with which the victims of the Windrush scandal could lose
their jobs, their homes, their liberty or be deported to far-away countries, is that in the
public imaginary that is partly constituted by speech, many people did not see them as proper
members with equal standing to others."
Were we to do away with everything that had a downside we would have very little good.
Therefore arguing that something has potential downsides is not sufficient to establish that
it's not good. Can you argue that free expression and debate by citizenry on the most
important issues facing a democratic nation is not good, besides by arguing that there might
be some cost?
"Racist speech is just one example that makes clear how the practice of open discussion
isn't simply a matter of unfettered conversation among people who are already present but
also involves choices about who gets to speak and involves sensitivity to the way that speech
by some has the effect either of depriving others of a voice or of making it impossible for
others to hear what they say. A society which is full of highly sexualized messages about
women is also a society in which it is harder for women to get a hearing about sexual
violence and income inequality. A society where trans people are the objects of constant
ridicule, or are represented as dangerous, is one in which it is also more difficult for them
to argue for their rights and have their interests taken seriously."
This implies that the intolerant are the powerful group capable of suppressing minorities
with their speech alone. This is disproven by the very fact that anti-racist etc speech is so
successful. The success of antiracist codes of social conduct is because the group exercising
them is the powerful group. This very fact implies their obsolesce.
"Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as an
affront. Ironically, while being quick to take offence themselves they demand that those less
powerful than they are should toughen up and not be such "snowflakes"."
This is an uninformed or dishonest characterization of the pushback against cancel
culture. The pushback is due to intolerant enforcement of ideological conformity and
homogeneity through threat to job and reputation. And no this is not only ideological
conformity in that you can't say overtly racist things; it's ideological conformity in that
you can't criticize BLM or cite scientific literature on biological differences between the
sexes without risk.
"But if we take seriously the idea that speech can silence speech or make it unhearable,
then a concern with whether the heckling of cancel culture makes it harder to say some things
also has to take account of the fact that saying those very things can make it harder for
other voices to be heard."
This piece hasn't given any reason to make us take seriously the idea that speech against
one group can silence another, other then through threat to livelihood or reputation. It's
not clear though how for example referencing scientific but currently unpopular claims,
criticizing a social movement, having a narrower view on who should be considered a citizen
or even using a slur silences people.
An important problem is the conflation of public opprobrium actual sanctions like being
fired. This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will. In most countries,
unfair dismissal laws would protect people being sacked because of their political views,
unless they related directly to job performance. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/04/free-speech-unfair-dismissal-and-unions/
But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the issue is raised
suggests that losing your job for breaching left orthodoxy not a major problem in the US, or
at least that other possible examples are much less sympathetic (racists fired from Fox, for
example).
Mostly, AFAICT, being cancelled means having to read rude things said about you by lots of
unimportant people on Twitter, as opposed to engaging in caustic, but civilised, debate with
your peers in the pages of little magazines.
The question is who decides? Most readers here would agree that "[a] society that refuses
to tolerate speech like David Starkey's recent racist remarks about "damn blacks" and the
slave trade is better for it", but of the world's ~8 bln people, I strongly suspect that most
would believe that a society would be better off for refusing to tolerate speech about
abortions and homosexuality. So do we decide democratically? Through the ethics of
enlightened elites? An ever ongoing fight between the majority and the elite? Some other
method? Perhaps we fracture into mini-societies, each with their own standards of "better
off", which do not talk to one another?
From my perspective, there is thought and thought-like speech (anything without direct
call to action) , which ought to be maximally tolerated for both ethical and practical
reasons. Ethical because it dispenses with the requirement for absolute and inviolable
knowledge (and disempowers people who would otherwise need to select and enforce "allowed"
views. Practical because it encourages transparency (shutting racists up will not stop them
from thinking racist thoughts), intellectual development (new ideas can emerge to challenge
the existing wisdom) and rigor (having to often hear opposing viewpoints hones your
understanding of your own). Not to say that such tolerance has no costs whatsoever (e.g.
making it easier for racists to be racist in the short term, that you mention), but that the
benefits of such tolerance outweigh the costs.
What cannot be limitlessly tolerated are actions and action-like speech. To use my own
nationality as an example, I would have to fight back were a person to decide to try to kill
all Russians. For action-like speech, I would also be against an unlimited freedom for a
person to stand on the corner shouting "pick up a gun and go find a Russian to kill". But
change the phrasing slightly to "all Russians are evil, sub-human scum, I wish none of them
lived" and I would be hurt but okay with that, until and unless the speaker or their listener
decided to try to act on the sentiment. Indeed, it would give me a heads up about which
person (or people) to avoid. In a less extreme example, "shout that stupid Russian dow, how
dare he try to even voice an opinion!" is action-like speech (therefore needs limits), while
"I don't see the need to listen to Russians" is thought-like (and therefore better to be
tolerated). The problem with modern cancel culture is that it often responds to thought-like
speech with action-like speech.
Obviously, no one owes it to anyone else to listen to them. If you hear something you do
not like, you should be free to close the door on that person and never again invite them
into your company. But from my perspective it is an intellectually small and fragile mind
that looks to exercise this freedom at a mass scale or anything other than a last resort.
People who say stupid, hateful or offensive things are not examples to be emulated. This is
exactly the reason not to join a crowd saying rude or offensive things back at them. Surely,
we can form and promote communities of respect and diversity without needing to destroy
communities that are exclusionary and hateful? If we are right about what makes communities
better off, we will simply outcompete the latter, which will wither of their own accord.
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established form of the political
struggle. And in this case the reasons behind the particular attack of the "cancel mob" is far
from charitable.
Cancel culture my assJustice for Brad HamiltonRoy Edroso Jul 14 38 30
Mendenhall loses endorsement deal over bin Laden tweets
[Steelers running back] Rashard Mendenhall's candid tweets about Osama bin Laden's death
and the 9/11 terror attacks cost him an endorsement deal.
NFL.com senior analyst Vic Carucci says Rashard Mendenhall has become an example of the
risks that social media can present to outspoken pro athletes.
Athletic apparel manufacturer Champion announced Thursday that it had dropped the
Pittsburgh Steelers running back after he questioned the celebrations of bid Laden's death
and expressed his uncertainty over official accounts of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New
York, suburban Washington and Pennsylvania.
Things haven't gotten any better. I've already written about
Springfield, Mass. police detective Florissa Fuentes, who got fired this year for
reposting her niece's pro-Black Lives Matter Instagram photo. Fuentes is less like Donohue,
the Chicks, and Mendenhall, though, and more like most of the people who get fired for speech
in this country, in that she is not rich, and getting fired was for her a massive blow.
The controversy began after [Lisa] Durden's appearance [on Tucker Carlson], during which
she defended the Black Lives Matter movement's decision to host a Memorial Day celebration
in New York City to which only black people were invited. On the show, Durden's comments
included, "You white people are angry because you couldn't use your white privilege card to
get invited to the Black Lives Matter's all-black Memorial Day Celebration," and "We want
to celebrate today. We don't want anybody going against us today."
Durden was then an adjunct professor at Essex County College, but not for long because
sure enough, they fired her for what she said on the show. (Bet Carlson, a racist piece
of shit , was delighted!) The college president defended her decision, saying she'd
received "feedback from students, faculty and prospective students and their families
expressing frustration, concern and even fear that the views expressed by a college employee
(with influence over students) would negatively impact their experience on the campus..."
Sounds pretty snowflakey to me. I went looking in the works of the signatories of the
famous
Harper's letter against cancel culture for some sign that any of them had acknowledged
Durden's case. Shockingly, such free speech warriors as Rod Dreher and Bret Stephens never
dropped a word on it.
Dreher does come up in other free-speech-vs-employment cases, though -- for example, from
2017, Chronicle of Higher
Education :
Tommy Curry, an associate professor of philosophy at Texas A&M University at College
Station, about five years ago participated in a YouTube interview in which he discussed
race and violence. Those remarks resurfaced in May in a column titled "When Is It OK to
Kill Whites?" by Rod Dreher in The American Conservative.
Mr. Curry said of that piece that he wasn't advocating for violence and that his remarks
had been taken out of context. He told The Chronicle that online threats had arrived in
force shortly after that. Some were racial in nature.
At the same time the president of the university, Michael K. Young, issued a statement
in which he appeared to rebuke the remarks made by Mr. Curry...
In his column on
Curry , Dreher said, "I wonder what it is like to be a white student studying under Dr.
Curry in his classroom?" Imagine worrying for the safety of white people at Texas
Fucking A&M!
Curry got to keep his job, but only after he "issued a new statement apologizing for how
his remarks had been received," the Chronicle reported:
"For those of you who considered my comments disparaging to certain types of scholarly
work or in any way impinging upon the centrality of academic freedom at this university,"
[Curry] wrote, "I regret any contributions that I may have made to misunderstandings in
this case, including to those whose work is contextualized by understanding the historical
perspectives of events that have often been ignored."
Bottom line: Most of us who work for a living are at-will employees -- basically, the boss
can fire us if they don't like the way we look at them or if they don't like what they
discover we feel about the events of the day. There are some protections -- for example, if
you and your work buddies are talking about work stuff and the boss gets mad, then that may
be considered " concerted
activity " and protected -- but as
Lisa Guerin wrote at the nolo.com legal advice site, "political views aren't covered by
[Civil Rights] laws and the laws of most states. This means employers are free to consider
political views and affiliations in making job decisions."
Basically we employees have no free speech rights at all. But people like Stephens and
Dreher and Megan McArdle who cry
over how "the mob" is coming after them don't care about us. For window dressing, they'll
glom onto rare cases where a non-rich, non-credentialed guy gets in trouble for allegedly
racist behavior that he didn't really do -- Emmanuel Cafferty, it's your time
to shine ! -- but their real concern isn't Cafferty's "free speech" or that of any other
peon, it's their own miserable careers.
Because they know people are starting to talk back to them. It's not like back in the day
when Peggy Noonan and George F. Will mounted their high horses and vomited their wisdom onto
the rabble and maybe some balled-up Letters to the Editor might feebly come back at them but
that was it. Now commoners can go viral! People making fun of Bari Weiss might reach as many
people as Bari Weiss herself! The cancel culture criers may have wingnut welfare sinecures,
cushy pundit gigs, and the respect of all the Right People, but they can't help but notice
that when they glide out onto their balconies and emit their received opinions a lot of
people -- mostly younger, and thoroughly hip that these worthies are apologists for the
austerity debt servitude to which they've been condemned for life -- are not just coughing
"bullshit" into their fists, but shouting it out loud.
This, the cancel culture criers cry, is the mob! It threatens civilization!
Yet they cannot force us to pay attention or buy their shitty opinions. The sound and
smell of mockery disturbs their al fresco luncheons and
weddings at the Arboretum . So they rush to their writing desks and prepare
sternly-worded letters. Their colleagues will read and approve! Also, their editors and
relatives! And maybe also some poor dumb kids who know so little of the world that they'll
actually mistake these overpaid prats for victims and feel sorry for them.
Well, you've already heard what I think about it elsewhere: Protect workers' free speech
rights for real, I say -- let them be as woke, as racist, or as obstreperous they wish off
the clock and the boss can't squawk. The cancel culture criers won't go for that deal; in
fact such a thing has never entered their minds -- free-speech is to protect their delicate
sensibilities, not the livelihoods of people who work with their hands!
And in the new tradition of the working class asking for more rather than less of what
they want, I'll go further: I give not one flaming fuck if these assholes suffocate under a
barrage of rotten tomatoes, and I think Brad inFast Times at Ridgemont
Highgot a raw deal from All-American
Burger and should be reinstated with full back pay: That customer deserved to have
100% of his ass kicked!
Examples given show quite clearly that "cancel mob" is an established, albeit somewhat
dirty, form of the political struggle. Often the reasons behind the particular attack of
the "cancel mob" is far from charitable. Orwell's 1984 describes an extreme form of the
same.
there is a difference between Prudent speech and Free speech.
When punishment for voicing dissenting opinion includes physical assault it doesn't much
matter how rare the actual instances of physical violence are
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, it is not (yet) possible to determine the exact racism quotient of each individual, so exemplary cancellations are the means of influencing individuals to modify their behaviour. I appreciate that "racism quotient" and "exemplary cancellation" make me sound like one of those right-wing Orwell cosplayers, but I can't think of a better way of putting it. ..."
Cancel culture, I suggest, matters most when our ability to access diverse opinion is
curtailed as a result of speech policing, either by algorithms or individuals, especially in
the run-up to an election. Self-censorship in universities is equally important. When Chomsky
signed the Harper's letter, he reported he receive a great many letters of support from
academics terrified of being cancelled.
We're coming out of a certain kind of (neo-)liberal consensus in which politics was viewed
as a mostly technocratic business of setting laws in the abstract. That perspective was
sufficient to get some things right: many blatantly discriminatory laws have been repealed
across the Western world over the last 70 years. But it turns out that racism and sexism
don't require explicitly racist or sexist laws on the books: they can subvert neutral-seeming
laws to their purposes, and can bias the behaviour of individuals and networks of individuals
to the extent that widespread discrimination can continue...
The other strand focuses on the moral reform of white people. It proceeds from the
assumption that the law has only a limited role in moral conduct, and that the evidence of
the last 50 years is that removing explicitly racist legislation, and even legislating
anti-racism (e.g. affirmative action) isn't enough to secure good outcomes. If your
individual acts have the practical outcome of furthering or defending racist interests, then
you are part of the problem. The demands here are much harder to define. Rather than focusing
all attention on a specific reform that can be enacted in a single moment by an executive or
legislature, attention is cast broadly across all actions occurring at all times by all
people. Of course, it is not (yet) possible to determine the exact racism quotient of
each individual, so exemplary cancellations are the means of influencing individuals to
modify their behaviour. I appreciate that "racism quotient" and "exemplary cancellation" make
me sound like one of those right-wing Orwell cosplayers, but I can't think of a better way of
putting it.
All of this intersects with the modern reality of social media: things that "normal"
people might be able to say in a bar or a cafe discussion with friends or colleagues are now
part of the permanent public record, searchable and viewable by millions. Social media
provides excellent tools both for taking things out of context and re-contextualising them.
Secondly, "brands" or organisations are now direct participants, and can be subject to public
pressure in much more visible ways than previously.
I'm a big fan of biological metaphors; they keep one humble about the inevitability of
unintended consequences. The metaphor gets strained when it moves from external viral spread
to internal immune response, though; in the former, we're assuming a team of informed medical
professionals, seeing things from the "outside" with the authority implied by specialized and
objective knowledge. I'm not sure who these people correspond to in the world we inhabit,
where even the real doctors have trouble getting traction.
The internal immune response feels like a closer match, as surface protein markers are
proxies for identity, microbes display "false flags" to avoid detection, and auto-immune and
inflammatory responses often do more damage than the threats they're reacting to.
On both levels of metaphor, it seems clear that the structure of social media is explicitly
designed to create and exploit "virality"; we need to rethink what this means for us.
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/29/social-distancing-social-media-facebook-misinformation
" No one seems to reflect here that silencing people because of their politics is
historically and usually the preserve of those with the power to silence – that is,
conservatives. Be careful what you wish for."
And here we have the cancel culture "problem" in a nutshell. The complaint isn't that
Musgrave lost a job or is literally forbidden to speak or even lacks reasonable ways to be
heard. The complaint is that blog found him distasteful and doesn't want him commenting
there. This isn't a right to speak issue, it's a demand to be heard issue.
Far worse things are done to BLM protesters. Being denied a blog posting? Try being denied
the right to even assemble, and shot with tear gas and rubber bullets. That didn't stop me
from protesting. Being denied a blog post and hearing some harsh criticism is nothing.
I broadly agree with the points about free speech in the post, and Waldron's arguments,
but I don't think it's right to equate the debate about "cancel culture" with these
issues.
John's understanding of it is even more dismissive (and imo off-target).
being cancelled means having to read rude things said about you by lots of unimportant
people on Twitter, as opposed to engaging in caustic, but civilised, debate with your peers
in the pages of little magazines
It seems to me cancel culture is both an ethos and a tactic. The ethos involves a zero
tolerance approach to certain ethical transgressions (eg overt expressions of racism) and an
absolute devaluation of people who commit them. The tactic is based around achieving cultural
change by exerting collective pressure as consumers on managers of corporations (or
corporation-like entities, like universities) to terminate transgressors, as a way of
incentivising other emplpoyees to fall into line. It seems to me to be heavily shaped by and
dependent on American neoliberalism as the ethos is both punitive and consumerist and the
tactic is dependent on at-will employment and managers' deference to customer sentiment, and
while most of its current "successes" have been broadly of the Left there's no reason to
assume that will be the case in future. I think it does represent a weakening of liberal
norms of freedom of discussion and I think Chomsky's right to be concerned.
There's nothing new about speech codes. Puritans and others refused to employ the Book of
Common prayer demanded by the Act of Uniformity of 1662. Scolds and speech police can be
found among agnostics, people of faith, and across the political spectrum. Nor is the common
sense exercise of good judgement regarding when, or if, to suggest to a friend he, she, or
they might like to lose a little weight, or to refrain from pointing out the questionable
personal grooming habits of a colleague, client, superior, or family member.
Do I need to declare my beliefs and opinions on every topic freely in every forum. In my
own case, no. And there's a big difference between being shunned and being imprisoned, or
executed, for mocking the wrong text or monarch.
As I courtesy, I might well avoid broaching topics I'm aware may distress another. But
that's a far cry from what's happening in modern old media. Bari Weiss evidently had her
privileges to write and edit others freely severely curtailed. And, yes, I'm aware that she
had cancellation issues of her own. But forcing James Bennett to resign, who put Ta-Nehisi
Coates on the cover of the Atlantic, for permitting a US senator to publish an op-ed in the
NYT?
We need a diverse set of values and beliefs, argues Henry, J. S. Mill, and others. The
head of Google is just now trying to explain why "Washington Free Beacon, The Blaze,
Townhall, The Daily Wire, PragerU, LifeNews, Project Veritas, Judicial Watch, The Resurgent,
Breitbart, the Media Research Center, and CNSNews" somehow disappeared from the Google search
engine.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/29/google-ceo-dodges-question-on-blacklisting-of-conservative-websites/
Cancel culture, I suggest, matters most when our ability to access diverse opinion is
curtailed as a result of speech policing, either by algorithms or individuals, especially in
the run-up to an election. Self-censorship in universities is equally important. When Chomsky
signed the Harper's letter, he reported he receive a great many letters of support from
academics terrified of being cancelled.
When punishment for voicing dissenting opinion includes physical assault it doesn't much
matter how rare the actual instances of physical violence are. I spoke with an American
colleague employed this week who stated that any dating which is going on among staff and
adults of one kind or another on campus is done in secrecy, if at all. Do Democrats feel that
they're better off having thrown Al Franken under the bus?
Adhering to speech codes and surrendering to a tiny, highly vocal mob seems a very bad
idea to me, and I suspect, many, many others. We don't quite know what to do with the
screaming adolescents of varying ages, but we wish they'd stop yelling.
The good news is that we live in societies, for the most part, which permit the upset to
act out freely. I wonder whether the folks currently trying to burn down the US federal
courthouse in Portland believe their rights to privacy must be respected? The
double-standards on display roil what should be reasonable debate. It should be possible to
disagree civilly with anyone.
Trying to get someone fired, or shunned, for any reason, is about the saddest waste of
energy and time I can imagine – I mean, talk about a poverty of imagination. It's
happened to me here on occasion. When the pitchforks come out, I know my opponents 'got
nothing.' That's small solace, however, when watching those I'd prefer to respect do their
best to stifle debate.
Relative to other nations, we enjoy liberties others can only dream of. These liberties
are worth protecting. I'm not sure we're doing such a good job.
With all due respect, you – like the great majority of people – fail to
understand the dynamics involved. 'Cultural Marxism' isn't political Marxism. It is a method
– a tool if you wish – used by the oligarchs who wield true power to 'divide and
rule' (not least by deflecting attention from the yawning gulf that lies between their own
excesses and monstrous wealth on the one hand, and the increasing indigence of the great mass
of people on the other). It is called 'Cultural Marxism' purely because it uses Marx's
technique of dividing society into a small clique of 'oppressors' and 'the masses' who are
'oppressed'. Marx, of course, had the capitalists in mind when he wrote of the oppressors,
and the proletariat naturally were the oppressed.
Today, the last thing the oligarchs desire is a unified and organised proletariat with
'agency': that would constitute a serious threat to their existence. Instead, they divide the
sacred role of 'the oppressed' into a multitude of more or less fissiparous groups, whom we
are all aware of, but of which those comprising 'BAME' are perhaps the most useful. Others
include feminists (more or less all young women in today's world), homos, those suffering
from sexual dysphoria (that's 'trannies' in today's 'Newspeak') and the disabled.
These groups will never discover any common ground between themselves, and thus will fight
among themselves for the scraps thrown from the oligarchs' table. No danger there, and that's
just how they planned it. As for the 'oppressors', there are no prizes for guessing that they
are White, heterosexual (i.e. normal) males.
So much for your fear of actual Marxism. As for 'the government', it is important to
understand that no government in today's West is invested with any meaningful power. Not only
are they not 'sovereign' but they are little more than puppets, dancing to their masters'
dismal tunes.
Who are these oligarchs – these Masters of the Universe? That's a story for another
day. But you won't go far wrong if you place the word 'oligarchs' in triple parentheses
The "Kulak Operation" and the targeting of national minorities were the
main components of the Great Terror. Together these two actions accounted for nine-tenths of
the death sentences and three-fourths of Gulag prison camp sentences. Of the operations
against national minorities, the Polish Operation of the NKVD
was the largest one, second only to the "Kulak Operation" in terms of number of victims.
According to historian Timothy Snyder , ethnic Poles constituted
the largest group of victims in the Great Terror, comprising less than 0.5% of the country's
population but comprising 12.5% of those executed. [9]
In the Western world, Robert Conquest 's 1968 book The Great Terror
popularized the phrase. Conquest's title itself was an allusion to the period from the French Revolution known as the
Reign of Terror
(French: la Terreur , 'the Terror'; from June to July 1794: la Grande Terreur ,
'the Great Terror'). [10] While
Norman Naimark
deemed Stalin's 1930s Polish policy " genocidal ," he did not consider the entire Great
Purge genocidal because it also targeted political opponents. [11]
An important problem is the conflation of public opprobrium actual sanctions like being
fired. This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will
No. The cancel culture is just a new incarnation of the old idea of religious and
pseudo-religious (aka Marxist or Maoist) "purges". A new flavor of inquisition so to speak.
The key idea here is the elimination of opposition for a particular Messianic movement, and
securing all the positions that can influence public opinion. As well as protection of own
(often dominant) position in the structure of political power (this was the idea behind Mao
"cultural revolution")
You probably can benefit from studying the mechanic of Stalin purges. Mechanisms are the
pretty similar ("History repeats ", etc) .
If opposition to the new brand of Messianism is suppressed under the smoke screen of
political correctness, the question arise how this is different from Stalinist ideas of
"Intensification of the class struggle under socialism" and Mao Red Guards excesses (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensification_of_the_class_struggle_under_socialism
)
You can probably start with "Policing Stalin's Socialism: Repression and Social Order in the
Soviet Union, 1924-1953 (Yale-Hoover Series on Authoritarian Regimes)"
A new book which waits for its author can be similarly titled "Policing US neoliberalism :
Repression and Social Order in the USA 1980-2020") ;-)
Here is one thought-provoking comment from the Web:
GeeBee, August 1, 2020 at 7:42 am GMT
The government will eventually be Marxist
With all due respect, you – like the great majority of people – fail to
understand the dynamics involved. 'Cultural Marxism' isn't political Marxism. It is a method
– a tool if you wish – used by the oligarchs who wield true power to 'divide and
rule' (not least by deflecting attention from the yawning gulf that lies between their own
excesses and monstrous wealth on the one hand, and the increasing indigence of the great mass
of people on the other).
It is called 'Cultural Marxism' purely because it uses Marx's technique of dividing
society into a small clique of 'oppressors' and 'the masses' who are 'oppressed'. Marx, of
course, had the capitalists in mind when he wrote of the oppressors, and the proletariat
naturally were the oppressed.
Today, the last thing the oligarchs desire is a unified and organised proletariat with
'agency': that would constitute a serious threat to their existence. Instead, they divide the
sacred role of 'the oppressed' into a multitude of more or less fissiparous groups, whom we
are all aware of, but of which those comprising 'BAME' are perhaps the most useful. Others
include feminists (more or less all young women in today's world), homos, those suffering
from sexual dysphoria (that's 'trannies' in today's 'Newspeak') and the disabled.
These groups will never discover any common ground between themselves, and thus will fight
among themselves for the scraps thrown from the oligarchs' table. No danger there, and that's
just how they planned it. As for the 'oppressors', there are no prizes for guessing that they
are White, heterosexual (i.e. normal) males.
So much for your fear of actual Marxism. As for 'the government', it is important to
understand that no government in today's West is invested with any meaningful power.
Not only are they not 'sovereign' but they are little more than puppets, dancing to their
masters' dismal tunes.
Who are these oligarchs – these Masters of the Universe? That's a story for another
day. But you won't go far wrong if you place the word 'oligarchs' in triple parentheses
"Cancel culture" has recently been in the news as a threat to free speech and open debate,
most notably with the publication the other week of that open letter in Harpers. Cancelling is
essentially a kind of crowdsourced attempt to boycott and ostracise individuals for their words
or actions, sometimes including calls for them they be fired from their jobs or denied
contracts and opportunities by media organisations.
In the democratic space of social media this can sometimes tip over into unpleasant mobbing
and sometimes bullying. But is "cancelling" people always wrong? Is the practice always an
attack on the norms of free speech and open debate? Might cancelling some people be necessary
to ensure others get the voice and platform to which they are entitled?
One objection to "cancellation" is that it chills open debate and makes people
self-censor.
casmilus 07.30.20 at 7:19 am (no link)
Discrediting and marginalisation already occurred – just look at how David Irving's
status changed over the decades (notoriously, the early book about Dresden is cited in
"Slaughterhouse 5"). So we've simply accelerated the process in the digital age.
My contrarian take is that "the campus Left" actually had more power in the
70s/80s. In a world with no internet and limited independent publishing and distribution,
public meetings were the route to disseminate new ideas, so no-platforming and picketing
could have an effect. Look at "The History Man" (the 1981 BBC TV adaptation) for a portrayal
of what it was like; all that "soft power" is forgotten because of course Thatcher and Reagan
won the grown-up elections. Also note that that was a world where the university as an
institution had much less to fear from individual students who might feel discriminated
against. In comparison, no one can actually suppress ideas nowadays and even banning books
from the libraries leaves them available in the virtual library of websites.
The reality also is that "cancelled" authors acquire new readerships and can move into
different circles. Ex-lefties have been doing that since the 1930s: Freida Utley, Eugebe
Lyons, James Burnham and of course Whittaker Chambers fell-out and immediately fell-in to
bigger audiences.
chrisare 07.30.20 at 9:20 am (no link)
I found this piece unconvincing.
"People can have their voices amplified or silenced by their wealth, connections or
prestige but also by other speech which aims to deny them the right to participate on equal
terms with others."
It's unclear if this refers to those at the receiving end of speech the author wants to
prevent or the speaker deserving of canceling.
"As Jeremy Waldron has argued in his book The Harm in Hate Speech, racist speech aims not
just at hurting the feelings of its victims or expressing a view but at reconstituting the
public arena of democratic debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a
proper part of it."
It is very dubious that most slurs "aim" to "reconstitute the public arena of democratic
debate and argument so that some people are not seen as forming a proper part of it." Do you
have any support for this theory?
"It says that those people are not a part of "us" and that their opinions and arguments
have no place as we decide where our country should go."
It's not clear how a racial slur "says" any of this. Perhaps the author is reading
subtext?
"Racist speech by some also legitimizes and emboldens racist speech and opinion by others,
telling bigots that they are not alone, that others think as they do, and strengthens an
ideal of exclusive community based on ethnic or racial lines."
On this point it's worth quoting Henry Louis Gates Jr: "Why would you entrust authority
with enlarged powers of regulating the speech of unpopular minorities unless you were
confident that unpopular minorities would be racists, not blacks?"
"Anti-racist speech, has the opposite effect, it affirms a view that those targeted by the
racists, be they black, or Asian, or Muslim, are full members of the democratic political
community in good standing with as good a right to a say as anyone.
"It also reinforces a social norm about what may not be said, telling those who are
tempted to stigmatize migrants or minorities that they will pay a price for doing so."
It also creates a precedent for excluding views by shaming based on current sentiment.
Only someone oblivious to history wouldn't see the danger in that precedent.
"The role that speech plays in defining who is and isn't included in our vision of
democratic community can have powerful real-world consequence."
Who to include as part of your community is an important issue that should be discussed
openly by all of society. What you're trying to do is to elevate advance your position
without having to defend it.
"One way to understand the ease with which the victims of the Windrush scandal could lose
their jobs, their homes, their liberty or be deported to far-away countries, is that in the
public imaginary that is partly constituted by speech, many people did not see them as proper
members with equal standing to others."
Were we to do away with everything that had a downside we would have very little good.
Therefore arguing that something has potential downsides is not sufficient to establish that
it's not good. Can you argue that free expression and debate by citizenry on the most
important issues facing a democratic nation is not good, besides by arguing that there might
be some cost?
"Racist speech is just one example that makes clear how the practice of open discussion
isn't simply a matter of unfettered conversation among people who are already present but
also involves choices about who gets to speak and involves sensitivity to the way that speech
by some has the effect either of depriving others of a voice or of making it impossible for
others to hear what they say. A society which is full of highly sexualized messages about
women is also a society in which it is harder for women to get a hearing about sexual
violence and income inequality. A society where trans people are the objects of constant
ridicule, or are represented as dangerous, is one in which it is also more difficult for them
to argue for their rights and have their interests taken seriously."
This implies that the intolerant are the powerful group capable of suppressing minorities
with their speech alone. This is disproven by the very fact that anti-racist etc speech is so
successful. The success of antiracist codes of social conduct is because the group exercising
them is the powerful group. This very fact implies their obsolesce.
"Much of the pushback against cancel culture has come from prominent journalists and
intellectuals who perceive every negative reaction from ordinary people on social media as an
affront. Ironically, while being quick to take offence themselves they demand that those less
powerful than they are should toughen up and not be such "snowflakes"."
This is an uninformed or dishonest characterization of the pushback against cancel
culture. The pushback is due to intolerant enforcement of ideological conformity and
homogeneity through threat to job and reputation. And no this is not only ideological
conformity in that you can't say overtly racist things; it's ideological conformity in that
you can't criticize BLM or cite scientific literature on biological differences between the
sexes without risk.
"But if we take seriously the idea that speech can silence speech or make it unhearable,
then a concern with whether the heckling of cancel culture makes it harder to say some things
also has to take account of the fact that saying those very things can make it harder for
other voices to be heard."
This piece hasn't given any reason to make us take seriously the idea that speech against
one group can silence another, other then through threat to livelihood or reputation. It's
not clear though how for example referencing scientific but currently unpopular claims,
criticizing a social movement, having a narrower view on who should be considered a citizen
or even using a slur silences people.
An important problem is the conflation of public opprobrium actual sanctions like being
fired. This is mainly a problem in the US because of employment at will. In most countries,
unfair dismissal laws would protect people being sacked because of their political views,
unless they related directly to job performance. https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/04/free-speech-unfair-dismissal-and-unions/
But the fact that the same example (David Shor) is cited every time the issue is raised
suggests that losing your job for breaching left orthodoxy not a major problem in the US, or
at least that other possible examples are much less sympathetic (racists fired from Fox, for
example).
Mostly, AFAICT, being cancelled means having to read rude things said about you by lots of
unimportant people on Twitter, as opposed to engaging in caustic, but civilised, debate with
your peers in the pages of little magazines.
PS likbez@46 reminded me of a line from the movie Reds. Warren Beatty's John Reed spoke of
people who "though Karl Marx wrote a good antitrust law." This was not a favorable comment.
The confusion of socialism and what might be called populism is quite, quite old. Jack
London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War that the
normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the middle class
paradise of equal competition. It wasn't conspiracies.
likbez 07.29.20 at 3:30 pm
@steven t johnson 07.29.20 at 3:14 pm (51)
Jack London's The Iron Heel has its hero pointing out even before the Great (Class) War
that the normal operations of capitalism, concentration and centralization, destroyed the
middle class paradise of equal competition.
I think the size of the USA military budget by itself means the doom for the middle class,
even without referring to famous Jack London book (The Iron Heel is cited by George Orwell 's
biographer Michael Shelden as having influenced Orwell's most famous novel Nineteen
Eighty-Four.).
Wall Street and MIC (especially intelligence agencies ; Allen Dulles was a Wall Street
lawyer) are joined at the hip. And they both fully control MSM. As Jack London aptly said:
"The press of the United States? It is a parasitic growth that battens on the capitalist
class. Its function is to serve the established by moulding public opinion, and right well it
serves it." ― Jack London, The Iron Heel
Financial capitalism is bloodthirstily by definition as it needs new markets. It fuels wars.
In a sense, Bolton is the symbol of financial capitalism foreign policy.
It is important to understand that finance capitalism creates positive feedback loop in the
economy increasing instability of the system. So bubbles are immanent feature of finance
capitalism, not some exception or the result of excessive greed.
"... Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, "democracy" NGOs and other groups since the 1980's. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US Constitutional order. ..."
"... Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance. ..."
"... The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of George Soros's major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and curiously , Ben & Jerry's Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000. ..."
"... That front since 2009 received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations and again, Ben & Jerry's ($50,000). ..."
"... And Garza's SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712 "organizers" in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among others. ..."
"... Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi headed the FRSO's Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a "staff" of two it got money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry's ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group . ..."
"... The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described their role: "The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America." ..."
"... Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to "democrats and progressives." As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign of Joe Biden. ..."
"... What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. ..."
"... The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest. ..."
Color Revolution is the term used to describe a series of remarkably effective CIA-led
regime change operations using techniques developed by the RAND Corporation, "democracy" NGOs
and other groups since the 1980's. They were used in crude form to bring down the Polish
communist regime in the late 1980s. From there the techniques were refined and used, along with
heavy bribes, to topple the Gorbachev regime in the Soviet Union. For anyone who has studied
those models closely, it is clear that the protests against police violence led by amorphous
organizations with names like Black Lives Matter or Antifa are more than purely spontaneous
moral outrage. Hundreds of thousands of young Americans are being used as a battering ram to
not only topple a US President, but in the process, the very structures of the US
Constitutional order.
If we step back from the immediate issue of videos showing a white Minneapolis policeman
pressing his knee on the neck of a black man, George Floyd , and look at what has taken place
across the nation since then, it is clear that certain organizations or groups were
well-prepared to instrumentalize the horrific event for their own agenda.
The protests since May 25 have often begun peacefully only to be taken over by well-trained
violent actors. Two organizations have appeared regularly in connection with the violent
protests -- Black Lives Matter and Antifa (USA). Videos show well-equipped protesters dressed
uniformly in black and masked (not for coronavirus to be sure), vandalizing police cars,
burning police stations, smashing store windows with pipes or baseball bats. Use of Twitter and
other social media to coordinate "hit-and-run" swarming strikes of protest mobs is evident.
What has unfolded since the Minneapolis trigger event has been compared to the wave of
primarily black ghetto protest riots in 1968. I lived through those events in 1968 and what is
unfolding today is far different. It is better likened to the Yugoslav color revolution that
toppled Milosevic in 2000.
Gene Sharp: Template for Regime Overthrow
In the year 2000 the US State Department, aided by its National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) and select CIA operatives, began secretly training a group of Belgrade university
students led by a student group that was called Otpor! (Resistance!). The NED and its various
offshoots was created in the 1980's by CIA head Bill Casey as a covert CIA tool to overthrow
specific regimes around the world under the cover of a human rights NGO. In fact, they get
their money from Congress and from USAID.
In the Serb Otpor! destabilization of 2000, the NED and US Ambassador Richard Miles in
Belgrade selected and trained a group of several dozen students, led by Srđa Popović,
using the handbook, From Dictatorship to Democracy, translated to Serbian, of
the late Gene Sharp and his Albert Einstein Institution. In a post mortem on the Serb events,
the Washington Post wrote, "US-funded consultants played a crucial role behind the scenes in
virtually every facet of the anti-drive, running tracking polls, training thousands of
opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count. US
taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint
used by student activists to scrawl anti-Milošević graffiti on walls across
Serbia."
Trained squads of activists were deployed in protests to take over city blocks with the aid
of 'intelligence helmet' video screens that give them an instantaneous overview of their
environment. Bands of youth converging on targeted intersections in constant dialogue on cell
phones, would then overwhelm police. The US government spent some $41 million on the operation.
Student groups were secretly trained in the Sharp handbook techniques of staging protests that
mocked the authority of the ruling police, showing them to be clumsy and impotent against the
youthful protesters. Professionals from the CIA and US State Department guided them behind the
scenes.
The Color Revolution Otpor! model was refined and deployed in 2004 as the Ukraine Orange
Revolution with logo and color theme scarves, and in 2003 in Georgia as the Rose Revolution.
Later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used the template to launch the Arab Spring. In all
cases the NED was involved
with other NGOs including the Soros Foundations.
After defeating Milosevic, Popovic went on to establish a global color revolution training
center, CANVAS, a kind of for-profit business consultancy for revolution, and was personally
present in New York working reportedly with Antifa during the Occupy Wall Street where also
Soros money was reported.
Antifa and BLM
The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since
May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we
understand the CIA's Color Revolution playbook.
The impact of the protests would not be possible were it not for a network of local and
state political officials inside the Democratic Party lending support to the protesters, even
to the point the Democrat Mayor of Seattle ordered police to abandon several blocks in the
heart of downtown to occupation by protesters.
In recent years major portions of the Democratic Party across the US have been quietly taken
over by what one could call radical left candidates. Often they win with active backing of
organizations such as Democratic Socialists of America or Freedom Road Socialist Organizations.
In the US House of Representatives the vocal quarter of new representatives around Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib and Minneapolis Representative Ilhan Omar are
all members or close to Democratic Socialists of America. Clearly without sympathetic
Democrat local officials in key cities, the street protests of organizations such as Black
Lives Matter and Antifa would not have such a dramatic impact.
To get a better grasp how serious the present protest movement is we should look at who has
been pouring millions into BLM. The Antifa is more difficult owing to its explicit anonymous
organization form. However, their online Handbook openly recommends that local Antifa "cells"
join up with BLM chapters.
FRSO: Follow the Money
BLM began in 2013 when three activist friends created the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag to
protest the allegations of shooting of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin by a white
Hispanic block watchman, George Zimmermann. Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi
were all were connected with and financed by front groups tied to something called Freedom Road
Socialist Organization, one of the four largest radical left organizations in the United States
formed out of something called New Communist Movement that dissolved in the 1980s.
On June 12, 2020 the Freedom Road Socialist Organization webpage states, "The time is now to
join a revolutionary organization! Join Freedom Road Socialist Organization If you have been
out in the streets this past few weeks, the odds are good that you've been thinking about the
difference between the kind of change this system has to offer, and the kind of change this
country needs. Capitalism is a failed system that thrives on exploitation, inequality and
oppression. The reactionary and racist Trump administration has made the pandemic worse. The
unfolding economic crisis we are experiencing is the worst since the 1930s. Monopoly capitalism
is a dying system and we need to help finish it off. And that is exactly what Freedom Road
Socialist Organization is
working for ."
In short the protests over the alleged police killing of a black man in Minnesota are now
being used to call for a revolution against capitalism. FRSO is an umbrella for dozens of
amorphous groups including Black Lives Matter or BLM. What is interesting about the
self-described Marxist-Leninist roots of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) is not
so much their left politics as much as their very establishment funding by a group of
well-endowed tax-exempt foundations.
Alicia Garza of BLM is also a board member or executive of five different Freedom Road front
groups including 2011 Board chair of Right to the City Alliance, Board member of School of
Unity and Liberation (SOUL), of People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER), Forward
Together and Special Projects director of National Domestic Workers Alliance.
The Right to the City Alliance got $6.5 million between 2011 and 2014 from a number of very
established tax-exempt foundations including the Ford Foundation ($1.9 million), from both of
George Soros's major tax-exempts–Open Society Foundations, and the Foundation to Promote
Open Society for $1.3 million. Also the cornflake-tied Kellogg Foundation $250,000, and
curiously , Ben
& Jerry's Foundation (ice cream) for $30,000.
Garza also got major foundation money as Executive Director of the FRSO front, POWER, where
Obama former "green jobs czar" Van Jones, a self-described "communist" and "rowdy black
nationalist," now with CNN, was on the board. Alicia Garza also chaired the Right to the City
Alliance, a network of activist groups opposing urban gentrification. That front since 2009
received $1.3 million from the Ford Foundation, as well as $600,000 from the Soros foundations
and again, Ben & Jerry's ($50,000).
And Garza's SOUL, which claimed to have trained 712
"organizers" in 2014, when she co-founded Black Lives Matter, got $210,000 from the Rockefeller
Foundation and another $255,000 from the Heinz Foundation (ketchup and John Kerry family) among
others. With the Forward Together of FRSO, Garza sat on the board of a "multi-racial
organization that works with community leaders and organizations to transform culture and
policy to catalyze social change." It officially got $4 million in 2014 revenues and from 2012
and 2014, the organization received a total of $2.9 million from Ford Foundation ($655,000) and
other major
foundations .
Nigeria-born BLM co-founder Opal Tometi likewise comes from the network of FRSO. Tometi
headed the FRSO's Black Alliance for Just Immigration. Curiously with a "staff" of two it got
money from major foundations including the Kellogg Foundation for $75,000 and Soros foundations
for $100,000, and, again, Ben & Jerry's ($10,000). Tometi got $60,000 in 2014 to direct the group .
The Freedom Road Socialist Organization that is now openly calling for a revolution against
capitalism in the wake of the Floyd George killing has another arm, The Advancement Project,
which describes itself as "a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization." Its
board includes a former Obama US Department of Education Director of Community Outreach and a
former Bill Clinton Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The FRSO Advancement Project
in 2013 got millions from major US tax-exempt foundations including Ford
($8.5 million), Kellogg ($3 million), Hewlett Foundation of HP defense industry founder ($2.5
million), Rockefeller Foundation ($2.5 million), and Soros foundations ($8.6 million).
Major Money and ActBlue
By 2016, the presidential election year where Hillary Clinton was challenging Donald Trump,
Black Lives Matter had established itself as a well-organized network. That year the Ford
Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund
(BLMF), "a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for
Black Lives coalition" in which BLM was a central part. By then Soros foundations had already
given some $33 million in
grants to the Black Lives Matter movement . This was serious foundation money.
The BLMF identified itself as being created by top foundations including in addition to the
Ford Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation and the Soros Open Society Foundations. They described
their role: "The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to
organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and
immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national
conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America."
The Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL) which includes Black Lives Matter, already in
2016 called for "defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for
illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a
universal basic income, and
free college for blacks ."
Notably, when we click on the website of M4BL, under their donate button we learn that the
donations will go to something called ActBlue Charities. ActBlue facilitates donations to
"democrats and progressives." As of May 21, ActBlue had given $119 million to the campaign
of Joe Biden.
That was before the May 25 BLM worldwide protests. Now major corporations such as Apple,
Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue
under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a
Democrat President Biden. Perhaps this is the real reason the Biden campaign has been so
confident of support from black voters.
What is clear from only this account of the crucial
role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is
a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America.
The
role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial
companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper
and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would
suggest.
***
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in
politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics,
exclusively for the online magazine "New
Eastern Outlook" where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
"... This book is like a bad date where the other person is accusing you of all of your failures, and when you try to make up, to do better, to understand more, to be fully engaged as an ally, you are continually pushed away. ..."
"... 99% of the problem is created by 1% of whites who other whites don't see. ..."
"... The same would be true for misogyny. 99% of rapes are caused by 1% of perps, and the 99% of innocent men don't see it because the perps aren't harassing them. ..."
"... This book is riddled with historical inaccuracies, such as black women being denied the vote until 1964, poor arguments, and a lack of any decent citations. This book did inspire me though. If something this bad can be published, anyone can write a book. ..."
"... According to this author, those that are identified as white (not necessarily those who identify AS white) are guilty of racism and must be prepared to be tongue-lashed by her. It is curious that somehow denigrating a person by their skin color is not racist when done by a person of the same appearance. It is a popular book for those that need more of a reason to feel bad about themselves. ..."
"... If you're seeking insight on how to understand and fight against escalating exploitation and oppression by the US ruling class, look elsewhere. This book is a polemic, a work of guilt-tripping ideology, given to sweeping and unsubstantiated statements about "white supremacy" and "racism". If this book were to use the religious language of the Puritans, "whiteness" would be the "original sin". ..."
"... DiAngelo, like Tim Wise, Cheryl Matias and others, is a professional race-baiting huckster. She makes a living traveling the country telling white people how awful they are, how morally superior she is, and how if white people pay ridiculously expensive fees to attend her lectures, they too can be a "good" white person like her. ..."
I am very reluctant to give
a negative review, especially when the author is trying to be helpful. In places the author has correctly diagnosed a number of
genuine problems.
Merely being non-racist isn't good enough, because you end up as a bystander when a bully is beating up on a victim; both covering
your eyes and ears and refusing to acknowledge what the victim (of racism) is telling you is happening to them.
If you haven't been a victim you cannot fully understand being a victim. If you haven't experienced the pervasiveness and constancy
of negative bias both coming from other groups and even influencing your own view of yourself – then you will never completely
comprehend. So in one respect a white person cannot truly say, "I get it."
Neither can you ever do enough to win a gold star and say you've done "enough" as long as racism exists.
It's like the Talmudic maxim: "you will never finish perfecting the world, but you are never free to stop trying."
If the book stopped there, it would be fine. Perhaps even excellent.
But I give this book one star because it makes the problem worse.
This book is like a bad date where the other person is accusing you of all of your failures, and when you try to make up, to
do better, to understand more, to be fully engaged as an ally, you are continually pushed away.
And then you are told to "breathe" and calm down. Surely you are getting upset and proving the thesis!
Except that's not what's happening.
Yes, whites don't see racism because they aren't a target of it. If you aren't a racist, then you don't hang around racists.
And if you aren't black then you don't have it hurled in your face. 99% of the problem is created by 1% of whites who other whites
don't see.
The same would be true for misogyny. 99% of rapes are caused by 1% of perps, and the 99% of innocent men don't see it because
the perps aren't harassing them.
So men need to listen without being defensive. Whites need to listen without being defensive. It's wrong to say, "But I'm not
doing it" as if that will make it go away.
But it's also wrong to say that the non-harassing men or the non-harassing whites are guilty BECAUSE of their innocence.
No, they aren't being bad. They are being clueless. And instead of being accused they need to be engaged.
Especially when they WANT to listen and be helpful.
In short, if someone wants to be your friend – let them.
This book doesn't invite engagement and doesn't let the non-involved to become involved in affirmatively fighting racism. It
turns a lot of would be allies away.
Ultimately, it's self defeating.
We need more people aware of racism. We need more people fighting racism. We need the majority engaged in helping the minority,
rather than being turned away.
I'd give this book five stars if it were half as long. But it's the flawed existentialism that makes this book a hindrance
to people who should be friends, and would be friends, if they were allowed to be. >
This book is riddled with historical inaccuracies, such as black women being denied the vote until 1964, poor arguments,
and a lack of any decent citations. This book did inspire me though. If something this bad can be published, anyone can write
a book.
According to this author, those that are identified as white (not necessarily those who identify AS white)
are guilty of racism and must be prepared to be tongue-lashed by her. It is curious that somehow denigrating a person by their
skin color is not racist when done by a person of the same appearance. It is a popular book for those that need more of a reason
to feel bad about themselves.
Ironically, the subject is timely and through reading other sources of information on institutionalized racism, I have noticed
many examples of this. The articles were well written and effective in that I was not made to feel that anything I did or said
was automatically suspect and therefore invalid. A state of paralysis is not one from which change can occur.
If you're seeking insight on how to understand and fight against escalating exploitation and oppression
by the US ruling class, look elsewhere. This book is a polemic, a work of guilt-tripping ideology, given to sweeping and unsubstantiated
statements about "white supremacy" and "racism". If this book were to use the religious language of the Puritans, "whiteness"
would be the "original sin".
As a Unitarian-Universalist I am appalled by such ideology because I am dedicated to our first principle -"the inherent worth
and dignity of every person", regardless of social status or category. This includes not just "people of color" but the legions
of "whites" who have suffered terribly despite the supposed safety net of "whiteness". Unfortunately, ruling class whites are
often condescending toward working class whites, and this book is no exception. When they are not ignored or treated rudely (DiAngelo)
they may be called names like "deplorables" (Hillary Clinton) or even then unbelievably insulting "white trash" (the title of
a book by Nancy Isenberg). And just think of all the derogatory names that are used for the homeless, who again are mostly white.
Here's an example of DiAngelo's rude disrespect: An Italian American explained "that once Italians were once considered black
and discriminated against, so didn't I think white people experience racism too?" (p. 12). Instead of acknowledging and honoring
the truth he spoke from his own lived experience, she changes the topic, accusing him of "refusing to examine his own whiteness
today". This is typical of the mental gymnastics that DiAngelo employs to evade the truths she hears that are "inconvenient" for
her ideology of "whiteness". In an earlier era Irish Americans could have said the same thing, and this has always been a felt-in-the-gut
truth for poor whites.
Although DiAngelo has an academic background, she unapologetically violates the canons of good scholarship, See, for example,
the third essay of Todd Eklof in "The Gadfly Papers", or the work of Johnathan Church, such as his article in Areo magazine on
how "white-fragility-theory-mistakes-correlation-for-causation". Instead she conveys an attitude of self-assured superiority,
a provocateur who declares herself to be proud of her "identity politics", dismissing criticism from "whites" as a product of
their "white supremacy" or "racism" and labeling it "white fragility". Brain-washed by such ideology, she is oblivious to how
insulting terms the like "white supremacy" fuel the cultural wars, hence political gridlock, hence giving a free reign to predatory
capitalism and escalating inequality.
DiAngelo never acknowledges how her ideology "whiteness" serves two unsavory political purposes. The most obvious one is to
divert attention from the color-blind nature of today's predatory capitalism – how vulnerable whites are targeted far more than
blacks simply because the whites have so much more to lose. The second becomes obvious once we reflect on the time-tested strategy
of ruling classes to stay in power by "divide and conquer" tactics aimed at the populace. In the US, "racism" itself was born
as such a construct in the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, serving to divide white and black workers and turning the latter
into dehumanized slaves. Today the cultural wars comprise a similar divide and conquer strategy, but this time dividing the white
ruling class from its working class to create political gridlock. Here I use the term "ruling class" in its broadest sense, as
roughly the top 10% to 20% of the population in income or wealth who have a college education, while using the rough definition
of "working class" as those without a college degree, or about 2/3 of the population. As we learned in 2016, the political consequences
can be dire indeed when progressives abandon their fundamental principles and the working class to embrace the self-serving strategies
of the ruling class. >
DiAngelo, like Tim Wise, Cheryl Matias and others, is a professional race-baiting huckster. She makes a living traveling the country
telling white people how awful they are, how morally superior she is, and how if white people pay ridiculously expensive fees
to attend her lectures, they too can be a "good" white person like her.
Why is it so hard to talk about race? Because any discussion where you are cast immediately as the villain likely isn't going
to be a very productive conversation.
What is white fragility? White fragility is standing up for yourself against unsubstantiated charges of racism. If a black
or brown person makes an ignorant statement regarding you, your family, your life's experiences or whatever, and you defend yourself
as any normal person would....well, that's white fragility. What you should be doing is to just take it. Admit you are born evil
as a member of a race of pale face demons and accept the charges that are being leveled against you. That's being woke!
You see, anti-racism activism used to be directed towards people who were......you know, racist? However, that changed over
the last couple decades as more virulent strains of post-modernism and cultural Marxism infected the movement. Now, the idea of
all white people being racist is championed and supported within the annals of academia. You don't have to nurse a hatred of black
or brown people to be racist. All you have to be is white. You have a plethora of extremely vague terms regarding supposed "systems"
and "structures" that are poorly defined and not nearly as well illustrated as intended. Indeed, the definition of racism was
surreptitiously changed to a "correct" redefinition of a whites-only enterprise of power plus privilege while other ideologies
such as feminism curiously maintained their original dictionary description.
Critical race theorists have insisted that white privilege, whiteness studies, etc. are not meant to foster a sense of a guilt
and shame amongst white people. It's blatantly clear when you peel back the layers that that is precisely the end goal. They tell
you that you - the individual white person - are part of the problem. You have to admit your original sin, and then you'll come
into the light. They don't do a very good job hiding their true intentions.
And what's up with so-called "allyship"? Allies are supposed to be members of a mutual pact, not a one-sided arrangement of
praise and apologies.
On the subject of fragility, I find it very amusing and ironic when you consider that if DiAngelo or Wise were to speak at
a college campus or university, they won't have to worry about a horde of angry white students disrupting their lectures, storming
the lecture halls, pulling fire alarms, drowning out the speakers with chants, etc. Fragility is rife on campus life these days.
Safe spaces, protests over racist incidents that turn out to be hoaxes perpetrated by the "victims", and so on. Who are the real
fragile ones here?
At the end of the day, DiAngelo's end goal won't be realized. Sure, coastal white liberals who are down with the cause might
think that people like her are creating change, but it's simply not working. Far too many white people whose lives aren't full
of ease and privilege will not take kindly to such dumb bigotry wrapped up in fancy academic terms. Critical race theory, like
so many related "isms" in the social justice lexicon, is simply building up its own funeral pyre. >
1.0 out of 5 stars
mostly worthless Reviewed in the United States on October 21, 2018 Awful. The author deludes herself, thinking her white and
black readers have no idea how to relate, live on different planets, and, that DiAngelo is required to be their guide. She acts
like African-Americans speak a different language. She doesn't understand the concept of individuality very well, either, gneralizing
about everyone. "African-Americans are sensitive about their hair." IF this book represents "progress," we're in bad shape. 839
people found this helpful
Helpful
7 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Nonsense Reviewed in the United States on October 24, 2018 This book is for guilty feeling white folks and blacks who need
to gravitate to oppression. There is no white fragility. What leads people out of the left is commercial trash like this. There
is no fear in white or anyone else about anything. There is no open forum and there is no out let for an open discussion anyway.
The generalization is what allows whites to leave the left. There should be a book about racial healing and not foster disorder
by identity politics. >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Counterproductive to overcoming racism Reviewed in the United States on March 4, 2019 The author of this book inadvertently
does a great job of showing the inherent racism, absence of logic and fact, insanity, self-righteousness, arrogance, and hypocrisy
of the viewpoint she is trying to sell.
First, I will give praise where it is due. I found the author's call to hear people out when they talk about how it feels to
be a minority in our country helpful and necessary. I also think her advice to really examine each of our own hearts when we are
confronted with another person offering criticism where our personal behavior toward people of color is insensitive, or revealing
of a feeling of superiority was very good.
The rest of the book, however, was bewildering. The author opens with an attack on all white people. She redefines racism as
something only white people can do. Whites are racist, not because of their thoughts or actions, but because of their very existence.
She says whites ordered their civilization primarily to place themselves in positions of power for the purpose of keeping people
of color down all over the globe. The author hates the two core beliefs that western civilization is built on – individualism
(the inherent value of the individual), and meritocracy (the idea that people should succeed based on talent and effort). She
says we will never be free of racism as she defined it, until we abolish these two core beliefs.
Naturally, not everyone is going to agree with a blanket application of guilt to all whites, or the author's view of history
(which is scantly substantiated), or view of western civilization (which many would view as having offered at least some good
things to the world). But if you disagree with any of this, you are said to be displaying your "white fragility."
The author lists many arguments that people have posed to her to demonstrate that they aren't racist, but are not acceptable
in her view. One of these is "I'm not racist because I'm married to a person of color." Unfortunately, the author says, that even
if you chose a person of color to be your life partner and have brought forth children of color into the world with them, you
are still a racist. As a white mother in a blended family, I would argue that many people view interracial marriage as one of
the best evidences of an integrated society that has got over its racism. The accusation that by my existence, I oppress my husband
and children is completely bizarre and hurtful. This is perhaps the most self-righteous, dictatorial, contradictory, blind, and
illogical thing in this book.
The author also talks a lot about how whites treat blacks like children who can't think for themselves. She references portrayal
of black characters in movies and TV as evidence. There is some justification for this, especially decades ago, but sensitivity
on this issue has improved a whole lot. Given her disdain for whites treating blacks like they can't think for themselves, I was
shocked when she chose to criticize Martin Luther King's famous quote: "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character." She said that the vision
of that great black leader is actually not the correct view. She explains that it only reinforces the core beliefs of western
society of individualism and meritocracy, which it turn keeps blacks down, and whites in power. It is absolutely arrogant and
hypocritical for this white author to say that Martin Luther King, who gave his life fighting for his vision, didn't really mean
what he said.
There are many other things in this book that are problematic, but those were the worst for me. I can only hope that most people
who read this book will see the hatred, racism, and self-righteousness that echo through every page. From the author's account
of her mission to share the message of collective white guilt and hatred of western society with others, it's not being well received.
And that's very, very encouraging. 516 people found this helpful
Helpful
9 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Shallow, repetitive and condescending Reviewed in the United States on November 2, 2019
Verified Purchase DiAngelo spends much of this book re-defining both racist and white supremacist in broader non-standard
ways, then arguing that we live in a thoroughly racist and white supremacist world based on her definitions. She defines White
Fragility as anything short of enthusiastic agreement with all of her arguments, as if her understanding of things is objectively
true. She makes many assertions repeatedly, but she doesn't back them up with detailed supporting arguments. Question her, remain
silent, or leave the conversation and you're exhibiting your white fragility It's a neat rhetorical trick. Check out How to Be
an Anti-Racist by Ibrham Kendi for a much more thoughtful treatment of race issues. >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Perfect for the avarage whiny college liberal Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2019
Verified Purchase Probably has some important message, but I couldn't bear reading more than 70 pages, which, to be fair,
is more than half the book, but that's all I needed for my college class. Maybe more people would be interested in reading it
if the author used another title, and realized that insulting the people she was trying to help probably isn't the best course
of action. 283 people found this helpful
Helpful
2 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Nauseating Reviewed in the United States on May 28, 2019 If you love looking at everything in the world through the lens of
race and racism, if you find race and racism endlessly fascinating, then you'll love this book. If you're one of the many who've
realized that there are more healthy ways of looking at life and more constructive ways to talk about how to get along, you'll
likely find this one of the most nauseating books ever written.
Robin DiAngelo is drunk on her own power as a "diversity trainer," and she won't rest until every last white person has admitted
their guilt and submitted to her authority. If you resist, if you show signs that you think her whole obsession is unseemly or
downright disgusting, it will only confirm that she is right about you and that your only hope is to admit your own hopelessness
and follow her down, down, down. For there is no uplift in this religion she and her fellow fanatics have created, there is only
an ever-growing awareness of guilt, and how our "white fragility" in the face of this guilt is our deepest sin.
Just take a look at some quotes from the book's first pages:
"(W)hiteness is at once the means of dominance, the end to which dominance points, and the point of dominance, too, which,
in its purest form, in its greatest fantasy, never ends" (ix).
Is this true? Well, you'll just have to take her word for it, she's the expert, unless your "white fragility" still won't let
you.
"(A)ny gains we have made so far have come through identity politics" (xiii).
Really? Tell that to Martin Luther King Jr, who spoke the language of common humanity and united decent people across the country
to demand equal rights for black people in America, well before the language of "identity politics" (which is purely group-based)
came into vogue.
Ironically, as an example of how great "identity politics" has been, she writes, "a key issue in the 2016 presidential election
was the white working class" (xiv), without noting that the left's promotion of "identity politics" is what caused these "white
working class" Americans, most of whom voted for Obama, twice, to finally start identifying with their own "white identity" and
vote for Trump.
She speaks of "white identity" and "the white voice" as if these are factual things that unite all "white" people, but, to
promote herself and the dire need of her book, says her own white voice is "one of the many voices needed to solve the overall
puzzle" (xv), because "racism is deeply complex and nuanced, and given this, we can never consider our learning to be complete
or finished" (xv) -- lucky for those like her who make a career out of promoting these toxic ideas, eh?
If you can still stomach it, I'll leave you with a few more choice nuggets from the Introduction, but I recommend you imagine
her reading them at you accompanied by a laugh track, which can actually make it kind of fun:
Ours is "a society in which racial categories have profound meaning" (xvi); North America is "deeply separate and unequal by
race" (1); "Socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority, that we [white people] either are unaware of or can never
admit to ourselves, we become highly fragile in conversations about race," resulting in "behaviors such as argumentation, silence,
and withdrawal from the stress-inducing situation" (2); "If, however, I understand racism as a system into which I was socialized,
I can receive feedback on my problematic racial patterns as a helpful way to support my learning and growth .Such moments can
be experienced as something valuable, even if temporarily painful, only after we accept that racism is unavoidable and that it
is impossible to completely escape having developed problematic racial assumptions and behaviors" (5); "I believe that white progressives
cause the most daily damage to people of color" because "our defensiveness and certitude make it virtually impossible to explain
to us how we do so" (5); "This book does not attempt to provide the solution to racism .My goal is to make visible how one aspect
of white sensibility continues to hold racism in place: white fragility" (5).
I think she takes the easy way out by telling stories of white people pounding their fist or getting upset when talking about
racism. I don't know if that happened but you can't take one individuals reaction and make it seem like it is how white people
react if the mention of racism comes up.
I can understand that she needs to sell books. I was just hoping for something different. 210 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
Pseudo intellectual book that is obviously flawed.
1.0 out of 5 stars
Pseudo intellectual book that is obviously flawed. Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020
Verified Purchase It only takes a few pages in this book to recognize that Ms. DiAngelo does not really understand what she
is talking about. I took detailed notes as I read about her logical fallacies, misunderstandings, etc. and every page is littered
with notes. This book is shockingly poorly reasoned and it is terrifying that enough Americans think this is a good book to move
it to the NYT best seller list. I wish I hadn't purchased the book as I hate to give credibility to the authors incompetence.
The author starts by demonstrating that she has no idea what the concept of "individualism" is. She argues that individualism
means thinking that racial groups and other groups do not matter. However, individualism is quite the opposite. Individualism
arose due to discrimination against people based on their religion, race, etc. and was the idea that we should not discriminate
against people based on their group category. Ms. Diangelo shockingly completely misunderstands this. Thus, every time she talks
about "individualism" I cannot help but facepalm because she sounds so foolish.
She also does not understand the fallacy of equivocation. She often throws out the word "racism" or "racist." However, the
power of the word "racism" comes from the definition where we define it as someone who dislikes another race. We rightfully judge
someone who dislikes another race to be evil. Ms. Diangelo seems to want to pull the power from this definition and then redefine
racism to be merely existing as a white person in our society. But, this does not work. In fact, her equivocation is in fact racist
(aka evil). She is trying to imply that merely existing as a white person means you are racist and thereby demean white people.
I could go page by page explaining her logical missteps, but that would take a whole book. Instead, I would suggest if you
do decide to read this book, turn on your critical thinking skills and really analyze what she is saying. You will be shocked
by how poorly reasoned this book is. 188 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
The worst book on race relations ever written. Reviewed in the United States on December 2, 2018 When I read about how Blacks
oppress their own people and it benefits Whites, my stomach turned. Excuse me, as a White woman it is not to my benefit, to societies
benefit, and I'm not responsibility for the decisions of others. The book would have people believe Blacks are oppressed and it
is the fault of Whites. We have many successful Blacks in this country. A Black man was POTUS and the entire family is successful,
they are not alone. This book is inflammatory towards race relations. 308 people found this helpful
Helpful
3 comments Report abuse >
It's repetitive and redundant, repetitive and redundant
1.0 out of 5 stars
It's repetitive and redundant, repetitive and redundant Reviewed in the United States on October 14, 2019
Verified Purchase I'm going to forge on and try to finish this book. I'm in the second chapter and it is very repetitive and
redundant. Like another reviewer said, she paints a picture of damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's hard for me to keep
going because of her repetitiveness. 219 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Is there even a conversation? Reviewed in the United States on April 24, 2020
Verified Purchase This book comes off as being enlightened, and I will admit that it draws attention to important matters
regarding race. My issue is that the author comes off as incredibly arrogant and the book sounds very self-congratulatory. For
example, she states "Because I am seen as somewhat more racially aware from other whites...." this comes off as both arrogant
and presumptuous. Even though she acknowledges her whiteness, it seems somewhat ironic that a white woman is writing an authoritative
text on race- talk about the white savior! I am interested in race studies, and I have encountered many texts that address the
issue of race and racism, which is an undeniably difficult topic, but those sources did not come off as arrogant and pedantic
as this. 183 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Oh look, more division Reviewed in the United States on March 24, 2019 Probably shouldn't insult those you wish to share common
ground. Racism is wrong. Period. But the idea of insulting whites as "fragile" I get that's a spicy title to raise eyebrows but
in 2019, in a country where people of any race or ethnicity or sex can do basically anything in this country, why push this narrative
further?! We need to all unite. My dad did when he married a Hispanic immigrant and made me. Is my dad fragile? He's white. Is
he racist by default? The preconceived stereotypes here are egregious and inforgiveable. More click bait social media sensical,
identity political, trash. 261 people found this helpful
Helpful
4 comments Report abuse >
How come she is a consultant and trainer on racial issues???
1.0 out of 5 stars
How come she is a consultant and trainer on racial issues??? Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020
Verified Purchase As an Asian immigrant who grew up in Europe and who have recently relocated to the USA, I find the racial
division of "white" and "people of color" ridiculous and discriminatory. This kind of division invalidates people's personal experiences.
I find it WRONG to be put in the same category as African Americans, Asian Americans or Latin Americans who were born and raised
in the US!
Mrs. Robin DiAngelo and her points of view only consolidate this wrong categorization. At the beginning of the book, she states
that "white" people get their "white supremacist" ideas from mainstream media. And then, in the end, she advises them to seek
out information on the racial topic "from books, websites, films, and other available sources."
Moreover, she continuously proved herself as an ignorant, racist person. How come she is a consultant and trainer on racial issues???
173 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
Cult indoctrination for those unwilling think forbidden thoughts
1.0 out of 5 stars
Cult indoctrination for those unwilling think forbidden thoughts Reviewed in the United States on November 28, 2018 The racial
gap narrative takes a new low. The ever evolving progressive conspiracy theory to explain the black v. white attainment gap changes
again. It's no longer lack of access, it's no longer basic prejudice, instead it is now a cultural milieu that you can't ever
escape. Beg for forgiveness and flog yourself at the new church without salvation. A nation that benefits it's founding stocks'
values, the idea behind most all nation states, is now castigated. Well, who is this nation supposed to serve? The traditional
gate keepers don't hold weight anymore, the forbidden secrets why the world is the way it is are out there and these silly narratives
aren't going to last much longer. 274 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment Report abuse >
The topic is one that we must be willing to explore, to engage in conversation about and to strive to be better, but what does
better mean? Diangelo argues that we as human beings all have prejudices, which is unavoidable. Also, that their effect on how
we consume and process information is also unavoidable. So then is better simply about outward behavior and our ability to actually
change how we think limited?
There are important points in this book that should be contemplated and drive understanding and awareness. Most notably, if
you grew up as part of the group that was in power (race, gender, religion, etc.) then you were conditioned to think of your group
as the norm and every other group as the exception. It is just like when you think everyone else has an accent, but you do not.
Likewise, those messages were reinforced in literature, art, movies, television and advertising. If you grew up not a member of
the group in power, those messages were relentless that you were not the norm or not the ideal. Think about what that does to
your psyche on either side of the equation.
The definition used in this book are that prejudice is at the individual level in the mind of a single person, which may or
may not be accompanied by an outward act driven by that prejudiced mindset called discrimination. Racism is when those prejudiced
thoughts, decisions and acts are committed overtly or tacitly by the racial group holding the power and form a systemic set of
challenges to anyone not in that group. This is all fine and a very logical definition set to explore the topic.
The shortcoming in the analysis of Diangelo is that she fails to articulate that by her own premise that everyone has inescapable
prejudiced thoughts by virtue of being a human being, that any racial group who happens to be in a position of power is therefore
inescapably going to be racist. She says that any group other than whites cannot be racist because they do not have the power.
However, in doing so she disregards the work of Pierre Bourdieu's, which she leverages in chapter 7 as he asserts that "field",
the social context including who has power and who does not, is not a universal homogenous force, but rather has macro and micro
fields in which different groups have the power in different settings. Therefore, by her own definitions, there would be macro
and micro fields of racism benefitting whichever race is in power in that field setting.
By failing to hold true to her own premises, she relegates racism to a white problem rather than to human problem. In doing
so her writing style is often accusatory, argumentative, pandering and self-fulfilling in that if you want to explore her assumptions,
premises and context, then you are labeled a racist. This is very much in the style of the cable news network echo chamber where
a real dialogue cannot exist because you are shouted down at the slightest sign of anything less than 100% agreement. Further,
rather than exploring deeper into these topics, Diangelo stretches about 20 pages of content into 154 pages through exponential
repetition of the same few points and lists of examples of racism, results of racism and assumptions underlying racism, which
are also bloated with repetitive remarks.
The issue isn't white fragility, it is human fragility in that we as humans are predisposed to attribute success to our own
efforts and failures to outside forces and likewise the failures of others to their efforts, yet their successes to outside forces.
Anything that challenges this way of thinking strikes at human fragility regardless of your race. 163 people found this helpful
Helpful
2 comments Report abuse >
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not worth reading Reviewed in the United States on August 12, 2019
Verified Purchase This book was poorly reasoned, without any references or factual backup for what are essentially her personal
opinions. 188 people found this helpful
A growing number of Americans feel that the political
climate is preventing them from sharing their views, according to a new
survey
by the Cato Institute.
The institute surveyed 2,000 Americans and found that 62 percent are reluctant to share their views due to the political climate.
In 2017, 58 percent of people surveyed expressed the same opinion.
Republicans are much more likely to be afraid to share their opinions than Democrats and independents, the survey found. More
than 3 in 4 Republicans -- 77 percent -- said they are afraid to share their views compared to 52 percent of the Democrats and 59
percent of the independents.
The reluctance to share one's views appears to grow as respondents shift right on the political spectrum, the survey found.
Compared to 2017, the reluctance to share one's views increased across the political spectrum. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives
were all 7 percent more likely to be afraid to express their opinions.
The increase in reluctance was more pronounced among strong liberals, rising 12 points to 42 percent, compared to 2017. Reluctance
to share their views among strong conservatives notched up 1 point to 77 percent.
"This suggests that it's not necessarily just one particular set of views that has moved outside of acceptable public discourse,"
Emily Ekins, research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute, wrote about the survey.
"Instead these results are more consistent with a 'walking on eggshells' thesis that people increasingly fear a wide range
of political views could offend others or negatively impact themselves."
The self censorship cut across demographic groups as well, with roughly 2 in 3 Latino Americans and white Americans and nearly
half of African Americans holding views they are afraid to share. More men (65 percent) than women (59 percent) said the political
climate prevents them from speaking their mind.
The Cato Institute also polled respondents on whether they would support firing someone if they had donated to President Donald
Trump or presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
The cancel culture manifested stronger among staunch
liberals than staunch conservatives. Half of all the people who identified as staunch liberals said they would support firing Trump
donors, compared to 36 percent of staunch conservatives who would support firing someone who donated to Biden.
Nearly a third of Americans said they are afraid that their political views may cost them their jobs or career opportunities.
In line with the results on cancel culture, the fear was slightly stronger among conservatives (34 percent) than liberals (31 percent).
The "cancel culture" proponents who actually do the most damage (as opposed to twitter
spats and maybe blocking speakers from a college campus here and there) are the pro-israel
types. frum's presence alone brings up that question and i'm sure greenwald's positions on
palestine were a major factor. chomsky is ostensibly anti-imperialist and anti-racist but
let's not forget he lived on a kibbutz for a while and still thinks the two state solution is
a good idea whereas BDS supposedly isn't. greenwald has also backed taibbi to some degree in
his anti-cancel stance so that didn't help.
"The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful
ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy."
This sacred cow of illusion is being threatened from all directions it seems. Democracy is
great for whoever owns it, and whoever owns the media owns democracy. A cow well worth
milking.
@the pair:
"the "cancel culture" proponents who actually do the most damage (as opposed to twitter spats
and maybe blocking speakers from a college campus here and there) are the pro-israel types.
frum's presence alone brings up that question and i'm sure greenwald's positions on palestine
were a major factor"
Exactly this! Greenwald has been a major irritant to many of the letters signatories. You
mentioned Frum, but also it would include the hyper hypocritical "cancel culture" queen
herslf: Ms. Bari Weiss - who recently 'resigned' from her last pro Zionist platform: the
NYT's.
Jonathan Cook has one of the most cogent, nuanced and accurate critiques of this Harpers
letter at than anyone I've read. Very long and well reasoned, with three additional updates
too. He takes many of the signers to task, especially in their noted over-whelming support
for Israel, for which many of them are now 'suffering' criticism
....It is easy to agree with the letter's generalised argument for tolerance and free and
fair debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have
shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds...
....The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a
more just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President
George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting
"interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free
speech.
....Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to
free speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.
...Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all, because he correctly
understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who
challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests
in dominating the public space..."
And then Cook says, most importantly:
...By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the
centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them. They care
about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating the
public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years
ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little...."
While Sullivan does not share the Likudnik politics of Weiss, he enjoys some notable
institutional and personal links to her political network. As the former editor of The New
Republic , Sullivan worked under the direction of the magazine's fanatically pro-Israel
former publisher, Marty Peretz, who has since relocated to Tel Aviv .
Peretz's daughter, Evgenia, published a fawning
profile of Weiss in Vanity Fair in April 2019, portraying her as an inspiring new
talent who was "genuinely fueled by curiosity, the desire to connect, to cross boundaries and
try out new things."
During the time Sullivan and Peretz ran The New Republic , the magazine was
funded by the
pro-Israel businessman Roger Hertog. Hertog also plowed his fortune
into the Shalem Center to launch a training institute for young pro-Israel pundits in 2002.
Among the first interns to pass through the Shalem training school was a Columbia University
student named Bari Weiss. (Weiss' editor at the Times , Rubenstein, had also been
involved in the Hertog Foundation) .
Whether or not Weiss plans to join Sullivan at a new outlet for disgruntled anti-SJW [social
justice warrior] centrists, the circumstances surrounding her self-expulsion reveal her
resignation letter as an insincere whitewash.
Besides the possibility that Weiss' departure was a PR stunt, there is the fact that she has
spent a large portion of her adult life working to cancel Palestinian academics and left-wing
politicians while howling about the rise of a totalitarian "cancel culture."
Self-Styled Free Thinker Campaigns to Silence Left-Wing Dissenters
Before Bari Weiss branded herself as an avatar of free thought, she established herself as
the queen of a particular kind of cancel culture. The 36-year-old pundit has dedicated a
significant portion of her adult life to destroying the careers of critics of Israel, tarring
them as anti-Semites, and carrying out the kind of defamation campaigns that would result in
her targets losing their jobs.
The pundit has
shown a particular obsession with Palestinian-American scholar Joseph Massad and the New
York City-based Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour. Other targets have included Keith
Ellison, the Minnesota Attorney General who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, and Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, an ardent opponent of U.S. regime change wars.
There is also ample evidence that while at Columbia University, Weiss helped bring down
the dean of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, Lisa Anderson, for inviting
Iran's then-President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to speak on campus. Anderson's son has pointed to
Weiss as a key factor in her resignation:
In her resignation letter, Weiss found space to castigate the Times for publishing
an interview with renowned African-American author Alice Walker , whom she casually defamed as "a proud
anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati."
Weiss also flexed her bona fides as a proud neoconservative activist, saying she was
"honored" to have given the world's most prestigious media platform to a slew of regime-change
activists from countries targeted by the U.S. national security for overthrow, including
Venezuela, Iran, and Hong Kong, along with notorious Islamophobe Ayaan
Hirsi Ali and Chloe Valdary – a fellow Israel lobby product who previously
worked as an intern for Bret Stephens .
In her three-year career as an editor of the opinion section of the newspaper of record,
Weiss devoted a significant chunk of her columns to attacking her left-wing critics, while
complaining endlessly of the haters in her Twitter mentions (which is risible given her
lamentation in her resignation letter that "Twitter has become [the Times '] ultimate
editor").
In her 2019 book, Weiss condemned the pro-Palestine left as a whole. She insisted the idea
that Zionism is a colonialist and racist movement is an anti-Semitic "Soviet conspiracy;" that
the UK Labour Party under leader Jeremy Corbyn was a "hub of Jew hatred," and that "leftist
anti-Semites" are "more insidious and perhaps existentially dangerous" than far-right
"Hitlerian anti-Semites."
It is worth reviewing this historical record to show how Cancel Queen Bari Weiss' apparent
change of heart on cancel culture might more appropriately be described as an opportunist
career choice.
Campaigns to Cancel Massad, Sarsour & Ellison
In her 2019 book "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," Weiss revived her condemnations of Massad,
whom she first targeted at Columbia University after interning at the Hertog-funded Shalem
Center.
Weiss also argued that New York University (NYU) was
rife with anti-Semitism . Her proof? An individual student was told some stupid
anti-Semitic comments, and -- much more disconcertingly for Weiss – "In December 2018,
the student government successfully passed a BDS resolution," and "NYU gave the President's
Service Award, the school's highest honor, to Students for Justice in Palestine."
Massad was hardly the only victim of Bari Weiss' compulsive cancel culture campaigns. The
neoconservative pundit wrote an entire New York Times column in 2017 dedicated to
trying to cancel
Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour .
Rapping progressives over the knuckles for purportedly "embracing hate," Weiss characterized
Sarsour as an unhinged anti-Semite because of her criticism of the colonialist Zionist
movement, and worked to disrupt the Women's March, which Sarsour helped to found.
Then in a tag-team cancel campaign with feverishly pro-war CNN host Jake Tapper (who
has his own questionable
history with
racial issues ), they portrayed Sarsour as an extremist for expressing support for former
Black Panther leader Assata Shakur, whom they jointly demonized as a "cop-killer fugitive in
Cuba."
Next, Weiss turned her sights on the Democratic Attorney General of Minnesota Keith Ellison,
claiming in a 2017
column that he had a "long history of defending and working with anti-Semites."
Attempts to Cancel Tulsi Gabbard
Bari Weiss' cancelation rampage continued without a moment of self-reflection.
In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan in January 2019, the
pundit tried to cancel Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard because of her work advocating
against the international proxy war on Syria.
When Rogan mentioned Gabbard's name, Weiss scoffed that the congresswoman is "monstrous,"
smearing her an "Assad toady," in reference to the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Confused,
Rogan asked Weiss what exactly that meant. The bumbling New York Times pundit could
not answer, unable to define or even spell the insult.
Claims 'Leftist Anti-Semitism' Worse Than 'Hitlerian Anti-Semitism'
Bari Weiss' most extreme views on Israel-Palestine and the left can be seen in her 2019 book
How to Fight Anti-Semitism . In this tome, the neoconservative writer set out to
cancel the pro-Palestinian anti-racist left as a whole by arguing that supposed "leftist
anti-Semitism" is more dangerous than "Hitlerian anti-Semitism."
Weiss wrote:
"Hitlerian anti-Semitism announces its intentions unequivocally. But leftist
anti-Semitism, like communism itself, pretends to be the opposition of what it actually
is.
Because of the easy way it can be smuggled into the mainstream and manipulate us –
who doesn't seek justice and progress? who doesn't want a universal brotherhood of man?
– anti-Semitism that originates on the political left is more insidious and perhaps
existentially dangerous [than on the right]."
When she says "leftist anti-Semitism," Weiss almost invariably means progressive criticism
of Israeli apartheid, racism, and brutality against the indigenous Palestinian population.
If that wasn't already obvious, Weiss spelled it out:
"If you want to see the stakes, just look across the pond, where Jeremy Corbyn, an
anti-Semite, has successfully transformed one of the country's great parties into a hub of
Jew hatred.
Corbynism is not confined to the U.K. Right now in America, leftists who share Corbyn's
worldview are building grassroots movements and establishing factions with the Democratic
Party that are suspiciously unskeptical of genocidal terrorist groups like Hamas and actively
hostile to Jewish power and the state of Israel."
In her book, Weiss insisted the idea that Zionism is a colonialist and racist movement is
the product of a
"Soviet conspiracy" spread by USSR in order to destroy Israel. She expressly ignored the
words of the father of Zionism himself, Theodor Herzl, who wrote that Zionism "is a colonial idea"
and requested help from British colonialists, including colonial master Cecil Rhodes.
"Progressives have, knowingly or unknowingly, embraced the Soviet lie that Israel is a
colonialist outpost that should be opposed," Weiss lamented.
"In the most elite spaces across the country, people declare, unthinkingly, that Israel is a
racist state and that Zionism is racism, without realizing that they are participating in a
Soviet conspiracy, without realizing that they are aligning themselves with the greatest mass
murderers in modern history," she bemoaned.
Not mincing her words, Weiss concluded, "When anti-Zionism becomes a normative political
position, active anti-Semitism becomes the norm."
With these passages, it became clear that her How to Fight Anti-Semitism was a
book-length attempt to cancel anti-Zionists as a whole, by conflating their opposition to
Israeli apartheid as anti-Semitism.
Anyone who disputes that Israel is "a political and historical miracle" is secretly a Jew
hater, Weiss has argued. She effused, "That I can walk the streets of Tel Aviv today as a
feminist woman in a tank top," she marveled, "that it is a free and liberated society in the
middle of the Middle East, is an achievement so great that it is often hard for many people to
grasp."
As with much of the content Weiss produces, her gushing praise for Israel's supposedly
"liberated society" could have been lifted from a propaganda pamphlet distributed on campus by
a pro-Israel lobbying outfit. But it was never quality writing or original ideas that won Weiss
the attention she sought, and which has virtually ensured she will be "cancelled" into a new,
high-profile position in the mainstream commentariat.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including
best-selling " Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War ," and " The Management of
Savagery ." He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video
reports, and several documentaries, including "Killing Gaza ." Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in
2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous
domestic repercussions.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone , and the producer of the " Moderate Rebels" podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
The establishment's massive propaganda campaigns and psyops CANCEL the truth or make it
unrecognizable via coloring and half-truths. Russiagate, White Helmets, Skripals, MH-17,
Integrity Initiative, Assange, Russian Bounties & remaining in Afghanistan, "China
virus", hydroxyChloroquine, etc.
The Trump Administration has CANCELED entire countries via terminating peace treaties,
imposing sanctions, covert war, and conducting a propaganda war.
Where is the outrage from writers, artists, and academics about THAT?
They trot out old power dynamics and pathetically shadowbox authority. Yet they're the ones
who are in charge now. Former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss. Credit: HBO/YouTube
Screenshot
If only we could all lead pampered lives like Salman Rushdie.
Last week, several dozen writers and intellectuals published a letter in
Harper's Magazine that condemned -- though they never used the term explicitly -- cancel
culture. The signatories included Margaret Atwood and Martin Amis, Gloria Steinem and Steven
Pinker, while the missive itself was a fairly routine statement of classical liberal
principles. "The free exchange of information and ideas," it reads, "the lifeblood of a liberal
society, is daily becoming more constricted." Also: "The restriction of debate, whether by a
repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes
everyone less capable of democratic participation." The political right under Donald Trump long
ago grew illiberal, the signers say. Now the resistance to Trump and the online woke are going
the same way.
What happened next was utterly predictable. Conservatives, despite being denounced as
illiberal in the very first paragraph, did not attack the letter, demand consequences for the
signers, sneer themselves into post-anoxic comas on Twitter; mostly they praised the document
and passed it around. The left, meanwhile, began a four-alarm hissy fit that's somehow still
ongoing today. The letter was accused of fanning a moral panic. Cancel culture was dismissed as
fake news, a repackaging of normal political passions and activism into a counterfeit
bogey.
Mostly though, progressives just crammed the letter into their usual class war. The
signatories were tagged as elites desperately trying to safeguard their privilege, in contrast
to their targets, the huddled masses of the Twitter woke. The letter's critics, as
Michael Hobbes of the Huffington Post put it, were "ordinary people" who lack
"institutional power" and "point out the failures of those institutions." A woke response
letter published at The
Objective, which appears to have been penned by an illiterate -- it may be that the real
divide here is between those who can write and those who can't -- claimed of the first letter,
"The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who
does not." It continued, " Harper's has decided to bestow its platform not to
marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities
to make their views heard."
A few words on all this.
First, you don't get more "marginalized" than having a fatwa declared against your novel by
a national government, becoming the target of riots and book burnings, being forced into
hiding, and dodging repeated attempts on your life, as happened to Salman Rushdie, one of the
Harper's signers. Another, Garry Kasparov, was exiled from Russia for supporting
democracy. To be sure, this hardly compares to the tribulations undergone by your average
Huffington Post staffer, who risks ennui-filled glances from her coworkers every time she
shares the wrong Handmaid's Tale GIF. But it does seem like Rushdie and Kasparov might
know something about standing up for free expression. It may even be that we should consider
what they have to say.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.396.0_en.html#goog_424665540 00:13 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
Second and more importantly, the reaction to the letter demonstrates just how oblivious the
left has become to its own power. Back in the 1960s, to be a leftist was to be countercultural,
smashing monogamy and fighting the man. Today's left wants that same rebellious aura, except
that they've since marched through just about every major institution. Academia swallows whole
their assumptions; so does the publishing industry, many corporate boards, much of the media,
the federal bureaucracy, a healthy section of the internet. Those who speak out against the
Harper's letter are thus not remotely "marginalized"; they are heard loudly and often.
Many of them have blue Twitter checkmarks, that garish amulet of the modern elite. This is how
power works now: money and rank matter less than they used to, visibility and influence count
for more. And by those yardsticks, the woke are plenty powerful.
This is why a social media mob -- an aggregate of all that power -- can be just as coercive,
just as authoritarian, as an out-of-control government. Yet the wokesters refuse to see this.
They act as though by participating in cancel culture, they're merely exercising their own free
speech, their right to critique authority, a far cry from the state shutting someone up. In
this, they make a mistake usually committed by only the most doctrinaire libertarians. There's
a tendency among some libertarians to divide the world into the private sector and the public
sector. And right on -- that bifurcation is healthy and necessary, even if these are imprecise
and overlapping terms. But emblazon that line too brightly and the division can become a moral
one. You start treating everything on the public side as suspect and worthy of criticism, while
rationalizing away the bad on the private side. That's just business being business ,
you say. You come to view Google, for example, as not just free to do as it likes, but
fundamentally justified in its actions by mere virtue of its epistemological geography in the
private sector.
The woke left is now falling into a similar trap. So long as the government isn't kicking
down anyone's door, they say, there's no censorship at work, since their angry letters and
boycotts all fall under the umbrella of private expression. Yet such private expression can be
a bullying force all its own. A professor who risks being fired from his position and
permanently stigmatized on the internet because he says the wrong thing is not really free to
speak his mind. He may not receive a cease-and-desist order in the mail, but he's still being
suppressed. Yet the left has willfully blindfolded itself to this. Over at The New
Republic , Osita Nwanevu
notes, "When a speaker is denied or when staffers at a publication argue that something
should not have been published, the rights of the parties in question haven't been
violated in any way." That's technically true. But the result can be close to the same. The
idea that the spirit of free speech can't be squashed by private actors, by a culture or a
crowd, is absurd.
From here, the woke left issues another denial: cancel culture doesn't really exist.
What the Harper's letter frets about, they say, is just a smattering of incidents that
hardly amount to a pattern. Really? A University of Chicago economist was recently
put on leave for criticizing Black Lives Matter and opposing efforts to defund police
departments. A political data analyst was fired for
tweeting out academic research that found that riots in 1968 helped Richard Nixon. A
children's author was sacked for saying she
stood with J.K. Rowling . A novelist
stopped her own book from being published after it was attacked for depicting intra-racial
slavery.
Another novelist
had his book yanked for the crime of being set during the Kosovo War. Two professors at
Yale
stepped down as heads of a residential college because they'd suggested the university
didn't need a policy against offensive Halloween costumes. A New York Review of Books
editor resigned for
publishing an essay by a broadcaster who'd been acquitted of sexual assault.
Conservatives like Charles Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Ben Shapiro have been regularly
attacked and disrupted when they try to speak on college campuses. How much more needs to
happen before we're allowed to acknowledge a trend? This isn't prudent maintenance of the
Overton window, weeding out genuine hatred and bigotry; it's the enforcement of the whims of a
neighing, infantile mob. Its aim isn't to inquire and improve, but to ossify and silence.
The Harper's signers thus aren't "the real illiberals," as the woke have asserted.
Nothing in their letter suggests they want to use their power to silence their critics. What
they desire is the opposite: an end to hair-trigger punishments that have sent a chill through
our intellectual life. It shouldn't be remotely surprising that artists and academics support
free expression. What should really flabbergast us is that the consensus in bohemia and the
ivory tower is tilting in the other direction. As I wrap up this column, Bari Weiss, one of the
Harper's signers, has just left the New York Times , citing a hostile woke work
environment. Steven Pinker, another signatory, has narrowly
survived an attempt to cancel him. The new orthodoxy is intolerant, hell-bent on enforcing
its views, pathetically shadowboxing an elite it long ago joined. It threatens nothing less
than our essential ability to communicate. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Matt Purple is a senior editor at The American Conservative .
Well, it should be very obvious now what you shouldn't do - throw a Trump against them.
It just revs them up more, and his group are too radical in their own way to win away the
middle from them.
"When you cannot attack then defend. When you cannot defend then retreat." Retreat.
Curse them with victory. Without a force like Trump to allow them to unify a group under
their banner they'll make innumerable enemies, as these shots over their bow indicate, who
no longer have any reason to tolerate them whatsoever.
I believe the left and their elite enablers are intentionally trying to provoke a
response from middle America, so they can crack down. So far, they have been stuck
blue-on-blue. Not only that, but when they do win, they lose, as you said. There is
learning.
They are also rapidly accelerating the number of people they alienate.
A friend of mine was a Navy SEAL. He said sometimes, you just keep quiet and watch.
Most of the victims of cancel culture seem to fall into two groups: 1. people who share
most of the ideology of the cancellers but differ on one or two points, and 2.
old-fashioned (usually older and white) liberals who don't realize that the rules of the
game have changed.
JK Rowling, for instance, belongs to group 1: she was a flaming social liberal who
enthusiastically accepted all liberal assumptions until she found one she couldn't accept.
Examples of group 2 include the dismissed Poetry Foundation officials, and the museum
curator in San Francisco who was canned because he said he wasn't going to discriminate
against white artists.
It is much harder to cancel religious fundamentalists, ethno-nationalists,
neo-reactionaries, and other anti-liberals because they normally refuse to play the liberal
game (correctly seeing at as rigged against them), and therefore they often develop
strategies for surviving "off the grid" of the standard media and institutions.
Your last paragraph isn't true. Many of the Charlottesville people were canceled. They
lost their jobs and lost their income when they were sued for damages. Most of these people
weren't actually living off the grid.
True, but I'm thinking of people like Vox Day (who started his own publishing house) and
the various alt-right/ alt-left/ alt-whatever types who got kicked off YouTube and wound up
at other platforms. "Build your own platforms" is a principle with many of them, because
they assume they will eventually get kicked off of someone else's.
I hate Trump and didn't vote for him in 2016 but am going to this year because the left
has gone off the deep end. And does not recognize how extreme it is. Won't matter though
since I live in Western Washington. But other people must feel the same way.
Exactly the same way. I did not vote for him in 2016 and began his term set firmly in
the anti-Trump camp. I no longer 'hate' Trump (remember he is not a politician but a real
estate developer): nothing he does, not a single tweet, nor even their sum total, comes
anywhere close to the damage the current left is inflicting. He is the dam holding back
total chaos.
" A woke response letter published at The Objective, which appears to have been penned
by an illiterate -- it may be that the real divide here is between those who can write and
those who can't -- claimed of the first letter,"
This is a totally unnecessary and mean spirited line.
I don't think criticizing poor grammar or whatever is necessarily meanspirited. But I
expected that the ensuing quote would illustrate what was "illiterate" about that letter.
As far as I can tell, the alleged illiterate managed to communicate in writing, thereby
disproving Purple's assessment.
If the cancel culture continues, at some point a critical mass will be reached, and the
cancellees will be numerous enough to set up their own media and institutions.
Has anyone ever noticed that many people who seem to be participating in this cancelling
behavior are the groups of people (e.g., black, LGBTQ) who are/have typically been
vulnerable to "cancellation" efforts of a more aggressive kind? Is it possible that is more
of an "offense as defense" situation?
I think this is to some degree the case, yes. Ezra Klein makes the point that the
argument of the letter writers would go down much better if they acknowledged the way that
marginalized people have been cancelled forever, and had some active concern for addressing
the ways that some of the debates that the woke want to shut down have real implications
for the rights and safety of marginalized groups.
I also think that given the climate right now people have the mindset that they have to
take what they can get. There is nothing substantive being done to reunite separated
families at the border, but they can make the Goya people uncomfortable for standing with
those in power for example. If marginalized people felt like their concerns were being
taken seriously by those in power, the value of these boycotts and disruption would likely
be reduced.
Yes, cancel culture, like riots, are to some degree the language of the unheard. There
are plenty of cases where I think cancel culture was the best outlet available, since our
justice system has failed so hard to adequately address injustices. #metoo is a huge
example of this, and was effective and appropriate when it was bringing town powerful
people with multiple accusers (though the real takedowns of #metoo happened less on twitter
and more through journalism). But, of course, this kind of tool is extremely dangerous and
unweildy and is only appropriate for exceptional cases.
What I can't stand are the people that decry cancel culture AND think the status quo is
okay for marginalized people (or for the way sexual assualt is handled in this country). If
you don't address injustice, people will find a way to be heard, and you probably won't end
up liking it.
Again, I say this as someone deeply critical of cancel culture.
Well, the elites have no real problem with cancel culture, especially when they can fund
its purveyors to keep people distracted from demanding health care and living wages for
all, among other things that would actually help a lot more people than tearing down some
statues.
Is it just me, or has most of the Fortune 500 come through the last few years of cancel
culture fairly unscathed?
It's just not that simple to analyze others' psycology. It's so easy to say "if they
REALLY believed X, then they would Y." Liberals would say that if conservatives really
cared about safety they'd be pro-gun control and if they really cared about life they would
be anti-capital punishment and for the social safety net.
I think the defund movement is a ridiculous pipe dream, up there with how libertarians
think we'd all just get along if government got out of the way. But it's bad logic, not bad
faith, that leads them to think this way--they are very, very much motivated by safety.
Given all the comments on Mr. Dreher's post concerning the ousting of Bari Weiss, I
would have placed a different picture for the article... Nobody seems to shed a tear for
that particular person, who appears to have gotten on her position for being a very
skillful at cancel culture herself...
Not sure why this took me so long to figure out. But the reason the woke feel like this
letter is trying to silence them is clear. While the letter in no way trying to silence
anyone, it IS in a very real way, asking to strip the woke of recently achieved power. No
one wants to give up power, and the wokes' power is of a special kind since, as laid out in
this piece, it's power the woke wield while denying they even have it. Someone trying to
take your power away does feel like being silenced.
It's a conundrum I do sympathize with in this sense: no, the Twitter woke are not
marginalized withing the social-political sphere. However, they are still championing and
often made up of the representatives of genuinely marginalized groups who still face
descrimination and threats to their real, actual safety in their daily lives. This is
particularly true of trans people, a deeply vulnerable group who get nothing but ridicule,
political attacks, and efforts to restrict their rights from the right and even from the
center. That is why trans activists are the most militant, their people are the most
vulnerable. So there's this sense that the powerless finally have some power to wield, and
now they are being asked to give it up. None of that changes the dangerousness of the power
held by a righteous mob; it IS illiberal, and and the woke need to (haha) wake up to that
fact and do better.
Transactivists, unlike actual transpeople 20 years ago, are NOT deeply vulnerable, at
all. They are the most militant because half of the males are autogynephiliacs who
literally fetishize transgressing into women's spaces. Their rape and death threats and
endless sexualizing of their transition to their new "identity" and forcing other women
(especially lesbians) to validate their false identity is the behavior of heterosexual
males WITH POWER. This is the most dangerous movement in the past 30 years, causing untold
damage to children and teens. I'm sorry you don't see that and hope you can open your eyes
and ears to alternative media like Women Are Human, Feminist Current, and 4th Wave Now to
learn the facts.
Reddit just cancelled several gender critical groups--international support groups
including for teens going the painful process of "detransitioning"--because saying trans
women are not biological women is "hate speech." Meanwhile Reddit keeps up its militant
mens rights groups and several rape and teen focused pornography sites, because that
apparently isn't hate speech. If you can't see the power dynamics here, I don't know how to
help you.
To elaborate: do you even know any trans people? Because I know plenty. And follow some
on the internet, and read their writings. I hate to break it to you, but they are just
people. Like any people, there are some unsavory people amongst them, of course. But you
are deeply, deeply misguided in your sources, and are slandering people that just want to
live their lives in peace. Due to the difficulty they have doing that, yes, some are rather
militant in their activism; I don't support that, but I do support trans people and trans
rights.
By the way, as an intellectually curious person who doesn't want to miss things, I've
looked into the "gender critical" world, and it's not the least bit convincing. I have a
certain amount of sympathy for women who feel like trans-women are encroaching on their
spaces (they're wrong though, their reactions are a lot like male gatekeeping as women gain
rights), but I have no sympathy whatsoever for the abusive, dehumanizing language about
trans people that is all over those sites (just as I have no sympathy whatsoever for trans
people that throw abuse at detractors).
Your first comment was pretty good but you are wrong on some points here;
1) Biological men don't belong in women's safe spaces.
2) The trans movement is doing enormous damage to children and teens who are sucked up into
its ideology and making (or having their parents make) irreversible choices. See the
suppressed study on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria by Lisa Littman among others.
There are in addition increasing numbers of people who are transitioning and then coming to
regret their choice, though granted others claim it rescued them. How anyone can ignore the
hige downside of this phenomenon is beyond me.
Thank you. The left today, at least in its extremes, seems to borrow more from the
underworld than from an essay -erred or not -of human reason. The problem is that these
elements are seeping into the left's main current like a weaponized infiltration.
Liberal elites are so steeped in virtue-signaling that they have convinced themselves
that anything they do is just and righteous. That leaves no room for discussion or
disagreement, and opens the door for cancellation. The real "sin" of the letters is to see
in illiberal cancel culture the mirror image of the intolerance that liberals have been
attributing to Trump. It's obvious now that the atmosphere around the left has become
brutally authoritarian, and the responses to Weiss's letter and the Harper's letter
demonstrate this. Both letters contain necessary critiques of the intolerance of cancel
culture/wokeness, but liberal critics chose to ignore the critiques and focus on the
characters of the signers. This is woke culture in action. Using the typical academic ad
hominem attack, liberal critics opted to kill the messengers because they feared the
message.
If the "woke" are just a tiny number of "four alarm hissy-fit" throwers, how can they
cancel anything?
How is what they are doing any different than boycotts, plenty of which have been
orchestrated by so-called conservatives?
And this author's example of Rushdie as marginalized by having a well publicized fatwa
against him issued makes me conclude that he really doesn't understand the concept.
Boycotts are powerful tools--when weilded effectively. But it's hard to do so. You have
to have a LOT of widespread support, organization, and commitment, to make a boycott work.
Plenty of attempted boycotts fail because there just aren't enough people committed to them
for a long enough time. This is a built-in, self-limiting component of them.
Cancellation, on the other hand, requires little more than thought-free keyboard
warriorism. Canecllation has sometimes involved the woke targetting small local businesses,
where the woke mob can be enough to send a business under, as in the Denver yoga studio
case:
https://coloradosun.com/202... I, personally, think the bar for boycotting a local
business should be FAR higher than what is exhibited here.
Cancel culture wokeness will never "make America good again." The more we indulge that
foul spirit, the more diseased and debased our culture becomes. We don't need more mob
vitality; we need more reasonable actors.
While I basically agree with you on the substance of your piece, I resent dismissing the
left of the 60s as wanting to end monogamy--really? I was part of that movement and I can
tell you we were against the Vietnam War and for the end of segregation, and recognizing
the crimes against people of color, native peoples, the poor, sexual minorities and women's
rights and, above all, the right to free speech. We wanted the values we expounded
thunderously around the world to actually mean something. We weren't all united on
everything but pansexualism was a very minor issue among a very small minority of our
number.
I don't recognize the current "left" as leftist at all but precisely who they appear to
be effete cultural snobs from the upper-middle-class who resemble the "know-nothings",
Maoists and have little to do with class-struggle.
"Nothing in their letter suggests they want to use their power to silence their
critics."
There is an entire paragraph devoted to suggesting that some of the signatories of the
original letter - specifically Bari Weiss, Katha Pollitt, Emily Yoffe, Anne-Marie Slaughter
and Cary Nelson - have tried to use their power to silence their critics, and provided
links to the allegations. I didn't actually follow the links, but the suggestion is
certainly there.
"A woke response letter published at The Objective, which appears to have been penned by
an illiterate -- it may be that the real divide here is between those who can write and
those who can't -- claimed of the first letter..."
I didn't find the Observer letter illiterate, at all, myself.
has anyone commenting here actually been targeted by cancel culture?
I have and it's not fun having to talk to HR about why your boss is receiving anonymous
letters trying to get you fired for stuff said online. in my case it was the celebratory tone
I took upon hearing John McCain had died that inspired this gutless piece of shit to act
IRL.
even the New York Times got a piece of the action by threatening to name the blogger
behind Slate Star Codex.
this is from New Statesman:
Scott Alexander are the real first and middle names of the author, a psychiatrist based in
California, who had kept his full identity secret. However, as he revealed in a post this
week, a New York Times tech reporter decided to write about his blog and the community
around it, and intended to publish Scott Alexander's full name. In response, Alexander
decided to close down Slate Star Codex, claiming that revealing his identity would
undermine his ability to treat his patients, and expose him to death threats, something he
said he had already received in small numbers.
The response on Twitter, where many of the blog's readers often dwell, has been one of
outrage. Luminaries such as Steven Pinker described it as a "tragedy on the blogosphere".
Others such as software inventor and investor Paul Graham talked of cancelling their NYT
subscriptions. The title's "threat" has been widely described as "doxxing", a term more
commonly used for posting online the personal details of an individual behind a social
media account than publishing someone's name in a newspaper story.
by making things personal and consequential in real life, cancel culture is fanning
divisive flames that could one day turn into a real civil conflagration.
Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in
this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond
what Crooke provides.
As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing
of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say
much the same.
What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from
his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies.
And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue
to lie and commit massive fraud.
The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account
of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason,
morality and credibility .
Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's
institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.
The other turned out to be a 'Novelist'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zia_Ha
"Rahman was a college scholar at Balliol College,[6] one of the constituent colleges of
Oxford University, and received a first class honours degree in mathematics,[7] before
completing further studies in mathematics, economics, and law at the Maximilianeum, a
foundation for gifted students, and Munich, Cambridge, and Yale universities. He briefly
worked as an investment banker for Goldman Sachs in New York before practising as a corporate
lawyer and then as an international human rights lawyer with the Open Society Foundations
focusing on grand corruption in Africa.[8] He has also worked as an anti-corruption activist
for Transparency International in South Asia.[9]"
Perhaps a small sample but Culture Cancel and Crooke's Woke most likely intersect, perhaps
being one and the same.
Just look at the cost of smartphone that they display at the riots and you instantly get a
certain impression about income of their parents
Notable quotes:
"... And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter, rather, would be its facilitators and financiers." ..."
A section quoted by Crooke in the piece karlof1 linked to
"A social revolution that would be pushed forward by radical children of the bourgeoisie.
Their leaders would have almost nothing to say about poverty or unemployment. Their demands
would be centred on utopian ideals: diversity and racial justice – ideals pursued with
the fervour of an abstract, millenarian ideology.
And their radicalism would be resisted, Lasch predicted, not by the upper reaches of
society, or the leaders of Big Philanthropy or the Corporate Billionaires. These latter,
rather, would be its facilitators and financiers."
And Crooke's thoughts..
"So, what can we make of all this? The US has suddenly exploded into, on the one hand,
culture cancelation, and on the other, into silent seething at the lawlessness, and at all
the statues toppled. It is a nation becoming angrier, and edging towards violence.
One segment of the country believes that America is inherently and institutionally
racist, and incapable of self-correcting its flawed founding principles – absent the
required chemotherapy to kill-off the deadly mutated cells of its past history, traditions
and customs.
Another, affirms those principles that underlay America's 'golden age'; which made
America great; and which, in their view, are precisely those qualities which can make it
great again."
The USA and GB actually implement caste system. That's what job quota means.
Notable quotes:
"... It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we're to help the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it -- but it is vital to be able to compare groups to know who's falling behind, relative to their peers. In the UK, Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 percent less than whites on average, for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 percent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 percent less, but Chinese earn 30 percent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren't systematically discriminating between people on the basis of their skin color, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality. ..."
"... Poor Chinese girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children. ..."
"... But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma, every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle class and 57 percent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 percent of them go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group. ..."
"... Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase 'deaths of despair' when he looked at the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject ( Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism , co-written with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls 'the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century'. ..."
You can argue about the merits of pulling down statues, but it's hard to make the case that mass protests serve no useful purpose.
At the very least, they provoke debate and draw attention to uncomfortable topics that it might otherwise be easier to ignore. The
recent protests have forced everyone to have difficult discussions about race, class, poverty and attainment. Any serious examination
of the statistics shows that we're pretty far from equal, but what the figures also show is that it's wrong-headed and damaging to
lump very different groups together.
In these discussions politicians often lazily assume that all BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) people are the same, and
that all white groups are equally privileged. But a proper look at the data shows not just that there are striking difference within
BAME groups, but that the very worst-performing group of all are white working-class boys -- the forgotten demographic .
It might seem divisive to compare different groups, but attainment in education and in life is relative and if we're to help
the worst off, we have to know who they are. We should help everyone who needs it -- but it is vital to be able to compare groups
to know who's falling behind, relative to their peers. In the UK, Bangladeshi-Brits earn 20 percent less than whites on average,
for instance, but those with Indian heritage are likely to earn 12 percent more. Black Britons on average earn 9 percent less, but
Chinese earn 30 percent more. What these differences tell us is that employers aren't systematically discriminating between people
on the basis of their skin color, and that we have to look elsewhere to see the roots of inequality.
Ucas, the British university admissions service, can provide unique insight into these issues: it is the only outfit in the
world to gather detailed information on all university applicants, including their age, gender, neighborhood and school type. This
is collected along with data on who applied for which courses and who was accepted, and it is renewed in huge detail every year.
Much of the data shows predictable results: there is a gap between rich and poor, as you might expect in a UK state system where
the best schools tend to be located in the most expensive areas. But there are surprising discoveries too: nearly half the children
eligible for free school meals in inner London go on to higher education, but in the country outside London as a whole it is just
26 percent.
Black African British children outperform white children, whereas black Caribbean children tend to do worse. Poor Chinese
girls (that is to say, those who qualify for free school meals) do better than rich white children.
But, interestingly, the ethnic group least likely to get into university are whites. With the sole exception of Gypsy/Roma,
every ethnic group attends university at a higher rate than the white British and, of the white British who do attend, most are middle
class and 57 percent are female. The least likely group to go on to higher education are poor white boys. Just 13 percent of them
go on to higher education, less than any black or Asian group.
This is a trend that can also be seen in the GCSE data; only 17 percent of white British pupils eligible for free school meals
achieve a strong pass in English and maths. Students categorized as Bangladeshi, Black African and Indian are more than twice as
likely to do so. In 2007, the state sector saw 23 percent of black students go on to higher education; this was true for 22 percent
of whites. So about the same. But at the last count, in 2018, the gap had widened to 11 points (41 percent for black students, 30
percent for whites). The children of the white working class are falling away from their peers, in danger of becoming lost.
Going to university is not the golden ticket it once was, but it requires stupefying naivety to believe that seven out of eight
poor white boys take a sober look at the economics of higher education and choose to set up their own businesses instead. The trail
of hard evidence runs cold once they leave school, but the prospects for those who can barely read and write are dreadful and we
can get some idea of the consequences by looking at the 'left behind' areas where unemployment, crime and 'deaths of despair' are
significantly higher than the national average.
Angus Deaton, a Nobel Laureate based at Princeton University, came up with the phrase 'deaths of despair' when he looked at
the demographics of those suffering from alcoholism, depression and drug abuse. Suicides among whites, he found, was soaring and
those who took their own lives tended to be poor and low-educated. His recently-published book on the subject (
Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism , co-written
with Anne Case) tells the devastating story of what he calls 'the decline of white working-class lives over the last half-century'.
Yet while white working-class males are the largest disadvantaged minority, their cause is the least fashionable. In the intersectional
pyramid of victimhood, white males are at the bottom, tarnished by ideas of 'toxic masculinity' and 'white privilege' despite the
fact that in Britain class has always been the most significant indicator of true privilege. It's worrying, then, that any who attempt
'positive action' on behalf of poor white boys face a hostile reaction. Last year, Dulwich and Winchester colleges turned down a
bequest of more than Ł1 million ($1.25 million) because the donor, Sir Bryan Thwaites, wanted the money ring-fenced for scholarships
for white working-class boys. Peter Lampl, founder of the Sutton Trust, a charity whose stated mission is to improve social mobility,
described Thwaites's offer as 'obnoxious'.
When Ben Bradley, the Conservative MP for Mansfield, tried to ask an 'Equalities' question about working-class white boys in parliament
earlier this year, he was turned down by the Table Office because they do not have any 'protected characteristics'. The concept of
'protected characteristics' was wheeled into UK law by Harriet Harman's Equality Act, 10 years ago, and the Tories, then in opposition,
took the rare step of voting for it. The nine protected characteristics include 'race', 'sex' and 'sexual orientation', but the Table
Office is not alone in interpreting these as 'non-white', 'female' and 'gay'.
Under the Equality Act, 'positive discrimination' remains technically unlawful, but the barely indistinguishable concept of 'positive
action' is explicitly legal. Firms cannot have quotas, but they can set targets. Employers cannot refuse to look at job applications
from people who lack protected characteristics, but by stating that 'applications are particularly welcome' from BAME, female or
LBGTQ+ candidates they send a message that some need not apply.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
In 2016 the BBC pledged that half its workforce and leadership would be female by 2020 despite less than 40 percent of Britain's
full-time workers being women. It also set an 8 percent target for LGBT employees, although only around 2 percent of the population
identify as LGBT. This target has been comfortably exceeded, as has been the target of having 15 percent of employees from a BAME
background. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests last month, the corporation raised this target to 20 per cent.
The BBC admits that people from 'low and intermediate income households' are hugely underrepresented in its workforce. But what
does it do about it? Earlier this month Oxford University proudly reported that it was making 'steady progress' in its efforts to
make its campuses 'representative of wider society'. Of its most recent intake of British students, only 14 percent came from the
poorest 40 percent of households.
This fits a pattern: at a push, we can hear acknowledgement of the 'poor white male' problem. But that's as far as it ever goes.
The underperformance of white boys and men is not considered to be a problem worth solving. When figures come out showing the stunning
attainment gaps between boys and girls, the interest lasts for about a day. 'It always got a few headlines,' says Mary Curnock Cook,
the former head of Ucas. 'Where it never got any traction at all was in policy-making in government. I began to think that the subject
of white boys is just too difficult for them, given the politicization of feminism and women's equality.'
When I asked a teacher why white working-class boys have fallen so far behind, he gave me a short answer: girls are better behaved
and immigrant parents are stricter. This is a generalization but nonetheless interesting: if it is the case that parenting is the
problem, then it's not clear how much the UK government can do. Perhaps the reluctance to discuss the subject stems from fear that
such a discussion would lead to difficult territory about family structure, quality of parenting and -- in short -- culture. Perhaps
politicians think it better to let the problem fester, and the children suffer, than to risk discussing it.
Last month, the British government announced that its commission on racial inequality would include an examination into the underperformance
of working-class white boys at schools. Will it look deep into the causes? It might look at recent studies that suggest poor reading
levels in schools is a huge part of the problem. And it might ask whether 'positive action' in the name of diversity has left white
working-class boys behind.
The Michigan State University administration pressured professor Stephen Hsu to resign from
his position as vice president of research and innovation because he touted research that found
police are not more likely to shoot black Americans. The study found:
"The race of a police officer did not predict the race of the citizen shot. In other
words, black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers
were."
For political reasons, the authors of the study sought its retraction.
The U.S. Department of Education warned UCLA that it may impose fines for improperly and
abusively targeting white professor Lt. Col. W. Ajax Peris for disciplinary action over his use
of the n-word while reading to his class Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham
Jail" that contained the expressions "when your first name becomes "n----r," your middle name
becomes "boy" (however old you are). Referring to white civil rights activists King wrote,
"They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of
policemen who view them as 'dirty n----r-lovers.'"
Boston University is considering changing the name of its mascot Rhett because of his link
to "Gone with the Wind." Almost 4,000 Rutgers University students signed a petition to rename
campus buildings Hardenbergh Hall, Frelinghuysen Hall, and Milledoler Hall because these men
were slave owners . University of Arkansas students petitioned to remove a statue of J. William
Fulbright because he was a segregationist who opposed the Brown v. Board of Education that
ruled against school segregation.
The suppression of free speech and ideas by the elite is nothing new. It has a long ugly
history. Galileo Galilei was a 17th-century Italian astronomer, physicist, and engineer,
sometimes called "father of modern physics." The Catholic Church and other scientists of his
day believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Galileo offered evidence that the
Earth traveled around the sun -- heliocentrism. That made him "vehemently suspect of heresy"
and was forced to recant and sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the
Inquisition and was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
Much of today's totalitarianism, promotion of hate and not to mention outright stupidity,
has its roots on college campuses. Sources that report on some of the more egregious forms of
the abandonment of free inquiry, hate, and stupidity at our colleges are College Reform and
College Fix.
Prof. William S. Penn, who was a Distinguished Faculty Award recipient at Michigan State
University in 2003, and a two-time winner of the prestigious Stephen Crane Prize for Fiction,
explained to his students, "This country still is full of closet racists." He said:
"Republicans are not a majority in this country anymore. They are a bunch of dead white
people. Or dying white people."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The public has recently been treated to the term -- white privilege. Colleges have long-held
courses and seminars on "whiteness." One college even has a course titled "Abolition of
Whiteness." According to some academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that non-whites
do not. They earn a higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better
schools and achieve more. Based on that idea, Asian Americans have more white privilege than
white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has more white privilege than probably 95%
of white Americans.
Evidence of how stupid college ideas find their way into the public arena can be seen on our
daily news. Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, "We have to stop demonizing people and realize
the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right,
and we have to start doing something about them." Steven Clifford, a former King Broadcasting
CEO, said, "I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe
supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise (to vote), and I
think that will save our democracy."
As George Orwell said, "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."
If the stupid ideas of academic intellectuals remained on college campuses and did not
infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment -- much like a circus.
The Talmud is the absolute paradigm for racial supremacy, intolerance and hatred, a
satanic bible compiled for psychopaths and pedophiles. Anyone who burns it gets my vote for a
statue.
Our website traffic easily broke all records for the month of June, and these high levels
have now continued into July, suggesting that the huge rise produced by the initial wave of
Black Lives Matters protests may be more than temporary. It appears that many new readers first
discovered our alternative webzine at that point, and quite a few have stayed on as regular
visitors.
A longer-term factor that may be strengthening our position is the unprecedented wave of
ideological purges that have swept our country since early June, with prominent figures in the
intellectual and media firmaments being especially hard hit. When opinion-leaders become
fearful of uttering even slightly controversial words, they either grow silent or only mouth
the most saccharine homilies, thereby forcing many of their erstwhile readers to look elsewhere
for more candid discussions. And our own webzine is about as "elsewhere" as one could possibly
get.
Take, for example, the New York Times , more than ever our national newspaper of
record. For the last few years, one of its top figures had been Editorial Page Editor James
Bennet, who had previously run The Atlantic , and he was widely considered a leading
candidate to assume the same position at the Gray Lady after next year's scheduled retirement
of the current top editor. Indeed, with his brother serving as U.S. Senator from Colorado --
and a serious if second-rank presidential candidate -- the Lifestyle section of the
Washington Post had already hailed
the Bennet brothers as the potential saviors of the American establishment.
But then his paper published an op-ed by an influential Republican senator endorsing
President Trump's call for a harsh crackdown on riots and looting, and a Twitter mob of
outraged junior Times staffers organized a revolt. The mission of the NYT Opinion
Pages is obviously to provide a diversity of opinions, but Bennet
was quickly purged .
A similar fate befell the highly-regarded longtime editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer after his
paper ran a headline considered insufficiently respectful to black rioters . Michigan State
University researchers had raised doubts about the accepted narrative of black deaths at the
hands of police, and physicist Stephen Hsu, the Senior Vice President who had supported their
work,
was forced to resign his administrative position as a consequence.
Numerous other figures of lesser rank have been purged, their careers and livelihoods
destroyed for Tweeting
out a phrase such as "All Lives Matter," whose current classification as "hate speech"
might have stunned even George Orwell. Or perhaps a spouse or other close relative
had denounced the black rioters . The standards of acceptable discourse are changing so
rapidly that positions which were completely innocuous just a few weeks ago have suddenly
become controversial or even forbidden, with punishments sometimes inflicted on a retroactive
basis.
I am hardly alone in viewing this situation with great concern. Just last week, some 150
prominent American writers, academics, and intellectuals published an open
letter in Harpers expressing their grave concern over protecting our freedom of
speech and thought.
Admittedly, the credentials of some of the names on the list
were rather doubtful . After all, David Frum and various hard-core Neocons had themselves
led the effort to purge from the media all critics of Bush's disastrous Iraq War, and more
recently they have continued to do with same with regard to our irrational hostility towards
Putin's Russia. But the principled histories of other signers such as Noam Chomsky partially
compensated for the inclusion of such unpleasant opportunists.
Although the Harpers statement attracted many stars of our liberal firmament,
apparently few people read Harpers these days, with its website traffic being just a
tenth of our own. Therefore, the reaction in the media itself was a much more important factor,
and this seems to have been decidedly mixed. 150 rather obscure activists soon issued a
contrasting statement, which major outlets such as NYT , CNN , and the Los
Angeles Times seem to have accorded equal or greater weight, hardly suggesting that the
ideological tide has started to turn.
Back a couple of years ago, there was a popular joke going around Chinese social media in
which Chairman Mao came back to life with all sorts of questions about the modern world. Among
other things, he was informed his disastrous Cultural Revolution had shifted to America, a
prescient observation given the events of the last few weeks:
The controversial May 25th death of a black man named George Floyd in Minneapolis police
custody soon set off the greatest nationwide wave of protests, riots, and looting in at least
two generations, and the once-placid hometown of the Mary Tyler Moore Show alone suffered some
five hundred million dollars of damage. Some of the main political reactions have been
especially surprising, as the newly elevated activists of the Black Lives Matter movement have
received massive media support for their demands that local urban police departments be
"defunded," a proposal so bizarre that it had previously been almost unknown.
Statues, monuments, and other symbolic representations of traditional American history
quickly became a leading target. Hubert Humphrey's Minneapolis has long been an extremely
liberal bastion of the heavily Scandinavian Upper Midwest, having no ties to the South or
slavery, but Floyd's death soon launched an unprecedented national effort to eradicate all
remaining Confederate memorials and other Southern cultural traces throughout our society.
Popular country music groups such as the Dixie Chicks
and Lady
Antebellum had freely recorded their songs for decades, but they were now suddenly forced
to change their names in frantic haste.
And although this revolutionary purge began with Confederacy, it soon extended to include
much of our entire national history, with illustrious former occupants of the White House being
the most prominent targets. Woodrow Wilson ranked as Princeton University's most famous alumnus
and its former president, but his name
was quickly scraped off the renowned public policy school , while the Natural History
Museum of New York is similarly
removing a statue of Theodore Roosevelt .
Abraham Lincoln and
Ulysses S. Grant had together won the Civil War and abolished black slavery, but their
statues around the country were vandalized or ordered removed. The same fate befell
Andrew Jackson along with the author of the Star Spangled Banner, our national anthem.
The leading heroes of the American Republic from its birth in 1776 face "cancellation" and
this sudden tidal wave of attacks has clearly gained considerable elite backing. The New
York Times carries enormous weight in such circles, and last Tuesday their lead opinion
piece called for the
Jefferson Memorial to be replaced by a towering statue of a black woman, while one of their
regular columnists has repeatedly demanded that all
monuments honoring George Washington suffer a similar fate . Stacy Abrams, often mentioned
as one of Joe Biden's leading Vice Presidential choices, had previously made
the destruction of Georgia's historic Stone Mountain Memorial part of her campaign
platform, so we now seem only a step or two away from credible political demands that Mount
Rushmore be dynamited Taliban-style.
The original roots of our country were Anglo-Saxon and this heritage remained dominant
during its first century or more, but other strands in our national tapestry are suffering
similar vilification. Christopher Columbus discovered the New World for Spain, but he has
became a hated
and despised figure across our country , so perhaps in the near future his only surviving
North American monument will be the huge statue honoring him in the
heart of Mexico City . Father Junipero Serra founded Hispanic California and a few years
ago was canonized as the first and only Latin American saint, but his
statues have been toppled and his name already removed from Stanford University buildings.
At the time we acquired the sparsely-populated American Southwest, the bulk of our new Hispanic
population was concentrated in New Mexico, but the founding father of that region has now had
his monument attacked and vandalized . Cervantes, author of Don Quixote , is
considered the greatest writer in the Spanish language, and his statue was also
vandalized .
Perhaps these trends will abate and the onrushing tide of cultural destruction may begin to
recede. But at present there seems a serious possibility that the overwhelming majority of
America's leading historical figures prior to the political revolution of the 1930s may be
destined for the scrap heap. A decade ago, President Obama and most prominent Democrats opposed
Gay Marriage, but just a few years later, the CEO of Mozilla
was forced to resign when his past political contribution to a California initiative taking
that same position came to light, and today private individuals might easily lose their jobs at
many corporations for expressing such views. Thus, one might easily imagine that within five or
ten years, any public expressions of admiration for Washington or Jefferson might be considered
by many as bordering on "hate speech," and carry severe social and employment consequences. Our
nation seems to be suffering the sort of fate normally inflicted upon a conquered people, whose
new masters seek to break their spirit and stamp out any notions of future resistance.
A good example of this growing climate of fear came a couple of weeks ago when a longtime
blogger going under the name "Scott Alexander"
deleted his entire website and its millions of words of accumulated archives because the
New York Times was about to run an article revealing his true identity. I had only been
slightly aware of the SlateStarCodex
blogsite and the "rationalist" community it had gradually accumulated, but the development
was apparently significant enough to provoke
a long article in the New Yorker .
The target of the alleged witch-hunt was hardly any sort of right-winger. He was reportedly
a liberal Jewish psychiatrist living in Berkeley, whose most notable piece of writing had been
a massive 30,000 word refutation of neo-reactionary thought. But because he was willing to
entertain ideas and contributors outside the tight envelope of the politically-correct canon,
he believed that his life would be destroyed if his name became known.
Conservative commenter Tucker Carlson has recently attracted the highest ratings in cable
history for populist positions, some of which have influenced President Trump. But just a
couple of days ago, his top writer, a certain Blake Neff, was
forced to resign after CNN revealed his years of pseudonymous remarks on a rightwing
forum, even though the most egregious of these seemed no worse than somewhat crude
racially-charged humor.
Our own website attracts thousands of commenters, many of whom have left remarks vastly more
controversial than anything written by Neff let alone Alexander, and these two incidents
naturally
inspired several posts by blogger Steve Sailer , which attracted many hundreds of worried
comments in the resulting threads. Although I could entirely understood that many members of
our community were fearful of being "doxxed" by the media, I explained why I thought the
possibility quite unlikely.
Although it's been a few years since my name last appeared on the front page of the New
York Times , I am still at least a bit of a public figure, and I would say that many of the
articles I have published under my own name have been at least 100 times as "controversial" as
anything written by the unfortunate "Scott Alexander." The regular monthly traffic to our
website is six or seven times as great as that which flowed to SlateStarCodex prior to its
sudden disappearance, and I suspect that our influence has also been far greater. Any serious
journalist who wanted to get in touch with me could certainly do so, and I have been freely
given many interviews in the past, while hundreds of reasonably prominent writers, academics,
and other intellectuals have spent years on my regular distribution list.
Tracking down the identity of an anonymous commenter who once or twice made doubtful remarks
is extremely hard work, and at the end of the process you will have probably netted yourself a
pretty small fish. Surely any eager scalp-hunter in the media would prefer to casually mine the
hundreds of thousands of words in my articles, which would provide a veritable cornucopia of
exceptionally explosive material, all fully searchable and conveniently organized by particular
taboos. Yet for years the entire journalistic community has scrupulously averted their eyes
from such mammoth potential scandal. And the likely explanation may provide some important
insights into the dynamics of ideological conflict in the media.
Activist organizations often take the lead in locating controversial statements, which they
then pass along to their media allies for ritual denunciation, and much of my own material
would seem especially provocative to the fearsome ADL. Yet oddly enough, that organization
seemed quite reluctant to engage with me, and only after my repeated baiting did
they finally issue a rather short and perfunctory critique in 2018, which lacked any named
author. But even that lackluster effort afforded me an opening to respond with my own
7,300 word essay highlighting the very unsavory origins and activities of that
controversial organization. After that exchange, they went back into hiding and have remained
there ever since.
In my lengthy analysis
of the true history of World War II, I described what I called "the Lord Voldemort Effect,"
explaining why so much of our mainstream source material should be treated with great care:
In the popular Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, the great nemesis of the young
magicians, is often identified as "He Who Must Not Be Named," since the mere vocalization of
those few particular syllables might bring doom upon the speaker. Jews have long enjoyed
enormous power and influence over the media and political life, while fanatic Jewish
activists demonstrate hair-trigger eagerness to denounce and vilify all those suspected of
being insufficiently friendly towards their ethnic group. The combination of these two
factors has therefore induced such a "Lord Voldemort Effect" regarding Jewish activities in
most writers and public figures. Once we recognize this reality, we should become very
cautious in analyzing controversial historical issues that might possibly contain a Jewish
dimension, and also be particularly wary of arguments from silence.
However, even dread Lord Voldemorts may shrink from a terrifying Lord Voldemort of their
own, and I think that this website falls into that category. The ADL and various other powerful
organizations may have quietly issued an edict that absolutely forbids the media outlets they
influence from mentioning our existence. I believe there is strong evidence in favor of this
remarkable hypothesis.
Among Trump's surviving advisors, Stephen Miller provokes some of the most intense
hostility, and last November the SPLC and its media allies made a concerted attempt to force
his resignation based upon some of his private emails, which had promoted several controversial
posts by Steve Sailer. The resulting firestorm was discussed on this website, and
I analyzed some of the strange anomalies:
Just as might be expected, the whole SPLC attack is "guilt by association," and Ctrl-F
reveals a full 14 references to VDare, with the website characterized in very harsh terms.
Yet although there are several mentions of Steve and his writings, there is absolutely no
reference to this webzine, despite being Steve's primary venue.
Offhand, this might seem extremely odd. My own guess is that much of the material we
publish is 10x as "controversial" as anything VDare has ever run, and many of my own personal
articles, including those that have spent over a year on the Home page, might be up in the
30x or 40x potency range. Moreover, I think our traffic these days is something like 10x that
of VDare, seemingly making us an extremely juicy target.
Now admittedly, I don't know that Miller fellow, but the horrifying VDare post that Miller
supposedly shared was actually republished by VDare from this website. And that would surely
have made it very, very easy for the SPLC to use the connection as a opening to begin
cataloguing the unspeakingly horrifying list of transgressions we regularly feature, easily
expanding the length of their attack on Miller by adding another 6,000 words. Yet the silence
has been totally deafening. Puzzling
Here's my own hypothesis
As everyone knows, there are certain "powerful groups" in our society that so terrify
members of the media and political worlds that they receive the "Lord Voldemort Treatment,"
with mainstream individuals being terrified that merely speaking the name would result in
destruction. Indeed, the SPLC is one of the primary enforcers of that edict.
However, my theory is that even those dread Lord Voldemorts greatly fear an even more
dreadful Lord Voldemort of their own, namely this webzine. The SPLC writer knew perfectly
well that mere mention of The Unz Review might ensure his destruction. I'd guess that
the ADL/SPLC/AIPAC has made this prohibition absolutely clear to everyone in the
media/political worlds.
Given that Miller's main transgression was his promotion of posts originally published on
this website, the media could have easily associated him with the rest of our material, much of
which was sufficiently explosive to have almost certainly forced his resignation. Yet when the
journalists and activists weighed the likelihood of destroying Trump's most hated advisor
against the danger of mentioning our existence, the latter factor was still judged the
stronger, allowing Miller to survive.
This hypothesis was strongly supported by a second incident later that same month. We had
previously published an article by Prof. Eric Rasmusen of Indiana University, and I read in my
morning Times that he had suddenly
become embroiled in a major Internet controversy , with a chorus of angry critics seeking
to have him removed. According to the article, he had apparently promoted the "vile and stupid"
views of some anti-feminist website in one of his Tweets, which had come to the attention of an
enraged activist. The resulting firestorm of denunciations on Twitter had been viewed 2.5
million times, provoking a major academic controversy in the national media.
Being curious about what had happened, I contacted Rasmusen to see whether he might want to
submit a piece regarding the controversy,
which he did . But to my utter astonishment, I discovered that the website involved had
actually been our own, a fact that I never would never have suspected from the extremely vague
and circuitous discussion provided in the newspaper. Apparently, the old-fashioned
Who-What-Where provisions of the Times style manual had been quietly amended to prohibit
providing any hint of our existence even when we were at the absolute center of one of their
1,000 word news stories.
Highly-controversial ideas backed by strong evidence may prove dangerously contagious, and
the political/media strategy pursued by the ADL, the Times , and numerous other organs
of the elite establishment seems perfectly rational. Since our Bill of Rights still provides
considerable protection for freedom of speech, the next-best alternative is to institute a
strict cordon sanitaire , intended to strictly minimize the number of individuals who
might become infected.
Our webzine and my own articles are hardly the only victims of this sort of strategy -- once
dubbed "the Blackout" by eminent historian Harry Elmer Barnes -- whose other targets often
possess the most respectable of establishmentarian credentials.
Last month marked the 31st anniversary of the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and
elite media coverage was especially extensive this year due to our current global confrontation
with China. The New York Times devoted most of two full pages to a photo-laden
recapitulation while the Wall Street Journal gave it front-page treatment, with just
those two publications alone running some six separate articles and columns on those horrifying
events from three decades ago.
Yet back in the 1990s, the former Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post , who
had personally covered the events, published a long article in the prestigious Columbia
Journalism Review entitled The Myth of Tiananmen
, in which he publicly admitted that the supposed "massacre" was merely a fraudulent concoction
of careless journalists and dishonest propagandists. At least some of our top editors and
journalists must surely be aware of these facts, and feel guilty about promoting a
long-debunked hoax of the late 1980s. But any mention of those widely-known historical facts is
strictly forbidden in the media, lest American readers become confused and begin to consider an
alternative narrative.
Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal at least as powerful as our own, and the total break in
our relations began when Congress passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012, targeting important Russian
leaders. Yet none of our media outlets have ever been willing to admit that the facts used to
justify that very dangerous decision seem to have been entirely fraudulent, as recounted
in
the article we recently published by Prof. John Ryan.
Similarly, our sudden purge from both Google and Facebook came just days after my own
long article presenting the strong evidence that America's ongoing Covid-19 disaster was
the unintentional blowback from our own extremely reckless biowarfare attack against China (and
Iran). Over 130,000 of our citizens have already died and our daily life has been wrecked, so
the American people might grow outraged if they began to suspect that this huge national
disaster was entirely self-inflicted.
And the incident that sparked our current national upheaval includes certain elements that
our media has scrupulously avoided mentioning. The knee-neck hold used against George Floyd was
standard police procedure in Minneapolis and many other cities, and had apparently been
employed thousands of times across our country in recent years with virtually no fatalities.
Meanwhile, Floyd's official autopsy indicated that he had lethal levels
of Fentanyl and other illegal drugs in his system at the time of his demise. Perhaps the
connection between these two facts is more than purely coincidental, and if they became widely
known, popular sentiments might shift.
Finally, our alternative media webzine is pleased to have recently added two additional
columnists together with major portions of their archives, which will help to further broaden
our perspective.
Larry Romanoff has been a regular contributor to the Global Research website, most recently
focusing on the Coronavirus outbreak in China, and earlier this year he published an
article pointed to the considerable evidence that the virus had originated in the U.S.,
which was cited by Chinese officials and
soon became a flashpoint in American-Chinese relations . After having been viewed millions
of times, that piece and several others seem to have disappeared from their original venue, but
along with the rest of his writings, they are now conveniently available on our own
website .
For the last quarter-century, Jared Taylor has probably been America's most prominent White
Nationalist writer. Although Black Nationalists such as Al Sharpton have cable television shows
and boast of many dozens of visits to the White House, the growing climate of ideological
repression has caused Taylor and his American Renaissance organization to be
deplatformed from YouTube, Twitter, and numerous other Internet services. One of his main
writers is Gregory Hood, whom we have now added as a regular columnist , together with dozens of
his pieces over the last few years.
Claiming 'Unique Opportunity to Lead the Nation,' Parents Ask High School to Adopt 'Freedom
of Expression Resolution'
Has the cancel culture infected your kids' school? A parent group may have a partial remedy.
A
resolution submitted to the New Trier High School board in north suburban Chicago would, if
adopted, assure:
New Trier High School's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by
most members of the New Trier High School community to be offensive, unwise.
It would guaranty all members of the school community "the broadest possible latitude to
speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn."
The resolution apparently would be the first of its kind in the nation at the high school
level. It is modeled on
The Chicago Statement , which was adopted by the University of Chicago in 2015 in response
to the illiberal trend of free speech intolerance on college campuses . The full resolution
appears below.
It was drafted by New Trier
Neighbors , a parent group that grew out of opposition to what was criticized as one-sided
content in the school's "Seminar Day" in 2017, which a
Wall Street Journal article called "Racial Indoctrination Day."
The seminar received extensive, national media attention because of its exclusive focus on
topics like systemic racism, implicit bias and, as the Journal put it, the "divisive view of
race as a primordial fact, the essence of identity, a bright line between oppressed and
oppressor."
We
wrote about it here at the time. My son attended the school then. I was among the critics
who asked for a broader range of viewpoints like those of Robert Woodson, Shelby Steele, Thomas
Sowell, John McWhorter and Corey Brooks. The school rejected our requests.
Since then, the school has only broadened what it describes as its "equity initiative,"
expanding what dissenting parents regard as authoritarian imposition of the far left's
single-minded views on race – as well as other topics. Last year, the school moved to
infuse its administration's views on "equity" into virtually all subject areas including math,
science, sports, language and more, which you can see in the
memo linked here .
Some right-of-center students have
spoken up about having their viewpoints squelched, and even being penalized on grading for
their views. My kids reported the same things when there.
New Trier is hardly alone. Similar stories from high schools and even grade schools around
the country are now common.
The resolution presents the school with an opportunity to move in a more balanced direction
that respects diversity of opinion and returns the school to a focus on critical thinking
skills. New Trier Neighbors drafted the resolution in consultation with the K-12 policy experts
at the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education.
No word yet on how or when the school board will act on it.
We often receive emails at Wirepoints from ordinary citizens asking "What can I do? How can
I get involved to stop what's happening?"
This resolution is one answer. Push for a similar one in your school districts.
The cancel culture that now plagues the nation has its roots where it should have no place
whatsoever – schools. That's especially true about the disastrously counterproductive
orthodoxy on systemic racism, implicit bias and the like. Its easily predictable consequences
are now apparent across the nation – more racism and division. Race relations have been
set back by fifty years.
For those reasons, what New Trier itself does with the resolution is actually secondary.
While we hope it will adopt the resolution, it's far more important that its introduction set a
trend for districts around the nation.
Indoctrination long ago replaced education on most college campuses. Freedom of expression
resolutions might help save high schools from the same fate.
Parents, it's in your hands.
The New Trier High School Freedom of Expression Resolution, presented to the Board for
adoption in its entirety, and based on The Chicago Statement:
Because New Trier High School is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it
guarantees all members of the New Trier High School community the broadest possible latitude to
speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn. Except insofar as limitations on that freedom are
necessary to the functioning of New Trier High School, New Trier High School fully respects and
supports the freedom of all members of the New Trier High School community "to discuss any
problem that presents itself."
Of course, the ideas of different members of the New Trier High School community will often
and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of New Trier High School to attempt
to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even
offensive. Although New Trier High School greatly values civility, and although all members of
the New Trier High School community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of
mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification
for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to
some members of our community.
The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean
that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. New Trier High School may
restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that
constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or
confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of
New Trier High School.In addition, New Trier High School may reasonably regulate the time,
place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of
New Trier High School. But these are narrow exceptions to the general principle of freedom of
expression, and it is vitally important that these exceptions never be used in a manner that is
inconsistent with New Trier High School's commitment to a completely free and open discussion
of ideas.
In a word, New Trier High School's fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or
deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by
most members of the New Trier High School community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or
wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the New Trier High School community, not for
New Trier High School as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on
those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the
ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the New Trier High School
community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is
an essential part of New Trier High School's educational mission.
As a corollary to New Trier High School's commitment to protect and promote free expression,
members of the New Trier High School community must also act in conformity with the principle
of free expression. Although members of the New Trier High School community are free to
criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who
are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with
the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, New Trier High
School has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate
and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it."
Criticisms of "cancel culture" often is hypocrtical, as was the case with Weiss, and are connected with prioritizing speech that
shores up the status quo -- necon dominance in the US MSM.
An open letter published by Harper's magazine,
and signed by 150 prominent writers and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new
"cancel culture".
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky and Matt Karp, centrists such as J K
Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defence of free speech.
Although the letter doesn't explicitly use the term "cancel culture", it is clearly what is meant in the complaint about a "stifling"
cultural climate that is imposing "ideological conformity" and weakening "norms of open debate and toleration of differences".
It is easy to agree with the letter's generalized argument for tolerance and free and fair debate. But the reality is that many
of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their
deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their professed goal: they want to stifle free speech,
not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinize the motives , rather than the substance,
of the letter.
A new 'illiberalism'
"Cancel culture" started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to have said offensive things. But of
late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible, as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak
at a public venue or to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of "illiberalism":
"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls
for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred
from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; The result has been to steadily
narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion
among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient
zeal in agreement."
Tricky identity politics
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more just world, some of those signing –
like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former US State Department official – would
be facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting "interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively,
not being held up as champions of free speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free speech, even for those with appalling
opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" that rationalised the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss, a New York Times columnist, signed
because they have found their lives getting tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while
advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and predictions have turned out to be
so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the backlash on university campuses and social media.
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder to navigate the tricky terrain of
identity politics without tripping up. The reputational damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of the New York Review of Books two years ago after after he published and defended an
article that
violated
the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the
mistake of thinking her followers would be as
fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by her Harry Potter books.
'Fake news, Russian trolls'
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be paid in the new, more culturally sensitive
climate does not mean that they are all equally interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all , because he correctly understands that the powerful are only too
keen to find justifications to silence those who challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their
interests in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their political opponents, then any restrictions
will soon be turned against them. The establishment will always tolerate the hate speech of a Trump or a Bolsonaro over the justice
speech of a Sanders or a Corbyn.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the rightwingers and the centrists – are interested in free speech for
themselves and those like them . They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating
the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few years ago, before social media started to level
the playing field a little.
The center and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who seriously challenges the neoliberal status
quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is promoting "fake news" or is a "Russian troll". This updating of the charge of being
"un-American" embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social media accountability
In other words, apart from in the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special pleading – for a return to the status
quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees
with the letter's vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel.
And as Israel's critics know only too well, advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before
the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously critiquing this small, highly militarized
state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the
global economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing the letter have now seen the error
of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel
culture they have always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the "cancel culture" because of two recent developments: a rapid growth in identity politics among liberals
and leftists, and a new popular demand for "accountability" spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel's critics
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those signing the letter have been intensifying
their own contribution to cancel culture in relation to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing as Israel has more obviously become
a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realize
long-harbored plans to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow "robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters" on Israel, Israel's supporters have preferred the
tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of free speech: "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions
of speech and thought".
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour party who was reviled, along with his supporters, as an antisemite – one
of the worst smears imaginable – by several people on the Harper's list, including
Rowling and
Weiss . Such claims
were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott of Israel (BDS), modeled on the one
that helped push South Africa's leaders into renouncing apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as antisemites – and Weiss
again has been a prime
offender .
The incidents highlighted in the Harper's letter in which individuals have supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the
cancelling of a major political party and of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that leftists – including many Jewish anti-Zionists
– have been pilloried as antisemites to prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel's behavior and its abuses of Palestinian
rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of antisemitism, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance,
that has been rapidly gaining ground in western countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritizing the safety of Israel from being criticized
before the safety of Jews from being vilified and attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come
to
regret .
Why has none of this "cancel culture" provoked an open letter to Harper's from these champions of free speech?
Double-edge sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but their right to continue dominating the
public square – and their right to do so without being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at the Wall Street Journal and then the New York Times, spent her student years trying to
get Muslim professors
fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner
of "academic freedom", claiming pro-Israel students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was the real threat to academic freedom.
This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors
as a formative experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools they used for so long to stifle the free
speech of others have now been turned against them. Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for
example – are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of race, sex and gender.
Narcissistic concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers and intellectuals, and how blind they
are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left
British newspaper the Guardian. Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very much aligned with the centrists
among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article
published in the Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the "cancel culture" campaign against the Labour party referenced above. He was one of the key
figures in Britain's Jewish community who breathed life into the
antisemitism smears
against Corbyn and his supporters.
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland's voice can be heard cracking as he explains how he has been a victim of the cancel
culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel's most extreme apologists –
those who are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a "kapo", the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi concentration camps, and a "sonderkommando",
the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse "burrows under your skin" and
"hurts tremendously".
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being cancelled by a section of his own community,
Freedland has been at the forefront of the campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as antisemites on the
flimsiest of evidence.
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture – unless it applies to himself . His concern is purely
narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of those who signed the letter.
Conducting a monologue
The letter's main conceit is the pretence that "illiberalism" is a new phenomenon, that free speech is under threat, and that
the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when newspapers and websites did not have a talkback
section, when blogs were few in number and rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account
"the great and the good".
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a monologue in which they revealed their opinions
to the rest of us as if they were Moses bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And that was because only those who held approved
opinions were ever given a media platform from which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the billionaire owners of the corporate media,
all you could do was print your own primitive newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly obscure writers quickly found they
could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and
social media.
Silencing the left
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper's. Under cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility
by Chomsky's name, a proportion of those signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the
part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They are against the small cancel culture
– the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held
to account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of these writers and public figures are
using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they don't like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of "cancel culture" are really about prioritizing "responsible" speech, defined as speech shared by centrists
and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a
manufactured consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy – had no real voice.
The new attacks on "cancel culture" echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders' supporters, who were framed as "Bernie Bros" – the evidence-free
allegation that he attracted a rabble of aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders' policies, so the center and the right now want to discredit the left more generally
by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully everyone else into silence and submission through their "cancel culture".
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily have added his name to the letter alongside
Chomsky's. Trump used his recent Independence Day
speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper's letter. He at least was explicit in equating "cancel culture"
with what he called "far-left fascism":
"One of [the left's] political weapons is 'Cancel Culture' – driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding
total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is the very definition of totalitarianism This attack on our liberty, our magnificent
liberty, must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly."
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper's letter, in all its cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new
"cancel culture" are simply another front – alongside supposed concerns about "fake news" and "Russian trolls" – in the establishment's
efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some of them even Russian. Rather, it is
to point out that our attention is being redirected, and our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has been mostly a problem of the right.
And the worst examples of fake news – and the most influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of
the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivaled the lies justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled
by a political elite and their stenographers in the corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths,
turned millions more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic extremism whose effects
we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified US interference in Syria and Venezuela,
or rationalized war crimes against Iran, or approved the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can
only be understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely find a platform outside of social
media.
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics rather than class politics. I say it also
as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture – whether it is the old-style, "liberal" cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow
"consensus" politics (the Overton window), or the new "leftwing" cancel culture that too often prefers to focus on easy cultural
targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky's name is attached should beware. Just as "fake news" has provided
the pretext for Google and social media platforms to change their algorithms to vanish left-wingers from searches and threads, just
as "antisemitism" has been redefined to demonize the left, so too the supposed threat of "cancel culture" will be exploited to silence
the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying left-wing "mob" – a mob that that claims a right to challenge their views
on Israel or trans issues – will become the new rallying cry from the establishment for action against "irresponsible" or
"intimidating" speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on identity politics, or because they fear
being labelled an antisemite, or because they mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that
they are the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
You don't criticise Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from a left perspective – without expecting a
whirlwind of opposition. But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defence is just plain wrong-headed,
so I want to quickly address it. Here's one my followers expressing the point succinctly:
"The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or histories of some of the signatories,
nor their future plans."
The problem, as I'm sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter fails not just because of the other people
who signed it but on its merit too . And that's because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established
forms of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, establishment-backed cancel culture, distorts our understanding
of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly establishment stooges skew our perceptions of free speech problems so that we
side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky sign this letter. And rather than
address their points individually, let me try another way of explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furore over "fake news", even though there is some fake news on social media?
Why has he not endorsed the "Bernie Bros" narrative, even though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media?
Why has he not supported the campaign claiming the Labour party has an antisemitism problem, even though there are some antisemites
in the Labour party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn't joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he understands how power works, and that on the left
you hit up, not down. You certainly don't cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is
setting it out in relation to Iran:
"Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in fortifying those who want to carry out policies
I don't agree with, like bombing."
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his support would be used for nefarious ends – he
shouldn't have joined this campaign. He made a mistake. He's fallible.
Also, this isn't about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn't be the issue. The issue should be that a bunch
of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork
for further curbs on its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now buying into that
narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That's why Chomsky's role cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left might find to justify this letter.
Here's the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in future be used to protect free speech
by the left when we are threatened with being "cancelled" – as, for example, with the antisemitism smears that were used against
anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the British Labour party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how power works in our societies: who gets
to decide what words mean and how principles are applied. This letter won't help the left because "cancel culture" is being framed
– by this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a "loony left" problem. It is a new iteration of the "politically correct gone mad"
discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won't help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticised Israel's killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris
Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended the party's record on being anti-racist.
The "cancel culture" furore isn't interested in the fact that they were "cancelled". Worse still, this moral panic turns the whole
idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of cancelling
Israel and Jews.
Israel's supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel "cancels" that country ("wipes it off
the map"), "cancels" Israel's Jewish population ("drives them into the sea"), and "cancels" Jews more generally ("denies a central
component of modern Jewish identity").
Greater awareness of "cancel culture" would not have saved Corbyn from the antisemitism smears because the kind of cancel culture
that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as "cancelling".
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often
– to the power dynamics of the "cancel culture" discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything
Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour's anti-Zionists. He doesn't see that witch-hunt
as "cancel culture", and neither will anyone else with a large platform like his to protect:
There is no issue in American life about which the mainstream media ignores or distorts
the truth more than Israel/Palestine, and censors or "cancels" the people who could tell
it.
So far, the growing debate over "cancel culture" has understandably focused on individual
cases. Certainly, Israel/Palestine has many examples of courageous thinkers who have suffered
for their views: Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein come immediately to mind. But the
blackout has been so far-reaching for so long that we can say that an entire subject has been
ignored or distorted in the mainstream almost beyond recognition.
Right now, Israel is conducting a violent sabotage campaign against Iran, in an effort to
provoke America into war -- and there is a nearly complete news blackout in the United
States.
Maybe the 153 celebrated signatories to that now famous letter to
Harper's magazine that warned about "cancel culture" could draft another epistle,
one that appeals for an end to suppressing free discussion about Israel and
Palestine.
On July 10, another explosion hit near near Tehran, the latest in a string that have
struck at, among other targets, Iran's nuclear energy program at Natanz. The New York
Times , to its credit, is
reporting on the sabotage campaign, and the paper even said that one of the attacks was
"apparently engineered by Israel." But beyond the basic facts, nothing: no editorials, no
opinion pieces warning about the risk of war, no reminder that Benjamin Netanyahu has been
trying to instigate the U.S. against Iran for at least a decade. There was no effort to
explain that Israel's attacks are meant to goad Iran into retaliating, which will draw in the
U.S., and possibly help Donald Trump's sinking reelection campaign.
At least the Times is doing the bare minimum. So far in the Washington
Post, not a word from its own reporters or commenters; you would think that the paper
could find sources in the D.C. intelligence community to explain the danger of war. On
National Public Radio, one short,
confused report that provided no context at all. Foreign coverage on the U.S. cable
networks continues to be an insignificant joke.
U.S. soldiers, sailors and pilots could soon find themselves in a shooting war that would
stun our citizens with its suddenness.
The mainstream U.S. media's failure to report Israel's effort to provoke fighting with
Iran is happening at the same time as American journalistic malpractice continues over
Netanyahu's plan to illegally annex up to 30 percent of occupied West Bank Palestine. There
has been
very little news coverage of annexation, and Palestinian voices continue to be ignored.
Three members of the New York Times editorial board have extensive experience with
Israel/Palestine: Thomas Friedman, Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. None of them has yet written
a single word about annexation.
Here is a final paradox. "Cancel culture" means that the New York Times and the
rest of the mainstream are nearly closed to the truth about both Israel's instigation over
Iran, and its probable illegal annexation in the West Bank. But Friedman, the most
influential foreign affairs columnist in America, has to, along with his editorial page
colleagues, self cancel -- because he, like them, can't write anything without
sharply criticizing Israel.
When Sportsnet
fired Canadian hockey and media personality Don Cherry in November 2019 for his bigoted remarks on Coach's Corner , we
heard the usual right-wing complaint chorus about the suppression of free speech by the liberal left.
A favored method of censorship nowadays is said to be "de-platforming," or denying those you disagree with a platform to speak.
This is also called "cancel culture." Most recently, a group of around 150 prominent intellectuals signed a "
Letter on Justice and Open Debate " in
Harper 's magazine, setting off a firestorm of debate about the limits of free speech on the left.
In reality, though, cancel culture is (at best) a marginal activity on the left. By and large, progressives still believe in reasoned
debate.
This article refers to experience in Canada, but it has its counterpart in many other countries as well.
If we want to identify the real masters of cancel culture, however, we need to follow the modus operandi of the institutional
pro-Israel lobby and its adherents, like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), B'nai Brith Canada (BBC), the Simon Wiesenthal
Center (SWC) and other organizations on the Jewish right. They can teach us a thing or two about how to kill free speech, and how
cancel culture works to stop an utterance before it is even spoken.
Presumably, the reason to nip an Israel-critical event in the bud is that if it goes forward, people might attend and learn something,
especially from a rigorous debate. Even a picket-line outside an event or a disruption during one might draw attention to what is
being said. For the avid intellectual protectors of Israel, that must be stopped at all costs.
The Pro-Israel Cancel Culture Playbook
A spate of examples will follow, but first, to summarize, here are what might be called the "rules of engagement" for the pro-Israel
de-platformers.
The minute you hear about an event featuring a critique of Israel, employ the following formula:
Have a number of organizations at work. If the CIJA is squeamish, then get B'nai Brith Canada to do it. If they or the Simon Wiesenthal
Center have qualms, then the imprudent and belligerent Jewish Defense League or Herut Canada can rush in. No matter how distinguished
and credible the speaker, try guilt-by-association, however tenuous. Did their uncle belong to a questionable organization? Did their
cousin write something critical of Israel? Do they pay dues to a student union that supports Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)?
Shut them down! If the speakers are academics, go after their publications or insist their tenure be denied. If they are students,
demand that their degrees be withheld. The Canadian Jewish News recently reported
: "Rather than debating them about Israel, Manfred Gerstenfeld, the former chair of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs (JCPA),
makes the case for professionally discrediting the enemies [sic] of Israel. 'Find plagiarism or a wrong footnote and make it public,'
he said at a fundraising event for the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, in Montreal on Dec. 1 [2019]. 'Only about 10 per cent
of academics are hard-core anti-Israel and the rest are not going to risk their careers. Academics are cowards.'" Absent real evidence
of antisemitism, a mere accusation will suffice. Find out where the event is being held and who are the sponsors. Contact both the
venue and the sponsors and tell them that the speaker or the event is antisemitic. If you don't want to threaten violence yourself,
suggest that there might be violence from some unknown quarter if the event proceeds. Tell the host or sponsor that they too will
be considered antisemitic if they continue involvement. If any of the venues or sponsors accede to these demands, publicize it to
shame the non-acceders. If an event you don't like is cancelled or postponed, claim credit. Even if the shut-down attempt is not
completely successful, the cost and effort involved in resisting your attack will frighten the organizers and make others think twice
about doing something similar in the future. What I call the "cringe effect" is particularly useful with the media. When a critic
of Israel appears, initiate an avalanche of disparaging letters, emails, and phone calls. Even if the preponderance of material in
the particular media outlet has been pro-Israel, criticize the "lack of balance." If all else fails, demand "equal time" of equal
prominence for an opposing view. That should scare the media outlet away from the topic. The Playbook in Action
While pro-Israel cancel culture goes back a long way, the following are more than two dozen fairly recent examples of the playbook
in action. They are taken mostly from published reports, but a few are taken from accounts by people who were directly involved.
Vancouver
In 2016, anti-Israeli-occupation activists were slated for a panel at a Simon Fraser University (SFU) conference on genocide.
One presenter would argue that what had been done to the Palestinians constituted genocide. (The Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide definition involves any of the following: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily
or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and/or forcibly transferring children
of the group to another group.) B'nai Brith
reached out to SFU to have the panel cancelled. Organizers pushed back, reaching out to a range of supporters at SFU. The panel
and conference went ahead.
In 2017, the University of British Columbia (UBC) Alma Mater Society (student union) gave notice of a referendum to support the
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement: "Do you support your student union in boycotting products and divesting from companies
that support Israeli war crimes, illegal occupation and the oppression of Palestinians?" Rather than campaigning to get students
to reject that motion on its merits, Hillel, an organization that purports to represent Jewish university students, filed a court
motion to bar the referendum entirely. That court action
failed .
In 2018, the Canadian Association of Cultural Studies sponsored a conference at SFU entitled "Carceral Culture" including a panel
on Israel/Palestine. Again, B'nai Brith attempted to get it cancelled. Counter-mobilization defeated the B'nai Brith gambit.
Calgary
In 2014, the group Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) prepared a photo exhibit entitled "
Dispossessed, but Defiant: Indigenous Struggles
from around the World " which juxtaposed the Palestinian travails with those of other objects of colonialism, like South African
blacks under apartheid and Canadian indigenous peoples. The exhibition was meant to travel to venues around Canada, but pro-Israel
opponents attempted repeatedly to block those displays. In Calgary, they managed to de-platform the exhibit from a small community
centre. When the hosts finally found a United Church location, opponents inundated the new venue with calls and emails. The show
went ahead but the activists have never been able to rent that church since, validating points 10 and 11 in the playbook, above.
In 2016, local activists booked space at the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for a talk by Haider Abu Ghosh of the Palestinian
Medical Relief Society, about the eradication by the Israelis of three Palestinian villages in 1967. The activists were forced by
complaints to switch the event to the Calgary Public Library. Pro-Israel groups put so much pressure on the library that the hosts
were forced to provide security, at significant cost.
Calgary writer Marcello Di Cintio won the City of Calgary W. O. Mitchell Book Prize in 2012 for "
Walls: Travels Along the Barricades " and, again, in 2018
for " Pay No Heed to the Rockets: Palestine in
the Present Tense ." But local pro-Israel organizations opposed his appointment as writer-in-residence at the public library,
insisting, against all evidence, that he was an antisemite.
Winnipeg
In February, 2018, several groups, including Independent Jewish Voices-Winnipeg, the Canadian Arab Association of Manitoba and
the United Jewish Peoples Order-Winnipeg, organized a public meeting at the University of Winnipeg entitled "My Jerusalem" to discuss
the US government's recent decision to move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. One of the speakers was Rabbi David Mivasair, a member
of Independent Jewish Voices. Unable to have the meeting cancelled,
B'nai
Brith Canada complained to the university that the speakers were antisemitic and demanded that the university apologize. B'nai
Brith claimed that one of the speakers accused Israel of committing a "genocide" against Palestinians and that another referred to
Israeli Jews as "European settlers." The university's Human Rights and Equity officer investigated the complaint and, claiming to
have consulted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, allowed the smear to stand, concluding
that the criticism of Israel amounted to antisemitism. When asked by meeting sponsors precisely which statements in the meeting were
antisemitic, the officer declined to answer.
Rabbinical student Lex Rofeberg, an activist with the American Institute for the Next Jewish Future, had been invited as a keynote
speaker to Limmud Winnipeg (an annual Jewish cultural and educational event) in March 2019. Limmud
canceled the invitation when the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg threatened to withdraw its sponsorship, complaining that Rofeberg
was a critic of Israel and a supporter of BDS and the organization
IfNotNow . Neither of Rofeberg's planned presentations (one on digital Judaism, the other on Judaism and sports) had anything
to do with his views on Israel, but he was guilty by association.
In April 2019, the Winnipeg Social Planning Council and the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute invited American-Palestinian activist
and co-founder of the 2017 women's march Linda Sarsour to speak. The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg and B'nai Brith Canada, among
others, lobbied to get the event cancelled and convinced the Winnipeg mayor and the provincial deputy premier to oppose it. The opponents
managed to get Sarsour shut out of the Seven Oaks Performing Arts Centre and the meeting moved to the Ukrainian Labour Temple, where
it
continued .
A MEMBER OF THE JDL DEFACING THE FOODBENDERS STOREFRONT (PHOTO: TWITTER)
Toronto
With Canada's largest Jewish as well as Muslim and Arab populations, Toronto can be a lightning rod for de-platforming outrages.
In 2007, CanStage, a theater company, decided to
cancel
its plans to mount a production of "My Name is Rachel Corrie" (a play taken from the writings of the American activist killed
in Gaza by an Israeli bulldozer while protesting), and two years later Crow's Theatre
presented no more
than a few "staged readings" of "Seven Jewish Children" (by British playwright Caryl Churchill). Both plays were critical of
Israel, and both of these Toronto productions had been subject to negative lobbying by the pro-Israel lobby who labelled them antisemitic.
A more sensational example of cancel culture occurred when, in 2009, scholars at Queen's University and at York University's Osgoode
Hall Law School organized an international conference called "Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace."
The advisory board of the conference included four Israelis. Yet, pro-Israel organizations including the Jewish Defense League, CIJA,
Hasbara, B'nai Brith, and United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto went on the warpath, demanding the conference be cancelled.
York University was warned of boycotts and the cessation of donations and was denounced in full-page newspaper ads. When B'nai Brith
accused one of the speakers of being a Holocaust denier, a threatened lawsuit forced B'nai Brith to apologize on its web page. When
the university refused to cancel the event, the Stephen Harper Conservative federal government ordered the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council to reconsider its funding of the event (which the SSHRC refused). The Canadian Association of University Teachers
(CAUT) set up an independent commission of Inquiry under mathematician Jon Thompson to investigate. The commission and the book that
emerged from it (" No Debate: The Israel Lobby and
Free Speech at Canadian Universities ," Lorimer 2011) concluded that, although the event went ahead, academic freedom had been
grievously damaged.
In 2009, the Koffler Centre for the Arts (associated with Toronto's Jewish community) commissioned an art project from Reena Katz
commemorating the history of Kensington Market. But when its executive director discovered that Katz had called Israel an "apartheid
state", the organization dissociated itself
from the project . As in the Limmud case in Winnipeg, above, and other examples, below, the Kensington exhibit had nothing to
do with Israel. But Katz was guilty by association.
In 2011, a master's thesis critical of Israel by University of Toronto student Ben Peto entitled "The Victimhood of the Powerful:
White Jews, Zionism and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education," was
roundly denounced
by pro-Israel groups , who demanded that the university withdraw their degree. University officials demurred.
For years, pro-Israel organizations have attempted to have the Quds Day march in Toronto entirely shut down. Occurring annually
in June and originally sponsored by the Iranian government, the event has drawn fire from pro-Israel organizations, mostly due to
the strength of its criticism of the Israeli regime. In March 2019, after consultations with legal specialists and other stakeholders,
Toronto city staff reported that shutting down the entire activity was not advisable. After demands to reconsider, staff reported
a month later that the city already had means at its disposal to counter specific acts of alleged hate speech. According to this
second report , moreover, in response to complaints by pro-Israel advocates about the 2018 rally, Toronto police had concluded
"the words spoken during the rally, which were captured and posted to YouTube, did not fit the criteria of a Hate Crime." Undeterred,
opponents initiated other actions to disallow the event. The rally went ahead in June 2019, with 1,000 participants and proceeded
online amid the coronavirus lockdown in 2020.
In summer of 2019, the Palestine Youth Movement was planning an event at Toronto's Trinity St. Paul's United Church to launch
a new scholarship named after Palestinian novelist and nationalist
Ghassan Kanafani . B'nai
Brith Canada appealed to the board of the church to cancel the event, based on its claims that Kanafani was a spokesperson for the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and was implicated in the 1972 Lod Airport Massacre (he was assassinated soon afterward
by the Israelis). The church board
quickly capitulated . Kanafani has a martyr's cachet among Palestinians similar to that of
Josef Trumpeldor for Israeli Jews.
Sometimes the pro-Israel cancel culture crowd targets moderate pro-Israel Jews, too, reminiscent of the toxic internal feuds that
tear family businesses apart. In January 2020, York University's Israel and Golda Koschitzky Centre for Jewish Studies
canceled
a panel discussion about the climate for Jewish students on campuses. The Jewish Defense League boasted online that it was responsible,
explaining that it opposed the appearance of moderate Mira Sucharov (which the JDL labelled, incorrectly, a "BDS enabler"). To make
the intervention truly bizarre, the JDL also opposed the presence of Alexandre Joffe, who is the editor and BDS monitor for the group
Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which is anti-BDS.
In July 2020, an individual with the Jewish Defense League (JDL) was filmed defacing the storefront of the Foodbenders sandwich
shop in Toronto in broad daylight. According to Yves Engler, writing at Mondoweiss
:
"JDL thugs held a rally in front of Foodbenders, which has 'I Love Gaza' painted on its window. During their hate fest they
scrubbed a Palestinian Lives Matter marking from the sidewalk and, similar to what Jewish supremacist settlers do to Palestinian
homes in the occupied West Bank, someone painted the symbol on the Israeli flag onto the restaurant window. Alongside painting
Stars of David on her storefront, Foodbenders' owner Kimberly Hawkins has faced a bevy of online abuse. Hawkins has been called
a 'dirty Palestinian whore' and told 'Palestine sucks I will burn your business down' and 'I hope your family gets trapped inside
the restaurant when it burns.'"
For over 25 years, Hamilton has hosted the Gandhi Peace Festival. In 2019, B'nai Brith attempted to have two speakers kicked off
the program, organized by McMaster Professor Rama Singh. One of the speakers targeted was Azeezah Kanji, an Islamic law scholar and
director of programming at the Toronto-based Noor Cultural Centre. The other was McMaster Professor Emeritus Dr. Atif Kubursi, an
economist specializing in oil and the Middle East and former Acting Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Western Asia. He is the recipient of the Canadian Centennial Medal for his outstanding academic contributions. Neither
of them was expected to even speak about Palestine at the event, but both had made statements critical of Israel in the past and
thus were accused of guilt by association. At B'nai Brith's urging, the Hamilton Jewish Federation
withdrew its
participation . The event went on without the Federation's participation but with those two speakers presenting.
Institutional Jewish organizations have tried for many years to get university presidents across the country to ban Israeli Apartheid
Week (IAW). One of the more aggressive campaigns against IAW has been at McMaster University. In 2020, several groups, including
the Jewish Defense League and Hillel Ontario
asked McMaster
University to outlaw the annual event , claiming it makes Jewish students on campus uncomfortable and unsafe. The university
declined to comply with the blanket request to shut down the activities. A spokesperson insisted that "The group organizing the event
in question is a student group registered with the McMaster Students Union [these] groups are governed by McMaster's Student Code
of Conduct, which promotes the safety and security of all students and encourages respect for others."
London
The University of Western Ontario's Student's Council
has a long
history of trying to de-platform campus organizations devoted to criticism of Israel. At first, it was Solidarity for Palestinian
Human Rights (SPHR), then UWO Public Interest Research Group (UWO-PIRG). One of the speakers that UWO-PIRG had sponsored (and presumably
offended the Student's Council) was renowned Jewish-Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, author of, among other books, "
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
." The Ontario Human Rights Commission upheld three complaints against the university and one against the Student's Council and
required the Student's Council to apologize and to ratify the organizations.
Ottawa
Rehab Nazzal is a multidisciplinary artist of Palestinian origin based in Toronto, some of whose work deals with the harsh treatment
of Palestinians by Israel. Nazzal's 2014 exhibition "Invisible" at the Karsh-Masson Art Gallery on the ground floor of city hall
in Ottawa was publicly condemned by Israel's ambassador to Canada, and several pro-Israel groups, including B'nai Brith Canada demanded
that the mayor cancel the exhibition. The mayor refused, citing freedom of expression. But the city posted a disclaimer outside.
The groups also protested the fact that Nazzal had received a financial award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
of Canada. Nazzal later
spoke to a standing-room-only crowd in Ottawa and received a standing ovation. In 2015, an Israeli sniper shot Nazzal in the
leg while she was photographing a confrontation in Bethlehem. According to the Ottawa Citizen, Israeli spokesperson Eitan Weiss
commented , "It's very
difficult to ascertain what happens during a riot, because you have to imagine hundreds of people throwing rocks, Molotov cocktails,
using live firearms it's very difficult to prove that it ever happened, and it's very difficult to prove that it didn't happen."
Montreal
Zahra Kazemi was an Iranian-Canadian photographer who died in 2003 under mysterious circumstances in an Iranian jail after being
arrested for taking pictures of a demonstration in that country. In June 2005,
five photographs were pulled
from an exhibition of her work at the Côte St Luc (in Montreal) municipal library. The controversial photos were taken in Palestine.
A borough official explained that consideration of the borough's large Jewish population played a role in the decision. Kazemi's
son, Stephan Hachemi, refused to let the display continue without the censored photos, arguing that it was an insult to his mother's
legacy.
In January 2009, the Combined Jewish Appeal
cancelled
at the last minute a lecture at its Gelber Centre by the noted Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper. Halper was on a Canada-wide
tour to criticize Israel's Operation Cast Lead against Gaza, which killed 1,417 and wounded 5,303 Palestinians. A similar cancellation
of Halper occurred in Winnipeg, though Halper filled other auditoriums across the country.
In February 2010, pro-Israel organizations
attempted to block the CJPME
photo exhibit (see Calgary above) from being shown at the Cinema du Parc theatre. Lawyers for the cinema's landlord insisted that
the premises were only "for cinemagraphic [sic] use." The cinema, which had hosted other political displays in the past, refused
to back down, and the exhibit went on.
In November 2013, a Limmud Montreal conference (named "Le Mood") funded by the local Jewish federation
canceled
two presentations by Sarah Woolf , an activist behind "Renounce Birthright" (a website critical of junkets to Israel for Jewish
youth). One session was entitled "Where are all the radical Jews?" and another focussed on the history Jewish garment workers in
that city. Woolf and co-facilitator Aaron Lakoff wrote on Lakoff's blog: "Ultimately, we've been banned from speaking at Le Mood
because of our personal politics (or whatever Le Mood and Federation CJA perceive our respective politics to be), not based on the
content of our panels, which were reviewed, accepted, and scheduled months ago." In response to the de-platforming, Lakoff and Woolf
set up the presentations in a parking lot outside the main conference site and garnered a crowd of over 100 people.
Halifax
In October 2016, the Halifax Pride Annual General Meeting
entertained a motion from the group "Queer Arabs of Halifax." The resolution would disallow the distribution at the annual Pride
Fair of materials touting the state of Israel for its alleged LGBT-friendliness. QAH and its allies claimed that these materials
allowed for the 'pinkwashing' of Israel's violations of human rights against the Palestinians. Another group, the Nova Scotia Rainbow
Action Project, had collected over 500 names on a petition condemning the pinkwashing. In response, the Atlantic Jewish Council organized
hundreds of Jewish community members to attend the AGM to protest and disrupt the vote, although the vast majority of the interlopers
were not LGBTQ+. AGM organizers made the controversial decision to allow all attendees at the meeting to vote. This resulted in the
defeat of all Israel-critical resolutions and a walkout by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) participants claiming,
"Straight white pride wins again." A Palestinian LGBTQ+ participant said the meeting takeover reminded him of the Israeli occupation.
Another commentator
summed it up thus : "This is a classic example of where one group hides behind the guise of free speech until the moment where
they can take their free speech and beat it over the head of everyone else."
During the 2018 Naim Ateek tour mentioned above, the Religious Studies Department of Saint Mary's University, one of the sponsors
of the Halifax event, received a letter from B'nai Brith Canada
demanding the cancellation of
the talk . The department, familiar with Ateek's work and repute, refused, and the event continued.
In June 2019, a Dartmouth, Nova Scotia NDP candidate standing for the 2019 federal election was discovered to have made some tweets
a year earlier comparing the Israeli shooting of Gazans in the "March of the Return" to the actions of Nazi Germany. Rana Zaman,
a tireless community activist, issued an apology with the help of IJV-Halifax, but the NDP federal office suggested she run it by
the Atlantic Jewish Council, the local institutional Jewish organization. The AJC had no response to the apology other than sending
Zaman a copy of the IHRA definition, which labels as automatically antisemitic "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy
to that of the Nazis." The NDP Federal office
removed
Zaman from the candidacy .
In December 2019, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission bestowed a coveted "Individual Human Rights Award" on Zaman. The Atlantic
Jewish Council immediately began a campaign to have Zaman stripped of the award, and the
revocation followed a mere ten days later. Jewish institutional organizations refused to accept Zaman's original apology, insisting
that it was insincere.
Conclusion
All of the above de-platforming takes a lot of work. And it makes the pro-Israel lobby look like the bullies they are. Right now,
there is altogether too much messy debate. Consequently, the lobby wants to build a better mousetrap; one that will alleviate the
need to intervene each and every time there is an event or activity criticizing Israel. How much easier if the better mousetrap operates
to slam shut automatically, breaking the mouse's neck without untidy arguments and recrimination.
Such a better mousetrap is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism. As Independent
Jewish Voices has pointed out , the IHRA definition is remarkably sloppy and
vague. But it does contain eleven "examples" of antisemitism, seven of which involve criticism of Israel.
The lobby is trying to get the IHRA definition adopted by legislatures, city councils, non-governmental organizations, student
unions, human rights bodies, police departments, universities, and any forum that could possibly be in a position to shut down or
sanction activity critical of Israel. We do not know whether or how the adoption of the IHRA definition by these bodies could actually
criminalize criticism of Israel. In Canada, after all, we still have freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
However, we have seen how the mere accusation of antisemitism -- accurate and deserved or entirely bogus -- has been used to hobble
political and other types of careers.
We have also seen how the IHRA definition has been used to punish people and organizations who have run afoul of it. The case
of the University of Winnipeg cited above is one example. Claiming to have employed the IHRA definition, the university's diversity
officer declared the meeting antisemitic, and the university apologized for allowing the meeting to take place.
We have seen that B'nai Brith Canada
employs the IHRA
definition to decide which occurrences should be added to their audit of antisemitic incidents.
Finally, we have seen that the increasingly open use of the term antisemitic to label those who criticize Israel could encumber
legitimate lawsuits for defamation by victims of that slur.
That is why defenders of Palestinian human rights and proponents of peace and justice in the Middle East need to double our vigilance
to ensure that the IHRA definition goes no further and that freedom of expression and sanity returns.
Outspoken British comedian Ricky Gervais has once again exposed, in his usual direct manner,
the escalating use of the term "hate speech" to crush any dissenting view from the mainstream
narratives has unleashed "a new weird sort of fascism."
In an interview with talkRADIO host Kevin O'Sullivan, Gervais dismissed the new 'trendy
myth' that the only people who want free speech want to use it to say terrible things:
"There's this new weird sort of fascism of people thinking they know what you can say and
what you can't say and it's a really weird thing that there's this new trendy myth that
people who want free speech want it to say awful things all the time, which just isn't true.
It protects everyone ."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.395.0_en.html#goog_603224593
NOW PLAYING
Ricky Gervais says 'The Office' couldn't be made today
Ricky Gervais And The Bees
Ricky Gervais: Bees are more important than humans
Celebs born on the 25th of June
Ricky Gervais Needs One More Season
Ricky Gervais wants to stop After Life with third series
Ricky Gervais Is In The Writing Room
Ricky Gervais confirms more After Life
Critically, Gervais sees two catastrophic problems with the term 'hate speech':
" One, what constitutes hate speech? Everyone disagrees. There's no consensus on what hate
speech is."
" Two, who decides? And there's the real rub because obviously the people who think they
want to close down free speech because it's bad are the fascists. It's a really weird,
mixed-up idea that these people hide behind a shield of goodness."
Additionally, 'The Office' star points out that "social media amplifies
everything."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
"If you're mildly left-wing on Twitter you're suddenly Trotsky . If you're mildly
conservative you're Hitler and if you're centrist and you look at both arguments, you're a
coward and they both hate you,"
A n open
letter published by Harper's magazine, and signed by dozens of prominent writers
and public figures, has focused attention on the apparent dangers of what has been termed a new
"cancel culture."
The letter brings together an unlikely alliance of genuine leftists, such as Noam Chomsky
and Matt Karp, centrists such as J. K. Rowling and Ian Buruma, and neoconservatives such as
David Frum and Bari Weiss, all speaking out in defense of free speech.
Although the letter doesn't explicitly use the term "cancel culture," it is clearly what is
meant in the complaint about a "stifling" cultural climate that is imposing "ideological
conformity" and weakening "norms of open debate and toleration of differences."
It is easy to agree with the letter's generalized argument for tolerance and free and fair
debate. But the reality is that many of those who signed are utter hypocrites, who have shown
precisely zero commitment to free speech, either in their words or in their deeds.
Further, the intent of many them in signing the letter is the very reverse of their
professed goal: they want to stifle free speech, not protect it.
To understand what is really going on with this letter, we first need to scrutinize the
motives , rather than the substance, of the letter.
A New 'Illiberalism'
"Cancel culture" started as the shaming, often on social media, of people who were seen to
have said offensive things. But of late, cancel culture has on occasion become more tangible,
as the letter notes, with individuals fired or denied the chance to speak at a public venue or
to publish their work.
The letter denounces this supposedly new type of "illiberalism":
"We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it
is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived
transgressions of speech and thought.
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged
inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are
investigated for quoting works of literature in class; The result has been to steadily narrow
the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the
price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their
livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in
agreement."
Tricky Identity Politics
David Frum in 2013. (Policy Exchange, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The array of signatories is actually more troubling than reassuring. If we lived in a more
just world, some of those signing – like Frum, a former speechwriter for President George
W. Bush, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former U.S. State Department official – would be
facing a reckoning before a Hague war crimes tribunal for their roles in promoting
"interventions" in Iraq and Libya respectively, not being held up as champions of free
speech.
That is one clue that these various individuals have signed the letter for very different
reasons.
Chomsky signed because he has been a lifelong and consistent defender of the right to free
speech, even for those with appalling opinions such as Holocaust denial.
Frum, who coined the term "axis of evil" that rationalized the invasion of Iraq, and Weiss,
a New York Times columnist, signed because they have found their lives getting
tougher. True, it is easy for them to dominate platforms in the corporate media while
advocating for criminal wars abroad, and they have paid no career price when their analyses and
predictions have turned out to be so much dangerous hokum. But they are now feeling the
backlash on university campuses and social media.
Ian Buruma, at right, with the writer Martin Amis at 2007 New Yorker Festival. (CC BY-SA
2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Meanwhile, centrists like Buruma and Rowling have discovered that it is getting ever harder
to navigate the tricky terrain of identity politics without tripping up. The reputational
damage can have serious consequences.
Buruma famously lost his job as editor of The New York Review of Books two years
ago after after he published and defended an article that
violated the new spirit of the #MeToo movement. And Rowling made the mistake of thinking her
followers would be as fascinated by her traditional views on transgender issues as they are by
her Harry Potter books.
'Fake News, Russian Trolls'
But the fact that all of these writers and intellectuals agree that there is a price to be
paid in the new, more culturally sensitive climate does not mean that they are all equally
interested in protecting the right to be controversial or outspoken.
Chomsky, importantly, is defending free speech for all , because he correctly
understands that the powerful are only too keen to find justifications to silence those who
challenge their power. Elites protect free speech only in so far as it serves their interests
in dominating the public space.
If those on the progressive left do not defend the speech rights of everyone, even their
political opponents, then any restrictions will soon be turned against them. The Establishment
will always tolerate the hate speech of U.S. President Donald Trump or Brazilian President Jair
Bolsonaro over the justice speech of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, the former
leader of the Labour Party in the U.K.
By contrast, most of the rest of those who signed – the right-wingers and the
centrists – are interested in free speech for themselves and those like them .
They care about protecting free speech only in so far as it allows them to continue dominating
the public space with their views – something they were only too used to until a few
years ago, before social media started to level the playing field a little.
The center and the right have been fighting back ever since with claims that anyone who
seriously challenges the neoliberal status quo at home and the neoconservative one abroad is
promoting "fake news" or is a "Russian troll." This updating of the charge of being
"un-American" embodies cancel culture at its very worst.
Social Media Accountability
In other words, apart from the case of a few progressives, the letter is simply special
pleading – for a return to the status quo. And for that reason, as we shall see, Chomsky
might have been better advised not to have added his name, however much he agrees with the
letter's vague, ostensibly pro-free speech sentiments.
What is striking about a significant proportion of those who signed is their
self-identification as ardent supporters of Israel. And as Israel's critics know only too well,
advocates for Israel have been at the forefront of the cancel culture – from long before
the term was even coined.
For decades, pro-Israel activists have sought to silence anyone seen to be seriously
critiquing this small, highly militarized state, sponsored by the colonial powers, that was
implanted in a region rich with a natural resource, oil, needed to lubricate the global
economy, and at a terrible cost to its native, Palestinian population.
Nothing should encourage us to believe that zealous defenders of Israel among those signing
the letter have now seen the error of their ways. Their newfound concern for free speech is
simply evidence that they have begun to suffer from the very same cancel culture they have
always promoted in relation to Israel.
They have lost control of the "cancel culture" because of two recent developments: a rapid
growth in identity politics among liberals and leftists, and a new popular demand for
"accountability" spawned by the rise of social media.
Cancelling Israel's Critics
Former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn at campaign rally in Glasgow, December 2019. (Jeremy
Corbyn, Flickr)
In fact, despite their professions of concern, the evidence suggests that some of those
signing the letter have been intensifying their own contribution to cancel culture in relation
to Israel, rather than contesting it.
That is hardly surprising. The need to counter criticism of Israel has grown more pressing
as Israel has more obviously become a pariah state. Israel has refused to countenance peace
talks with the Palestinians and it has intensified its efforts to realize long-harbored plans
to annex swaths of the West Bank in violation of international law.
Rather than allow "robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters" on Israel,
Israel's supporters have preferred the tactics of those identified in the letter as enemies of
free speech: "swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech
and thought."
Just ask Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party who was reviled, along with
his supporters, as an anti-Semite – one of the worst smears imaginable – by several
people on the Harper's list, including Rowling and Weiss
. Such claims were promoted even though his critics could produce no actual evidence of an
antisemitism problem in the Labour party.
Similarly, think of the treatment of Palestinian solidarity activists who support a boycott
of Israel (BDS), modelled on the one that helped push South Africa's leaders into renouncing
apartheid. BDS activists too have been smeared as anti-Semites – and Weiss again has been
a prime
offender .
Pro-Israel counter demonstration against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions demonstration
outside School of Oriental and African Studies in London, April 2017. (Philafrenzy, CC BY-SA
4.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The incidents highlighted in the Harper's letter in which individuals have
supposedly been cancelled is trivial compared to the cancelling of a major political party and
of a movement that stands in solidarity with a people who have been oppressed for decades.
And yet how many of these free speech warriors have come forward to denounce the fact that
leftists -- including many Jewish anti-Zionists -- have been pilloried as anti-Semites to
prevent them from engaging in debates about Israel's behavior and its abuses of Palestinian
rights?
How many of them have decried the imposition of a new definition of anti-Semitism, by the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that has been rapidly gaining ground in Western
countries?
That definition is designed to silence a large section of the left by prioritising the
safety of Israel from being criticised before the safety of Jews from being vilified and
attacked – something that even the lawyer who authored the definition has come to
regret .
Why has none of this "cancel culture" provoked an open letter to Harper's from
these champions of free speech?
Double-Edge Sword
The truth is that many of those who signed the letter are defending not free speech but
their right to continue dominating the public square – and their right to do so without
being held accountable.
Bari Weiss, before she landed a job at The Wall Street Journal and then The New
York Times , spent her student years trying to get Muslim professors
fired from her university – cancelling them – because of their criticism of
Israel. And she explicitly did so under the banner of "academic freedom," claiming pro-Israel
students felt intimidated in the classroom.
The New York Civil Liberties Union concluded that it was Weiss, not the professors, who was
the real threat to academic freedom. This was not some youthful indiscretion. In a book last
year Weiss cited her efforts to rid Columbia university of these professors as a formative
experience on which she still draws.
Weiss and many of the others listed under the letter are angry that the rhetorical tools
they used for so long to stifle the free speech of others have now been turned against them.
Those who lived for so long by the sword of identity politics – on Israel, for example
– are worried that their reputations may die by that very same sword – on issues of
race, sex and gender.
[Weiss just
quit her post at The New York Times , citing an illiberal environment. As part of
her full statement
she writes, "Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its
ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the
paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told
in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read
about the world and then draw their own conclusions."]
Narcissistic Concern
To understand how the cancel culture is central to the worldview of many of these writers
and intellectuals, and how blind they are to their own complicity in that culture, consider the
case of Jonathan Freedland, a columnist with the supposedly liberal-left British newspaper
The Guardian . Although Freedland is not among those signing the letter, he is very
much aligned with the centrists among them and, of course, supported the letter in an article
published in The Guardian.
Freedland, we should note, led the "cancel culture" campaign against the Labour Party
referenced above. He was one of the key figures in Britain's Jewish community who breathed life
into the anti-Semitism
smears against Corbyn and his supporters.
Jonathan Freedland in 2013. (Chatham House, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
But note the brief clip below. In it, Freedland's voice can be heard cracking as he explains
how he has been a victim of the cancel culture himself: he confesses that he has suffered
verbal and emotional abuse at the hands of Israel's most extreme apologists – those who
are even more unapologetically pro-Israel than he is.
He reports that he has been called a "kapo," the term for Jewish collaborators in the Nazi
concentration camps, and a "sonderkommando," the Jews who disposed of the bodies of fellow Jews
killed in the gas chambers. He admits such abuse "burrows under your skin" and "hurts
tremendously."
And yet, despite the personal pain he has experienced of being unfairly accused, of being
cancelled by a section of his own community, Freedland has been at the forefront of the
campaign to tar critics of Israel, including anti-Zionist Jews, as anti-Semites on the
flimsiest of evidence.
He is entirely oblivious to the ugly nature of the cancel culture – unless it
applies to himself . His concern is purely narcissistic. And so it is with the majority of
those who signed the letter.
Conducting a Monologue
The letter's main conceit is the pretence that "illiberalism" is a new phenomenon, that free
speech is under threat, and that the cancel culture only arrived at the moment it was given a
name.
That is simply nonsense. Anyone over the age of 35 can easily remember a time when
newspapers and websites did not have a talkback section, when blogs were few in number and
rarely read, and when there was no social media on which to challenge or hold to account "the
great and the good."
Writers and columnists like those who signed the letter were then able to conduct a
monologue in which they revealed their opinions to the rest of us as if they were Moses
bringing down the tablets from the mountaintop.
In those days, no one noticed the cancel culture – or was allowed to remark on it. And
that was because only those who held approved opinions were ever given a media platform from
which to present those opinions.
Before the digital revolution, if you dissented from the narrow consensus imposed by the
billionaire owners of the corporate media, all you could do was print your own primitive
newsletter and send it by post to the handful of people who had heard of you.
That was the real cancel culture. And the proof is in the fact that many of those formerly
obscure writers quickly found they could amass tens of thousands of followers – with no
help from the traditional corporate media – when they had access to blogs and social
media.
Silencing the Left
Occupy Wall Street protesters engaging in the "human microphone," Sept. 30 2011. (David
Shankbone, CC BY 3.0, Wikimedia Commons)
Which brings us to the most troubling aspect of the open letter in Harper's . Under
cover of calls for tolerance, given credibility by Chomsky's name, a proportion of those
signing actually want to restrict the free speech of one section of the population – the
part influenced by Chomsky.
They are not against the big cancel culture from which they have benefited for so long. They
are against the small cancel culture – the new more chaotic, and more democratic, media
environment we currently enjoy – in which they are for the first time being held to
account for their views, on a range of issues including Israel.
Just as Weiss tried to get professors fired under the claim of academic freedom, many of
these writers and public figures are using the banner of free speech to discredit speech they
don't like, speech that exposes the hollowness of their own positions.
Their criticisms of "cancel culture" are really about prioritizing "responsible" speech,
defined as speech shared by centrists and the right that shores up the status quo. They want a
return to a time when the progressive left – those who seek to disrupt a manufactured
consensus, who challenge the presumed verities of neoliberal and neoconservative orthodoxy
– had no real voice.
The new attacks on "cancel culture" echo the attacks on Bernie Sanders' supporters, who were
framed as "Bernie Bros" – the evidence-free allegation that he attracted a rabble of
aggressive, women-hating men who tried to bully others into silence on social media.
Bernie Sanders' 2020 Campaign Co-chair Nina Turner at Los Angeles City Hall rally, March
2019. (Sara Mossman, Flickr)
Just as this claim was used to discredit Sanders' policies, so the center and the right now
want to discredit the left more generally by implying that, without curbs, they too will bully
everyone else into silence and submission through their "cancel culture."
If this conclusion sounds unconvincing, consider that President Donald Trump could easily
have added his name to the letter alongside Chomsky's. Trump used his recent Independence Day
speech at Mount Rushmore to make similar points to the Harper's letter. He at
least was explicit in equating "cancel culture" with what he called "far-left fascism":
"One of [the left's] political weapons is 'Cancel Culture' -- driving people from their
jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees. This is
the very definition of totalitarianism This attack on our liberty, our magnificent liberty,
must be stopped, and it will be stopped very quickly."
Trump, in all his vulgarity, makes plain what the Harper's letter, in all its
cultural finery, obscures. That attacks on the new "cancel culture" are simply another front
– alongside supposed concerns about "fake news" and "Russian trolls" – in the
establishment's efforts to limit speech by the left.
Attention Redirected
This is not to deny that there is fake news on social media or that there are trolls, some
of them even Russian. Rather, it is to point out that our attention is being redirected, and
our concerns manipulated by a political agenda.
Despite the way it has been presented in the corporate media, fake news on social media has
been mostly a problem of the right. And the worst examples of fake news – and the most
influential – are found not on social media at all, but on the front pages of The
Wall Street Journal and The New York Times .
What genuinely fake news on Facebook has ever rivalled the lies justifying the invasion of
Iraq in 2003 that were knowingly peddled by a political elite and their stenographers in the
corporate media. Those lies led directly to more than a million Iraqi deaths, turned millions
more into refugees, destroyed an entire country, and fuelled a new type of nihilistic Islamic
extremism whose effects we are still feeling.
Most of the worst lies from the current period – those that have obscured or justified
U.S. interference in Syria and Venezuela, or rationalized war crimes against Iran, or approved
the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange for exposing war crimes – can only be
understood by turning our backs on the corporate media and looking to experts who can rarely
find a platform outside of social media.
I say this as someone who has concerns about the fashionable focus on identity politics
rather than class politics. I say it also as someone who rejects all forms of cancel culture
– whether it is the old-style, "liberal" cancel culture that imposes on us a narrow
"consensus" politics (the Overton window), or the new "leftwing" cancel culture that too often
prefers to focus on easy cultural targets like Rowling than the structural corruption of
western political systems.
But those who are impressed by the letter simply because Chomsky's name is attached should
beware. Just as "fake news" has provided the pretext for Google and social media platforms to
change their algorithms to vanish leftwingers from searches and threads, just as "antisemitism"
has been redefined to demonise the left, so too the supposed threat of "cancel culture" will be
exploited to silence the left.
Protecting Bari Weiss and J K Rowling from a baying leftwing "mob" – a mob that that
claims a right to challenge their views on Israel or trans issues – will become the new
rallying cry from the Establishment for action against "irresponsible" or
"intimidating" speech.
Progressive leftists who join these calls out of irritation with the current focus on
identity politics, or because they fear being labelled an antisemite, or because they
mistakenly assume that the issue really is about free speech, will quickly find that they are
the main targets.
In defending free speech, they will end up being the very ones who are silenced.
UPDATE:
Noam Chomsky. (Duncan Rawlinson)
You don't criticize Chomsky however tangentially and respectfully – at least not from
a left perspective – without expecting a whirlwind of opposition from those who believe
he can never do any wrong.
But one issue that keeps being raised on my social media feeds in his defense is just plain
wrong-headed, so I want to quickly address it. Here's one my followers expressing the point
succinctly:
"The sentiments in the letter stand or fall on their own merits, not on the characters or
histories of some of the signatories, nor their future plans."
The problem, as I'm sure Chomsky would explain in any other context, is that this letter
fails not just because of the other people who signed it but on its merit too . And
that's because, as I explain above, it ignores the most oppressive and most established forms
of cancel culture, as Chomsky should have been the first to notice.
Highlighting the small cancel culture, while ignoring the much larger, Establishment-backed
cancel culture, distorts our understanding of what is at stake and who wields power.
Chomsky unwittingly just helped a group of mostly Establishment stooges skew our perceptions
of free speech problems so that we side with them against ourselves. There is no way that can
be a good thing.
UPDATE 2:
There are still people holding out against the idea that it harmed the left to have Chomsky
sign this letter. And rather than address their points individually, let me try another way of
explaining my argument:
Why has Chomsky not signed a letter backing the furor over "fake news," even though there is
some fake news on social media? Why has he not endorsed the "Bernie Bros" narrative, even
though doubtless there are some bullying Sanders supporters on social media? Why has he not
supported the campaign claiming the Labour Party has an anti-Semitism problem, even though
there are some anti-Semites in the Labour Party (as there are everywhere)?
He hasn't joined any of those campaigns for a very obvious reason – because he
understands how power works, and that on the left you hit up, not down. You certainly don't
cheerlead those who are up as they hit down.
Chomsky understands this principle only too well because here he is setting it out in
relation to Iran:
"Suppose I criticise Iran. What impact does that have? The only impact it has is in
fortifying those who want to carry out policies I don't agree with, like bombing."
For exactly the same reason he has not joined those pillorying Iran – because his
support would be used for nefarious ends – he shouldn't have joined this campaign. He
made a mistake. He's fallible.
Also, this isn't about the left eating itself. Really, Chomsky shouldn't be the issue. The
issue should be that a bunch of centrists and right-wingers used this letter to try to
reinforce a narrative designed to harm the left, and lay the groundwork for further curbs on
its access to social media. But because Chomsky signed the letter, many more leftists are now
buying into that narrative – a narrative intended to harm them. That's why Chomsky's role
cannot be ignored, nor his mistake glossed over.
UPDATE 3:
Apologies for yet another update. I had not anticipated how many ways people on the left
might find to justify this letter.
Here's the latest reasoning. Apparently, the letter sets an important benchmark that can in
future be used to protect free speech by the left when we are threatened with being
"cancelled" – as, for example, with the anti-Semitism smears that were used against
anti-Zionist Jews and other critics of Israel in the Labour Party.
I should hardly need to point out how naive this argument is. It completely ignores how
power works in our societies: who gets to decide what words mean and how principles are
applied. This letter won't help the left because "cancel culture" is being framed – by
this letter, by Trump, by the media – as a "loony left" problem. It is a new iteration of
the "politically correct gone mad" discourse, and it will be used in exactly the same way.
It won't help Steven Salaita, sacked from a university job because he criticized Israel's
killing of civilians in Gaza, or Chris Williamson, the Labour MP expelled because he defended
the party's record on being anti-racist.
The "cancel culture" furor isn't interested in the fact that they were "cancelled." Worse
still, this moral panic turns the whole idea of cancelling on its head: it is Salaita and
Williamson who are accused – and found guilty – of doing the cancelling, of
cancelling Israel and Jews.
Israel's supporters will continue to win this battle by claiming that criticism of Israel
"cancels" that country ("wipes it off the map"), "cancels" Israel's Jewish population ("drives
them into the sea"), and "cancels" Jews more generally ("denies a central component of modern
Jewish identity").
Greater awareness of "cancel culture" would not have saved Corbyn from the anti-Semitism
smears because the kind of cancel culture that smeared Corbyn is never going to be defined as
"cancelling."
For anyone who wishes to see how this works in practice, watch Guardian columnist
Owen Jones cave in – as he has done so often – to the power dynamics of the "cancel
culture" discourse in this interview with Sky News. I actually agree with almost everything
Jones says in this clip, apart from his joining yet again in the witch-hunt against Labour's
anti-Zionists. He doesn't see that witch-hunt as "cancel culture," and neither will anyone else
with a large platform like his to protect:
"... The cancel culture -- the phenomenon of removing or canceling people, brands or shows from the public domain because of offensive statements or ideologies -- is not a threat to the ruling class. Hundreds of corporations, nearly all in the hands of white executives and white board members, enthusiastically pumped out messages on social media condemning racism and demanding justice after George Floyd was choked to death by police in Minneapolis. ..."
The cancel culture -- the phenomenon of removing or canceling people, brands or shows from the public domain because of offensive
statements or ideologies -- is not a threat to the ruling class. Hundreds of corporations, nearly all in the hands of white executives
and white board members, enthusiastically pumped out messages on social media condemning racism and demanding justice after George
Floyd was choked to death by police in Minneapolis. Police, which along with the prison system are one of the primary instruments
of social control over the poor, have taken the knee, along with Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of the
serially criminal JPMorgan Chase , where
only 4 percent of the top executives are black . Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world whose corporation, Amazon, paid no
federal income taxes last year and who fires workers that attempt to unionize and tracks warehouse laborers as if they were prisoners,
put a "Black Lives Matter" banner on Amazon's home page.
The rush by the ruling elites to profess solidarity with the protestors and denounce racist rhetoric and racist symbols, supporting
the toppling of Confederate statues and banning the Confederate flag, are symbolic assaults on white supremacy. Alone, these gestures
will do nothing to reverse the institutional racism that is baked into the DNA of American society. The elites will discuss race.
They will not discuss class.
We must be wary of allowing those wielding the toxic charge of racism, no matter how well intentioned their motives, to decide
who has a voice and who does not. Public shaming and denunciation, as any student of the Russian, French or Chinese revolutions knows,
is one that leads to absurdism and finally despotism. Virulent racists, such as Richard Spencer, exist. They are dangerous. But racism
will not end until we dismantle a class system that was created to empower oligarchic oppression and white supremacy. Racism will
not end until we defund the police and abolish the world's largest system of mass incarceration. Racism will not end until we invest
in people rather than systems of control. This means reparations for African-Americans, the unionization of workers, massive government
jobs programs, breaking up and nationalizing the big banks along with the for-profit health services, transportation sector, the
internet, privatized utilities and the fossil fuel industry, as well as a Green New Deal and the slashing of our war expenditures
by 75 percent.
Occupy Wall Street Sept. 25, 2011. (David Shankbone via Flickr)
Politically correct speech and symbols of inclusiveness, without a concerted assault on corporate power, will do nothing to change
a system that by design casts the poor and working poor, often people of color, aside -- Karl Marx called them surplus labor -- and
forces them into a life of misery and a brutal criminal caste system.
The cancel culture, with its public shaming on social media, is the boutique activism of the liberal elites. It allows faux student
radicals to hound and attack those deemed to be racist or transphobic, before these "radicals" graduate to work for corporations
such as Goldman Sachs, which last year paid $9 million in fines to settle federal allegations of racial and gender pay bias. Self-styled
Marxists in the academy have been pushed out of economic departments and been reborn as irrelevant cultural and literary critics,
employing jargon so obscure as to be unreadable. These "radical" theorists invest their energy in linguistic acrobatics and multiculturalism,
with branches such as feminism studies, queer studies and African-American studies. The inclusion of voices often left out of the
traditional academic canon certainly enriches the university. But multiculturalism, moral absolutism and the public denunciations
of apostates, by themselves, too often offer escape routes from critiquing and attacking the class structures and systems of economic
oppression that exclude and impoverish the poor and the marginal.
The hedge fund managers, oligarchs and corporate CEOs on college trustee boards don't care about Marxist critiques of Joseph Conrad.
They do care if students are being taught to dissect the lies of the neoliberal ideology used as a cover to orchestrate the largest
transference of wealth upwards in American history.
The cancel culture, shorn of class politics, is the parlor game of the overeducated. If we do not examine, as Theodor Adorno wrote,
the "societal play of forces that operate beneath the surface of political forms," we will be continually cursed with a more ruthless
and sophisticated form of corporate control, albeit one that is linguistically sensitive and politically correct.
"Stripped of a radical idiom, robbed of a utopian hope, liberals and leftists retreat in the name of progress to celebrate diversity,"
historian Russell Jacoby writes. "With few ideas on how a future should be shaped, they embrace all ideas. Pluralism becomes a catchall,
the alpha and omega of political thinking. Dressed up as multicultural, it has become the opium of disillusioned intellectuals, the
ideology of an era without an ideology."
The cudgel of racism, as I have experienced, is an effective tool to shut down debate. Students for Justice in Palestine organizations,
which almost always include Jewish students, are being banned on college campuses in the name of fighting racism. Activists in these
outlawed groups are often barred from holding any student leadership positions on campus. Professors that dare to counter the Zionist
narrative, such as the Palestinian American scholar Steven Salaita, have had job offers rescinded, been fired or denied tenure and
dismissed. Norman Finkelstein, one of the most important scholars on the Israel-Palestine conflict, has been ruthlessly targeted
by the Israel lobby throughout his career, making it impossible for him to get tenure or academic appointments. Never mind, that
he is not only Jewish but the son of Holocaust survivors. Jews, in this game, are branded as racists, and actual racists, such as
Donald Trump, because they back Israel's refusal to recognize Palestinian rights, are held up as friends of the Jewish people.
May Day 2015 demonstration at Union Square, New York City. (All-Nite Images, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
I have long been a target of the Israeli lobby. The lobby, usually working through Hillel Houses on college campuses, which function
as little more than outposts of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), does not attempt to address my enumeration of the
war crimes committed by Israel, many of which I witnessed, the egregious flouting by Israel of international law, exacerbated by
the plans to annex up to 30 percent of the West Bank, or the historical record ignored and distorted by the lobby to justify Jewish
occupation of a country that from the 7 th century until 1948 was Muslim. The lobby prefers not to deal in the world of
facts. It misuses the trope of anti-Semitism to ensure that those who speak up for Palestinian rights and denounce Israeli occupation
are not invited to events on Israel-Palestine conflict, or are disinvited to speak after invitations have been sent out, as happened
to me at the University of Pennsylvania, among other venues.
It does not matter that I spent seven years in the Middle East, or that I was the Middle East Bureau Chief for The New York
Times , living for weeks at a time in the Israel-occupied territories. It does not matter that I speak Arabic. My voice and the
voices of those, especially Palestinians, who document the violations of Palestinian civil rights are canceled out by the mendacious
charge that we are racists. I doubt most of the college administrators who agree to block our appearances believe we are racists,
but they don't also want the controversy. Zionism is the cancel culture on steroids.
The Israel lobby, whose interference in our electoral process dwarfs that of any other country, including Russia, is now attempting
to criminalize the activities of those, such as myself, who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The lobby,
with its huge financial clout, is pushing state legislatures, in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, to use anti-boycott laws and
executive orders to punish companies and individuals that promote BDS. Twenty-seven states have so far enacted laws or policies that
penalize businesses, organizations and individuals for supporting BDS.
AIPAC gathering. (Wikimedia Commons)
The debate about the excesses of cancel culture was most recently ignited by a letter signed by 153 prominent and largely privileged
writers and intellectuals in Harper's Magazine
, a publication for educated, white liberals. Critics of the letter
argue , correctly, that "nowhere
in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing."
These critics also point out, correctly, that signatories include those, such as The New York Times columnist David Brooks
and Malcolm Gladwell, with access to huge media platforms and who face no danger of being silenced. They finally
note that a few of the signatories
are the most vicious proponents of the Zionist cancel culture, including The New York Times editor Bari Weiss, who
led campaigns while at Columbia University to destroy the careers of Arab professors ; literary scholar Cary Nelson,
who was one of those who denounced the Palestinian American scholar Salaita as a racist; and political scientist Yascha Mounk,
who has attacked
Rep. Ilhan Omar as an anti-Semite.
I find the cancel culture and its public denunciations as distasteful as those who signed the letter. But these critics are battling
a monster of their own creation. The institutional and professional power of those targeted by the Harper's letter is insignificant,
especially when set against that of the signatories or the Israel lobby. Those singled out for attack pose little threat to the systems
of entrenched power, which the signatories ironically represent, and indeed are more often its victims. I suspect this is the reason
for the widespread ire the letter provoked.
The most ominous threats to free speech and public debate do not come from the cancel culture of the left, which rarely succeeds
in removing its targets from power, despite a few high profile
firings
such as James Bennet , who oversaw a series of tone-deaf editorial decisions as the opinion page editor at The New York Times.
These corporate forces, which assure us that Black Lives Matter, understand that the left's witch hunts are a harmless diversion.
Corporations have seized control of the news industry and turned it into burlesque. They have corrupted academic scholarship.
They make war on science and the rule of law. They have used their wealth to destroy our democracy and replace it with a system of
legalized bribery. They have created a world of masters and serfs who struggle at subsistence level and endure crippling debt peonage.
The commodification of the natural world by corporations has triggered an ecocide that is pushing the human species closer and closer
towards extinction. Anyone who attempts to state these truths and fight back was long ago driven from the mainstream and relegated
to the margins of the internet by Silicon Valley algorithms. As cancel culture goes, corporate power makes the Israel lobby look
like amateurs.
The current obsession with moral purity, devoid of a political vision and incubated by self-referential academics and educated
elites, is easily co-opted by the ruling class who will say anything, as long as the mechanisms of corporate control remain untouched.
We have enemies. They run Silicon Valley and sit on corporate boards. They make up the two ruling political parties. They manage
the war industry. They chatter endlessly on corporate-owned airwaves about trivia and celebrity gossip. Our enemies are now showering
us with politically correct messages. But until they are overthrown, until we wrest power back from our corporate masters, the most
insidious forms of racism in America will continue to flourish.
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist who was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years for The New York Times
, where he served as the Middle East bureau chief and Balkan bureau chief for the paper. He previously worked overseas for
The Dallas Morning News , The Christian Science Monitor and NPR. He wrote a weekly column for the progressive website
Truthdig for 14 years until he was fired along with all of the editorial staff in March 2020. [Hedges and the staff had gone
on strike earlier in the month to protest the publisher's attempt to fire the Editor-in-Chief Robert Scheer, demand an end to a series
of unfair labor practices and the right to form a union.] He is the host of the Emmy Award-nominated RT America show "On Contact."
:::stands up slowly::: :::starts a slow clap::: Reading Chris Hedges is like dancing with the truth. Well done, sir.
Chumpsky , July 14, 2020 at 19:34
Cancel culture comes across as more of a form of woke guerilla marketing than as a phenomenon supported by the economically
exploited. Ex. all the FAANG companies that are essentially propping up the stock market – see how quickly they've embraced this
"culture" when they realized it was excellent for business.
IMO, such is a trend, and it too, will pass -- when folks realize that the powers that be have hijacked their ideas for profit.
Lesson learned: when fringe goes mainstream it's all over – 1960's redux.
Litchfield , July 14, 2020 at 17:04
"I find the cancel culture and its public denunciations as distasteful as those who signed the letter. But these critics are
battling a monster of their own creation. The institutional and professional power of those targeted by the Harper's letter is
insignificant, especially when set against that of the signatories or the Israel lobby. Those singled out for attack pose little
threat to the systems of entrenched power, which the signatories ironically represent, and indeed are more often its victims.
I suspect this is the reason for the widespread ire the letter provoked."
Basically I agree with Hedges. But I cannot follwo what he is saying in this graf.
Also this:
"As cancel culture goes, corporate power makes the Israel lobby look like amateurs."
What? I thought the beginning portion of the piece was about the power of AIPAC and other Israel Lobby entities to shape narrative
and cancel out those who defend Palestinian rights.
IMO and for my understanding t he essay wanders toward the end until I am not sure who Hedges thinks is doing the actual canceling
and who is actually powerful: Israel lobby? corporate interests? Misguided young people?
Andrew Thomas , July 14, 2020 at 15:43
A beautifully written argument. Cheers to Chris Hedges and Robert Scheer and Consortium News.
Great article as always from Chris Hedges. Jonathan Cook also has an excellent article published today at Global Research regarding
the open letter from Harper's. Censorship is never the answer.
firstpersoninfinite , July 14, 2020 at 13:51
Chris Hedges and Cornel West are always worth listening to and/or reading. Very pleased to have the actual situation with "cancel
culture" brought into light with such clarity. We are living in the rarefied air of late-stage capitalism, in which an identifying
feature is more important than our collective humanity. When someone argues over their right to their particular piece of pie
while arguing against sharing the whole pie, I can't tell if they're an academic or a billionaire. All I hear is the ca-ching
of people protecting the last scraps thrown to them by an inhuman system.
DW Bartoo , July 14, 2020 at 13:34
Chris Hedges, in this article, lays out substantial portions of the many corruptions people of conscience and actual principle
must confront if a sane, humane, and sustainable global human society is to be established.
He briefly suggests that, in academia in particular, there are to be found very few articulated visions of what that society
could, should, and must be premised upon, how it might function, and what forms of critically necessary participatory democracy,
guiding such a society, would look, and feel, like.
He makes very clear that symbolic "progress" is simply a rhetorical deceit employed to ensure that the currently destructive,
and fully corrupt, "system" may prevail, even as many are lulled into believing that "things" are "improving", that semantic fiddling
will keep the fire, next time, harmlessly contained and its energy bent and dissipated into meaningless gesture.
As Hedges points out, were universities, indeed, all of education, dedicated to developing critical thinking, rather than to
breathlessly proclaiming the sandbox "politics" of childish bullies as being highly evolved example of social competence, or of
praising private equity as proof that vulture capitalism is the "end of history", or of touting Panglossian pronouncements of
U$ian virtue and exceptionalism as inevitably placing all of humankind in the pinker regions of a rose-colored present, then the
young might, intentionally, be provided with the tools of actually comprehending the massive fraud and corruption which controls
and curtails the lives of most human beings on this planet, to the immense benefit of approximately two thousand kakistocratic
elites.
In other articles, over the years, Hedges has stressed, time and again, that there is no guarantee of success in the struggle
which must be undertaken if humanity is to have any future at all.
Some may regard such sober assessment as "negative" or even "defeatist".
However, considering what we are up against, beyond the relatively "easy" target of symbols, it is the deeper recognition that
Hedges provides, which is the first real step toward understanding what must be changed and why.
And, unless, there is a clearly articulated destination, a coherent idea of where we wish to arrive, of the pathways, maps,
and a developed sense of the terrain that must be crossed, fraught, as it will be, with pitfalls and land mines of distraction,
and of being maliciously led astray, with "movements" being absorbed into dead end detours and dissipation, then a very real risk
of going nowhere, of becoming disoriented and fatally lost, is more than likely.
We may not envision defeat, yet it is foolhardy to assume success.
As there are, quite literally, no existing forums for such discussions and considerations as we must enjoin, it is to be hoped
that "education" will be understood as a group effort which, of necessity, involves listening quite as much as talking.
Frankly, we are not even to square #1, yet.
Getting there will not be easy.
And that, rather than toppling symbols, is only the beginning.
Clear strategy must evolve, which cannot happen until organization with the intent of engaging a coherent sense of collective
plight is first undertaken.
This process is not about saviors or awaiting some "one" who will magically provide a guaranteed plan of success.
Rather, it is about the hard slog of getting from the untenable moment of increasing precarity, to an shared awareness of individual
competence and wholeness, among the many.
That is the basis of the power and energy which we must bring into being.
We must find it in each of our selves and then encourage it in each other.
That may well sound both trite and obvious.
Yet it leads to a beginning, not of following, but of becoming.
James Whitney , July 14, 2020 at 13:13
Thanks to Chris Hedges for this informative article.
"Twenty-seven states have so far enacted laws or policies that penalize businesses, organizations and individuals for supporting
BDS."
BDS is also illegal in France since 2015 (not the fault of the dreadful president Macron, it was the "socialist" Hollande president
at that time). A reference is
which seems now to be no longer available, but the link indicates the content.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , July 14, 2020 at 11:39
Yes, Chris Hedges has it exactly right.
But look at so very much of American society – especially the young – involved in the almost game-like empty battles about
slogans on t-shirts.
Social media could almost have been a security services invention.
I don't know whose words can reach those people.
I'm afraid a great many have little more grasp of the realities of history and the shaping of their society than Trump has.
And in a sense, I think it is a continuation of a politics that rarely struggles with anything important. Too much invested
in wealth and serving wealth, as with the empire.
150 prominent intellectuals and Ivy League academics of leftish persuasion have signed a letter in
Harper's protesting the breakdown in civilized debate and imposition of ideological
conformity.
The signatories made the obligatory bow to denouncing Trump as "a real threat to democracy"
and called for "greater equality and inclusion across our society."
But this wasn't enough to save them from denunciation for stating these truthful facts:
" The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily
becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right,
censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing
views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy
issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic
counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and
severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.
More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are
delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are
fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity;
journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for
quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed
academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy
mistakes.
Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily
narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already
paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear
for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in
agreement."
The signatories to the letter do not understand that time has passed them by. Free speech is
no longer a value. Free speach is an ally of oppression because it permits charges against
Western civilization and the white racist oppressors to be answered, and facts are not welcome.
The purpose of the woke revolution is to overthrow a liberal society and impose conformity with
wokeness in its place. Whiteness has been declared evil. There is nothing to debate.
The signatories do not understand that today there is only one side. In place of debate
there is denunciation, the purpose of which is to impose ideological conformity. It is
pointless to search for truth when truth has been revealed: Western civilization and all its
works are a white racist construct and must be destroyed. There is nothing to debate.
To make clear that in these revolutionary times not even prominent people of accomplishment
such as Noam Chomsky are entitled to a voice different from woke-imposed conformity, the letter
was answered by a condescending statement signed by a long list of woke journalists of no
distinction or achievement , people no one has ever heard of.
Noam Chomsky and the other prominent signatories were dismissed as irrelevant just as the
prominent historians were who took exception to the New York Times 1619 project, a packet of
lies and anti-white propaganda. The famous historians found that they weren't relevant. The New
York Times has an agenda that is independent of the facts.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The message is clear: shutup "white, wealthy" people and you also Thomas Chatterton
Williams, a black person with a white name. Your voices of oppression have been cancelled.
The "oppressed" and "marginalized" voices of woke revolutionaries, who have imposed tyranny
in universities, the work place, and via social media, are the ones that now control
explanations. No one is permitted to disagree with them.
Lining up on the woke side are
CNN , New York Times ,
Los
Angeles Times , Slate ,
and other presstitute organizations desperately trying to remain relevant. Everyone of these
institutions quickly took the side of the woke revolution against facts and free speech.
The revolution is over unless the guillotine is next. Academic freedom no longer exists.
Free speech no longer exists. The media is a propaganda ministry. Without free speech there can
be no answer to denunciation. White people are guilty. Period.
May good ideas about the level of suppression of "free thought" in US universities.
But this Red Guard persecution are really bizarre and contradict all moral norms.
Notable quotes:
"... One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened "public" political discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas. ..."
"... Ours is a reactionary culture, which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society, views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that's aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in higher educational institutions. ..."
"... My understanding of how the mass media operates is based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know. Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into "mainstream" discourse because of the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the American right. ..."
"... Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a "professionalization" culture that depicts political engagement as "biased," "unprofessional," and "unacceptable." Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago with the rise of corporatized academic "professional" norms. Scholars are now primarily concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there's been a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged. ..."
"... The reactionary "professionalization" that's celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don't get with the program are filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their scholarship once they've secured an academic job. ..."
"... I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses – the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world – in making space for openly leftist frameworks of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of research. ..."
"... There's little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it's difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars couldn't dream of receiving in the first place. ..."
"... I won't shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. ..."
"... U.S. media and educational institutions have never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and open exchange of ideas, the better. ..."
Harper's Magazine's July 7 th " Letter on Justice and Open
Debate " is making its rounds in popular political discourse, and takes aim at the "PC"
"cancel culture" we are told is being fueled by the most recent round of Black Lives Matter
protests. This cancel culture, we are warned, is quickly and perniciously taking over American
discourse, and will severely limit the free exploration of competing viewpoints.
The Harper's letter signatories run across the ideological spectrum, including prominent
conservatives such as David Brooks and J.K. Rowling, liberals such as Mark Lilla and Sean
Willentz, and progressives such as Noam Chomsky and Todd Gitlin. I have no doubt that the
supporters of the letter are well meaning in their support for free speech. And I have no
interest in singling out any one person or group of signatories for condemnation. Rather, I
think it's warranted to focus on the ways in which "free speech" is being weaponized in this
case, and in contemporary American discourse, to empower reactionary voices, under the
façade of a free exploration of ideas.
The ideas established in the Harper's letter sound just fine in principle, and when examined
in a vacuum. The supporters embrace norms of "open debate" and "toleration of differences," and
opposition to "dogma[s]," "coercion," and "intolerant climate[s]" that stifle open exploration
of competing views. The letter's supporters celebrate "the free exchange of information and
ideas," which they deem "the lifeblood of a liberal society," contrary to a rising "vogue for
public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding
moral certainty." The letter elaborates :
"But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response
to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional
leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate
punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial
pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing
on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a
researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of
organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments
around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of
what can be said without the threat of reprisal."
Appealing to Americans' commitment to civic responsibility for open dialogue, the Harper's
letter warns, "restriction of debate" "invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone
less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument,
and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."
One of the main problems with this sort of lofty rhetoric is that it misrepresents the
severely deficient reality of American political discourse. We live in a period when the rise
of neoliberal capitalism and untrammeled corporate power have cheapened "public" political
discourse to serve the interests of plutocratic wealth and power, while assaulting notions of
the common good and the public health. Idealistic rhetoric about exploring diverse views falls
flat, and is a mischaracterization of reality to the deficiencies in U.S. political discourse
under neoliberal corporate capitalism, when debates are perverted by political and economic
elites who have contempt for the free exchange of ideas.
Numerous passages in the Harper's letter create the impression that U.S. political discourse
is characterized by a vibrant and open exploration of diverse and competing views. The letter
includes
:
A lament that the emerging "cancel culture" threatens to "weaken our norms of open
debate and toleration."
The claim that the "free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal
society, is daily becoming more constricted."
The assertion that American discourse is characterized by institutions that "uphold the
value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters."
The call "to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire
professional consequences."
All of these claims are romanticizations of American life. They obscure the reality that
progressive left and radical dissident views are routinely blacklisted from "mainstream"
political, economic, and social discourse by the media and by mainstream academic
institutions.
The "let's engage in a diversity of competing views" position sounds great until one
realizes that we do not, and have never lived in, that sort of pluralistic democracy. We live
in a political culture that, on its face, is committed to free speech protections for all, in
which through the respectful exchange of ideas, we arrive at a better understanding of truth,
to the benefit of all. But we don't really live in that society. Ours is a reactionary culture,
which celebrates ideas that service political and economic power centers. In this society,
views that are elevated to being worthy of discussion include milquetoast liberal values that
are sympathetic (or at least not antagonistic) to corporate power, apolitical content that's
aimed at mindless entertainment and political diversion, and reactionary authoritarian views
that border on fascistic, but are vital to demonizing immigrants, people of color, and other
minorities, and reinforce a white patriarchal corporate power structure. Radical lefties, or
even progressive-leftists, need not apply to be included in this circumscribed discourse. Their
views are routinely blacklisted from the mass media, and are increasingly marginalized in
higher educational institutions.
I don't draw these conclusions lightly. My understanding of how the mass media operates is
based on extensive personal experiences, and those from countless left intellectuals I know.
Many of us have struggled (and mostly failed) to break into "mainstream" discourse because of
the limited space in corporate news devoted to marginalized perspectives. With this
marginalization comes the near erasure of critical views, including those seeking to spotlight
record (and rising) economic inequality, repressive institutions that reinforce racial, gender
and transphobic systems of repression, the corporate ecocidal assault on the environment, the
rise of unbridled corporate power and plutocracy, the rising authoritarianism in American
politics, and the increasingly reactionary and fascistic rhetoric that has taken over the
American right.
Despite complaints about a pervasive liberal bias in higher education, available evidence
reveals the opposite. As I've
documented through my own comprehensive analysis of hundreds of national opinion polling
questions on Americans' political and economic values, there's virtually no empirical evidence
to suggest that increased education in the U.S. is associated with increased likelihood of
holding liberal attitudes. The reason for this non-link between education and liberalism is
obvious to those leftists who have struggled to carve out a space in the increasingly
reactionary American university: there's very little commitment to progressive or leftist
values in the modern corporate collegiate "experience"-oriented schooling system.
Reflecting on my own experiences within this system, the very notion of academics serving as
public intellectuals has been under systematic assault by the rise of a "professionalization"
culture that depicts political engagement as "biased," "unprofessional," and "unacceptable."
Whatever lingering commitment to higher education as a public good was rolled back decades ago
with the rise of corporatized academic "professional" norms. Scholars are now primarily
concerned with publishing in esoteric, jargon-laden journals that no one reads, and almost no
one cites, while elevating a discussion of the methods of how one does research over a
discussion of the political and social significance of our work. In this process, there's been
a suppression of any commitment to producing active citizens who see themselves as having an
ethical or moral responsibility to be regularly politically engaged.
The reactionary "professionalization" that's celebrated in the ivory tower is relentlessly
promoted at every step of the process through which academics develop and are socialized: in
the graduate school experience, in the job hiring, tenure, and promotion processes, and in the
process of peer review for academic publications. Those who don't get with the program are
filtered out at some point in this process. Very few who are committed to challenging
professionalized academic norms make it through PhD programs, and fewer still obtain
tenure-track jobs and tenure. It is a rare to find academics who learn how to effectively hide
their political values in grad school, and who then actively draw on those same values in their
scholarship once they've secured an academic job.
In my more than two decades in higher ed, I can say there's no such thing as a fair hearing
for the progressive-radical left when it comes to academic publishing. Thinking of my own
research, I see zero interest in elite academic publishing houses – the Oxfords, Princetons, and Cambridges of the world – in making space for openly leftist frameworks
of analysis, let alone for the sort of applied Gramscian and Marxian empirical research that I
do on media propaganda, hegemony, indoctrination, and mass false consciousness. Neither do any
of the reputable journals in most social science disciplines express interest in this sort of
research.
Considering the research I do focuses on social movement protests, media propaganda/fake
news, and inequality studies, one might think these timely topics would draw a large number of
requests for university speaking engagements. These are, after all, defining political issues
of our time. But this isn't at all the case. The academy remains as reactionary as ever in
terms of sidelining and blacklisting leftist ideas and frameworks for understanding the world.
There's little interest in prioritizing high-profile campus speaking events for such topics in
the neoliberal corporate academy. Considering the utter contempt for such scholarship, it's
difficult for me to focus my limited time and energy lamenting campus attacks on authoritarians
like Milo Yiannopoulos, or whatever other reactionary pseudo-intellectual flavor of the week
who has been disinvited from paid speaking engagements that I and other leftist scholars
couldn't dream of receiving in the first place.
I won't shed a tear for reactionaries who seek to appropriate dwindling university resources
for their own personal publicity and self-aggrandizement, considering that their ideology
actively supports gutting the very institutions that they so shamelessly take advantage of. The
reality of the matter is that there's no First Amendment "free speech" right to be invited to
numerous campus engagements, to be paid a generous speaking fee, or to have campus security
resources devoted to protecting arch-reactionary authoritarian speakers in light of the large
student protests that are mobilized against these campus events.
We should recognize that the recent wave of laments against PC "cancel culture" from the
right reinforce a specific power dynamic in American society. It is one in which reactionaries
have initiated an assault on what little remains of independent and critical thinking within
the media and higher ed.
They have done so by draping their contempt for free and critical
inquiry in the rhetoric of "free speech." But U.S. media and educational institutions have
never been committed to the free exploration of competing views, at least not for those who
question corporate power. The sooner we stop pretending this landscape represents a free and
open exchange of ideas, the better.
Anthony DiMaggio is Associate Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He earned
his PhD from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and is the author of 9 books, including most
recently: Political Power in
America (SUNY Press, 2019) and
Rebellion in America (Routledge, 2020). He can be reached at:
[email protected]
Are you ready for this week's absurdity? Here's our Friday roll-up of the most ridiculous
stories from around the world that are threats to your liberty, risks to your prosperity and on
occasion, inspiring poetic justice.
2 + 2 = imperialism
Making its rounds on Twitter is a Tweet stating: "Nope the idea of 2 + 2 equalling 4 is
cultural, and because of western imperialism/colonization, we think of it as the only way of
knowing."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.393.1_en.html#goog_823449589 NOW
PLAYING
Nutritionists Say You Should Never Drink Coffee On An Empty Stomach
The Coronavirus Pandemic Is Throwing A Wrench Into The Lives Of High School Juniors
How Some People End Up With Brewery Inside Their Bodies
Amazon Ditches $2-An-Hour Raise For Essential Workers
Having A Few Drinks A Week Is Good For Your Brain
Unsold Guinness Used To Fertilize Christmas Trees
Harvard and MIT Sue Trump Administration Over Foreign Student Visa Rule
California Suing Trump Admin Over New Visa Rule For International Students
You might think this is a troll, intentionally causing controversy while remaining
anonymous. No one could seriously believe this, right?
But this is an actual PhD student specializing in mathematics education. She is even listed
on Rutgers' PhD student directory,
In fact, she already has a Master's Degree in architecture but I'm not sure you would want
to go into any buildings she has designed, just in case she thinks structural integrity is
another imperialist lie.
This is how far the Bolshevik worldview has reached. You'd expect this from an
underwater-basket-weaving major. After all, colleges are the bastion of the Marxists.
But this is math. And she is part of the next generation of instructors and educators.
Maybe it's time to start rethinking the value of a degree.
British man convicted for drinking carrot juice from a beer can
A British man was angry about open container laws in his town, so he filled a beer can with
carrot juice, and walked around downtown.
As expected, he was cited by police, and given a ticket for drinking alcohol in public.
But challenging the ticket in court, the case was dismissed since he hadn't actually been
caught with alcohol in public.
You'd think it would end there. Man hassles town, town hassles man, and we're done.
But the town decided this case was important enough to appeal the court's decision.
After going back to court and arguing why drinking carrot juice out of a beer can should be
enough for an open container ticket, the defiant man lost the case. He will be forced to pay
the fine.
This was a two year legal battle at the taxpayers' expense, for drinking carrot juice out of
a beer can.
Clearly the man was just trying to troll the town government.
But who is more ridiculous– one guy with a bone to pick, or a town that spent two
years prosecuting a man for drinking carrot juice, just to prove who's really in charge?
How you could Double Your Money with an asset
That Has a 5,000 Year History of Prosperity
Why gold could potentially DOUBLE, and why silver could increase by up to 5
TIMES
The 5 smartest, safest and most lucrative ways to own gold and silver (and one way
you should definitely avoid)
Why gold is the ultimate anti-currency and insurance policy against the systematic
destruction of the US dollar (that everyone should at least consider owning)
Why ETFs are a lurking timebomb and why you want to avoid them like the
plague
And everything else you need to know about buying, owning, storing and investing
in precious metals
This 50-page report is brand new and absolutely free.
"... "People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets," ..."
"... "held accountable" ..."
"... "an entire TV network" ..."
"... "stoking hatred" ..."
"... "white supremacist [with] a popular network show" ..."
"... "in dangerous ways," ..."
"... You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it. https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku ..."
"... "fired from their jobs and have their livelihoods threatened." ..."
"... There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter user. ..."
"... Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive remarks. ..."
"... An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the letter. ..."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has denied the existence of cancel culture, suggesting it is an
invention of privileged moaners who can't handle criticism. Her thesis prompted speculation
that the powerful lawmaker has no self-awareness. The rookie New York congresswoman, whose
'woke' Twitter takes have made her a hero to many on the Left, attempted to debunk the concept
of cancel culture in a series of profound posts.
"People who are actually 'cancelled' don't get their thoughts published and amplified in
major outlets," she argued , adding that the whiners who
complain about being 'cancelled' are actually just entitled and hate being "held
accountable" or "unliked."
To prove her point, she claimed that "an entire TV network" is dedicated to
"stoking hatred" of her, and that a "white supremacist [with] a popular network
show" regularly misrepresents her "in dangerous ways," but that she never
complains about it. (The congresswoman may be referring to Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who is
white and undoubtedly not a fan of hers.)
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the people who "actually" get cancelled are
anti-capitalists and even abolitionists – apparently a hat-tip to activists who
campaigned to end slavery, which was formally abolished in the United States in 1865 with the
ratification of the 13th Amendment.
Her airtight dissertation received poor marks from many on social media, however. Countless
comments accused her of being part of the very movement which she claims doesn't exist.
"You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a whim.
Now you're being hoist by your own petard," quipped actor James Woods.
You and your mob have been destroying careers and reputations and livelihoods on a
whim. Now you're being hoist by your own petard. Those of us blacklisted, libeled, and
falsely maligned have zero sympathy. You all started it. May you be devoured by it.
https://t.co/PGzMzNa0ku
Others argued that AOC was technically correct. Instead of having their views broadcast by
mainstream outlets, 'cancelled' individuals are often "fired from their jobs and have their
livelihoods threatened."
Correct. Instead, they are often fired from their jobs, harassed by twitter mobs, &
have their livelihoods threatened. And so since they cannot speak up, we who have a platform
choose to use our power responsibly to speak up on their behalf. You should do the same. Join
us, AOC https://t.co/lQ5yiuKFq6
There was similar disillusionment with the lawmaker's assertion that she is being
maliciously smeared by news networks and "white supremacists." "You're not a victim, you're a
United States congresswoman," observed an unsympathetic Twitter
user.
However, her remarks also garnered applause from social media users, who dismissed cancel
culture as a right-wing talking point.
Cancel culture is fake. It's a right wing framing of social accountability and people need
to stop giving the term any credence.
Whether AOC wants to acknowledge it or not, a seemingly endless internet crusade has
ruined the lives of countless individuals (many of them private citizens with little or no
power) accused of holding politically incorrect views or of expressing insensitive
remarks.
An open letter published by Harper's Magazine which criticized the "vogue for public
shaming and ostracism" among journalists, academics, and other figures ended up backfiring
spectacularly after several signatories of the document rescinded their endorsements. They
explained that they'd been unaware that 'problematic' people had also signed the
letter.
"... Then in June 2020, he forced the resignation of James Bennet , editor of the NYT 's op-ed page. Why? Because they carried an opinion piece by the Republican senator Tom Cotton which argued that demonstrations which turned violent should be met with "an overwhelming show of force" – a phrase that caused outrage among some of the staff. Bennet had been tipped as the future Editor of the New York Times . Now he was out the door. ..."
"... Journalism, in the protesting staffs' view, must conform to novel, liberal verities, which include the protection of audiences from material seen as hurtful, even dangerous. The view of John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) – "to utter and argue freely, according to conscience"- is now discarded in many parts of the cultural landscape . The sharpening of one's own convictions by setting them against opposing opinions would now, under this approach, be impossible. ..."
"... Part of this may be the phenomenon which Jonathan Swift noted when he wrote that "you cannot reason someone out of something that he or she was not reasoned into": that views held because fashionable, or approved by one's circle, or regarded as morally beyond question, are sometimes too shallow to be able to sustain argument. Dogmatic positions adopted with little thought except for signaling virtue often collapse when questioned hard. ..."
"... A letter signed by prominent writers, scholars and others organized by Harper's Magazine on July 7 – " On Justice and Open Debate " – noted that "it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms". ..."
"... The concession to staff protests in the great New York titles and the punishments to Buruma and Bennet were "hasty and disproportionate". These journals stood as examples to others: their example has been weakened. Journalists have been trained to keep an open mind to all events they chronicle, conscious of their complexity: and to listen to and allow space for views which are far from their own. That tradition is not past its useful life. ..."
In 2018, David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker and Pulitzer Prize-winning author,
cancelled a public interview with Steve Bannon, a former senior adviser to President Donald
Trump, which he had organised for the magazine's annual festival. Several staff members had
complained and two or three participants in the festival had said they would withdraw if Bannon
appeared . Two of the magazine's most distinguished writers, Malcolm Gladwell and Lawrence
Wright, strongly criticised Remnick's decision: " journalism is about hearing opposing views" ,
said Wright. Gladwell noted that " If you only invite your friends over, it's called a dinner
party ". The episode was a worrying sign of things to come.
In 2019, New York Review of Books publisher Rea Hederman – who has a proud history of
anti-racism – fired Ian Buruma, editor of the Review for only sixteen months, after
pressure from the staff . Buruma's crime? He had printed an essay – 'Confessions of a
Hashtag' by Jian Ghomeishi, a former Canadian Broadcasting radio host, who had been accused of
violence to around twenty women, but had been recently acquitted in a case brought by some of
them. Ghomeishi's piece, which addressed these accusations, was deemed to be out of step with
the spirit of the #MeToo movement. That the next issue of the NYRB was to devote a large amount
of space to rebuttal was not enough to save Buruma.
A G Sulzberger had, in his apprentice journalist years, used relentless coverage to force a
Lion's Club in Narragansett to reverse its decision to bar women, and revealed misconduct in an
Oregon sheriff's office, causing his resignation. He took over as publisher of the New York
Times in 2018, the sixth Sulzberger to take that position: he strongly criticized President
Trump, in an Oval Office meeting, for calling the Times "treasonous" and rendering journalists'
work more dangerous.
Then in June 2020, he forced the resignation of James Bennet , editor of the NYT 's op-ed
page. Why? Because they carried an opinion piece by the Republican senator Tom Cotton which
argued that demonstrations which turned violent should be met with "an overwhelming show of
force" – a phrase that caused outrage among some of the staff. Bennet had been tipped as
the future Editor of the New York Times . Now he was out the door.
In each case, the main actors were men I admired – Hederman and Sulzberger by
reputation, Remnick (whom I met when we were both correspondents in Moscow) by his writing and
editing. They had faced difficult decisions, made enemies and hard choices. In each case, the
men worked for a journal with a history of innovative, no-hold-barred criticism of the
powerful.
And in each case, they had folded because of pressure from the staff – pressure which
stemmed from an article or an event the complainants deemed unsuitable for any audience. For
those staff, opinions they dislike are seen as intolerable in a publication on which they work.
A red line had been crossed.
Journalism, in the protesting staffs' view, must conform to novel, liberal verities, which
include the protection of audiences from material seen as hurtful, even dangerous. The view of
John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859) – "to utter and argue freely, according to
conscience"- is now discarded in many parts of the cultural landscape . The sharpening of one's
own convictions by setting them against opposing opinions would now, under this approach, be
impossible.
Part of this may be the phenomenon which Jonathan Swift noted when he wrote that "you cannot
reason someone out of something that he or she was not reasoned into": that views held because
fashionable, or approved by one's circle, or regarded as morally beyond question, are sometimes
too shallow to be able to sustain argument. Dogmatic positions adopted with little thought
except for signaling virtue often collapse when questioned hard.
What's to be done about this? First, the phenomenon itself has to be held up to the light as
much as possible. If, as I suspect, much of it is loudly proclaimed but lightly ingested,
argument and debate has to be brought to bear. The best argument remains Mill's: that opinions,
many of them having to do with central issues of our time, are too important not to be
challenged, worked over, considered anew and either strengthened or weakened – and, in
the latter case, either modified or discarded.
Journalism needs now, more than ever, to build debate and contestation into news media
worlds. The challenge is to rediscover the fundamentals of journalism – without which it
ceases to be a necessary pillar of democratic, civic societies: in short, journalism needs to
rediscover a belief in the fact of facts, and in the plurality of opinion. No liberal would for
a moment agree that criticism of President Trump, distasteful to his supporters, should be
censored.
Editors' mission is to insist that, barring the dangerous extremes, all opinions deserve
airing and contesting, just as all facts deserve to be checked and given context . Those in
journalism who object to views in their journal, channel or website must accept that the robust
clash of beliefs remains a necessary insurance against enforced conformity, and indeed
reaction. In a society built on diverse ways of looking at the world, some upset on seeing or
reading an account or a conviction which strongly contradicts your own has to be borne,
considered and where possible replied to, not shut down.
A letter signed by prominent writers, scholars and others organized by Harper's Magazine on
July 7 – " On Justice and Open Debate "
– noted that "it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in
response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional
leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate
punishments instead of considered reforms".
The concession to staff protests in the great New York titles and the punishments to Buruma
and Bennet were "hasty and disproportionate". These journals stood as examples to others: their
example has been weakened. Journalists have been trained to keep an open mind to all events
they chronicle, conscious of their complexity: and to listen to and allow space for views which
are far from their own. That tradition is not past its useful life.
John Lloyd is a Contributing Editor to the Financial Times, ex-editor of The New Statesman
and a co-founder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of
Oxford.
This is about a new generation of Red Guards, not so much about watching Bruce Springsteen
And Dionne Warwick Be Pelted With Dogshit For Singing We Are the World
Notable quotes:
"... This Marxian denunciation of the defense of free speech as cynical capitalist ruse was brought to you by the same Ezra Klein who once worked with Yglesias to help Vox raise $300 million . This was just one of many weirdly petty storylines. Writer Thomas Chatterton Williams, who organized the letter, found himself described as a " mixed race man heavily invested in respectability politics ," once he defended the letter, one of many transparent insults directed toward the letter's nonwhite signatories by ostensible antiracist voices. ..."
"... The whole episode was nuts. ..."
"... In this conception there's nothing to worry about when a Dean of Nursing at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell is dismissed for writing "Black Lives Matter, but also, everyone's life matters " in an email, or when an Indiana University Medical School professor has to apologize for asking students how they would treat a patient who says 'I can't breathe!' in a clinical setting, or when someone is fired for retweeting a study suggesting nonviolent protest is effective. The people affected are always eventually judged to be "bad," or to have promoted "bad research," or guilty of making "bad arguments," etc. ..."
"... In this case, Current Affairs hastened to remind us that the people signing the Harper's letter were many varieties of bad! They included Questioners of Politically Correct Culture like "Pinker, Jesse Singal, Zaid Jilani, John McWhorter, Nicholas A. Christakis, Caitlin Flanagan , Jonathan Haidt, and Bari Weiss ," as well as "chess champion and proponent of the bizarre conspiracy theory that the Middle Ages did not happen, Garry Kasparov," and "right wing blowhards known for being wrong about everything" in David Frum and Francis Fukuyama, as well as -- this is my favorite line -- "problematic novelists Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie , and J.K. Rowling." ..."
"... Where on the irony-o-meter does one rate an essay that decries the "right-wing myth" of cancel culture by mass-denouncing a gymnasium full of intellectuals as problematic? ..."
"... Mao and his Red Guard invented cancel culture. This is the Chinese cultural revolution American style. Same ****, just round eyes instead of slant eyes. ..."
Any attempt to build bridges between the two mindsets falls apart, often spectacularly, as
we saw this week in an online fight over free speech that could not possibly have been more
comic in its unraveling.
A group of high-profile writers and thinkers, including Pinker, Noam Chomsky, Wynton
Marsalis, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem and Anne Appelbaum, signed a letter in Harper's calling for
an end to callouts and cancelations.
"We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom," the authors wrote, adding, "We
need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional
consequences."
This Hallmark-card-level inoffensive sentiment naturally inspired peals of outrage across
the Internet, mainly directed at a handful of signatories deemed hypocrites for having called
for the firings of various persons before.
Then a few signatories
withdrew their names when they found out that they would be sharing space on the letterhead
with people they disliked.
"I thought I was endorsing a well meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did
know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company," tweeted Jennifer Finney
Boylan, adding, "The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry."
Translation: I had no idea my group statement against intellectual monoculture would be
signed by people with different views!
In the predictable next development -- no dialogue between American intellectuals is
complete these days without someone complaining to the boss -- Vox writer Emily VanDerWerff
declared herself literally threatened by
co-worker Matt Yglesias's decision to sign the statement. The public as well as Vox editors
were told:
The letter, signed as it is by several prominent anti-trans voices and containing as many
dog whistles towards anti-trans positions as it does, ideally would not have been signed by
anybody at Vox His signature on the letter makes me feel less safe.
Naturally, this declaration impelled Vox co-founder Ezra Klein to take VanDerWerff's side
and publicly denounce the Harper's letter as a status-defending con.
"A lot of debates that sell themselves as being about free speech are actually about power,"
tweeted
Klein, clearly referencing his old pal Yglesias. "And there's a lot of power in being able to
claim, and hold, the mantle of free speech defender."
This Marxian denunciation of the defense of free speech as cynical capitalist ruse was
brought to you by the same Ezra Klein who once worked with Yglesias to help Vox raise $300
million . This was just one of many weirdly petty storylines. Writer Thomas Chatterton
Williams, who organized the letter, found himself described as a " mixed race man heavily
invested in respectability politics ," once he defended the letter, one of many transparent
insults directed toward the letter's nonwhite signatories by ostensible antiracist voices.
The whole episode was nuts. It was like watching Bruce Springsteen and Dionne Warwick be
pelted with dogshit for trying to sing We Are the World .
This being America in the Trump era, where the only art form to enjoy wide acceptance is the
verbose monograph written in condemnation of the obvious, the Harper's fiasco inspired multiple
entries in the vast literature decrying the rumored existence of "cancel culture." The two most
common themes of such essays are a) the illiberal left is a Trumpian myth, and b) if the
illiberal left does exist, it's a good thing because all of those people they're
smearing/getting fired deserved it.
In this conception there's nothing to worry about when a Dean of Nursing at the University
of Massachusetts-Lowell is dismissed for writing "Black Lives Matter, but also,
everyone's life matters " in an email, or when an Indiana University Medical School
professor has to
apologize for asking students how they would treat a patient who says 'I can't breathe!' in
a clinical setting, or when someone is fired for
retweeting a study suggesting nonviolent protest is effective. The people affected are
always eventually judged to be "bad," or to have promoted "bad research," or guilty of making
"bad arguments," etc.
In this case, Current Affairs hastened to remind us
that the people signing the Harper's letter were many varieties of bad! They included
Questioners of Politically Correct Culture like "Pinker, Jesse Singal, Zaid Jilani, John
McWhorter, Nicholas A. Christakis, Caitlin
Flanagan , Jonathan Haidt, and Bari Weiss ,"
as well as "chess champion and proponent of the bizarre conspiracy theory that the Middle Ages
did not happen, Garry Kasparov," and "right wing blowhards known for being wrong about
everything" in David Frum and Francis Fukuyama, as well as -- this is my favorite line --
"problematic novelists Martin Amis, Salman
Rushdie , and J.K. Rowling."
Where on the irony-o-meter does one rate an essay that decries the "right-wing myth" of
cancel culture by mass-denouncing a gymnasium full of intellectuals as problematic?
How long before Tiabbi is forced into a life of dumpster diving. I am pretty sure his
world is rocking right now but free speech needs all of the defenders it can get.
Jackprong , 7 minutes ago
They're even throwing Orwell to the dogs! They have no shame!
Secret Weapon , 10 minutes ago
Mao and his Red Guard invented cancel culture. This is the Chinese cultural revolution
American style. Same ****, just round eyes instead of slant eyes.
Justus_Americans , 13 minutes ago
The Overton Window The Illusion Of Choice Free Speech Respectful Discourse The Best
Interests of USA
" The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of
acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage
the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking
going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the
limits put on the range of the debate " Noam Chomsky
"... As we highlighted yesterday , 150 intellectuals, authors and activists including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and JK Rowling signed the letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine. ..."
"... The letter criticized how "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted" as a result of "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty." ..."
Some of the public figures who signed an open letter decrying the rise of cancel culture retracted their support, presumably fearing
they too might become a victim of it.
As we
highlighted
yesterday , 150 intellectuals, authors and activists including Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and JK Rowling signed the letter,
which was published by Harpers Magazine.
The letter criticized how "the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming
more constricted" as a result of "an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to
dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred
from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for
circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,"
states the letter.
Following its publication and pushback from leftists, some of the signatories caved and publicly withdrew their support.
... ... ...
Vox journalist Matt Yglesias was also reported to his own employers by a transgender colleague because she claimed his support
for free speech and his association with JK Rowling was an 'anti-trans dog whistle'. (tweet since deleted)
Is it any wonder that free speech is in such dire straits when this is the reaction to a letter that simply expresses support
for it?
* * *
My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL
that you support me. Please sign up for the free newsletter here . Donate
to me on SubscribeStar here . Support my sponsor –
Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Demeter55 , 41 minutes ago
Such cowardice! They put Joseph McCarthy's victims in heroic contrast to their stupid selves.
Ohiolad , 1 hour ago
We have never seen the degree of cowardice that we are now seeing from the so-called "intellectual" class. How can these people
be so spineless?
"Today, America's tumbrils are clattering about, carrying toppled statues, ruined careers,
unwoke brands. Over their sides peer those deemed racist by left-wing identitarians and
sentenced to cancelation, even as the evidentiary standard for that crime falls through the
floor But who are these cultural revolutionaries? The conventional wisdom goes that this is
the inner-cities erupting, economically disadvantaged victims of racism enraged over the
murder of George Floyd. The reality is something more bourgeoisie. As Kevin Williamson
observed last week, "These are the idiot children of the American ruling class, toy radicals
and Champagne Bolsheviks, playing Jacobin for a while, until they go back to graduate
school".
Is that so? I well recall listening in the Middle East to other angry young men who, too,
wanted to 'topple the statues'; to burn down everything. 'You really believed that Washington
would allow you in', they taunted and tortured their leaders: "No, we must burn it all down.
Start from scratch".
Did they have a blueprint for the future? No. They simply believed that Islam would
organically inflate, and expand to fill the void. It would happen by itself – of its own
accord: Faith.
Professor John Gray has noted "that in
The God that failed, Gide says: 'My faith in communism is like my faith in religion. It is a
promise of salvation for mankind'' . "Here Gide acknowledged", Gray continues, "that communism
was an atheist version of monotheism. But so is liberalism, and when Gide and others gave up
faith in communism to become liberals, they were not renouncing the concepts and values that
both ideologies had inherited from western religion. They continued to believe that history was
a directional process in which humankind was advancing towards universal freedom ".
So too with the wokes. The emphasis is on Redemption; on a Truth catharsis; on their own
Virtue as sufficient agency to stand-in for the lack of plan for the future. All are clear
signals: A secularised 'illusion' is metamorphosing back into 'religion'. Not as Islam, of
course, but as angry Man, burning at the deep and dark moral stain of the past. And acting now
as purifying 'fire' to bring about the uplifting and shining future ahead.
Tucker Carlson, a leading American conservative commentator known for plain speaking,
frames the movement a little differently:
"This is not a momentary civil disturbance. This is a serious, and highly organized
political movement It is deep and profound and has vast political ambitions. It is insidious,
it will grow. Its goal is to end liberal democracy and challenge western civilization itself
We're too literal and good-hearted to understand what's happening We have no idea what we are
up against These are not protests. This is a totalitarian political movement" .
Again, nothing needs to be done by this new generation to bring into being a new world,
apart from destroying the old one. This vision is a relic – albeit secularised – of
western Christianity. Apocalypse and redemption, these wokes believe, have their own path;
their own internal logic.
Mill's 'ghost' is arrived at the table. And with its return, America's exceptionalism has
its re-birth. Redemption for humankind's dark stains. A narrative in which the history of
mankind is reduced to the history of racial struggle. Yet Americans, young or old, now lack the
power to project it as a universal vision.
'Virtue', however deeply felt, on its own, is insufficient. Might President Trump try
nevertheless to sustain the old illusion by hard power? The U.S. is deeply fractured and
dysfunctional – but if desperate, this is possible.
The "toy radicals, and Champagne Bolsheviks" – in these terms of dripping disdain from
Williamson – are very similar to those who rushed into the streets in 1917. But before
dismissing them so peremptorily and lightly, recall what occurred.
Into that combustible mass of youth – so acultured by their progressive parents to see
a Russian past that was imperfect and darkly stained – a Trotsky and Lenin were inserted.
And Stalin ensued. No 'toy radicals'. Soft became hard totalitarianism.
play_arrow
N2M , 22 minutes ago
Vision? What vision that might be?
"'Freedom' is being torn down from within"
What freedom? Could be "Freedom" they decide how, when and where you can express your
thoughts? There is only one true freedom that exists and that is human free will to tell the
truth.
Today vision of Freedom is a joke, this game was never about freedom for in a world of
ideology, there is always lurking a deceits of lies and control.
There are 3 types of Americans.
A sharp ones and well tune to what has been going on and those I had a chance to talk
to and become friends when I was in U.S.A
The imbeciles of totally clueless generation of people who will listen to any wave of
information in propaganda as true and must be and their government is so beloved, no others
can even compete and they only have good intentions /s /c
And there is this group, shrewd, conniving, self-moral, warmongering, evil to a core
psychopaths who only follow different orders to impose their will on other nations to makes
sure they follow what? USD.
So when author speaks about vision it must separate few things!
Washington is running around imposing sanctions, destroying relationship/interest with
nations, trying all this regime changes at a cost of death of millions of people and then
dropping "Freedom bombs' almost every 8 to 9 minutes somewhere in this world, because these
freaks vision is way different, then some regular people either be in South America or other
continents that these regular people have.
Real vision is based on corporation, and U.S.A had that before, however after being
hijack, now they trying to start a war of unimaginable proportions so few fat bosses in one
Chamber can feel as super masters of the world and everyone as slaves.
I would like to remind some people about vision – Marx had a vision to, and rest is
history.
Becklon , 1 hour ago
It's a lack of shared purpose, I think. Without a common focus, such as an external threat
(as once provided by the USSR) groups tend to fracture and turn on themselves and each
other.
It's got nothing to do with any one religious or political group having more power than
others. It's to do with homo sapiens - and maybe entropy.
1 play_arrow
David Wooten , 1 hour ago
Well, if all this is true, there is far, far more at stake than the US being unable to
"Re-Impose Its Civilisational Worldview" (which I would be fine with).
"... This lady is sitting there lying trying to prove a point. I have been in enough arguments to kow when someone is just arguing to keep the discussion going ..."
The bottom line is, they want to take away any problem solving skills that might build character, because someone might get
hurt! Victimhood culture run amuck.
Mathematics is the cornerstone of all forms of trade, communications, home economics and every other aspect of life. Truth
is they're dumbing everyone down to control populations!
I have Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering and I'm 62-years old. I have never once cared about the history of mathematics,
other than a curiosity. Knowing the history of mathematics never helped me once to solve an ordinary second order differential
equation.
When a person lies while giving an interview they should be shocked or something. This lady is sitting there lying trying
to prove a point. I have been in enough arguments to kow when someone is just arguing to keep the discussion going. She has
already lost the argument deflected and differed responsibility when confronted with the legitimacy of the paper.
Go exercise healthy body makes a healthy mind not the other way around.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal.
They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was
smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or
quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments
to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper
General.
Some things about living still weren't quite right, though. April for instance, still drove
people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took
George and Hazel Bergeron's fourteen- year-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard. Hazel had
a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn't think about anything except in short
bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap
radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government
transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to
keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel's cheeks, but she'd
forgotten for the moment what they were about.
Dostoyevsky had a good definition of the political correctness of his day, from his very
prescient novel "The Possessed" [by devils]. He defined it as "a combination of self
righteousness, and the unwillingness to hold an independent opinion." (They were then as now
called "liberals," the "resistance" then to Tsar Aleksandr II, who had just freed 23 million
serfs, created a court system with trial by jury, and instituted elected local and regional
governments. Elements of the resistance assassinated him en route to proclaim an elected
national parliament, the proclamation physically on his person.)
"... Speaking with Fox's Ainsley Earhard on Thursday, the conservative actor took aim at 'cancel culture,' dubbing it "like an early version of George Orwell's 1984" which would have barred the 90s-era character from uttering his iconic slogan. ..."
"... "I promise you that Superman – I wouldn't today be allowed to say: 'Truth, justice, and the American way,'" ..."
Actor Dean Cain, who portrayed Superman for a 1990s TV show, has set Twitter ablaze after arguing that modern 'cancel culture' would
have outlawed the superhero's catchphrase – "Truth, justice and the American way."
Speaking with Fox's Ainsley Earhard on Thursday,
the conservative actor took aim at 'cancel culture,' dubbing it "like an early version of George Orwell's 1984" which would have
barred the 90s-era character from uttering his iconic slogan.
"I promise you that Superman – I wouldn't today be allowed to say: 'Truth, justice, and the American way,'" Cain said,
responding to a recent op-ed in Time
Magazine calling for a "re-examining" of how superheroes are portrayed on screen.
"... "I'ma stab you, and while you're struggling and bleeding out, I'ma show you my paper cut and say, 'My cut matters too,'" she declared in the TikTok clip. ..."
"... Holding back tears, Janover said she'd "worked really hard" to receive a position at the company, and complained that her contract had been terminated even though Deloitte claims to "stand against systemic racism." ..."
A Harvard graduate has reportedly lost her job after posting a now-viral TikTok video in
which she vowed to assault anyone who didn't support the Black Lives Matter (BLM)
movement.
...
Claira Janover became an overnight sensation after several news outlets caught wind
of a video in which she threatened to attack anyone "entitled" enough to believe
that "all lives matter."
"I'ma stab you, and while you're struggling and bleeding out, I'ma show you my paper
cut and say, 'My cut matters too,'" she declared in the TikTok clip.
...Holding back tears, Janover said she'd "worked really hard" to receive a
position at the company, and complained that her contract had been terminated even though
Deloitte claims to "stand against systemic racism."
..."File under Schadenfreude or Karma," noted conservative firebrand
Michelle Malkin.
...Janover's firing is unusual as it marks a rare case of 'reverse' cancel culture.
Social-justice activists have typically been the ones using social media to attack anyone who
is suspected of holding politically incorrect views.
The man who asked 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' now wonders what's the matter with
Democrats - The Washington Post
In 2004, Thomas Frank published "What's The Matter with Kansas," a book asking why so many
working-class and poor white Americans in the heartland had taken to voting for a party that in
both word and deed advanced policies of great value to the rich. In short, the question was:
Why were these folks Republicans when Republicans weren't with them?
Frank's book became a kind of cultural touchstone, or at least a shorthand reference for
what lots of political analysts, consultants and certainly Democratic politicians and their
staffers had talked out behind closed doors for years. "What's The Matter with Kansas" didn't
delve deeply into the white-identity politics, race-based sense of economic entitlement,
anxiety and resentment that seem to play such a prominent role in the 2016 campaign, but it
certainly gave a lot of people a lot to think about.
Now, Frank is out with a book called "Listen, Liberal" that seems about as confrontational
as that title sounds. This time, people on the other side of the political aisle -- Democrats
and self-described progressives -- face Frank's frank assessment.
Since the 1970s and even more markedly during President Bill Clinton's tenure in the
1990s, Democrats have played a central role in trade deals that sped up the departure of
manufacturing jobs from the United States and also in rolling back the social safety net.
Clinton proudly signed the biggest welfare reform package in decades, all based on the idea
that those on welfare, not that the program itself, was in dire need of reform.
Today, the share of people receiving cash welfare assistance has dropped precipitously, even
during the worst of the Great Recession. In other words, that's not because people's incomes
otherwise grew or they didn't need the help.
It's mostly because states have made it increasingly difficult to access cash assistance,
freeing state lawmakers to redirect the federal block grants dispatched to cover these benefits
to finance other state needs,
according to a 2015 analysis released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . In
2014, the report found, states spent more of their federal welfare block grants on these other
programs and costs -- often meaning they plugged various state budget gaps -- than they did
basic cash welfare assistance.
And those who are receiving cash aid are getting a lot less. After accounting for inflation,
cash welfare benefits slid 35 percent between 1990 and 2015 . And most year-to-year
increases in welfare benefits paid to families are so small it's hard to imagine the
mathematical basis on which they were set. For instance, in 2014 in South Carolina, a poor
family of three that met all program guidelines could receive up to $277 a month. In 2015, that
figure climbed all of $3 to $280.
That may sound like good news to those who want to shrink public budgets no matter the cost,
or philosophically object to the very existence of cash public assistance. But, in the past,
that did not include the bulk of Democrats, Frank argues. Democrats used to be the party that
defended the social safety net so that it might help those in need climb back toward
independence and solvency but also aggressively championed a wider array of policies protecting
American jobs, worker safety, wages and the like. That made unions a natural and central part
of Democratic coalition.
Democrats used to battle the primary drivers of economic inequality, Frank argues. Now
sometimes, they advance them.
In
a Q&A with In These Times' Tobita Chow published this week, Frank goes even further in
pinning the blame on Democrats who followed Clinton in the 1990s. Frank's is a critique that
certainly includes -- no, calls out -- the Obama administration, too. The Obama White House
would almost certainly counter that things like the recent reform in overtime pay rules and the
Affordable Care Act have been of great benefit to the middle and working classes as well as the
poor.
But Frank has some other complaints. Here's a sample from the worthwhile Q&A:
Q: The book is about how the Democratic Party turned its back on working people and now
pursues policies that actually increase inequality. What are the policies or ideological
commitments in the Democratic Party that make you think this?
A: The first piece of evidence is what's happened since the financial crisis. This is the
great story of our time. Inequality has actually gotten worse since then, which is a
remarkable thing. This is under a Democratic president who we were assured (or warned) was
the most liberal or radical president we would ever see. Yet inequality has gotten worse, and
the gains since the financial crisis, since the recovery began, have gone entirely to the top
10 percent of the income distribution.
This is not only because of those evil Republicans, but because Obama played it the way he
wanted to. Even when he had a majority in both houses of Congress and could choose whoever he
wanted to be in his administration, he consistently made policies that favored the top 10
percent over everybody else. He helped out Wall Street in an enormous way when they were
entirely at his mercy.
He could have done anything he wanted with them, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did in
the '30s. But he chose not to....
There's so much interesting stuff in this Q&A, we are going to strongly suggest you give
it a read.
Just click here . Nina 1 5/25/2016 8:59 PM EDT [Edited]
Well, yes. The Democratic party and its representatives turned its back on working class
America and it was the bigger betrayal because working class America thought the Democrats
were better than that. Not too many people think income inequality just "happened" despite
the liberal government in power: there is no way it could have happened without the collusion
and cooperation of the government. The government, with big business, created this by
singular lack of policy to address it. And that is how you end up with Donald Trump. The
reasoning is, "How much worse could he be?"
"... While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system alive and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system. ..."
"... a class level lower than the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate, and growing, distribution of wealth and income in the US. ..."
"... It was not the status or material wealth causing the harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal, having little status, and the resulting shame. ..."
"... In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals manage to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress the protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network. ..."
"... This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, “Floydgate” can be viewed as a variation on the same theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and social protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence against blacks. ..."
...A while back, I was researching the issues you state in your last paragraph. Was about ten pages into it and had to stop
as I was drawn out of state and country.
From my research.
While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system
alive and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system.
This distraction of a class level lower than the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate,
and growing, distribution of wealth and income in the US.
For the lower class, an allowed luxury, a place in the hierarchy and a sure form of self esteem insurance.
Sennett and Cobb (1972) observed that class distinction sets up a contest between upper and lower class with the lower social
class always losing and promulgating a perception amongst themselves the educated and upper classes are in a position to judge
and draw a conclusion of them being less than equal.
The hidden injury is in the regard to the person perceiving himself as a piece of the woodwork or seen as a function such as
"George the Porter."
It was not the status or material wealth causing the harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal,
having little status, and the resulting shame.
The answer for many was violence.
James Gilligan wrote "Violence; Reflections on A National Epidemic." He worked as a prison psychiatrist and talked with many
of the inmates of the issues of inequality and feeling less than those around them. His finding are in his book which is not a
long read and adds to the discussion.
A little John Adams for you.
"The poor man's conscience is clear . . . he does not feel guilty and has no reason to . . . yet, he is ashamed. Mankind
takes no notice of him. He rambles unheeded.
In the midst of a crowd; at a church; in the market . . . he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar.
He is not disapproved, censured, or reproached; he is not seen . . . To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable."
likbez June 19, 2020 1:25 pm
That’s a very important observation. Racism, especially directed toward blacks, along with “identity wedge,” is a perfect tool
for disarming poor white, and suppressing their struggle for a better standard of living, which considerably dropped under neoliberalism.
In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals
manage to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress
the protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network.
This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, “Floydgate” can be viewed as a variation on
the same theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and
social protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence
against blacks.
This is another way to explain “What’s the matter with Kansas” effect.
The hatred against anything w hite is all prevalent and only getting worse. It will only lead to more anti w hite violence.
To look at your future, look at South Africa.
The book burners are at it again. Remember when Democrats keep telling us how the religious right was nothing but a
bunch of dangerous authoritarians. Well, this is certainly awkward.
That is very revealing. A so-called journalist [activist] telling another journalist who is attempting to be objective that
she is tired of having to deal with him for reporting on FACTS which has been repeatedly "asked" not to do.
Lee Fang did not deserve this. People as committed as him to the tenants of investigative journalism are few and far between
and I attribute reporters like him to my awakening from political apathy and my new found dedication to activism.
"I recently had a conflict with a colleague whose feelings I harmed." Neo-libs are so fragile. Hurt their poor little feelings
and you're immediately branded a racist. It disgusts me when journalists (or anyone else for that matter) are blackmailed into
apologizing for hurting someone's feelings. What is freedom of speech all about in the first place? Say whatever you want as long
as you never hurt anyone's feelings?
1:30 I'm black and it's exactly how I feel.
That and I'm not a fan of whom the funding money goes to. It goes to DNC politicians, not to any blk communities like supporting
predominately blk schools.
Amen Saagar!! I for the most part enjoy Krystal's analysis, but, in my own biased opinion, you communicate a more mature sobering
view of who is really benefiting from all of this disfunction in present society. My take is how these brands clothed in Black
Lives Matter and Antifa are furthering the 1% underlying agenda. All we have to do is critically see who is left standing financially
unscathed from all the madness. Take the inconvenient deep dive research of the corporations funding Black Lives, Antifa etc.
And history has always shown that once the 1% have used the robotic clueless for their cause, they will be conveniently discarded
by means of the same devices that they thought they were fighting against. I can see George Carlin if he were alive today using
all of this dark human insanity for fodder in the tragic comedy he so perfected.
Saagar, thank you for speaking truth to the mob. NEVER apologize to an SJW - or anyone else for that matter - when your only
"crime" is to think differently than they do.
Great piece. Too bad no one is listening. 70% of americans get their news and analyse from MSM and hollywood, and the elites
know this, so they don't care. Biden v. Kavanaugh hypocrisy? No problem. Obama the 'deporter in chief'? No problem. Nancy worth
$100 MILLION as a public servant? No problem. Hunter gets arrested with drugs and is not charged? No problem.
Corporations realize that they need to turn from class struggle (working class vs plutocrats) into about race struggles and
cultural revolution (social struggle). You touch their money and power structure it's no go. But to make cosmetic change, do whatever
you want. They don't really care.
Two things wrong with this: 1) Fang's concentrating on Black-on-Black killing is like saying "All Lives Matter." It is a tool
used by the right to minimize racist crime. Fang knows this and so does Saagar. 2) Freedom of speech means you can say anything
you want. It DOES NOT MEAN you are protected from criticism of what you've said. If people self-censor over that criticism, so
be it. No lawful entity is saying you cannot publish your thoughts. If Fang wants to express unpopular thoughts and, in so doing,
minimize the problem of racism in this country, he certainly has the Constitutional right to do so. However, he must man up and
accept whatever criticism comes his way. In my opinion, that criticism is sorely deserved. Edit: After listening to Taibbi's views
today, I agree that no journalist should be at risk of losing his job over reporting unpopular events and views.
I have a response to the guy questioning BLM. Why is it that SJW-types feel that every issue has to encompass every ill ever
committed in human history? Or in other words, can't an organization focus on one specific problem without being saddled with
every conceivable mutation or variation or sub-agenda of an issue? BLM is focused on police abuse aimed at people of color. Isn't
that a tough enough issue without any add-ons or getting involved and invested in conflicts between autonomous individuals? And
while I'm on that note, what the hell is the deal with people thinking the police are there to solve every God damn interpersonal
dispute? The neighbor leaves his trash can on your lawn and you call the police. Someone tells someone else to follow the law
in the park and leash their dog and the knee jerk reaction is not to (here's a crazy idea) leash the dog, but to call the police.
The racial issue aside, this kind of response is in no way unusual. I swear to God someone threatened to call the police on me
for, get this, criticizing Hillary Clinton. No lie. (We need to stop calling it Trump Derangement Syndrome and call it Hillary
Clinton Derangement Syndrome cause that is closer to the truth. I defy someone to point to a single case of TDS in someone who
wasn't a Clinton supporter. We all suffer under Trump but only a subset of us lost their minds. So what's the unifying factor?
Hillary. She's the one who drove people crazy.) Anyway, calling the police at the drop of a hat is now the accepted societal norm.
I just watched a movie where the female lead called the police twice (in 90 minutes) over interpersonal issues involving her dog.
Deal with your own fvcking problems! Develop some interpersonal problem solving skills or learn to cope! The police are not your
mommy and daddy there to deal with the mean people in your life. That's not their job. And maybe they would be a little less out
of their freakin minds if people didn't keep expecting them to be.
" In a democracy it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged"-- Bertrand Russell. The
political Left (DNC/CIA) and MSM control the Narrative at present and will tolerate no dissenting views. SCOTUS has ruled multiple
times that "Hate speech is Free speech", so government indirectly censors Freedom of Speech through Social Media.
Great view, the leftist media, entertainment and academia are the biggest enemy of the people, and also the greatest threat
to its greatness and future. They manipulate each and every fact, event, used with intent to stir up minority communities to control
them and use them. They leftist have destroyed the education system in those communities in many ways, they denounce legitimate
ways of educating minorities
Posted by EditorDavid on Saturday June 13, 2020 @01:34PM from the wrong-arm-of-the-law dept.
" An innocent man faced
a torrent of online threats and abuse after being mistakenly identified in a viral video in
which an angry cyclist hurt a child," reports the BBC: Mr. Weinberg was falsely identified
when the wrong date was attached to the initial appeal made by the police in Bethesda, U.S. Mr.
Weinberg used the popular fitness tracking app Strava, which showed him as having been on the
Maryland bike trail on that day.
However on the correct date he was working at home...
Once his address had been shared by others -- a practice known as doxxing --
the police had to patrol the area for his safety , reported New York magazine... Mr.
Weinberg has since received dozens of apologies from people who abused him online.
Weinberg mistakenly thought his app only shared his bike-ride routes with his network of
friends, New York Magazine reports.
They add that Weinberg also discovered tweets wrongly accusing another man -- a former
police officer in Maryland -- which had been retweeted and liked more than half a million
times. And that the woman who'd posted Weinberg's home address later "deleted it and posted an
apology, writing that in all of her eagerness to see justice served, she was swept up in the
mob that so gleefully shared misinformation, depriving someone of their own right to
justice.
"Her correction was shared by fewer than a dozen people."
"... Wokeness is a gnostic cult that asks its sectaries to adopt a platform of national self-loathing. These are not protests. They are religious celebrations. The cult needs to be consistently classified as a religion, and conservatives must resist the temptation to view it as merely a silly sideshow distraction. Its bizarro liturgy is increasingly enshrined in all of our institutions, and conservatives must act as if a cult has hijacked the nation. ..."
At a park in New York City, I witnessed something odd. A group of women silently formed a
circle in the middle of a large lawn. Their all-black outfits contrasted with the surrounding
summer pastels, and they ignored the adjacent sun bathers as they began to kneel and slowly
chant. They repeated a three word matin. The most striking feature of this scene was its
familiarity. Any half-decent anthropologist would label this a religious ritual.
Yet, few are willing to explicitly describe these events as part of a religion. The women
may have been kneeling in a circle while chanting, but they repeated the words "black lives
matter." Politics obscures the obvious. Wokeness is a religion, and conservatives must act as
if large parts of our institutions are run by this cult.
Americans are united in their disgust at what happened to George Floyd. Everyone agrees: A
minor run-in with the police should never lead to death. Yet, the past two weeks do not
actually seem connected to the events in Minneapolis. Most East Coast yuppies would have
trouble placing Minneapolis on a map. Does it really make sense to gather in a mass crowd
during a pandemic because of something that happened a half-continent away? It does when you
recognize that it's a religious movement.
Wokeness has been identified as a religion by several writers and commentators. Linguist
John McWhorter wrote an article on " Antiracism, Our Flawed New
Religion " several years ago. Harvard professor Adrian Vermeulle wrote a must-read analysis
of the liturgical nature of liberalism
in 2019. And all the way back in 2004, historian Paul Gottfried wrote a prescient book on the
topic with the subtitle "towards a secular theocracy." The increasing intensity of woke culture
suggests that this is no longer just a curiosity, or a point of ridicule. It is the most
clear-eyed way of viewing current politics, and this is most obvious when viewing the
protests.
The nationwide protests are best understood as religious ceremonies, and this can be seen in
the way they keep engaging in off-brand Christianity. In Portland, Maine, protestors lay
stomach down on the sidewalk in order to ritualistically reenact Floyd's arrest. They
prostrated themselves in the exact way Catholic priests do in their ordination ceremony.
Journalist Michael Tracey noted the religious feeling in New Jersey protests. Protestors knelt
and held up their hands in a mirror image of how Evangelicals pray over each other at revivals.
The Guardian ran an article on how people must keep repeating the names of police
victims, and protestors routinely chant a list of names as if it is a litany of the saints. It
is a transparent attempt to transform the victims into martyrs. And while Floyd's killing is a
tragedy and an outrage, he had no agency over his death.
Perhaps the appropriation of Christian liturgy is just coincidental, and not evidence that
the woke have become a cult. It's not like they're trafficking in classic cult behavior, like
trying to separate devotees from their family, right? Wrong: Taking a cue from the
Scientologists, The New York Times ran an op-ed encouraging readers to stop visiting,
or speaking to family members until they pledge to "take significant action in supporting black
lives either through protest or financial contributions." Very normal! Shaking down family
members for money by threatening not to talk to them is classic cult behavior and is not how
well-adjusted adults voice political opinions. The insidious engine of this religious impulse
can be seen in the most egregious ripoff from Christianity so far.
In North Carolina, a pastor organized an event where white police officers knelt before her
and washed her feet. She claimed God told her directly to do this. Only the
most delusional would try to call this a protest. This is a pathetic perversion of Christian
liturgy. To state the obvious: washing feet is a Christian tradition with Biblical origins.
Washing feet was a chore reserved for the lowest servants. Jesus, God himself incarnate as man,
washed the feet of his disciples at the Last Supper. The disciple Peter objects to this and
doesn't want Jesus to lower himself. Jesus replies "if I don't wash you, you don't really
belong to me."
The white people washing feet are only pretending to lower themselves. In reality, they're
symbolically placing themselves in the role of God. For white people, woke anti-racism offers a
way to worship themselves. "White privilege" is a purely subjective concept that allows
unremarkable white people to recast their own ordinary lives in a flattering light. It's not
enough to simply point this out and laugh at it. The religious nature of the woke has real
policy implications.
The woke make policy decisions in reference to the values of their religion. Back in
January, it was considered racist to be concerned about the coronavirus. CNN ran
headlines about how racism was spreading faster than COVID, Al Jazeera ran an op-ed
with a headline suggesting racism was the more dangerous epidemic, and New York City
politicians encouraged people to join crowds in Chinatown. Now, after months of stringent
social distancing, suddenly the "experts" are telling us that massive crowds gathering in every
city around the globe won't impact the ongoing pandemic. A certain type of person pretends to
be above all culture war topics, and always wants to get back to the "real issues." Yet it
should be clear that in any long and protracted economic struggle with China, the woke cult has
the ability to distort priorities and jettison all good sense. You may not be interested in the
culture war, but the culture war is interested in you.
In 2014, and 2015, many conservative pundits made a name for themselves laughing at the
"SJW" phenomenon on college campuses. Older conservatives loved to make jabs about "snowflakes"
who they predicted wouldn't be able to tough it in the real world. This was a complete
misreading of the situation. Woke Yale graduates do just fine in their careers, and these
extremist students are now rising through institutions of power. Ivy League-educated lawyers
are throwing molotov cocktails in New York. The scholastics grew out of an institutional
arrangement where Christianity was the official religion of the university. Wokeness is the
scholastic form of anti-racism. It is enshrined in our institutions because the Civil Rights
movement coincided with the formation of our new upper class.
In the 20th Century, corporations and government grew to unforeseen scale. Experts,
managers, bureaucrats, and new types of lawyers were required to run these organizations, and
this changed the nature of the middle class, and how people achieved power. As Fred Siegel
argued in his book "Revolt Against the Masses," this new class became conscious of itself as a
distinct class through the Civil Rights movement. The South was a poor and backwards place, and
the new class of experts could use their position to correct a grave injustice.
Civil Rights legislation then needed more lawyers, managers, and bureaucrats to enforce. The
concrete forms of discrimination in the Jim Crow south slowly disappeared as racism was openly
confronted, but we are left with a class structure that still defines itself around these
issues. Those with power have a vested interest in finding ever new forms of racism because
this allows them to create new instruments to fight racism. Universities and corporations
create more and more administrative jobs that produce a brahmin class whose only purpose is to
keep vigilant for bigotry. This is why the woke capital phenomenon cannot be dismissed as
posturing. One implication of this is that striving political leaders who seek to enter the
upper class must prove their anti-racism bonafides again, and again. Another, much darker,
implication is that we may live in a theocracy.
Wokeness is a gnostic cult that asks its sectaries to adopt a platform of national
self-loathing. These are not protests. They are religious celebrations. The cult needs to be
consistently classified as a religion, and conservatives must resist the temptation to view it
as merely a silly sideshow distraction. Its bizarro liturgy is increasingly enshrined in all of
our institutions, and conservatives must act as if a cult has hijacked the nation.
Yeah, there's nothing 'mere' about religion. It organized two of premodern society's major
cultural spheres (Christendom and dar al-Islam) and started countless wars. You could make
a pretty good case for Communism as a religion.
According to Bertrand Russell Communism WAS a religion! Indeed, ideologies are, at bottom,
indistinguishable from religions. The French Revolution was Exhibit One of that phenomenon.
Spanish Inquisition was a religion
English Civil War was about religion
Abolitionism was a religion
Communism was a religion and National Socialism was a religion too
Every religion has its sacred content, though not every religion involves God,
reconciliation or redemption
Ah, but in America, we are not supposed to pay too much attention to the supposed truth or
falsity of each other's religions.
You can't fight something with nothing. The traditional religions seem to be spent
forces. The wokeness seems to attract devout, or at least fervent believers.
I'Ve seen much larger and more involved ceremonies worshipping capitalism, if that's how
we're determining religions now.
And the worshipping capitalists had a complete theology, with their religion driving
their ethics and behavior much more than almost all professed Christians I've met.
A religion with heresy trials and excommunications as well. And, at least In some states,
well on its way to becoming the established state religion. In March and April,
practitioners of the old religions from Christianity to Judaism to Islam discovered that
their religions were non-essential and subject to lockdown. In May, they learned that the
new religion is essential and not subject to lockdown.
Want to talk about cults? Let's talk about the New Apostolic Reformation cult and right
wing evangelicals who are part of and/or closely associated with this fake Christian cult.
Let's talk about 7 Mountains Mandate heresy and the right wing evangelicals who have bought
into and even preach that heresy. I can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says these
fake Christian and cult members have to take over the world to make it safe for Jesus to
return. Until they do this, Jesus CANNOT return? Yes, Ted Cruz's father preaches the 7
Mountains heresy as do many other evangelicals.
How about the false teacher and fraud that Trump claims is his closest Christian
advisor, Paula White. Why would he say such a thing when Paula White is nothing more a
prosperity gospel fraud who said Jesus is not the only Begotten Son of God. Who has been
investigated several times by the IRS. Who commanded 'All Satanic Pregnancies to
Miscarry'
Maybe we should talk about some of those who are part of Trump's evangelical advisory
council.
One of the leaders, Kevin Copeland, said "God is the biggest failure in the Bible" and his
wife, Gloria, who has said her husband controls the weather and can make tornadoes and
storms disappear.
Or the man Trump asked to come to DC, lay hands on and pray for him. Sick weirdo Rodney
Howard Brown who says he is Jesus' bartender.
I also seem to remember Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress and a few right wing
evangelicals promoting frauds Paula White, Kenneth Copeland and few other fake
Christians.
If you are going to express concern about people and their "religion", how about talking
about the evangelicals who are a threat to the Christian faith and that Romans 16:17-18, 2
Corinthians 11:13-15, 1 John 1:5-10, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 Timothy 6:4-5 and others warn
about.
A strange mixture of Black nationalism with Black Bolshevism is a very interesting and pretty alarming phenomenon. It proved to
be a pretty toxic mix. But it is far from being new. We saw how the Eugčne Pottier famous song
International lines "We have been naught we
shall be all." and "Servile masses arise, arise." unfolded before under Stalinism in Soviet Russia.
We also saw Lysenkoism in Academia before, and it was not a pretty picture. Some Russian/Soviet scientists such as Academician Vavilov
paid with their life for the sin of not being politically correct. From this letter it is clear that the some departments
already reached the stage tragically close to that situation.
Lysenkoism was "politically correct" (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with the broader Marxist doctrine.
Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living
under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man
"Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with
faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his
followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting
the advance of the new modern Marxism."
The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory
Notable quotes:
"... In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. ..."
"... any cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders . Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques. ..."
"... The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians ..."
"... Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries. ..."
"... If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? ..."
"... Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position , which is no small number. ..."
"... The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is. ..."
"... The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. ..."
"... Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession. ..."
"... Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations. ..."
"... The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes , carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed. ..."
"... MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing? ..."
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely,
and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job,
and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity
of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative
narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice
system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of
the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and
white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself,
such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject
a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders
. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the
form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should
be vigorously challenged by historians . Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration
of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and
our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email.
Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi
Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion
of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However,
if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it
is anti-black .
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see
that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated
at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict . This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple
jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation
that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt .
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian
Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish
Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of
Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed
in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority
myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to
silence and oppress discourse . Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are , common
to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently
exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history , and the department is
being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position.
Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those
of us in a precarious position , which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative , and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the
administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear
danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my
job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message
is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires
explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence.
This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the
point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention
of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders . Home invaders like George Floyd . For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality
of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart.
For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical
claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent
rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively.
Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform
white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans , who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to
point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department . The explanation
is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation
is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention,
and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter,
an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately
redirected to ActBlue Charities , an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates.
Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American
cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis
itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades ; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat
administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden
statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics
which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election
campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence . This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement
for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent
in academic circles . I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this
damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes
, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves
in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves,
many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity.
Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking
the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal
political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth , we can regard ourselves as
a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at
harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically
segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today . We are training leaders who intend, explicitly,
to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively
racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global
political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was
a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at
her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children , playing no part in their
support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer,
a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors .
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his
name to virtual sainthood . A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department,
corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA,
he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise . Americans are being
socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist . A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying
with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid,
as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color . My family have been
personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The
humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM , that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life,
is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward
in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively
on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating . No other group in America is systematically
demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping
and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites.
If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely
be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional
promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda
and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his
disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death
and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything
other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end .
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she
is free. play_arrow
Blacks will always be poor and fucked in life when 75% of black infants are born to single most likely welfare dependent mothers...
And the more amount of welfare monies spent to combat poverty the worse this problem will grow...
taketheredpill , 37 minutes ago
Anonymous....
1) Is he really a Professor at Berkeley?
2) Is he really a Professor anywhere?
3) Is he really Black?
4) Is he really a He?
LEEPERMAX , 44 minutes ago
BLM is an international organization. They solicit tax free charitable donations via ActBlue. ActBlue then funnels billions
of dollars to DNC campaigns. This is a violation of campaign finance law and allows foreign influence in American elections.
CRM114 , 44 minutes ago
I've pointed this out before:
In 2015, after the Freddie Gray death Officers were hung out to dry by the Mayor of Baltimore (yes, her, the Chair of the DNC
in 2016), active policing in Baltimore basically stopped. They just count the bodies now. The clearance rate for homicides has
dropped to, well, we don't know because the Police refuse to say, but it appears to be under 15%. The homicide rate jumped 50%
almost immediately and has stayed there. 95% of homicides are black on black.
The Baltimore Sun keeps excellent records, so you can check this all for yourself.
Looking at killings by cops; if we take the worst case and exclude all the ones where the victim was armed and independent
witnesses state fired first, and assume all the others were cop murders, then there's about 1 cop murder every 3 years, which
means that since has now stopped and the homicide rate's gone up...
For every black man now not murdered by a cop, 400 more black men are murdered by other black men.
taketheredpill , 46 minutes ago
"As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used
to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude
that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black ."
It is the RATIO of UNARMED BLACK MALES KILLED to UNARMED WHITE MALES KILLED in RELATION TO % OF POPULATION. RATIO.
RATIO. UNARMED.
BLACK % POPULATION 13% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 37%
WHITE % POPULATION 74% BLACK % UNARMED MEN KILLED 45%
Is there a trend of MORE Black people being killed by police?
No. But there is an underlying difference in the numbers that is bad.
>>>>> As of 2018, Unarmed Blacks made up 36% of all people UNARMED killed by police. But black people make up 13% of the (unarmed)
population.
There's a massive Silent Majority of Americans , including black Americans, that are fed up with this absurd nonsense.
While there's a Vocal Minority of Americans : including Democrats, the media, corporations and race hustlers, that wish to
continue to promulgate a FALSE NARRATIVE into perpetuity...because it's a lucrative industry.
Gaius Konstantine , 57 minutes ago
A short while ago I had an ex friend get into it with me about how Europeans (whites), were the most destructive race on the
planet, responsible for all the world's evil. I pointed out to him that Genghis Khan, an Asian, slaughtered millions at a time
when technology made this a remarkable feat. I reminded him the Japanese gleefully killed millions in China and that the American
Indian Empires ran 24/7 human sacrifices with some also practicing cannibalism. His poor libtard brain couldn't handle the fact
that evil is a human trait, not restricted to a particular race and we parted (good riddance)
But along with evil, there is accomplishment. Europeans created Empires and pursued science, The Asians also participated in
these pursuits and even the Aztec and Inca built marvelous cities and massive states spanning vast stretches of territory. The
only race that accomplished little save entering the stone age is the Africans. Are we supposed to give them a participation trophy
to make them feel better? Is this feeling of inferiority what is truly behind their constant rage?
Police in the US have been militarized for a long time now and kill many more unarmed whites than they do blacks, where is
the outrage? I'm getting the feeling that this isn't really about George, just an excuse to do what savages do.
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies."
George Orwell
You know that the reason he is anonymous is that Berkley would strip him of his teaching credentials and there would be multiple
attempts on his life...
Ignatius , 1 hour ago
" The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people . There are virtually no marches
for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The
message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence
requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly
is."
A former fed who trained the police in Buffalo believes the elderly protester who was hospitalized after a cop pushed him
to the ground "got away lightly" and "took a dive," according to a report.
The retired FBI agent, Gary DiLaura,
told The Sun
he thinks there's no chance Buffalo officers will be convicted of assault over the
now-viral video showing the
longtime
peace activist Martin Gugino fall and left bleeding on the ground.
" I can't believe that they didn't deck him. If that would have been a 40-year-old guy going up there, I guarantee you they'd
have been all over him, " DiLaura said.
" He absolutely got away lightly. He got a light push and in my humble opinion, he took a dive and the dive backfired because
he hit his head. Maybe it'll knock a little bit of sense into him, " added the former fed, who trained Buffalo police on firearms
and defensive tactics, according to the report...
It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is]
demoralization ; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number
of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of
the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American
students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism).
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals)
are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system.
You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. T hey are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain
stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you
prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other
words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need
another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting
in favor and in the interests of United States society.
Yuri Bezmenov
American Psycho , 16 minutes ago
This article was one of the most articulate and succinct rebuttals to the BLM political power grab. I too have been calling
these "allies" useful idiots and I am happy to hear this professor doing the same. Bravo professor!
Anyone saying that this is class war, is simply hiding behind their white privilege and
denying the essential RACISM of the United States. That's the corporate meme. And it's
probably going to work.
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix of
SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK
In fact the RACISM shield doesn't work. The ZioGlob are left exposed, and in my opinion
they're scared by these protests. If they crack down with the national Guard or the military
it only makes the situation worse. Things polarize, with them being further identified as a
privileged exploitative elite.
Problem here that the George Floyd protestors/rioters are a happy counter-cultural mix
of SJW, young blacks and young whites – impossible to portray them as the white power
KKK.
Same way that the Polish communist government couldn't effectively attack the Solidarity
worker's uprising. Government propaganda was designed to attack capitalists, exploiters of
the working class etc. which didn't make any sense against shipyard workers.
"... This is ridiculous. White people aren't perfect, but neither are black people. The woke path isn't going to make American society better because it excludes ordinary Americans as agents of change ..."
A waste of a good issue but the issue is owned by those willing to invest the time to
protest.
I remember the 70's when people would just say, 'police brutality' without making it a
racial issue. There is something there. Police killed 1,093 people in 2016 of that number 176
were unarmed.
https://www.theguardian.com... Being armed doesn't mean they had guns and also doesn't
necessarily mean they were resisting. Ah but once you throw in race it dilutes the number,
call for police defunding, have looting at some demonstrations and the issue vanishes.
The cop who killed Floyd George was trained to kneel on his neck, Minn has now banned that
tmove, this is a good result. But not much else is being done that is productive in
nature.
Just a thought, I've heard different stories about whether the police manual allowed
kneeling on the neck, but even if true, it didn't say you should do it until the suspect was
dead. I presume it required more judgement than that, especially when the suspect was
handcuffed, on the ground, and there were 3 other officers there. Not saying you'd disagree
with what I said. In terms of whether there will be anything productive, it's early days. I
think the defunding movement sounds ridiculous, but I would want to see what's proposed
before I made a judgement.
In the '60s, it was assumed that ordinary people could easily identify racism and choose
to do something about it. In addition to the landmark civil rights legislation of that era,
the ensuing years brought a lot of individual soul searching and efforts to fix long standing
problems in American society. People took it upon themselves to integrate their churches,
sports teams, workplaces, etc. because they wanted to do the right thing and make their
country a better place. Now, ordinary people are being told that they are blind to their own
racism and lack the agency to actually do anything about it. Racism has been moved into the
realm of esoteric knowledge that requires a priesthood to interpret and provide direction to
everyone else. Even the word "woke" implies a surrendering of self, pledging allegiance to a
cause, and admitting to personal guilt in the form of "white privilege".
This is ridiculous. White people aren't perfect, but neither are black people. The
woke path isn't going to make American society better because it excludes ordinary Americans
as agents of change . It also fails to recognize that many Americans can't be classified
as black or white. Trump may well end up winning this fall, not because the people that vote
for him are bad, but because they're human and don't like being unfairly accused and
unappreciated.
There is a bit of racism in all of us from the day we are born. More often than not, we
belong or identify with a certain race or community. Being civil is the ability to rise above
our racial filters to do what we would have others (whose are different from us) do for us.
This can be especially challenging for any society when the politics of race and religion
kicks in.
"... "The media is the most powerful entity on earth. Because they control the minds of the masses, they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." – Malcolm X ..."
@Ad70titusrevenge Russia almost totally collapsed. Through the 90s Russia's governmental
institutions BARELY just scrapped through. It was by the skin of their teeth.
Russia could have gone the way of post-2011 Libya. Putin isn't exactly a Tsar, but he was
good enough to stitch things back together.
There is absolutely no guarantee America will fare the same. Things could get hellishly
ugly. This definitely has the feel of 1917 Russia.
The MSM is clearly engineering these hoaxes and disasters in order to demolish US social
culture. I believe the jews who own America wish to Bolshevize the continent in order to
raise up a new military juggernaut in order to conquer the world for them and fullfil their
insane religious prophecies concerning world government, gentiles exterminated, jerusalem
ruling the world, and their messiah on the throne.
It won't actually happen. And if it does, it will be short lived. But what will happen is
that many people will die in the process.
Racism or "White privilege"
Police violence
Social alienation and despair
Poverty
Trump
The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
The infighting of the US elites/deep state
They are not about one of these because they encompass all of these issues, and
more.
That is probably the best part of the article I added the word one!
"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. Because they control the minds of the
masses, they have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and
that's power If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are
being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." – Malcolm
X
The glorification the ghetto culture, the refusal of offers of education,leading to gainful
employment, are real problems for all living in the United States. The cultural thinking that
we should have a promise at birth, that life is fair and I WANT WHAT I WANT,AND I WANT IT
NOW!, forgets the old saying -- If you don't work, you don't eat. If society would quit
babysitting and supporting every single knucklehead that is able to get on the internet or
television, and whine about how bad they have it,we'd all be better off!
Wake up people -- There is no money left to buy or satisfy all your dreams of equality,
it's all been stolen! Perhaps the golden age you dream of could have been reached if the past
governments would have focused on education for all, Mandatory education for all. They did
not and gave you mammon to continue your childish ways.
Thorogood -had it right–"Get a Haircut and Get a Real Job!
Eagles– I might feel better if they gave me some cash
"... Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the looters. And it is just people who are frustrated. ..."
"... Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to react to this. ..."
"... Sen. Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it is not the overwhelming picture in New York. ..."
"... Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is not violence. ..."
"... Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. ..."
"... Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: I want you to know we will not be increasing our police budget. How can we at this moment? ..."
"... Our city through our city administrative officer identified $250 million in cuts, so we could invest in jobs, in health, in education, and in healing And that those dollars need to be focused on our black community here in Los Angeles, as well as communities of color and women and people who have been left behind for too long. ..."
"... And will this involve cuts? Yes. Of course. To every department, including the police department. ..."
"... Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 4, 2020. ..."
For the past week, all of us have seen chaos engulf our beloved country. The violence and
the destruction have been so overwhelming, so shocking, and awful and vivid on the screen, that
it's been hard to think clearly about what's going on.
Most of us haven't been able to step back far enough to ask even the obvious questions. The
most obvious, of course, is what is this really about? What do the mobs want?
Well, thugs looting the Apple Store can't answer that question. They have no idea. They just
want free iPads. But what about Apple itself and the rest of corporate America, which is
enthusiastically supporting the rioters? What about members of Congress , the media figures, the
celebrities, the tech titans, all of whom are cheering this on. What do they want out of
it?
Well, they haven't said. That's the central mystery.
Now suddenly, it is obvious. It should have been obvious on the first day. This is about
Donald Trump
. Of course, it is. We just couldn't see it.
For normal people, Donald Trump is the president. You may like him, you may not like him,
but either way, there will be another president at some point, and we will move on as we always
have.
But for Donald Trump's enemies, there is nothing else. Everything is about Trump.
Everything.
Donald Trump defines their friendships, their careers, their marriages. Donald Trump affects
how they raise their children. Trump occupies the very center of their lives. As long as Donald
Trump remains in the White House. They feel powerless and diminished and panicked. So they
cannot be happy.
In everything they do, their overriding goal is to remove Donald Trump from office. And
that's exactly what they're trying to do now. That's what these riots are about. The most
privileged in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from
everyone else.
Got that? That's the nub of it. The most privileged are using the most desperate to seize
power from the rest of us. They are not seeking racial justice. If they were seeking racial
justice, they wouldn't be denouncing their fellow Americans for their race, which they are. It
has nothing to do with it.
What they are seeking is total control of the country. And it goes without saying that none
of this has anything to do with George Floyd . Shame on those who
pretended that it did -- those who fell for the lie and those who knew better but played along
because they are cowards. There are many of those. You know who they are, and someday we will
look back on all of them with contempt.
Meanwhile, the many people promoting this chaos remain clear-eyed. They are not lying to
themselves. They never do. They know exactly what's going on, and they know what they hope to
achieve by it. With every night of rioting, they grow bolder. Now, they are openly defending
violence on television.
Bakari Sellers, CNN political commentator: People worry about the protesters and the
looters. And it is just people who are frustrated.
Don Lemon, CNN anchor: They are frustrated, and they are angry, and they are out
there. And they're upset. You shouldn't be taking televisions, but I can't tell people how to
react to this.
Sen.
Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y.: I'm proud of the protests, and I think it is part of the
tradition of New York. The violence is bad, reprehensible, and it should be condemned, but it
is not the overwhelming picture in New York.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The New York Times: Destroying property which can be replaced is
not violence.
Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor Too many see the protests as the problem. Please, show me
where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful.
You're crushed by this. You can't believe what's happening to your country. But for the
people you just saw, the real problem is that the rioting in some rare places is being stopped
by police, and their aim is to fix that. They would like to eliminate all law enforcement
for good.
In everything they do, their overriding goal is to remove Donald Trump from office. And
that's exactly what they're trying to do now. That's what these riots are about. The most
privileged in our society are using the most desperate in our society to seize power from
everyone else.
On Thursday, Democrats in Dallas took down the statue of a Texas Ranger from the terminal at
Love Field that has stood in the airport for more than 50 years. The Texas Rangers are cops,
and cops must be removed, even when they're made of bronze.
Meanwhile, the Lego toy company has ceased marketing sets that contain plastic police
officers. Apparently, they're too dangerous for our children. And so on -- so much of this is
going on right now.
If it all seems like yet another episode of the silly and fleeting hysteria that sometimes
grips our culture out of nowhere, usually in lulls in the news cycle, you should know that it's
not that. This is entirely real. It is being pushed by serious people, and they are deadly
serious about it.
On Wednesday night, for example, Brian Fallon, who was the press secretary of the Hillary
Clinton for President campaign in the last election cycle tweeted, "Defund the police."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib agrees. Expect more
members of Congress to agree soon.
In some places, they're not talking, they're acting. Steve Fletcher represents the Third
Ward in Minneapolis . He's on the City
Council there. By this week, his city had been completely scorched by riots. At least 66
businesses were utterly destroyed by fire, 300 more had been vandalized or looted.
Fletcher didn't even mention that. Instead, he attacked the city's police department for
trying to contain the violence: "Several of us on the Council are working on finding out what
it would take to disband the Minneapolis Police Department.".
How would Americans feel if they actually defunded the police? Well, terrified mostly.
That's how we would feel. Things would fall apart instantly.
You'd think people in the city would be shocked by that. But at least on the City Council,
everyone else nodded their approval. In the Ninth Ward, Councilwoman Alondra Cano tweeted this
on Wednesday: "The Minneapolis Police Department is not reformable. Change is coming."
According to City Councilman Fletcher, all nine members of the City Council are now considered
getting rid of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Hard to believe, but it's not just there. In the city of Los Angeles , Mayor Eric Garcetti looks
out across the worst rioting in the nation's second-largest city in a generation, in almost 30
years. His conclusion? We need far fewer police. It could have been better if they hadn't been
there.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti: I want you to know we will not be increasing our
police budget. How can we at this moment?
Our city through our city administrative officer identified $250 million in cuts, so
we could invest in jobs, in health, in education, and in healing And that those dollars need
to be focused on our black community here in Los Angeles, as well as communities of color and
women and people who have been left behind for too long.
And will this involve cuts? Yes. Of course. To every department, including the police
department.
When Democrats across the country start saying the same thing at the same time, you can be
certain there's a reason for it. And in this case, they clearly mean it.
According to the president of the L.A. Police Commission, city officials may cut $150
million from the LAPD. That would be more than 10 percent of the entire police budget, in the
wake of rioting.
In New York, 48 separate Democratic candidates -- and they were including in that the
Manhattan district attorney -- signed a letter demanding a $1 billion cut to the budget of the
NYPD. Why are they doing this? There are reasons, not the ones they tell you. They tell you
it's about racism. They tell you that cops are racist and must be reined in.
Most Americans don't agree with that. That's not the experience they have. In fact, police
departments are one of the most trusted institutions in the country.
According to Gallup polling last year, 53 percent of Americans said they had a great deal or
quite a lot of confidence in the police. That was far more confidence than they had in almost
any other institution -- banks, religious leaders, the health care system, television, news,
public schools, corporate America, newspapers -- name one. All of those were stuck below 40
percent. How many Americans trusted Congress? Eleven percent.
And in fact, most African Americans still support the police. A 2016 Pew poll found that 55
percent of African-Americans had confidence in the police within their own communities. In
other words, cops they actually knew and dealt with. They have confidence.
A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2011 found that among those who called the
police for help, more than 90 percent of African-Americans felt the police behaved
properly.
So, what would happen if we got rid of the police? Of all law enforcement? How would
Americans feel if they actually defunded the police?
Well, terrified mostly. That's how we would feel. Things would fall apart instantly. It
would take hours. Don't believe it? Spend an afternoon in a place with no law enforcement and
see what you think. Talk to anyone who was in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq War. Ask anyone
who stayed in New Orleans for Katrina. Their memories will be fresh. They'll never forget what
they saw.
Here's the key. Eliminating the police does not mean eliminating authority. There is always
authority. There are no vacuums in nature. The only question is whether or not the authority is
legitimate -- whether or not the authority is accountable. Whether or not you can do anything
if the authority abuses its power.
In the absence of law enforcement, the answer is no. It means thugs are in charge. The most
violent people have the most power. They can do whatever they want to you. That's the reality.
Everyone obeys the violent people, or they get hurt. The mob literally rules.
That probably sounds like a nightmare to you, because it is. But the people pushing this
idea don't see it as scary because they don't fear the mob, because they control the mob.
That's the key. And they see violence as an instrument of their political power.
With mobs in the streets that they control, they will finally get what they want -- Donald
Trump out of office and a hammerlock on the country. That's what's happening.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from " Tucker Carlson Tonight " on June 4,
2020.
Every cult has the same goal: the utter
submission of its members. Cult members surrender everything. They give up their physical
freedom – where they can go, who they can see, how they can dress. But more than that,
they give up control of their minds.
Cult leaders determine what their followers are allowed to believe, even in their most
private thoughts. In order to do this, cults separate people from all they have known before.
They force members to renounce their former lives, their countries and their customs.
They allow no loyalty except to the cult. The first thing they attack – always –
is the family. Families are always the main impediment to brainwashing and extremism. If you're
going to control individuals – if you're going to transform free people into compliant
robots – the first thing you must do is separate them from the ones who love them
most.
In 1932, Soviet authorities began promoting the story of a 13-year-old peasant boy called
Pavlik Morozov. Morozov, they claimed, had taken the supremely virtuous step of denouncing his
own father to the secret police for committing counter-revolutionary acts.
Once exposed as a traitor, the boy's father was executed by firing squad, supposedly for the
safety of the state. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin elevated the boy to the status of a national
hero for what he did. People wept in the streets when they heard his name. They worshipped him
like a saint.
Why are we telling you this? Because it's happening here. In the last 10 days, some of our
most prominent citizens have sworn allegiance to a cult. Converts go by the term "allies."
Like all cult members, they demand total conformity. They ritually condemn their own nation
– its history, its institutions and symbols. It's flag. They denounce their own
parents.
If you've been on social media recently, you've likely seen videos that illustrate this
– such as one showing a girl attacking her mother and father for the crime of
insufficient loyalty to Black Lives Matter. Reporter Hanna Lustig of Insider.com wrote about
that video, and strongly approved of it.
What you just saw, Lustig wrote, is a young person "modeling the most important tenet of
ally-ship." Modeling. Meaning, something done to encourage others to do the same. It's
working.
In a video of a 15-year-old from Louisville called Isabella – and there are many like
her – the girl is shown crying and saying: "I literally hate my family so much." She goes
on to say her parents defended the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. And
then she calls her parents racists, followed by an obscenity.
"I hate my family so much." Just a week ago, it would have been hard to imagine that. Now,
Isabella is a social media star. Celebrities tweet their approval. She may have her own cult
before long. But the revolution is young. Children attacking their parents is just the
beginning.
On CNN Friday, a man called Tim Wise told viewers that, going forward, parents must hurt
their own children:
Wise said: "I think that the important thing for white parents to keep in the front of their
mind is that if black children in this country are not allowed innocence and childhood without
fear of being killed by police or marginalized in some other way, then our children don't
deserve innocence. If Tamir Rice can be shot dead in a public park playing with a toy gun,
something white children do all over this country every day without the same fear of being
shot, if Tamir Rice can be killed then white children need to be told at least at the same age.
If they can't be innocent, we don't get to be innocent."
Your children are no longer allowed to be innocent, says Tim Wise. Happy childhoods are a
sign of racism. The man saying this – and being affirmed by CNN anchors as he does
– is a self-described "anti-racism activist." He has been saying things like this for a
long time. More than once, Wise has suggested that he approves of violence against those who
disagree.
How does Tim Wise make a living? In part, by lecturing students. Your kids may have seen him
speak. They've almost certainly heard a lot from people like him. In America's schools, the
revolution has been in progress for quite some time.
Last February, to name one among countless examples, officials at schools in Rochester,
N.Y., created a Black Lives Matter-themed lesson plan. The teaching materials dismiss America's
bedrock institutions – indeed, America itself – as inherently racist. Suggested
questions for students include: "How does mass incarceration function as a mechanism of
racialized social control?"
One specific racial group was singled out for exclusive blame. The curriculum promoted a
book titled, "White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of our Racial Divide." In other words, children,
there's a reason hatred and inequality exist: these people did it! That's what your kids are
learning right now.
Thursday, at Darien High School in Connecticut, Principal Ellen Dunn sent an email to
parents promising to increase "the race-conscious education of our students." To do that, Dunn
distributed materials from the Southern Poverty Law Center. Ironically, the SPLC is itself a
hate group. That has been documented extensively. Now their agenda is the school's agenda. It's
what your kids are learning.
In Washington, D.C., an elementary school principal in the affluent northwest section of the
city recently wrote a letter announcing: "We need more White parents to talk to their kids
about race. Especially now."
The letter singled out "White Staff and White community members," whom the principal alleged
had committed "both macro- and micro-aggressions" against "Staff of Color." The principal did
not specify what those crimes were. She didn't need to. Their skin color was their crime.
This is a national theme. It's incredibly destructive and dangerous. Countless public
schools are now using the 1619 Project from The New York Times as a curriculum. That project is
the work of an out-of-the-closet racial extremist called Nikole Hannah Jones. Jones recently
argued it's not violence to loot and burn stores – its justified. Her propaganda is now
mandatory in public schools in Buffalo, Chicago, Newark and Washington.
Many parents understandably deeply resent this. It's deranged, its racist. Others don't.
They're "allies." They've joined in. One mother in London, where the cult is also spreading,
posted a photo on Twitter of her daughter on blended knee, holding a sign declaring her
"privilege."
The Cultural Revolution has come to the West.
What will the effects of this be? Years from now, how will that little girl with the sign
remember her childhood? Her mother took Tim Wise's advice. She no longer has innocence. Will
she be grateful for that?
It's hard to imagine she will be. She'll more likely feel bitter and used. Because she has
been used. Many will feel that way. Is there a single person who believes this moment we're
living through will end in racial harmony? Is that even a goal anymore? It doesn't seem like
it.
It seems clear that many in power are pushing hard for racial division. For hatred. For
violence. Let's pray they don't get what they want. Tribal conflict destroys countries faster
than any plague.
But keep in mind as this insanity continues that it's not happening in a vacuum. Every
action provokes a reaction – that's physics. We don't know where this is going. We don't
want to know. The cult members should stop now – immediately, before more innocents get
hurt – and they will, if they don't.
"... Elections are coming up, race-baiting is part of the agenda once more ..."
"... The appalling thing is violence is completely normalized this time around. With the white wokies unapologetically supporting the destruction and looting of especially the black neighborhoods ..."
I want the US to fracture into smaller units – specifically the states to become new countries.
The reason should be obvious – the Fed Gov is a cancer on the society and the entire world. What I'd like to know is why someone
would want a continuation of the Fed Gov given it's track record of wars around the world, and support for the oligarchy / corporatocracy
that is looting the country.
So who is financing the useful idiots? who is meming it?
When the "poor innocent jogger" story got pushed 2 weeks ago it was clear the BLM story narrative was being moved out of the
freezer back into the mainstream again. Elections are coming up, race-baiting is part of the agenda once more. But this
time around the internet has been taken over by the borg. Bots are everywhere and 4chan is botted heavily. I don't get the feeling
it's the shareblue office that message the boards this time around, it feels quite botted and very planned.
The appalling thing is violence is completely normalized this time around. With the white wokies unapologetically supporting
the destruction and looting of especially the black neighborhoods. up until the moment, it comes too close. Has the situation
escalated more then they expected or is more to come? It seems Trump's threat to involve the military was what they were after
afterwards strongly pushing the "trump is a violent authoritarian" narrative, rather ineffectively since trump waited until a
large majority wanted this to happen. He does manoeuvre it decently, threatening the mostly local democratic government to intervene
so that his hands aren't dirty but theirs. But will they let is escalate further so that they can push the trump is violent narrative
again I wonder.
My bet is they will escalate further. There are too many liberals buying guns, or perhaps not enough..
It's amazing how effective American propaganda is. With protests happening in Europe of all places..
If given an informed choice, the Silent Majority of Americans would side with young conservatives over young anarchists.
The problem is that the other side is ahead in a culture war, and the right is only just getting on its feet to fight it.
You're fifty years late for the Silent Majority. We're South Africa now, plus depopulated rural areas and a smattering of high-tech
city-states (Seattle, Austin, etc.).
The 'right' is flat on its back, and will stay there indefinitely. Every conservative or Republican you see on TV, save one
or two, is a neoliberal. They aren't even on the right.
Mayor de Blasio and several high-ranking NYPD officials have already spoken out about the
organized gangs of criminals who appear to be responsible for most of the looting in NYC. Now,
a group of cops investigating the highly-coordinated crimes are telling local TV stations that
they have evidence many of the looters were chauffeured to the "jobs" and brought large
arsenals of power tools to help them break in. Witnesses who spoke to these officers claimed
they saw looters who showed up in separate vehicles work together in large groups to facilitate
the looting that broke out in retail areas in Soho, Fifth Ave. and elsewhere.
According to
ABC 6, one of the numerous eyewitness reports received by police came from Carla Murphy,
who lives in Chelsea.
Murphy, in an interview Tuesday, said she started hearing commotion from mobs of people
along her street and neighboring streets about 10:30 p.m. Monday night. She first watched
from her building and then went down to the street and saw organized groups of people working
together to break in to store after store in the West Side neighborhood.
"Cars would drive up, let off the looters, unload power tools and suitcases and then the
cars would drive away," she said . "Then the cars would come back pick them up and then drive
off to the next spot. They seemed to know exactly where they were going. Some of the people
were local, but there were a lot of out-of-towners."
Murphy said she saw license plates from New Jersey and Pennsylvania and drivers had not
even tried to hide their tags.
After calling 911 and not getting through, Murphy visited the 10th Precinct in Manhattan,
where she says dispatchers mostly brushed her off. Police didn't arrive on scene until hours
later.
But then again, as Murphy said, many of the looters didn't even bother to hide their tags.
Unless they used exclusively stolen tags and managed to make it all the way into the city
without being stopped, detectives will likely be rounding up many of those responsible for the
looting and the mass property theft, using evidence captured by the hundreds of thousands of
cameras recording movements in the city. NYPD detectives are trying to collect evidence from as
many looted stores "as possible".
Police suspect many of the lootings involved a combination of anarchist agitators as well as
gang members and other career criminals.
Officers who spoke with ABC 6 said the crews who "worked" the lootings clearly had a
sophisticated communications system relying on text messages, messaging apps and lookouts.
"... The media would sensationalize any act of violence involving white on black and brown. They ignored all the violence of black and brown on white. This uneven media reporting was based on their desire to reinforce the mantra of "white people are evil racists, black and brown people are victims and good." ..."
"... Because it would paint themselves as supporters of "social justice" they created a false version of reality where everything bad in society was because of white people being racist. Never mind the actual causes of societal discontent being the exploitation by the elite. Because the media is the elite they don't want you to hate them. So they created a false victimizer they could blame for all the problems of society. ..."
The media and politicians have repeated a mantra for years n order to gain power by
exploiting social and racial faultlines. They didn't want to deal with the actual cause of
societal discontent which is their own support of an exploitative economic system which
disempowers and pushed down everyone but the 1%. So they invented a false cause of discontent
in order to appear as saviors who are bringing a message of Hope and Change
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist greedy
evil white people.
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE
PROBLEM. Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist
greedy evil white people.
After enough time has gone by, we have a generation of young people of all colors who
believe the above mantra with all their heart because of hearing that mantra every day in the
media, in schools, in movies, from leaders. The media knowing that, would then look for ways
to exploit their hatred of "white racism against black and brown people."
The media would sensationalize any act of violence involving white on black and brown.
They ignored all the violence of black and brown on white. This uneven media reporting was
based on their desire to reinforce the mantra of "white people are evil racists, black and
brown people are victims and good."
Because it would paint themselves as supporters of "social justice" they created a
false version of reality where everything bad in society was because of white people being
racist. Never mind the actual causes of societal discontent being the exploitation by the
elite. Because the media is the elite they don't want you to hate them. So they created a
false victimizer they could blame for all the problems of society.
Because violence from black and brown on white was never reported by the media except in
local news, people only heard from the national narrative of white violence of black and
brown because people don't pay attention to local news. They grew up believing the police
only abused black and brown people, they grew up believing that random street violence was
only from white people against black and brown. None of which is true.
This was bound to end up with a generation of people who believed the false narrative
where America is a nation where black and brown people are always the victims, and white
people are always the victimizers. And as you can see in the riots, the rioters are almost
all under 30. A generation has grown up being brainwashed by the mantra:
White people are racist. White people are inherently evil and greedy. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Black and Brown people are good, Black and Brown people are victims of the racist greedy
evil white people.
That is why so many people are perfectly fine with the violence and looting based on a few
recent incidents of white on black violence. During the same time period there was plenty of
black on black violence, plenty of brown on brown violence, and plenty of black and brown on
white violence. But the national media never highlights any violence but white on black and
brown. That is what has led to the new normal where any violence involving white on black or
brown will be blown up WAY out of proportion to the reality of violence in America. Which is
an equal opportunity game. A generation of people has grown up to believe that white racism
is the cause of all the problems.
Meanwhile the elites sit in their yachts and laugh. The rabble are busy fighting over race
when the real issue is ignored. The media has done their job admirably. Their job is to
deflect rage from the elite to racism. From wealthy exploitation of the commons, to racism.
As long as the underclasses are busy blaming racism then the politicians, business leaders,
and media are satisfied because they are the actual ones to blame. They are the enemy.
They blame racism for all the problems as a way to hide that truth of their own culpability
for the problems in society. THEIR OWN GREED AND CONTEMPT FOR THE UNDERCLASS.
American blacks are doing poorly because their jobs have been outsourced to communist
China, the remaining jobs are increasingly going to foreign nationals imported as a source of
indentured cheap labor, rents are unaffordable, medical care is unaffordable, education is
unaffordable, people are drowning in debt and thanks to utter scumbags like Joe Biden they
can no longer get out from under by declaring bankruptcy (as the 'socialist' founding fathers
of this nation intended!), the government spends trillions on pointless foreign wars that
serve only to enrich a few politically connected defense contractors, and over all, the
government is giving literally tens of trillions of dollars in bailouts and subsidies to Wall
Street and the super rich.
Thing is, this has nothing to do with 'racism.' It's class war, and my class is losing.
But the rich don't like that narrative, so they stir up the proles and have them fight each
other.
If blacks are doing badly only because they are stupid and dysfunctional, then why are
working class whites starting to lose ground as well? Oh they aren't rioting much, they're
just killing themselves with opiates and alcohol. Still, they are being ground down all the
same. When the working class of all colors is losing ground, that is inconsistent with either
'racism' or blacks being inherently dysfunctional. It is consistent with the working class in
general being stepped on, yes?
In a country of 340 million plus, there will always be the occasional bad thing happening.
If indeed one white cop shot one black man without justification that's a bad thing - but
it's just one incident, it has nothing to do with what's really keeping American blacks down
- which is exactly the same as what's keeping American whites down! By taking one incident,
and publicizing the hell out of it and screaming that it's all about 'racism,' the rich have
deliberately created this situation.
Of course the media ignore all those incidents of blacks shooting whites. It's not part of
the narrative.
Now with the coronavirus having gutted the economy, we have like 30+ million more people
out of work than just recently, and most of the rest are going to be taking pay cuts, and
after the stimulus crumbs run out, it's going to be very painful. The response of the elites,
added onto the 'stimulus' bill, was to engage in an orgy of looting and profiteering not seen
since Russia under Yeltsin. People are going to be evicted, lose their cars etc., and there
is no safety net... This isn't going to be pretty. As a cynical person, I think the elites
see this coming, and the intensity of the current manufactured conflagration is being put in
place to focus the anger of the masses away from the elites, because they can feel what's
headed our way.
I am not some stupid guilty liberal social justice warrior. As a skinny white guy, if I
see that I am the only white face on the street I will be somewhere else real fast. If blacks
are looting and pillaging, I want the police to stomp on that and maintain order and I won't
take any excuses. But we shouldn't lose track of the big picture. It's the monolithic
corporate media enterprises that have stoked this chaos, and it's for a reason.
Former Georgia state congresswoman and gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who is on the
Joe Biden running mate short list and
making no secret of her desire for the job,
said on CNN Tuesday night that she did not believe rape allegations against Biden to be
credible.
"The New York Times did a deep investigation and they found that the accusation was not
credible. I believe Joe Biden," Abrams said when pressed on
further corroborating evidence that Biden's accuser Tara Reade had been talking about a sexual
assault by the then-senator way back in the nineties.
CNN's Don Lemon pressed Abrams on the contradiction between her earlier "believe women"
rhetoric about conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, to which Abrams
responded that Kavanaugh's accuser was not given a fair hearing but Tara Reade was. Past tense.
Over and done with now.
Lemon did not ask why Abrams considers The New York Times the official arbiter of who was
and was not raped. He did not challenge her false assertion that The New York Times concluded
Reade's accusation was "not credible". He did not point out that the investigation by the The
New York Times took place prior to the emergence of the corroborating evidence in question.
Abrams was allowed to coolly insert a false, baseless narrative into public consciousness and
move on.
In reality, The New York Times is not the authority on who has and has not been sexually
assaulted. That's not a thing.
In reality, The New York Times did not conclude that Reade's accusation is not credible,
only that they
"found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that
women previously said made them uncomfortable" (which they later quietly
edited down to "found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden" at the instruction of
the Biden campaign , a very blatant act of journalistic malpractice).
In reality, The New York Times has smeared Reade
with a scandalous hit piece dismissing her allegations because she has written approvingly of
Russian president Vladimir Putin, implying that either:
(A) Reade is a Russian agent fabricating the allegations to help Trump, or
(B) that it's okay to rape women if they disagree with beltway consensus foreign
policy.
In reality, two new corroborating pieces of evidence have been added to the growing pile since The New York Times published its
"investigation" into Reade's allegations: footage of Reade's
mother anonymously calling in to Larry King Live in 1993 during Reade's last month of
employment with Biden saying that her daughter was considering going to the press with a very
serious allegation against a very prominent senator, and a former neighbor saying that Reade had
told her about the sexual assault in the mid-nineties.
I have never been in the "always believe all women" camp; it's a narrative that's too easy
to manipulate once you get enough people believing it. But at this point there are basically
only two possibilities: either:
(A) Tara Reade was going around lying to her closest confidants in the 1990s with the very
long-term goal of one day thwarting Biden's third presidential bid decades later, or
(B) a powerful man sexually assaulted a woman. One of these, in my opinion, is a lot more
probable than the other.
Reach out to me directly and ask ?
I am not an " imperfect victim". I was lifelong Democratic supporter single mom that put
myself through law school and I was raped by Joe Biden, my former boss, a Democrat.
There are no excuses for institutionalized rape culture. Thank you. https://t.co/hOQTxAzfa5
-- taratweets ( Alexandra Tara
Reade) (@ReadeAlexandra) April 28,
2020
I've been avoiding writing much about Tara Reade, for a lot of reasons. Firstly I'm a
survivor of multiple rapes and it brings up a lot of ouch for me, especially since whenever I
write about rape as a problem I always get a deluge of highly triggered men (and sometimes one
or two highly traumatized women) calling me a man-hater and saying all kinds of nasty things to
me. Secondly I've been trying not to spend too much time on the details of an election we all
know is fake anyway between two establishment candidates we already know are deeply
depraved.
But mostly I avoid the subject because it's just so goddamn gross. It's gross to watch
liberals going around pretending they believe that Handsy Uncle Hair Sniffer would never dream
of shoving his fingers into a woman without her consent. It's gross watching the language of
leftism being borrowed to defend pure, relentless victim smearing. It's gross watching people
who've built their political identities around pretending to care about women try to spin these
allegations as Reade being dishonest for partisan reasons, when in reality that's exactly what
they themselves are doing.
Due to my experiences with and sensitivity to the subject matter, going through this stuff
feels kind of like getting punched in the privates over and over again. There are smears
everywhere, from the establishment narrative managers to their brainwashed rank-and-file
herd.
This is exactly the nightmare scenario that sexual assault survivors imagine when they
contemplate coming forward. It's why so many of them don't. Especially when their attacker is
powerful.
Nobody wants to have their name dragged through the mud by widely esteemed mainstream news
media outlets. Nobody wants to have their entire past and entire social media history dug
through to find anything that can be spun in the most negative light possible. Nobody wants to
be told over and over again that they're a liar, that they're crazy, that they're confused, all
because they know they were sexually assaulted and said so. Nobody wants what can easily be the
most traumatic experience of their life turned into a weapon to bludgeon them with before
jeering crowds of millions all around the country.
And that sucks.
It sucks because if we're to build a healthy world we're going to have to get rid of all the
people who shouldn't be in power, and the very first lot we should eliminate are the ones who
abuse their power to assault the sexuality of other human beings. If you use your power to rape
people, you will with absolute certainty use it to do other unconscionable things as well, so
eliminating those who do so is the first step toward health. That's step one , and we can't
even get there, because blind partisan hackery turns pussyhat-wearing liberals into a bunch of
snarling male supremacists.
I was 19 the first time I was raped. The last time I was 39. I never reported my attackers,
for reasons the specifics of which I'm not interested in explaining or defending, but let's
just say that there are many messages you get sent by society telling you that if you report
your rapist you are ruining a man's life, destroying his family, career and future over one
"mistake". That it's better just to suck it up because you're strong and you can handle it.
You are taught that if you report your rape, you will be treated like the criminal, and the
"investigation" that will take place will not put its spotlight on the accused, but on you, the
accuser. You will have to defend your life choices and your character when you're in the
process of attempting to recover from a deeply harmful assault. You are taught that if you
report these things that it's you that will be shunned and shamed by members of your own tribe.
And if the person is powerful, then you also know that this will likely end your career.
All these things are happening to Tara Reade right now. None of that has changed. Millions
of young girls are being sent that message, once again, all across America, on screens large
and small. They are being shown that if you accuse someone who has power over you of rape, you
will be demonized and attacked, even by people who say they care about you, about a profoundly
sensitive matter involving the most traumatic thing you've ever experienced.
And the thing is, that message is not a false message. You absolutely can be made the
subject of vicious attacks if you accuse the wrong person of raping you. Attacks which press
all your most painful buttons. Attacks which will try to convince you that you are insane.
Attacks which will try to drive you insane.
"... "...real fear or anguish..." in fact only exist in people's heads. Identity politics poisoned neolibs like to externalize these sensations as being tangible features of the physical (non-metaphysical and non-imaginary) world. They are not. ..."
"... The corporate mass media exists solely to manufacture megatrends in society. Whether that is to manufacture mass cravings for a particular color and artificial flavor of carbonated corn syrup water or to manufacture the "real fear or anguish" that we are threatened by scary "others" to get the herd to crowd around symbols of security, the overall purpose is the same: Serve the interests of the big business elites. ..."
"...real fear or anguish..." in fact only exist in people's heads. Identity politics
poisoned neolibs like to externalize these sensations as being tangible features of the
physical (non-metaphysical and non-imaginary) world. They are not.
More topically, the corporate mass media excels at manufacturing "real fear or
anguish" . The farce taking place in HK is a perfect example of this, but we can see
similar examples elsewhere like Venezuela where well-fed upper middle class Venezuelans are
convinced beyond reason that Venezuelans (others that they don't know) are starving, or like
in Ukraine where western Ukrainians were certain in their anguish that eastern Ukrainians
were being killed by Russians. Many Americans are still experiencing very "real
fear or anguish" that Russians are wrecking their sham "Democracy™" . As
real as this may seem to the delusional and hysterical, it is still delusion and
hysteria.
The corporate mass media exists solely to manufacture megatrends in society. Whether
that is to manufacture mass cravings for a particular color and artificial flavor of
carbonated corn syrup water or to manufacture the "real fear or anguish" that we are
threatened by scary "others" to get the herd to crowd around symbols of security, the overall
purpose is the same: Serve the interests of the big business elites.
"... Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention. ..."
"... And the Empire knows it, and precisely for that reason, it does everything possible to elevate sex and sexuality into something tremendously important, glorified, as well as untouchable. Terms and definitions then get confused: centering people's identity around their genitals, gets defined as "their identity". Their struggle for sexual rights is now being defined as "progressive", even, bizarrely as left-wing. ..."
"... Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the UK and the US, than whether Western imperialism should be stopped, once and forever. ..."
"... This is not a push for tolerance, this is an Orwellian attempt to control perception of reality and also to control language. If a man declares himself to be a woman, then you MUST perceive him as a woman, and you must change your language to conform with his self-identity. ..."
"... This is a bold attempt at societal management. It has led to great splits in leftist movements, as people who prefer to remain reality-based, and who base their politics on material reality, instead of ephemeral idealism, consisting of "feelings inside", are being attacked, threatened, de-platformed and harassed by those who have adopted their master's agenda. ..."
"... Having mobs of young people, schooled in queer politics instead of class politics, who attack older activists who still understand that it is the material world which determines reality, not thoughts, prayers and internal feelings, is a very effective way of shutting down any principled resistance to the Empire's imperialism and to the destruction of the planet by unfettered capitalism. ..."
"... The CIA, from its very beginning, has been deeply influenced by the group psychology/mass manipulation theories of Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays, who worked for the agency after the war. ..."
"... Personally I think it is a last resort for a dying empire that has lost any credibility ..."
"... Globo Homo (aggressive, politicised, strident homosexuality; aggressive premature sexualisation and indoctrination of children enforced by law, and outright paedophilia; aggressive promotion of transgender dysphoria; bestiality and incest, together with the virulent denigration of normal healthy family life) is a symptom of an irredeemably degenerate and very sick society on the verge of total collapse. ..."
"... The same is true of the Great Global Warming Hoax, with Soros- and Wall Street-funded Little Greta astroturfing her way across the planet, so that Green Eco Warriors like Mark Carney can raid the pensions and transfer trillions upwards into the pockets of the 0.1%. ..."
"... The world system of capital is breaking up. Among its signs are multi polar violence, ecological collapse, returning fascism, etc. The system of capital is based on class relations, and class relations underlie all other human relations. Sexual relations are basic to the human condition, regardless of the political economic system. Therefore, as capitalism crumbles all social relations go into flux, including sexual relations. Public hysteria about sex is mainly a sign of a global system breaking down and a new in forming. ..."
"... The aim is to atomise society into a mushrooming number of arcane identity groups, based on race, gender, religion and sexuality. The 57 varieties of gender that are being peddled, with punishment for people who forget to use the right invented pronoun. People can then be classified according to their identity group and sub-group and sub-sub-group above all other considerations, rather like an extreme version of the Indian caste system. ..."
"... It is another form of destabilisation that West is desperately keep on creating. It could be a sign of a state of panic they are in. ..."
"... Identity and sexual politics and sport and porn and politics and war .. all tied up into one – an article to keep and share especially to all these still lapping up the Grauniad cool aid – which stuffs the nonsense down their throats daily. ..."
"... Thank you Andre for your takedown of the vapid banality and extreme me-ism of identity politics. I've said it a few times before on the site, and I'll repeat it: Identity Politics has been a very effective Trojan Horse used to fragment and splinter and create disunity. Especially amongst the Left; who by and large have jettisoned class politics and class struggle in favour of this postmodernist cul de sac crud. ..."
"... It's an artificial construct to deflect from the real agenda . Humanity against the transnational financiers. ..."
"... It's the old ruse: bread and circuses. The new opium for the people is 'identity politics'. The 99% of us should ignore it. And the 99% of us should boycott the media outlets that push it. This would be the democratic way to defeat this nonsense. ..."
In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one's sexual
orientation; who has sex with whom, and how. Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly
concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex, and who does not want to belong to any 'traditional'
gender bracket.
Thinking about 'it', writing about it, doing it, is considered "progressive"; cutting edge. Entire novels are
being commissioned and then subsidized, as far away as in the Asia Pacific. Western organizations and NGOs (so-called
"non-government organizations", but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.
These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new
types of combinations that many people never even heard about, or imagined could exist.
Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers "ladies, gentlemen and children", anymore, in order "not
to offend" those who do not want to be any of the above.
Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly, many times, that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you
will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even "left-wing'.
This is a discussion which is clearly encouraged, even invented by the Western regime: a safe discussion which is
aimed at diverting dialogue from topics such as the fact that even in the West, a great number of people are living
in fear and misery, and that the majority of neo-colonies of North America and Europe are once again being totally,
shamelessly exploited.
Talking about poverty and exploitation, about military coups triggered by Washington are rarely spoken about. Such
discussions are even being portrayed as old-fashioned, if not regressive.
Hype is, these days, all about the interaction of penises, of vaginas, or about the lack of such interactions. It
is about one's "identity" and about the right to change one's gender. What you do with your private parts is much
more important than billions of people who are forced to live in filthy slums. Surgery that is aimed at changing
one's gender is more newsworthy than the "regime changes" and consequent destruction of millions of human lives.
Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What
should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention.
Don't think that it is all a coincidence. It is clearly designed this way. Like the enormous flood of free
pornography did not come from out of the blue. The hidden message is clear: watch as much free porn as you can in
your free time, watch football, enjoy booze, and put your sexual identity at the very center of your existence.
Then, define all those who disagree with these sorts of lifestyles as 'intolerant', 'backward', and even
'oppressive'.
Why is all this happening? Why are Western countries so obsessed with "sexual identities"?
The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless
"rights", have hardly any time left to think about the rest of the world.
And vice versa: those who are passionately fighting for a better world, building people-oriented societies,
sacrificing their own comfort and personal benefits; those individuals often have no time, or very little time, to
think about the nuances of their sexuality. For them, sexuality is simply part of their life; often powerful and
important, but it is definitely not their center of gravity, not their very essence.
And precisely this kind of optimistic, unselfish mindset is extremely dangerous for the survival of Western
regimes, and the Empire itself.
*
I am all for people to have their right to choose how they want to express themselves sexually. As long as it is
done discreetly, and without forcing anyone into anything.
But I am strongly against the so-called sexual identity monopolizing political narrative of entire nations.
There are much more important issues that Western societies should be concerned with, and obviously are not.
And the Empire knows it, and precisely for that reason, it does everything possible to elevate sex and sexuality
into something tremendously important, glorified, as well as untouchable. Terms and definitions then get confused:
centering people's identity around their genitals, gets defined as "their identity". Their struggle for sexual rights
is now being defined as "progressive", even, bizarrely as left-wing.
It is, of course, an absolute nonsense. The fight for sexual rights is the fight for sexual rights: it is not
right, or left.
There is absolutely no guarantee that a man who undergoes gender-changing surgery, would gain a deep interest in
the US-triggered coup in Bolivia, or in the tremendous torment, inflicted by the West, on the people of Syria or
Afghanistan.
I have discussed this issue, in-depth, with my friends and relatives who happen to be professional psychiatrists
and psychologists: Jung, who attacked Western imperialism as a clinical disease (pathology), has been criticized and
discredited by almost all Western schools. While the self-centred Freud, has been glorified to this very day. He
became untouchable in Europe and North America. We are all encourage to see ourselves through his eyes.
We are supposed to think and analyze the world in a Freudian way. To say "penis" or "vagina", or to show them, and
especially change them, is supposed to send a shiver up our backs, to make us feel heroic, progressive.
While the Empire murders millions of people worldwide. While British and North American children are suffering
from hunger, while NATO is bringing our planet closer and closer to the next huge war which our humanity may not
survive, people inhabiting the Empire are encouraged to think, to write and to fight for totally different issues
than those that could save our humanity.
*
I have to report that, after working in some 160 countries of the world, on all continents, the issues that I am
addressing above, are prevalent only in the West. Well, also in countries and territories that have been deeply
indoctrinated by the West, like Argentina and Hong Kong, to give just two examples. Which makes one wonder what is
really going on?
I am not talking about people being born gay or lesbian and then getting discriminated against (such
discrimination should be, of course, confronted), or forced by brutal family practices (like I witnessed in Samoa) to
unwillingly change their sexual identity. I am fully, and determinedly supporting people to have their rights, to
practice what they feel like, and to be fully protected by the law.
I am addressing here this totally wild obsession with the topic. I am talking about forcing people in the UK, US,
Canada, Australia and some European countries, to accept as essential a dialogue, which is absolutely irrelevant to
more than 99% of the population on our planet. It is not about LGBT anymore. This is now about something absolutely
else; about color shades, about nuances, about details: while the entire world is burning; in flames.
Can we please talk, finally about Hong Kong, Iraq, Bolivia, North Korea?
And as a writer, as a novelist, I reserve my right to create, to write as I want to! If I want to say, "ladies,
gentlemen and children", you can all stop reading me, but I will write it precisely as I want. You can go and read
the latest generation of politically correct scribes. Although you know as well as I do, that you will never find any
great literature created by them.
The Empire makes sure that many essential topics, including those like whether the world should continue to live
under the boot of savage capitalism or whether it should be selecting socialism, hardly ever get discussed on the
television screens, and on the front pages of the internet.
Gender changing surgery is now obviously a much more important topic in the UK and the US, than whether Western
imperialism should be stopped, once and forever.
But remember: We will all burn if we burn. Heterosexuals, homosexuals, trans-gender individuals, even those whose
sexual orientation I still do not understand. If there is a Third World War, we will all be fried.
Therefore, I suggest that we first try to disarm the Empire, stop savage capitalism, give freedom and the right to
choose their destiny to all nations of the world, and then Only then, shall we make sure that we support all the
people of countless sexual orientation, that our humanity has.
But first things first, please!
Unfortunately, the majority of people do not have the capacity to fight on various fronts, for numerous causes.
And they often choose to struggle for the issues that are extremely close to their waist.
Sexual politics are very divisive and distractive, although the western indifference to who people choose
to have sex with, as long as they are consenting adults, is a healthy step, imo.
Sexual orientation, however, is separate from the sexual identity propaganda now being pushed so heavily,
and not just online. The entire Establishment is behind this agenda, including mainstream media, the
government, the military, the drug companies, the medical industry, the schools and universities,
libraries, the police, prisons, social workers, etc.
This is not a push for tolerance, this is an Orwellian attempt to control perception of reality and also
to control language. If a man declares himself to be a woman, then you MUST perceive him as a woman, and
you must change your language to conform with his self-identity.
"Preferred pronouns" are enforced by the
police in some cases, and "deadnaming" is a newly invented thought crime which has led to bans and
harassment in enforcement.
This is a bold attempt at societal management. It has led to great splits in leftist movements, as people
who prefer to remain reality-based, and who base their politics on material reality, instead of ephemeral
idealism, consisting of "feelings inside", are being attacked, threatened, de-platformed and harassed by
those who have adopted their master's agenda.
Longtime leftists, with decades of organizing experience, are being shut out of meetings, lectures,
Parties and organizations, with claims that their very presence "contaminates and makes unsafe" entire
buildings! And in the case of Helen Steel, a longtime activist in UK, an entire moor was deemed off
limits to her, to cater to trans activists and their claims of feeling unsafe.
Having mobs of young people, schooled in queer politics instead of class politics, who attack older
activists who still understand that it is the material world which determines reality, not thoughts,
prayers and internal feelings, is a very effective way of shutting down any principled resistance to the
Empire's imperialism and to the destruction of the planet by unfettered capitalism.
Ramdan
,
Today,a new Oxfam report came out where is claimed that 1% of the human species owns the equivalent of
6400 millions of other humans. Comments on social media are appalling, to say the least. Those who
dare criticized this situation are called haters and envious by .others also from the 99%. Mankind resambles a well-trained dog, one that learned helplessness .
Some representatives of the Homo "sapiens" fantisizes to have a colony in Mars by 2050 to scape .they
are part of that 1% .
As of today, humanity is happily waking to its own demise, and it seems that only through a
catastrophic event of biblical proportions, can humanity be saved from itself. Maybe then ,real wisdom
will come out and guide those who survive.
The CIA, from its very beginning, has been deeply influenced by the group psychology/mass manipulation
theories of Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays, who worked for the agency after the war.
Since today
all the USA mass and social media are controlled by the cia, it is fairly easy to see that the gender
identity hysteria is another manipulation whose purpose is to divert left-leaning people in the west away
from the true aims of leftism -- anti capitalism and anti imperialism -- towards an ideology which is
harmless.
I remember back in the '90's reading Triton by Sam Delany when I was into Sci Fi that was written in the
mid '70's where the protagonist was fixated on gender issues and contemplating changing his sex which he
eventually does. I think I eventually lost interest in the book and what passes for Sci Fi or what they
now call "speculative fiction" these days.
Anyway like Margaret Mead and Toffler's Future Shock crowd
at SRI that Sci Fi like Delany instead of speculating about the future were creating it through gradual
social engineering. This gender issue is a case in point. Since who would have thought it would actually
have been an issue back then?
Even after Gore Vidal wrote Mrya Breckenridge which became a best seller and the movie was a
blockbuster that started a fad for a while but then people went back to more substantive issues other
than getting a sex change in Sweden yet now it seems that the media has gone into a full court press on
this issue. So one has to ask "what's behind it?"
Personally I think it is a last resort for a dying empire that has lost any credibility as you seem to
be pointing out Andre.
George Mc
,
Consumer capitalism thrives on discontent. Convincing everyone that their hair is wrong, their skin is
bad, their face doesn't look right, their clothes are awful etc. to get them to buy buy buy. And sex is
the most intense engine of this constant drive to induce self-loathing.
Everything conspires to tell you
that you are repulsive, that you will not find a mate unless you splash out on this and that – and once
you've found a mate, perhaps he/she isn't really the one for you. The sex you're getting is never as good
as it could be. Look at all those glamourous stars. Imagine what they're getting up to. Hell – you don't
even have to imagine! Look at those glossy images! Read about this kind of sex and that kind of sex. Bet
you've never had anything like that etc.
Thus this glorified sex is the most perfect embodiment of the
laboratory rat wheel. No matter how fast you go and how much you buy, you stay in the same place. And yet
images of ecstasy pull you on. And all the time you're buying buying buying.
But perhaps it's all too easy now? Everyone is used to the common variations. Time for some new stuff.
Time for the sequel, the new series, the new fashion, the new lovely little honeypot scam. Let's invent
loadsa new sexualities. New areas for creating anxieties, hang-ups, phoney controversies, with all the
concomitant books and programmes and magazines and scandals and whipped up confrontations between
prejudices etc. KaChing! Looooovely!
paul
,
Globo Homo (aggressive, politicised, strident homosexuality; aggressive premature sexualisation and
indoctrination of children enforced by law, and outright paedophilia; aggressive promotion of transgender
dysphoria; bestiality and incest, together with the virulent denigration of normal healthy family life)
is a symptom of an irredeemably degenerate and very sick society on the verge of total collapse.
There
is nothing new in any of this. The same things were very much in evidence in ancient Rome as it declined
and fell, with a cross dressing emperor plying his trade as a prostitute.
The only difference is that these things are now aggressively promoted by a degenerate globalist
paedophile elite, both to legitimise their own habits and perversions and as a harmless distraction from
their other activities, their criminality, tyranny, parasitism and abuse of power.
The same is true of the Great Global Warming Hoax, with Soros- and Wall Street-funded Little Greta
astroturfing her way across the planet, so that Green Eco Warriors like Mark Carney can raid the pensions
and transfer trillions upwards into the pockets of the 0.1%.
Geoffrey Skoll
,
Andre is correct of course, but there is another angle. It's not just identity politics as distracting
and divisive. It's that identity politics, especially sexual identity politics has emerged when it
has–i.e., in the last few years. So, here is my thesis.
The world system of capital is breaking up. Among
its signs are multi polar violence, ecological collapse, returning fascism, etc. The system of capital is
based on class relations, and class relations underlie all other human relations. Sexual relations are
basic to the human condition, regardless of the political economic system. Therefore, as capitalism
crumbles all social relations go into flux, including sexual relations. Public hysteria about sex is
mainly a sign of a global system breaking down and a new in forming.
lundiel
,
Let's not forget, identity politics is not just about gender. It's all sorts of cultural, ethnic,
religious, environmental groups and factions along with sexual and gender based groups. I think this has
evolved partly because of social media, and partly because our political representatives are so shit.
They've all been telling us that class is dead, when it clearly isn't and the rot starts with local
politicians who are, mostly the worst people qualified to represent us.
lundiel
,
The only way to fix this, imo, is to take the marketing, lobbying and public relations out of
politics. The we can get on with addressing the issues that are important to people, and everything
else will be a whole lot easier.
paul
,
The aim is to atomise society into a mushrooming number of arcane identity groups, based on race,
gender, religion and sexuality. The 57 varieties of gender that are being peddled, with punishment for
people who forget to use the right invented pronoun. People can then be classified according to their
identity group and sub-group and sub-sub-group above all other considerations, rather like an extreme
version of the Indian caste system.
So people should vote for Clinton because she has a vagina. If
she is a corrupt, mendacious warmonger with blood on her hands, that doesn't matter, because she's one
of the wimmin.
You see the same mentality with people like Jess Phillips.
Ignore the fact that we are being ruled over by a psychopathic, self serving, kleptocratic
kakistocracy that is lying through its teeth, robbing us blind, and subjecting us to blanket
surveillance, among other things. Just go charging down the rabbit hole of your choice. And get the
gender pronouns right.
Berlin beerman
,
Mr.Putin got it right on this issue. Live free as you wish but I am not changing the bathroom signs and I am not altering the Russian
language.
Homosexuality is like the black man when it comes to societies. If you see the colour of the skin and
feel the need to discuss it, to address it, then you are the racist amoung us. Do you need a court to tell you what a racist is? Do you need a government ? Same thing with sexual
orientation.
Morgan Freeman explains it well enough for those with an IQ high enough to understand it and reason
with it.
It is another form of destabilisation that West is desperately keep on creating. It could be a sign of a
state of panic they are in.
... ... ...
Dungroanin
,
A great article to start the week – especially after yestetdays don't know what to call it.
Identity and sexual politics and sport and porn and politics and war .. all tied up into one – an
article to keep and share especially to all these still lapping up the Grauniad cool aid – which stuffs
the nonsense down their throats daily.
Thank you Andre for your takedown of the vapid banality and extreme me-ism of identity politics.
I've said it a few times before on the site, and I'll repeat it: Identity Politics has been a very
effective Trojan Horse used to fragment and splinter and create disunity. Especially amongst the Left;
who by and large have jettisoned class politics and class struggle in favour of this postmodernist cul de
sac crud.
My sexual orientation is just one part of who I am. A segment of the whole. It's not something I shout
from the rooftops, it's not something to ram down other people's throats.
My ideal is Live and Let Live – treat others as you'd like them to treat you – regardless of who they
are.
And yes, I've been bashed twice because of my sexuality, including by 'workmates' while at work. I've had
many instances of homophobic abuse directed at me over the years.
And I'll say this very clearly:
I fully oppose and reject identity politics, despite my own history.
Our real enemies are the parasitic 0.01% billionaires, the ruling elites who pull the strings, the Warren
Buffets, Jeff Bezos and Rupert Murdoch's who rake in vast fortunes from pillaging this planet and
screwing so many into the mud; the Wall St Banks, the Hedge funds, the IMF and World Bank, the
Multinational Corporations, the very Economic System which creates such despair and inequality and the
deaths of so many human beings.
To benefit so few.
Identity Politics is a cynical distraction from all of this bloody carnage. It separates us when we need
to unite more than ever.
.
Willem
,
Michael Parenti on gender inequality issues and how to tackle those issues (really funny)
"in this very exploitative society which we must continue to resist and rectify" .
Thanks for the clip Willem, and yeah, Michael Parenti nails it, as usual.
0use4msm
,
The push towards the dominance of sexuality and gender based identity in the West has been in various
successive waves. The most recent one was in response to the Occupy movement successfully putting
plutocracy and extreme inequality on the agenda with its 99% vs 1% memes back in 2011. I agree with the
article that this push was very deliberate.
nottheonly1
,
Worst answer ever:
The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless "rights", have hardly
any time left to think about the rest of the world.
Amazing how great the hate against 'Transgender' people is in a majority of Christian/Orthodox countries.
I have a solution for all you flaming hypocrites and story peddlers:
Why don't you push all the Transgender folks into the ovens? You surely remember how its done, right?
What a pathetic piece of drivel – blaming of course those whose lives are exploited and who are murdered every day in the most
cruel ways. Like ISIS style cutting off of the head. Like Jewish/Christian/Muslim stoning of people that don't deserve to live –
because of: sexual acts.
But for the last time for people like Vitchek et al:
SEX IS NOT GENDER.
GENDER IS NOT SEX.
If it would not be for religious freaks that are stuck in a morally flat world view the world over, people that do not conform to
their narrowminded and fanatic delusions would not be murdered.
It is saddening that OffGuradian has published this hate piece.
Especially, since the whole Gender and Sex thing is subject to greater evolutionary processes Mr. Vitchek et al are incapable to
detect. Well, haters.
To sum it up quickly:
Transgender Folks are responsible for everything that is fucked up on earth – making them fucked up as well. They went to
illegally assault and invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and voment overthrows of democratically elected governments. They have
corrupted the Western world with citizen united and poison the world with glyphosate and GMO. They steal trillions of dollars from
the war ministry and thus from the taxpayer.
No wonder religious people hate Transgender Folks so much. They are the reason for all evil in this world. As a matter of fact,
they could also be called 'satanic' – as they only aim at disrupting the bigoted, sex addicted minds of religious freaks.
This world would be a much better place if people just focused on WHAT REALLY HURTS AND HARMS.
Oh, and yes, of course. Mr. Vitchek, you were obviously not able to give a voice to those at the receiving end of the stick. Only
the voice of the emotionally hurt religious fanatics.
0use4msm
,
Congratulations for succinctly managing to exemplify what the article is describing. Since you have
failed to grasp that the article, and the issue it brings up at large, is
not
attacking the morality of individuals associated with the LGBTQ+ alphabet , I suggest you
read it again. And again, if necessary.
lundiel
,
I don't think he's attacking trans people, just the self absorbtion of those engaging in identity
politics, while denying/forgetting the class struggle. I don't see any hate here towards trans people,
just the fact that it's a personal issue that's been politicised. If we had a culture more like that
of the Maoris and less reliant on the Bible's teachings, this would never have been an issue.
Berlin beerman
,
Well you just stepped right into it didn't you.
Exemplified almost perfectly what Mr. Vitchek was trying to bring out in his writing.
juggle
,
all part of the fiendish cocktail of divide & rule they're putting in the water these days..
Dave Hansell
,
Precisely!
Confusing personal identity with social identity (which is about what you do) is bad
enough but insisting that everyone accept that they are (a) both the same and/or (b) the social
should be subservient to the individual – both on penalty of being ostracised from having the right
to survive and exist on the basis of having and expressing a different world view being equated to
hatred – is not grown up politics. It's the sort of approach one meets in a school playground.
Fortunately, like everything else in life, most sensible people – whatever their individual
identify – realise and comprehend that in any organised realm of life there are always sub-groups
of any particular group who kick the backside out whatever it is.
It's just a fact of life that those who make the most noise muddy an issue and are not
necessarily representative of the whole of a particular group.
Whatever it happens to be, the notion that one specific individual or sub-group subjective
opinion should trump either any differing subjective opinion or objective discernable reality on
the basis that simply articulating or holding either equates to the hatred of those belonging to
that whole group is dangerously divisive.
Society and social identity does not operate on the basis of someone, anyone, dictating that
just because they say something is so than it must be so and anyone challenging that is guilty of
hatred requiring not only their being ostracised from social media but that they should lose their
job for having such temerity (and it has happened); having the crime of rape against them
trivialised (again, it has happened); their hard fought rights to specific representation reduced
(it's currently happening in various organisations); that they be incarcerated and lose their
liberty (once again, this is being demanded).
The social space is a shared one. My right to throw out my arm with a clenched fist ends at the
point of someone else's, everyone elses, nose tip. My rights only start where someone else's ends.
And vice versa.
That's how society works and remains coherent.
On the same basis as detailed above the post- modernist left who push this line are not
representative of the left per se. They are a noisy and naive sub- group kicking the arse out of it
for everyone else and the sooner they grow up the better.
Don't forget to doff your cap and tug your forelock as you move forward in the queue towards the
oblivion of being surplus to requirements as there is no emergency exit – even for those with the
gumption to know there is need for one.
It's called social identity. It comes with wider responsibilities.
andyoldlabour
,
nottheonly1
Your response simply confirms what Andre has written in this superb article. Your post was a
narcissistic rant, very similar to others which I have read in the past year.
If someone wants to identify as something else and it doesn't impact on other people, then go for it,
fill your boots. However, should you overstep the mark and make unreasonable demands on society as a
whole, to present yourself constantly as a victim, then society will look less favourably at you.
Let me give you an example – male bodied people, irrespective of how they identify, do not belong in
women's sports, women's changing rooms or women's refuges.
George Mc
,
Amazing how great the hate against 'Transgender' people is in a majority of Christian/Orthodox
countries.
Nice try at erecting yet another phony battle. But the fact is that most people don't give a flying
fuck about "transgender" people – and indeed don't even know, and have no wish to know, what it means.
That's because most people are smart enough to know that by this time next year we will have any
number of new wondrously inventive demographics (Trans-glandular? Trans-testicular? Bio-quadrangular?)
to give the infinitely concerned an opportunity to scream about intolerance etc. And how revealing
that you drag religion into it for maximum divisiveness.
Jen
,
Dear NotTheOnly1,
You managed to create another category of people to demonise and attack: the
so-called religious fanatics and freaks.
Thanks very much for making things so much harder for the rest of us to resist the slice'n'dice
categorisation and the lifestyle-marketing brainwashing that goes with it
John Deehan
,
In many of his books Professor Antony C Sutton argued that the narrative of left and right was false.
Furthermore, he said the notion of division in politics was created by and encouraged by transnational
finance. To put it simply, it set up divisions which were used to manipulate the masses. Hidden History,
the secret causes of WW1, also illustrates how an enemy was created in order to justify the mass murder
of millions of people which is being repeated by the new designated enemy. It's called propaganda.
Vitchek is correct in his analysis of this latest wave of distraction from the most important issues
affecting humanity. How do the transnational financial overlords achieve these conjuring deceitful false
flag narratives. Well, ignorance through control of the media, academia and promotion of right thinking
apparatchiks is one method besides of course the deep stratification of society through the cast system.
Aldous Huxley looked at this in his book Brave New World. What is the end goal of it? A feudalistic
system of serfs, servers and sovereigns!
Ash
,
Left/right is an ECONOMIC continuum with a specific meaning, but of course the waters have been so
thoroughly muddied and so many unrelated issues being peddled as left/right that most people don't
even know what they're arguing about these days.
John Deehan
,
It's an artificial construct to deflect from the real agenda . Humanity against the transnational
financiers.
Einstein
,
It's the old ruse: bread and circuses.
The new opium for the people is 'identity politics'.
The 99% of us should ignore it.
And the 99% of us should boycott the media outlets that push it.
This would be the democratic way to defeat this nonsense.
"... Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick. ..."
"... In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at all. ..."
"... "It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders, chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened." ..."
"... Warren's staff knows she is prone to "embellish" things ..."
"... No wonder Sanders was complaining about liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use for. ..."
The media cannot forgive Bernie Sanders for refusing to "bend the knee" to Elizabeth Warren
regarding her recounting of a now infamous December 2018 meeting between the two, in which the
Vermont senator allegedly said a woman could not be elected president.
Furthermore, if you don't agree with Sen. Warren's version of events, or if you
mention her history of "embellishing," you are a sexist and a misogynist just like Sanders. So
fall in line with the establishment narrative, quick.
That is the clear takeaway after the media took off its fig leaf of journalistic
impartiality at the seventh Democrat presidential debate in Iowa Tuesday.
During the debate, CNN moderator Abby Phillips had this exchange:
Phillips: You're saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman couldn't win
the election?
Bernie: Correct.
Phillips: Senator Warren, what did you think when Sanders said a woman couldn't win the
election?
Warren: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with
Bernie.
This is "when did you stop beating your wife" level debate questioning from CNN. The
question is premised around an
anonymously-sourced story CNN reported Monday describing a meeting between Sanders and
Warren in December 2018, where the two agreed to a non-aggression pact of sorts. For the sake
of the progressive movement, they reportedly agreed they would not attack each other during the
campaign:
They also discussed how to best take on President Donald Trump, and Warren laid out two
main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate: She could make a robust argument
about the economy and earn broad support from female voters. Sanders responded that he did
not believe a woman could win.
In a statement to CNN, Sanders said before the debate that's not what happened at
all.
"It is ludicrous to believe that at the same meeting where Elizabeth Warren told me she
was going to run for president, I would tell her that a woman couldn't win," said Sanders,
chalking up the story to "staff who weren't in the room lying about what happened."
"I thought a woman could win; he disagreed," said Warren in a statement.
Cue CNN's gladiatorial presidential debates.
Eager to strike all the right girl-power notes for the night, Phillips followed up by asking
Sen. Amy Klobuchar the substantive policy question, "what do you say to people who say that a
woman can't win this election?" and Warren earned cheers for a line about women successfully
winning elections.
"Look at the men on this stage," Warren said. "Collectively, they have lost 10 elections.
The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they've been in are the
women: Amy (Klobuchar) and me."
After the debate, media commentators roundly declared Warren the winner, and pundits
attacked the very idea of questioning the veracity of Warren's account.
Here's CNN, just after the debate:
Chris Cillizza, CNN politics reporter: Sanders, look, a lot of it is personal
preference. I didn't think his answer vis-a-vis Elizabeth Warren and what was said in that
conversation was particularly good. He was largely dismissive. "Well, I didn't say it.
Everyone knows I didn't say it, we don't need to talk about it."
Jess McIntosh, CNN political commentator: And I think what Bernie forgot was that this
isn't a he-said-she-said story. This is a reported-out story that CNN was part of breaking.
So to have him just flat out say "no," I think, wasn't nearly enough to address that for the
women watching.
Joe Lockhart, CNN political commentator: And I can't imagine any woman watching last
night and saying, I believe Bernie. I think people believe Elizabeth.
Van Jones, CNN political commentator: This was Elizabeth Warren's night. She needed to
do something and there was a banana peel sitting out there for Bernie to step on when it came
to his comments about women. I think Bernie stepped on it and slid around. She knocked that
moment out of the park.
But isn't this story the literal definition of a he-said, she-said story?
The accusation may have appeared in a "reported-out story," but these are its sources:
"The description of that meeting [between Sanders and Warren in December 2018] is based
on the accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the
encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting."
Is it sexist to question why this story would come out on the eve of the debate -- after
months of the two candidates getting along as they had promised to do, when
Sanders pulls ahead of Warren in polling ?
In addition to Warren's tenuous relationship with the truth, there also happens to be video
from the 1980s where Sanders says a woman could be president:
1988, @BernieSanders , backing
Jackson:"The real issue is not whether you're black or white, whether you're a woman or a man
*in my view, a woman could be elected POTUS* The real issue is are you on the side of workers
& poor ppl, or are you on the side of big money &corporations?" pic.twitter.com/VHmfzvyJdy
-- Every nimble plane is a policy failure. (@KindAndUnblind) January
13, 2020
Yet, you wouldn't know any of that, listening to the coverage of the debate, where
commentators waxed poetic about Warren's "win" and how any attacks on her predilection for
lying were misogyny itself.
Over on Sirius XM POTUS channel Tuesday, an executive producer on Chris Cuomo's show (Chris
Cillizza filling in) said that the suggestion from Sanders surrogates that Warren's staff
knows she is prone to "embellish" things
is "a misogynistic thing to put out there like, 'oh well, look at the quaint housewife, she is
prone to embellishment.'"
The New York Times also embraced the questionable sexism premise, writing that in"a
conflict heavily focused on which candidate is telling the truth, Ms. Warren faces a real risk:
Several studies have
shown that voters punish women more harshly than men for real or perceived dishonesty If
voters conclude that Ms. Warren is lying, it is most likely to hurt her more than it will hurt
Mr. Sanders if voters conclude that he is lying."
Over at Vox:
The over-the-top language -- likening criticism of an opponent to aknife in the back-- was familiar. When powerful men have been accused of
sexual misconduct in recent years, they and othershave
often complainedthat they've been "killed" or that their "lives are over" The
situation between Warren and Sanders is very different from those that have arisen as part of
the Me Too movement. But the exaggerated language around a woman's decision to speak out is
strikingly similar.
This sort of language is an insult to all women who have had to deal with sexism and
misogyny, both in the workplace and in society, and this need to glom on to any aggrieved
group, no matter how ill-fitting, is getting really stale.
Meanwhile, former Hillary Clinton and Obama Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri
tweeted, "I just rewatched the footage from last night and found it odd that Sanders never says
'a woman could beat Trump.' His formulation is he believes a 'woman could be president.' It's
only when he speaks about his own abilities that he talks about what it takes to 'beat
Trump.'"
This is the old sexist standby: "I'd vote for a woman, just not that woman."
What is it that these people want, for Sanders to endorse his opponent, simply because she
is female? Isn't that the very definition of sexism? By virtue of the fact that Sanders is
still in this race, he obviously thinks he can do a better job as president than Warren. There
isn't going to be another presidential race against Trump, but Palmieri still essentially wants
Sanders to say, in a five-way race three weeks before the Iowa caucus, "Warren can beat Trump
in November."
The question here should be whether this is a person that we can trust, not whether the
candidate is male or female. Does this person have a history of being honest, or do they have a
history of lying?
No wonder Sanders was complaining about
liberals' obsession with identity politics . As an elderly, Jewish socialist, he might be
an endangered species, but he's one minority group that intersectional politics has no use
for.
What are you talking about? If you want to know what Sanders says on this issue, rad his
interview with the NYT which was conducted before this cynical hit job occurred. He says
many voters are misogynistic, but not that a woman can't win.
I think both were telling the truth in that Warren probably took it to mean a woman
can't win, but her campaign cynically released thi story over a year later because she was
slipping in tge pollls behind Bernie.
That's ridiculously generous of you, at least towards Warren. She knows perfectly well his
position on the possibility of a woman president, and women running for office generally.
she knows he campaigned vigorously for HRC after the nomination, and she knows that Sanders
knows that HRC took the popular vote by over 3 million votes, so he obviously knows that it
is highly possible for a woman to win the presidency. This is simply a bald-faced lie on
Warren's part, but she has gained nothing electorally for this desperate smear. Sanders not
only had a record fundraising day after this surfaced, but at least one poll has him up 2
points in Iowa, where he was already in the lead, with Warren stuck at 12%.
Six corporations own something like 90% of the media now.
And CNN is part of the corporate-media-complex.
So not too much of a surprise that they are going after Sanders.
The billionaires are worried he might win, so in a way, this is a good
sign.
The 24 hour news channels depend on Trump to bring in the outrage required to keep up their
viewing figures. So it makes sense that they should help give him a democrat opponent he
can't lose against, like Elizabeth Warren.
While it should be fairly obvious to most that Bernie Sanders political rivals are trying
everything they can to get ahead of him, it's also true that the DNC and the Main Stream
Media, are also trying to trash Bernie in an attempt to take him out as a candidate. The
DNC and the MSM did the same thing the last time he attempted to win the nomination, and it
appears they are doing so now.
The corporate MSM machine should be careful. Another candidate they trashed during the
last election cycle, and ever since, became the President. It seems some voters have tied
the corporate MSM together with the D.C. establishment, and voters that want an outsider to
lead them may just see the MSM's attempts to denigrate a candidate as a ringing endorsement
for the outsider.
As a side note, I find it humorous that the MSM attempts to diminish Bernie's supporters
as zealots and too extreme to be taken seriously... I thought that political candidates
actually worked to gain the support of enthusiastic and motivated supporters? Or, is that
just for the candidates that are acceptable to the Main Stream Media and the political
Parties?
Voted for Trump in great part because Hillary Clinton was such a liar. Now he turned out to
be an even bigger liar than she was. It sure would be nice to have a candidate who didn't
lie so much, but now I don't know whether that would be Sanders or Warren.
Strictly speaking, socialism was an abject failure which ended with the fall of the Iron
Curtain, There is an unfortunate tendency to conflate "socialism" with what is called the
"welfare state." The United States is a welfare state but can hardly be mistaken for a
socialist state.
I think I see it mostly the same way you do, but with semantic differences. I would argue
that communism - the totalitarian version of socialism - was the abject failure. Any first
world modern state is a blend of market-based economies and socialism. The question is
always which exchanges are best left to market forces and which are best managed from
above. And then, how much management to provide. I caution against seeing socialism vs
capitalism as some binary switch to flip.
And the fact is that many of these welfare states were implemented by self-declared
socialists, including many parties that were members of the Socialist, or Second,
International.
Unfortunately, many of these socialist and labor parties hopped on the neo-liberal train
in the 1980's, and are today deathly afraid of their own Bernie Sanders (see Corbyn,
Jeremy), and even more afraid of scaring off international finance and the German Central
Bank.
Point taken. Perhaps "radical socialism" would have been more accurate. Your description of
the modern state as a "blend" is spot-on. An economics professor I once had called ours a
"mixed economy", which was a phrase that has always stuck in my mind.
Social democratic and labor parties around the world turned neo-liberal in the 1980's,
including the Scandinavian ones. They've been helping to rip up the "social contract"
between Capital and Labor, and the social welfare state, ever since, as well as reversing
previous nationalizations and launching privatization. This phenomenon has included
Scandinavia, which is why the parties there are so sensitive to all this talk in the U.S.
about them being models of "socialism."
Fact is, all non-Marxist "socialist" countries are market based, and are in fact capitalist
at the economic base. When did any Scandinavian "socialist" country ever expropriate any
major corporations?
You might actually want to do a bit of research on that point. Going back 60, 70 or 80
years, there might be some nationalizations of railroads, utilities, energy companies and
other major industries not involved in the actual manufacturing of goods in Scandinavia.
Great Britain certainly saw such nationalizations, although revolutionary leftists
sometimes dismissed them as "lemon socialism" because the capitalist class was fobbing off
money-losing or capital-intensive sectors of the economy on the government, in order to
concentrate on more profitable enterprises.
"... Maybe so, but ipso facto and for the same reasons, the ‘capitalist class’ don’t actually care about the oppression of women, nor of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class struggle. ..."
"... The phrase ‘class struggle’ is invariably misinterpreted by bourgeois liberals (such as yourself), incidentally. The class struggle is not something that working people choose to take part in. The class struggle is something that is going on and will continue whether you choose to fight in it or not (or whether or not you choose to recognise that it is going on, or not). ..."
"... Elites essentially created themselves and then began to create the various stratification strategies that, with increasing elaborations, we have had to live with since then, in order to hold on to the power that they had seized. So Buffet is right. ‘It’s my class that’s….making (the) war.’ ..."
"... The class war is not on any sense fought by the poor who choose to take part in it. The class war is willfully and deliberately fought by the rich, against the poor, who are forced to take part in it simply to defend themselves against this attack (and again, the war continues whether the poor choose to take part in it or not, or even whether or not they recognise that they are taking part in it or not. It’s just that if they choose one of these two options or both of them, then they lose). ..."
"... One of the core misrepresentations of Marxism (and it’s a claim that has been made over and over again, not least on CT comments threads) is that Marxism is a ‘determinist’ philosophy. But as Hobsbawm pointed out many years ago, even a quick skim through the Communist Manifesto, page one, shows this is not true: viz. ..."
"... Sure, of course the rich classes don't care about the oppression of minorities, women, LGBT, etc. They use the oppression of these groups to divide and weaken the lower classes. Of course. But that's not the POINT. ..."
"... The POINT is that some in these class-based movements argue that its WRONG for (e.g.) women's rights activists to focus so much on women's rights -- that instead, they should be focusing on building a broad class-based movement for economic redistribution, fighting inequality... ..."
@ 56 ‘Marxists, it seems to me, don’t actually care about the oppression of
women, nor of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class
struggle. They. Just. Don’t. Care.’
Maybe so, but ipso facto and for the same reasons, the ‘capitalist class’
don’t actually care about the oppression of women, nor of racial minorities, except
insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class struggle.
The phrase ‘class struggle’ is invariably misinterpreted by bourgeois
liberals (such as yourself), incidentally. The class struggle is not something that working
people choose to take part in. The class struggle is something that is going on and
will continue whether you choose to fight in it or not (or whether or not you choose
to recognise that it is going on, or not).
You don’t need to read this in Karl Marx, incidentally. Listen to Warren Buffet:
‘There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class,
that’s making war, and we’re winning.’
This is unquestionably and unarguably true. Back in the day, if you go back 20 or 30
thousand years, you had relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes. It was the changes in
human civilisation that date from about 15000 BCE (some would say earlier than that) that
moved things towards a class-stratified society, but please note this was not a
‘bottom-up’ thing but a. ‘top-down’ thing. Elites essentially
created themselves and then began to create the various stratification strategies that, with
increasing elaborations, we have had to live with since then, in order to hold on to the
power that they had seized. So Buffet is right. ‘It’s my class
that’s….making (the) war.’
The class war is not on any sense fought by the poor who choose to take
part in it. The class war is willfully and deliberately fought by the rich,
against the poor, who are forced to take part in it simply to defend themselves
against this attack (and again, the war continues whether the poor choose to take part in it
or not, or even whether or not they recognise that they are taking part in it or not.
It’s just that if they choose one of these two options or both of them, then they
lose).
One of the core misrepresentations of Marxism (and it’s a claim that has been
made over and over again, not least on CT comments threads) is that Marxism is a
‘determinist’ philosophy. But as Hobsbawm pointed out many years ago, even a
quick skim through the Communist Manifesto, page one, shows this is not true: viz.
‘Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and
journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another,
carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either
in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the
contending classes.’
You have a fight between the rich and the poor. Either the poor can win, or there is
mutual annihilation. What can’t happen is long term victory by the rich, because you
can have a society without the rich, but you can’t have a society without the poor (the
‘working classes’) or else nothing will get done. You can have a factory without
managers but not one without workers.
What we’ve seen over the last 100 years (at least since about 1950) is a series of
seemingly endless victories by the rich and powerful over the poor, by the global North over
the global South, and yet, mysteriously, these victories have not led to peace or stability
or anything similar but have instead turned to dust and ashes in their mouths , and it seems
that the current phase of the class struggle will not lead to some fantasy of American power
and dominance for eternity but, instead, the ‘common ruin of the contending
classes’ in the form of climate change and the oncoming eco-geddon.
And all this happens whether you recognize that this is happening or not.
Marxists, it seems to me, don’t actually care about the oppression of women, nor
of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves their goals of winning the class
struggle. They. Just. Don’t. Care.
This is perhaps true, on average. Most such favor measure they see as fixing the problem,
rather than demonstrating their empathy for those suffering. For example, in the anti-slavery
movement, proto-Marxists were often too busy arguing for economic change (i.e. abolition) to
spend as much time as they could have on thoughts and prayers for those enslaved.
Now it may be the case, and certainly a lot of people think, that no such
equivalently-effectively economic change is possible, or perhaps desirable, in the modern
day. But it is not the case that Marxists agree with that assessment; if you disagree with
them, that is the core of your disagreement.
Maybe so, but ipso facto and for the same reasons, the 'capitalist class' don't actually
care about the oppression of women, nor of racial minorities, except insofar as it serves
their goals of winning the class struggle.
Sure, of course the rich classes don't care about the oppression of minorities, women,
LGBT, etc. They use the oppression of these groups to divide and weaken the lower classes. Of
course. But that's not the POINT.
The POINT is that some in these class-based movements argue that its WRONG for (e.g.)
women's rights activists to focus so much on women's rights -- that instead, they should be
focusing on building a broad class-based movement for economic redistribution, fighting
inequality...
"In my view, the correct way to see oppressions is not as a set of different one to one
relationships where one is oppressor and the other oppressed, but one should sum all these
relationships and compare the sum to a sort of societal average, so that those above that
average and those below are the oppressed. As the society we live in is pyramidal, I expect
most people to be below that average."
I don't wish to pile onto Chetan Murthy's thoughtful reply @39, but rather restate the issue
a little more abstractly. I engage with this comment out of respect for MisterMr's
overwhelmingly well-considered comments here and elsewhere on this blog.
I think one of the disadvantages of Marxian analysis–and this particular critique is
much older than I am–is that it does tend to flatten out the contours of human experience
so that it can be rendered more intelligible and commensurable so that there can be a more
easily verbalized dialectic about class. In other words, Marxians are lumpers. And lumping has
its uses, but sometimes contours are needed to understand the underlying processes that result
in the social problems upon which we wish to improve with policy.
One of the advantages of intersectional analysis is that it acknowledges that experiences of
privilege/oppression are contextual because they are socially constructed and because social
construction is messy and non-uniform. We each experience privileges and/or oppressions that
are the results of historical processes (more and more) loosely bounded by geographical
inhibitions to travel.
In this way, an African American man can expect to experience such oppressions as being
treated as untrustworthy; assumed to be prone to violence; assumed to be a habitual drug user;
assumed to lack certain non-cognitive skills (which are really just the current preferred
collective habits of the upper middle class–I teach some of their kids kung fu) etc . A
woman can expect to experience such oppressions as being treated as unintelligent; evaluated
based on a narrow range of acceptability on her appearance, tone of voice, apparel,
accoutrements, hobbies, reproductive choices, sexual choices, really just about any
choices.
Even though each of these specific ways of being harmed by the collective (mostly)
non-conscious will to discriminate based on things that don't matter most of the time in most
places is at root a failure of most people most of the time to exercise their meta-cognitive
skills around the meaning of respect and to whom it is due and what kind of behavior that
requires of oneself, they do not easily offer a consensus on the sorts of policies that ought
to be implemented across a society because each of these oppressions are historically
contingent and enacted in specific kinds of social spaces for specific reasons–reasons
that most people most of the time are not required to articulate because hey, everybody's doing
it.
The difference between kinds of oppressions and the kinds of policy solutions they invite
sharpens when considering white women's and black men's disparate experiences with the police
across the history of the (sort of) former confederate states of America–yes, I know it
was bad everywhere else, too, but my understanding of the history is that the difference is
sharper in the South (no I will not provide J-D with a cite)–or their disparate
experiences interfacing with organizations such as firms and universities as the suite of
policies known as affirmative action became passed and enforced. In some ways, many individuals
classified in each (and both) group(s) aggregately benefited but the benefits were asymmetric
and the accompanying backlash manifested as different kinds of oppressions depending on the
most salient group assignment.
Incidentally, I think one of the better ways that coalitions form are when activist groups
find themselves being deliberately wedged against each other, for instance with aggressive
policing proposals, and try to find another way to meet each group's needs. The recent renewed
advocacy for Civilian Police Review Boards seems like one possible way forward to accommodate
the need from multiple constituencies that have historically been ignored.
I think intersectionality also happens to give us some useful theoretical tools to help make
these kinds of coalitional policy solutions more abundant and more easy to institutionalize
throughout a large and diverse state–which is why there is absolutely a political
interest among some (probably not so much the Marxians) in detracting from it.
Anyway, two cheers (for now) for intersectionality. But don't get cocky splitters.
The term privilege is often misused. The original meaning of the term is simply a right or an
advantage specifically conveyed on a certain group of people. It is not wrong for example to
call the right to attend a university a privilege. Not long ago, that right was a privilege
restricted to men (mostly upper class but also some lower class). The right to vote, if it is
not universal, could also be called a privilege. It is not correct to say that only the upper
class can be privileged – privileges can be to some extent independent of class
structure. OTOH Real privilege is enshrined in law. Habitual discrimination is a different
thing and it's probably better to call it by a different name.
"the injustices and oppression suffered by these minority groups."
You are way too "woke" for your own good ;-)
The problem here is where lies the proper measure of redress, because overdone it turns into
its opposite. Converting bathrooms in schools into gender neutral is one example here.
Moreover some groups are anti-social and need to be severely oppressed. One example is
financial oligarchy, especially financial oligarchy under neoliberalism. The other is neocons
as asocial group. I would love both of those groups oppressed, humiliated and ostracized.
Yet another is pedophiles as a social group, especially pedophiles that abuse the position
of authority (gay catholic priests, teachers which seduce/coerce students, etc).
The idea that each minority group is somehow entitled to compensation for the injustices
they suffered in the past or are suffering currently is probably a delusion. Much depends on a
larger picture: what particular group gives to a larger society. If the group contribution is
negative and the group resort to anti-social behavior then why the oppression is unjust ? It is
just an immune reaction of the society. After all one view is that "Justice is the advantage of
the stronger" (debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus.)
Also in some cases those groups are a minority for a reason.
The globalist cabal controls the money, the promotions, the tenure, the continuance of
careers. God help anyone who disagrees.
Pequiste Just maybe this embracing (that will sound bad in this context ) of all things
LGBTQPIBN+, no matter how bizarrre or disgusting, is to usher into a position of great
importance in the government, the likes of Pete Buttgeek?
The United Church of Christ in Ames, Iowa, for reasons unknown flew a LGBTQ flag/banner of
sexual perversion. A 30 year old Hispanic immigrant took it down and burned it. For this
"crime" he was sentenced to 16 years in prison!
Almost every day I read that another person has been fired from their job because they
tweeted the fact that there are only two genders. One of the most recent is the firing in the
UK of Maya Forstater, "the charity worker who was sacked for her belief that there are two
sexes and that sex is immutable." This is more than a belief. It is a statement of fact, of
truth. There is no scientific evidence of a third gender, much less evidence of the hundreds of
genders that have been declared by utterly stupid people of no known intellectual capability or
accomplishment. Hermaphrodites are considered to be abnormalities, a failure of nature. When a
distinguisned author and a famous actor came to the defense of Maya Forstater, they were
shouted down by a multiple of subhuman excrement. https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/12/20/the-witch-hunting-of-jk-rowling/
The Western World has lost its way. It was only a short time ago that a Google senior
engineer, a white male, was fired because he posted a tweet or an email that spoke a truth that
men and women are good at different things and excel in different areas. His statement of
scientific fact violated the feelings of feminists, who maintain that there is no difference
between the capabilities of men and women. If women aren't excelling in men's areas, it is ipso
facto proof that women are being discriminated against. This claim doesn't work for men who are
not excelling in women's areas. The men can't claim they are not doing as well in women's areas
because they are discriminated against.
By making the claim that men and women are equal in every respect, feminists have destroyed
women's sports. Men now have the transgendered right to self-declare themselves women and to
compete against women in sports. Many women sports stars, such as Maria Sharapova, winner of
five Grand Slam titles, have protested this absurdity, and have been denounced and forced to
apologize for doubting that the males are really females even though the self-declared females
have penises and testicles and the muscle strength of males.
The results of men competing as women in sports contests clearly show that the two genders
are not equal in all respects as the ignorant dumbshit radical feminists insist. The attack on
women does not come from men. It comes from feminists and the alleged transgendered.
What kind of society is the West in which absolutely ridiculous declarations take precedence
over all known science and anatomical fact? How is it possible in the US, UK, and Europe for a
person to be imprisoned for disbelieving that one's gender is independent of one's anatomical
body?
A people this insane don't deserve to exist. The End must be Nigh.
In all of this, it's worth remembering the observation of La Rouchefoucald that "hypocrisy
is the tribute vice pays to virtue". The accusation of virtue signalling represents the refusal
of vice to pay this tribute.
... in my experience the kind of people who talk about VS also talk about 'clicktivism' and
similar; in other words, a lack of effort or cost is particularly characteristic of VS (and,
in their eyes, particularly repugnant).
...And what's about all these people who wear these: "I'm a Deplorable" – T-shirts?
SusanC 12.05.19 at 12:37 pm (no link)
I thought the concept was supposed to be (a)not actually doing anything to reduce a problem;
while (b) making ostentatious signs that purport to show you care about it.
A better example might be attending an Extinction Rebellion protest without changing your
own consumption/pollution causing activities.
I wonder if it somehow relates to the Mary Douglas cultural theory of risk?
If so, we might tentatively include, e.g. Making a big noise about terrorism without
really considering yourself to be at risk from it
"Vice signaling" was a good joke; I think it captures a notion that the affiliation the
person is attempting to signal is not a universally shared one,
SusanC 12.05.19 at 12:45 pm (no link)
For that matter, terrorism itself, in its typical modern form, could be regarded as vice
signalling: ostentatiously commiting public acts of violence ostensibly in support of a
political cause, without regard to whether the political cause is in fact being advanced by
their actions.
cs 12.05.19 at 1:37 pm (no link)
... I would say the implication is about the ostentation and a kind of insincerity.
Insincerity in the sense that the person displaying the rainbow flag wants to be seen as the
kind of person who cares about gay rights, when maybe they don't actually care about it all
that much. That isn't quite the same as hypocrisy I think.
I'll try to give my economic based explanation for this, based on this paper from Piketty:
Brahmin Left vs Merchant Right:Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political
Conflict
This paper has been cited here various times, however I'll drop this line from the
abstract that summarizes the main finding:
Using post-electoral surveys from France, Britain and the US, this paper documents a
striking long-run evolution in the structure of political cleavages. In the 1950s-1960s,
the vote for left-wing (socialist-labour-democratic) parties was associated with lower
education and lower income voters. It has gradually become associated with higher education
voters, giving rise to a "multiple-elite" party systemin the 2000s-2010s: high-education
elites now vote for the "left", while high-income/high-wealth elites still vote for the
"right"
I would add to Phil @2 a third option.
(a) You're a hypocrite.
(b) The thing you're signalling isn't actually a virtue.
(c) You're attacking me by reminding everyone of a virtue I don't have.
I think the old-fashioned term for virtue signalling is sanctimony, not hypocrisy. Notably,
sanctimony is also compatible with genuine belief and/or commitment. It does connote that the
committed person has a degree of self-love over their commitments, and that perhaps the
frequency or intensity of their display of their commitments is caused by an underlying
desire to experience that self-love whenever the opportunity arises.
Sanctimony–correct word, I think–puts me in mind of that old bumper sticker, "I
brake for animals" of which I once saw an example tidily shortened to: "I bake animals".
The problem I have with the whole concept is the stereotyping and bias implicit in it.
When I see the Rainbow I'm supposed to think open minded, inclusive and left-thinking and
that's fully o.k in the minds of liberals, but not in the minds of the Conservatives who see
something else (which I'm not inclined to list).
When I see the MAGA I'm supposed to think closed minded, racist and right-thinking, but
Conservatives would see hard-working Americans trying to make their country a better
place.
Displaying a rainbow flag or wearing a MAGA hat strikes me as visible tribal identification
more than virtue signaling. I think MrMister's mention of sanctimony is closer to the truth.
Another poster mentioned Pharisees and public prayer. Consider a meeting to discuss replacing
culverts to allow better passage of spawning salmon. The participants represent various
interested parties, private and government. The meeting is disrupted by a person who proceeds
to lecture all present about the history of racism, broken treaties and Native American
reverence for nature. This person is not Native American. The speaker assumes that his/her
information is unknown to the audience. The information does nothing to advance the goal of
culvert replacement nor does it do anything to right historic wrongs. The speaker gets to
feel superior. This is high-grade virtue signaling.
It has been my experience that virtue signalling is often practiced on behalf of
marginalized groups by people who do not belong to that group but presume to speak for
them.
I'll second several commenters above: "virtue signalling" isn't primarily an accusation of
hypocrisy. The related accusations targeted at the right are "sanctimony" and "prudishness"
more than hypocrisy. The accusation is that you care more about "being seen as the sort of
person who supports X" than about X.
I think it means making a political statement in order to look good, where good is understood
in a moral sense. That's a real phenomenon, especially in our age of online
narcissism/personal branding, and it probably does affect the liberal-left more than the
right because left-liberal politics tends to be more morally inspired.
I agree with SusanC at 7 and cs at 10 that the term is mostly intended to suggest that you
support some cause or other that you don't really care about, as a way to identify yourself,
or establish bona fides, with some group.
I'm so far behind I'm still bemused by the thought that a flag lapel pin, pledges of
allegiance and praying in public, are all virtue signalling. The tie-ins to libertarian
economics and evolutionary psychology are even more puzzling, but maybe that's because I
think they're just ideological scams/Vavilovian mimicry trying to pass off nonsense as real
ideas.
"... Robert Pfaller: Until the late 1970s, all "Western" (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970ies, stated, "We are all Keynesians"). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII, as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists. ..."
"... Whenever the social-democratic left came into power, for example with Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schroeder, they proved to be the even more radical neoliberal reformers. As a consequence, leftist parties did not have an economic alternative to what their conservative and liberal opponents offered. Thus they had to find another point of distinction. This is how the left became "cultural" (while, of course, ceasing to be a "left"): from now on the marks of distinction were produced by all kinds of concerns for minorities or subaltern groups. And instead of promoting economic equality and equal rights for all groups, the left now focused on symbolic "recognition" and "visibility" for these groups. ..."
"... Thus not only all economic and social concerns were sacrificed for the sake of sexual and ethnic minorities, but even the sake of these minorities itself. Since a good part of the problem of these groups was precisely economic, social and juridical, and not cultural or symbolic. And whenever you really solve a problem of a minority group, the visibility of this group decreases. But by insisting on the visibility of these groups, the policies of the new pseudo-left succeded at making the problems of these groups permanent – and, of course, at pissing off many other people who started to guess that the concern for minorities was actually just a pretext for pursuing a most brutal policy of increasing economic inequality. ..."
"... The connection to neoliberalism is the latter's totalitarian contention of reducing the entirety of human condition into a gender-neutral cosmopolitan self expressing nondescript market preferences in a conceptual vacuum, a contention celebrated by its ideologues as "liberation" and "humanism" despite its inherent repression and inhumanity. ..."
"... "..'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that is substantively political.." ..."
"... Agreed. And the truth is that the message is much clearer than that of the critics, below. So it ought to be for the world, sliding into fascism, in which we live in might have been baked by the neo-liberals but it was iced by 57 varieties of Blairites . The cowards who flinched led by the traitors who sneered. ..."
"... 'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that is substantively political, namely, the fight for an equitable production and distribution of goods, both material and cultural, ensuring a decent life for all. ..."
"... Why bother getting your hands dirty with an actual worker's struggle when you can write yet another glamorously "radical" critique of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (which in truth just ends up as another advert for it)? ..."
"... The One Per Cent saw an opportunity of unlimited exploitation and they ran with it. They're still running (albeit in jets and yachts) and us Proles are either struggling or crawling. Greed is neither Left or Right. It exists for its own self gratification. ..."
"... Actually, post-modernism doesn't include everybody -- just the 'marginalized' and 'disenfranchised' minorities whom Michel Foucault championed. The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the old capitalist strategy of playing off the Lumpenproletariat against the proletariat, to borrow the original Marxist terminology. ..."
"... if you don't mind me asking, exactly at what point do you feel capitalism was restored in the USSR? It was, I take it, with the first Five Year Plan, not the NEP? ..."
"... Also, the Socialist or, to use your nomenclature, "Stalinist" system, that was destroyed in the the USSR in the 1990s–it was, in truth, just one form of capitalism replaced by another form of capitalism? ..."
Robert Pfaller interviewed by Kamran Baradaran, via
ILNA
The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological embellishment
that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in order to attain
a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face.
Robert Pfaller is one of the most distinguished figures in today's radical Left. He teaches at the University of Art and Industrial
Design in Linz, Austria. He is a founding member of the Viennese psychoanalytic research group 'stuzzicadenti'.
Pfaller is the author of books such as On the Pleasure Principle in Culture: Illusions Without Owners , Interpassivity:
The Aesthetics of Delegated Enjoyment , among others. Below is the ILNA's interview with this authoritative philosopher on
the Fall of Berlin Wall and "Idea of Communism".
ILNA: What is the role of "pleasure principle" in a world after the Berlin Wall? What role does the lack of ideological
dichotomy, which unveils itself as absent of a powerful left state, play in dismantling democracy?
Robert Pfaller: Until the late 1970s, all "Western" (capitalist) governments, right or left, pursued a Keynesian economic
policy of state investment and deficit spending. (Even Richard Nixon is said to have once, in the early 1970ies, stated, "We are
all Keynesians"). This lead to a considerable decrease of inequality in Western societies in the first three decades after WWII,
as the numbers presented by Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanovic in their books prove. Apparently, it was seen as necessary to
appease Western workers with high wages and high employment rates in order to prevent them from becoming communists.
Ironically one could say that it was precisely Western workers who profited considerably of "real existing socialism" in the
Eastern European countries.
At the very moment when the "threat" of real existing socialism was not felt anymore, due to the Western economic and military
superiority in the 1980ies (that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall), the economic paradigm in the Western countries shifted.
All of a sudden, all governments, left or right, pursued a neoliberal economic policy (of privatization, austerity politics, the
subjection of education and health sectors under the rule of profitability, liberalization of regulations for the migration of
capital and cheap labour, limitation of democratic sovereignty, etc.).
Whenever the social-democratic left came into power, for example with Tony Blair, or Gerhard Schroeder, they proved to
be the even more radical neoliberal reformers. As a consequence, leftist parties did not have an economic alternative to what
their conservative and liberal opponents offered. Thus they had to find another point of distinction. This is how the left became
"cultural" (while, of course, ceasing to be a "left"): from now on the marks of distinction were produced by all kinds of concerns
for minorities or subaltern groups. And instead of promoting economic equality and equal rights for all groups, the left now focused
on symbolic "recognition" and "visibility" for these groups.
Thus not only all economic and social concerns were sacrificed for the sake of sexual and ethnic minorities, but even the
sake of these minorities itself. Since a good part of the problem of these groups was precisely economic, social and juridical,
and not cultural or symbolic. And whenever you really solve a problem of a minority group, the visibility of this group decreases.
But by insisting on the visibility of these groups, the policies of the new pseudo-left succeded at making the problems of these
groups permanent – and, of course, at pissing off many other people who started to guess that the concern for minorities was actually
just a pretext for pursuing a most brutal policy of increasing economic inequality.
ILNA: The world after the Berlin Wall is mainly considered as post-ideological. Does ideology has truly decamped from our
world or it has only taken more perverse forms? On the other hand, many liberals believe that our world today is based on the
promise of happiness. In this sense, how does capitalism promotes itself on the basis of this ideology?
Robert Pfaller: The ruling ideology since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or even earlier, is postmodernism. This is the ideological
embellishment that the brutal neoliberal attack on Western societies' welfare (that was launched in the late 1970s) required in
order to attain a "human", "liberal" and "progressive" face. This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest
of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to "include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism".
It consists of neoliberalism, plus postmodernism as its ideological superstructure.
The ideology of postmodernism today has some of its most prominent symptoms in the omnipresent concern about "discrimination"
(for example, of "people of color") and in the resentment against "old, white men". This is particularly funny in countries like
Germany: since, of course, there has been massive racism and slavery in Germany in the 20th century – yet the victims of this
racism and slavery in Germany have in the first place been white men (Jews, communists, Gypsies, red army prisoners of war, etc.).
Here it is most obvious that a certain German pseudo-leftism does not care for the real problems of this society, but prefers
to import some of the problems that US-society has to deal with. As Louis Althusser has remarked, ideology always consists in
trading in your real problems for the imaginary problems that you would prefer to have.
The general ideological task of postmodernism is to present all existing injustice as an effect of discrimination. This is,
of course, funny again: Since every discrimination presupposes an already established class structure of inequality. If you do
not have unequal places, you cannot distribute individuals in a discriminating way, even if you want to do so. Thus progressive
neoliberalism massively increases social inequality, while distributing all minority groups in an "equal" way over the unequal
places.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Abbreviate & reduce to lowest common denominator which is hyperinflation by today's standards given that we are indeed all
Keynesians now that leveraged debt no longer suffices to prop Wall Street up.
Welcome to the New World Disorder. Screw 'postmodernism' & Chicago School 'neoliberalism'!
MOU
Danubium
There is no such thing as "post-modernism".
The derided fad is an organic evolution of the ideologies of "modernity" and the "Enlightenment", and represents the logical
conclusion of their core premise: the "enlightened self" as the source of truth instead of the pre-modern epistemologies of
divine revelation, tradition and reason.
It does not represent any "liberation" from restrictive thought, as the "self" can only ever be "enlightened" by cult-like
submission to dogma or groupthink that gives tangible meaning to the intangible buzzword, its apparent relativism is a product
of social detachment of the intellectual class and its complete and utter apathy towards the human condition.
The connection to neoliberalism is the latter's totalitarian contention of reducing the entirety of human condition into
a gender-neutral cosmopolitan self expressing nondescript market preferences in a conceptual vacuum, a contention celebrated
by its ideologues as "liberation" and "humanism" despite its inherent repression and inhumanity.
The trend is not to successor or opponent, but rather modernism itself in its degenerative, terminal stage.
Monobazeus
Well said
bevin
"..'identity politics,' which pretty much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little
of the 'left' survives, plays into the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics'
that has been emptied of all that is substantively political.."
Agreed. And the truth is that the message is much clearer than that of the critics, below.
So it ought to be for the world, sliding into fascism, in which we live in might have been baked by the neo-liberals but it
was iced by 57 varieties of Blairites . The cowards who flinched led by the traitors who sneered.
So cutting through all of the verbiage, the upshot of Pfaller's contentions seems to be that 'identity politics,' which pretty
much encapsulate the central concerns of what these days is deemed to represent what little of the 'left' survives, plays into
the hands of the neoliberal ruling establishment(s), because at bottom it is a 'politics' that has been emptied of all that
is substantively political, namely, the fight for an equitable production and distribution of goods, both material and cultural,
ensuring a decent life for all.
Difficult not to agree.
For indeed, "If you do not have unequal places, you cannot distribute individuals in a discriminating way, even if you want
to do so."
Capricornia Man
You've nailed it, Norman. In many countries, the left's obsession with identity politics has driven class politics to the periphery
of its concerns, which is exactly where the neoliberals want it to be. It's why the working class just isn't interested.
Martin Usher
It must be fun to sit on top of the heap watching the great unwashed squabbling over the crumbs.
Red Allover
The world needs another put down of postmodern philosophy like it needs a Bob Dylan album of Sinatra covers . . .
maxine chiu
I'm glad the article was short .I don't think I'm stupid but too much pseudo-intellectualism makes me fall asleep.
Tim Jenkins
Lol, especially when there are some galling glaring errors within " too much pseudo-intellectualism "
Thanks for the laugh, maxine,
Let them stew & chew (chiu) on our comments 🙂
Bootlyboob
As with any use of an -ism though, you need sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to using 'postmodernism'. Do you mean
Baudrillard and Delueze? or do you mean some dirty cunt like Bernard Henri-Levy. There is a bit of a difference.
Bootlyboob
Ok, so Levi is not really a postmodernist. But still, there are philosphers of postmodernism that were, and still are, worth
reading.
BigB
Postmodernism: what is it? I defy anyone to give a coherent and specific definition. Not least, because the one 'Classical
Liberal' philosopher who did – Stephen Hicks – used the term as a blanket commodification of all post-Enlightenment thought
starting with Rousseau's Romanticism. So PoMo has pre-Modern roots? When the left start playing broad and wide with political
philosophical categories too – grafting PoMo onto post-Classical roots as a seeming post-Berlin Wall emergence what actually
is being said? With such a depth and breadth of human inquiry being commodified as 'PoMo' – arguably, nothing useful.
Neoliberalism is Classic Liberalism writ large. The basic unit of Classicism is an individuated, independent, intentional,
individual identitarianism as an atom of the rational ('moral') market and its self-maximising agency. Only, the 'Rights of
Man' and the 'Social Contract' have been transfered from the Person (collectively: "We the People " as a the democratic sovereign
power) to the Corporation as the new 'Neo-Classicist' supranational sovereign. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.
As pointed out below: this was already well underway by November 1991 – as a structural-function of the burgeoning Euromarkets.
These were themselves on the rise as the largest source of global capital *before* the Nixon Shock in 1971. There is an argument
to be made that they actually caused the abandoning of Breton Woods and the Gold Standard. Nonetheless, 1991 is a somewhat
arbitrary date for the transition from 'High Modernity' to 'PostModernity'. Philosophers. political, and social scientists
– as Wittgenstein pointed out – perhaps are victims of their own commodification and naming crisis? Don't get me started on
'post-Humanism' but what does PoMo actually mean?
As the article hints at: the grafting of some subjectivist single rights issues to the ultra-objectivist core market rationality
of neoliberalism is an intentional character masking. Even the 'neoliberal CNS' (central nervous system) of the WEF admits
to four distinct phases of globalisation. The current 'Globalisation 4.0' – concurrent with the 'Fourth Industrial Revolution'
– is a further development of this quasi-subjectivist propagandic ploy. Globalisation is now humanist, sovereigntist, environmentalist,
and technologist (technocratic). Its ultimate *telos* is 'fully automated luxury communism' or the harmoniousness of man and
nature under an ecolological *Tianxia* the sustainable 'Ecological Civilisation'. Which, I would hope, absolutely nobody is
gullible enough to believe?
Who says the leopard cannot change its spots? It can, and indeed does. Neoliberalism is a big-data micromarketing driven
technocratic engine of reproduction tailored to the identitarian individual. PoMo – in one sense – is thus the logical extremisation
of Classical Liberalism which is happening within the Classical Liberal tradition. It is certainly not a successor state or
'Fourth Political Theory' which is one of the few things Aleksandr Dugin gets right.
This is why the term needs defintion and precisification or, preferably, abandoning. If both the left and right bandy the
term around as a eupehemism for what either does not like – the term can only be a noun of incoherence. Much like 'antisemitism':
it becomes a negative projection of all undesirable effects onto the 'Other'. Which, when either end of the political spectrum
nihilates the Other leaves us with the vicious dehumanisation of the 'traditional' identitarian fascist centre. All binary
arguments using shared synthetic terminology – that are plastic in meaning depending on who is using the term – cancel each
other out.
Of which, much of which is objectified and commodified as 'PoMo' was a reaction against. A reaction that anticipated the
breakdown of the identitarian and sectarian 'technological postmodern' society. So how can that logically be a 'reaction against'
and an 'embelishment to' neoliberalism'?
This is not a mere instance of pedantry: I/we are witnessing the decoherence of language due to an extremisation of generalisation
and abstraction of sense and meaning. That meaning is deferred is a post-structuralist tenet: but one that proceeds from the
extreme objectivisation of language (one to one mapping of meaning as the analytical signified/signifier relationship) and
the mathematicisation of logic (post-Fregian 'meta-ontology') not its subjectivisation.
If PoMo means anything: it is a rich and authentic vein of human inquiry that was/is a creative attempt to rescue us from
a pure objectivist Hell (David Ray Griffin's "positive postmodernism"). One that was/is not entirely satisfactory; merely because
it has not yet completed. In the midst: we have the morbid hybrid symptomatology of the old Classical Libertarian fascism trying
to recuperate the new Universal Humanism for which PoMo is a meaningless label. Especially if it is used to character masque
the perennial philosophy of Humanism that has been dehumanised and subjugated by successive identitarian regimes of knowledge
and power since forever in pre-Antiquity.
We are all human: only some humans are ideologically more human than others is the counter-history of humanity. When we
encounter such ideologically imprecise degenerative labels as 'PoMo' – that can mean anything to anyone (but favours the status
quo) this makes a nonsense of at least 5,000 years of thought. Is it any wonder that we are super-ordinated by those who can
better dictate who we are? Language is overpower and writing is supra-sovereign administration and bureaucracy over the 'owness'
of identity. Its co-option by the pseudoleft is a complete denigration and betrayal of the potential of a new Humanism. The
key to which is the spiritual recovery and embodiment of who we really are – proto-linguistically and pre-ontologically – before
all these meaningless labels get in the way.
Bootlyboob
You said it better than I ever could.
Stephen Hick's book is quite the laugh. I tried to read it but it made no sense. From memory, it starts at Kant and Hegel
and gets them completely wrong, (he even draws little charts with their ideas in tabulated form, WTF?) so I quickly deleted
the .pdf. Any book that begins with a summary of these two philosophers and then thinks they can hold my attention until they
get to their take on 'postmodernism' is sorely mistaken. Postmodernism is a made up label for about four or five French intellectuals
in the 1970's that somehow took over the world and completely fucked it up. Why do I somehow not follow this line of 'thought'?
Reg
No, Postmodernism is a real thing, it is the capitalist assimilation of situationism to overcome the crisis of profit in the
70s caused by overproduction and the attempt by the 1% to recapture a greater a greater % of GDP that they had lost due to
the post war settlement. This was an increasingly a zero sum game economy after Germany and Japan had rebuilt their manufacturing
capacity, with the US constrained by a widening trade deficit and the cost of the cold and Vietnam war increasing US debt.
The inflation spikes in the 70s is only reflective of these competing demands.
The problem of modernism is than peoples needs are easily saited, particularly in conditions of overproduction. Postmodern
production is all about creating virtual needs that are unsatisfied. The desire for status or belonging or identity are infinite,
and overcomes the dead time of 'valourisation' (time taken for investment to turn into profit) of capital by switching to virtual
production of weightless capitalism. The creation of 'intangible asset's such as trade marks, while off shoring production
is central. This is a form of rentier extraction, as the creation of a trade mark creates no real value if you have offshored
not only production but R&D to China. This is why fiance, and free movement of capital supported by monetary policy and independent
central banks are central to Postmodern neo-liberal production. The problem being that intangible assets are easy to replace
and require monopoly protection supported by a Imperial hegemon to maintain rentier extraction. Why does China need a US or
UK trade mark of products where both innovation and production increasingly come from China? How long can the US as a diminishing
empire maintain rentier extraction at the point of a military it increasingly cannot afford, particularly against a military
and economic superpower like China? It is no accident US companies that have managed to monetise internet technologies are
monopolies, google, microsoft, Apple. An operating system for example has a reproduction cost of zero, the same can be said
of films or music, so the natural price is zero, only a monopoly maintains profit.
The connection to situationism is the cry of May 68 'Make your dreams reality', which was marketised by making peoples dreams
very interesting ones about fitted kitchens, where even 'self actualisation was developed into a product, where even ones own
body identity became a product to be developed at a price. This is at the extreme end of Marxist alienation as not only work
or the home becomes alienated, but the body itself.
David Harvey covers some of this quite well in his "The condition of Postmodernity". Adam Curtis also covers quite well in
'The Trap' and the 'Century of the self'.
BigB
I'm inclined to agree with everything you write. It would fall into what I called 'precisification' and actual definition.
What you describe is pure Baudrillard: that capitalism reproduces as a holistic system of objects that we buy into without
ever satisfying the artificial advertorial need to buy. What we actually seek is a holism of self that cannot be replaced by
a holism of objects hence an encoded need for dissatisfaction articulated as dissatisfaction a Hyperrealism of the eternally
desiring capitalist subject. But Baudrillard rejected the label too.
What I was pointing out was the idea of 'contested concept'. Sure, if we define terms, let's use it. Without that pre-agreed
defintion: the term is meaningless. As are many of our grandiloquent ideas of 'Democracy', 'Freedom', 'Prosperity', and especially
'Peace'. Language is partisan and polarised. Plastic words like 'change' can mean anything and intentionally do. And the convention
of naming creates its own decoherence sequence. What follows 'postmodernism'? Post-humanism is an assault on sense and meaning.
As is the current idea that "reality is the greatest illusion of all".
We are having a real communication breakdown due to the limitations of the language and out proliferation of beliefs. Baudrillard
also anticipated the involution and implosion of the Code. He was speaking from a de Saussurian (semiologic) perspective. Cognitive
Linguistics makes this ever more clear. Language is maninly frames and metaphors. Over expand them over too many cognitive
domains: and the sense and meaning capability is diluted toward meaninglessnes – where reality is no longer real. This puts
us in the inferiorised position of having our terms – and thus our meaning – dictated by a cognitive elite a linguistic 'noocracy'
(which is homologous with the plutocracy – who can afford private education).
Capitalism itself is a purely linguistic phenomena: which is so far off the beaten track I'm not even going to expand on
it. Except to say: that a pre-existing system of objects giving rise to a separate system of thoughts – separate objectivity
and subjectivity – is becoming less tenable to defend. I'd prefer to think in terms of 'embodiment' and 'disembodiment' rather
than distinct historical phases. And open and closed cognitive cycles rather than discreet psycholgical phases. We cannot be
post-humans if we never embodied our humanism fully. And we cannot be be post-modern when we have never fully lived in the
present having invented a disembodied reality without us in it, which we proliferated trans-historically the so-called 'remembered
present'.
Language and our ideas of reality are close-correlates – I would argue very close correlates. They are breaking down because
language and realism are disembodied which, in itself is ludicrous to say. But we have inherited and formalised an idealism
that is exactly that. Meaning resides in an immaterial intellect in an intangible mind floating around in an abstract neo-Platonic
heaven waiting for Reason to concur with it. Which is metaphysical bullshit, but it is also the foundation of culture and 'Realism'.
Which makes my position 'anti-Realist'. Can you see my problem with socio-philosophical labels now!? They can carry sense if
used carefully, as you did. In general discourse they mean whatever they want to mean. Which generally means they will be used
against you.
Ramdan
"the SPIRITUAL RECOVERY and embodiment of who we really are – PROTO-LINGUISTICALLY and PRE-ONTOLOGICALLY – BEFORE all these
MEANINGLESS LABELS get in the way."
Thanks BigB. I just took the liberty to add emphasis.
Robbobbobin
Smarty pants (label).
Robert Laine
A reply to the article worthy of another Off-G article (or perhaps a book) which would include at a minimum the importance
of non-dualistic thinking, misuse of language in the creation of MSM and government narratives and the need to be conscious
of living life from time to time while we talk about it. Thankyou, BigB.
Don't you love how all these people discuss postmodernism without ever bothering to define what it is. How confused. Hicks
and Peterson see postmodernists as Neo-Marxists and this guy sees them as Neoliberals. None of the main theorists that have
been associated with Postmodernism and Post-Structuralism and I'm thinking Derrida, Baudrillard and Foucault here (not that
I see Foucault as really belonging in the group) would not even accept the term 'postmodernism' as they would see it as an
inappropriate form of stereo-typography with no coherent meaning or definition and that presupposing that one can simply trade
such signifiers in 'transparent' communication and for us all to think and understand the same thing that 'postmodernism' as
a body of texts and ideas might be 'constituted by' is a large part of the problem under discussion. I often think that a large
question that arises from Derrida's project is not to study communication as such but to study and understand miss-communication
and how and why it comes about and what is involved in our misunderstandings. If people don't get that about 'postmodern' and
post-structuralist theories then they've not understood any thing about it.
BigB
You are absolutely right: the way we think in commodities of identities – as huge generalizations and blanket abstractions
– tends toward grand narration and meaninglessness. Which is at once dehumanising, ethnocentric, exceptionalist, imperialist
in a way that favours dominion and overpower. All these tendencies are encoded in the hierarchical structures of the language
– as "vicious" binary constructivisms. In short, socio-linguistic culture is a regime of overpower and subjugation. One that
is "philosopho-political" and hyper-normalises our discrimination.
Deleuze went further when he said language is "univocal". We only have one equiprimordial concept of identity – Being. It
is our ontological primitive singularity of sense and meaning. Everything we identity – as "Difference" – is in terms of Being
(non-Being is it's binary mirror state) as an object with attributes (substances). Being is differentiated into hierarchies
(the more attributes, the more "substantial"- the 'greater' the being) which are made "real" by "Repetition" hence Difference
and Repetition. The language of Dominion, polarization, and overpower is a reified "grand ontological narrative" constructivism.
One dominated by absolutised conceptual Being. That's all.
[One in which we are naturally inferiorised in our unconscious relationship of being qua Being in which we are dominated
by a conceptual "Oedipal Father" – the singularity of the Known – but that's another primal 'onto-theocratic' narrative the
grandest of then all].
One that we are born and acculturated into. Which the majority accept and never question. How many people question not just
their processes of thought but the structure of their processes of thought? A thought cannot escape its own structure and that
structure is inherently dominative. If not in it's immediacy then deferred somewhere else via a coduit of systemic violence
structured as a "violent hierarchy" of opposition and Othering.
Which is the ultimate mis-communication of anything that can be said to be "real" non-dominative, egalitarian, empathic,
etc. Which, of course, if we realise the full implications we can change the way we think and the "naturalised" power structures
we collectively validate.
When people let their opinions be formed for them, and commodify Romanticism, German Idealism, Marxism, Phenomenology, Structuralism,
Post-Structuralism, Existentialism, etc as the pseudo-word "PoMo" – only to dismiss it they are unbeknowingly validating the
hegemony of power and false-knowledge over. Then paradoxically using those binary power structures to rail about being dominated!
Those linguistic power structures dominate politics too. The "political unconscious" is binary and oppositional which tends
toward negation and favours the status quo but how many people think in terms of the psychopolitical and psycholinguistic algorithms
of power and politics?
Derrida's project is now our project and it has hardly yet begun. Not least because cognitive linguistics were unkown to
Derrida. That's how knowledge works by contemporising and updating previous knowledge from Structuralism to Post-Structuralism
to
Nihilating anything that can be called "PoMo" (including that other pseudo-label "Cultural Marxism") condemns us to another
200 years of Classical Liberalism which should be enough impetus to compel everyone to embrace the positive aspects of PoMo!
Especially post-post-structuralism that stupid naming convention again
I think a lot of people forget that both Derrida and Baudrillard died before the financial crisis. I don't think either of
them like myself at that time paid much attention to economics and markets as they worked within very specific and focused
fields. Derrida spent his whole life analysing phonocentrism and logocentrism throughout the history of philosophy and Baudrillard
was more a cultural sociologist then anything else. They like most people assumed that neoliberalism was working and they enjoyed
well paid jobs and great celebrity so they didn't have much cause to pay that much attention to politics. Following the Invasion
of Iraq Derrida did come out very strongly against the US calling it the biggest and most dangerous rogue state in the world
and he cited and quoted Chomsky's excellent work. We should also include the UK as the second biggest rogue state.
Once the GFC happened I realized that my knowledge on those subjects was virtually zero and I have since spent years looking
at them all very closely. I think Derrida and Baudrillard would have become very political following the GFC and even more
so now given current events with the yellow vests in France. Shame those two great thinkers died before all the corruption
of neoliberalism was finally revealed. I believe that would have had a great deal to say about it Derrida at least was a very
moral and ethical man.
Bootlyboob
I think you would like this essay if you have not read it already.
If anyone wants a good overview of postmodernism and post-structuralism Cuck philosophy has has some excellent videos covering
the subject matter and ideas. He explains how postmodernism has nothing to do with identity politics and shows how Hick and
Peterson have fundamentally misunderstood postmodernism. He also has 3 videos covering postmodern basics and some others on
Derrida and Baudrillard. You will not find the concepts explained better though one can never give a comprehensive review as
such things are essentially beyond us.
He puts too much weight on Foucault for my liking but that's just the fact that my understanding of postmodernism is obviously
different to his because all of our largely chance encounters with different texts at different times, which mean that we all
come away with slightly different ideas about what these things might mean at any given time. Even in relation to differences
in our own ideas from day to day or year to year.
Bootlyboob
Yes, that's why I mentioned the article in relation to your earlier comment. I don't think any of these philosophers would
have changed their stances based on the events 20 or 30 post their deaths. They essentially predicted the course that society
has taken.
Judith Butler took part in the occupy wall street movement and she's a post-structuralist so she has clearly changed her mind
since the GFC. Deleuze may have to a certain extent have predicted such things but that doesn't necessarily mean they would
have been happy about them. Derrida always spoke of the 'democracy' to come. Instead what we are looking forward to is tech
based technocratic totalitarianism. I don't go along with Deleuze on that matter anyway. I don't see a discreet transition
from one to the other but rather see us having to endure the combined worst of both scenarios.
Bootlyboob
In relation to Peterson. I did write an email to him once and he wrote back to me saying he does indeed like the writings of
Deleuze and Baudrillard. But it was a one line response. I'm still assuming he merely uses a false reading of Derrida as a
prop to advance his own arguments.
Peterson doesn't understand that postmodernism is not the source of identity politics or cultural marxism. That source is Anglo
sociology. I was doing an MSc in sociology back in 1994/95 and they had been transitioning away from Marx and class conflict
to Nietzsche and power conflicts understood within a very simplistic definition of power as a simple binary opposition of forces
between and 'oppressor' and a 'resistor'.
They borrow a bit from Foucault but they cannot accept his postmodern conclusions as power is necessarily revealed as a
positive force that actually constructs us all: in which case one cannot really object to it on political grounds. Let's face
it, these cultural ex-Marxists (now actually an elitist Nietzschean ubermench) don't seem to object to power's miss-functioning
at all on any kind of institutional level but solely concentrate on supposed power relations at the personal level.
That's all if you buy into 'power'at all as such. Baudrillard wrote 'Forget Foucault' and that 'the more one sees power
everywhere the less one is able to speak thereof'. I try and stay clear of any theory that tries to account for everything
with a single concept or perspective as they end up over-determining and reductionist.
A major benefit (for the elites) of postmodernism is its epistemological relativism, which denies the fundamentally important
commitments to objectivity, to facts and evidence. This results in the absurd situation where all the matters is the narrative.
This obvious fact is partially obscured by the substitution of emotion for evidence and logic.
https://viewsandstories.blogspot.com/2018/06/emotion-substitutes-for-evidence-and.html
Seamus Padraig
Yup. Among other things, po-mo 'theory' enables Orwell's doublethink .
BigB
This is exactly the misunderstanding of a mythical "po-mo 'theory'" – if such a thing exists – that I am getting at. 'Po-mo
theory' is in fact a modernity/postmodernity hybrid theory. Pomo theory is yet to emerge.
For instance: Derrida talked of the 'alterity' of language and consciousness that was neither subjectivist nor objectivist.
He also spoke of 'inversion/subversion' – where one bipolar oppositional term becomes the new dominant ie 'black over white'
or 'female over male'. This, he made specifically clear, was just as violent a domination as the old normal. How is this enabling
'doublethink'.
If you actually study where Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze; etc where taking their 'semiotics' it was to the 'Middle Way'
of language – much the same destination as Buddhism. This is the clear and precise non-domination of either extreme of language.
Only, they never supplied the praxis; and their followers and denigrators where not as prescient.
There is so much more to come from de Saussurian/Piercian semiotics and Bergsonian/Whiteheadian process philosophy. We have
barely scratched the surface. One possibility is the fabled East/West synthesis of thought that quantum physics and neuroscience
hint at.
What yo do not realise is that our true identity is lost in the language. Specifically: the Law of Identity and the Law
of the Excluded Middle of our current Theory of Mind prevent the understanding of consciousness. To understand why you actually
have to read and understand the linguistic foundations of the very theory you have just dismissed.
Robbobbobin
"Specifically: the Law of Identity and the Law of the Excluded Middle of our current Theory of Mind prevent the understanding
of consciousness."
Yes, but. What do you mean by " our current Theory of Mind"?
Tim Jenkins
Was that a promo for Po-mo theory, BigB ? (chuckle)
BigB
In fact: if followed through – PoMo leads to the point of decoherence of all narrative constructivism. Which is the same point
the Buddhist Yogacara/Madhyamaka synthesis leads to. Which is the same point quantum physics and contemporary cognitive neuroscience
leads to. The fact of a pre-existent, mind-independent, objective ground for reality is no longer tenable. Objectivism is dead.
But so is subjectivism.
What is yet to appear is a coherent narrative that accommodates this. Precisely because language does not allow this. It
is either subjectivism or objectivism tertium non datur – a third is not given. It is precisely within the excluded middle
of language that the understanding of consciouness lies. The reason we have an ontological cosmogony without consciousness
lies precisely in the objectification and commodification of language. All propositions and narratives are ultimately false
especially this one.
Crucially, just because we cannot create a narrative construction or identity for 'reality' – does not mean we cannot experience
'reality'. Which is what a propositional device like a Zen koan refers to
All linguistic constructivism – whether objective or subjective – acts as a covering of reality. We take the ontological
narrative imaginary for the real 'abhuta-parikalpa'. Both object and subject are pratitya-samutpada – co-evolutionary contingent
dependendencies. The disjunction of all dualities via ersatz spatio-temporality creates Samsara. The ending of Samsara is the
ending and re-uniting of all falsely dichotomised binary definitions. About which: we can say precisely nothing.
Does this mean language is dead? No way. Language is there for the reclamation by understanding its superimpositional qualitiy
(upacara). A metaphoric understanding that George Lakoff has reached with Mark Johnston totally independently of Buddhism.
I call it 'poetic objectivism' of 'critical realism' which is the non-nihilational, non-solipsistic, middle way. Which precisely
nihilates both elitism and capitalism: which is why there is so much confusion around the language. There is more at stake
than mere linguistics. The future of humanity will be determined by our relationship with our languages.
vexarb
@BigB: "The fact of a pre-existent, mind-independent, objective ground for reality is no longer tenable. Objectivism is dead."
Do you mean that there is more to life than just "atoms and empty space"? Plato, Dante and Blake (to name the first 3 who
popped into my head) would have agreed with that: the ground of objective reality is mind -- the mind of God.
"The atoms of Democritus, and Newton's particles of Light,
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore, Where Israel's tents do shine so bright".
Tim Jenkins
Funnily enough, I was only writing just yesterday on OffG's 'India's Tryst with Destiny' article, just what poor standards
we have in the Education of our children today, in urgent need of massive revisions, which I've highlighted and how the guilt
lays squarely on the shoulders of Scientists & Academia in our Universities, from Physics to History & Law & the 'Physiology
of Psychology' these guys really just don't 'cut it' anymore resting on Laurels, living in Fear and corrupted by capitalism
>>> wholly !
Somebody should be shot, I say for Terrorist Acts !
Corruption is the Destruction of Culture &
"The Destruction of Culture is a Terrorist Act", now officially,
in international Law @UNESCO (thanks, Irina Bokova)
Would the author of this piece like to review & correct some obviously glaring errors ?
George
Good article. On this topic, I read an essay by the late Ellen Meiksins Wood where she noted that our splendid "new Left" are
all at once too pessimistic and too optimistic. Too pessimistic because they blandly assume that socialism is dead and so all
struggles in that direction are futile. Too optimistic because they assume that this (up till now) bearable capitalism around
them can simply continue with its shopping sprees, pop celebrity culture, soap operas, scandal sheets, ineffectual though comfortable
tut-tutting over corrupt and stupid politicians and – best of all – its endless opportunity for writing postmodernist deconstructions
of all those phenomena.
Why bother getting your hands dirty with an actual worker's struggle when you can write yet another
glamorously "radical" critique of the latest Hollywood blockbuster (which in truth just ends up as another advert for it)?
Fair Dinkum
During the 50's and 60's most folks living in Western cultures were happy with their lot: One house, one car, one spouse, one
job, three or four kids and enough money to live the 'good life'
Then along came Vance Packard's 'Hidden Persuaders' and hell broke loose.
The One Per Cent saw an opportunity of unlimited exploitation and they ran with it.
They're still running (albeit in jets and yachts) and us Proles are either struggling or crawling.
Greed is neither Left or Right.
It exists for its own self gratification.
Seamus Padraig
Excellent article and very true. Just one minor quibble:
This coalition between an economic policy that serves the interest of a tiny minority, and an ideology that appears to
"include" everybody is what Nancy Fraser has aptly called "progressive neoliberalism".
Actually, post-modernism doesn't include everybody -- just the 'marginalized' and 'disenfranchised' minorities whom
Michel Foucault championed. The whole thing resembles nothing so much as the old capitalist strategy of playing off the
Lumpenproletariat against the proletariat, to borrow the original Marxist terminology.
Stephen Morrell
The following facile claim doesn't bear scrutiny: "At the very moment when the "threat" of real existing socialism was not
felt anymore, due to the Western economic and military superiority in the 1980ies (that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall),
the economic paradigm in the Western countries shifted."
The economic paradigm shifted well before the 1980s and it had nothing to do with "Western economic and military superiority
in the 1980ies". The death knell of Keynesianism was sounded with the de-linking of the US dollar and the gold standard in
1971 and the first oil crisis of 1973. Subsequently, the 1970s were marked by a continuous and escalating campaign of capital
strikes which produced both high inflation and high unemployment ('stagflation') in the main imperial centres. These strikes
persisted until the bourgeoisie's servants were able to implement their desired 'free market' measures in the 1980s, the key
ones being smashing of trade union power and consequent devastation of working conditions and living standards, privatisation
of essential services, dissolution of social welfare and all the rest. All in the name of 'encouraging investment'.
The fear of 'existing socialism' (and of the military might of Eastern Europe and the USSR) persisted right up to the restoration
of capitalism in the USSR in 1991-92. The post-soviet triumphalism (to that moronic and ultimate post-modernist war cry, 'The
End of History') only opened the floodgates for the imposition of the neoliberal paradigm over the whole globe. The real essence
of the 'globalisation' ideology has been this imposition of imperial monopoly and hegemony on economically backward but resource-rich
countries that hitherto could gain some respite or succour from the USSR and Eastern Europe as an alternative to the tender
mercies of the World Bank and IMF whose terms correspondingly centred on the neoliberal paradigm.
The key class-war victories of the 1980s by the ruling class, especially in the main Anglophone imperial centres (exemplified
by the air traffic controllers strike in Reagan's US and the Great Coal Strike in Thatcher's England), were the necessary condition
to them getting their way domestically. However, the dissolution of the USSR not only allowed the imperialists to rampage internationally
(through the World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc) but gave great fillip to their initial class-war victories at home to impose with impunity
ever more grinding impoverishment and austerity on the working class and oppressed -- from the 1990s right up to fraught and
crisis-ridden present. The impunity was fuelled in many countries by that domestic accompaniment to the dissolution of the
USSR, the rapidly spiralling and terminal decline of the mass Stalinist Communist parties, the bourgeoisie's bogeyman.
Finally, productivity in the capitalist west was always higher than in post-capitalist countries. The latter universally
have been socialised economies built in economically backward countries and saddled with stultifying Stalinist bureaucracies,
including in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Capitalist productivity didn't suddenly exceed that in the USSR or Eastern Europe
in the 1980s.
So, overall, the 'triumph' of the neoliberal paradigm didn't really have much to do with the imperialist lie of "Western
economic and military superiority in the 1980ies". That fairytale might fit into some post-modernist relativist epistemology
of everything being equally 'true' or 'valid', but in the real world it doesn't hold up empirically or logically. In Anglophone
philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and hyper-objectivist
structuralism correspondingly was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism.
Seamus Padraig
The death knell of Keynesianism was sounded with the de-linking of the US dollar and the gold standard in 1971 and the
first oil crisis of 1973.
Not really, no. In fact, we still do have Keynesianism; but now, it's just a Keynsianism for the banks, the corporations
and the MIC rather than the rest of us. But check the stats: the governments of West are still heavily involved in deficit
spending–US deficits, in fact, haven't been this big since WW2! Wish I got some of that money
Tim Jenkins
I find this kind of a pointless discussion on Keynes & so on
"Capitalism has Failed." Christine Lagarde 27/5/2014 Mansion House
"Socialism for the Rich" (Stiglitz: Nobel Economic laureate, 2008/9)
More important is the structuring of Central Banks to discuss and
Richard A. Werner's sound observations in the link
Riddle me this Seamus: this year we just got a new statue of Woodrow Wilson in Plovdiv BG.
Last year we got a statue of John no-name McCain in Sofia Bulgaria
See the patterns in the most poverty stricken EU nation ?
Not difficult !
vexarb
Seamus, me too! At least, wish I could get some of my own money back.
Tim Jenkins
Whenever I think about some serious R.O.I. of time & money & family contributions to Tech. Designs, lost in the '80's, I have
to play some music or switch to Zen mode 🙂
vexarb
@Tim: "R.O.I (Return On Investment)". The first time I have come across that P.O.V (Point Of View) on this site. The essence
of Darwin's theory of evolutionary progress: to slowly build on an initial slight advantage. The 80s (I was there), Maggie
Snatcher, Baroness Muck, no such thing as Society, the years that the Locust has eaten. Little ROI despite a tsunami of fiat
money swirling around the electronic world. Where is the ROI from capital in the WC.Clinton / B.Liar / Brown regimes, that
were so boastful of their economic policies. Where are the snows of yesteryear?
Tim Jenkins
Well said, Stephen: this wholly weird wee article certainly begs the question, how old is & where was this tainted memory &
member of academia in the 'Winter of '79' ? and how could he have possibly missed all the denationalisation/privatisation,
beginning with NFC and onwards, throughout the '80's, under Thatcher ? Culminating in screwing UK societal futures, by failing
to rollout Fibre Optic Cable in the UK, (except for the Square Mile city interests of London) which Boris now promises to do
today, nationwide,
a mere 30 years too damn late, when it would have been so cheap, back then and production costs could have been tied to
contracts of sale of the elite British Tech. at that time
Worth reading both part one & two of that link, imo scandalous !
Nice wholly suitable reference to Althusser 😉 say no more.
Talk about 'Bonkers' 🙂 we shan't be buying the book, for sure 🙂
Your comment was way more valuable. Do people get paid for writing things like this, these days. I was just outside Linz
for 2 months, just before last Christmas and I found more knowledgeable people on the street, in & around Hitler's ole' 'patch',
during his formative years, on the streets of Linz: where the joke goes something along the lines of
"If a homeless unemployed artist can't make it in Austria, he has nothing to fear, knowing that he can be on the road to
becoming the Chancellor of Germany in just another year "
BigB
I was right with you to the end, Stephen. Althusser killed his wife for sure: but he was deemed insane and never stood trial.
He was almost certainly suffering from a combination of conditions, exacerbated by a severe form of PTSD, as we would call
it now.
Whether or not one has sympathy for this has become highly politicised. Classic Liberals, anti-communists, and radical feminists
always seem to portray the 'murder' as a rational act of the misogynistic male in the grips of a radical philosophy for which
wife murder is as natural a consequence as the Gulag. His supporters try to portray the 'mercy' killing of Helene as an 'act
of love'. It wasn't that simple though, was it? Nor that black and white.
I cannot imagine what life was like in a German concentration camp for someone who was already suffering from mental illness.
From what I have read: the 'treatment' available in the '50s was worse than the underlying condition. He was also 'self-medicating'.
I cannot imagine what the state of his mind was in 1980: but I am inclined to cut him some slack. A lot of slack.
I cannot agree with your last statement. Althusser's madness was not a global trigger event – proceeding as a natural consequence
from "hyper-subjectivist post-modernism". Which makes for a literary original, but highly inaccurate metaphor. Not least because
Althusser was generally considered as a Structuralist himself.
Other than that, great comment.
Stephen Morrell
I understand your sentiments toward Althusser, and am sorry if my remarks about him were insensitive or offensive. However,
I know from personal experience of hardline Althusserian academic philosophers who suddenly became post-modernists after the
unfortunate incident. The point I was trying to make was that his philosophy wasn't abandoned for philosophical reasons but
non-philosophical, moral ones. It wasn't a condemnation of Althusser. It was a condemnation of many of his followers.
I made no claim that this was some kind of 'global trigger event'. Philosophy departments, or ideas as such, don't bring
change. If post-modernism didn't become useful to at least some sectors of the ruling class at some point, then it would have
remained an academic backwater (as it should have). Nor that post-modernism was some kind of 'natural consequence' of structuralism
(which is what I think you meant). Philosophically, it was a certainly one reaction to structuralism, one among several. Other
more rational reactions to structuralism included EP Thompson's and Sebastiano Timpinaro's.
As Marx said, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" [German Ideology], and if the ruling class
finds some of them useful they'll adopt them. Or as Milton Friedman, one of the main proponents of neoliberalism, proclaimed:
"Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on
the ideas that are lying around." Post-modernism, as a philosophy 'lying around', serves as a nice philosophical/ideological
fit for the intelligentsia to rationalise the anti-science ideology the ruling class today is foisting on rest of the population.
Politically, Althusser was disowned by many French leftists for his support of the thoroughly counter-revolutionary role
of the Stalinist PCF in the 1968 May events. His authority lasted for over a decade longer in the Anglophone countries.
Lochearn
"In Anglophone philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and
hyper-objectivist structuralism correspondingly was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism."
Wonderful sentence. I'll keep that – if I may – for some imaginary dinner table with some imaginary academic friends.
Tim Jenkins
I was thinking exactly the same and imagining the window of opportunity to provoke some sound conversation, after some spluttering of red w(h)ine
Stephen Morrell
Thank you. I'll rephrase it to improve it slightly if you like:
In Anglophone philosophic academia at least, post-modernism really picked up only after Althusser strangled his wife, and
in revenge hyper-objectivist structuralism was strangled by hyper-subjectivist post-modernism.
Red Allover
Mr. Morrell's use of the phrase "stultifying Stalinist bureaucracies," to describe the actually existing Socialist societies
of the Eastern bloc, indicates to me that he is very much of the bourgeois mind set that he purports to criticize. This "plague
on both your houses" attitude is very typical of the lower middle class intellectual in capitalist countries, c.f. Chomsky,
Zizek, etc.
Stephen Morrell
On the contrary, all the remaining workers states (China, North Korea, Viet Nam, Laos and Cuba) must be defended against imperialist
attack and internal counterrevolution despite the bureaucratic castes that hold political power in these countries. Political,
not social, revolutions are needed to sweep away these bureaucracies to establish organs of workers democracy and political
power (eg soviets) which never existed in these countries (unlike in the first years of the USSR).
To his last days, the dying Lenin fought the rising bureaucracy led by Stalin, but Russia's backwardness and the failure
of the revolution to spread to an advanced country (especially Germany, October 1923) drove its rise. Its ideological shell
was the profoundly reactionary outlook and program of 'Socialism in One Country' (and only one country). And while Stalin defeated
him and his followers, it was Trotsky who came to a Marxist, materialist understanding of what produced and drove the Soviet
Thermidor. Trotsky didn't go running off to the bourgeoisie of the world blubbering about a 'new class' the way Kautsky, Djilas,
Shachtman, Cliff, et al. did.
The restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union was a profound defeat for the working class worldwide, as it would be
for the remaining workers states. Now if that's a 'bourgeois mindset' of a 'lower middle class intellectual', be my guest and
nominate the bourgeois or petty bourgeois layers that hold such views. Certainly Chomsky, Zizek et al. couldn't agree with
such an outlook, but it's only the bourgeoisie and the Stalinists who contend that the workers states are 'socialist' or 'communist'.
Only a true post-modernist could delude themselves into concurring, or claim that the political repression, censorship and
corrupting bureaucratism of the Stalinist regimes were indeed not stultifying.
Red Allover
Thanks for your intelligent response. I am very familiar with the Trotskyist positions you outline. I could give you the Leninist
rebuttal to each of them, but you are probably familiar with them as well. I don't want to waste your time, or mine. However,
if you don't mind me asking, exactly at what point do you feel capitalism was restored in the USSR? It was, I take it, with
the first Five Year Plan, not the NEP?
Also, the Socialist or, to use your nomenclature, "Stalinist" system, that was destroyed in the the USSR in the 1990s–it was,
in truth, just one form of capitalism replaced by another form of capitalism? Would this summarize your view accurately?
Stephen Morrell
Capitalism was restored in the USSR in 1991-92. Stalinism was not another form of capitalism, as the Third Campists would contend.
The Stalinist bureaucracy rested on exactly the same property relations a socialist system would which were destroyed with
Yeltsin's (and Bush's) counterrevolution. Last, I've never labelled the Stalinist bureaucracy as a 'system'.
Perhaps if you changed your moniker to: "Troll Allover" one could take you seriously, well, not really – 'seriously' – but
at least in a sort of weird, twisted & warped post-modern sense – eh?
Red Allover
I'm sorry, what is the argument you are making? I know name calling is beneath intelligent, educated people.
"This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all
that stuff, you should get over that quickly," Obama said, to some laughs from the crowd.
"The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws." he
continued.
Obama cited college campuses and social media as a breeding ground for wokeness.
"One danger I see among young people particularly on college campuses," he said, "I do get
a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media,
there is this sense sometimes the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible
about other people and that's enough."
Obama then directly poked fun at 'woke' keyboard warriors:
"Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or used the wrong verb
or then, I can sit back and feel good about myself: 'You see how woke I was? I called you
out.'" he mocked.
In a nutshell, Obama is saying we all need a little more aloha spirit -- being
respectful & caring for one another. Not being so quick to judge. Not seeing everything
as black/white. I hope you'll join me in bringing the spirit of aloha to the White House.
https://t.co/tYADx6Dzqs
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did an
about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the usual
suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a corporation.
I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
People are defending Warbama's helping DOW screw women who had breast cancer out of their
settlement. It's absolutely sickening to see people defending the indefensible. "She needed
the experience." WTAF does that even mean?
Obama made some pretty campaign finance promises in the 2008 primary, and then did
an about-face during the general, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the
usual suspects. Then he declined to prosecute the bankers. Let's not do that again.
Bernie Sanders on Elizabeth Warren's work for big corporations such as advising Dow
Chemical:
"I'll let the American people make that judgment. I've never worked for a
corporation. I've never carried their baggage in the U.S. Senate." pic.twitter.com/yV9TRw7jPB
of identity politics is bullshit. He's offended enough by irrationality that he's willing
to comment on that in public--now that he's out of the Presidency and doesn't have to win any
more elections.
However, none of that would stop him (or did stop him) using that kind of identity
politics to the hilt for his own political advantage.
#2 Go
on ahead and mock all you want. Those of us who see you for what you are will never stop
seeing it and calling you out on it. Boohoo mofo.
Supporting neoliberalism is the key treason of contemporary intellectuals eeho were instrumental in decimating the New Deal capitalism,
to say nothing about neocon, who downgraded themselves into intellectual prostitutes of MIC mad try to destroy post WWII order.
Notable quotes:
"... More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. ..."
"... "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration. ..."
"... In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates' devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles sounds! ..."
"... In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other 'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time." ..."
"... In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him. ..."
"... His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ." ..."
"... From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm is erupting in every corner of cultural life today. ..."
"... Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned by the court of diversity." ..."
"... Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit." ..."
"... Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason ..."
"... In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity." ..."
"... The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. ..."
"... In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things, this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual divisions ..."
"... Granted, the belief that there is "Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science": these are among today's talismanic fetishes. ..."
"... Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism." The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational animus in the mid-1940s. ..."
"... Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce, anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity." ..."
"... The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. ..."
"... There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group ..."
"... To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection of culture to anthropology. ..."
"... In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than Shakespeare." ..."
"... The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? ..."
"... . Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference: Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value ..."
"... The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim." ..."
"... "'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children and of the detractors of the West. ..."
"... There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. ..."
"... As the impassioned proponents of "diversity" meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom. ..."
"... Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but the idea of a world common to all men." ..."
On the abandonment of Enlightenment intellectualism, and the emergence of a new form of Volksgeist.
When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning. -- Alain Finkielkraut,
The Undoing of Thought
Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities
for re-establishing our former ignorance? -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
I n 1927, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison
des clercs. I said "famous," but perhaps "once famous" would have been more accurate. For today, in the United States anyway,
only the title of the book, not its argument, enjoys much currency. "La trahison des clercs": it is one of those memorable phrases
that bristles with hints and associations without stating anything definite. Benda tells us that he uses the term "clerc" in "the
medieval sense," i.e., to mean "scribe," someone we would now call a member of the intelligentsia. Academics and journalists, pundits,
moralists, and pontificators of all varieties are in this sense clercs . The English translation, The Treason of the Intellectuals
,
1 sums it up neatly.
The "treason" in question was the betrayal by the "clerks" of their vocation as intellectuals. From the time of the pre-Socratics,
intellectuals, considered in their role as intellectuals, had been a breed apart. In Benda's terms, they were understood to
be "all those whose activity essentially is not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice
of an art or a science or a metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages." Thanks to such men,
Benda wrote, "humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and
formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world."
According to Benda, however, this situation was changing. More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to
the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal
of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. The attack on the universal went forward
in social and political life as well as in the refined precincts of epistemology and metaphysics: "Those who for centuries had exhorted
men, at least theoretically, to deaden the feeling of their differences have now come to praise them, according to where the sermon
is given, for their 'fidelity to the French soul,' 'the immutability of their German consciousness,' for the 'fervor of their Italian
hearts.'" In short, intellectuals began to immerse themselves in the unsettlingly practical and material world of political passions:
precisely those passions, Benda observed, "owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions,
class passions and national passions." The "rift" into which civilization had been wont to slip narrowed and threatened to close
altogether.
Writing at a moment when ethnic and nationalistic hatreds were beginning to tear Europe asunder, Benda's diagnosis assumed the
lineaments of a prophecy -- a prophecy that continues to have deep resonance today. "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual
organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in
the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little
more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the
greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration.
J ulien Benda was not so naïve as to believe that intellectuals as a class had ever entirely abstained from political involvement,
or, indeed, from involvement in the realm of practical affairs. Nor did he believe that intellectuals, as citizens, necessarily
should abstain from political commitment or practical affairs. The "treason" or betrayal he sought to publish concerned the
way that intellectuals had lately allowed political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation
as such. Increasingly, Benda claimed, politics was "mingled with their work as artists, as men of learning, as philosophers." The
ideal of disinterestedness, the universality of truth: such guiding principles were contemptuously deployed as masks when they were
not jettisoned altogether. It was in this sense that he castigated the " desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values
of action ."
In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed "the cult of success."
It is summed up, he writes, in "the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas
the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt." In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek
sophists on down reminds us. In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates'
devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts
Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully
pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles
sounds!
In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles
espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism
by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other
'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things
were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time."
In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him.
To appreciate the force of Benda's thesis one need only think of that most influential modern Callicles, Friedrich Nietzsche.
His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and
evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real
problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all
values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated
but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ."
Benda understood that the stakes were high: the treason of the intellectuals signaled not simply the corruption of a bunch of
scribblers but a fundamental betrayal of culture. By embracing the ethic of Callicles, intellectuals had, Benda reckoned, precipitated
"one of the most remarkable turning points in the moral history of the human species. It is impossible," he continued,
to exaggerate the importance of a movement whereby those who for twenty centuries taught Man that the criterion of the morality
of an act is its disinterestedness, that good is a decree of his reason insofar as it is universal, that his will is only moral
if it seeks its law outside its objects, should begin to teach him that the moral act is the act whereby he secures his existence
against an environment which disputes it, that his will is moral insofar as it is a will "to power," that the part of his soul
which determines what is good is its "will to live" wherein it is most "hostile to all reason," that the morality of an act is
measured by its adaptation to its end, and that the only morality is the morality of circumstances. The educators of the human
mind now take sides with Callicles against Socrates, a revolution which I dare to say seems to me more important than all political
upheavals.
The Treason of the Intellectuals is an energetic hodgepodge of a book. The philosopher Jean-François Revel recently
described it as "one of the fussiest pleas on behalf of the necessary independence of intellectuals." Certainly it is rich, quirky,
erudite, digressive, and polemical: more an exclamation than an analysis. Partisan in its claims for disinterestedness, it is ruthless
in its defense of intellectual high-mindedness. Yet given the horrific events that unfolded in the decades following its publication,
Benda's unremitting attack on the politicization of the intellect and ethnic separatism cannot but strike us as prescient. And given
the continuing echo in our own time of the problems he anatomized, the relevance of his observations to our situation can hardly
be doubted. From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands
for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues
to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm
is erupting in every corner of cultural life today.
In 1988, the young French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut took up where Benda left off, producing a brief
but searching inventory of our contemporary cataclysms. Entitled La Défaite de la pensée
2 ("The 'Defeat' or 'Undoing' of Thought"), his essay is in part an updated taxonomy of intellectual betrayals. In this
sense, the book is a trahison des clercs for the post-Communist world, a world dominated as much by the leveling imperatives
of pop culture as by resurgent nationalism and ethnic separatism. Beginning with Benda, Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent
strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century
German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that
of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned
by the court of diversity."
Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit."
Quoting the French historian Joseph Renan, he describes the idea as "the most dangerous explosive of modern times." "Nothing," he
writes, "can stop a state that has become prey to the Volksgeist ." It is one of Finkielkraut's leitmotifs that today's multiculturalists
are in many respects Herder's (generally unwitting) heirs.
True, Herder's emphasis on history and language did much to temper the tendency to abstraction that one finds in some expressions
of the Enlightenment. Ernst Cassirer even remarked that "Herder's achievement is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of the
philosophy of the Enlightenment."
Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction
of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason. Finkielkraut opposes this just as the
mature Goethe once took issue with Herder's adoration of the Volksgeist. Finkielkraut concedes that we all "relate to a particular
tradition" and are "shaped by our national identity." But, unlike the multiculturalists, he soberly insists that "this reality merit[s]
some recognition, not idolatry."
In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes
the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive
worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity."
The Undoing of Thought resembles The Treason of the Intellectuals stylistically as well as thematically. Both
books are sometimes breathless congeries of sources and aperçus. And Finkielkraut, like Benda (and, indeed, like Montaigne), tends
to proceed more by collage than by demonstration. But he does not simply recapitulate Benda's argument.
The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still
had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much
attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. Finkielkraut's distinctive contribution is to have taken the
measure of the cultural swamp that surrounds us, to have delineated the links joining the politicization of the intellect and its
current forms of debasement.
In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things,
this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual
divisions.
The humanizing "reason" that Enlightenment champions is a universal reason, sharable, in principle, by all. Such ideals have not
fared well in the twentieth century: Herder's progeny have labored hard to discredit them. Granted, the belief that there is
"Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular
chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science":
these are among today's talismanic fetishes.
Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism."
The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason
and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other
absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer
and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational
animus in the mid-1940s.
Safely ensconced in Los Angeles, these refugees from Hitler's Reich published an influential essay on the concept of Enlightenment.
Among much else, they assured readers that "Enlightenment is totalitarian." Never mind that at that very moment the Nazi war machine
-- what one might be forgiven for calling real totalitarianism -- was busy liquidating millions of people in order to fulfill
another set of anti-Enlightenment fantasies inspired by devotion to the Volksgeist .
The diatribe that Horkheimer and Adorno mounted against the concept of Enlightenment reminds us of an important peculiarity about
the history of Enlightenment: namely, that it is a movement of thought that began as a reaction against tradition and has now emerged
as one of tradition's most important safeguards. Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce,
anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity."
The chief enemy of Enlightenment was "superstition," an omnibus term that included all manner of religious, philosophical, and
moral ideas. But as the sociologist Edward Shils has noted, although the Enlightenment was in important respects "antithetical to
tradition" in its origins, its success was due in large part "to the fact that it was promulgated and pursued in a society in which
substantive traditions were rather strong." "It was successful against its enemies," Shils notes in his book Tradition (1981),
because the enemies were strong enough to resist its complete victory over them. Living on a soil of substantive traditionality,
the ideas of the Enlightenment advanced without undoing themselves. As long as respect for authority on the one side and self-confidence
in those exercising authority on the other persisted, the Enlightenment's ideal of emancipation through the exercise of reason
went forward. It did not ravage society as it would have done had society lost all legitimacy.
It is this mature form of Enlightenment, championing reason but respectful of tradition, that Finkielkraut holds up as an ideal.
W hat Finkielkraut calls "the undoing of thought" flows from the widespread disintegration of a faith. At the center of that faith
is the assumption that the life of thought is "the higher life" and that culture -- what the Germans call Bildung -- is its
end or goal.
The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many
anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed
with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. "It
is," he writes, "the first time in European history that non-thought has donned the same label and enjoyed the same status as thought
itself, and the first time that those who, in the name of 'high culture,' dare to call this non-thought by its name, are dismissed
as racists and reactionaries." The attack is perpetrated not from outside, by uncomprehending barbarians, but chiefly from inside,
by a new class of barbarians, the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia. This is the undoing of thought. This is the new "treason
of the intellectuals."
There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's
scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual
in favor of the group . "Their most extraordinary feat," he observes, "is to have put forward as the ultimate individual liberty
the unconditional primacy of the collective." Western rationalism and individualism are rejected in the name of a more "authentic"
cult.
One example: Finkielkraut quotes a champion of multiculturalism who maintains that "to help immigrants means first of all respecting
them for what they are, respecting whatever they aspire to in their national life, in their distinctive culture and in their attachment
to their spiritual and religious roots." Would this, Finkielkraut asks, include "respecting" those religious codes which demanded
that the barren woman be cast out and the adulteress be punished with death?
What about those cultures in which the testimony of one man counts for that of two women? In which female circumcision is practiced?
In which slavery flourishes? In which mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy encouraged? Multiculturalism, as Finkielkraut points
out, requires that we respect such practices. To criticize them is to be dismissed as "racist" and "ethnocentric." In this secular
age, "cultural identity" steps in where the transcendent once was: "Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond
reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness."
To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection
of culture to anthropology. Finkielkraut speaks in this context of a "cheerful confusion which raises everyday anthropological
practices to the pinnacle of the human race's greatest achievements." This process began in the nineteenth century, but it has been
greatly accelerated in our own age. One thinks, for example, of the tireless campaigning of that great anthropological leveler, Claude
Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss is assuredly a brilliant writer, but he has also been an extraordinarily baneful influence. Already in
the early 1950s, when he was pontificating for UNESCO , he was urging all and sundry to "fight against ranking cultural differences
hierarchically." In La Pensée sauvage (1961), he warned against the "false antinomy between logical and prelogical mentality"
and was careful in his descriptions of natives to refer to "so-called primitive thought." "So-called" indeed. In a famous article
on race and history, Lévi-Strauss maintained that the barbarian was not the opposite of the civilized man but "first of all the man
who believes there is such a thing as barbarism." That of course is good to know. It helps one to appreciate Lévi-Strauss's claim,
in Tristes Tropiques (1955), that the "true purpose of civilization" is to produce "inertia." As one ruminates on the proposition
that cultures should not be ranked hierarchically, it is also well to consider what Lévi-Strauss coyly refers to as "the positive
forms of cannibalism." For Lévi-Strauss, cannibalism has been unfairly stigmatized in the "so-called" civilized West. In fact, he
explains, cannibalism was "often observed with great discretion, the vital mouthful being made up of a small quantity of organic
matter mixed, on occasion, with other forms of food." What, merely a "vital mouthful"? Not to worry! Only an ignoramus who believed
that there were important distinctions, qualitative distinctions, between the barbarian and the civilized man could possibly
think of objecting.
Of course, the attack on distinctions that Finkielkraut castigates takes place not only among cultures but also within a given
culture. Here again, the anthropological imperative has played a major role. "Under the equalizing eye of social science," he writes,
hierarchies are abolished, and all the criteria of taste are exposed as arbitrary. From now on no rigid division separates masterpieces
from run-of-the mill works. The same fundamental structure, the same general and elemental traits are common to the "great" novels
(whose excellence will henceforth be demystified by the accompanying quotation marks) and plebian types of narrative activity.
F or confirmation of this, one need only glance at the pronouncements of our critics. Whether working in the academy or other
cultural institutions, they bring us the same news: there is "no such thing" as intrinsic merit, "quality" is an only ideological
construction, aesthetic value is a distillation of social power, etc., etc.
In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the
name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and
say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than
Shakespeare."
Those whom Finkielkraut calls "postmodernists," waving the standard of radical chic, declare that Shakespeare is no better than
the latest fashion -- no better, say, than the newest item offered by Calvin Klein. The litany that Finkielkraut recites is familiar:
A comic which combines exciting intrigue and some pretty pictures is just as good as a Nabokov novel. What little Lolitas read
is as good as Lolita . An effective publicity slogan counts for as much as a poem by Apollinaire or Francis Ponge . The
footballer and the choreographer, the painter and the couturier, the writer and the ad-man, the musician and the rock-and-roller,
are all the same: creators. We must scrap the prejudice which restricts that title to certain people and regards others as sub-cultural.
The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high
culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? Anyone
who thinks so should take a moment to recall the major exhibition called "High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" that the Museum
of Modern Art mounted a few years ago: it might have been called "Krazy Kat Meets Picasso." Few events can have so consummately summed
up the corrosive trivialization of culture now perpetrated by those entrusted with preserving it. Among other things, that exhibition
demonstrated the extent to which the apotheosis of popular culture undermines the very possibility of appreciating high art on its
own terms.
When the distinction between culture and entertainment is obliterated, high art is orphaned, exiled from the only context in which
its distinctive meaning can manifest itself: Picasso becomes a kind of cartoon. This, more than any elitism or obscurity,
is the real threat to culture today. As Hannah Arendt once observed, "there are many great authors of the past who have survived
centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version
of what they have to say."
And this brings us to the question of freedom. Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar
to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference:
Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of
the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value.
For the postmodernist, then, "culture is no longer seen as a means of emancipation, but as one of the élitist obstacles to this."
The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism
promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is
a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change
one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim."
What Finkielkraut has understood with admirable clarity is that modern attacks on elitism represent not the extension but the
destruction of culture. "Democracy," he writes, "once implied access to culture for everybody. From now on it is going to mean everyone's
right to the culture of his choice." This may sound marvelous -- it is after all the slogan one hears shouted in academic and cultural
institutions across the country -- but the result is precisely the opposite of what was intended.
"'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children
and of the detractors of the West." The irony, alas, is that by removing standards and declaring that "anything goes," one does
not get more culture, one gets more and more debased imitations of culture. This fraud is the dirty secret that our cultural commissars
refuse to acknowledge.
There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common
humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "A careless indifference to grand
causes," Finkielkraut warns, "has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force." As the impassioned proponents of "diversity"
meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom.
Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but
the idea of a world common to all men."
Julien Benda took his epigraph for La Trahison des clercs from the nineteenth-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier:
Le monde souffre du manque de foi en une vérité transcendante : "The world suffers from lack of faith in a transcendent truth."
Without some such faith, we are powerless against the depredations of intellectuals who have embraced the nihilism of Callicles as
their truth.
1The Treason of the Intellectuals, by Julien Benda, translated by Richard Aldington, was first published in 1928.
This translation is still in print from Norton.
2La Défaite de la pensée , by Alain Finkielkraut; Gallimard, 162 pages, 72 FF . It is available in English, in
a translation by Dennis O'Keeffe, as The Undoing of Thought (The Claridge Press [London], 133 pages, £6.95 paper).
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. His latest book
is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press)
"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the
state law.
Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special
privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell
"discrimination"
Maybe the fastest way to reduce STDs is to stop promoting homosexuality in our schools.
Since HIV inhibitors were created and HIV virtually cured, the gay community has been in
overdrive on the sexual practices that causes most of the STDs on the report. Just like the
80's the doctors in these studies suggest a massive increase in spending across everyone when
in fact, you can reduce the rate of these diseases massively by targeting this subsector of
society that continues these filthy practices.
"In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary
and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and
gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human
papillomavirus) , the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay,
bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal
warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other
men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men.
Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal
cancer."
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
On the other hand, as someone over 40 who isn't a dramatic, hysterical weirdo like at
least 30% of those under 35 are, I'm liking my job prospects over the next 15 years as
employers get sick of this shit and notice a pattern. Wonder if they'll make "reverse age
discrimination" a thing.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
I'm no fan of Google (anymore) but to be fair, Google employs 103,459 people as of Q1
2019. 45 people throwing a fit is an acceptable margin considering their overall size.
I agree their is an issue with ageism but I disagree with the idea that it would reduce
the number of people throwing a fit because nutcases come in all ages.
It's just such a coincidence that the people Google tends to hire would be so high
maintenance. Just one of those weird things I guess. Google should keep hiring the same
people, I'm sure it will turn out different!
OTOH, consider that Google has over 100K employees, and in a few months 45 such stories
were collected... and the stories themselves cover a period of a couple of years. I don't
want to minimize the issues suffered by any mistreated employee, but I find it hard to
believe that any company could be so perfectly well-managed as to not have a couple dozen
cases per year where employees were pretty badly treated. Or, as you imply, that a couple
dozen employees might feel mistreated even when they aren't. I prefer to give the benefit of
the doubt to the individuals.
As a Google employee myself I do have some concern about the alleged retaliation against
the organizers of the walkout. That sort of thing could have a chilling effect on future
protests (though I've seen no evidence of it so far), and I think that's a potential problem.
It's important that employees feel free to protest actions by the company if a large enough
percentage of them are bothered by it. Personally, I didn't join the walkout, but some others
on my team did and I supported their action even though I didn't agree with their
complaint.
On the other hand, as someone over 40 who isn't a dramatic, hysterical weirdo like at
least 30% of those under 35 are, I'm liking my job prospects over the next 15 years as
employers get sick of this shit and notice a pattern. Wonder if they'll make "reverse age
discrimination" a thing.
FWIW, in my nearly 10 years with Google I've seen no evidence of age discrimination. A
large percentage of new hires are straight out of college (mostly grad school), which does
skew the employee population young, but I'm in my 50s and I've worked with guys in their 60s
and one in his mid-70s. Of course, my experience is anecdotal.
Please keep doing this. People without a sense of humor are the worst, especially when
they're cunts who report everybody whenever they don't get the job
I'm a straight white guy, and I have worked with a guy who was a never-ending source of
sexual and racist "jokes." I never reported him, but after a couple of months, I wished every
time I worked with him that he'd just shut the fuck up and do his job. Any tactful suggestion
that he do just that was met with more laughing, sneering, "it was only a joke" or "no, you
don't get it." Yes, I got it, man. Your shitty old boomer joke about how you hate your ugly
wife but want to fuck her anyway just wasn't funny. God, it was like a goddamn clown show you
couldn't turn off. It wasn't even so much that I was offended by his shit; it was that he
seemed to genuinely believe he was hilarious, and if you didn't think so, too, you had to
endure his constant, pathetic attempts to make you feel somehow inferior for not appreciating
his humor.
Anyway. People who mistakenly think they have a sense of humor are, indeed, the worst.
No. Consider the words "latino" and "latina." These are gender specific. The fact that
they specify gender is a great harm. A great deal of mental gymnastics are necessary to
perceive that harm, but it is possible.
Yet in the same sentence they mention "female". You can't make this shit up.
While gaslighting does indeed have a useful definition -- one that you can trivially learn
for yourself and I won't repeat here -- that meaning won't be helpful in understanding the
most common use of the word. Gaslighting is a term frequently used to blame someone else for
the difficulty one suffers reconciling reality with the ones own cognitive dissonance.
It's a form of psychological abuse where the abuser acts as if something is true when it
clearly isn't.
It's from a book where a character is driven mad by the people around her claiming the the
gaslights are lit when she can clearly see that they are not. She starts to think that she
must be losing her grip on reality if everyone else can see the gaslights but she can't.
It's not uncommon in abusive relationships, unfortunately.
That's not going to stop a PR disaster unless they do fire them. That's what being a
social justice warrior is all about: Mass shaming.
Point and shame. That's how you destroy careers and the standards of excellence that makes
a nation. No evidence required, don't bother reading the deposition, the personal is the
political, ad hominem attacks from beginning to end for defending someone (Minsky) that
wasn't accused of anything .
With metoo backfiring so that men don't trust being alone in an office with a woman,
feminism is looking a lot like a hate movement with the way they throw accusations of sex
crime around in order to get their hit of indignation to maintain their moral
superiority. Guilt by association, career destroyed, court of opinion adjourned.
Considering what RMS contributed not only to freedom but economic wealth you can see these
people don't care who they destroy and it doesn't matter if you are innocent of all charges
once your reputation is destroyed. Getting even isn't equality.
If they piss off men long enough, they're going to hit back with real patriarchy.
I mean just look at MGTOW... Instead of just being careful when choosing a mate, as they
should have been taught to be anyway, they're just going in the opposite extreme. A
considerable pool of men deciding to be bachelors is neither good for those men
psychologically, nor is it good for the species.
The backlash will be just as dumb as what we're seeing right now. This is a social
equivalent of England and France laying the groundwork for the second world war in
Versailles.
The eradication of accountability is going to come back to haunt us for decades to
come.
Last time I looked more than half the US population is female and President is elected, so
how is that a sign of the patriarchy?
the vast majority of corporate management is male
Studies have shown that men are more willing to put career ahead of family in an effort to
move up the ranks. What is stopping women from doing the same thing?
women are paid less for equal work
This has been debunked in numerous studies. Women are not paid less for equal work but are
paid less in general precisely because they don't do equal work and because during salary
negotiations at hiring time they are, on average, less forceful in demanding a higher
starting salary.
These reports claiming otherwise are looking solely at titles - oh Jane the Jr. Java
Developer makes less than Joe the Jr. Java Developer, obviously the company is paying women
less.
Let's not consider, however, that Jane only works 9-4 so she can be home with her kids,
won't pull weekend duties or be on call late night, whereas Joe is in at 7, leaves at 6,
works on weekends to meet deadlines and carries a pager 1 week out of 4. Also, let's not
consider that when being hired Joe negotiated up from the offered $68k start to a starting
salary of $75k as a base and Jane simply accepted the offered $68k.
Both were given the exact same opportunities, but Joe works harder, more hours and was
willing to negotiate a hgher starting wage.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good attack narrative shall we?
they cannot be priests
Yes they can in many denominations, maybe not yours but others.
huge percentages of them have been raped
huge is an overstatement, studies show it around 20%. Also if you look at the statistics [wikipedia.org]
not all rapes are against women and not all rapes of women are by men.
If you approach any authority as a man and claim you were raped, not only will they likely
laugh in your face, but probably harass you as well. Women are afraid of not being believed.
Who really cares which gender is raped more often, is it too much to ask that the claims be
taken seriously regardless of gender?
If you want a female president, try nominating a decent female candidate. That criminal
narcissist the Democrats came up with last time couldn't even beat Trump, for fuck's
sake.
Doug Casey : The PC types say there are supposed to be 30 or 40 or 50 different genders --
it's a fluid number. It shows that wide swathes of the country no longer have a grip on actual
physical, scientific reality. That's more than a sign of decline; it's a sign of mass
psychosis.
There's no question that some males are wired to act like females and some females are wired
to act like males. It's certainly a psychological aberration but probably has some basis in
biology.
The problem is when these people politicize their psychological peculiarities, try to turn
it into law, and force the rest of the society to grant them specially protected status.
Thousands of people every year go to doctors to have themselves mutilated so that they can
become something else. Today they can often get the government or insurers to pay for it.
If you want to self-mutilate, that's fine; that's your business even if it's insane. To make
other people pay for it is criminal. But it's now accepted as normal by most of society.
The acceptance of politically correct values -- "diversity," "inclusiveness" -- trigger
warnings, safe spaces, gender fluidity, multiculturalism, and a whole suite of similar things
that show how degraded society has become. Adversaries of Western civilization like the
Mohammedan world and the Chinese justifiably see it as weak, even contemptible.
As with Rome, collapse really comes from internal rot.
Look at who people are voting for. It's not that Americans elected Obama once -- a mob can
be swayed easily enough into making a mistake -- but they reelected him. It's not that New
Yorkers elected Bill de Blasio once, but they reelected him by a landslide. All of the
Democratic candidates out there are saying things that are actually clinically insane and are
being applauded.
International Man : In fact, in the recent Democratic debate, candidate Julián
Castro even mentioned giving government-funded abortions to transgender women -- biological
men. It received one of the loudest bouts of applause from the audience.
That's not to mention that two other candidates spoke in broken Spanish when responding to
the moderator's questions.
"... I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it. I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump. ..."
"... On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign ..."
"... And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite! ..."
"... Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives. ..."
"... However, the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class" onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today. ..."
"... It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit they were wrong. ..."
"... It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs, not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either. ..."
"... Rights are important, but identity politics contain too much whimsy and focus on the self. ..."
"... Yes, but they're politically and economically cheap, don't require much thought, and you get to hang out with pop-stars. ..."
That ship has sailed. Bernie was the opportunity and it wasn't grasped. The moment for a 'left' alternative has been lost
for a long time. The whole globalised liberal paradigm - allied to the metropolitan elite's obsession with identity politics
at the expense of bottom-line issues - has been broken up by people who now realise centre-left politicians (Clinton/Obama)
have presided over whole communities being gutted in the name of 'free' trade (for 'free' trade read labour arbitrage). I felt
it in my bones that Trump would be elected - 55% of US households are worse off than they were in 2000, how on earth could anyone
possibly think that that would result or a vote for the status quo.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street
and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order
to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive
Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and
its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage
that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and
bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever
for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American
car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars
coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat
bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up
to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of
millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those
43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat
bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president
whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia.
Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.
Great article. I think there needs to be a lot of soul searching in certain sections of the media and amongst the left wing
political parties too. They don't have the correct approach to a rapidly changing ground swell of opinion. They are fast becoming
out of touch - leaving a huge void for more conservative rhetoric (euphemism) to take over.
The failure to tackle immigration
concerns across the west is the greatest example of comfy left wing elites being so far away from general consensus imo. The
assumption that if you are concerned about immigration then you are a racist, xenophobic half wit appears rife amongst elites
and the highly educated.
I agree that this is a great article. And I agree that there is a coming migration crisis that we need to be very worried
about, as the refugees from the Middle East try desperately for a better life away from conflict zones and poverty. However,
the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class"
onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today.
The evidence for this is that in the EU referendum, the
areas that were most strongly Leave were generally speaking those with few or no immigrants. I campaigned for Remain here in
Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over
again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned
about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated.
"Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried
deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push. I grew
up in Northern Ireland so I saw this at first hand. My grandfather was a highly intelligent technocrat, but he was also an Orangeman.
He did not seem able to understand that the Catholics he knew and were his friends were the same "them" that he demonised. All
progressive people need now to find a way, as Naomi's article says, to repoint this anger to where it belongs. Sorry if this
makes me a comfy left wing elite!
It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit
they were wrong. Look at the past year here ATL and then BTL. Witness the absolute, unchanging and frankly extreme editorial
line, in the face of massive discourse and well argued opposition BTL. Even now there are no alarm bells ringing in the back
of their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong. No attempt to understand, such is their unwavering belief in the
echo chamber. You will only find an attempted programme of re-education in these pages. They will be still be doing it as Europe
falls into the hands of the far-right.
I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation
in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't
think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated. "Fear the stranger"
is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button
for the right wing to push.
It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs,
not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places
where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation,
privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They
have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Yes. But, in the meantime, the system has become so right-wing that it only permits a right-wing outburst - a Social-Democratic
one is instantly discredited by the totalitarian media outlets.
There is no way to articulate an effective response to this attack within the system.
This article is spot on except that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on the Clinton neoliberal train for reasons
of political expediency. From now on, anything either of them say should be critically examined before being supported.
In order to justify the unjustifiable (a corporate elite exploiting the world as their own
private estate), they constructed an artificial equivalence to make it seem that their
self-interested economic system was part and parcel of a package of 'democracy',
'multi-racial tolerance', 'LGBT tolerance' etc, so that people would be fooled into thinking
that rejecting the economics meant rejecting all the other things too.
George Soros' "Open
Society Foundation'" is a key offender here. The false consciousness thus engendered does
indeed set the scene for fascism, but a genuine left opposition can and needs to be built and
we can only hope that we can succeed in so doing.
"... Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an African-American. ..."
Kamala
Harris's Hillaryesque tweet re Trump meeting Kim at DMZ:
"This President should take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against
humanity seriously. This is not a photo-op. Our security and our values are at stake."
Comments on the thread are telling, and she's not fooling anyone.
Thank goodness that there is one place where Globalism, Boeing, and Kamala Harris can be
discussed. From the bottom, looking up, they are intertwined. Corporate media strictly
ignores the restoration of the robber baron aristocracy, the supremacy of trade treaties, the
endless wars for profit, the free flow of capital, and corrupted governments. The sole
purpose is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.
There are many tell-tale signs that this is an apt description of the world. With
deregulation and outsourcing, there is no incentive to design and build safe airplanes. That
costs money. Two 737 Max(s) crash killing 346. Workplaces are toxic. The life expectancy in
the UK and USA is declining. The US dollar is used as a military weapon. Monopolies buy up
innovation. Corporate law breaking is punished by fines which are added to the cost of doing
business. There is no jail time for chief executives. The cost of storm damage is increasing.
Families are migrating to survive. Nationalist and globalist oligarchs are fighting over the
spoils. Last week the global economy was 10 minutes away from collapse by an American air
attack on Iran.
Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the
USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an
African-American. Neo-Populism and France's Yellow Vests are the direct response to
global capitalism that is supported by Corporate Democrats, New Labour Party, and Emmanuel
Macron. The rise of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in response is no coincidence.
especially read this by Helen Hanna in the comments section:
kamala looked aside while wells fargo bank established 3 million fraudulent accounts while
she was attorney general of california. she did nothing to punish them. she might as well be
wearing a hillary mask. as someone who lived in the bay area for 31 years, i remember her on
the 'matier and ross' interview program--her performance was juvenile and silly--- and i
remember her being willing to join the parade of willie brown's cocaine addicted mistresses,.
as number 21 and as a woman of color, she was a relief---not white, not skanky, no silver
cocaine spoon around her neck while pretending to eat dinner at chez michel with willie, but
why on earth would you want to join this parade and go out with this sleazy man whose kiton
suits do not improve his image one bit, a politician who offended the san francisco public by
his obnoxious habit of publicly flaunting his many skanky female hangers on, and reveling in
their 'whiteness.' what a bad choice kamala made. remember that pelosi and feinstein wouldn't
let willie brown anywhere near the inauguration podium of barack obama because these women
did not want willie's offensive background to sully obama. willie had had an illegitimate
child while 'serving as' mayor of san francisco, a city of 500 churches, mostly catholic. the
catholic church continued to retain him in the role --'of counsel.' that was astounding to
me, absolutely astounding.... willie also laundered drug money in a sutter street garage with
his haberdasher, wilkes bashford, but dianne feinstein prevented him from being jailed. i can
just see the sisterhood at temple emanuel where dianne feinstein worships--i can just see
them admonishing her for even suggesting one of serial adulterer willie's former mistresses
be the first woman president....is that why senator feinstein is keeping such a low profile
lately? what i don't understand is why pelosi and feinstein keep bringing us these
puppet-like women----hillary will always be bill's puppet and kamala will be willie's puppet.
you cannot possibly choose two more sleazy, obnoxious men to be your superior.
Those emotions erupted in the Thursday debate when Kamala Harris took on Biden for his earlier
remarks about the old days of the Senate when he could work collaboratively with Southern
segregationists such as Alabama's James Eastland. Harris said it was "very hurtful" to hear
Biden "talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputation and
career on the segregation of race in this country." She scored Biden also for working with such
senators in opposition to busing for racial balance in schools during the 1970s.
"Do you agree today, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America
then? Do you agree?" she asked with considerable emotion in her voice. She added it was a
personal matter with her given that she had benefited from busing policies as a young girl.
Biden retorted: "A mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise
racists." He added that he never opposed busing as a local policy arrived at through local
politics, but didn't think it should be imposed by the federal government. "That's what I
opposed," he said.
The exchange accentuated the extent to which racial issues are gaining intensity in America
and roiling the nation's politics to a greater extent than in the recent past. Biden's point,
as he sought to explain, was that there was a day when senators of all stripes could work
together on matters of common concern even when they disliked and opposed each other's
fundamental political outlook. That kind of approach could point the way, he implied, to a
greater cooperative spirit in Washington and to breaking the current political deadlock
suffused with such stark animosities. But that merely stirred further animosities, raising
questions about whether today's political rancor in Washington can be easily or soon
ameliorated.
"... a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month: ..."
"... Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride? ..."
"... A "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable. ..."
I long thought the sexualization of little girls in beauty pageants had become gross, and until recently there seemed to be
a growing consensus about that. Now the sexualization of little boys dressed as girls is a cause of great celebration. Count me
out. https://t.co/j7nVQkRJEX
Meanwhile, a cosmetic surgeon in Baltimore is purportedly offering to lop off women's breasts -- including the breasts of teenage
girls -- at a discount, to celebrate Pride month:
1. Latest leak from our source in the affirming parents Facebook group: Dr. Beverly Fischer in Baltimore, MD is offering a
$750 discount on double mastectomies if booked during Pride month, according to this mother.
pic.twitter.com/Od9w0TFXPp
Discount breast-lopping to celebrate a holiday -- is that not the most American thing ever? And you used to think two-for-one
radial tire sales for Washington's Birthday were trashy! Can't you just feel the pride?
We are a sick civilization that deserves to be punished.
A "pride month" sale on plastic surgery to mutilate children's breasts is the most "snapshot of America in 2019" story imaginable.
Welcome to the brave new world, where the neoliberal obsession with consumerism (and the reduction of all human experience to
markets) meets prog-left social chaos. What an unholy union.
What one side believes is preserving the God-given right to life for the unborn, the other
regards as an assault on the rights of women.
The clash raises questions that go beyond our culture war to what America should stand for
in the world.
"American interests and American values are inseparable," Pete Buttigieg told Rachel
Maddow.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Claremont Institute:
"We have had too little courage to confront regimes squarely opposed to our interests and
our values."
Are Pompeo and Mayor Pete talking about the same values?
The mayor is proudly gay and in a same-sex marriage. Yet the right to same-sex marriage did
not even exist in this country until the Supreme Court discovered it a few years ago.
In a 2011 speech to the U.N., Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "Gay rights are human
rights," and she approved of U.S. embassies flying the rainbow flag during Pride Month.
This year, Mike Pompeo told the U.S. embassy in Brazil not to fly the rainbow flag. He
explained his concept of his moral duty to the Christian Broadcasting Network, "The task I have
is informed by my understanding of my faith, my belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior."
The Christian values Pompeo espouses on abortion and gay rights are in conflict with what
progressives now call human rights.
And the world mirrors the American divide.
There are gay pride parades in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, but none in Riyadh and Mecca. In
Brunei, homosexuality can get you killed.
To many Americans, diversity -- racial, ethnic, cultural, religious -- is our greatest
strength.
Yet Poland and Hungary are proudly ethnonationalist. South Korea and Japan fiercely resist
the racial and ethnic diversity immigration would bring. Catalans and Scots in this century,
like Quebecois in the last, seek to secede from nations to which they have belonged for
centuries.
Are ethnonationalist nations less righteous than diverse nations likes ours? And if
diversity is an American value, is it really a universal value?
Consider the treasured rights of our First Amendment -- freedom of speech, religion and the
press.
Saudi Arabia does not permit Christian preachers. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, converts to
Christianity face savage reprisals. In Buddhist Myanmar, Muslims are ethnically cleansed.
These nations reject an equality of all faiths, believing instead in the primacy of their
own majority faith. They reject our wall of separation between religion and state. Our values
and their values conflict.
What makes ours right and theirs wrong? Why should our views and values prevail in what are,
after all, their countries?
Under our Constitution, many practices are protected - abortion, blasphemy, pornography,
flag-burning, trashing religious beliefs - that other nations regard as symptoms of a
disintegrating society.
When Hillary Clinton said half of all Trump supporters could be put into a "basket of
deplorables" for being "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic," she was
conceding that many Trump's supporters detest many progressive values.
True, but in the era of Trump, why should her liberal values be the values America champions
abroad?
With secularism's triumph, we Americans have no common religion, no common faith, no common
font of moral truth. We disagree on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. Without an
agreed-upon higher authority, values become matters of opinion. And ours are in conflict and
irreconcilable.
Understood. But how, then, do we remain one nation and one people?
"... This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference) can and do end conversations before they begin ..."
"... Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future, the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning. ..."
"... A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas. ..."
"... A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them. ..."
This book covers our current inability to allow all voices to be heard. Key words like "racism " and "?-phobia" (add your preference)
can and do end conversations before they begin .
Hate speech is now any speech about an idea that you disagree with. As we go
down the road of drowning out some speech eventually no speech will be allowed. Finger pointers should think about the future,
the future when they will be silenced. It's never wrong to listen to different point of view. That's called learning.
I became interested in this book after watching Megyn Kelly's interview with Benson (Google it), where he gave his thoughts
on the SCOTUS decision to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. He made a heartfelt and reasoned plea for tolerance and
grace on BOTH sides. He hit it out of the park with this and set himself apart from some of his gay peers who are determined that
tolerance is NOT a two-way street.
We are seeing a vindictive campaign of lawsuits and intimidation against Christian business
people who choose not to provide flowers and cakes for same-sex weddings. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no
law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Thumbing your nose at this core American freedom should alarm us all. Personally,
I'm for traditional marriage and I think the better solution would be to give civil unions the same legal rights and obligations
as marriage, but that's another discussion.
So what about the book? It exceeded my expectations. Ham and Benson are smart and articulate. Their ideas are clearly presented,
supported by hard evidence and they are fair and balanced. The book is a pleasure to read - - unless you are a die-hard Lefty.
In that case, it may anger you, but anger can be the first step to enlightenment.
A very clear and balanced portrait of the current political landscape where a "minority of one" can be supposedly damaged as
a result of being exposed to "offensive" ideas.
A well documented journey of the transformation from a time when people had vehement
arguments into Orwell-Land where the damage one supposedly "suffers" simply from having to "hear" offensive words, allows this
shrieking minority to not only silence those voices, but to destroy the lives of the people who have the gall to utter them.
The
Left lays claim to being the "party of tolerance", unless you happen to "think outside THEIR box", which, to the Left is INtolerable
and must not only be silenced, but exterminated... A great book!
The brilliant American physicist, Nobel prize winner, Richard Feynham was also descended
from LIthuanian Jews.He had no time for any religion, and refused all aspects of Jewishness.
He was a brilliant mant who contributed much to American Science.
Don't make generalisations based on race.
Every race has demons and devil, and brilliant angels, and all points in between.
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism
on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia
Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially
conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on
the Right by Fox News's
Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's
Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less,
rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas
stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the
workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively
bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more
breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of
keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was
roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000,
those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to
maintain adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's
title. Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully
drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to
labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that
women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their
potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or
lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found,
women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their
labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical
backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just
5.8
percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of
mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which
they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and
professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily
looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time
work for pay, despite consistently
telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this
massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as
many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include
giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered
the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as
Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd
like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent
tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating
for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to
make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic
development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed
it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the
value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely
ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living
in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not?
It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to
emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of
third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the
author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then
– the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in
places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban
California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this
even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because
it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit
$) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of
course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?
"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
Neuroticism is characterized by "feeling negative feelings strongly," with the opposite of
Neuroticism being "Emotional Stability." Such "Negative Feelings" include sadness, anger and
jealousy. But females score particularly strongly on "anxiety" -- possibly because, in
prehistory, the children of anxious, protective mothers were less likely to get seriously
injured. But the key point is that the stereotype is correct.
And people are also correct to think that women -- that is, those who, on average, score
higher in Neuroticism -- will be less able to cope in the brutal world of power-politics.
Successful politicians -- the ones who get into their country's legislature but don't make
it to the very top -- score significantly lower than the general public in Neuroticism,
according to research published in the leading psychology journal Personality and Individual
Differences . [ The personalities of
politicians: A big five survey of American legislators , by Richard Hanania ,
2017]
And this research reveals something very interesting indeed. These "successful politicians,"
while being more emotionally stable than most voters, score higher in the personality
traits Extraversion ("feeling positive feelings strongly"), Conscientiousness ("rule-following
and impulse control") and Agreeableness ("altruism and empathy").
But this does not tend to be true of those who reach the very top of politics -- and
especially not of those who are perceived as great, world-changing statesmen. They tend to be
highly intelligent but above average on quite the opposite personality traits –
psychopathology and Narcissism [ Creativity and psychopathology , by F. Post British
Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. However, high Agreeableness, Conscientiousness and
Extraversion are true of successful politicians in general.
In much the same way, run-of-the-mill scientists are above average in Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness but genius
scientists combine being relatively low in these traits with stratospheric
intelligence. This gives them creativity, drive and fearless to be original. [ At Our Wits'
End , by Edward Dutton and Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018, Ch. 6]
This is important, because these are typically female traits: women score higher than
men in Agreeableness, Consciousness and Extraversion. This means that, in general, we would
expect the relatively few females who do reach high political office to be fairly atypical
women: low in mental instability and certainly moderately low in altruism, empathy or both --
think
Margaret Thatcher , who according to Keith Patching in his 2006 book Leadership,
Character and Strategy, was organizing her impending Bar Finals from her hospital bed
having just had twins; or even Theresa May. Neither of these British Prime Ministers have (or
had) neither of whom have particularly "feminine" personalities, though they may reflect (or
have reflected) very pronounced Conscientiousness, a trait associated with social conservatism.
[
Resolving the "Conscientiousness Paradox" , by Scott A. McGreal, Psychology
Today , July 27, 2015]
But, sometimes, a female politician's typically anxiety will apparently be " compensated " for
i.e. overwhelmed by her having massively high Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. This likely
occurred in the case of Jacinda Ardern, who suffers from
intense anxiety to the point of having being hospitalized.
This will become a problem in a time of crisis when, as happened with Ardern, such a
politician will become over-emotional. This, combined with very high empathy, would seem to
partly explain Ardern's self-identification with New Zealand's Muslims to the extent of donning
a head scarf and breaking down in public.
But it also explains why females, on average, tend to be more left-wing than males and more
open to refugees. They feel empathy and even sadness for the plight of the refugees more
strongly than do men [ Young
women are more left wing than men, study reveals, by Rosalind Shorrocks, The
Conversation, May 3, 2018
This means that there will be a tendency for females to push politics Leftwards and make it
more about empathy and other such "feelings." It also means that, in a serious crisis, they may
well even empathize with the enemy.
In that gay men are generally feminized males, this problem help would to explain why people
are skeptical of the suitability of homosexual men for supposedly "masculine" professions (such
as politics) [ The
extreme male brain theory of autism, by Simon Baron-Cohen, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 2002], sometimes including political office. [ The Hidden Psychology
of Voting, by Zaria Gorvett, BBC News , May 6, 2015]
What about Science and Technology? Are they suited for that? Maybe science could use a little
more wisdom and conscientiousness.
J Robert Oppenheimer, the genius Physics professor, was known to be "temperamental" and
not suited for high stress assignment. So, along with several other genius's, some who came
over from Germany, he presided over the making of the A-bomb. Hallelujah just kidding.
There's an excellent book that covers J Robert Oppenheimer and the making of the A-bomb
called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer".
The guy was totally volatile and emotionally unstable. While in school he left a knife in an
apple on his teacher's desk that he did not like.
After the bomb was dropped on JAPAN, in a documentary much later, he is shown with tears
in his eyes quoting the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become death, destroyer of worlds".
A couple decades or so later there were interviews of some of these guys who were part of
the project and they were crying. They had the GENIUS to build such a monstrosity, but seemed
to have failed to understand the impact it would make on the world; breaking down in tears
when talking about it. They had no clue or ability of Foreknowledge. What would have happened
if more women were on the team? Would we all be annihilated by now? Or maybe no a-bomb would
have been made? Who knows .
Interesting. And I appreciate the citations to sources. But I find that interpretation of
psychiatric traits is a bit like reading tea leaves: there is a temptation to cherry-pick
one's preferred quotes and conclusions. For me, this article would have been stronger if it
had followed a recognized authority's path through the Big Five personality traits.
It seems rather unfair to pick a moron like Jacinda Ardern to represent all female
politicians. And even though when it comes to foreign policy, I'll take a Tulsi Gabbard over
any male politician like Rubio, Graham, Schumer, Pence, Trump, Pompeo, Bolton any day, I will
have to say, in general, you're right, the crop of female politicians we've seen today do not
inspire confidence in women as politicians, not just in the US but Merkel, May yikes. But
women had been good heads of states in the past, like Margaret Thatcher and Queen Victoria.
But they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
Also agree that gays make for bad politicians. Even though their moral degeneracy and
drama queen antics make politics look like a natural fit, their extreme narcissism means they
will always get sidetracked and can't stay focused. The only thing any gay man cares about is
his gayness. Plus no one outside the western world will ever give them an ounce of respect.
Picture Buttplug showing up in a muslim country as POTUS, with his husband! Either they'll
get stoned to death which will get us into war or the US will be the laughing stock of the
world. And then of course he'd have to go bomb some country just to prove his manhood,
getting us into more unnecessary wars. No gays for politics, ever.
There has been a very successful effort to paint Oppenheimer as a secular saint. But
Princeton's John Archibald Wheeler stated that he never trusted Oppenheimer. So what? Because
JAW was notorious for otherwise saying nice things about almost everyone else, especially his
academic rivals. Also JAW happily and productively worked on the US H-bomb project which was
embargoed by Oppenheimer and his many disciples.
I agree with the point made above, that, in our nuclear age, behavior in a crisis is the most
important personality trait. I think that men's crisis-calmness can suffer from macho/ego,
and with women, from anxiety and panic. Democratic candidate Amy K reportedly throws things
when angry, and to me, this is disqualifying. Assuming no nuclear destruction, the analysis
is this: We have devolved into a gigantic banana republic/soft dictatorship; whose
personality constellation is best suited to politics in a banana republic?
No female leader of any country, ever, has been particularly good, except one.
And that one was only because she was fortunate enough to be the PM of the UK at the same
time as Ronald Reagan was President of the US. He was handholding every single decision of
hers. Reagan was effectively running two countries (the #1 and #4 largest GDPs in the world
at that time). At least she was smart enough to let him tell her exactly what to do.
Given this dataset, no, women are not suitable for very high political office.
Is Ardern still wearing that hijab in order to cynically manipulate her insipid voters?
Anyway
I have come to realize that women, on the whole, tend to be poorly suited to many
traditionally male-doninated activities. Politics, for sure. Very few good, dependable female
politicians come to mind. But the list at my immediate recall that are emotional, vapid,
destructive slobs -- Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Eva Perón,
Michelle Bachelet, Isabel Allende Bussi, Annie Lööf, Anne Hidalgo, Ursula von der
Leyen, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaïb, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, et al --
seems practically limitless. Not only is the fairer sex not adept at political leadership,
but they are ill-suited to even vote rationally. The weakness of Anglo-American men's resolve
against the suffragettes was the beginning of the end.
Preeminent excellence seems to elude the grasp of women in a number of other careers. For
whatever reason, there are few women writers of prose fiction that can equal the heights men
have reached in that field. This despite the fact that the contemporary literary industry is
overwhelmingly dominated by women. True, there are the rare instances of female literary
transcendence in the guise of a Clarice Lispector, Hilda Hilst, Okamoto Kanoko, Murasaki
Shikibu, Unica Zürn, and so on. But they tend to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
(On the other hand, women seem naturally gifted at lyric expression, with great female poets
existing since at least Sappho.)
Orchestral conducting, too, is a field wherein women cannot produce an equal or better of,
say, a Furtwängler, Mengelberg, or Beecham. There are plenty of them around today -- all
lousy. (To be fair, though, nearly all living conductors today -- male or female --
are lousy.)
I'm a university degree holding woman, of the traditional type with XX chromosomes, and since
I was a teen some forty years ago, I've thought that men are better suited for politics. Not
that a few women can't do it successfully (Thatcher and British Queens for examples) but that
it's a profession far more suited to men, being as many are more naturally mentally strong,
steady and rational, and not as given to bursts of emotion and utopian fancies as women can
often be. In fact, I'd be delighted if only U.S. born citizen male property owners over the
age of 25 were allowed to vote. How's that for being a Dissident?
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
"... Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm. ..."
"... Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough . Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples. ..."
"... Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic. He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. ..."
"... One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked inside. ..."
In March 2017, young people armed with baseball
bats prowled the parking lots of Evergreen State College. They hoped to find Bret Weinstein, a biology professor, and presumably
bash his brains in. Bret had caught the ire of the student body after he refused to participate in an unofficial "Day of Absence,"
in which white students and faculty were told to stay home, away from the campus, while teachers and students of color attended as
they normally would. In prior years, people of color voluntarily absented themselves to highlight their presence and importance on
campus. In 2017, the event's organizers decided to flip the event, and white people were pressured to stay away from the school.
In a letter to the school's administration, Bret explained why he opposed
the idea:
There is a huge difference between a group or coalition deciding to voluntarily absent themselves from a shared space in order
to highlight their vital and under-appreciated roles and a group or coalition encouraging another group to go away. The first
is a forceful call to consciousness which is, of course, crippling to the logic of oppression. The second is a show of force,
and an act of oppression in and of itself
On a college campus, one's right to speak -- or to be -- must never be based on skin color.
When word of Professor Weinstein's objection got out, enraged student activists began a hostile takeover of the school, and the
college president ordered the campus police force not to intervene. Professor Weinstein was told, in essence, that nobody would protect
him from young people with baseball bats. The police warned Professor Weinstein that their hands were tied and that he should stay
off campus for his own safety.
Professor Weinstein is an avowed liberal
with a long history of progressive thinking. As a young man, he was the center of another controversy when he
blew the whistle regarding the exploitation of black
strippers by a college fraternity. Regardless, his refusal to participate in what can be described as a "no-white-people-day" ironically
earned him the brand "racist" by the student body. He was essentially removed from the campus on the threat of physical harm.
And its core, the story of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen State College is about a college's descent into total chaos after someone
presented mild resistance to a political demonstration.
Bret Weinstein is on the left, politically, but the leftist students and administration attacked him for not being left enough
. Imagine now, how the college may have treated a person who leaned right. As it turns out, there are quite a few examples.
Before discussing what the Wilfrid Laurier University did to a woman named Lindsay Shepherd, it's important to know about Jordan
Peterson.
Dr. Peterson is a psychology professor, clinician, and best-selling author. He is also, perhaps, today's most controversial academic.
He burst into the public consciousness after he opposed bill C-16 in Canada. The bill added gender expression and gender identity
to the various protections covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Dr. Peterson objected to the bill because it set a new precedent -- requiring citizens to use certain pronouns to address people
with non-traditional gender identities. Dr. Peterson calls transexual
people by whatever gender they project , as long as he feels like they're asking him to do so in good faith, but he's wary of
people playing power games with him, and he saw something dangerous about the government mandating which words he must use. He believed
that under C-16, misgendering a person could be classified as hate speech, even it was just an accident.
Having spent much of his life considering the dangers that exist at the furthest ends of the political spectrum -- Nazi Germany
on the far right, the Soviet Union on the far left -- Dr. Peterson has developed a tendency to see things in apocalyptic terms.
In bill C-16, he saw what he considered the seeds of a serious threat to the freedom of expression -- a list of government-approved
words -- and decided it was a hill worth dying on.
He's controversial, verbose, discursive, sometimes grouchy, and almost incapable of speaking the language of television sound-bites.
He makes it easy for critics to attack and misrepresent him -- and ever since he took a stance against C-16, he's been subjected
to student protests and journalistic hit-pieces.
One example comes from Queens University. While Dr. Peterson gave a lecture, student protestors broke windows, tried to drown
him out with noisemakers and drums, and one protestor told others to burn down the building with Dr. Peterson and the attendees locked
inside.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with his opinions, Dr. Peterson should have the right to express them without other
people suggesting that he be murdered with fire. Furthermore, people should be able to talk about what he says.
Enter the case of Lindsay Shepherd.
While working as a teacher's aid at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsay Shepherd showed students two clips from public access
television featuring Jordan Peterson debating someone over bill C-16. After showing the clips, she asked her students to share their
thoughts.
Days later, the school called her into a meeting with a panel of three superiors. They said that they had gotten a number of complaints
from students. Lindsay asked how many complaints they had received, and was told that the number was confidential.
The panel claimed that she had created a toxic environment by showing the clips and facilitating a discussion without taking a
side against Dr. Peterson's view. They said it was as if she had been completely neutral while showing one of Hitler's speeches.
The panel thought the clip probably violated the Human Rights Code, and they demanded Shepherd to submit all of her future lesson
plans ahead of time so that they could be vetted.
Although one student expressed some concern about the class, the number of formal complaints that the administrators had received
was actually zero.
During their discussion, Lindsay said:
The thing is, can you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away
from this? Is that what the point of this is? Because to me that is against what a university is about.
Lindsay found herself at the mercy of school administrators whose brittle spirits couldn't bear to present students with opinions
that they might have found offensive. She had believed that universities were places where people could explore ideas. On that day,
the panel showed her just how wrong she'd been.
And she caught it all on tape.
Over the past few years, the news has become littered with stories of schools overrun by children while hand-wringing professors
and administrators do everything possible to placate them. Recently, a group called "The Diaspora Coalition"
staged a sit-in at Sarah Lawrence.
Their demands
included, among other things, that they get free fabric-softener. The origin of their grievance was an
op-ed published in the
New York Times about the imbalance between left-leaning and right-leaning school administrators.
Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business,
sums the phenomenon up tidily :
You get kids who are much more anxious and fragile, much more depressed, coming onto campus at a time of much greater political
activism -- and now these grievance studies ideas about, 'America's a matrix of oppression,' and, 'look at the world in terms
of good versus evil.' it's much more appealing to them, and it's that minority of students, they're the ones who are initiating
a lot of the movements
Every day, or at least every week, I get an email from a professor saying, 'you know, I used a metaphor
in class and somebody reported me.' and once this happens to you, you pull back. You change your teaching style
What we're seeing
on campus is a spectacular collapse of trust between students and professors. And once we can't trust each other, we can't do
our job.
We can't risk being provocative, raising uncomfortable ideas. We have to play it safe, and then everybody suffers.
To understate it, President Donald Trump is a deeply troubling human being. However, he may have done a good thing on Thursday,
March 21st, when he signed an
executive order that requires public schools to "foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse
debate."
Schools that don't comply may lose government-funded research grants.
In theory, the order will compel colleges to prevent scenes like those at Evergreen State and Sarah Lawrence. Schools will have
serious financial incentives to protect their professors from mobs of unruly children. If all goes well, students will learn to engage
with controversial opinions without resorting to baseball bats or demanding Snuggle Plus fabric softener.
One would be remiss if they didn't consider the hidden or unintended consequences of the new policy, though. The executive order
is vague, and it gives no criteria for judging whether an institution complies with its requirements. Instead, the specific implementation
is left for structures lower on the hierarchy to decide. Hopefully, nobody decides that Young Earth theories must be taught alongside
evolution.
The policy could very well become a tool by which the dominant political party punishes schools that lean in the opposite direction.
Since there is a 12-to-1 imbalance between liberals and conservative college administrators right now, it would be a Republican administration
punishing liberal colleges.
This is hardly a perfect solution -- but at least it's an effort to address the problem. The stability of our society depends
on an endless balancing act between the left and the right. The political landscape of academia has tilted too far left, and it's
clearly becoming insular and unstable. Now it's necessary to push things back toward the center.
Hopefully, this recent executive order does more good than harm.
Postscript
After the events at Evergreen State College, the school was forced to settle with Bret Weinstein and his wife, who was also a
professor there. The college paid the couple $500,000. Enrollment at the college is said to have dropped "catastrophically."
After the events at Wilfrid Laurier University, the school released several letters of apology. It is being sued for millions
of dollars by Lindsay Shepherd and Jordan Peterson.
Forty professors endorsed the demands made by the Diaspora Coalition at Sarah Lawrence, and several others endorsed challenging
Samuel Abrams's tenure -- Abrams being the person who wrote the op-ed that appeared in the New York Times.
As the narrative of a 'racist, homophobic
attack' on actor Jussie Smollett in Chicago continues to collapse, politicians and celebrities
who fueled the outrage over the incident are quietly backing away and hoping no one
notices.
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation on Thursday mandating that every school in
the state teach students about "the political, economic, and social contributions" of LGBTQ
people and people with disabilities.
The legislation, which will apply
starting in the 2020-21 school year, requires that the boards of education for middle and high
schools ensure that instructional materials, such as text books, include accurate portrayals of
the contributions made by LGBTQ people and those with disabilities.
The University of Michigan Has At Least 82 Full-Time Diversity Officers at a Total Annual
Payroll Cost of $10.6M.
so applying some crude arithmetic, 8 cost $1M meaning they are paid upward of 100k apiece?
Or if it's differently apportioned the Chief Executive Officer of Diversity makes some
unimaginably astronomical salary and the others are in the 60-80k range?
Maybe they are including a travel allowance as part of "payroll"? I know much of what they
do is recruitment since back in the 90s my then-bf was one of only two -- count 'em, TWO --
Blacks in the entire graduate physical sciences division at the University of Chicago. He was
in Computer Science (machine learning) and the other was in Chemistry. They would send him
back to Atlanta where he gone to school at Morehouse and the University of GA.
From time immemorial, it was understood that women, especially young women, needed to be
shielded from the sexual predations of men. Camille Paglia, the radical/conservative cultural
critic, has been arguing for decades that key institutions in society, often derided as
"patriarchal" -- from marriage to single-sex education to exemption from military service --
were mostly the result of a desire to protect women, not to pinion them.
Not surprisingly, legends and parables reinforced this cultural wisdom. For instance,
there's Little Red Riding Hood. After many centuries of telling and retelling, the origins of
the story are obscure. Yet it doesn't take a Freudian genius to see that there could be more
than one meaning to the scene in which Red Riding Hood is tempted into bed with the Big Bad
Wolf.
The fact that the story has a happy ending doesn't mitigate its cautionary nature.
(Interestingly, a pop song from the '60s, "Little Red Riding Hood," includes lyrics
that restate the warning message: "What full lips you have/ They're sure to lure someone
bad.")
With these dangers in mind, societies all over the world came up with rituals of courtship,
aimed at circumscribing -- if not proscribing altogether -- impulsive romantic love. The bottom
line was that parents, matchmakers, chaperones, clergy, and community were involved. Were these
social systems confining to women? Perhaps. But they were also confining to men .
Suppression was also protection. The overriding goal was for a vulnerable woman not to
end up in the lair of a wolf.
Then came modernity, when most of the guardrails were trampled. Or, as Marx said of modern
times, "All that is solid melts into air."
We might think of this change, beginning in Europe in the 18th century, as the Great
Unleashing, when young people left the farm and mostly ended up in mills and factories, there
to meet a new kind of fate.
In 1731, the English artist William Hogarth issued his own form of warning. A Harlot's
Progress consists of six engravings showing the descent of a young woman, from
innocence to prostitution to death at age 23. Four years later, Hogarth published a companion
set of warnings to men, A Rake's Progress .
Two centuries later, on this side of the Atlantic, several novels by Theodore Dreiser also
described the new times. Perhaps Dreiser's most famous work, An American Tragedy
(1925), began with a look back at the old ways, shaped by family and faith. Describing a stern
matriarch, Dreiser writes, "The mother alone stood out as having that force and determination
which, however blind or erroneous, makes for self-preservation." And then the family sings a
hymn: "The love of Jesus saves me whole/ The love of God my steps control."
The sorrowful message of the book, of course, is that once those restraining strings are
untuned -- as when boys and girls end up on their own in the big city -- then hark, what
discord comes. (The novel was made into a Hollywood movie twice, once in 1931 and again in 1951 -- the second
starring Elizabeth Taylor.)
In this modern vein, it's interesting to note that while "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is
closely associated with the Christmas holiday, there's no mention of Christmas, or any holiday,
in the lyrics. In these secular times, it seems, "Christmas" is little different from
"winter."
In the '50s, '60s, and '70s, the Great Unleashing gained momentum. Indeed, "Baby It's Cold
Outside" was sometimes interpreted as a song of
women's liberation , a lyric of empowerment -- she being free to make her own choices.
Yet as Dreiser would have predicted, some of those choices were mistakes. Recently, The
New York Timespublished an
oral history of Andy Warhol's "Factory," a not-so-homey home for pretty vagabonds:
One day a drug dealer came up. He shot up this girl, and she for some reason passed out.
It was in the bathtub. She went under water. We thought she was dead. We panicked because she
was not waking up. Finally someone said, "We should send her down the mail chute." We wrote
little notes on her body and puts stamps on her forehead. Then we realized she wasn't dead. I
don't think she would have fit in the mail chute. But we would have tried.
That nameless girl, of course, was a daughter, and it seems reasonable to assert that
society could have done a better job of protecting her -- including, if at all possible, from
her own careless impulses. That is, after all, a basic reason that civilization exists.
By the 1980s, sexually transmitted diseases had slowed the pace of the sexual revolution.
Many feminists turned more conservative on at least some sexual matters, led by law
professor-turned-anti-pornography crusader Catharine MacKinnon .
Today, we can draw a line from MacKinnon's neo-Victorianism to the #MeToo movement, and from
there to the monologues of comedian Hannah Gadsby, avatar of a new kind of vengeful anti-humor,
perhaps better described as dire sermons against heterosexual men. (Some would say, to be sure,
that many males have it coming -- that scorn is the price to be paid for the wolfish life that
many have chosen.)
So perhaps now is the right time to put "Baby, It's Cold Outside" in its most socially
useful framework: it's a cautionary tale, right up there with Little Red Riding Hood ,
Hogarth, and Dreiser. Sure, the song is fun and sexy, yet it describes a path that most young
women probably don't wish to be on -- at least not in retrospect. And almost certainly, few
actively wish that path for their daughters or other female relatives.
Some will insist, of course, that prudential safeguards -- whether as matters of law or just
custom -- are inhibiting, even stifling. Others will say there's something dubious about those
who dwell too much on the dangers that might befall others. Still others will say that to focus
on the harm done to unlucky individuals is to "blame the victim."
Even so, cautionary tales are valuable because, after all, caution is valuable. Society can
and should do its part to serve and protect, yet there's no substitute for informed common
sense. Oh, and let's not forget: common sense and virtue are good for men as well.
So sure, people will continue to listen to "Baby, It's Cold Outside." Yet at the same time,
they should realize that it can be perilous inside.
That's a good synthesis of hard-earned wisdom for the holiday season -- and any other.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at. He served as a
White House policy aide to both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Christine Blasey Ford Thanks America For $650,000 Payday, Hopes Life "Will Return To
Normal"
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 11/27/2018 - 17:30 171 SHARES
Amid the sound and fury of the disgusting antics of the Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS nomination
process, one of the main defenses of Christine Balsey Ford's sudden recollection of an '80s
sexual assault was simply "...why would she lie... what's in it for her?"
Certainly, the forced publicity by Dianne Feinstein and public questioning guaranteed her 15
minutes of fame (and perhaps even more infamy if Kavanaugh's nomination had failed) but now, in
a statement thanking everyone who had supported her, Ford is "hopeful that our lives will
return to normal."
The full statement was posted to her GoFundMe page :
Words are not adequate to thank all of you who supported me since I came forward to tell
the Senate that I had been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Your tremendous outpouring
of support and kind letters have made it possible for us to cope with the immeasurable
stress, particularly the disruption to our safety and privacy. Because of your support, I
feel hopeful that our lives will return to normal.
The funds you have sent through GoFundMe have been a godsend. Your donations have allowed
us to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves against frightening threats, including
physical protection and security for me and my family, and to enhance the security for our
home. We used your generous contributions to pay for a security service, which began on
September 19 and has recently begun to taper off; a home security system; housing and
security costs incurred in Washington DC, and local housing for part of the time we have been
displaced. Part of the time we have been able to stay with our security team in a residence
generously loaned to us.
With immense gratitude, I am closing this account to further contributions. All funds
unused after completion of security expenditures will be donated to organizations that
support trauma survivors. I am currently researching organizations where the funds can best
be used. We will use this space to let you know when that process is complete.
Although coming forward was terrifying, and caused disruption to our lives, I am grateful
to have had the opportunity to fulfill my civic duty. Having done so, I am in awe of the many
women and men who have written me to share similar life experiences, and now have bravely
shared their experience with friends and family, many for the first time. I send you my
heartfelt love and support.
I wish I could thank each and every one of you individually. Thank you.
Christine
Well one thing is for sure - she has almost 650 thousand reasons why life since
the accusations could be more comfortable...
Here's an interesting fact: Her immediate family (siblings and parents) wants nothing to
do with her. They refused to sign a petition of support created by "close family and
friends", they refused to make any supporting statements and they refused to show up to the
hearings.
Sorry doesn't seem like much money to me at all. Put family through all that for that
amount? Risk ones families welfare and safety for that amount and a bad name? One would have
to be a total idiot or crazy for that.
Wanders in, belches out a pack of lies, destroys an entire family's lives, tears a big
chunk out of the social fabric of the country, collects a huge payday and hits the beach for
the rest of her life, or at least the portion not dedicated to indoctrinating yound
minds.
She is at least as much of a Democrat as Obama ever was.
Disgusting female. Brett Kavanaugh and his family donated the gomfund me set up for his
family, to a charity for abused women.
Ford has a second go fund me which raised more, to,pay for legals, she has made a fortune,
has a 3 million plus home, and whatever she was given for this charade. And the abortion drug
company interest. Plus the google renting illegally events thru the second fromt door.
Kavanaugh has an ordinary car, a simple home worth 1.3 million and a debt of 860,000.
Always been an employee so never the big paycheck like Avenatti got.
volunteers for homeless. Plus the sports coaching for school, kids and lecturing...both no
more.
"... Well, if the objective of having many women on board is to keep all the occupants occupied full-time on a one-to-one basis instead of letting them get busy at shooting at people, then I am all for that, they should adopt it for the whole of NATO, especially the US. ..."
"... Sounds like a good Scandinavian way of addressing NATO policy deficiencies. But when through your distraction you end up crashing into oil tankers, just don't blame it on the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
From the article this gem: "It is advantageous to have many women on board. It will be a
natural thing and a completely different environment, which I look at as positive,"
Lieutenant Iselin Emilie Jakobsen Ophus said. She is a navigation officer at KNM Helge
Ingstad, according to Defense Forum.
Well, if the objective of having many women on board is to keep all the occupants
occupied full-time on a one-to-one basis instead of letting them get busy at shooting at
people, then I am all for that, they should adopt it for the whole of NATO, especially the
US.
Sounds like a good Scandinavian way of addressing NATO policy deficiencies. But when
through your distraction you end up crashing into oil tankers, just don't blame it on the
Russians or the Chinese.
Also in the article a very nice picture of the frigate (not the one at the top, the one a
little further down the page) which makes for an excellent picture of a George-Soros-frigate.
It should be renamed KNM George Soros. Anyone for an HMS George Soros Aircraft carrier?
"... With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect most Democrat leaders now realize that their attempt to take out Judge Brent Kavanaugh with false charges that he sexually assaulted someone in High School was a disaster. Their heavy handed, Bolshevik tactics backfired and galvanized a broad spectrum of Americans who were sickened by the spectacle of a verbal lynch mob being led by the decrepit Diane Feinstein. ..."
"... that he dated Dr. Ford for six years. He said that she never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or misconduct. He also stated that Dr. Ford did not mention any fear of close quarters or flying, and that the two traveled together, including on a small propeller plane. also said that he witnessed Dr. Ford, drawing from her background in psychology, help prepare her roommate, Ms. Monica McLean, for a potential polygraph examination when Ms. McLean wasinterviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. He stated that Dr. Ford helped Ms. McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. ..."
"... No! Let's see her tried for perjury with full discovery I will be glad to be a pro bone consultant on that trial and i have a lot of experience. ..."
"... The Dems COULD have made Kavanaugh's support for torture a principled reason for opposing him. ..."
"... The Dems could've raised all kinds of principled objections to Kavanaugh; but tellingly, they chose not to. They chose to take the low road instead. ..."
"... They are complicit. Especially Feinstein. SHe's AOK with torture and 24-7 surveillance. WHat do you expect from an ardent cannabis prohibitionist? ..."
"... Indeed. That would have been a principle worth highlighting. And the question put forward - "Should a torture supporter serve on the Supreme Court?" But..Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer were never interested in that. All they were interested in was creating a media spectacle and that's exactly what they did by holding on to Ford's letter for 2 months and unleashing it the day before the vote. ..."
"... Christine Ford, Monica McLean and the others should testify to a grand jury. Isn't perjury what they indicted & convicted Gen. Flynn & George Papadopolous for? ..."
"... Why is it that Christine Ford can get away with blatantly and repeatedly lying to Congress about a federal judge but Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos were dragged through court (no doubt at great expense to them) for so-called minor lies to FBI interrogators? ..."
"... Launching 18 USC 1001 prosecutions like so many torpedoes might look expeditious in the short term but in the long term, it will be bad for both the working agent on the street and for justice in the bigger picture. ..."
"... Ford lied to the senate judiciary committee under oath. In your scheme of things people like Avenatti and his female tools can slander and libel at will in conformations even if they are interviewed by the FBI? OK, then the FBI should interview them under oath. ..."
"... If at least one Democrat is going to be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of the midterm election realignment, I nominate 'Spartacus' as the guy. ..."
"... Kavanaugh's real crime was he went after Bill Clinton and now he paid the price for it. It's too bad in Yale they don't teach them how to watch their backs in Washington. ..."
"... Brian Merrick has been revealed as the boyfriend. He is a realtor in Malibu. His letter states: " Despite trying to maintain a long distance relationship, I ended the relationship once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful while living in Hawaii. After the breakup, I took her off the credit card we shared. But nearly 1 year later, I noticed Dr. Ford had been charging the card and charged about $600 worth of merchandise. When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card but later admitted the use after I threatened to involve fraud prevention." 'Revealed: The Man Accusing Blasey Ford of Lying About Polygraphs.' The Daily Caller, October 3, 2018. https://dailycaller.com/201... ..."
"... A woman who said that she attended UNC with Dr. Ford, identified a third woman, name blotted out, and stated that the three of them "used to purchase drugs" from a male whose name also has been blotted out. The three of them "regularly attended parties with members of his fraternity." The witness said "that she was present at --a blotted out name of an apartment--"one night in April 1987 when Dr. Ford and --someone again blotted out--"arrived to consume drugs." This witness "said that the Dr. Ford she knew had an active and robust social life in college." (Sept.25) ..."
With the benefit of hindsight, I suspect most Democrat leaders now realize
that their attempt to take out Judge Brent Kavanaugh with false charges that he sexually assaulted someone in High School was a disaster.
Their heavy handed, Bolshevik tactics backfired and galvanized a broad spectrum of Americans who were sickened by the spectacle of
a verbal lynch mob being led by the decrepit Diane Feinstein. The truth about the sex-fraud, Dr. Chrissie Ford, is now exposed
by the voluminous report issued by Senator Grassley's Judiciary Committee staff. Read it
here . (
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf
). Here are the highlights:
The Committee was informed that Dr. Ford had a fear of flying caused by Justice Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault on her
more than 35 years before. That was a lie and the committee staffers discovered subsequently that Dr. Ford had racked up a ton
of frequent flyer miles. When asked about her fear of flying and about whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph
examination, Dr. Ford acknowledged that she flew to the hearing and traveled by plane for work and leisure. Indeed, Dr. Ford listed
on her CV that one of her hobbies includes international surf travel.
The Judiciary staffers interviewed 17 people who had information about Dr. Ford's allegations. No one could corroborate her
claims about Judge Kavanaugh. In fact, two men testified that they had a contact with Dr. Ford as teen-agers that was in line
with the account provided by Dr. Ford except that it was consensual.
A long time boyfriend of Chrissie testified:
that he dated Dr. Ford for six years. He said that she never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or misconduct. He also
stated that Dr. Ford did not mention any fear of close quarters or flying, and that the two traveled together, including on a small
propeller plane. also said that he witnessed Dr. Ford, drawing from her background in psychology, help prepare her roommate, Ms.
Monica McLean, for a potential polygraph examination when Ms. McLean wasinterviewing for jobs with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's
Office. He stated that Dr. Ford helped Ms. McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam. The Judiciary Committee report
also details the allegations and findings from others who alleged sexual misconduct by the Judge. It was all a pack of lies. A contrived
hit job intended to destroy the man's reputation and try to cow him into backing away from the nomination. That bullying tactic failed
spectacularly. It ended up rallying a broad swath of the American public, especially women, who understand fairness and justice.
The injustice on display by the Democrats ended up helping the Republicans nail down a bigger majority in the Senate. Look for fewer
Democrat seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Absolutely agree. With Nadler now openly talking about impeaching Kavanaugh, there is no alternative. The truth must be brought
out. The alternative is to leave him exposed permanently and keep this whole plan viable for use against future nominees. With
RBG approaching retirement this is critical.
Getting to the actual facts would be a great good. But we know that will not happen. The administration and the senate have already
shown their attitude toward professional quality investigation. That appears to be the last thing they want. If they actually
believed any of what they said, they would follow your advice. We will see.
On second thought that is probably an unfair standard. Opening up discovery for a trial would have negative effects even for
a very solid case.
"The administration and the senate have already shown their attitude toward professional quality investigation."
You mean the Mueller "Russia" investigation? That is beyond a joke at this point. Dr. Ford should be charged. She's got $1 million
or more from the go bribe fund me accounts. She should lawyer up. So should Ms. Mclean.
I think the lesson to be learned is that getting all the facts simply cannot be done, which is why we have a statute of limitations,
and why Dr. Ford's accusation should not ever have seen the light of day 30 years after the purported event.
Most liberals seem to think the statute of limitations has to do with the purported offender "living with guilt," but the law
does not acknowledge the "sensation of guilt." The statute is because after a period of time the offense cannot be fairly prosecuted
because witnesses die or move away, memories fade, evidence degrades or disappears, and so forth, and this shoddy exhibition is
proof of the validity of that principle.
I do not see how you can fault Grassley's efforts to get the facts. He bent over backward to accommodate the Democrats lies about
Kavanaugh and the WH authorized the the additional FBI investigation.
The Dems COULD have made Kavanaugh's support for torture a principled reason for opposing him. Then if they lost, which they were
likely going to do anyway, it would have at least been considered fair politics and it would have placed the spotlight on a very
ugly chapter in the country's recent history that needs to be addressed.
Shaming, shunning, bullying, threats of violence, and violence are all now accepted as methods by the left. They are totally consumed
in a political tribalism. Rather than raising the moral standards of the group they are using the most primitive instincts and
you can see this in many of the tweets from the left that use gross sexual imagery to demean their "enemies".
The more I read on group psychology such as Freud, Le Bon, etc. the more concerned I become whether the age of reason, principles,
and science will survive group psychosis given the powerful tools like social media enabling it. Social media is one of the most
dangerous technologies we have developed.
"In order to make a correct judgment upon the morals of groups, one must take into consideration the fact that when individuals
come together in a group all their individual inhibitions fall away and all the cruel, brutal and destructive
instincts, which lie dormant in individuals as relics of a primitive epoch, are stirred up to find free gratification. But under
the influence of suggestion groups are also capable of high achievements in the shape of abnegation, unselfishness, and devotion
to an ideal.
While with isolated individuals personal interest is almost the only motive force, with groups it is very rarely
prominent.
It is possible to speak of an individual having his moral standards raised by a group. Whereas the intellectual capacity
of a group is always far below that of an individual, its ethical conduct may rise as
high above his as it may sink deep below it." - Gustave Le Bon
Indeed. That would have been a principle worth highlighting. And the question put forward - "Should a torture supporter serve
on the Supreme Court?" But..Dianne Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer were never interested in that. All they were interested in was
creating a media spectacle and that's exactly what they did by holding on to Ford's letter for 2 months and unleashing it the
day before the vote.
Christine Ford, Monica McLean and the others should testify to a grand jury. Isn't perjury what they indicted & convicted Gen.
Flynn & George Papadopolous for?
The recent accident that RBG experienced has probably caused both Democrats and Republicans some concern that there may soon be
another Supreme Court seat to fill under a Trump administration.
Why is it that Christine Ford can get away with blatantly and repeatedly lying to Congress about a federal judge but Michael Flynn
and George Papadopoulos were dragged through court (no doubt at great expense to them) for so-called minor lies to FBI interrogators?
Off topic: I'd love to read PT's take on the mid-term election with attention paid to the boxes of suddenly-discovered ballots
in AZ that have put (wouldn't you know!) Democratic Senate candidate Sinema in the lead. And in light of the FL recount, I'd also
be interested in what he has to say about the flagrant disregard for chain of custody of [the infamous] Broward Co. boxes of ballots.
Why is it that ballots discovered post-election day always seem to help Democrats? I don't recall ever reading or hearing about
newly-discovered ballots that benefited Republican candidates.
In my experience lying to the FBI, 18 USC 1001, was used very, very infrequently. It was used as an add on charge in the prosecution
of some of the Watergate subjects and they had been placed under oath. It was used to my knowledge to prosecute an individual
who had made a false accusatory statement in the Ray Donavan investigation in the early 80's, another debacle instigated by Senate
Democrats. Otherwise it was rarely used, and it shouldn't be used in my opinion unless the person has been given a
separate warning
and waiver, or placed under oath.
Once Big Government has opened the floodgates on prosecuting people for lying to the FBI, especially when it becomes obvious that
it is being used selectively, and in isolation in order to hang a charge on somebody in pursuit of manifestly political ends,
cooperation with FBI Agents trying to do their job will, and should, dry up. Who needs to take a chance on some partisan operation,
such as Bob Mueller, parsing their adverbs and adjectives for signs of deceit when the option is to take advantage of your right
to silence.
Launching 18 USC 1001 prosecutions like so many torpedoes might look expeditious in the short term but in the long term, it will
be bad for both the working agent on the street and for justice in the bigger picture.
Ford lied to the senate judiciary committee under oath. In your scheme of things people like Avenatti and his female tools can
slander and libel at will in conformations even if they are interviewed by the FBI? OK, then the FBI should interview them under
oath.
If at least one Democrat is going to be removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee as a result of the midterm election realignment,
I nominate 'Spartacus' as the guy.
Now that there's a new AG in town--one who isn't either cowed, incompetent, or possibly blackmailed--Mrs.Ford may get her just
deserts.
Kavanaugh's real crime was he went after Bill Clinton and now he paid the price for it. It's too bad in Yale they don't teach
them how to watch their backs in Washington.
"The injustice on display by the Democrats ended up helping the Republicans nail down a bigger majority in the Senate. Look
for fewer Democrat seats on the Senate Judiciary Committee."
While this may have held true for the Senate, it didn't in the House.
I agree with you in the sense that many of the Democrat candidates did not take the ultra progressive (socialist?) path. Many
seemed more centrist.
That was the result of state and country Democratic parties.
I think this because I definitely see a difference in the different county Republican parties in my state.
Unfortunately in my state (CO) what happens in Boulder and Denver usually carries. And as we say in CO, Boulder is about 40
square miles surrounded by reality. Denver is becoming a similar alternate reality.
Thus, I am ashamed to say, our current Governor is a person from a quite alternate reality from the one in which I live.
Brian Merrick has been revealed as the boyfriend. He is a realtor in Malibu. His letter states: " Despite trying to maintain a
long distance relationship, I ended the relationship once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful while living in Hawaii. After
the breakup, I took her off the credit card we shared. But nearly 1 year later, I noticed Dr. Ford had been charging the card
and charged about $600 worth of merchandise. When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card but later admitted the use
after I threatened to involve fraud prevention."
'Revealed: The Man Accusing Blasey Ford of Lying About Polygraphs.' The Daily Caller, October 3, 2018.
https://dailycaller.com/201...
A male witness "(Sept. 26): stated that when he was a 19-year-old college student, he visited D.C. over spring break and kissed
a girl he believes was Dr. Ford. He said that the kiss happened in the bedroom of a house which was about a 15-to- 20 minute walk
from the Van Ness Metro, that Dr. Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing, and that the kissing ended when a friend jumped
on them as a joke. The witness said that the woman initiated the kissing and that he did not force himself on her. "
A woman who said that she attended UNC with Dr. Ford, identified a third woman, name blotted out, and stated that the three
of them "used to purchase drugs" from a male whose name also has been blotted out. The three of them "regularly attended parties
with members of his fraternity." The witness said "that she was present at --a blotted out name of an apartment--"one night in
April 1987 when Dr. Ford and --someone again blotted out--"arrived to consume drugs." This witness "said that the Dr. Ford she
knew had an active and robust social life in college." (Sept.25)
PT, thanks very much for posting this.
I cannot find any mention of this Judiciary Committee report at the Washington Post web site.
They had a ton of coverage of Ford's allegation before the vote, including a lengthy interview with her current husband.
It says a lot about them that they have, unless I have missed something, ignored this report.
Could the reason they are ignoring it be that they don't want to publicize anything which contradicts the line that "Women tell
the truth"?
A line that they have used to great political effect, in particular in the sinking of the Senate candidacy of Judge Roy Moore
of Alabama.
Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or
used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly
drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house,
location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form
letter), Klobuchar (trying to expolit fradulent Swtnick testomy for political purposes),
Kavanuch (unability to take punches camly, low quality of some regulations (this supplosed to
be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible
agressive behvious when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high scool and colledge,
possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left
her, not vise versa), using questional methods to rent part of her house, and even more
qurestionable method to justify this, etc)
Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's
credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her
friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii,
and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.
The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a
partisan attack. Give me a break.
Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36
years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly
being nearly raped and killed.
The longer this Freak Show continues, more and more of Ford's bones will be pulled from
the closet. Time to vote, time to move on. If Democrats want to pick judges, they need to win
elections.
"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans"
This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend
who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.
I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence,
that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility?
Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial
board?
I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth?
The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is
credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.
I still find Dr. Ford's testimony believable and far more consistent with what else we
know about her and her attacker.
And (here comes one of those dreaded "even if" arguments): Even if Mr. Merrick's account
is factual, it elides a crucial distinction. When I read the senate question, the only
relevant reason I can see why Republican senators would ask it (through their proxy) is to
ferret out if Dr. Ford had any experience "beating" a polygraph, which might undercut the
value ascribed to her taking that test.
The old boyfriend seems to be describing something different. He writes that Dr. Ford
"explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar
and less nervous about the exam." This seems to describe something along the lines of
reassuring a friend nervous about her interviews, including anxiety about the experience of
taking a polygraph. It seems much more along the lines of something explaining to a nervous
patient what to expect during an MRI scan to reduce their anxiety, not some sort of movie
scene where the the evil mastermind explains how to beat the cops' interrogation.
Were I in Dr. Ford's place, I'm very sure that an episode in which I'd calmed down an
anxious friend before a job interview would be unlikely to come to mind if asked if I'd "ever
given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test," and I'd feel
confident and honest answering "never".
Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are
unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the
test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she
probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?
How is investigating the allegations attacking her? SHe made statements in her testimony
that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should
this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be
investigated? She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be
looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only
investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no
witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is
being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the
NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I
believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts
are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You
are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like
this.
Why shouldn't her credibility be established?
She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years.
Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no
corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said".
To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative
veracity of the two people involved.
It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side.
It's strictly about the outcome going their way.
@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a
psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a
psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"
I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid
and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a
quick summary from the American Psych Association.
Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience,
akin to phrenology.
People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are
psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.
Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and
finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass
because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as
much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this
except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed
it with her beach friends.
I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately
come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest
court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.
Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.
I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I?
Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of
the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman.
That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught
that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to
someone I was simply dating?
Finally we get some information about Kavanaugh's main accuser. For a while it seemed as
if she had just sprung into existence and had no history beyond her claims of sexual
assault.
"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at
last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone
about taking a polygraph test."
So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to
withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem
a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.
Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test
and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the
credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.
One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely
he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he
says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).
Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any
intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and
intellectually).
I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him
and his programs.
Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to
give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market.
Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.
P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much
better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.
This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the
Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the
foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's
withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be
deliberately destructive.
So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college
"friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of
Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.
People who use others credit cards are liars. Selective honesty is not possible. She is
dishonest. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh is honest but she is a pawn and loves the attention.
Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an
official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have
a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have
just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists,
having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.
Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating
when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to
online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people
emotionally have more to lose.
I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he
approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite
claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job
around it.
Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her
anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the
testimony.
From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr.
Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her
testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her
married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to
somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
Someone correct me here as I thought the question was had she ever been given tips or advice
by someone on how to take a polygraph test.
Quite a different meaning than asking if she had ever coached someone on how to take a
polygraph test.
Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.)
Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on
speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).
Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people
about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate
Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she
wanted she knew nothing about it.
Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't
advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!
You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr.
Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being
a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you
accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or
waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.
Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They
should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck,
doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from
established).
We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal
Gayle Mangum--to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When
they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and
frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual
assault.
What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing
of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the
proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government
and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like
men, thank you very much.
The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school
and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't
matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and
done.
Charles Grassley knew about this lie and fed it to Rachel Mitchell to entrap Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford. Who can't see through the blatant partisan desperation?
I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I
believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying
around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.
This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without
objective evidence.
In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with
Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were
replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous
child.
"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to
relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve
poitical interests. It does not serve interest in truth.
Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party
wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.
But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford
indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she
knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident
desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee.
But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience,
evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.
That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.
So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second
door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an
entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex
threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back
up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her
friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would
that make any difference?
The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was
hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the
press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is
absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are
other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for
the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a
500 square foot apartment with ONE door.
@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed
his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability
to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these
extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr.
Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us
know what he's made of.
Until this week, I often wondered whether the Me Too movement had gone too far- publicly
shaming men, rather than going through official HR or legal channels. I thought perhaps some
of us women could benefit from pulling out our high school copies of "The Scarlet Letter."
But frankly... now I'm fed up.
Just 30 minutes ago, my pleasant afternoon walk was interrupted by some nasty, lascivious
cat-calling--directed at me from some men painting a neighbor's house.
Still feeling hurt, objectified and dirty, I sat down to catch up on today's news. Well,
that was a mistake. I believe Dr. Ford, 100%. But at the beginning of this whole Kavanaugh
controversy, I could still understand why some men might feel uncomfortable with the idea
that a tweet, a news story, or even a rumor could turn into a full blown scandal within
minutes. But no more!
Kavanaugh is not on trial! He's an applicant for a job! Anyone who has ever had to work at
finding a job knows that it is UP TO THE APPLICANT to show (yes, to prove) that they are the
BEST person for that job! And you better be double sure that you're squeaky clean before you
aim for even a moderately high profile job, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.
So I'm not wondering anymore... I'm fed up with comments like, "I guess now it's guilty
until proven innocent" or how men should be "scared" in this Me Too era. Too bad we can't
just magic the GOP all into a woman's body for a day, and send them on a walk down a busy
city street.
I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations
baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were
refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by
her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations
into the process.
A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's
testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for
sure, barring further investigstion.
The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that
this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted
undiciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in
money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.
Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters.
From wikipedia:
"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may
delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful
effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past
sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound
familiar??
I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's
allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any
support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by
everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly
told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. I thought Ford's description of the
assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had
offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she
doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed
to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are
free.
I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care
about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's
testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly
veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing
in real estate in Canada.
Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You
know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the
reason for his well-documented vomiting.
Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it
you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?
My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did
many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were
'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to
the WaPo story.
Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with
a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.
In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the
'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in
2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who
rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now
refusing to discuss it further.
I was clear in my earlier posts that as a psychologist, especially a teaching psychologist,
Ford would have to know about polygraphs and how they work. https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
And how to evade them:
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/25/nsa-whi...
Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the
FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom
she supported is a liar and perjurer.
When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my
first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he
contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.
@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and
evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.
When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is
outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation
and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.
This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything
regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote.
"Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of
knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific
stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in
Merrick's letter.
Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just
guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If
you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that
makes you more confident about your opinion.
If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is
going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax,
be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.
If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my
roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I
responded "no."
He also alleges she committed credit card fraud in grad school. But nobody should have
their character judged by something that happened so long ago, right?
@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing
straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell
someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer
when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at
other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.
I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country
deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides
that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's
divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way.
Put someone else on the table already folks.
As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace
Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views
consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy
Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you;
never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.
@al Ford is not the one accused of running rape gangs despite having an impeccable much
commended judicial service record for 23+ years. He is understandably upset.
Also "innocent holes"? There is no such thing in law. Either you are lying or you are
not.
Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes
she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But
the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe
that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of
false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the
kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when,
exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who
apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a
common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's
life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And
for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on
Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any
better on abortion anyway.
The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man
scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my
lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our
dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt,
Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.
Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too
divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along
partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.
It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe
either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the
other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical
evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are
not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot
get to the truth and never will.
I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of
division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so
divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.
@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the
defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the
basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.
"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and
that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the
account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the
use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."
Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd
venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third
person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at
the guy who's in the WH.
They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the
account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it.
He had no basis for a fraud case.
He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where
space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.
@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for
taking a bus seat before a white person."
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti
rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must
apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.
@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection?
Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google
interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not
have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having
discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph
the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that
stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your
loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But
I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media
isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his
family. This isn't fair.
feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it
if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to
the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.
sounds like muldar from x-files, "I want to believe". so I will believe, regardless of any
additional information which should perhaps cast a shred of doubt.
There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.
First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if
material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support
for the court, impeach him if he is on it.
Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is
unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing
now.
Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a
matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a
mandatory improvement in every election, period.
@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the
hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and
if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process,
he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way
it was handled.
His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There
was nothing more to be said.
1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of
running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos -
and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?
2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.
how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he
drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the
time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.
I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff
immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a
game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.
So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will
be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have
established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that
she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in
which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood
pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to
truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your
vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not
statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone
how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the
case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years
later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke
about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I
realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and
wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports
Trump (and we are divorced).
@Joan In California
"manly individuals who think this issue will go away after the dust settles better hope their
behavior has always been above reproach."
and how many women have lives that are "beyond reproach"? Notice the goal post moving. Now
its not only men who have sexually assaulted women who are the enemy its all men if the don't
adhere to every single accusation made by any and every woman on the planet. How can any sane
person think a gender war is the answer?
and will you only carry female babies to full term? because if one day your son doesn't
believe just one woman on the planet (or think that she is mistaken) will you stand in line
to scorch his earth too and betray your own motherhood?
They were in a relationship for 6 years and lived together. That doesn't make the
boyfriend's account true, but it does explain how selectively the NYT chooses to inform its
readers these days. The death of the media is a suicide.
@rosa Stalin's Russia also sent and punished without any regard for evidence or proof
which is the exactly what the left is doing to Kavanaugh right now. Ford's claim has no
corroboration, is convieniently dropped 2 days before senate vote, Fienstein recommended
lawyers, now exposed lies about fear of flying, polygraph etc...yet Kavanaugh can not demand
the basic courtesy of being treated "innocent until proven guilty" from the public and the
media? Stalin would be proud right now of this pitch fork mob culture we got going I tell you
that much.
@Henry She lied about fear of flying, lied about polygraph, no corroboration, she was with
merrick for 5+ years yet never mentioned this "assault", allegations 2 days before senate
vote?
@JenD My mother, my wife, my sister and my daughter's rage boiled over last week too...but
at the thought that their father, brother, son and husband could face an uncorroborated
charge and have his life ruined without due process.
"... What will the postmortem statue of neoliberalism look like? ..."
"... "You stupid Wap, you just scratched my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." ..."
"... That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned Democrat libtards. ..."
LP: You've recently highlighted that this is a
tricky time for historians and those who want to examine the past, like filmmakers.
Well-intentioned people who want to confront the injustices of history may end up replacing one
set of myths for another. You point out the distortion of history in films like "Selma" which
offer uplifting narratives about black experiences but tend to leave out or alter meaningful
facts, such as the ways in which blacks and whites have worked together. This is ostensibly
done to avoid a "white savior" narrative but you indicate that it may serve to support other
ideas that are also troubling.
AR: Exactly, and in ways that are completely compatible with neoliberalism as a style of
contemporary governance. It boils down to the extent to which the notion that group disparities
have come to exhaust the ways that people think and talk about inequality and injustice in
America now.
It's entirely possible to resolve disparities without challenging the fundamental structures
that reproduce inequalities more broadly. As my friend Walter Benn Michaels and I have been
saying for at least a decade, by the standard of disparity as the norm or the ideal of social
justice, a society in which 1% of the population controls more than 90% of the resources would
be just, so long as the 1% is made up non-whites, non-straight people, women, and so on in
proportions that roughly match their representation in the general population.
It completely rationalizes neoliberalism. You see this in contemporary discussions about
gentrification, for example. What ends up being called for is something like showing respect
for the aboriginal habitus and practices and involving the community in the process. But what
does it mean to involve the community in the process? It means opening up spaces for
contractors, black and Latino in particular, in the gentrified areas who purport to represent
the interests of the populations that are being displaced. But that has no impact on the logic
of displacement. It just expands access to the trough, basically.
I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in the
revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted. The argument is that it's bad because there
are disparities that it doesn't address. In the first place, that's not as true as they think
it might be, but there's also the fact that they can't or won't see how a struggle for
universal health care could be the most effective context for trying to struggle against
structural disparities. It's just mind-boggling.
LP: If politicians continue to focus on issues like race, xenophobia, and homophobia without
delivering practical solutions to the economic problems working people face, from health care
costs to the retirement crisis to student debt, could we end up continuing to move in the
direction of fascism? I don't use the word lightly.
AR: I don't either. And I really agree with you. I was a kid in a basically red household in
the McCarthy era. I have no illusions about what the right is capable of, what the bourgeoisie
is capable of, and what the liberals are capable of. In the heyday of the New Left, when people
were inclined to throw the fascist label around, I couldn't get into it. But for the first time
in my life, I think it's not crazy to talk about it. You have to wonder if Obama, who never
really offered us a thing in the way of a new politics except his race, after having done that
twice, had set the stage for Trump and whatever else might be coming.
Thanks, Yves. For decades now Reed has set the standard for integrating class-based
politics with anti-racism. I only wish Barbara Fields, whom he mentions, could get as much
air time.
Those who argue for identity-based tests of fairness (e.g. all categories of folks are
proportionately represented in the 1%) fail to think through means and ends. They advocate
the ends of such proportionality. They don't get that broad measures to seriously reduce
income and wealth inequality (that is, a class approach) are powerful means to the very end
they wish for. If, e.g., the bottom 50% actually had half (heck, even 30 to 40%) of income
and wealth, the proportionality of different groups in any socioeconomic tier would be much
higher than it is today.
There are other means as well. But the point is that identity-driven folks strip their own
objective of it's most useful tools for it's own accomplishment.
In reading this, my mind was drawn back to an article that was in links recently about a
Tea Party politician that ended up being sent to the slammer. He was outraged to learn that
at the prison that he was at, the blacks and the whites were deliberately set against each
other in order to make it easier for the guards to rule the prison.
It is a bit like this in this article when you see people being unable to get past the
black/white thing and realize that the real struggle is against the elite class that rules
them all. I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole
Trump-supporters-are-racists meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote
the way that they did, then they would find common cause with people that others would write
off as deplorable and therefore unsalvageable.
Howard Zinn, in " A Peoples' History of the United States" makes a similar argument about
the origins of racism in southern colonial America. The plantation owners and slave owners
promoted racism among the working class whites towards blacks to prevent them ( the working
class blacks and whites) from making common cause against the aristocratic economic system
that oppressed both whites and blacks who did not own property.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation owners
from slave revolts.
The entire book is an eye-opening story of class struggle throughout US history.
The origin of militias was to organize lower class whites to protect the plantation
owners from slave revolts.
The militias were the bulk of the military, if the not the military, for large periods of
time for all of the British American Colonies for centuries. The colonists were in fairly
isolated, often backwater, places for much of the time. Between the constant small scale
warfare with the natives and the various threats from the French and Spanish military, there
was a need for some form of local (semi) organized military. It was the British government's
understandable belief that the colonists should pay at least some of the expensive costs of
the soldiers and forts that were put in place to protect them during and after the Seven
Years War that was the starting step to the revolution; the origins of modern American
policing especially in the South has its genesis in the Slave Patrols although there was some
form of police from the start throughout the Colonies form the very beginning even if it was
just a local sheriff. The constant theme of the police's murderous brutality is a legacy of
that. The Second Amendment is a result of both the colonists/revolutionarie's loathing, even
hatred, of a potentially dictatorial standing army of any size and the slave holders'
essential need to control the slaves and to a lesser degree the poor whites.
people gang up (in racial groups – maybe that's just easiest though it seems to have
systematic encouragement) in prison for protection I think. The protection is not purely from
guards. There are riots in which one could get seriously injured (stabbed), one could get
attacked otherwise etc.. Because basic physical safety of one's person is not something they
provide in prison, maybe quite deliberately so.
"I am willing to bet that if more than a few forgot the whole Trump-supporters-are-racists
meme and saw the economic conditions that pushed them to vote the way that they did, then
they would find common cause with people that others would write off as deplorable and
therefore unsalvageable."
In those for whom poverty caused them to vote for Trump. But some voted for Trump due to
wealth. And whites overall have more wealth than blacks and so overall (not every individual)
are the beneficiaries of unearned wealth and privilege and that too influences their view of
the world (it causes them to side more with the status quo). Blacks are the most economically
liberal group in America. The thing is can one really try simultaneously to understand even
some of say the black experience in America and try hard to understand the Trump voter at the
same time? Because if a minority perceives those who voted for Trump as a personal threat to
them are they wrong? If they perceive Republican economic policies (and many have not changed
under Trump such as cutting government) as a personal threat to them are they wrong? So some
whites find it easier to sympathize with Trump voters, well they would wouldn't they, as the
problems of poor whites more directly relate to problems they can understand. But so
what?
I am glad that Reed mentioned the quasi-religious nature of identity politics, especially
in its liberal form. Michael Lind made a similar observation:
As a lapsed Methodist myself, I think there is also a strong undercurrent of
Protestantism in American identity politics, particularly where questions of how to promote
social justice in a post-racist society are concerned. Brazil and the United States are
both former slave societies, with large black populations that have been frozen out of
wealth and economic opportunity. In the United States, much of the discussion about how to
repair the damage done by slavery and white supremacy involves calls on whites to examine
themselves and confess their moral flaws -- a very Protestant approach, which assumes that
the way to establish a good society is to ensure that everybody has the right moral
attitude. It is my impression that the left in Brazil, lacking the Protestant puritan
tradition, is concerned more with practical programs, like the bolsa familia -- a cash
grant to poor families -- than with attitudinal reforms among the privileged.
Many white liberals are mainline Protestants or former Protestants and I think they bring
their religious sensibilities to their particular brand of liberalism. You can see it in the
way that many liberals claim that we cannot have economic justice until we eliminate racist
attitudes as when Hillary Clinton stated that breaking up the big banks won't end racism. Of
course, if we define racism as a sinful attitude it is almost impossible to know if we have
eliminated it or if we can even eliminate it at all.
Clinton and liberals like her make essentially the same argument that conservatives make
when they say that we cannot have big economic reforms because the problem is really greed.
Once you define the problem as one of sin then you can't really do anything to legislate
against it. Framing political problems as attitudinal is a useful way to protect powerful
interests. How do you regulate attitudes? How do you break up a sinful mind? How can you even
know if a person has racism on the brain but not economic anxiety? Can you even separate the
two? Politicians need to take voters as they are and not insist that they justify themselves
before voting for them.
I thought this reference to the Protestant way of self-justification or absolving oneself
without talking about class in the US is true but was perhaps the weakest point. The
financial elites justify their position and excuse current inequalities and injustices
visiting on the 99% by whatever is the current dominate culturally approved steps in whatever
country. In the US – Protestant heritage; in India – not Protestant heritage; in
Italy – Catholic heritage, etc. Well, of course they do. This isn't surprising in the
least. Each country's elites excuse themselves in a way that prevents change by whatever
excuses are culturally accepted.
I think talking about the Protestant heritage in the US is a culturing interesting artifact
of this time and this place, but runs the danger of creating another "identity" issue in
place of class and financial issues if the wider world's elite and similar self excuse by
non-Protestant cultures aren't included in the example. Think of all the ways the various
religions have been and are used to justify economic inequality. Without the wider scope the
religious/cultural point risks becoming reduced to another "identity" argument; whereas, his
overall argument is that "identity" is a distraction from class and economic inequality
issues. my 2 cents.
Chris Hedges has been warning about the rise of American Fascism for years, and his
warnings are coming to fruition- and still, the general population fails to recognize the
danger. The evils and violence that are the hallmarks of fascist rule are for other people,
not Americans. The terms America and Freedom are so ingrained in the minds of citizens that
the terms are synonymous. Reality is understood and interpreted through this distorted lens.
People want and need to believe this falsehood and resist any messenger trying to enlighten
them to a different interpretation of reality- the true view is just to painful to
contemplate.
The horrors of racism offer a nugget of truth that can misdirect any effort to bring about
systemic change. Like the flow of water finding the path of least resistance, racist
explanations for current social problems creates a channel of thought that is difficult to
alter. This simple single mindedness prevents a more holistic and complicated interpretation
to take hold in the public mind. It is the easy solution for all sides- the tragedy is that
violence, in the end, sorts out the "winners". The world becomes a place where competing
cultures are constantly at each others throats.
Falling in the racism/ identity politics trap offers the elite many avenues to leverage
their power, not the least of which is that when all else fails, extreme violence can be
resorted to. The left/progressives have become powerless because they fail to understand this
use of ultimate force and have not prepared their followers to deal with it. Compromise has
been the strategy for decades and as time has proven, only leads to more exploitation. Life
becomes a personal choice between exploiting others, or being exploited. The whole system
reeks of hypocrisy because the real class divisions are never discussed or understood for
what they are. This seems to be a cyclical process, where the real leaders of revolutionary
change are exterminated or compromised, then the dissatisfaction in the working classes is
left to build until the next crisis point is reached.
WWIII is already under way and the only thing left is to see if the imperialist ideology
will survive or not. True class struggle should lead to world peace- not world domination.
Fascists are those that seek war as a means of violent expansion and extermination to suit
their own ends. Hope for humanity rests in the idea of a multipolar world- the end of
imperialism.
Agressive war is the problem, both on the small social scale and the larger stage between
nations. The main question is if citizens will allow themselves to be swept up into the
deceptions that make war possible, or defend themselves and whatever community they can form
to ensure that mass destruction can be brought under control.
The real crisis point for America will be brought about by the loss of foreign wars- which
seem inevitable. The citizenry will be forced to accept a doubling down on the existing
failures or will show the fortitude to accept failure and defeat and rebuild our country.
Seeking a mythic greatness is not the answer- only a true and sober evaluation will suffice-
it must be a broader accommodation that accepts responsibility for past wrongs but does not
get caught up in narrow, petty solutions that racist recriminations are hallmark. What is
needed is a framework for a truth and reconciliation process- but such a process is only
possible by a free people, not a conquered one. It is only on this foundation that an
American culture can survive.
This will take a new enlightenment that seems questionable, at least in the heart of
American Empire. It entails a reexamination of what freedom means and the will to dedicate
oneself to building something worth defending with ones life. It has nothing to do with
wanting to kill others or making others accept a particular view.
It is finding ones place in the world, and defending it, and cultivating it. It is the
opposite of conquest. It is the resistance to hostility. In a word, Peace.
I don't disagree with many of your assertions and their warrants but I am growing
disturbed by the many uses of the word 'Fascism'. What does the word mean exactly beyond its
pejorative uses? Searching the web I am only confused by the proliferation of meanings. I
believe it's time for some political or sociological analyst to cast off the words 'fascism'
and 'totalitarianism' and further the work that Hannah Arendt started. We need a richer
vocabulary and a deeper analysis of the political, social, philosophical, and human contents
of the concepts of fascism and of totalitarianism. World War II was half-a-century ago. We
have many more examples called fascism and totalitarianism to study and must study to further
refine exactly what kinds of Evil we are discussing and hope to fight. What purpose is served
sparring with the ghosts as new more virulent Evils proliferate.
You have brought up a very important point. The meaning of words and their common usage.
But I have to disagree that "new more virulent Evils" require a new terminology. To my mind,
that plays right into the hand of Evil. The first step in the advancement of evil is the
debasement of language- the spreading of lies and obfuscating true meaning. George Orwell's
doublespeak.
I don't think its a matter of casting off the usage of words, or the creative search to
coin new ones, but to reclaim words. Now the argument can be made that once a word is
debased, it looses its descriptive force- its moral force- and that is what I take as your
concern, however, words are used by people to communicate meaning, and this is where the easy
abandonment of words to their true meaning becomes a danger for the common good. You cannot
let someone hijack your language. A communities strength depends on its common use and
understanding of language.
Where to find that common meaning? Without the perspective of class struggle taken into
account- to orientate the view- this search will be fruitless. Without a true grounding,
words can mean anything. I believe, in America, this is where the citizenry is currently, in
a state of disorientation that has been building for decades. This disorientation is caused
by DoubleSpeak undermining common understanding that is brought about by class consciousness/
solidarity/ community. In a consumerist society, citizens take for granted that they are lied
to constantly- words and images have no real meaning- or multiple meanings playing on the
persons sensibilities at any given moment- all communication becomes fundamentally marketing
and advertising BS.
This sloppiness is then transferred into the political realm of social communication which
then transforms the social dialog into a meaningless exercise because there is really no
communication going on- only posturing and manipulation. Public figures have both private and
public views. They are illegitimate public servants not because they withhold certain
information, but because they hold contradictory positions expressed in each realm. They are
liars and deceivers in the true sense of the word, and don't deserve to be followed or
believed- let alone given any elevated social standing or privilege.
Your oppressor describes himself as your benefactor- or savior- and you believe them, only
to realize later that you have been duped. Repeat the cycle down through the ages.
DoubleSpeak and controlling the interpretation of History are the tools of exercising
power. It allows this cycle to continue.
Breaking this cycle will require an honesty and sense of empathy that directs action.
Fighting evil directly is a loosing game. You more often than not become that which you
fight against. Directly confronting evil requires a person to perform evil deeds.
Perpetuation of War is the perfect example. It must be done indirectly by not performing evil
actions or deeds. Your society takes on a defensive posture, not an aggressive one. Defense
and preservation are the motivating principles.
Speaking the truth, and working toward peace is the only way forward. A new language and
modes of communication can build themselves up around those principles.
Protecting oneself against evil seems to be the human condition. How evil is defined
determines the class structure of any given society.
So much energy is wasted on trying to convince evil people not to act maliciously, which
will never happen. It is what makes them evil- it is who they are. And too much time is
wasted listening to evil people trying to convince others that they are not evil- or their
true intensions are beneficent- which is a lie.
"Sparing with ghosts", is a good way of describing the reclaiming of historical fact. Of
belief in the study of history as a means to improve society and all of humankind thru
reflection and reevaluation. The exact opposite desire of an elite class- hell bent on self
preservation as their key motivating factor in life. If you never spar with ghosts, you have
no reference to evaluate the person standing before you- which can prove deadly- as must be
constantly relearned by generations of people exploited by the strong and powerful.
The breaking point of any society is how much falsehood is tolerated- and in the West
today- that is an awful lot.
"I've gotten close to some young people who are nonetheless old school type leftists in
the revitalized Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and I've been struck to see that the
identitarian tendency in DSA has been actively opposing participation in the Medicare for All
campaign that the national organization adopted "
Check to see how their parents or other relatives made or make their money.
This is quite the challenge. I know a large number of upper middle class young people who
are amenable to the socialist message but don't really get (or don't get at all) what it
means. (I'm convinced they make up a large portion of that percentage that identifies as
socialist or has a positive image of socialism.) But it would be wrong to write them off.
A related point that I make here from time to time: all these UMC kids have been
inculcated with a hyper-competitive world view. We need a systemic re-education program to
break them free.
as a complementary anecdote, i know of economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life.
To them, the academic/ivory tower/abstract idea of equality in class, equality in income
is an idealistic pipe dream versus the dog-eat-dog reality of the world.
Interesting that you mention "economically bottom 50% people who are devout
anti-socialists, because they deal with "micro-triggers" of [low income?] free-riders,
cheaters, petty theft in their everyday life."
I read a lot of their snarling against alleged low income "moochers" in the local media.
What I find disturbing is their near total blindness to the for-profit businesses,
millionaires and billionaires who raid public treasuries and other resources on a regular
basis.
Just recently, I read a news story about the local baseball franchise that got $135
million dollars (they asked for $180 million) and the local tourism industry complaining
about their reduction in public subsidies because money had to be diverted to homeless
services.
No one seems to ever question why profitable, private businesses are on the dole. The fact
that these private entities complain about reductions in handouts shows how entitled they
feel to feed from the public trough. Moreover, they do so at a time of a locally declared
"homeless emergency".
Yet, it is the middle class precariat that condemn those below them as 'moochers and
cheaters', while ignoring the free-riders, cheaters and grand larceny above them.
There is no class consciousness. The working stiffs admire their owners so the only people
left to blame for their difficult life conditions are the poor below them on the social
hierarchy. Or they blame themselves, which is just as destructive. In the interim, they enjoy
the camaraderie that sporting events provide, so give the owners a pass. Bread and
Circuses.
A capitalist critique is the only way to change this situation, but that would require
learning Marxist arguments and discussing their validity.
There is that, or Charity for the poor, which only aggravates the class conflict that
plagues our society.
The third way is actually building community that functions on a less abusive manner,
which takes effort, time, and will power.
I homed in on your phrase "they deal with 'micro-triggers' of free-riders, cheaters, petty
theft in their everyday life" and it landed on fertile [I claim!] ground in my imagination. I
have often argued with my sister about this. She used to handle claims for welfare, and now
found more hospitable areas of civil service employment. I am gratified that her attitudes
seem to have changed over time. Many of the people she worked with in social services shared
the common attitudes of disparagement toward their suppliants -- and enjoyed the positions of
power it offered them.
I think the turning point came when my sister did the math and saw that the direct costs
for placing a homeless person or family into appallingly substandard 'housing' in her area
ran in the area of $90K per year. Someone not one of the "free-riders, cheaters, [or villains
of] petty theft in their everyday life" was clearly benefiting. I am very lazy but I might
try to find out who and advertise their 'excellence' in helping the poor.
A "re-education" program? That usage resurrects some very most unhappy recollections from
the past. Couldn't you coin a more happy phrase? Our young are not entirely without the
ability to learn without what is called a "re-education" program.
The comments in this post are all over the map. I'll focus on the comments regarding
statues commemorating Confederate heroes.
I recall the way the issue of Confederate statues created a schism in the NC
commentarient. I still believe in retaining 'art' in whatever form it takes since there is so
little art in our lives. BUT I also believe that rather than tear down the Confederate
statues of Confederate 'heroes' it were far better to add a plaque comemorating just what
sorts of heroism these 'heroes' performed for this country. That too serves Art.
Tearing the statues down only serves forgetting something which should never be
forgotten.
This was intended as a separate comment to stand alone. I believe Art should not forget
but should remember the horrors of our past lest we not forget.
It occurred to me that centrists demonize the left as unelectable based entirely on tokens
of identity. Long haired hippies. The other. It works because the political debate in America
is structured entirely around identity politics. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal so
of course white people in Mississippi will never vote for the Democrats. Someone like Bernie
Sanders has a message that will appeal to them but he is presented as to the left of even
Pelosi or alternately a traitor to the liberal identity siding with racists and sexists.
Actually, all of these oppressions are rooted in working class oppression. But that is
inconsistent with the framing of ascriptive identity.
This was a great post. Didn't know about Adolph Reed. He gets straight to the point
– we have only 2 options. Either change neoliberal capitalism structurally or modify
its structure to achieve equality. Identity politics is a distraction. There will always be
differences between us and so what? As long as society itself is equitable. As far as the
fear of fascism goes, I think maybe fascism is in the goal of fascism. If it is oppressive
then its bad. If it is in the service of democracy and equality the its good. If our bloated
corporatism could see its clear, using AR's option #2, to adjusting their turbo neoliberal
capitalism, then fine. More power to them. It isn't racism preventing them from doing this
– it is the system. It is structural. Unfortunately we face far greater dangers,
existential dangers, today than in 1940. We not only have an overpopulated planet of human
inequality, but also environmental inequality. Big mess. And neither capitalism nor socialism
has the answer – because the answer is eclectic. We need all hands on deck and every
practical measure we can conjure. And FWIW I'd like to compare our present delusions to all
the others – denial. The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret. The acceptance is visible and powerful. What will the postmortem
statue of neoliberalism look like?
Do you really want 'equality' however you might define it? We are not born equal. Each of
us is different and I believe each of us is therefore very special. [I suppose I echo the
retort of the French regarding the equality of the sexes: "Vive la Difference!".] I believe
we should celebrate our inequalities -- while we maintain vigilance in maintaining the equal
chance to try and succeed or fail. The problem isn't inequality but the extreme inequalities
in life and sustenance our society has built -- here and more abroad. I don't mind being
beaten in a fair race. An unfair race lightens my laurels when I win. But our societies run
an unfair competition and the laurels far too heavily grace the brows of those who win. And
worse still, 'inequality' -- the word I'll use for the completely disproportionate rewards to
the winners to the undeserving in-excellent 'winners' is not a matter solved by a quest for
'equality'. The race for laurels has no meaning when the winners are chosen before the race
and the 'laurels' cost the welfare and sustenance for the losers and their unrelated kin who
never ran in the race. And 'laurels' were once but honors and there is too far little honor
in this world.
Nothing denotes a naive idealistic "progressive" than the demand for near absolute
equality in terms of money and status in their future society.all or nothing i guess.
I have read and appreciated many comments by 'Susan the other'. I would not ever
characterize her comments as those of a naive idealistic "progressive" demanding absolute
equality I should and must apologize if that is how you read my comment. I intended to
suggest equality is not something truly desirable in-itself. But re-reading her comment I
find much greater depth than I commented to --
'Susan the other' notes: "The statue of Robert E. Lee, imo, is beautiful in its conveyance
of defeat with deep regret." In answer to her question: "What will the postmortem statue of
neoliberalism look like?" I very much doubt that the post mortem statue of Neoliberalism will
show regret for anything save that all the profits were not accrued before those holding the
reins, the Elite of Neoliberalism, might gracefully die without care for any children they
may have had.
Thanks for this post. I am really surprised these days by black "liberal" media folks who
insist that racism be addressed before inequality/class issues. They are almost vehement in
their discussions about this. Are they protecting neoliberalism because it benefits them
.???
My previous admittedly overlong reply has yet to show. Darn.
But this question is an important one.
Yes, they do very much.
One of the reasons the Civil Rights struggle died was the co-option of the Black elites,
especially of the Civil Rights Movement, by the American elites. After Martin Luther King's
assassination, his Poor People's Campaign slowly died. A quiet quid pro quo was offered.
Ignore all the various social, economic, political and legal wrongs done to all Americans,
and yes blacks in particular, and just focusing on black identity and social "equality" or at
least the illusion of campaigning for it, and in you will be given a guaranteed, albeit
constrained, place at the money trough. Thus the Black Misleadership Class was born.
All the great movements in past hundred plus years have had their inclusivity removed.
Suffragism/Feminism, the Union Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, even the Environmental
Movement all had strong cross cultural, class, and racial membership and concerns. Every
single of these movements had the usually white upper class strip out everyone else and
focusing only on very narrow concerns. Aside from the Civil Rights Movement, black
participation was removed, sometimes forcefully. They all dropped any focus on poor people of
any race.
A lot of money, time, and effort by the powerful went into doing this. Often just by
financially supporting the appropriate leaders which gave them the ability to push aside the
less financially secure ones.
Reading this post in its entirety I feel the author must become more direct in critique.
Old jargon of class or race or a "struggle against structural disparities" should be replaced
by the languages of such assertions as: " the larger objective was to eliminate the threat
that the insurgency had posed to planter-merchant class rule" or "It just expands access to
the trough, basically". Why mince words when there are such horrors as are poised against the
common humanity of all?
Your comment is too brief and too enigmatic. If by Adolf you mean Adolf H. -- he is dead.
New potentially more dangerous creatures roam the Earth these days beware.
I consider currently one of our great intellectuals in that he understands and can use
language to make his case in a layman not necessarily friendly but accessible .
and as a southern born white male I think maybe I should watch Glory I remember a '67 show
and tell when a black classmate had a civil war sword come up in their sugar cane field, and
when I and a friend found a (disinterred yuck) civil war grave just out in the woods in north
florida. People seem to have forgotten that times were chaotic in our country's checkered
past I was in massive race riots and massive anti war protests as a child of the '60s, but
since I was in the single digits at the time no one payed me any mind as a for instance my
dad somehow got the counselors apartment in a dorm at florida state in 68′ and I
remember people in the the dorms throwing eggs at the protesters. It was nuts.
Ferguson's INET paper got me thinking about what triggers racism in us. As a kid, ethnic
pejoratives were usually a reaction to some injury. "You stupid Wap, you just scratched
my car. That dirty Mick tripped me when I wasn't looking." I tend to agree with the
premise that bailing out Wall Street and letting Main Street lose out offers a powerful
trigger for a racist reaction. People might have been softening on their lifelong covert
racism when they succumbed to Obama's charm. But when you lose your job, then your house, and
wind up earning a third of what you did before the GR, that is the sort of thing that
triggers pejorative/racist reactions. That [N-word] SOB is just like them other Jew-boy
globalists who are sending our jobs to Chinamen and whatnot. Screw him and all the damned
Democrat libtards. Then, when a MAGA-hatted Trump echoes those sentiments over a PA
system, the ghost of Goebbels is beaming.
"... Upon investigation, the Judiciary Committee investigators found that Munro-Leighton was a left wing activist who is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh , who lives in Kentucky. When Committee investigators contacted her, she backpedaled on her claim of being the original Jane Doe - and said she emailed the committee "as a way to grab attention." ..."
"... Grassley has also asked the DOJ to investigate Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, who claimed through her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that Kavanaguh orchestrated a date-rape gang-bang scheme in the early 1980s. ..."
"... She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she "just wanted to get attention"; (2) "it was a tactic"; and (3) "that was just a ploy." She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford's allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: "I was angry, and I sent it out." When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: "Oh Lord, no." ..."
A Kentucky woman who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of rape has been referred
to the Department of Justice after she admitted that she lied .
The woman, Judy Munro-Leighton, took credit for contacting the office of Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-CA) as "Jane Doe" from Oceanside, California. Jane Doe claimed - without naming a time or
place - that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her "several times each" in the backseat of a car.
Harris referred the letter to the committee for investigation.
"They forced me to go into the backseat and took 2 turns raping me several times each. They
dropped me off 3 two blocks from my home," wrote Munro-Leighton, claiming that the pair told
her "No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl."
Kavanaugh was questioned on September 26 about the allegation, to which he unequivocally
stated: "[T]he whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever -- anything like that, nothing... [T]he
whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn't happen, not anything close ."
The next week, Munro-Leighton sent an email to the Judiciary committee claiming to be Jane
Doe from Oceanside, California - reiterating her claims of a "vicious assault" which she said
she knew "will get no media attention."
Upon investigation, the Judiciary Committee investigators found that Munro-Leighton was a
left wing activist who is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh , who lives in Kentucky. When
Committee investigators contacted her, she backpedaled on her claim of being the original Jane
Doe - and said she emailed the committee "as a way to grab attention."
"I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call
to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news." claimed Munro-Leighton.
Grassley has also asked the DOJ to investigate Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, who claimed
through her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that Kavanaguh orchestrated a date-rape gang-bang
scheme in the early 1980s.
President Trump chimed in Saturday morning, Tweeting: "A vicious accuser of Justice
Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you
imagine if he didn't become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False
Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?"
... ... ...
In a Friday letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray,
Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote:
on November 1, 2018, Committee investigators connected with Ms. Munro-Leighton by phone
and spoke with her about the sexual-assault allegations against Judge Kavanaugh she had made
to the Committee. Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted,
contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and
was not the author of the original "Jane Doe" letter .
When directly asked by Committee
investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the "Jane Doe" from Oceanside California who
had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: "No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab
attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of
the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news."
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she "just wanted to get
attention"; (2) "it was a tactic"; and (3) "that was just a ploy." She told Committee
investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing
process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford's allegations surfaced – to oppose
his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the
Committee, she said: "I was angry, and I sent it out." When asked by Committee investigators
whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: "Oh Lord, no."
The FBI is looking into claims that women have been asked to make false accusations of
sexual harassment against Special Counsel Robert Mueller in exchange for money -- but all may
not be as it seems. The alleged scheme aimed at Mueller, who has been investigating unproven
ties between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, came to the attention of his
office after several journalists and news outlets, including RT, were contacted by a woman
claiming that she had been approached by a man offering money if she would fabricate claims
against him.
13 days ago I received this tip alleging an attempt to pay off women to make up
accusations of sexual misconduct against Special Counsel Bob Mueller. Other reporters
received the same email. Now the Special Counsel's office is telling us they've referred the
matter to the FBI pic.twitter.com/oqh4Fnel5u
"... Avenatti's tweet became the occasion, in the bland phrase of the New York Times , for "immediate, blanket coverage across social media and cable news." The cable news channels did indeed bombard their viewers non-stop with the story -- if they weren't reporting on Cosby's being sent to jail. ..."
"... MSNBC correspondent Kate Snow, for instance, read the most graphic portions of Swetnick's statement. The other cable channels followed suit, along with the Times , the Washington Post and the rest. CNN anchor John King asked correspondent Sara Sidner to "walk us through" the allegations, which she obliged by providing every salacious detail. Afterward, King expressed appreciation for the "live reporting" on "a very sensitive and dramatic issue." ..."
Following the press and television news in the US on Wednesday might lead one to believe that a kind of madness has seized hold
of the American media, along with sections of the affluent petty-bourgeoisie.
The media generated new geysers of filth in regard to the controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Donald
Trump's candidate for the US Supreme Court. On the same day, the degrading impact of its #MeToo campaign could be seen in the hysterical,
semi-fascistic tone of the response to the sentencing of comedian Bill Cosby.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear Thursday from Christine Blasey Ford, who says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted
her when both were high school students. But newer allegations against Kavanaugh bumped up against one another on Wednesday. Before
the population had time to digest the claim by Deborah Ramirez (reported by the New Yorker magazine September 23) that Kavanaugh
had exposed himself to her at a Yale University party 35 years ago, a third woman came forward with even more sensational charges.
Michael Avenatti, best known as the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels in her legal case against Trump, tweeted a sworn statement
by Julie Swetnick, 55, claiming that Kavanaugh and others, while in high school, spiked the drinks of girls at house parties so that
they might more easily "gang-rape" them.
Swetnick went on to allege that she herself became the victim of one of these "gang rapes where [Kavanaugh's friend] Mark Judge
and Brett Kavanaugh were present."
Avenatti's tweet became the occasion, in the bland phrase of the New York Times , for "immediate, blanket coverage across
social media and cable news." The cable news channels did indeed bombard their viewers non-stop with the story -- if they weren't
reporting on Cosby's being sent to jail.
MSNBC correspondent Kate Snow, for instance, read the most graphic portions of Swetnick's statement. The other cable channels
followed suit, along with the Times , the Washington Post and the rest. CNN anchor John King asked correspondent
Sara Sidner to "walk us through" the allegations, which she obliged by providing every salacious detail. Afterward, King expressed
appreciation for the "live reporting" on "a very sensitive and dramatic issue."
The Times set the stage for the day's torrent of media smut in its morning edition, which plastered across its front
page two lead articles on the Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations and a third on the Cosby sentencing. The report on Trump's fascistic
and war-mongering rant at the United Nations was relegated to a subordinate spot. The opinion pages featured a lengthy editorial
("Questions Mr. Kavanaugh Needs to Answer") listing detailed questions for senators to ask about his sexual activities.
The American media lowers and demeans itself further with every new scandal.
It is impossible for us to determine the truth of the claims against Kavanaugh. It is certain , however, that the Democratic
Party campaign against Trump's nominee is a reactionary diversion and an effort to bury the most pressing issues. Kavanaugh is a
zealous right-winger and enemy of democratic rights. But no Democrat on the Judiciary Committee will ask him, "What was your role
in the attempted coup d'état, known as the Starr investigation, against Bill Clinton?" or "Why did you support torture and illegal
detention as part of the Bush administration?"
None of the Democrats, the supposed defenders of women, will even forthrightly denounce him for his attacks on abortion rights.
They've all but dropped the issue.
Speaking on CNN, the Times' Michael Shear inadvertently alluded to the anti-democratic character of the campaign against
Kavanaugh: "One of the dynamics that we've seen throughout this entire #MeToo movement is that accusations that start out as a single,
a solitary accusation against a man in power, often don't pick up the kind of steam that ultimately forces action until there's a
second allegation, and a third allegation, and beyond. And that's what creates often the kind of pressure -- overwhelming pressure
that forces some action."
Five, ten or twenty accusations do not amount to proof. Kavanaugh may have been guilty of sexual misconduct, but Shear and the
rest apparently need to be reminded that every witch-hunt in history has also operated on the principle of "numbers."
The repressive, right-wing character of the middle-class outrage over sexual misconduct, whipped up by the #MeToo campaign, is
on view in the frothing reaction to Cosby's sentencing. The comedian was convicted of sexually assaulting a Temple University employee
at his home in 2004 while she was under the influence of a sedative.
The comments on the outcome of the Cosby case in the Times from readers of its article "Bill Cosby, Once a Model of Fatherhood,
Is Sentenced to Prison," are overwhelmingly vengeful and vindictive:
Marriage is in decline. This fact is by now so familiar to conservatives that they may be
tempted to gloss over an interesting shift in the manner of marriage's decline.
Thirty years ago, Americans were getting married but
not staying that way . Today divorce rates are down but wedding bells are also in less
demand. Growing numbers of young people are simply staying single. There's evidence they're
becoming less interested
even in casual sex .
Are men and women giving up on each other? It's starting to feel that way. In the vitriol of
the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, the #MeToo movement, and our ongoing discussions of " incels
, " " NEETs
, " and absent
fathers , we see rising levels of frustration and rage, often directed indiscriminately
from one sex towards the other. Making relationships work has always been a challenge -- even
casual human interactions can sometimes be a challenge. So what if people decide that it's just
not worth it anymore?
A few years back, I became aware of that countercultural strain of identity politics known
as the "men's rights movement." I first encountered it on social media, of course, and in a
quest to grasp its red-pilled logic, I spent some time wandering the fever swamps of male
grievance, noting the many interesting parallels between virulent masculinism and the more
radical strains of feminism. It added an interesting layer to my perspective on our ongoing war
of sexes.
It's well worth noting that both masculinism and feminism, at least in their more extreme
forms, are fundamentally materialist in their logic. Feminism draws regularly on Marxist
ideologies, reducing complex social relations to an endless war of classes vying for power. For
masculinists, sociobiology is the more defining influence, as huge swaths of culture and custom
are reduced to mere expressions of the Darwinian imperative to procreate. It all makes sense,
on reflection. Aggrieved women, resenting the natural vulnerability of their bodies, are
attracted to political theories that call for the leveling of power disparities. Aggrieved men,
by contrast, hope to find in the male body a kind of warrant for dominance, which is bestowed
by biology and ostensibly crucial to the survival of the species. Peeling back the layers, it
seems that gender crusaders of both types are intensely fixated on brute corporeal realities:
the strength of man and the comparative neediness of woman.
I noticed something else, too, in my journey through the manosphere. I'd had occasion to
note before that militant feminists tended to be disagreeably female in their
mannerisms, exemplifying many of the vices that are most characteristic of women. This is
particularly obvious in the more misandrist corners of the feminist world (for instance, where
people debate whether non-exploitative heterosexual sex is in principle impossible, or
whether it might theoretically happen in a radically different sort of society where the
patriarchy has truly been defanged). The women in these circles seemed morbidly emotional,
catty, and a mess of hair-trigger sensitivities. You couldn't possibly mistake them for men,
but calling them "feminine" felt like a disservice to my sex.
Sizing up militant man advocates, I saw a fascinating mirror image. They seemed boorish,
rage-prone, and obsessed with one-upping each other. They were everything women find most
noxious in men. Girls would never exhibit such behavior, but it surely did not qualify as
"manly."
These sad cross-sections of society give us a glimpse of a significant truth about the
sexes. We're better off together. Even the apparent exceptions, examined closely, usually
aren't. The
men of Mount Athos or the Poor Clares of
Perpetual Adoration may appear to live in single-sex worlds. But the former regard
themselves as the special servants of Christ's Mother, while the latter see themselves as his
Brides. Their methods may be idiosyncratic, but in their own way they do
enthusiastically embrace the opposite sex. This is dramatically different from what we see with
our resentful gender warriors.
However we go about it, men and women
seem happiest when we are balanced by our sexual complements. Healthy things can still be
difficult though. Men and women readily misunderstand one another, and the fact that we
do need one another opens the door to many types of exploitation and abuse. Avoiding
these pitfalls takes work. Too often nowadays, I hear young people describing family life as a
hazard more than a blessing, wondering not "what can I do to be worthy of another's love and
commitment?" but rather "what can marriage really do for me? "
Love doesn't easily grow in such a stony soil.
I myself had the good fortune of growing up in the Mormon Church, where teenagers are given
extensive instruction in preparing themselves for marriage. There are elements of that teaching
I would modify a bit, just based on my own marital experience. Two commonsense lessons still
stand out in my mind though.
First, you can't possibly be a good spouse unless you're willing to work on yourself.
Your partner will surely have some irritating qualities, but so do you. Also, sometimes
marriage will call for things that are not fully congenial to your comfortable, satisfied,
long-developed individual self. This can be a problem in a society that is constantly urging us
to self-actualize. But be willing to bend a little instead of always insisting that "this is
how I am."
For women, I see this manifested in a stubborn reluctance to do things that remind them too
much of domestic stereotypes. They're so worried about being pigeonholed as domestic that they
don't consider how much the occasional homemade stew or fresh-baked cookie might do to help the
men in their lives feel cared for and at home. Is avoiding Donna Reed associations really more
important than making your men feel loved?
On the men's side, I often hear gripes about how "commercial America" has made women
unreasonably greedy for compliments and ego-stroking. Let's assume this is true (though
personally I'm skeptical because I think women have always craved compliments). How hard is it,
really, to say some nice things to the women in your life? To me it often seems that resentful
men are so allergic to "sensitivity" (which they associate with distasteful images of modern,
metrosexual girly-men) that they can hardly be bothered to be kind.
The second point is that living together inevitably involves some putting-up-with and
I-can-live-with-that. This is expected, and not a violation of your human rights. If men and
women always got along easily, we wouldn't be so good for one another.
The #MeToo movement has given us a remarkable illustration of just how ungenerous men and
women can be towards one another. Aggrieved women, in their zeal to punish the patriarchy,
sometimes act as though any unwanted expression of interest is an outrageous insult. To
be sure, some overtures are improper and deserving of censure. But men and women will never
find happiness together if the latter aren't willing to assume any responsibility for
attracting and encouraging attention in appropriate ways, or for deflecting it graciously when
it is unwanted. If women are unable to distinguish between sexual predation and normal sexual
attraction, Cupid will find it exceedingly difficult to find his mark.
On the male side, some men resent women's "invasion" of once-masculine spaces to the point
that almost any accommodation feels like a personal affront. The truth is, women do
feel more vulnerable than men, in public, at work, or in social gatherings. That's because,
in a very real sense, we are. We shouldn't treat all men as likely aggressors, but men
should be expected to conform to behavioral standards that serve, among other things, to
help women feel safe. That's always been a major function of gentlemanly behavior, without
which men and women rarely find one another bearable for very long.
In their better moments, both feminists and masculinists raise worthwhile points. At the
same time, the posture of each may be inimical to the happiness of both. For the sake of
our children, but even just for our own sakes, men and women need to remember what we used to
like about each other. We used to think human society was worth it. Maybe it still is.
Rachel Lu is a senior contributor at The Federalist and a Robert Novak Fellow.
The crown jewel of California's Progressive-feminist policy this year was Senate
Bill 826 which mandates publicly-held corporations to put women on their boards. It was
passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown. California now proudly leads the nation in identity
politics. The law requires a minimum of one woman board member by 2019, and by 2020, two for
boards with five members and three with boards of six or more.
The law's goal is gender
parity, but it is couched in financial terms suggesting that companies with women on their
boards do better than those that don't. Several studies are cited to back this claim (UC Cal,
Credit Suisse, and McKinsey). Catalyst
, a nonprofit that promotes women in the workplace, did a
widely quoted study that claimed:
Return on Equity: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board
directors outperformed those with the least by 53% .
Return on Sales: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women board
directors outperformed those with the least by 42% .
Return on Invested Capital: On average, companies with the highest percentages of women
board directors outperformed those with the least by 66%.
This claim doesn't meet the smell test and the overwhelming conclusion of scientific
research in the field says that women directors have little or no effect on corporate
performance. Much of the data supporting the feminist theory lacks empirical rigor and is
coincidental ( A happened and then B happened, thus A caused B ).
Professor Alice H.
Eagly , a fellow at Northwestern's Institute of Policy Research, and an expert on issues
related to women in leadership roles, commented on this issue in the Journal of Social Issues :
Despite advocates' insistence that women on boards enhance corporate performance and that
diversity of task groups enhances their performance, research findings are mixed, and
repeated meta‐analyses have yielded average correlational findings that are null or
extremely small.
Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy
goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific
findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of
evidence-based policy options. [Emphasis added]
"... Attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick have been referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation for a "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States," according to a statement released by the Judiciary Committee. ..."
"... The referral has an entire section entitled: "issues with Mr. Avenatti's credibility," which starts out highlighting a 2012 dispute with a former business partner over a coffee chain investment in which accuser Patrick Dempsey said that Avenatti lied to him, while the company was also "reportedly involved in additional litigation implicating his credibility, including one case in which a judge sanctioned his company for misconduct." ..."
"... Swetnick - whose checkered past has called her character into question, alleges that Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, ran a date-rape "gang bang" operation at 10 high school parties she attended as an adult (yet never reported to the authorities). ..."
"... The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick's account, contacting dozens of former classmates and colleagues, but couldn't reach anyone with knowledge of her allegations . No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims. - WSJ ..."
"... Soon after Swetnick's story went public, her character immediately fell under scrutiny - after Politico reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she's lying. ..."
Attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick have been referred to the Justice Department for criminal
investigation for a "potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional
committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination to the
Supreme Court of the United States," according to a statement released by the Judiciary Committee.
While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking
sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge
Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client's allegations of drug- and
alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s. The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the
suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice
Department.
"When a well-meaning citizen comes forward with information relevant to the committee's work, I
take it seriously. It takes courage to come forward, especially with allegations of sexual
misconduct or personal trauma. I'm grateful for those who find that courage," Grassley said. "
But
in the heat of partisan moments, some do try to knowingly mislead the committee
. That's
unfair to my colleagues, the nominees and others providing information who are seeking the
truth. It stifles our ability to work on legitimate lines of inquiry. It also wastes time and
resources for destructive reasons. Thankfully, the law prohibits such false statements to
Congress and obstruction of congressional committee investigations. For the law to work, we
can't just brush aside potential violations. I don't take lightly making a referral of this
nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future."
Grassley referred Swetnick and Avenatti for investigation in a letter sent today to the Attorney
General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The letter
notes potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001 and 1505,
which respectively define
the federal criminal offenses of conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of Congress. The
referral seeks further investigation only, and is not intended to be an allegation of a crime
.
-
Senate
Judiciary Committee
The referral has an entire section entitled: "issues with Mr. Avenatti's credibility,"
which starts out highlighting a 2012 dispute with a former business partner over a coffee chain
investment in which accuser Patrick Dempsey said that Avenatti lied to him, while the company was
also "reportedly involved in additional litigation implicating his credibility, including one case
in which a judge sanctioned his company for misconduct."
Swetnick - whose checkered past has called her character into question, alleges that Kavanaugh
and a friend, Mark Judge, ran a date-rape "gang bang" operation at 10 high school parties she
attended
as an adult
(yet never reported to the authorities).
The allegations were posted by Avenatti over Twitter, asserting that Kavanaugh and Judge made
efforts to cause girls "
to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be "gang
raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys
."
To try and corroborate the story, the
Wall
Street Journal
contacted "dozens of former classmates and colleagues," yet couldn't find
anyone who knew about the rape parties.
The Wall Street Journal has attempted to corroborate Ms. Swetnick's account, contacting
dozens of former classmates and colleagues,
but couldn't reach anyone with knowledge of
her allegations
. No friends have come forward to publicly support her claims. -
WSJ
"... An article IIRC in the Nation by a restaurant worker specifically discussed how #MeToo had ignored waitresses and there was no change in behavior. ..."
"... Hundreds of McDonald's employees, emboldened by the #MeToo movement, demonstrated outside company headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday to draw attention to alleged sexual harassment at work ..."
"... McDonald's employees only. No show of solidarity by other women. As a result, look how small the protest was. I rest my case. ..."
"... I think the movement, for both ethical and pragmatic reasons, should and must center working class women. I'm not seeing that. I would be very happy indeed to see it. ..."
"... Caliban and the Witch ..."
"... Fundamental to all civilised systems of criminal law is the doctrine nulla poena sine lege ..."
"... "Inappropriate behavior," is not a category of conduct known to the criminal law. Nor, for that matter, is making a person feel uncomfortable. Awkward advances without a guilty mind is also not a criminal offense. ..."
"... Due process rights were hard won over many centuries. If we are to abandon, even with the best of intentions, nulla poena sine lege ..."
"... I loathe party culture, exactly because it encourages assault. ..."
"... a Jobs Guarantee would make it easier for a woman to leave an abusive workplace. A Post Office Bank, by giving every woman her own checking account as a matter of right, would make it easier for women to leave abusive relationships. Sometimes it's more effective to be indirect. ..."
"... Wages for restaurant workers such that they don't have to depend on potentially abusive customers for tips. A third way also does not appear: Encouraging cooperatives . So the question of whose ..."
Sorry, but this is going to be a long one. Because I've become increasingly frustrated by
the little asides in Water Cooler related to MeToo. So buckle up, buttercup.
Justice for Emmett Till and #Believewomen are only in conflict if you want to pit groups
of victims against each other. I'm not surprised to see a GOPer do it, but I'm disappointed
it's going on here. What Emmett Till and women of sexual assault (and men and children of
sexual assault) have in common is that there is no justice for them. This idea that we need
"due process" for the MeToo stuff is all well and good, but where exactly is it supposed to
come from? What #Believewomen and #MeToo (which includes men and boys, see, e.g. Terry Crews
for a famous example) are really about are holding the powerful accountable and telling the
world that the current system does not work for women (or anyone else who has been sexually
assaulted). How is that a bad thing? Unless you want to read #Believewomen as meaning that
you should literally never doubt a woman, regardless of any other facts. That's like saying
Black Lives Matter doesn't care about non-black lives, when everyone knows that's right-wing
crap. BLM focuses on a failing of the system. MeToo focuses on a failing system. As for due
process -- Larry Nassar, the largest known pedophile in sports history (that we know of) --
was repeatedly reported to the authorities. At one point, a police department made a victim
sit down with him so he could explain how she had "misinterpreted" his treatment for abuse.
It literally took a victim of his growing up, becoming a lawyer and studying how to prove
sexual assault cases, then building evidence and turning it over to the Indianapolis Star to
get anyone to do anything. And in the meantime, hundreds of women and girls were assaulted,
including most of the last two women's Olympic teams. That's not due process, it is a system
that protects the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Not exactly an unknown or rare
phenomenon limited to women.
So if people really care about "due process"* for MeToo, then it would be nice to see as
much time spent on discussing what that process might look like than just taking potshots at
people, many of whom are sexual assault victims, who are demanding society listen to them and
believe them instead of naturally lining up to defend the person in power. And that's what
#Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have as much credibility
as the powerful. Nothing about that would not deny justice to Emmett Till. A movement is not
defined by its twitter hashtag.
* Spoiler alert, they don't. Or, rather, I think lambert does, but most do not. It's just
another way to avoid accountability. After all, most of the more notable MeToo allegations
are employment or similar situations, where due process does not apply in any other context,
but now suddenly bosses want to invoke it for themselves. Please don't try to invoke it when
they fire you because you won't work a last-minute Saturday shift. Because you can't. But
report the boss for sexual harassment and be prepared for a lot of process. So much process,
you may never get through it all. Which is the other joke, companies have tons of process re
sexual harassment complaints, almost all of which is designed to protect the harasser.
Which brings me to class. I've seen a lot of picking at #MeToo for being focused on women
("identity") instead of class. This confuses me since, while any woman can be a victim, poor
and working class women (and men) have even fewer options of redress (I won't even get into
incarcerated men and women). See the recent
McDonalds' strike over sexual harassment, a labor action which shouldn't be surprising
since as many as 40% of women in the fast food industry
experience sexual harassment . Moreover, institutional sexism -- like racism -- has roots
in capital accumulation and labor exploitation. For an interesting read on this, see
The Caliban and the Witch . Which is not to say it's all about class, it isn't. Racism
and sexism exist, they exist for everyone regardless of class, but the effects of them are
greatly exacerbated by poor and working class people's material conditions and they are tied
directly to the system that creates those conditions. To the extent people want to discuss
due process, it should be about creating systems that hold the powerful accountable for their
abuse of power, a challenge that extends across society.
"And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should
have as much credibility as the powerful."
It is wise, when starting a movement, to say what you "really mean." As it stands,
#Believewomen MEANS convicting defendants on the sole word of one person – the victim.
If we really start doing that, women will be among the victims, along with other powerless
people.
" only in conflict if you want to pit groups of victims against each other." What do you
mean, "want"? That's a classic straw man. The slogan you're defending pits them against each
other – that's Lambert's point.
You also say that enforcement against either assault or sexual harassment is nightmarish
and often ineffective. That I'll believe, and it's a necessary point. Actually, law
enforcement and "justice" generally are pretty nightmarish. Tangle sex up in that and it only
gets worse. The point of #Metoo was to convince us that we have a problem, and it
accomplished that. Slogans that mean what you don't mean only detract from the
accomplishment.
It is simply disingenuous to say that #MeToo has taken up the cause of lower class women.
The restaurant industry is one of the biggest employers in America and harassment of women is
pervasive. How many #MeToo luminaries have talked up the problems they face? An article
IIRC in the Nation by a restaurant worker specifically discussed how #MeToo had ignored
waitresses and there was no change in behavior.
And that protest was NOT promoted by the loose #MeToo movement. See this from USA
Today:
Hundreds of McDonald's employees, emboldened by the #MeToo movement, demonstrated
outside company headquarters in Chicago on Tuesday to draw attention to alleged sexual
harassment at work
Most of my thoughts (which are evolving) on #MeToo are summed up in
this post on the McDonalds strikers : I think the movement, for both ethical and
pragmatic reasons, should and must center working class women. I'm not seeing that. I would
be very happy indeed to see it.
My 2015 post on the wonderful Caliban and the Witch is
here . I concluded:
However, if one takes the view that "Now is the time" -- however defined -- in the
present day, it also behooves one to do the math; it has always seemed to me that a bare
majority, 50% plus one, as sought by the legacy parties, is insufficient to do much but
perpetuate, among other things, the legacy parties. It also seems to me that sintering
together demographics based on identity politics -- Christian, Black, White, Hispanic,
Young, Old, Male, Female, Rural, Urban -- can only produce these bare majorities. It also
seems to me that a focus on "economic class" can't give an account of the sort of events
that Federici describes here. Hence, to bend history's arc, some sort of grand unified
field theory that goes beyond 50%, to 80%, is needed (along with the proposed provision of
concrete material benefits[1]). Work like Federici's is a step toward such a theory, and so
I applaud it.
Setting aside the lack of a unified field theory, it seems to me that without centering
working class women, #MeToo remains very much in 50% plus one territory.
Let me address your conclusion:
To the extent people want to discuss due process, it should be about creating systems
that hold the powerful accountable for their abuse of power, a challenge that extends
across society.
Fundamental to all civilised systems of criminal law is the doctrine nulla poena
sine lege -- no punishment without a law. There are hundreds of offenses on the
criminal statute books. Assault, sexual assault and indecent assault are serious criminal
offenses, attracting heavy sentences upon a conviction.
"Inappropriate behavior," is not a category of conduct known to the criminal law.
Nor, for that matter, is making a person feel uncomfortable. Awkward advances without a
guilty mind is also not a criminal offense.
Due process rights were hard won over many centuries. If we are to abandon, even with
the best of intentions, nulla poena sine lege for one set of behaviors, we'd best
believe it will be abandoned for other behaviors, and for purposes less benevolent. Have we
thought that through?
That said, if we think back to the Dred Scott case and its fate, it's clear that movements
can change law; we will have to see what happens with #MeToo. Feminist legal scholar
Catherine
MacKinnon urges[2]:
Sexual harassment law can grow with #MeToo. Taking #MeToo's changing norms into the law
could -- and predictably will -- transform the law as well. Some practical steps could help
capture this moment. Institutional or statutory changes could include prohibitions or
limits on various forms of secrecy and nontransparency that hide the extent of sexual abuse
and enforce survivor isolation, such as forced arbitration, silencing nondisclosure
agreements even in cases of physical attacks and multiple perpetration, and confidential
settlements. A realistic statute of limitations for all forms of discrimination, including
sexual harassment, is essential. Being able to sue individual perpetrators and their
enablers, jointly with institutions, could shift perceived incentives for this
behavior.
However, it's clear that the criminal justice system in which due process rights are
embedded isn't a justice system at all for this category of offenses. I wrote
: " [W]e as a society have no way of adjudicating sexual assault claims that treats the
assaulted with a level of dignity sufficient for them to come forward at the time " (The
backlog of unprocessed rape kits pointed to by Tarana Burke shows this clearly, even if
nothing else did.) I'm personally acquainted both with someone who was sexually assaulted,
and someone who was falsely accused of "inappropriate behavior," and I've wracked my brains
trying to imagine a system of adjudication under which either could have received
justice -- the first never did, the second was ultimately cleared -- but without success. I
can't see how MacKinnon's fixes would have helped either one.
I'd certainly welcome different and parallel forms of
adjudication that would have achieved justice for my friends; nobody said "due process"
had to be achieved only through the court sytem, after all. For example, although this is a
limited solution that applies to neither of my friends, an alternative adjudication system
that puts the burden of proof on the male if the other party is female and both are drunk
would probably brake a lot of bad behavior on campus; this of course speaks to my priors,
since I loathe party culture, exactly because it encourages assault.
NOTE
[1] For example, a Jobs Guarantee would make it easier for a woman to leave an abusive
workplace. A Post Office Bank, by giving every woman her own checking account as a matter of
right, would make it easier for women to leave abusive relationships. Sometimes it's more
effective to be indirect.
[2] One way to redress power imbalances in the workplace -- building union power, say
through card check -- does not appear on MacKinnon's list of legal transformations. A second
way also does not appear: Wages for restaurant workers such that they don't have to
depend on potentially abusive customers for tips. A third way also does not appear:
Encouraging cooperatives . So the
question of whose and which norms are to be transformed remains
salient.
UPDATE You write:
And that's what #Believewomen really means – the word of the powerless should have
as much credibility as the powerful. Nothing about that would not deny justice to Emmett
Till. A movement is not defined by its twitter hashtag.
If that's what it really means, that's not what it really says. The hash tag isn't
#BelieveThePowerless, after all. I think it's simpler to take the movement at its word. If
the organizers wish to change the slogan because it's sending the wrong message, then they
will. If they don't, then the hash tag is sending the message they want.
I agree that movements don't totally define themselves by the choices they make
with their slogans. But those choices matter. The Bolsheviks won the day under the slogan
"Peace, Land,
Bread." "Less War, Gentler Serfdom, Access to Bread" just wouldn't have had the same
impact.
Gotta say this out loud ZH people- seeing first hand what the Democrats did 2011-2016,
getting way to close to government operations in my state, pushed me from left to the right
in absolute disgust with the left. Seemed like maybe the right is different and better
nowadays. However, general gay bashing and blatant racism on websites like this one scares
some and puts some moderates and Independents off the right. I'm all for #hetoo and Corey
Booker reaping what he sowed. What they did to Kavenaugh was despicable. A conservative party
that disavows racism, gaybashing and misogyny is highly appealing nowadays over the left. I'm
a card carrying member of the NRA, but when you start that gaybashing you all get scary and
make some reconsider voting red for fear of devolving. Want to change your gender? Knock
yourself out; none of my friggen business. But to force the taxpayer to pay for "gender
reassignment", and then claim there's no money for stopping and repairing the landslides in
Pennsylvania's red counties, and blame it on Trump? That's the insanity of the leftist
governor in my state. All you do when you attack a group over race, being gay or being women
is create a new class dependent victims for the left to "protect" and give a free ride in
exchange for votes. Hope this makes sense. Not as articulate as some here but hope I got the
point across.
The right was looking pretty good after Kavenaugh. Maybe this whole post and many of its
comments is a ploy to draw in the stupid and the trolls. This post and comments like yours
are making the right look like apes last minute before the midterms. Its working. You all
could have handled this news with some decency and some class and some tolerance and sealed
it for the republicans in the upcoming elections. But no. You let yourselves be drawn into
posts like this, for all the world to see that maybe nothing at all has changed about the
right. SMH.
Some of us who wanted to vote red might have a family member who is gay. Coworkers and
neighbors and friends who are black. Now we have to worry, after reading posts like yours,
that we'll be plunging loved ones back into a world of discrimination and maybe violence by
voting red. Thought all this crap was in the past. Nope. Still raging strong I see after
reading posts like these
I should think that there ought to be a change in American law wherein someone making a
sexual accusation without proof can be held liable financially and possibly criminally.
Booker must be sweating bullets now that his secret is out. Maybe he and the anointed one,
Obama, can get it on in a steam room in somewhere in D.C. together, with the Wookie looking
the other way.
Unless there is a smoking gun in regards to evidence, I do think we should stoop to their
lowness - play their game. Kill them with the rule of law. Be sympathetic to the gay man and
tell him if there is real evidence they will follow-up, but if not they have no grounds to go
anywhere with it. Show them what they SHOULD have done. Then let the rumors and paranoia of
potential evidence do the job on Booker. It will eat him up. Mean time, we move forward and
ride the Red Wave.
There's an older episode of The Green Room with Paul
Provenza when the late Patrice O'Neal, arguably one of the best stand-up comics in recent
history, gets serious for a moment, saying: "I love being able to say anything I want. I had to
learn how to stop caring about people not laughing. Because the idea of comedy, really, is not
everybody should be laughing. It should be about 50 people laughing and 50 people horrified.
There should be people who get it and people who don't get it."
O'Neal gets right to the chaotic, trickster heart of comedy with that statement. Comedy at
its best balances humor against shock–not necessarily vulgarity, mind you, but a sort of
unsettling surprise. It's a topsy-turvy glimpse at an uncanny, upside-down world, which, if the
joke lands, provides a bulwark against torpor and complacency. Great comedy inhabits the
absurdity of the world. It makes itself into a vantage point from which everything seems
delightfully ridiculous, including (often especially) the comedians themselves. We wouldn't
need comedy in a world that wasn't absurd. Perhaps that's why Dante only included humor in his
Inferno . There is no absurdity in paradise.
Unfortunately, Hannah Gadsby's Nanette , a comedy special recently released on
Netflix, only embraces the non-laughter half of O'Neal's dictum. It's the very epitome of
self-serious, brittle, didactic, SJW "comedy." It's not funny. And worse, it's not meant to be.
Gadsby, a queer Australian comedian, uses her "stand-up special" as a way to destroy the very
medium she pretends to be professionally engaged in. Her basic argument is that, since comedy
is by its very nature self-deprecating (true), people who define themselves as members of an
oppressed minority shouldn't engage in comedy because they're only participating in the
violence already being done to them by society at large.
We have allowed "social justice" types, a tiny fringe minority of unhappy and often unstable
people, rewrite the rules of our entire civilization and culture.
All the way back to Aristophanes comedy has often included a political component or an effort
to "educate" audiences or at least make them think about things. But the actual comedy part
is essential. Otherwise it's just a lecture.
We might just be witnessing the death of Art. As the SJW furies brutally and effectively
enforce The Narrative in literary fiction, film, TV, comedy, etc. they destroy the potential
for creative genius in these mediums and kill off most of the audience. It was already hard
enough for those arts to compete with new media forms. The SJW's hostile takeover of Art just
makes the triumph of Real Life As Entertainment all the more complete.
Whereas twenty years ago I might be spending my free time reading a novel and attempting
to write a short story, today I'm reading articles on The American Conservative and posting
this comment.
"... the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth. ..."
"... 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else." ..."
On October 2, Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian published an article
titled "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship," incorporating the
results of a year-long effort to publish hoax articles, deliberately comprised of bunk facts
and irrational and reactionary conclusions, in academic journals associated with gender, racial
and identity studies.
The results expose the intellectual bankruptcy of identity politics and postmodernist
philosophy. Their proponents, who dominate university humanities departments worldwide, are
charlatans who have published or given favorable "revise and resubmit" comments to the most
absurd and vulgar pseudo-scientific arguments.
These include: a purported 1,000-hour study of dog "humping" patterns at dog parks that
concludes by calling for human males to be "trained" like dogs to prevent rape culture; a
long-form poem produced through a teenage angst poetry generator about women holding
spiritual-sexual "moon meetings" in a secret "womb room" and praying to a "vulva shrine;" a
proposal to develop feminist robots, trained to think irrationally, to control humanity and
subjugate white men; and additional articles relating to male masturbation. Another proposal,
which was praised by reviewers in a paper that was ultimately rejected, encouraged teachers to
place white students in chains to be shamed for their "white privilege."
There is an element of humor in the fact that such drivel could win accolades from academics
and journals. The "dog park" article was even selected as one of the most influential
contributions in the history of the Gender, Place and Culture journal!
But the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian
have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought,
based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective
truth.
Most chillingly, the authors also submitted a re-write of a chapter from Hitler's Mein
Kampf , with language altered to reference female identity and feminism. The paper, titled
"Our struggle is my struggle: solidarity feminism as an intersectional reply to neoliberal and
choice feminism," was accepted for publication and greeted with favorable reviews.
"I am extremely sympathetic to this article's argument and its political positioning," one
academic wrote. Another said, "I am very sympathetic to the core arguments of the paper."
In the wake of their public disclosure, Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have come under
attack by the proponents of postmodernism and identity politics, who claim the hoax is a
right-wing attack on "social justice" disciplines.
Typical is the argument of Daniel Engber, who wrote in Slate : "How timely, too,
that this secret project should be published in the midst of the Kavanaugh imbroglio -- a time
when the anger and the horror of male anxiety is so resplendent in the news. 'It's a very
scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and
Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether
levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else."
In reality, the hoax has exposed the fact that it is the proponents of identity politics who
are advancing views parallel to the far right. While they are enraged with those who voice
concern about the elimination of due process and the presumption of innocence for the targets
of the #MeToo campaign, they are unbothered by the fact that the writings of Adolf Hitler are
published and praised in feminist academic circles.
Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian are self-described liberals who are concerned that the
present identity hysteria is "pushing the culture war to ever more toxic and existential
polarization," by fanning the flames of the far right. As a result, identitarians are
"affecting activism on behalf of women and racial and sexual minorities in a way which is
counterproductive to equality aims by feeding into right-wing reactionary opposition to those
equality objectives."
In contrast, the authors' aim is to "give people -- especially those who believe in
liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice -- a clear reason to look at
the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, 'No, I will not
go along with that. You do not speak for me.'"
The hoax's authors are correct to link the identity politics proponents' hostility to
equality with their opposition to rationalism, scientific analysis and the progressive gains of
the Enlightenment. But the roots of this right-wing, irrationalist, anti-egalitarian
degeneration are to be found in the economic structure of capitalist society.
The academic architects of postmodernism and identity politics occupy well-paid positions in
academia, often with salaries upwards of $100,000–$300,000 or more. As a social layer,
the theoreticians of what the World Socialist Web Site refers to as the "pseudo-left"
are in the wealthiest 10 percent of American society. Their political and philosophical views
express their social interests.
The obsession with "privilege," sex, and racial and gender identity is a mechanism by which
members and groups within this layer fight among themselves for income, social status and
positions of privilege, using degrees of "oppression" to one up each other in the fight for
tenure track jobs, positions on corporate or non-profit boards, or election to public office. A
chief purpose of the #MeToo campaign, for example, is to replace male executives and male
politicians with women, while ignoring the social needs of the vast majority of working class
women.
The weaponization of identity politics is directed down the social ladder as well. By
advancing the lie that white workers benefit from "white privilege," for example, the
proponents of identity politics argue: the spoils of Wall Street should not go to meeting the
social needs of the working class, including white workers, who face record rates of
alcoholism, poverty, opioid addiction, police violence and other indices of social misery.
Instead, the world's resources should go to me . It is this visceral class hatred that
serves as the basis for absurd and reactionary arguments like those advanced in the hoax
papers.
Nor have the politics of racial identity improved the material conditions for the vast
majority of minority workers. Inequality within racial minorities has increased alongside the
introduction of affirmative action programs and the increasing dominance of identity politics
in academia and bourgeois politics. In 2016, the top 1 percent of Latinos owned 45 percent of
all Latino wealth, while the top 1 percent of African-Americans owned 40.5 percent and the
richest whites owned 36.5 percent of white wealth.
The influence of postmodernism in academia exploded in the aftermath of the mass protests of
the 1960s and early 1970s. Based explicitly on a rejection of the revolutionary role of the
working class and opposition to the "meta narrative" of socialist revolution, it is not
accidental that identity politics and postmodernism have now been adopted as official
ideological mechanisms of bourgeois rule.
In recent decades, a massive identity politics industry has been erected, with billions of
dollars available from corporate funds and trusts for journals, non-profits, publications,
fellowships and political groups advancing racial or gender politics. Identity politics has
come to form a central component of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy. Imperialist wars
are justified on the grounds that the US is intervening to protect women, LGBT people and other
minorities.
The growing movement of the working class, broadening strikes across industries and
widespread interest in socialism on college campuses pose an existential threat to the
domination of postmodernism. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have struck a well-timed blow
against this reactionary obstacle to the development of scientific socialist consciousness.
This is the liberal arts equivalent of what happened in Soviet Russia with its "revealed
truth" ideas.
I suspect it will die at some point as the revolutionaries turn on each other. It will
also die off with further exposure to reality. You can deconstruct the use of gender in the
German language as much as you want and scream loudly about the use of "der, die, das" and so
forth. But you know what? People are going to continue using them.
(In fact, if I wanted to blow up the whole silly mess from the inside, that's what I would
do. Start a movement to "get rid of gender" in the gendered languages and turn all po-mo
arguments into total jokes.)
Identity politics has jumped the shark. SJW's are a minority who wish to perpetuate identity
politics as an end all, be all substitute for the hard work of framing actual policy. The
whole undertaking is flailing -- and backlash to PC culture had much to do with how Trump got
elected. So let the Ivy League schools continue down the path toward irrelevance.
Although the ID of the university was withheld, while I was reading this piece–and at
the risk of being unnecessarily coy–there was one word used which jumped off the
screen, so I think I have a pretty good idea which school it is. Then again, does it really
matter? This kind of soft-core bolshevism has, to one degree or another, infected all of the
Ivies as well as most, if not all, of the Forbes Top 50.
I have no idea who this gentleman is about whom Rod is writing but it is clear that he is
quite intelligent and is trying to bring something of value to the table. If he has reached
the end of his tether and feels the necessity to bail, then it'll be the university's loss,
not his.
If you are a conservative – student/staff/faculty in an ivy league university. Be
careful what you say
Your thoughts are not welcome. And everybody knows that.
Back in Soviet times, scientific positions were frequently filled with incompetent but
politically connected people. STEM can be corrupted–although the resultant failings are
much more clearly noticeable.
Back in the Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" (the book, not the movie, where this was
scrubbed out), what sets off Marko Ramius was that his wife died in a botched surgery
performed by an incompetent doctor who was in his job because of his political connections.
Clancy based this event on numerous stories reported by Soviets of the time.
"... It's better to just keep your mouth shut sometimes, even if your teeth grind, and your lips go blue, and you get cobwebs in your mouth. ..."
"... Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to do a conference about gender roles in society? ..."
"... Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender preference. ..."
"... He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole land and murdered indigenous people. ..."
"... Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now. As far as whether it's appropriate - he's reacting to a huge political movement that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this. ..."
"... The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished. ..."
"... I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting in around 2015. ..."
"... It's a witch hunt, the person who made this into an issue went out of their way to make it an issue. They're part of a extremist feminist group that has a history of getting offended because they want to be. Behold the piece of shit [twitter.com]. An archive just in case. [archive.is] And enjoy the witch hunt in action. [twitter.com] ..."
"... It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women. Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did the modern version of burning books. ..."
At a workshop organized by
CERN, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by
invitation", BBC reported Monday
. Strumia's presentation
[Google
Drive link]
that supports the idea that "physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does
not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside" has already received a lot of
criticism, with one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that had long
been discredited."
In a statement on Sunday, CERN
said
, "It is
unfortunate that one of the 38 presentations, by a scientist from one of the collaborating universities, risks
overshadowing the important message and achievements of the event. CERN, like many members of the community,
considers that the presentation, with its attacks on individuals, was unacceptable in any professional context
and was contrary to the CERN Code of Conduct. It, therefore, decided to remove the slides from the online
repository."
On Monday, CERN said
it has
suspended the scientist from any activity at CERN with immediate effect, pending investigation into last week's
event.
Yes to both. However, the exact way in which the world was batshit crazy has varied greatly.
At one point, suggesting that the earth wasn't the center of the universe was enough to be
burned at the stake, figuratively speaking. Before then, questioning the nature of anything
and pissing off the powers that be might well have gotten you literally burned at the stake.
Batshit crazy goes in cycles. Last peak was during WW1/2 and this one is hopefully less
destructive. Blame it this time around on the social media that makes everyone's private
thoughts available for inspection by everyone else.
one female physicist defining Strumia's analysis as "simplistic, drawing on ideas that
had long been discredited."
If it really has been discredited, then quote the research that discredits it. Strumia has
provided evidence to support his claims, and evidence is needed to dismiss those claims.
This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many
physicists
however are
definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem.
It's not opinion and the facts are not hard to find for anyone who can be bothered
to look for even 20 seconds on Google. Sexism is quite real and it is distressingly
common in the field of physics and many other branches of science. It's ironic that
you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was fired because he
(apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm not quite sure
you understand the meaning of the term.
His presentation provided data to support his position. In contrast you are
offering nothing. You didn't even bother to read his presentation. Had you have bothered to do so you
would have noticed the sentence cited in the headline occurs under the heading
"discrimination against women". BTW the very next slide includes the heading "discrimination against men".
I know a few female PhDs in engineering subjects. When asked, all of them said
that gender discrimination was not an issue in their studies or their research,
except for the very rare "conservative old professor" that was easily avoided.
Gender discrimination in the hard sciences is at worst a myth and at best
irrelevant. The rare cases were it happens get blown all out of proportion to
fuel an utterly sexist and misandrist movement.
it's "Locker room talk" and a generally unfriendly work environment.
The nerds I know have very, very little tact. The few who do know what tact
is have to try really, really hard to avoid saying incredibly off color crap.
There are entire books about dead baby jokes and enough jokes about dead
hookers and pedophiles to fill several books over. Being a nerd and spending
a lifetime around other nerds I can tell you they'll cheerfully spout these
gags along with harmless Monty Python jokes and be completel
It's ironic that you ask for evidence of sexism in an article about a guy who was
fired because he (apparently) exhibited sexism publicly. If that isn't evidence I'm
not quite sure you understand the meaning of the term.
You're begging the question.
He may well be a sexist - I don't know, but you can't justify the claim using the
claim itself as evidence.
This is true. Physics has no opinion on the matter. Many
physicists
however are
definitely sexist against women. Not all but enough to be a real problem.
You might have missed the new hotness in intersectionality: the redefinition of -isms and
-ists to refer to outcomes, not intent.
If an insufficient number of XYZ are not present, then "the system" (not specific people)
is XYZ-ist and must be corrected. And if you are not XYZ, then you are a receiving a benefit
of an XYZ-ist system and are thus XYZ-ist yourself. (Note: Denying your inherent XYZ-ist
nature shall be taken as strong additional evidence that you are XYZ-ist.)
Perhaps you missed the part that one of the official subjects of the conference was gender
in the field. It was relevant to the discussion. See AC's post about 4 or 5 below with the
part in bold.
Why is there a conference about gender in CERN? Did CERN open a sociology branch? Only two
things can happen in such a conference. Either it turns into a politically correct echo
chamber with nothing worthwhile coming out of it. Or it turns into a massive controversy
that is equally unproductive. Do you ask sociologists to do quantum physics? No, because if
you do, all you are going to get are time travelling cats or whatever bullshit people tend
to think of when quantum physics is mentioned. So why would you ask particle physicists to
do a conference about gender roles in society?
Physicists are free to discuss gender between themselves, and sociologists are free to
talk about quantum physics, but to organize a conference in a reputable scientific
institution, one would expect experts in their fields.
Way too many conferences already have one guy, or girl, who decides to bring a pot
of shit to stir instead of any actual contribution to the conference.
Disagreeing with the status quo is not "bring[ing] a pot of shit to stir". Strumia
provided evidence to support his claims. If he is wrong, then provide evidence that he
is wrong. Evidence huh? Did you actually read his presentation? Seriously, there is a link to it
right there in the summary. Go through the whole thing. Evidence indeed.
If I didn't know it came from a professor (with an obvious axe to grind) I would have
guessed it was done by a 9th grader. (with an axe to grind)
At best a lot of his 'evidence' pretty much comes down to 'it isn't sexism, women
really are just worse, otherwise they would be doing better in physics because we only
care about merit!'
Looking at the pdf presentation in the OP's link, he went somewhere that some people do not
want to be discussed, Gender differences and gender preferences.
Instead of refuting his
argument, it's easier to call him a sexist bigot and just discredit him that way.
Appears he's making the statement, historically men did dominate the field, but didn't
primarily exclude women, and when women started joining they won Nobels. But many fields of
study appears to have gender differences, and that sexism wasn't the cause, but gender
preference.
He states his theory, cultural Marxism re-writing history to promote oppression as the
reason women did not contribute. Along the same lines of re-shaping history to push the
narative that exploration and advancements were performed by men who raped, murdered, stole
land and murdered indigenous people.
Truth spoken, world goes nuts. As is the norm now.
As far as whether it's appropriate - he's
reacting
to a huge political movement
that's been going on for years now. He didn't just come out of nowhere and decide to do this.
In fact I'd say it's almost inevitable that highly analytical minds are going to react
against this identity politics at some point. It's more surprising how rare it is to see
reactions.
Physicists are expensive. Get women into physics and they become significantly less so. It's
the same across all STEM fields. It's got nothing to do with diversity and everything to do
with wages.
As an added bonus men and women are fighting among themselves over gender issues, making a
nice skism in the working class.
He is wrong, "physics was invented and built by
physicists
." But he was right, "it's not
by invitation". It is not a social club. You don't get a invitation in the mail. You join by
achievement, by accomplishment. All this gender talk is a distraction from real physics.
Anyone who thinks physics, esp historically, was not a social club has never worked in the
field. Who you know, who you worked with, who will vouch for you, all critical things in the
field. Very invitation only.
meritocracies are based on results, not on your sex, no matter what society "wants" to see ...are largely indisputable.
Interesting Ted talk by a feminist activist who was
making a documentary about 'men who hate women' and came to realize that in some ways men are
marginalized:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
[youtube.com] - the point that resonates with this thread
is where she said "you can look around and say that every single person was born of a woman,
and nobody will doubt or criticize that.... but if you say look around and nearly every single
building you see was built pretty much by men and you get immediately attacked"
That said, in no particular order:
- there's no reason women can't participate in physics going forward. None.
- there's a HUGE amount of base sexism in the field today
- it's never been a pure meritocracy anyway
- there IS a cultural/social pressure from people who have this silly notion that half the
participants in every field must be female. This is frankly stupid, and should be resisted.
However, acting like an ass and flinging shit at a conference like this is simply not
productive in the larger scope.
If you have SPECIFIC instances where A was promoted over B because A had a vagina and B had
clearly better work, then let's talk.
To me it seems he's actually just butthurt because HE didn't get a promotion he wanted, and
has been seething about it for a while.
You may want to look at the slides linked in the summary. The phrase "Physics invented and
built by men, it's not by invitation." occurs on a slide (titled "Discrimination against
women") seemingly pointing out sexist notions against women in physics. He's not making that
claim himself, but pointing to such a claim as an example of sexism.
Maybe you should be strummed out for not doing any basic research as well.
The more and more this small but loud group keeps pushing this nonsense, the sooner there will
be a massive pushback against them and this agenda. Which is a shame because the snapback
AWLAYS will undo what was previously accomplished.
What these idiots fail to realize is that
it is OK to stop with progressive ideas once you reach a certain point. The people who used to
push equality of the sexes have now transitioned into female subjugation of men at the expense
of everything else. As someone who totally signed on for equality, this is NOT ok.
If you are a physicist, board member etc, were placed into that position by merit, and
happen to be a woman good for you! We should be at a point in history where we don't look at sex as a determining factor but
ignore it in favor of a list of successful options.
But no, we aren't and can't focus on more important things because these loud nitwits have a
hammer and see everything as a nail.
They took the title out of context and did so on purpose. I'm pretty sure that's
slander in the UK.
He literally said it as one of
two
sentences on slide 17, and they linked to his
entire slide presentation in the article. Pretty sure that that's not slander.
Feel free to describe how it is "out of context," however. I'm sure that this will be
good...
Sexism fired him, I don't see anything sexist in his presented material. On the contrary, he
is attacking a persistent agenda distracting from physics and that lacks sound logical
support.
A physicist just wanting to do physics without politics injected
If he had really been wanting to do just that why would he go to a workshop titled
"High Energy Physics Theory and Gender" instead of one just on physics without the
gender? The difference is that if you go to a physics conference and say something
stupid you will be shown to be stupid by use of logic and data. If you go to a gender
conference and say something stupid you are burnt at the stake as a heretic. Only one
of these approaches teaches you why you are wrong and lets you, and others, learn from
you
One of the slides amounted to: "No one is seeking gender equality in jobs that get you
killed." Is that true? I suspect the military and law enforcement may be an exceptions
since there's a lot of social prestige, but I don't hate myself enough to read jezebel.
You don't even need to look at jobs that get you killed. No one is seeking gender
equality in jobs that women dominate.
Women dominate teaching below the college
level, veterinarian jobs, and nursing, just to name a few. Yet there are no efforts to
increase the number of men in those fields. You also never see a push for more women
construction workers or farm workers or garbage collectors. It's only well-paying jobs
where a high percentage of men is a problem. Low paying jobs? No one cares. Jobs where
women
As someone that works at an Ivy league veterinary school I just have to point out
that there are actually programs to help men enter the field due to the current
imbalance. There are also similar programs for men in nursing. They vary from
everything including better work balance, family time off and mentoring.
When is the last time you have heard of a protest that women are just as good at
picking up garbage or mining coal as men. Or that a woman can dig a ditch just as well
as a man? Where are the complaints that women are just as good at cleaning out sewers
as men?
There may well be discrimination in those fields, and there may be
individual women who fave a just complaint about it, but if so, they aren't getting a
lot of support from other feminists.
I think only the one slide got him fired. Maybe the way he presented as well, I haven't
seen that. The quote about physics' invention is very easy to misread, I can't blame CERN
for reacting to that slide. Everything else... he's just attempting to analyze the issue.
Nothing wrong with that.
I mean, his data does show women are being hired into positions with fewer citations
particularly since the mid 2000's but with a massive and dramatic disparity shifting
in around 2015.
His being a dumb ass got him fired. Why do idiots like this feel entitled to bring
up their backwards politics at non-political events?
If I'm working a job and
presenting for my company and I go off on a rant about something political guess
what will happen to me?
If you guess I probably will get fired you win. I'm tired of all these over
privileged cry babies feeling like they have a right to throw out their politics on
company time.
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case
though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that reached
the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made. And if you haven't noticed,
the trend by the SJW crowd is to insert politics at ALL events, because "there is no
such thing as a non-political event", and "being able to ignore politics is a white
male privilege" and if you disagree, you're a bigot.
I'd be all for keeping these events non-political. Too bad one side has already
decided that bridge must be crossed.
It's worth pointing out that the opposite would almost certainly not be the case
though. If he had done a presentation on "Gender Diversity in Physics" that
reached the opposite conclusions, the complaints wouldn't be made.
Yes, precisely.
For an example more close to home for most of us, consider pretty much every
non-political online discussion forum ever.
If someone posts something that's political but trendy,
that's
fine. But
if somebody
reacts
to it, posts the opposite point of view or even just
tries to be balanced or put it in perspective, he'll get taken to the woodshed for
"being political", "flaming", etc.
This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN
[google.com] and may be incomplete.
It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember, SJW's really aren't
the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for the best, trying to make the
world a better place by stomping on your face.
This is everything that hasn't been scrubbed by CERN
[google.com] and may be
incomplete. It's another Tim Hunt, Mat Taylor, donglegate in action. But remember,
SJW's really aren't the problem...no no, they're just misunderstood, really out for
the best, trying to make the world a better place by stomping on your face.
The twitter post you're calling "piece of shit" is @jesswade:
"When people in positions of power in academia behave like this and retain their
status they don't only push one generation of underrepresented groups out of science,
but train others that it's ok to propagate this ideology for years to come."
The "witch hunt in action" link shows a collage of Kavanaugh headlines by the poster
@BeastOfWood with lines like "white male entitlement", and "white male supremacy" marked,
it's not evident to me how the poster or the collage is relevant. The last link is just
the same slides as posted in the summary.
This is how Mashiki's mind works. He gets triggered easily because he believes
in a vast conspiracy of feminists trying to destroy the world with Cultural
Marxism, and so whenever anyone says anything he disagrees with in the slightest
he assumes they are part of it and the embodiment of pure evil.
So why don't you prove me wrong. Go out, publicly, in front of the media and
take ads out in the paper with the two following subjects: "The wage gap is a
myth." "No, the US rate of sexual assaults is not higher then the Congo."
The greatest minds were never immune. Read up on the biographies of Newton, Tesla, etc.
Humans have always been flawed. That was the single greatest achievement of the Scientific
Method: making progress in the great game in spite of its flawed players.
Maybe the folks at CERN should have done the Scientific thing and refuted his
paper using facts.
The statement,
"physics is not sexist against women[...], however the truth does
not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside"
shouldn't be that hard to refute, no? Then they make a presentation the next time and
shame that guy into a career at Starbucks.
But they didn't that, did they. All they did was spout platitudes designed to
placate the SJW crowd.
If you're a scientist, instead of shutting someone up to mollify the
SJW's, bust his ass up with FACTS. Then, it's a win-win, double smackdown for Strumia if he is proven wrong, again,
with FACTS.
Are any of you folks whining about SJWs actually reading his presentation and
CERN's statement? On slide 15, he makes a dumbass little chart to whine about
someone he calls a "commisar" hiring a woman instead of him. You can't pull shit
like that at any conference in any field, and that's exactly what CERN's statement
points out.
If you want to prop him up as a martyr for the red-pill crowd, that's your choice.
But I wouldn't recommend picking a guy who torpedoed his reputation with a
shit-tier analysis of gender issues because a woman got a job instead of him.
Personally I don't think you or I are in any position to evaluate his claims of
reverse bias in hiring. Unless we knew ALL of the details he account might be
100 percent accurate. Or perhaps not.
Yes, because talking about "cultural marxism" in front of a slide with a silly
alt-right cartoon is science and fact. He denounces "victimocracy" before declaring
himself a martyr in the very next slide.
But they didn't that, did they. All they did was spout platitudes designed
to placate the SJW crowd.
In the current uber-politically-correct world, placating the SJW crowd is
pretty much the only thing that matters anymore. Don't do that and you are
automatically a racist, sexist, xenophobe, and other sassy
words that end
in "ist"
and "phobe."
The very existence of Gender Studies is predicated on the idea that Gender
Studies "experts" need the right to give unsolicited Gender Studies talks at
events related to everything that isn't Gender Studies. You're the fucking
government. Go away.
Yes, he was talking about genders and science, but his talk wasn't
scientific. Where's his data?
His talk was almost entirely analysis of data. Lots of it. He's a
physicist, that's what he does.
Sorry if this interferes with your SJW agenda.
A telling quote from the BBC article:
"There were young women and men exchanging ideas and their experiences
on how to encourage more women into the subject and to combat
discrimination in their careers. Then this man gets up, saying all this
horrible stuff."
He said all these horrible things! Facts, data, analysis, all
disagreeing with our established dogma! It was horrible! If we weren't so
busy chanting "lalalalala we're not listening" then we'd almost be forced
to rethink our ideas! Oh the SJW-ity!
Instead you'd rather these great minds ignore the truth and bow down to political
correctness and pretend that everything that is not true really is? All in the name of
making marginalized people feel better about themselves... That is absurd.
A woman I know recently applied to a PhD position. She already had a master's in the
topic, from a school pretty strong in the subject area, doing some pretty difficult work,
plus a fair amount of science communication & outreach on the side, and was looking to go
further. She got rejected from a well funded position (with several openings), and later,
she made the mistake of looking at the student roster to see who had gotten in. All male,
seemingly straight out of undergrad, none of whom had a master's. She was kind of pissed,
because while she couldn't prove that was a result of sexism, it sure looks like it, you
know? And that's ridiculous, we shouldn't be dismissing anyone based on their sex, but
this is definitely happening in science and academia.
Funny thing though, while that story is true, I lied about the sexes. I swapped them.
Still feel the same way?
I have a hard time dismissing claims that there is political bias against men when I can
see it happen. And before some moron accuses me of being sexist, I'm not saying that
there aren't plenty of very competent female scientists out there, there are. And I'm not
saying that there isn't real sexism against women in science, there is, I've seen it, and
anyone who denies that or covers for it is part of the problem. That doesn't change the
fact that screwing over men is also happening, and that it is not the way to go about
fixing anything.
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to
violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious
I would say "willful ignorance" is not having even bothered to read the presentation.
nonsense, and all the other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with,
but as-is I'm not even so sure the human species will manage to survive to see the year
2100, when even the greatest minds among us aren't immune to all the above.
LOL you are being played by outraged fueled media simply to make money.
tendency to violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious
nonsense
That might be true.. if I had anything to do with 'outrage(d) fueled media', which I
don't. It's my observation of the human species, formulated over all the decades of my
life. That's okay, I don't expect most people to be honest enough with themselves to
admit what I'm saying is true, the truth hurts too much for most people, and to be quite
honest it hurts me deeply because I know I'm fundamentally no better, even if I try to
be. Admitting I'm right is admitting you're just a caveman with high-tech toys;
It's an interesting talk but I absolutely can't understand why a physicist would
hold such a talk at a physics conference at CERN.
Simple.
Because it is negatively affecting a physics conference at CERN, not some random
gender-studies organization's conference.
Why is CERN engaging in Post-Modern anti-Enlightenment political correctness when
it should only be concerned with *scientific* correctness? Post Modernism is anathema
to science. Science is a Meritocracy or else you're not engaged in science but rather
politics.
I really wish I'd live long enough to see our species evolve past all the tendency to
violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, wilful ignorance, superstitious nonsense, and all the
other stupid crap that we, as a species, seem to be infected with.
Human bigotry in it's many forms won't end until the last of humanity does. I don't
believe it can be done and I don't believe there is one person on this planet that doesn't
harbour at least a little bigotry in one form or another. That doesn't mean we should ignore
it and say it's inevitable- we need to limit it as much as possible... but it will never
end.
The relevant slide is number 17 titled "Discrimination against women."
The text:
Physics invented and built by men, it's not by invitation.
Curie etc. welcomed after
showing what they can do, got Nobels...
It's followed by "Discrimination against men" with cited examples such as women-only
scholarships, extended STEM exam times only for women.
Clearly the two slides were intended to explore discriminatory practices. This conference
took even the concept of exploring those ides as verboten, heresy, banned the witch and did
the modern version of burning books.
He broke one of the cardinal rules about slide decks on controversial subjects - make
sure no sentence may be pulled out of context and used against you. Some interesting
analysis and infographics in the paper. His conclusions are probably what pissed the most
people off - that people screaming about how unfair STEM fields are to females may play a
significant role in discouraging females from the field, which in my small sample survey
(of STEM females) was strongly agreed with. But that puts part of the blame back on SJWs
who are more interested in virtue signaling than being constructive, so of course he must
pay. SNAFU...
Nope, the relevant slide is actually number 15, where he attacks a named "commisar" who
hired a woman instead of him. He made a dumbass little chart and everything. It's kind of
hilarious.
CERN's statement points out that such personal attacks are unacceptable. It's just plain
not okay pull shit like this.
Unless i'm missing some irony here: False dichotomy, we can all simultaneously reject
the grossly absurdly evil machinations of post modern identity politics and one of is
main weapons political correctness, and reject all those things you mentioned.
No one would be happier because one of the first of many casualties of that way of
thinking is the loss of free will.
Never mind that women having the right to property and self determination is something that
only happened over the last century or so. In other words, they weren't invited to the
"invention" of physics.
Many of these biggest minds were actually labelled as "problem students" by the mainstream
schools and teachers of the day. They had to be home-schooled by tutors. Other times, home
schooling by tutors was the only way of getting an education. Either way, that kind of
intensive teaching going at the speed of one student rather than the average speed of a
class would have accelerated their learning.
He was not wrong in that "Physics was invented and built by men". By and large, this is
undoubtedly true, with a few outliers. That observation in itself is valid science.
What would have been wrong if he had said that this needs to continue.
Science and physics
should be blind. Whether you're a man, woman, hermaphrodite, black, white, green or
invisible is irrelevant for producing theorems and testable hypotheses, and moving science
forward.
Well, he's not wrong. Almost all the biggest minds in physics and math were men
True but have you ever stopped to wonder why? This is NOT evidence that men are better at
physics but evidence of the extremely sexist society which has existed for centuries. Yes,
things are a lot better now than they used to be but you have to be a monumental idiot to
not realize that sexism in the past was directly responsible for the lack of women in
physics or indeed any science.
This is what should have been pointed out to him by someone in the audience. This is the way
that you fix idiotic thinkin
Yah-- everyone needs to have the opportunity. But it may not be "fair" in numbers
afterwards.
Testosterone seems to cause *increased variability* in outcomes. Women
appear to be slightly smarter on average than men (depending on the metric you choose),
but men have a greater variability in intelligence and performance. That is, men are
over-represented at the very dumb and brilliant ends of the spectrum.
Equal opportunity may still result in an excess of men at the very top of many
professions...
(And again
Eh, fascination with systems and ideas are traits that skew to males. This will lead to
imbalances in scientific disciplines.... Attempts to artificially adjust these for equity
will only lead to injustices against more qualified individuals. I don't understand how
people can continue to pretend that biological differences between the sexes stop at the
brain. There are really great female physicists but not of an equal number to males.
Unless you have some sort of agenda this shouldn't be seen as bad t
the inflection MEN or MAN? I can't tell from the context.
It's "men" under a slide with heading "discrimination against women".
The very next slide has heading "discrimination against men".
People publishing media accounts of this crap with intentionally misleading exerts simply
to stoke public outrage in order to rack up views for profit are the ones we should all be
"outraged" at and demanding resignations from.
She had one in physics (1903) shared with her husband.
When I read the headline my
first thought was "A certain Madame Curie would like to have a word with this guy..."
Does he not even recognize that ideas and discoveries by women were almost unanimously
dismissed and women even prohibited from participating in scientific fields or hell, any
academic field until recently?
It's very disappointing that some scientists fail to
realize how drastically the world has changed in the last 100 years.
There were probably a lot of discoveries by women that were posted secretly under a man's
name with the credit given to a male relative or a male employer. Look how many female
novelists in the old days used to post under male pseudonyms... and that was for something
as harmless as a novel.
October 12, 2018 Identity
Politics and the Ruling Class by James Munson Reagan ditched the Fairness Doctrine. Now his youth complain they're shunned by
the politically-correct media. Clinton's Telecommunications Act let mergers trample
the free press. Now it pains his wing that we read rants and conspiracy, instead of news.
So much that Hillary employed teams of fact-checkers in 2016, figuring we couldn't trust our
own minds to parse reality from clown-babble. Then–contrarily–she blamed her loss
on hopeless cases. If one or the other were true, democracy would be a lost cause, and perhaps
that's crossed her mind since losing, despite a majority of votes. But it can't explain why
close to half of us had the common sense to not vote for either hopeless party.
Yet, to hear either speak, tribal privileges are fracturing America. Not the top .001%'s
privilege to half the wealth, nor the military's to the bulk of our taxes. Rather, half of the
poor's designation, versus the other half's. Somehow, minorities -the lowest rung in terms of
media ownership- bully the mainstream press, and rednecks -the next-lowest- bully the rest.
(Hourly-waged Russians command any overlap.) And since, according to the Right (and much of the
Left), 'political-correctness' stifles all other manner of free speech, elites are powerless to
restore order to their own, private empires, or prevent the hordes tearing us up over what
bathroom to use.
Really? Have we lost our pussy-grabbing Executive and Judiciary branches to the wanton touch
of #MeToo? Can our founding, 'self-evident truths' not outwit pc's chauvinism? On the other
hand, how is it 'deplorables' are blind to exploding class inequality, yet so attuned to the
nuances of race, gender, and their nomenclature?
'Identity-politics' explain everything recently, from Trump and Kavanaugh, to Crazy Rich
Asians . Francis Fukuyama has a new book out (I've read only part), regarding its tension
with liberalism–group versus individual rights, etc., tepidly joining him to more-hawkish
mouth-pieces like Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro (and some Left doom-sayers) who warn its
steam-rolling our democracy. Their over-arching fear is that identity politics suppress
rational–though not always politically-correct–thought, giving extremists on both
sides the floor, who don't mind confronting 'identity' on racist (and sexist, etc) terms. Ergo,
more than an analytical device or a school of (not always congruent) ideas, a movement. A
juggernaut, if you read and believe the hype.
But if so, whose? Saying 'first respect my uniqueness, then treat me as equal' provides
snares that 'first treat me as equal, then respect my uniqueness' does not. The Left has a long
history with -and can tie most of its successes- to the latter. The labor movement, for
instance, united presumed-cultural rivals and coordinated dozens of languages. Ergo, the
Left , by definition -the many against the privileged few- would have to be amnesiac,
or -more likely- not the Left, to think a plan that tries to establish the differences first
would better serve their goals.
Perhaps the cultural wins (like marriage equality) and sizable, politico-economic losses
(demise of Unions, etc.) of the past few decades have inspired reorientation. There's evidence,
so long as we define the 'Left' as ruling, Neoliberal Democrats. Certainly their Wall Street
financiers can accept women CEOs and gay marriage more-readily than Union wages and universal
healthcare. (After all, the point of capitalism is to pocket the most one can without
sparking an insurrection.) BUT an elite-run party -paid for by Wall Street–doesn't
constitute a Left. Nor is it able to absorb popular will. Proven, since they lose most of their
elections.
Also, that leftists would demand censorship when most everyone of them believe the Right is
in control, and when they're silenced within their own party, seems farce. Again
there's evidence, college students sometimes dis-invite conservative speakers, and we figure,
as Reagan did, they're taught to (so he hiked tuition). But I doubt censorship exists as
agenda, nor even as sentiment on any grand scale. Think, whenever something explodes multiple
parties besides the bomber take credit. Where are the professors claiming this attack? If 18%
are communists (as the American Enterprise Institute warns), what sort of communist links class
to 'identity', not labor?
The other 'fear' is that over-zealous freshman are taking control, like in the Princeton and
Evergreen incidents. Perhaps but it contradicts the wisdom of Occupy!, which refused the
collaborative financial, political, educative, and other aligned powers from pigeon-holling
their complaints. -Wisdom that we credit to the young of the movement.
There's also a notion that dis-investment has engendered a new 'tribalism'. But even though
'color-blindness', for example, has excused softening equal-opportunity legislation (welfare
reform, voting law, etc.), which baits 'identity', as minorities are often dis-empowered under
the ruse of equality, color-blindness came out of the neoliberal play-book and expanded
Leftward from think-tanks on the Right. In other words, while it's hard to gauge its impact, it
marks a very separate program from the Left-academia or 'bottom-up' narratives.
Furthermore, most every poll finds 'economic inequality', not racial, gender, or other
inequalities to be the #1 problem with America. So, while it's not unreasonable that our
decline in wealth and status might see us retreat toward other than liberal identities
(Fukuyama's point), unless someone's peddling those narratives, one plainly sees more leverage
in class-solidarity.
As for the Right, what should be 'self-evident' is that complaining minority recognition is
unfair to the majority rests on the same argument it decries; that your privilege impedes my
privilege (instead of the reverse). Evident, at least to a Harvard-educated lawyer like Ben
Shapiro. Yet you find all that fallacious, 'populist' reaction in his books. Do they speak to
him or he to them? Does he speak for them?
Of course, identity politics aren't new. The Spanish liberal-philosopher, Jose Ortega y
Gasset wrestled with it a century ago, when his homeland's empire was crumbling, and came up
with a lot better answers (though it didn't save Spain from its fascist clown). Spain even had,
in his words, 'a common past, language, and race, yet had split into mainly-regional factions
because it had failed to invent a sufficiently-attractive collective program for the
future' . [i]
Isn't he right? Rather than hell-bent on forcing this or that culture on the rest of us,
aren't the 'extreme' Left, Right, and clusters of us in between are just figuring out that,
increasingly, being 'American' means losing ground to the .001% and their top brass? The
opening passage to the Combahee River Collective's manifesto says as much: ' focusing upon our
own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics . We believe that the
most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as
opposed to working to end somebody else's oppression.'
Last week Gary Younge revived that notion in a piece titled ' It comes as no shock that
the powerful hate identity politics ' [ii] , reminding that without
'women', 'blacks', and other self-referential vanguards we wouldn't have democracy, anyway.
It's an important point, and I agree, but is his over-arching theme–that the powerful
hate it–also true?
Whether 'identity-politics' raise tensions or awareness among the crowd might be a secondary
matter. First is whom they neglect. For all the media's naval-gazing, the system, itself gets
rare attention. Mind, all political strategies shoulder contradictions. But it's odd that
cultural issues (not to say there's no overlap) would hold the foreground right when fraudulent
wars, torture, bank crime, rigged elections, police violence, tax-breaks for the rich, willful
habitat destruction, and a widely-evident and growing gap between rich and poor and state and
population have laid the political, economic, and judicial systems bare. Matters such as
environmental or foreign policy are largely out of public reach, except with massive, boots on
the ground confrontation. In which case, atomizing class politics seems counter-intuitive to
the extreme.
Unless it's not us preaching it. It bears saying, in an oligarchy, oligarchs speak in order
to make their actions less–not more–clear. That's what a shill like Ben Shapiro
(Hillary does the work herself on the Left) laments when his talks get ignored (or
Ocasio-Cortes ignores him). Shapiro's a cause-celeb for saying identity politics threatens our
democracy, because it censors Right voices. Yet it appears complaining gets him more,
not less, airtime. In fact, I've heard too little substance in his' speeches (or Hillary's of
late) to warrant an interview, otherwise. Thus I suspect its the opposite of censorship; hyping
the market, that threatens our democracy. Threatens for real, like the Telecom Act, not just
prescriptively, like 'Russo-bots' and 'terrorism'.
Wow. This is an extremely one-sided, black-and-white view of a complex issue. I don't
understand how you could prepare to write on this subject and not realize that the
#BelieveWomen was, for MANY NOT ALL women, a call to NOT DISBELIEVE the woman right off the
bat. The immediate disbelief and victim blaming and shaming which has been standard treatment
of victims for a very long time is the primary reason that sexual crimes are not reported.
Sure, give the man the "innocent until proven guilty" but do the same for the woman too.
Don't start in with the "what was she wearing" and the rest. Don't make drinking be an excuse
for him and a reason for condemnation for her. In the many discussions I had on this subject
with other women, what the vast majority wanted was a full and complete investigation. They
didn't get it.
And you don't get it either. You are welcome to your opinions but you don't get to put the
words and beliefs into other people's mouths and minds as though you somehow know it all. You
are dead wrong about what I think and believe and about the vast majority of the women with
whom I have discussed this either in person or via text online.
It is easy to write against a straw man that isn't true. Try writing against a real
argument instead of simplifying the other person's position to the point that it is
ridiculous.
This conundrum is what convinced me to abandon the Democrats, registering as an Independent
for the first time: "It holds them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock
back on women's rights. Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous
eras; today it seems like 'believing' takes precedence over equality."
I am married to a man who has been loyal, works long hours to support our family, and
happens to be a white. I am raising a young man and young woman, and my experience has been
that, although they differ vastly in temperament and aptitude, they a both valuable to
society. The sexism and racism of the Leftist Democrats goes against my conscience and
experience.
get real ,
I think the issue with #MeToo isn't about speaking out on sexual abuse in general, it's about
publically naming, accusing & convicting men of sexual abuse sans law enforcement, &
any legal due process. That's character defamation & slander, not justice.
If women have legitimate grievances they need to go about addressing them the way every
other type of victim does through law enforcement & the courts. Women are adults &
should behave with maturity & prudence. Not expecting special considerations just because
of gender.
Currently, men accused of sexual crimes are named in the media but their accusers are not.
Even when found innocent, that notoriety will haunt the accused men for the rest of their
lives. That seems like a double standard to me.
There absolutely were obstacles for some sexual abuse victims in the past & it could
be difficult to find justice. We had a case like that in our community & it took years to
get a prosecution & conviction. But we've swung way too far in the other direction. Now
men are presumed guilty until proven innocent & they & their families are publically
shamed, hounded, & humiliated.
Women don't need to drag down men in order to find equality.
In justifying her decision
, Collins went to great pains to stress her support for all victims of sexual assault and for
Ford in particular. "Every person, man or woman, who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves
to be heard and treated with respect," she said. "The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It
is needed. And it is long overdue." But, she concluded, "In evaluating any given claim of
misconduct we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and
fairness, tempting though it may be."
Collins is absolutely correct to defend these important principles. The mantra of #MeToo and
the Kavanaugh hearings has been "I believe." But the idea that women should be believed without
question or evidence presents them as naive innocents who never lie or misremember. It holds
them to a different legal standard than men and turns the clock back on women's rights.
Equality before the law was a major demand of feminists from previous eras; today it seems like
"believing" takes precedence over equality.
For her cool-headed defense of long-held legal principles, Collins stands accused of
betrayal. She "betrayed the interests of the women and sexual-assault survivors she professed
to support" according to Lisa Ryan at
The Cut .
Diane Russell , an activist for the Democrats, was more specific: she argued that Collins
voted to "betray Maine women and Maine survivors" by ignoring their stories. "There is a
special place in hell for women who cover for rapists," Russell continued. Presumably she has
privileged insight into exactly what happened between Ford and Kavanaugh 36 years ago that
allows her to circumvent trials and juries and find Kavanaugh summarily guilty all by
herself.
Bizarrely, some activists seem to have more loathing for Collins than Kavanaugh. Lawyer and
"social entrepreneur" Kat Calvin tweeted: "Never let
Collins have a moment of peace in public again." This has since been shared well over 33,000
times. The hatred for Collins has even given rise to a crowd-funder
to get her replaced as senator from Maine. A cool $2 million was raised before Collins made her
speech; the site crashed as she was speaking.
Feminist commentators and activists are clearly furious that Collins could " vote against
believing women ." They are nonplussed that she could express support for victims of sexual
assault and yet back Kavanaugh. The only explanation for Collins' volte-face is, we're told,
hypocrisy . But it's perfectly possible to feel sympathy and endeavor to support women who
claim to have been sexually assaulted while at the same time maintaining the important
presumption of innocent until proven guilty. There is no logical reason why women should be
unconditionally believed any more than men. Feminists might not like it but, as Collins argued,
evidence and proof are the basis of justice.
Yet rather than trying to understand the reason for Collins' vote, activists have only
extended the net of hatred further. Over at the New
York Times , Alexis Grenell moves deftly from disdain for Collins to fury at "all the
women in the Republican conference" before eventually focusing her anger on the category of
"white women." White women, Grenell opines, "will defend their privilege to the death." In the
eyes of Grenell, women think and act according to the dictates of their race. There is a "blood
pact between white men and white women," she tells us, though how this ties in with Ford's
whiteness is anyone's guess. Apparently, all white women are "gender traitors" who have "made
standing by the patriarchy a full-time job."
So there we have it. The show trial of Kavanaugh shows us exactly where feminism is heading
in the #MeToo era. Women are not to be considered rational beings equal to men before the law
but as emotional creatures who deserve special treatment. Women's political views are,
apparently, determined by their race. And it's legitimate now to make explicitly sexist and
racist arguments in the pages of respectable national newspapers -- as long as "white women"
are the target.
Today's feminism divides the world into "good" women and "bad" women. Good women suffer,
empathize, and believe other women without question or criticism. Bad women, on the other hand,
raise awkward questions about evidence and principles of justice. As Grenell demands to know,
come November, "Which one of these two women are you?"
"... The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something seriously wrong with you. ..."
On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and
the resentful. Team Resentment is manned -- pun very much intended -- by people who are
predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and
predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white "allies" do their dutiful part). These
teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most
routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.
Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam
Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, "
Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape ," most Americans don't fit into
either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social
media might suggest -- including a general aversion to PC culture.
You don't say. More:
If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of
white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct
clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the
politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.
According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives,
and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are
progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of
Americans who don't belong to either extreme constitute an "exhausted majority." Their
members "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to
be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national
conversation."
Hmm. If one out of four people believe something, are they really "far" out of the American
mainstream? In the report, "Traditional Liberals" and "Passive Liberals" make up 26 percent of
the population. Aren't they part of the mainstream too? Or am I reading this wrong? Here's a
graphic from the "Hidden Tribes" report that shows how they sort us:
How do the authors define these groups? Here:
Anyway, the story goes on to say that r ace and youth are not indicators of openness to PC.
Black Americans are the minority group most accepting of PC, but even then, 75 percent of them
think it's a problem. More:
If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and
education.
While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness,
just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87
percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a
problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.
Political tribe -- as defined by the authors -- is an even better predictor of views on
political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political
correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists
are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a
problem.
Here's the heart of it:
So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally
representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly
educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than
$100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And
while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of
progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives,
progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.
This, a thousand times:
As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:
The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you
discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call
themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something
seriously wrong with you.
So, guess who runs most of the institutions in this country: academia, media, entertainment,
corporations? Educated, rich white liberals (and minorities who come out of those institutions,
and who agree with their PC ideology). They have created a social space in which they lord
their ideology over everybody else, and have intimidated everyone into going along with it, out
of fear of harsh consequences, and stigma, for dissenters.
Mounk points out that it's not that majorities believe racism and bigotry aren't things to
be concerned about. They do! It's that they believe that PC is the wrong way to address those
problems.
If you have the time,
read the whole "Hidden Tribes" report on which Mounk bases his essay. They reveal something
that has actually been brought out by Pew Research studies in the past: that US political
conversation is entirely driven by the extremes, while most people in the middle are more open
to compromise. It's not that most of these people are moderates, are centrists. It's that they
aren't driven by a strong sense of tribalism.
The authors call these "hidden tribes" because they are defined not by race, sex, and the
usual tribal markers, but rather by a shared agreement on how the world works, whether they're
aware of it or not. Where individuals come down on these points generally determines where
they'll come down on hot button political and cultural issues (e.g., immigration,
feminism):
You shouldn't assume that most Americans share the same basic values. As the report
indicates, there are substantive differences among us. It's simply not accurate to blame
tension over these divisions on extremists of the right or the left who exaggerate them. Though
the differences are real, what seems to set the majority-middle apart is their general
unwillingness to push those differences to the breaking point.
I want to point out one aspect of the analysis that means a lot to me, as a religious
conservative. It's on page 81 of the report. Here's a graph recording answers to the question,
"How important is religious faith to you?"
Religion is important to almost two-thirds of Americans. The only tribe in which a majority
finds it unimportant are Progressive Activists. According to the study:
Strong identification with religious belief appears to be a strong tribal marker for the
Devoted and Traditional Conservatives, and an absence of religious belief appears to be a
marker for Progressive Activists.
Guess which tribe runs the culture-making institutions in our society (e.g., major media,
universities, entertainment)?
I am reminded of something one of you readers, a conservative academic, wrote to me once:
that you feel safe because your department is run by traditional liberals, who don't agree with
you, but who value free and open exchange of ideas. You are very worried about what happens
when those people -- who are Baby Boomers -- retire, because the generational cohort behind
them are hardcore left-wing ideologues who do not share the traditional liberal view.
Hollywood has been at the forefront of the political resistance to President Donald Trump,
using awards shows, social media and donations to promote progressive positions on issues
from immigration to gun control.
Now, the entertainment industry is using its star power and creativity to support
down-ballot candidates in the Nov. 6 elections. Down-ballot races are typically state and
local positions that are listed on voting ballots below national posts.
This approach is part of the way Hollywood is rewriting its script for political action
following Trump's shock election in 2016.
I can't blame anyone for advocating for their political beliefs in the public square. But
these are among the most privileged people on the planet. They are Progressive Activists -- and
they are massively out of touch with the rest of the country, though they have massively more
cultural power to define the narrative than their adversaries.
Here's another interesting factoid from the report:
Progressive Activists are unique in seeing the world as a much less dangerous place than
other Americans. For other tribes, the differences are much smaller. On average, 14 percent
of Americans view the world as generally safe and nonthreatening, while among Progressive
Activists almost three times as many people hold this view (40 percent). This figure is
especially striking in light of Progressive Activists' deep pessimism about the direction of
the country (98 percent say it is going in the wrong direction) and their emotions toward the
country (45 percent say they currently feel "very" scared about the country's direction).
Think of the psychology of this! How can they feel that the world is "generally safe and
nonthreatening" while at the same time be "very" scared about the direction of the US? The
answer, I think, is that in their own lives , they feel secure. And why not? Remember
this from Yascha Mounk's essay on this study:
So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally
representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly
educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than
$100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree.
Economically, educationally, and racially, Progressive Activists are the most elite group in
the country.
Look at this amazing factoid:
First, notice that one out of three African Americans think that people are too sensitive
about race, the same percentage of Traditional Liberals who do. A solid majority of Hispanic
Americans believe that, and nearly three out of four Asian Americans believe that. Sixty
percent of Americans overall agree with this viewpoint. Who rejects it overwhelmingly?
Progressive Activists -- the rich, educated white people who control academia and media.
Note well that majorities are not saying that racism isn't a problem (81 percent
agree that we have serious problems with racism), only that there is too much emphasis on it.
Do you get that? They're saying that racism is a serious issue, but it has been
disproportionately emphasized relative to other serious issues. On bread-and-butter issues like
college admissions, Progressive Activists are far, far removed from everybody else, even
Traditional Liberals:
The numbers are similar on gender issues. Progressive Activists are radically far apart from
the views of most Americans. No wonder the media can't understand why everybody doesn't agree
with them that Brett Kavanaugh is a sexist monster.
Finally, the last chapter of the study focuses on what its authors call the "Exhausted
Majority" -- Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged and Moderates:
The four segments in the Exhausted Majority have many differences, but they share four
main attributes:
– They are more ideologically flexible
– They support finding political compromise
– They are fatigued by US politics today
– They feel forgotten in political debate
Importantly, the Traditional Conservatives do not belong to the Exhausted Majority, while
the Traditional Liberals do. The key difference lies in their mood towards the country's
politics. While the Exhausted Majority express disillusionment, frustration, and anger at the
current state of US politics, Traditional Conservatives are far more likely to express
confidence, excitement and optimism. As such, the Traditional Conservatives hold a
meaningfully different emotional disposition towards the country that aligns them more with
the Devoted Conservatives.
That's really interesting. Having read the detailed descriptions of the various tribes, I
fall more into the Traditional Conservative camp, but I am much more pessimistic about the
country's politics than TCs in this study. What accounts for that? Is it:
a) I spend a lot of time looking at the cultural fundamentals and trends, especially
regarding religion, and believe that the optimism of Traditional Conservatives is irrational;
or
b) I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing the mainstream media, including social
media, and therefore overestimate the power and influence of Progressive Activists
I'd say the answer is probably 80 percent a) and 20 percent b). I believe my fellow
Traditional Conservatives (like the Devoted Conservatives to our right) believe that things are
more stable than they actually are.
Anyway, if you have the time, I encourage you to
read the entire report. It's basic point is that neither extreme of left and right speak
for the majority of Americans, though their stridency, and the nature of media to emphasize
conflict, conditions most of us to think that things are far more polarized than they actually
are.
For me, the best news in the entire report is learning how sick and tired most Americans are
of political correctness. It's not that most people believe there aren't serious problems in
the country having to do with race, sex, immigration, and so forth. It's that people are tired
of the Progressive Speech Police stalking around like Saudi imams with sticks in hand, whacking
anyone who fails to observe strict pieties. As Yascha Mounk says in his piece about the
report:
The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue
could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose
editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to
a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership
decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population
when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next
election.
Yes. And -- drums please -- that has a lot to do with how we got Trump.
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered
the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie
Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me
too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right
because she is a woman!
I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first
thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was
appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95
percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.
For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To
regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is
acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically
corrupt politicians in the US.
@utu
You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh
clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the
Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the
pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show
that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people
in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to
enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed
from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than
in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this
cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and
root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team
Blue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their
teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value.
Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel
and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't
even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.
Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness
rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski),
however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to
REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they
have not.
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.
I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with
the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife.
In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party
to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their
destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair
chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor
suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.
The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid
social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college
courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer
chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a
man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of
social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.
They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make
the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and
their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they
Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet,
Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let
this happen in America.
They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court
Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no
doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is
shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and
creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he
was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.
The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is
destined to be.
@Ludwig
Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully
defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are
concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will
continue.
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and
is no different than either professional football or wrestling.
Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has
surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done
nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity
'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either).
Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia,
China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the
wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been
promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god
damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as
Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to
keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.
@utu
Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a
partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an
over-estimation.).
This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less
than 1% of the population we're talking about.
This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when
the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with
George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of
those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.
Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution
that it is
This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of
Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq
War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing
classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you
absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground
because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and
Obama is.
Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense.
Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for
the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.
@Realist
Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy
America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the
highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades
distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground
economically or stayed static no improvement.
@Jon
Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left'
circus will be We The People.
Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population.
The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use
legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo
jumbo.
Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Because that is precisely how the smear game works.
The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the
defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From
then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than
why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers'
primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of
the smears within them.
If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed
against Corbyn , who unfortunately
fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand. No, the only way to
effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the
temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics
and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation,
especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you
do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start
defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.
Carroll Price says:
October 1, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
@Dorian I agree. The me-too crown demanding Brett Kavanagh's head on a platter should have
been shown the door rather than given a worldwide stage from which to spew their hateful
venom.
If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually
suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into
like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.
Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love
identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity
politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood
producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.
Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.
The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they
(i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the
majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly
butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could
get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity,
and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the
ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically
vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet
Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.
The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact
that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means
corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like
trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away
with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of
democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a
mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual
democracy, of, by, and for the people, which is, basically, the ruling classes' worst
nightmare. The best way to avoid this scenario is to keep the working classes ignorant and
confused, and at each other's throats over things like pronouns, white privilege, gender
appropriate bathrooms, and the complexion and genitalia of the virtually interchangeable
puppets the ruling classes allow them to vote for.
The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry
are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks
who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self-worth on
their superiority to the unwashed masses, enjoy spending time with the ruling classes, and
reaping the many benefits of serving them and, while most of them wouldn't personally
disembowel your kids and sell their organs to some dope-addled Saudi trillionaire scion, they
would look the other way while the ruling classes did, and then invent some sort of convoluted
rationalization of why it was necessary, in order to preserve democracy and freedom (or was
some sort of innocent but unfortunate "blunder," which will never, ever, happen again).
The fake Left loves identity politics because they allow them to pretend to be
"revolutionary" and spout all manner of "militant" gibberish while posing absolutely zero
threat to the ruling classes they claim to be fighting. Publishing fake Left "samizdats" (your
donations to which are tax-deductible), sanctimoniously denouncing racism on Twitter, milking
whatever identity politics scandal is making headlines that day, and otherwise sounding like a
slightly edgier version of National Public Radio, are all popular elements of the fake Left
repertoire.
Marching along permitted parade routes, assembling in designated "free speech areas," and
listening to speeches by fake Left celebrities and assorted Democratic Party luminaries, are
also well-loved fake Left activities. For those who feel the need to be even more militant,
pressuring universities to cancel events where potentially "violent" and "oppressive" speech
acts (or physical gestures) might occur, toppling offensive historical monuments, ratting out
people to social media censors, or masking up and beating the crap out of "street Nazis" are
among the available options. All of these activities, by herding potential troublemakers into
fake Left ghettos and wasting their time, both on- and off-line, help to ensure that the ruling
classes, their political puppets, the corporate media, Hollywood, and the rest of the culture
industry can keep most people ignorant and confused.
Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my
God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or
Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and
ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some
other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything
even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a
meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.
According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel,
but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media,
Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think
of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black
crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias?
Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!
See, the thing is, there is no essential difference between your identity
politics-brainwashed liberal and your Swastika-tattooed white supremacist. Both are looking at
the world through the lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or some other type of
"identity." They are looking through this "identity" lens (whichever one it happens to be)
because either they have been conditioned to do so (most likely from the time they were
children) or they have made a conscious choice to do so (after recognizing, and affirming or
rejecting, whatever conditioning they received as children).
Quantum physicists, Sufi fakirs, and certain other esoterics understand what most of us
don't, namely, that there is no such thing as "the Truth," or "Reality," apart from our
perception of it. The world, or "reality," or whatever you want to call it, is more than happy
to transform itself into any imaginable shape and form, based on the lens you are looking at it
through. It's like a trickster in that regard. Look at "reality" through a racist lens, and
everything will make sense according to that logic. Look at it through a social justice lens,
or a Judeo-Christian lens, or a Muslim lens, or a scientific or a Scientologist lens, or a
historical materialist or capitalist lens (it really makes no difference at all) and
abracadabra! A new world is born!
Sadly, most of us never reach the stage in our personal (spiritual?) development where we
are able to make a conscious choice about which lens we want to view the world through. Mostly,
we stick with the lens we were originally issued by our families and societies. Then we spend
the rest of our fleeting lives desperately insisting that our perspective is "the Truth," and
that other perspectives are either "lies" or "errors." The fact that we do this is
unsurprising, as the ruling classes (of whatever society we happened to be born and socialized
into) are intensely invested in issuing everyone a "Weltanschauung lens" that corresponds to
whatever narrative they are telling themselves about why they deserve to be the ruling classes
and we deserve to exist to serve them, fight their wars, pay interest on their loans, not to
mention rent to live on the Earth, which they have claimed as their own and divided up amongst
themselves to exploit and ruin, which they justify with "laws" they invented, which they
enforce with armies, police, and prisons, which they teach us as children to believe is "just
the way life is" but I digress.
So, who doesn't love identity politics? Well, I don't love identity politics. But then I
tend to view political events in the context of enormous, complex systems operating beyond the
level of the individuals and other entities such systems comprise. Thus I've kind of been
keeping an eye on the restructuring of the planet by global capitalism that started in the
early 1990s, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., when global capitalism (not the U.S.A.)
became the first globally hegemonic system in the history of aspiring hegemonic systems.
Now, this system (i.e., capitalism, not the U.S.A), being globally hegemonic, has no
external enemies, so what it's been doing since it became hegemonic is aggressively
destabilizing and restructuring the planet according to its systemic needs (most notably in the
Middle East, but also throughout the rest of the world), both militarily and ideologically.
Along the way, it has encountered some internal resistance, first, from the Islamic
"terrorists," more recently, from the so-called "nationalists" and "populists," none of whom
seem terribly thrilled about being destabilized, restructured, privatized, and debt-enslaved by
global capitalism, not to mention relinquishing what remains of their national sovereignty, and
their cultures, and so on.
I've been writing about this for over
two years , so I am not going to rehash it all in detail here (this essay is already rather
long). The short version is, what we are currently experiencing (i.e., Brexit, Trump, Italy,
Hungary, et cetera, the whole "populist" or "nationalist" phenomenon) is resistance (an
insurgency, if you will) to hegemonic global capitalism, which is, essentially, a
values-decoding machine, which eliminates "traditional" (i.e., despotic) values (e.g.,
religious, cultural, familial, societal, aesthetic, and other such non-market values) and
replaces them with a single value, exchange value, rendering everything a commodity.
The fact that I happen to be opposed to some of those "traditional" values (i.e., racism,
anti-Semitism, oppression of women, homosexuals, and so on) does not change my perception of
the historical moment, or the sociopolitical, sociocultural, and economic forces shaping that
moment. God help me, I believe it might be more useful to attempt to understand those forces
than to go around pointing and shrieking at anyone who doesn't conform to my personal views
like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers .
But that's the lens I choose to look through. Maybe I've got it all assbackwards. Maybe what
is really going on is that Russia "influenced" everyone into voting for Brexit and Donald
Trump, and hypnotized them all with those Facebook ads into hating women, people of color,
transsexuals, and the Jews, of course, and all that other "populist" stuff, because the
Russians hate us for our freedom, and are hell-bent on destroying democracy and establishing
some kind of neo-fascist, misogynist, pseudo-Atwoodian dystopia. Or, I don't know, maybe the
other side is right, and it really is all a conspiracy of Jews transsexual, immigrant Jews of
color, who want to force us all to have late-term abortions and circumcise our kids, or
something.
I wish I could help you sort all that out, but I'm just a lowly political satirist, and not
an expert on identity politics or anything. I'm afraid you'll have to pick a lens through which
to interpret "reality" yourself. But then, you already have, haven't you or are you still
looking through the one that was issued to you?
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Along those lines, a female reader of this blog left this comment on a thread about
Alexis
Grenell's shocking New York Times op-ed denouncing "white women" for worrying that
their sons, brothers, and fathers might be falsely accused of rape. Grenell, who is a white
woman, lambasted them over what she calls a "blood pact between white men and white women." My
reader commented
Many white women have, in fact, made a kind of "blood pact" with white men: we call it
"family" in saner times. The expectation that abstract loyalty to any random person who
shares one's gender should override one's loyalty to their actual fathers, brothers,
husbands, and sons (as well as their actual mothers, sisters, and daughters) is profoundly
sad.
With more and more fatherless homes and very small families, I wonder how many women go
through life with no tight, enduring, loving, secure bonds with a father, husband, brother,
or son. Family is where these bonds that transcend individual identity can form. But if your
marriage can be dissolved for no reason, even the most primary bonds are insecure. Without
that, it's just tribe vs. tribe.
It is worth considering that many of these hysterical activists really do despise
the family, and are eager to see families turn on each other over politics. Consider this
tweet, from the senior art critic at New York magazine:
Come gather round people wherever you roam & shun any republican family member you
have. Until this president is gone. You don't need to tell that family member that you are
shunning them. Just stand up for your country very close to home. Make it hurt for both of
you. Rise. Rise
Anyone -- left-wing or right-wing -- who would turn their back on a family member over the
family member's politics is a disgrace. I have family members and good friends with whom I
disagree strongly on politics. Anybody who tries to come between us can go to hell.
This may seem trivial to some. But I canthelp but notice that whenever there is a photo of
one of these kind of protests,at least 1/4 to a third of the protesters are taking "Selfies"
of themselves
Maybe its because im 50 years old. .Maybe im an old fogie . But it really strikes me how
immature and narcissistic most of these protesters seem .
Its like the NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to yesterday. I may disagree with much of
what Paul Krugman writes.But at least he writes like an adult . The NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher
linked to reads like it was written by a 16 year old high school student
Ive long thought that those surrounded by those that they agree with , tend to not be good at
debating. For instance, a liberal that lives in a conservative part of Mississippi, is
probably good at debating.Whereas a liberal tht lives in Berkley CA probably has never had to
learn how to acutaly debate someone
The same goes for conservatives. Mostof the conservatives that I have met in Baltimore
tend to be good at debating.Because they need to be.They cant simply state a conservative
position and just sit back while everyone around them agrees with them
I think that the problem with liberalism nowdays is that a liberal is far more likely to
be surrounded by liberal media and liberal pop culture. To be in a "bubble" a conservative
has to restrict themselves to only watching FoxNews and reading the WSJ.And they pretty much
have to tune out almost all modern American pop culture.And if they go to college, they have
to go to Liberty University
All a liberal has to do in order to be in a bubble is to watch mainstream media and read
mainstream newspapers[like the NYT] and they just have to go to their local college and watch
and listen to mainstream pop culture
It didn't used to be this way.When I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, igrew up in
extremely liberal areas. And the liberals that I knew were very good at discussing politics.
Nowdays the liberals that I know[and there are many in Baltimore] just repeat and giggle
about, some joke that Samantha Bee told about Republicans. The older liberals that I know are
able to discuss politics.But the younger liberals really cant seem to discuss things in any
kind of adult manner. Since they really seem to have never heard any disagreeing
viewpoints
"... Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. ..."
"... This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem." ..."
"... We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties. ..."
Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions.
Harvard University's Yascha Mounk writing for The Atlantic:
"Over the past 12 months, three scholars -- James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter
Boghossian -- wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender
studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable
Sokal Squared doesn't just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of
dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license
discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals.
This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to
redress the "privilege" of white students.
Exhorting college professors to enact forms of "experiential reparations," the paper
suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even BINDING THEM TO THE FLOOR IN
CHAINS
If students protest, educators are told to "take considerable care not to validate
privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged
groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who
oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the
fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege."
In an article for Areo magazine, the authors of the hoax explain their motivation:
"Something has gone wrong in the university -- especially in certain fields within the
humanities.
Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances
has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars
increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their
worldview.
This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has
been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the
three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of
this problem."
We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected
peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural
studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it
is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.
As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields "grievance studies" in
shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail
in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance
studies, which is corrupting academic research.
Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and
sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been
to reboot these conversations.''
To read more, see Areo magazine + "academic grievance studies and the corruption of
scholarship"
President Trump said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of a Democrat
Hoax, and that allegations of sexual assault levied by multiple women were "all made up" and
"fabricated."
In comments made to reporters on the White House driveway, Trump addressed rumors that the
Democrats will investigate and attempt to impeach Kavanaugh if they regain control over the
House or Senate during midterms.
"So, I've been hearing that now they're thinking about impeaching a brilliant jurist -- a
man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax that was set up by the Democrats
using the Democrats' lawyers -- and now they want to impeach him," said Trump.
The President then suggested that the attacks on Kavanaugh will bring conservatives to the
polls for midterms:
"I think it's an insult to the American public," said Trump. "The things they said about him
-- I don't even think he ever heard of the words. It was all made-up. It was fabricated. And
it's a disgrace. And I think it's going to really show you something come November sixth."
"... It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. ..."
What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the
wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get
nailed..."
Aftermath As Prologue
"I believe her!"
Really? Why should anyone believe her?
Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced
something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said
that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine
Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad
imitation of Truman Capote.
I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities
underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last
presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines
is going to blow wide open.
It turns out that the Deep State is a small world.
Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael
Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying
to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury?
What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA,
she just happened to hook up with him.
It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where
her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next
four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the
"sexual assault" circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and
that she worked in the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York under Preet
Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer? Could Dr. Ford have
spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs.
Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean's lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top
lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia
investigations before resigning in February this year -- in fact, he sat in on the notorious
"unsworn" interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!
Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford's previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms
prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week -- as
reported by the The Wall Street Journal -- that she "felt pressured" by Monica McLean and her
representatives to change her story -- that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault,
or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think
that's called suborning perjury.
None of this is trivial and the matter can't possibly rest there. Too much of it has been
unraveled by what remains of the news media. And meanwhile, of course, there is at least one
grand jury listening to testimony from the whole cast-of-characters behind the botched Hillary
investigation and Robert Mueller's ever more dubious-looking Russian collusion inquiry: the
aforementioned Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, et. al. I have a
feeling that these matters are now approaching critical mass with the parallel unraveling of
the Christine Blasey Ford "story."
The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans
over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe
she acted on her own in this shady business. What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ
associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in
the process and they're going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle
is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow
sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled:
Liberals, This is War . Like I've been saying: Civil War Two.
Blasey-Ford happens to work at Palo Alto University, which is the west coast HQ for the
left wing feminist movement in the US. Here's a good video by a woman professor from Canada
that blows the lid off the entire conspiracy:
Nope, the people are so fragmented and full of disinfo and propaganda that they actually
think the other peons are the real problem. While we peons slaughter each other for having
different opinions on the privileged predator class spokespeople, they hop into the private
planes and disappear.
I actually fought in a civil war, the one in the former Yugoslavia. They are like
wildfires that can not be controlled but must burn until the fuel is consumed...
"... At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter. ..."
"... So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites ..."
"... The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise. ..."
"... This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt" ..."
"... In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness. ..."
The constitution was a creation of the elite at the time, the property class. Its mission was to prevent the common folk from
having control. Democracy=mob rule= Bad.
The common folk only had the ability to elect representatives in the house, who in turn would elect Senators. Electors voted
for President and they were appointed by a means chosen by the state legislature , which only in modern times has come to mean
by the popular vote of the common folk. Starting from 1913 it was decided to let the common folk vote for Senator and give the
commonfolk the illusion of Democracy confident they could be controlled with propaganda and taxes (also adopted in 1913 with the
Fed)
At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively
free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the
MOED became a minority voter.
Bernays science of propaganda took off during WWI, Since MOED's made up the most educated class (relative to minorities and
women) up to the 70's this was a big deal for almost 60 years , although not today when miseducation is equal among the different
races, sexes and ethnicities.
So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen
United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates
chosen by the elites
So how do the common folk get control over the federal government? That is a pipe dream and will never happen. The founders
who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today
got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless
and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise.
Pft has a point. If there was ever a time for the people to take the republic into its hands, it may have been
just after the Civil War when the Dems were discredited and the Repubs had a total control of Congress.
This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century.
So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt"
All manner of political office-seekers devoted themselves to getting on the government gravy train, somehow.
The selling of political offices was notorious and the newspaper editors of the time were ashamed of this.
Then there was the Whiskey Ring. The New York Customs House was a major source of corruption lucre.
Then there was vote selling in blocks of as many as 10,000 and the cost of paying those who could do this.
Then there were the kickbacks from the awards of railroad concessions which included large parcels of land.
If there ever was a Golden Age of the United States it must have been when Franklin Roosevelt was President.
karlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"
The only thing us "common folk" can do is work within our personal sphere of influence, and engage who you can, when you can,
and support with any $ you can spare, to support the sites and any local radio stations that broadcast independent thought. (
if you can find any). Pacifica radio, KPFK in LA is a good example. KPFA in the bay area.
Other than another economic crash, I don't believe anything can rouse the pathetic bovine public. Bread and circuses work...
The division of representative power and stake in the political process back at the birth of the US Constitution was as you
say it was. But this wasn't because any existing power had been taken away from anyone. It was simply the state of play back then.
Since that time, we common people have developed a more egalitarian sense of how the representation should be apportioned.
We include former slaves, all ethnic groups and both genders. We exclude animals thus far, although we do have some - very modest
- protections in place.
I think it has been the rise of the socialist impulse among workers that has expanded this egalitarian view, with trade unions
and anti-imperialist revolutions and national struggles. But I'm not a scholar or a historian so I can't add details to my impression.
My point is that since the Framers met, there has been a progressive elevation of our requirements of representative government.
I think some of this also came from the Constitution itself, with its embedded Bill of Rights.
I can't say if this expansion has continued to this day or not. History may show there was a pinnacle that we have now passed,
and entered a decline. I don't know - it's hard to say how we score the Internet in this balance. It's always hard to score the
present age along its timeline. And the future is never here yet, in the present, and can only ever be guessed.
In my view, the dream of popular control of representative government remains entirely possible. I call it an aspiration rather
than a pipe dream, and one worth taking up and handing on through the generations. Current global society may survive in relatively
unbroken line for millennia to come. There's simply no percentage in calling failure at this time.
It may be that better government comes to the United States from the example of the world nations, over the decades and centuries
to come. Maybe the demonstration effect will work on us even when we cannot work on ourselves. We are not the only society of
poor people who want a fair life.
In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative
government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the
predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be
madness.
"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect
it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up
now would be madness."
Here, here! I fully agree with you.
In my opinion, representative government was stronger in the U.S. from the 1930's to the 1970's and Europe after WW2. And as
a result the western world achieved unprecedented prosperity. Since 1980, the U.S. government has been captured by trans-national
elites, who, since the 1990's have also captured much of the political power in the EU.
Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result
of this dictatorship.
Prosperity, and peace, will only return when the dictators are removed and representative government is returned.
"Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result
of this dictatorship."
Exactly!! I feel like the Swedish knight Antonius Block in the movie the 7th Seal. There does not seem any way out of this
evil game by the death dealing rulers.
Love it. But you fad3d at the end. It was Gingrich, not Rodham, who was behind Contract on America, and GHWBush's Fed Bank
group wrote the legislation that would have been Bush's second term 'kinder, gentler' Gramm-Leach-Bliley bayonet up the azs of
the American Dream, as passed by a majority of Congress, and by that point Tripp and Lewinski had already pull-dated Wild Bill.
God, can you imagine being married to that hag Rodham? The purple people-eating lizards of Georgetown and Alexandria. Uurk.
I'm reading a great FDR book, 'Roosevelt and Hopkins', a signed 1st Ed copy by Robert Sherwood, and the only book extant from
my late father's excellent political and war library, after his trophy wife dumped the rest of his library off at Goodwill, lol.
They could have paid for her next booblift, ha, ha, ha.
Anyway, FDR, in my mind, only passed the populist laws that he did because he needed cannon fodder in good fighting shape for
Rothschild's Wars ("3/4ths of WW2 conscripts were medically unfit for duty," the book reports), and because Rothschild's and Queens
Bank of London needed the whole sh*taco bailed out afterward, by creating SS wage-withholding 'Trust Fund' (sic) the Fed then
tapped into, and creating Lend-Lease which let Rothschilds float credit-debt to even a higher level and across the globe. Has
it all been paid off by Germany and Japan yet?
Even Lincoln, jeez, Civil War was never about slavery, it was about finance and taxation and the illegitimate Federal supremacy
over the Republic of States, not unlike the EU today. Lincoln only freed the slaves to use them as cannon fodder and as a fifth
column.
All of these politicians were purple people-eating lizards, except maybe the Kennedy's, and they got ground and pounded like
Conor McGregor, meh?
"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect
it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give
up now would be madness."
Compare to: Sentiments of the Nation:
12ş That as the good Law is superior to every man, those dictated by our Congress must be such, that they force constancy and
patriotism, moderate opulence and indigence; and in such a way increase the wages of the poor, improve their habits, moving away
from ignorance, rapine and theft.
13ş That the general laws include everyone, without exception of privileged bodies; and that these are only in the use of the
ministry..
14ş That in order to dictate a Law, the Meeting of Sages is made, in the possible number, so that it may proceed with more
success and exonerate of some charges that may result.
15. That slavery be banished forever, and the distinction of castes, leaving all the same, and only distinguish one American
from another by vice and virtue.
16ş That our Ports be open to friendly foreign nations, but that they do not enter the nation, no matter how friendly they
may be, and there will only be Ports designated for that purpose, prohibiting disembarkation in all others, indicating ten percent.
17ş That each one be kept his property, and respect in his House as in a sacred asylum, pointing out penalties to the offenders.
18ş That the new legislation does not admit torture.
19ş That the Constitutional Law establishes the celebration of December 12th in all Peoples, dedicated to the Patroness of
our Liberty, Most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, entrusting to all Peoples the monthly devotion.
20ş That the foreign troops, or of another Kingdom, do not step on our soil, and if it were in aid, they will not without the
Supreme Junta approval.
21ş That expeditions are not made outside the limits of the Kingdom, especially overseas, that they are not of this kind yet
rather to spread the faith to our brothers and sisters of the land inside.
22ş That the infinity of tributes, breasts and impositions that overwhelm us be removed, and each individual be pointed out
a five percent of seeds and other effects or other equally light weight, that does not oppress so much, as the alcabala, the Tobacconist,
the Tribute and others; because with this slight contribution, and the good administration of the confiscated goods of the enemy,
will be able to take the weight of the War, and pay the fees of employees.
Temple of the Virgen of the Ascencion
Chilpancingo, September 14, 1813.
José MŞ Morelos.
23ş That also be solemnized on September 16, every year, as the Anniversary day on which the Voice of Independence was raised,
and our Holy Freedom began, because on that day it was in which the lips of the Nation were deployed to claim their rights with
Sword in hand to be heard: always remembering the merit of the great Hero Mr. Don Miguel Hidalgo and his companion Don Ignacio
Allende.
Answers on November 21, 1813. And therefore, these are abolished, always being subject to the opinion of S. [u] A. [alteza]
S. [very eminent]
"... Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state. ..."
"... It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC. ..."
"... All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump. ..."
The Kavanaugh circus was a sad spectacle. His wife was Bush's personal secretary. The
Democrats used the grievance culture because that is all they have. Focusing on abortion and
grievances keeps the public stirred up and diverts attention from some other very serious
very troubling issues that they are cashing out on.
Snopes has worked hard to discredit the allegations that came out on some websites that
are a bit crazy but the information is interesting. She MAY well have been the intake
psychologist for this program. Then again, maybe not. She was doing work at Stanford and the
scope of that work is not fully known.
Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three
letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running
building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office
sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched
out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the
state.
It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that
represented Fusion GPS who was behind
the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC.
While this information came out on some crazy websites SOME of it can be confirmed. Who
else is going to publish this? CNN?
All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The
CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump.
@4 dltravers.. i think your theory has a lot of merit.. "The CIA backed Hillary and the
military backed Trump." whatever is going on in the usa, it seems to be coming apart at the
seams..
Yes, CIA backed HRC since WJC was their boy from the time he attended the school of
foreign service at Georgetown where he was recruited, which is how he got his law degree and
was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. The CIA has either had its own people as POTUS or
controlled them via other means since late November 1963. Trump isn't one of them, thus the
virulent opposition and collaboration to undermine his office. Now it looks like he's under
control, but with Trump you never can tell.
Just talking to myself mostly...
If CIA backed HRC, and US Military backed Trump, and of course the israeli's, (read The
Mossad) also backed Trump, then it means that US Military and The Mossad go hand in hand in
Global Theater Operations, since they didn't (apparently) trusted CIA enough? Or is it that
what we see here is actually just The Mossad doing some moar extortion operations so they get
stuff from the CIA or also the Military transferred over to israeli control?
The Brazil elections if the rightwingers (read fascists) win I bet will be a rainfall for
israel, since, there you go, full country in upheaval, letaves you with great opportunities
to go sell your 5G and your smart dust and let the government keep every dissident in check,
without having to relly on third parties (Google/Apple/Microsoft - the bad guys full of
chinese chips.) that won't play with you along (israel). So they get to have their first own
little country (80 million?) to play with their new tech, and if you count that rgentina is
now back at the IMF, you just add the coiuntries now, from North to South: USA + Brazil +
Argentina, that's almost the entire Americas (minus Mexico and Canada, (but I gues uncle
Trump will make Mexican's comes to their senses with the Wall right?) That's not bad of a
"Market" of a lil country with merely 7 million people like Israel and it's "start up"
companies, right? No wonder Mossad doesn't like CIA now. They (retired vets?) took out too
much of their (could be) market share, right?
On Friday, 5 October, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to end unlimited debate and the
possibility of a filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, through a vote
on "cloture", the gimmick allowing Senators to do a filibuster or stop one, without actually
having to stand up and filibuster.
Shortly after Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy announced on 27 June 2018 that he would be
leaving the court, we discussed here on SST the fact that former president Obama, former
Democratic Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, current minority "leader" Charles Schumer,
and Senate Democrats muscled through a new "interpretation" of the Senate rules that allowed a
vote on cloture to require only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, for federal district
trial court and court of appeals judges, and other presidential appointees; but for supreme
court nominees, 60 votes were still required at that time [1]. This allowed the Obama
administration to push through nominees easier.
But when Donald Trump was elected president, the vacancy on the supreme court after the
death of Antonin Scalia remained. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch. A cloture vote was demanded to
end debate on Gorsuch and to proceed to a final up or down vote. But the vote was not
successful and did not get the required 60 votes. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
then followed up on what he said when the Democrats changed the filibuster rule: "You'll regret
this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think". He did what Harry Reid had done, and
with the slight Republican majority, reinterpreted the Senate filibuster rule to remove the
60-vote requirement for supreme court nominees. The Democrats could hardly effectively protest,
as they had unclean hands from their own prior actions. A second cloture vote was taken on
Gorsuch, and it passed, since only a simple majority was required. On the subsequent final
vote, he was confirmed. Had Obama et. al. not been greedy and arrogant, the monkey would have
been on the back of the Republicans about changing the filibuster rule, and I think it is
likely that McConnell would not have changed it. The dynamic in confirming supreme court
justices appointed by Trump would have been dramatically different.
When the Kavanaugh nomination was made, the Democrats again did not think past the end of
their noses, and tried to block him through a three act play with an accusation of sexual
misconduct made by Christine Blasey Ford. Two more accusations then conveniently showed up,
along with obviously coached "protesters". But with no real supporting evidence, the entire
approach began publicly to implode on itself, and behind the scenes, enough votes were put
together to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment.
"... "'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'" ..."
"... 'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'" ..."
"... Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats. ..."
Four days after he described Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as
a "very credible witness," President Donald Trump could no longer contain his feelings or
constrain his instincts.
With the fate of his Supreme Court nominee in the balance, Trump let his "Make America Great
Again" rally attendees in Mississippi know what he really thought of Ford's testimony.
"'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well,
you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get
home?'"
'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?'
'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I
don't know.'"
By now the Mississippi MAGA crowd was cheering and laughing.
Trump went on: "'What neighborhood was it in?' 'I don't know.' 'Where's the house?' 'I don't
know.' 'Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?' 'I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only
thing I remember.'"
Since that day three years ago when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to talk of
"rapists" crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, few Trump remarks have ignited greater
outrage.
Commentators have declared themselves horrified and sickened that a president would so mock
the testimony of a victim of sexual assault.
The Republican senators who will likely cast the decisive votes on Kavanaugh's confirmation
-- Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- they all decried Trump's mimicry.
Yet, in tossing out the "Catechism of Political Correctness" and treating the character
assassination of Kavanaugh as what it was, a rotten conspiracy to destroy and defeat his
nominee, Trump's instincts were correct, even if they were politically incorrect.
This was not a "job interview" for Kavanaugh.
In a job interview, half the members of the hiring committee are not so instantly hostile to
an applicant that they will conspire to criminalize and crush him to the point of wounding his
family and ruining his reputation.
When Sen. Lindsey Graham charged the Democratic minority with such collusion, he was dead
on. This was a neo-Bolshevik show trial where the defendant was presumed guilty and due process
meant digging up dirt from his school days to smear and break him.
Our cultural elites have declared Trump a poltroon for daring to mock Ford's story of what
happened 36 years ago. Yet, these same elites reacted with delight at Matt Damon's "SNL"
depiction of Kavanaugh's angry and agonized appearance, just 48 hours before.
Is it not hypocritical to laugh uproariously at a comedic depiction of Kavanaugh's anguish,
while demanding quiet respect for the highly suspect and uncorroborated story of Ford?
Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said
Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate
Democrats.
In our widening and deepening cultural-civil war, the Kavanaugh nomination will be seen as a
landmark battle. And Trump's instincts, to treat his Democratic assailants as ideological
enemies, with whom he is in mortal struggle, will be seen as correct.
Consider. In the last half-century, which Supreme Court nominees were the most maligned and
savaged?
Were they not Nixon nominee Clement Haynsworth, chief judge of the 4th Circuit Court of
Appeals, Reagan nominee Robert Bork, Bush 1 nominee Clarence Thomas, and Trump nominee Brett
Kavanaugh, the last three all judges on the nation's second-highest court, the District of
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals?
Is it a coincidence that all four were Republican appointees, all four were judicial
conservatives, and all four were gutted on the grounds of philosophy or character?
Is it a coincidence that Nixon in Watergate, Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, and now Trump
in Russiagate, were all targets of partisan campaigns to impeach and remove them from
office?
Consider what happened to decent Gerald Ford who came into the oval office in 1974,
preaching "the politics of compromise and consensus."
To bring the country together after Watergate, Ford pardoned President Nixon. For that act
of magnanimity, he was torn to pieces by a Beltway elite that had been denied its anticipated
pleasure of seeing Nixon prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison.
Trump is president because he gets it. He understands what this Beltway elite are all about
-- the discrediting of his victory as a product of criminal collusion with Russia and his
resignation or removal in disgrace. And the "base" that comes to these rallies to cheer him on,
they get it, too.
Since Reagan's time, there are few conservatives who have not been called one or more of the
names in Hillary Clinton's litany of devils, her "basket of deplorables" -- racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, irredeemable.
The battle over Kavanaugh's nomination, and the disparagement of the Republicans who have
stood strongest by the judge, seems to have awakened even the most congenial to the new
political reality.
We are all deplorables now.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the recent book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this
piece, has been given a pass by all sides. She had the Ford accusations in hand for weeks,
but sat on them. She could have passed them on to the FBI much earlier, and there would have
been adequate time for a thorough, professional, credible investigation of the accusations.
Perhaps that investigation would have been as inconclusive as the one that was ultimately
done. But it would have been done in an unhurried, and dignified manner. Nobody need have
been publicly humiliated. Nobody need have been dragged into Congress to testify reluctantly,
in public, about a painful episode in her life. And, more importantly, the investigation,
having been done in the normal course of background investigation, would have had
credibility–nobody would have called it a whitewash. And the resulting confirmation, or
not, of Kavanaugh would have ultimately been accepted by most people as legitimate.
Feinstein had the ability to make that happen, but she chose instead to sit on this until
the last minute when, surely she knew, it would unleash a sh**storm.
Her excuse that she was protecting Ford's privacy holds no water at all. A regular FBI
investigation could have been conducted discretely: they know how to keep things confidential
when they want to. Moreover, take a look at Feinstein's abysmal voting record on
surveillance: she doesn't respect anybody's privacy, ever.
Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I'm certainly voting for
her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.
I think that from the very beginning this Court Nomination has been about the midterm
election. The Democrats never really expected to be bale to stop Kavvanaugh.But they figured
that they could use anger against him in order to get out their "base" in November
In the end, both parties will probably get their "Base" out to vote.But there is going to
be a lot of wrecked human lives left behind because of this sad,sordid battle
Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of
innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by
Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged
multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.
This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and
simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into
the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of
innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.
The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night
– or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations
fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these
charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.
With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of
the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine
justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush
and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have
been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter
of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on
uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the
confirmation process.
From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his
nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer
no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic
Party has abandoned as a political issue.
In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic
Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's
nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally
reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:
"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates
to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the
Times wrote.
The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at
by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to
defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh
had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the
Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination
was blocked by the Republicans.
Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one
another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from
an opinion written by the other only once.
In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans
secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new
"narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate
to recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism
and worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no
longer can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying
to compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA
population, including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of
living. They see exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously
supported Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no
political party that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
"ph" is one of the more subtle Concern Trolls I've seen, I'll give them that.
Reactionaries need to be more afraid that their relentlessly tightening grip on every
single lever of power will lead inexorably to the most bloodthirsty correction in human
history. It's not something anyone would wish for, but what's the realistic alternative?
American elites are just too stupid to enact the kind of sophisticated authoritarian controls
that might stave off total collapse.
As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter
failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to
disqualify him. Instead they used the fake
grievance culture
against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood
(vid, recommended).
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the
Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive
theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees
that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the
president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the
Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17
years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year
old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.
Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a
crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who
along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and
then castrated and fed to swine.
A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be
allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court
nominee's reputation was squandered.
There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the
country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch
powers and the protection of US civil liberty. Important books, such as Charlie Savage's
Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle
that the president is accountable under law. Can the executive branch torture despite domestic
and international laws against torture? Can the executive branch spy on citizens without
warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary? Can the
executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US
Constitution's prohibition? Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of
law, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law
professor John Yoo say "yes the president can."
Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled
presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.
And it wasn't just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progresive/left which has
discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by
the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize
and was not fired as a male would have been.
There is now a "funding platform" endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims
to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the
scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are
losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which
everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump's
capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is
being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States
dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.
To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let's assume that the vague,
unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let's assume
that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn't she raped? I
suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The
accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused
assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available.
Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go.
How is this a serious sexual offense?
Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the
enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole
or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama,
and Trump regimes?
There has been no accountability for these obvious and undeniable crimes. Why are not
feminists and presidents of Catholic Universities such as Georgetown and Catholic University in
Washington, and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US media, and
the liberal/progressive/left websites concerned about real crimes instead of make-believe ones?
What has happened to our country that nothing that really matters ever becomes part of public
notice?
US administrations have not only murdered, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated millions of
totally innocent human beings, but also the evil and corrupt US government, protected by the
presstitute media, which is devoid of character and integrity, has tortured in violation of
United States law hundreds of innocents sold to it under the US bounty system in Afghanistan,
when the Cheney-Bush regime desperately needed "terrorists" to justify its war based on nothing
but its lies.
All sorts of totally innocent people were tortured by sadistic US government personnel who
delighted in making people under their power suffer. These were unprotected people picked up by
war lords in response to Washington's offer of a bounty for "terrorists" and sold to the
Americans. The victims included aid workers, traveling salesmen, unprotected visitors, and
others who lacked protection from being misrepresented as "terrorists" in order to be sold for
$5,000 so that Dick Cheney and the criminal Zionist neocons would have some "terrorists" to
show to justify their war crime.
ORDER IT NOW
The utterly corrupt US media was very reticent about telling Americans that close to 100% of
the "world's most dangerous terrorists," in the words of the criminal US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, were released as innocent of all
With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the
financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices
will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald
Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by
presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of
torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on
uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the
confirmation process.
From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his
nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no
principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has
abandoned as a political issue.
In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the
Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's
nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary
justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:
"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose
from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times
wrote.
The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by
Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend
her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a
voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party
attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the
Republicans.
Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's
opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion
written by the other only once.
In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured
the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative"
leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.
I come across information about connection of Kavanauch to Vince Foster before but this is
probably the most complete text of what can be called Internet rumor. The suicide has
nevertheless continued to fuel speculation: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made news in 2016 when he remarked
in an interview with the Washington Post that Foster's death was
"very fishy", and added "I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they
think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair."
Notable quotes:
"... Praised *dissent* in Roe ..."
"... Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare ..."
"... Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants ..."
"... Opposes net neutrality ..."
"... Opposes consumer bureau ..."
"... Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional ..."
"... -- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018 ..."
"... " According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life -- without a warrant" ..."
"... " According to his wife , security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen"" ..."
"... color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply. ..."
"... "Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy" ..."
"... A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald's Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire. ..."
Both sides seem to be interested in the truth , only in so far as it serves their
respective political agenda's. Nothing more.
I was not particularly impressed with the testimony from either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr.
Ford.
I thought the Judge was too angry , whining, and evasive, when he could have been much
more precise and pointed in his responses. I was not a big fan of the "calendar"story (true
or not) nor his responses to an FBI investigation.
"... The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria. ..."
The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and
hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem
of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria.
... ... ...
(SEN. SHELDON) WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club
reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?
KAVANAUGH : Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school.
Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College,
got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.
... ... ...
In earlier testimony in September, Kavanaugh appeared the model of judicial restraint and
non-partisanship. On Thursday he dropped all the pretenses.
" This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit," he
said, "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear
that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and
millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."
" This is a circus," Kavanaugh said. "The consequences will extend long past my
nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades." He then issued what can only be
seen as a threat: "And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early
2000s, what goes around comes around."
The judge's outburst unleashed an attack from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sen. Diane
Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the opposition party.
" I hope the American people can see through this sham," Graham screamed.
"This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap If
you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in
politics."
... ... ...
Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, said :
" Contrary to the mantra that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have it in
for Kavanaugh, they've largely let him off the hook on a number of critical issues, instead
favoring theatrics."
"While there's substantial attention being paid to the serious charges of sexual assault
by Kavanaugh, there's been very little note that he is a putative war criminal.
Specifically, recently released documents show that while Kavanaugh worked for the George
W. Bush administration, one of the people he attempted to put on the judiciary was John
Yoo, who authored many of the justifications for torture that came out of the Bush
administration."
Kavanaugh's career as a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of
corporations, the security state, and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial.
The hearings could have provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of
torture, mass spying, and the domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had
an important role in each of these.
Sifting – I read it, and it was very interesting indeed. Ms. Ford needs to be
investigated. She has yet to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee her therapist
notes and the information they wanted re her polygraph test.
Her former boyfriend of six years has said that she was never claustrophobic, was not
afraid of tight spaces, flew often, even on small planes, he witnesssed her help her friend
prepare for a polygraph test with the FBI, and, although the reporter did not want to talk
about it, it appears that her sexual relationships were not hampered by this alleged
Kavanaugh groping.
Sounds like her FBI friend may have helped draft the letter to Senator Feinstein. Many
questions to be answered by Ms. Ford.
irina , October 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm
I found the 'flying around the Hawai'ian Islands in a propeller plane' to be
rather telling. This activity could probably be easily corroborated by family
or friends or even old postcards, receipts, etc. If anything is designed to
make a person feel 'trapped' (in more ways than one), a prop plane ranks
right up there. Her 'fear of flying' (interesting reference to Erica Jong as well !)
seems to me to be extremely selective.
EVERYONE'S behavior during this Kavanaugh/Ford circus was deplorable. Made for a nice
distraction though didn't it. Christine Blasey Ford deserves an award for her performance,
because that's all it was – acting. She's a disgrace to all women who have 'really'
been raped, many violently, including myself. And we certainly don't reach out 36 years
later to profit from our traumatic experience. Gofundme: Help Christine Blasey Ford
$528,475 raised of $150,000. Donald Trump and our entire Government is a joke, a laughing
stock for the entire world to see. It doesn't get much more disgusting than this. Oh but
wait, it will.
robjira , October 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm
As was pointed out in this article (and thanks to Mr. Lauria for re-emphasising the
point), Kavanaugh already had plenty of factors against his suitability for the Supreme
Court; mainly his being an enthusiastic war monger and an accessory to war crimes (not to
mention the appearance of judicial corruption). Rather than focusing on these salient
issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display. It is distressing that
otherwise insightful posters to these boards are getting caught up in the partisan theatre
which, once again, has proven to be highly effective in keeping the citizenry divided
against itself while the usual criminals continue to laugh our collective way to either
thermonuclear or ecological apocalypse.
xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Bridget , October 4, 2018 at 12:51 am
"Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on
display."
That's because the Democrats are equally guilty of war crimes and war mongering. There's
no partisanship when it comes to grinding under the corporate boot.
Why is it that the Republicans aren't shouting about Ukraine's collusion with the DNC to
benefit Hillary Clinton? [And they did, succeeding in ruining Manafort, and birthing the
Trump/Russia narrative.] Could it be that the Republicans are just as eager to demonize
Russia, that they need an enemy to justify their war economy? Trump is expendable. Their real
target is Putin. They'd like to replace him with Khodarkovsky so they can once more rape
Russia as they did in the 1990's.
Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are stepping up efforts to challenge Christine Blasey
Ford's credibility by confronting her with a sworn statement from a former boyfriend who took
issue with a number of assertions she made during testimony before the Judiciary Committee
last week.
The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a
friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath.
Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford,
was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was
looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," the man said in
the statement. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped
McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."
He added that she never told him about a violent encounter with Judge Kavanaugh. "It
strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship," Mr. Merrick told the newspaper. "But
I would never try to discredit what she says or what she believes." "During our time dating,
Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault,
harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
Mr. Merrick took issue with Dr. Blasey's professed fear of flying and of confined spaces,
noting that they once traveled around the Hawaiian islands in a propeller plane. "Dr. Ford
never indicated a fear of flying," he wrote. "To the best of my recollection Dr. Ford never
expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit."
I wonder if the Toxic Cloud State (aka deep state) couldn't find anything relevant against
the nominee in the 10+ years of private comm data they have on him (and on all of us), or do
they favor him, despite being a Trump nominee, because of his not caring about the 4th
Amendment?
Something to think about.
Brian , October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm
You want something to think about ? If there's nothing damming about this nominee, why did
the committee withhold 100,000 pages of information about him ? Or why you support a nominee
for the highest court in the land who lies at the drop of a hat (2 that can be proven with
his last conformation hearing) ?
xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:30 pm
Here's what I think – that this is an attempt to destroy someone with an accusation
– it's about the power to do that.
If he can proven to have lied in his last confirmation hearing, then why isn't that what
they're using to defeat him, instead of an unsupported accusation from 35 yrs ago. There's
good reason to believe this accusation is part of a well planned conspiracy and is full of
holes.
I think his lack of support of the 4th amendment is itself a good enough reason to reject
his nomination instead of this feminist liberal attempt to destroy someone with an
accusation.
I think there's EVIDENCE plainly available to defeat him. Defeating him on the basis of an
accusation is what they're trying because that suits what this really about – the power
to destroy with an emotionalized accusation. That's power that undermine the law, politics,
everyday ethical behavior and normal humn relationships.
Rob , October 3, 2018 at 7:12 pm
That about sums it up. We're making fools of ourselves to the world.
Smear, malign, ridicule a man, then when he succumbs emotionally smear him for not being
able to control his emotions. Not a bad strategy. Attacking him because of his performance,
even as a teenager for goodness sake, and finding that was likely to fail, the enemies of
what they think he represents have attacked his emotional stability.
Having said that, I think Cavanaugh could have used some coaching before he rightly
attacked his accusers on the Committee. He. being human, I can sympathize with his attack but
his attackers are a cold and cunning lot and they finally found something they could use to
do what they wanted, to keep a Trump nominee off the Court.
That Trump will be willing to throw him under the bus is not beyond imagining.
As to Ms. Ford, however useful she was, she will suffer from the continuing glare of the
spotlight as the inconsistencies in her story unravel and her personal life is dissected over
and over.
If she is instrumental in keeping Cavanaugh off the Court, she will have proved quite
useful to those who went after Cavanaugh. That she is also a victim means little to the
scoundrels that used her.
JoeSixPack , October 3, 2018 at 11:38 am
"That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her."
Excellent point. Neither Democrats nor Republicans care. This is all political theater. No
one is interested in the truth.
Trump is a huge middle finger to the entire system especially the GOP and Bush cabal..The
more outrageous he was the better they liked it.My guess.
Lucius Patrick , October 3, 2018 at 10:54 am
Yes, the great Obama, who bombed more countries and dropped more bombs, than Bush and
Cheney; who sold more military weapons to foreign countries than any president in history.
Who backed an illegal in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War. That Obama?
Everybody needs to call the republican and democrat senators of your state and tell them
not to
confirm Bret Kavenaugh based on his opinion on the record that bulk NSA spying is not a
violation of the 4th Amendment. That makes him a traitor who does not uphold the
Constitution. This dog and pony show is a study in distraction. A 2015 Pew research study
found the majority of Americans, Republican, Democrat and Independent voters, oppose NSA bulk
spying.
You do know the architects for those crimes now work for MSNBC and CNN? .they are
democrats new hero's?
CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate. Fire him
Video for brennan lies
? 1:34 https://www.theguardian.com/
/cia-director-john-brennan-lied-sen
Jul 31, 2014
"The facts will come out," Brennan told NBC News in March after apologizes even though he's
not sorry, who
James Clapper Just Lied Again About His Previous Lies About NSA
Video for clapper lies
? 9:28
thefederalist.com/ /james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous
May 22, 2018 – Uploaded by The View
In an interview with the ladies of 'The View' James Clapper told another lie about his
previous lies about
Knomore , October 2, 2018 at 10:19 pm
What we've learned in these days is that it does not matter one whit if what you charge is
false; the mainstream media, in league with the Democrat Party, have mastered this to
perfection. No: What matters is lobbing something -- filth works best because it sticks best
-- at someone, especially if the latter person is someone you want to discredit in some way
-- any way -- possible.
I'm having a large problem with Lauria's article, admit I did not read past the first
paragraph. My excuse is that we are all on emotional overload in the aftermath of Ford's
juvenile presentation before the Judiciary Committee. What most of us suspected at the
time–that these were false charges–was largely substantiated first by what we
heard and then by Ms. Mitchell, the sex abuse professional who interviewed Ford. Witnessing
the Democrats, Feinstein especially, and then the dispassionate Kamala H., smile beseechingly
while encouraging this preposterous display left yet more funky smells in the room.
Now we are asked to forget all that and engage in a new game: This one is called Double
jeopardy? Triple jeopardy ? It goes like this:
You take a baseball bat and slam someone over the head with it as hard as you can. Next
step is to stand there and critique that person from every angle imaginable, but mostly for
having the audacity to stand up and try to defend himself.
Shame on all of us.
JR_Leonardi , October 2, 2018 at 10:16 pm
I shall be amazed if the censor permits this comment to post.
Joe Lauria does not deserve to be the Editor of the journal Robert Parry established and,
for years, edited honorably and professionally.
Joe Lauria disgraces Consortium News with his part-fraudulent, all toxic propaganda
"article" that clashes with near-all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (rather than the baseless,
thoroughly discredited accusations and the vile-politics-engendered "belief" of the
Democrat-suborned false accusations).
One must wonder whether her, Lauria, would feel and express rage and show tears were HE
the object of vicious, fraudulent character-assassination like that suffered by Judge
Kavanaugh.
I contemn Joe Lauria as I contemned Joe McCarthy and contemn now the Democrat Party's
members of Congress and the Clintonian DNC.
Joe Lauria needs to resign his Editorship.
exiled off mainstreet , October 4, 2018 at 4:21 am
Lauria's knowledge of Kavanaugh's real historic role explains why he finds the baseless
allegations against him believable. One has to examine his entire record, which is admirable,
rather than going to the mattresses because he makes a mistake here. The fact is, Kavanaugh
is a disgrace for reasons other than the ones the democrats are proferring because as an
integral part of a corrupt militarist imperialist power structure intent on continuing their
total domination of everything, they don't want to deal with the real failings of Kavanaugh
as a corrupt opponent of the rule of law. I agree that it is unfortunate that Lauria accepts
this largely debunked story influenced by his knowledge of unrelated worse stories that are
provable.
"Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S.
military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in
the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of
his "victory tour" in December 2016, Trump vowed,
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we
shouldn't
be involved with." Instead of investing in wars, he said, he wouldinvest in rebuilding
America's crumbling infrastructure."
"Trump retorted angrily that the generals were "the architects of this mess" and that they
have were "making it worse," by asking him to add more troops to "something I don't believe
in."
Then Trump folded his arms and declared, "I want to get out. And you're telling me the
answeris to get deeper in."
Jean, you make a good point that Trump's taking down the American Empire, but not as
you've envisioned it? Trump's Trade Wars & Financial terrorism in the form of Tarriffs
& Sanctions are forcing other Nations to consolidate & start the process of the
"dedollarisation" of their economies to transition away from the US Dollar & it's removal
as the Worlds reserve currency! Alternatives to the US Swift Banking system are well on the
way, further isolating the USA's role in punishing Nations through financial & economic
warfare via the Banking system! Once this happens, the entire "ponzi scheme" of the most
indebted Nation on Earth will collapse in on itself like a Black hole! And Trump is
accelerating this demise of America as a Hegemonic Empire! And for your information & in
direct contradiction of his campaign promises,Trump is not withdrawing America from meddling
in the Middle East, he's appeasing the Deepstate & outsourcing this Foreign Policy of
Regime change & Resources theft of other Countries, to Warmongers like Mattis &
Pompeo who are maintaining the status quo of the US as a unwanted, Foreign Invader by hanging
on in Afghanistan; Iraq & Syria, like a limpett crab attaching itself to a rock! Trump is
unable to extricate the US because the US cant't or won't face the reality, that they have
achieved nothing, despite wasting trillions of dollars of warmongering with zero results to
show for the horrendous cost of the invasions! So they will remain over there, till hell
freezes over, as a face saving measure to avoid the inevitable humiliation of defeat like in
Vietnam, knowing that the endless Wars conducted by them has been a utter, catastrophic
disaster caused by arrogance, ignorance & supreme hubris by a out of control, lawless
Rogue Nation!
"Whataboutism" is a call out of hypocrisy and was first used by a poor Carpenter who said
to "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the
speck out of your brother's eye."
We wouldnt even have Trump if not for Hillary.
rosemerry , October 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm
All this "evidence" business is interesting when we observe that since March, the USA
media and government has accepted the word of UK PM Theresa May that the Russians have
poisoned two Salisbury residents with novichok under the orders of Vladimir Putin himself. NO
evidence of any kind has been produced, the EU and NATO gang were called in, over 100
diplomats were expelled and the Russians had no right of reply at all, and the whole saga
continues. These days, who cares about evidence?
In this case, there is abundance evidence over thirty years that Kavanaugh is "a corporation
masquerading as a judge", to use Ralph Nader's words. He cares not at all for workers,
environment, poor people, ordinary citizens. Find a real candidate, if any come forward.
Cratylus , October 2, 2018 at 4:58 pm
There are good reasons for opposing Kavanaugh – and they were obvious to begin with.
Lauria and others have summarized them nicely.
BUT with all those things known, he was on his way to confirmation. The lesson is that the
Elite, Dems and GOP, are just fine with Kavanaugh. If it were a Dem essentially like him the
voting would be Partisan, just the other way.
Some would prefer a woman but they had their day in approving Gina Haspel. No big fight
was involved; and we know what she has done dwarfs even the worst accusations against
Kavanaugh.
Then the last minute accusations, and everyone got interested. There are many serious
issues here – sexual assault being one of them as Lauria points out. But they are
unproven and alleged against a 17 year old. So the discussion shifted to temperament and
respect for Senators. Do they deserve respect? I do not think so. And now on to drinking
habits of the high school and college boy. Down, down, down.
What is motivating 99% of the people glued to this issue? It is Partisan Identity Politics
– in fact worse, it is Tabloid Identity Politics. Meanwhile tensions are soaring on the
Russian border, in Middle East and in the South China Sea; mass incarceration stares us in
the face; health care degenerates ever further -and we have to debate Kavanaugh's alcoholism
and "temperament." What a sad excuse for real political discussion. In fact I find I am
getting annoyed at myself for even weighing in on this. I
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:44 pm
Exactly. We are now reading in the 'papers of record' articles which not long ago
would have appeared in supermarket checkout tabloids. But since they are in
the Big Papers, they now have an aura of authenticity lacking in tabloid spreads.
It's practically impossible to find useful information on any topic in the Big Papers.
Deltaeus , October 2, 2018 at 4:38 pm
Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our
civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.
Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe
can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that.
Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological
reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just
some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see
his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone
can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with
this article.
Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you
can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you
will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised
idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be
a shame.
irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm
Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.
For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's
child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by
her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only
imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this
situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize
to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he
started strongly resembling his dad (her son).
False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.
Hans Zandvliet , October 2, 2018 at 4:06 pm
I think the whole Kavanaugh back-and-forth-mud-slinging excersize is just an irrelevant
side-show to distract us from what really matters.
Justice in the USA is already dead; they only forgot to burry the corpse.
So why fighting over it? That;s the point: it's all a distraction from the twin-brother of
"Justice", called "Democracy" who's on life support, too. And by fighting over the already
dead corpse of Justice, the Deep State can let the death of Democracy go unnoticed.
In fact, I believe the present USA government system is way beyond repair. Corporate
corruption has taken over all government institutions, so there are no institutional
proceedings left to fight this corrupt system. The only way left is a revolution to overthrow
the corrupt system and start anew.
It will not be pleasant, but that's the ride the USA has embarked on.
GofSMQ , October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm
I believed Kavanaugh, did not believe Ford. Her fake crying reminded me of Susan Smith. If
no woman had ever lied and made false accusations about a man Lauria might have ground to
stand on, but sadly it happens, and thus no human being should be automatically given
credibility over someone else simply because of their gender, race, or other immutable
characteristics.
That said, Kavanaugh is unqualified due to his involvement with the Federalist Society,
Starr, and the Bush/Cheney regime. His background shows he is a threat to Constitutional and
natural rights. IMO He is as partisan as the people who hope to destroy him.
Joe Tedesky , October 2, 2018 at 12:44 pm
Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers give a blow by blow review of Judge Kavanaugh's partisan
career.
Here is a
list of some of the serious allegations about Brett Kavanaugh which have nothing to do
with identity politics. When are we going to publicly discuss these issues?
Advocating torture, aiding war criminals, Big Brother-level surveillance the real issues
go far beyond whether or not Brett liked to party and drink beer and get aggressive in high
school. He's basically a henchman for Bush and will be one for Trump, and far-right
authoritarians for years to come.
This is the real problem with Brett Kavanaugh. Why do the Democrats make it all about He
Said v She Said identity politics? Is the Democratic party more concerned about firing up the
masses for the coming midterm elections than about Kavanaugh's record of assisting
authoritarianism? Certainly looks this way
Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 am
As I said in the McGovern thread:
The reason for that is simple: Democrats have no power to stop Kavanaugh's appointment.
That depends entirely on getting a couple Republicans to vote No, and they would not be
impressed by the lines of argument you (and others) have suggested.
Oh, I think the answer is clear and simple. The Democratic party is in favor of
authoritarian imperialism just as much as the Republican party is, and I think this whole
circus is a dog and pony show to distract everyone from the fact everyone in the show is a
criminal with skeletons. Happy Halloween!
Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Well, the difference between the parties is the that the Democrats pretend to opposed to
the Plutocracy, while the Republicans brag about promoting the Plutocracy. That is why the
Dems know it is useless, when the Repubs are in power, to oppose Kavanaugh on the grounds of
his being wholly owned.
Stumpy , October 3, 2018 at 3:28 am
You nailed it. Further, the bonus comes in when the Kavanaugh appointment enrages the
groundswell of #metoo assaultees into a even greater force of male career destruction at the
hands of vengeful goddesses.
The Democrats aren't really Resisting. They are playing the identity politics. It's the
only thing they stand for that's different from the Republicans. Here are examples of their
happiness with authoritarianism and imperialism. They even like it when Trump does it.:
If Justice Kavanaugh had his way, mass collections of Americans' private data would be
routine in spite of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
"The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the
sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored..."
Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the
violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human
rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not
interested in such trifles.
It is interesting that the name "Dick Cheney the Traitor" is gradually getting a name
recognition on a par with Goebbels & Mengele.. What a miserable subhuman being Dick Cheney
is.
You might be interested in what over 2400 professors of law had to say to their Senators as
to why Kavanaugh's unfit as a judge at any judiciary
level . Not "trifiles" but foundations.
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a
person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma"
from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc)
stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.
So does alcohol.
Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high
school and in college?
"... Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened. ..."
"... So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ..."
A former FBI agent and lifelong friend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford allegedly
pressured a woman to change her statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by
Kavanaugh in 1982, reports the
Wall
Street Journal
.
Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI
investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate
Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that
she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had
never happened.
The
Journal
also reports that after the FBI sent their initial report on the Kavanaugh
allegations to the White House,
they sent the White House and Senate an additional package
of information which included text messages from McLean to Keyser
.
McLean's lawyer, David Laufman, categorically denied that his client pressured Keyser, saying in
a statement: "Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser's
account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh
is absolutely false."
Ms. Keyser's lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that
she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh
, whom she
said she didn't know.
That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she
believed Dr. Ford
. On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before
the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms.
Keyser's attorney sent a letter to the panel saying
his client wasn't refuting Dr. Ford's account and that she believed it but couldn't corroborate
it.
-
WSJ
Keyser's admission to the FBI - which is subject to perjury laws - may influence the Senate's
upcoming confirmation debates. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN)
said that he found the most
significant material in the FBI report to be statements from people close to Ford who wanted to
corroborate her account and were "sympathetic in wishing they could, but they could not."
In his testimony last week, Judge Kavanaugh sought to use Ms. Keyser's initial statement to
undercut his accuser. "
Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted
by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers
," he
said. "
Refuted
."
Two days later, Ms. Keyser's lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Ms.
Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes
Dr. Ford's account." Mr. Walsh added: "However,
the simple and unchangeable truth is
that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
question.
" -
WSJ
In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford claimed she never told
Keyser about the assault, saying "She didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the
event and I did not share it with her," and adding that she didn't "expect" that Keyser would
remember the "very unremarkable party."
"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and
getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take
care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et
cetera." said Ford.
About that polygraph
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing
letter to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence
related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took,
after
her ex-boyfriend of six years
refuted statements she made
under oath last week.
Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because
the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr.
Ford's, stating that
he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph
examinations.
When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or
advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph,
Dr. Ford replied, "Never."
This
statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."
McLean issued a Wednesday statement rejecting the ex-boyfriend's claims that she was coached on
how to take a polygraph test.
A closer look at McLean
Enjoying the tastes are In back (l-r) Kelly Devine and Nuh Tekmen. In front,
Monica
McLean
, Karen Sposato, Catherine Hester, Sen. Ernie Lopez, R-Lewes, and Jennifer Burton.
BY DENY HOWETH
An intriguing analysis by "Sundance" of the
Conservative
Treehouse
lays out several curious items for consideration.
First, McLean signed a letter from members of the Holton-Arms class of 1984 supporting Ford's
claim.
Next, we look at McLean's career:
Monica Lee McLean was admitted to the California Bar in 1992, the same year Ms Ford's
boyfriend stated he began a six-year relationship with her best friend
. The address
for the current inactive California Law License is now listed as *"Rehoboth Beach, DE". [*Note*
remember this, it becomes more relevant later.] -
Conservative
Treehouse
Sundance notes that "Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the
Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various
reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI." and that "
After 2003, Ms.
Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field
Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara
:"
Here's where things get really interesting:
Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they
have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as
"roommates" in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former
boyfriend of six years.
Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential
election.
Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
; which
aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.
Now,
where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the
letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh
?
[Transcript]
MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the -- July 30th of
this year.
MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?
FORD: I did.
MITCHELL: And I -- since it's dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?
FORD: I believe so. I -- it sounds right.
I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time
.
I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed
MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?
FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes
sense, because I wrote it from there.
MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate? FORD: I'll take a minute to read it.
So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long
BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE .
Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. -
Conservative
Treehouse
Thus, it appears that Blasey Ford was with McLean for four days leading up to the actual writing
of the letter, from July 26th to July 30th.
Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms.
McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former
friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?
Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael
Bromwich, begin to make more sense?
Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a
different meaning or make more sense, now?
Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE .. could it be that Mrs.
McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to
grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?
-
Conservative
Treehouse
Were Ford and McLean working together to take out Kavanaugh?
In September we reported that an audio recording purportedly from a July conference call
suggests that Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh wasn't simply a reluctant claim that Diane Feinstein sat on until the 11th hour.
The recording features
Ricki Seidman
-
a former Clinton and Obama White House official and Democratic operative who advised Anita Hill
during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and who was revealed on Thursday as an adviser to Ford by
Politico
.
Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of
sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers,
is being advised by Democratic
operative Ricki Seidman
.
Seidman, a senior principal at TSD Communications, in the past worked as an investigator for
Sen. Ted Kennedy, and was involved with Anita Hill's decision to testify against Supreme Court
Nominee Clarence Thomas. -
Politico
"While I think at the outset, looking at the numbers in the Senate, it's not extremely likely
that the nominee can be defeated," says Seidman. "I would absolutely withhold judgement as the
process goes on. I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance."
What's more, the recording makes clear that
even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Democrats
can use the doubt cast over him during midterms.
"Over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it's
possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee...
whether or not it
ultimately defeats the nominee, it will help people understand why it's so important that they vote
and the deeper principles that are involved in it.
"
Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist
somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.
Granted, we don't know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the
Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That's because, well, she must never be questioned.
Questioning the left's latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine
Republicans blindly obey.
I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the "recovered
memory ruse," in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine
Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.
Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships -- one in law, the other in psychology --
had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator,
a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of
the Crown's attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in
therapy.
I attended. I was awed.
Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her
research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with
some suggestions.
"A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of
boredom, impatience or fascination" -- these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the
malleable human mind.
Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of
traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed:
"Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them."
Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that
has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.
Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is
without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof
for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely
on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.
Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?
Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. "As time goes by,"
writes Loftus in her seminal book, "The Myth of Repressed Memories," "the weakened memories are
increasingly vulnerable to post-event information."
What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an
unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.
After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban
prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory
retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.
"Recovered memories," inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers
Association, "are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the
historical dustbin."
Not that you'd know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the
U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under
therapy.
Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999 :
Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that
matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.
It is idiotic to write a piece talking about recovered memories in this context.
Agree: Mercer's approach to Ford's hippocampus is idiotic.
Also appears to be neurologically off-base; there's a much stronger refutation to
Perfesser Ford's dazzling psychological explanation: alcohol wreaks havoc on the hippocampus
–
She can't remember the house she was in or how she got there/got home because her
hippocampus was suffering alcohol poisoning.
She did poorly in subsequent high school and in early years in college because her
hippocampus was pickled.
Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of
chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or
the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks
alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can
be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that
happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person
drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").
. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to
its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure
that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.
-- -
Mercer's assessment seems to have been skewed in order to promote Mercer's 1999 work on
the Loftus case...
The whole hippocampus explanation made her sound like she's been talking to a therapist, but
then she herself is a psychologist so she probably doesn't need a therapist to help her
'recover' that memory.
I think the key thing here are the witnesses. None recalled such a party ever taking
place. Her best friend said not only did she not remember the party, but she had never met
Kavanaugh. If she had been ditched by Ford that night and was left in a house with 2
potential rapists, don't you think she'd remember and talked it over with her the next day?
That just made her story fall apart.
Interesting photographic choice for such an article. Trial, whether in a court of law, or
merely in terms of destroying someone's life in the media, cannot be about what someone
believes, or can be made to believe, but must be about what the evidence can reveal to be
true. Where, when and why did we ever lose sight of that?
The Dems (dims) wouldn't dare attack the criminal Kavanaugh on the actual facts because it
would implicate their goddess Hillary. There are no clean hands at the worm farm at DC, that
just doesn't happen.
@renfro
Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.
Main thing here is that she remembered to the rest of her life to be careful about the
water.
And also Miss Ford (If she did not lie) must have noticed the house that she would not go
into that house ever,
Let's not forget the "false memory" debacles of the 1990s with the McMartin preschool and
Wenatchee Washington preschool cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes that they
could not have possible committed.
In the McMartin case, the problem was overzealous parents who believed their childrens'
fantasies, and got overzealous "child protective services" caseworkers involved. Questionable
tactics to elicit "correct" responses from the children were used. Rewards, such as ice cream
were used when the children gave the "correct" response. The children were badgered by these
"professionals" until the proper answers were given. Many innocent peoples' lives were ruined
as a result.
The Wenatchee debacle was fueled by a rogue detective, who saw child abuse under every rock
and was determined to get convictions, the truth be damned.
The same tactics as in the McMartin case were used to elicit the correct responses from the
children.
In both cases, the mantra that "children cannot lie" was used, along with tactics that would
be unacceptable today (but are still being used).
After a long conversation last night with drunken friends, me being the sober one of course,
I had only one beer cuz I'm a good girl, but I can't recall what was said or how many of us
were in the room. Wait, oh yeah.
We all decided that the seeming wussy response by Republicans was a strategy. Weren't they
all also being accused? If Grassley hadn't bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and her
increasingly violent democrat extremist enablers and all of their ethically challenged dumb
followers, they would have appeared uncaring. They gave the Feinstein and Ford crowds serious
consideration – no one can truthfully say otherwise.
There really isn't much one can say about a woman, or a man, who claimed they were
assaulted or abused. Proper respect must be given and investigations must be made. We all
know Ford is a liar now. Almost any real victim of sexual assault can recall the details of
the assault.
I think Republicans played it right all along. If she was not deceptive, it would have
come out.
The whole affair was the same as watching Justice Channel homicide detectives patiently
wait for their prime suspect to speak until she slipped up and incriminated herself. No dna
test for Ford though. In fact, no evidence at all. In the end, she proved herself incredible
and all of her apoplectic supporters went off the rails and are making things worse for real
victims of sexual abuse.
The little girl act made Ford look insane.
Now, the unfunniest comedian in the world, Amy Shumer, who, let's face it, only got fame
due to her Uncle Chuck, is rallying the rest of the moonbats, reactionaries, and liars, aka
Democrat nutcases to rally and resist. Resist. Bunch of clowns think they have something to
resist rather than working to rebuild a party and find solutions to their problems. Hopefully
the democrat party will splinter apart and crawl away like the worms they are.
Anyone on the fence about Trump has now almost definitely jump to one side or the other.
Elections will show most people will deny democrats their ambition to destroy what's left of
the Republic.
The 'recovered memory' witch trials back then ruined many lives. The hysteria featured a wide
cast of characters including reckless and totally irresponsible 'therapists' who, for
whatever weird reason pushed gullible customers into believing these false induced illusions,
the troubled women (all women?Why?) who went on to make false accusations and all the true
believers in the form of prosecutors, police, judges and members of the public who accepted
this lunacy. Loftus deserves credit for having been one of the few people willing to stand up
and take the heat, going against this wave of hysteria. Seems like the US always has had
these bubbles of hysteria and panic since the days of the Salem witch trials. This person
Ford has been getting all this unwarranted fawning treatment, being continually called
'Doctor' and 'Professor' which, while true, isn't the usual treatment accorded to people who
have a Phd in one of the social 'sciences' or have jobs as professors. Nobody I've ever met
with those qualifications cared to be continually addressed by title. On the one hand this
person is some empowered example to all women, an esteemed 'Doctor Professor' who jets around
the world to surf the waves at exotic locales yet claims to have some fear of lying when
called in and starts to cry when she recalls being laughed at almost four decades ago.
Looking at it briefly she leaves the impression of being just plain screwy as well as being a
person who lies a lot where lies and facts are interwoven so that one can't be sure what's
what. What a circus this is.
I agree Kavanaugh is a warmonger and has
probably committed perjury many times. The trouble is, if he is denied confirmation in the
present circumstanes, it will amount to a victory for the feminists' witch hunt against men,
and it will do nothing to defeat the war agenda. The next nominee will be just as much a
warmonger.
1. The judgment of anyone who believes Christine Ford has to be
questioned. Her senate performance was a series of holes held together with emotion. If she
had been questioned as aggressively as Kavanaugh, she would have melted quicker than brie at
a beach party.
2. That she is a fraud does not in any way mean that Kavanaugh was/is honest or that he is
appropriate material for Supreme Court; I agree: he is not, he is deeply flawed. The pity and
the tragedy is that his flaws are not being discussed on their merits: the fact that he made
his living as a lawyer and a citizen by supporting the George Bush administration, which
participated in war crimes, is enough to disqualify him.
3. But US government, from Supreme Court to presidency to the entire Congress, have been
havens for liars who lied to the American people in order to wage war; they get monuments and
institutes, not jail cells:
–> Woodrow Wilson was a notorious womanizer, and a weak toady. One of his
liaison's threatened to release love letters unless he paid her $40,000. Zionist fanatic
Samuel Untermeyer paid the sum, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to Supreme
Court.
Brandeis "lied" insofar as he used his elevated stature to promote the Zionist cause. Wilson was manipulated into signing off on the Balfour Declaration, then drawing USA into
WWI.
–> FDR (who was in the company of his lover when he died) lied to get USA into
WWII.
–> George H W Bush sanctioned lies to involve USA in Persian Gulf war: "babies in
incubators . ."
–> George W Bush had Condi Rice and Colin Powell to do his lying for him, to
involve USA in war against Iraq.
–> Schumer pledged he would harry Trump "six ways 'til Sunday" -- to force him to
wage war on Iran. Schumer and the Israel firsts don't give a tinker's dam about Kavanaugh OR
Ford; their method is to keep Trump on a short leash and to make it impossible to rule other
than in a way that achieve their goals, which are similar to Wilson and FDR: with them, the
zionist goals were to destroy Germany and Palestinians for the sake of Zionists; wrt Trump,
the goal is to complete the fragmentation of the ME and destroy Iran, for the sake of
Israel.
"... Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh. ..."
"... in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls." ..."
The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her
own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions. So much
so, in fact, that Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI
investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh.
U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0
@SenBillCassidy
A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the
apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was
submitted to the Senate by @MichaelAvenatti.
12:37 PM-Oct 2, 2018
Q? 25.9K Q 13K people are talking about this О
The threat of a probe into his own client did not daunt the pop lawyer, who on
Wednesday morning tweeted that "we
still have yet to hear anything from the FBI despite a new witness coming forward &
submitting a declaration last night. We now have multiple witnesses that support the
allegations and they are all prepared to be interviewed by the FBI. Trump's "investigation" is
a scam."
And, in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti
released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett
Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally
abusive toward girls."
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).
He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with
claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.
In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its
political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of
which, more in a few sentences' time).
I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the
US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
That has corollaries:
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if
Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to
juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim)
are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a
drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later.
But here's the thing: this dude wants to be part of a life-tenured clique that arrogated to
itself the right to call the shots on the final jurisprudential stage in the US system up to
and including matters of constitutional import. As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn). The
hubris involved in wanting to be on that court is an invitation to nemesis
.
And to quote Brick Top (from the movie "Snatch"):
Do you know what 'Nemesis' means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by
an appropriate agent – personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt: me.
If this was going to play out Hellenically, this controversy will result in the nomination
failing, and Kavanaugh will move on to catharsis and eventually metanoia ; but
this being 21st century America, he will be confirmed and will go on to do his masters'
bidding.
Now the question of actual fitness for purpose.
Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives
(i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the
hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the
role.
However, since the SCOTUS-J role is just to be a lifetime lackey for the party what brung
you to the dance he's exactly what his side of politics ordered.
[1] Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an
extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol.
I.)
What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes?
We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it
starts to feel like a family member.
There are two things I cant stand:
Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to
lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god
to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally
wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).
You left out.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in
particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1]
theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.
Very eloquently and succinctly stated!
anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the
perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.
So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is
nothing more than light entertainment.
agree
There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And
that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt,
aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of
existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win,
only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes
women and cruelly mocks their messiah.
Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even
today. It's the gift that keeps on giving
This is a curious and confusing spectacle. I don't think he's a good pick since like all
Supreme "Justices" he's a Deep State sponsored toady with little respect for the US
Constitution. But the Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump, who
they are tying to oust even though he does whatever they demand. Perhaps they worry that
Trump may suddenly rebel.
One wonders why Republican Senate leaders allowed this circus to form. When allegations of
drunken misconduct arose shortly before the vote, they should have dismissed the matter and
moved on, noting there were no police reports or arrests involved, and all this occurred when
he was a minor. Case closed! Most Americans consider groping and unwanted kisses by teenagers
to be of poor taste remedied with a slap or kick in the shin. It is not "sexual assault."
Or perhaps they chose to allow the looney part of the Democratic Party to run wild knowing
they would unwittingly hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. Or maybe this
is a Deep State media diversion to keep the social justice warriors busy with an unimportant
issue, so they don't protest Deep State wars, ever growing military spending, soaring budget
deficits, or our dysfunctional health care system. Encourage them debate and protest what
some guy did as a drunken teenager for the next few weeks and fill our "news" programs with
related BS so real issues are avoided during the election campaigns.
Yeah. Liberals make much of the virtue of erasing a minor's record once they turn 18.
"It's a clean slate. A chance to start over again with a reputation unblemished by youthful
folly and mistakes. How can young Trey'Trayvontious grow up to become an aeronautical
engineer if, upon entering adulthood, he is handicapped by the burden of felonious assault,
burglary and attempted murder convictions?"
But when it comes to Kavanaugh??? No way. No forgetfulness, no forgiveness. What he did as
a minor, he will wear as a badge of shame throughout his adult life.
Is it even legal to consider what he did as a minor as having any bearing on his fitness
for this job? I'm seriously asking any parole officers or social workers out there who work
with youth.
As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v
Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally
wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).
Then you must be a leftist ideologue.
In the Dredd Scott case the naturalization act of 1790 only extended citizenship to
"free white persons", so the court got it objectively right since they ruled in accordance
with existing law and didn't strike down or make law from the bench as too many power mad
federal judges do today.
Plessy v Ferguson is a closer call (because of the 14th amendment) but IMO the
court got it objectively right because the court only upheld de jure segregation with the
stipulation that public facilities must be equal in quality. And in doing so the court ruled
that the desires and wishes of blacks don't automatically supersede those of whites like
federal courts reflexively do today.
The great irony is that today blacks, not whites, are demanding racially segregated
dormitories, student orientations, facilities, graduations, schools, clubs, etc. and leftists
have no issue with that but will scream themselves hoarse about racism and white supremacy if
whites do.
In Bush v Gore I'm not sure what pressing moral issue was at stake other than you
didn't like the court's decision, hence it was "immoral." Was SCOTUS supposed to allow
Florida to keep counting votes until Christmas?
I'd rather it be a bourgeois white guy with social markers indicating that he, like me,
has been a red-blooded American teenager rather than a foppish Bubble-boy nerd with no
theory of mind or a bitter lesbian hag
It's not the teenage indiscretions that should concern people – it's the obvious
temperament problem that manifested itself during his testimony.
Anyone who 'arcs up' the way Kavanaugh did, has no place in any judiciary, be he
ne'er so white and red-blooded: it shows that he is a narcissist.
I don't think he actually uttered the words " How dare you !", but it would
not surprise me if he had done so.
So I would prefer a non-narcissist lesbian hag or "Bubble-boy nerd" (as if
Kavanaugh did not grow up in a protective bubble! He exudes contempt for anyone outside of
his class nothing wrong with that, except if you're hearing death penalty appeals or
adjudicating on reproductive or sexual rights).
By way of stark contrast, I have a very good example of a decidedly non-bourgeois person
(who will be Chief Justice in my jurisdiction before he retires)
One of my close friends from university was made a judge of the Supreme Court (of
Victoria, Australia) in 2013.
He was a first-rate advocate (specialising in criminal defence) – another contrast
with Kavanaugh, who is a lifetime party/government apparatchik who has never tried a
case.
Michael (for that is my old mate's name) was also a former logging truck driver who
returned to study in his mid-30s (having already had a family). He went to government schools
for his entire education – the first Supreme Court justice to have done so, a fact that
the Chief Justice remarked upon at his inauguration.
Despite having no pedigree, no connections, no Old Boys' (or Masonic) connections, he was
made QC at the earliest possible date (i.e., 10 years after he was called to the Bar).
He is also a witty bugger, and his default expression is a kind of half-smile, even now.
He was (and is) talented enough that he does not have to rely on gravitas : on several
instances he has cried in open court while recounting the facts of particularly tragic cases,
even as he was sentencing the perpetrators to jail. This is not a display of weakness: it's a
display of empathy – a weak man would be scared of the public reaction.
His robes sit heavy, but he still played "old-blokes' footy" after his elevation to the
bench.
And although I think he has some leftish tendencies, I could not say with any certainty
where his politics lie: when we were students together his economics was first-rate and
"rationalist" (he and I both got Reserve Bank cadetships – only 4 of which were awarded
Australia-wide in our year).
Now the reason I drop his name into the mix is that I can declare with absolute confidence
that if he was involved in a hearing of this type, there would be no displays of righteous
indignation, no partisan political commentary, no facial contortions, no spittle-flecked lips
in short, no displays of behaviour that indicate that he thinks that he is above reproach
simply by virtue of his background or his current station .
That 's the guy you want in your judiciary: you can't tell me that a nation of 300
million people – and a surfeit of lawyers – doesn't have a single lawyer like
Michael Croucher.
OK, so that was a rhetorical trick on my part, because the US Supreme Court is only
open to people who went to Harvard or Yale Law (although Ginsberg got her JD at Columbia,
she was a transfer from Harvard).
And, of course, they must have a lifetime track record of opinions that align with the
party in power at the time of their nomination.
>>>>>>>>>>He is having a job interview for a government
sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet
the criteria for attempted rape. <<<<<<<<<<
She was two grades behind him and attended an all girl school in a different part of
town.
So how is she someone he went to school with? I went to an all girl school (Catholic) and can't recall any boys I went to school
with. As a mother, I was interested in the distance of her home from the place of the party.
I gathered it was too far to walk to and walk home from, (especially at night). What did
she tell her parents were she had been? Her parents did not care she ran around at night like
that? At age 15. Not that Kavanaugh would be my choice.
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who
knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country
secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just
in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS!
I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did
interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their
lips sealed n are completely neutral.
@Anonymous
We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age
15″.
Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and
warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day
One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I
sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character,
but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe
everything will now be alright with their naughty child.
Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely
does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then
they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.
I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To Prison
As I
stated in a previous comment, Ford is just another hysterical man hating wobaby (woman
baby), that has lied in her testimony and public shameful denunciation of Kavanaugh.
As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual
harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of
embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a
case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and
that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and
has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.
Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied
about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is
clear she did!
Once again, proof, facts and evidence, shows us all that you can't trust what people say,
especially hysterical women! History is replete with examples of how hysteria, especially by
women with a grudge, can destroy men lives. This nonsense, and it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, by
Ford and her followers is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic individuals who've nothing in
their lives other than to be jealous and embittered of others all because they are all
failing in their own miserable, misbegotten lives. This is not about social justice, it is
just about people who can't accept their irrelevant position in society and need to destroy
others whom are make something of themselves.
Christine Ford is that lowest thing of womanhood; a bitter, delusional, man-hating female.
When in reality the only thing she really hates, is herself. Now she will get her well over
due comeuppance.
And what of Senator Feinstein? That modern incarnation of Reverend Samuel Paris (alla
Salem Witch Trials), what of her? She should be thrown out of the Senate, and allowed to
wither in the backwaters of the Deep Swamp, where she belongs!
Senator Feinstein you are a disgrace to Justice, the Senate, to Women, and above all,
to the Human Race! Go back to murky slimy depths of the swamp, where you belong!
@Kratoklastes
Wholeheartedly agree with all your comments and adstructions. However, it would seem to me
that in 99% of cases, it really does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any office,
in the US or whichever other country.
What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and
assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the
moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any
compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous
basis.
Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never
realized that psychopathy is contagious.
@Kratoklastes
I don't know Michael Croucher J but I know and have a high regard for the conservative
Attorney-General who appointed him (also, you may be interested to know the product only of
radically unfashionable non-government schools). I Googled for Michael Croucher and was
surprised to find how many of the items on the first page had him tearing up on the bench. I
suspect that he fits pretty well with his appointer's pretty strong law and order approach
though I don't remember what the attitude of the latter was to the introduction of victim
impact statements, inevitably not subject to cross examination for obvious enough reasons.
(Moi: I was never a fan for several reasons).
While internet anonymity frees us up to say more than we can know with arrogant confidence
I am surprised that you don't make the distinction between US judges with a Bill of Rights to
maximise the likelihood of value differences infecting their judgments (bolstered by life
tenure) and Australian judiciary much of which still honours Dixon CJ's "strict and complete
legalism" in the sense in which he meant it (in answer to complaints of "excessive legalism")
and maybe Blackburn J's excellent 1970s article on Judicial Method.
But you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone.
You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge
of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured
products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to
politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let
alone 15 years and more.
@Kratoklastes
Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of
theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident
pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of
Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His
little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was
just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I
thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're
talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive
issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It
should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally,
Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that
she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like
a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing
in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations.
She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.
This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions,
it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.
Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current
positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming,
with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as
in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.
I do not think that even Bill Cosby raped anybody. All he had to do is promise the girl role
in next episode. And so by the time when Bill turned around and headed to liqueur cabinet
there she was on the bed naked with the feet pointing to the Heavens.
Basically the same story was with Weinstein.
You know women do not use their pussy only as a payment for full, they also use pussy as a
deposit.
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this
country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of
sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that.
Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.
But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly
any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities
and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump
done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white
women.
But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles
with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people
divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy
the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by
the Third World.
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on
the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I
attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I
doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do
practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always
will.
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first
organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal.
Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal
society.
I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange.
Is this happening in US? I do not know!
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's
always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.
Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your
15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end
your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."
And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent
question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the
US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already
is.
Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or
used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly
drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house,
location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form
letter), Klobuchar (trying to exploit fraudulent Swetnick testimony for political purposes),
Kavanaugh (inability to take punches calmly, low quality of defence (this supposed to
be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible
aggressive behaviors when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high school and college,
possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left
her, not vise versa), using questionable methods to rent part of her house, and even more
questionable method to justify this, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... "Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims. ..."
"... We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault. ..."
"... But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans. ..."
"... I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. ..."
Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's
credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her
friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii,
and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.
The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a
partisan attack. Give me a break.
Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36
years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly
being nearly raped and killed.
The longer this Freak Show continues, more and more of Ford's bones will be pulled from
the closet. Time to vote, time to move on. If Democrats want to pick judges, they need to win
elections.
"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend
who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.
I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence,
that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility?
Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial
board?
I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth?
The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is
credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.
Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are
unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the
test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she
probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?
How is investigating the allegations attacking her? She made statements in her testimony
that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should
this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be
investigated?
She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be
looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only
investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no
witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is
being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the
NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I
believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts
are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You
are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like
this.
Why shouldn't her credibility be established?
She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years.
Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no
corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said".
To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative
veracity of the two people involved.
It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side.
It's strictly about the outcome going their way.
@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a
psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a
psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"
I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid
and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a
quick summary from the American Psych Association.
Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience,
akin to phrenology.
People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are
psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.
Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and
finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass
because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as
much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this
except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed
it with her beach friends.
I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately
come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest
court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.
Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.
I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I?
Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of
the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman.
That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught
that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to
someone I was simply dating?
Finally we get some information about Kavanaugh's main accuser. For a while it seemed as
if she had just sprung into existence and had no history beyond her claims of sexual
assault.
"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at
last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone
about taking a polygraph test."
So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to
withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem
a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.
Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test
and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the
credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.
One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely
he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he
says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).
Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any
intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and
intellectually).
I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him
and his programs.
Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to
give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market.
Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.
P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much
better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.
This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the
Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the
foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's
withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be
deliberately destructive.
So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college
"friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of
Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.
People who use others credit cards are liars. Selective honesty is not possible. She is
dishonest. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh is honest but she is a pawn and loves the attention.
Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an
official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have
a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have
just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists,
having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.
Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating
when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to
online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people
emotionally have more to lose.
I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he
approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite
claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job
around it.
Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her
anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the
testimony.
From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr.
Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her
testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her
married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to
somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."
Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.)
Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on
speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).
Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people
about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate
Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she
wanted she knew nothing about it.
Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't
advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!
You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr.
Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being
a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you
accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or
waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.
Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They
should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck,
doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from
established).
We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal
Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When
they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and
frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual
assault.
What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing
of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the
proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government
and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like
men, thank you very much.
The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school
and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't
matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and
done.
Charles Grassley knew about this lie and fed it to Rachel Mitchell to entrap Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford. Who can't see through the blatant partisan desperation?
I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I
believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying
around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.
This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without
objective evidence.
In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with
Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were
replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous
child.
"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to
relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve
political interests. It does not serve interest in truth.
Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party
wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.
But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford
indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she
knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident
desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience,
evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.
That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.
So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second
door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an
entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex
threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back
up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her
friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would
that make any difference?
The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was
hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the
press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is
absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are
other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for
the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a
500 square foot apartment with ONE door.
@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed
his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability
to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these
extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr.
Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us
know what he's made of.
I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations
baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were
refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by
her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations
into the process.
A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's
testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for
sure, barring further investigation.
The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that
this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted
undisciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in
money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.
Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters.
From wikipedia:
"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may
delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful
effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past
sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound
familiar??
I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's
allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any
support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by
everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly
told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count.
I thought Ford's description of the
assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had
offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she
doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed
to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are
free.
I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care
about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's
testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly
veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing
in real estate in Canada.
Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You
know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the
reason for his well-documented vomiting.
Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it
you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?
My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did
many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were
'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to
the WaPo story.
Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with
a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.
In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the
'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in
2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who
rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now
refusing to discuss it further.
I was clear in my earlier posts that as a psychologist, especially a teaching psychologist,
Ford would have to know about polygraphs and how they work. https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the
FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom
she supported is a liar and perjurer.
When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my
first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he
contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.
@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We
now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants
installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed
no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement
about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts
corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been
identified uttering. She is not credible.
It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and
evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.
When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is
outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation
and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.
This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything
regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote.
"Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."
My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of
knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific
stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in
Merrick's letter.
Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just
guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If
you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that
makes you more confident about your opinion.
If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is
going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax,
be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.
If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my
roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I
responded "no."
He also alleges she committed credit card fraud in grad school. But nobody should have
their character judged by something that happened so long ago, right?
@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning
algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial
manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is
nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.
@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing
straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell
someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer
when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at
other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.
I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country
deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides
that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's
divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way.
Put someone else on the table already folks.
As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace
Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views
consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy
Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you;
never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.
@al Ford is not the one accused of running rape gangs despite having an impeccable much
commended judicial service record for 23+ years. He is understandably upset.
Also "innocent holes"? There is no such thing in law. Either you are lying or you are
not.
Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes
she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But
the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe
that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of
false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the
kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when,
exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who
apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a
common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's
life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And
for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on
Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any
better on abortion anyway.
The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man
scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my
lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our
dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt,
Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.
Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too
divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along
partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.
It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe
either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the
other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical
evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are
not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot
get to the truth and never will.
I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of
division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so
divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.
@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the
defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the
basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.
"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and
that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the
account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the
use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."
Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd
venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third
person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at
the guy who's in the WH.
They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the
account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it.
He had no basis for a fraud case.
He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where
space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.
@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for
taking a bus seat before a white person."
What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti
rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must
apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.
@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection?
Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google
interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not
have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having
discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph
the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that
stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your
loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But
I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media
isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his
family. This isn't fair.
feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it
if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to
the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.
sounds like muldar from x-files, "I want to believe". so I will believe, regardless of any
additional information which should perhaps cast a shred of doubt.
There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.
First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if
material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support
for the court, impeach him if he is on it.
Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is
unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing
now.
Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a
matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a
mandatory improvement in every election, period.
@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the
hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and
if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process,
he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way
it was handled.
His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There
was nothing more to be said.
1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of
running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos -
and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?
2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.
how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he
drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the
time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.
I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff
immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a
game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.
So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will
be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have
established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that
she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in
which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood
pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to
truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your
vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not
statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone
how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the
case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years
later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke
about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I
realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and
wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports
Trump (and we are divorced).
@Joan In California
"manly individuals who think this issue will go away after the dust settles better hope their
behavior has always been above reproach."
and how many women have lives that are "beyond reproach"? Notice the goal post moving. Now
its not only men who have sexually assaulted women who are the enemy its all men if the don't
adhere to every single accusation made by any and every woman on the planet. How can any sane
person think a gender war is the answer?
and will you only carry female babies to full term? because if one day your son doesn't
believe just one woman on the planet (or think that she is mistaken) will you stand in line
to scorch his earth too and betray your own motherhood?
They were in a relationship for 6 years and lived together. That doesn't make the
boyfriend's account true, but it does explain how selectively the NYT chooses to inform its
readers these days. The death of the media is a suicide.
@rosa Stalin's Russia also sent and punished without any regard for evidence or proof
which is the exactly what the left is doing to Kavanaugh right now. Ford's claim has no
corroboration, is convieniently dropped 2 days before senate vote, Fienstein recommended
lawyers, now exposed lies about fear of flying, polygraph etc...yet Kavanaugh can not demand
the basic courtesy of being treated "innocent until proven guilty" from the public and the
media? Stalin would be proud right now of this pitch fork mob culture we got going I tell you
that much.
@Henry She lied about fear of flying, lied about polygraph, no corroboration, she was with
merrick for 5+ years yet never mentioned this "assault", allegations 2 days before senate
vote?
@JenD My mother, my wife, my sister and my daughter's rage boiled over last week too...but
at the thought that their father, brother, son and husband could face an uncorroborated
charge and have his life ruined without due process.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a letter from former meteorologist and former
Democratic candidate for Maryland's 8th district, Dennis Ketterer, who claims that Brett
Kavanaugh's third accuser and Michael Avenatti client, Julie Swetnick, was a group-sex
enthusiast that he initially mistook for a prostitute at a 1993 Washington D.C. going-away
party for a colleague.
"Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her
anytmore" -Dennis Ketterer
Ketterer writes that Swetnick approached him "alone, quite beautiful, well-dressed and no
drink in hand."
"Consequently, my initial thought was that she might be a high end call girl because at the
time I weighed 350lbs so what would someone like her want with me? "
The former meteorologist then said that since "there was no conversation about exchanging
sex for money" he decided to keep talking to her, noting that he had never been hit on in a bar
before.
Over the ensuing weeks, Ketterer claims that he and Swetnick met at her residence for an
extramarital affair that did not involve sex.
"Although we were not emotionally involved there was physical contact. We never had sex
despite the fact that she was very sexually aggressive with me.
...
During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me
that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several
at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.
Ketterer claims that since the AIDS epidemic was a "huge issue" at the time and he had
children, he decided to cut things off with Swetnick. He goes on to mention that she never said
anything about being "sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will,"
and that she "never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity."
After Ketterer decided to run for Congress in Maryland, he thought Julie could be of service
to his campaign - however he lost her phone number. After contacting her father, he learned
that Julie had "psychological and other problems at the time."
Last week we reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend,
Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says
he has evidence that she's lying.
"Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and
threatening to do harm to my baby at that time ," Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with
POLITICO. " I know a lot about her ." -
Politico
" I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she's saying is not true at all ," he said. " I
would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more ."
Avenatti called the claims "outrageous" and hilariously accused the press of " digging into
the past " of a woman levying a claim against Kavanaugh from over 35 years ago.
And now we can add "group sex enthusiast" to the claims against Swetnick. Read below:
Neoliberals have transformed themselves into a collection of Trump mini-mes, with guilty
until proven innocent as the new "liberal" mantra. You've got standards.
Notable quotes:
"... I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone. ..."
"... To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted? ..."
"Neocon/neolib alliance is flat out of ideas and leadership, and is now rolling around in
the sexual accusations mud with the pig – and the pig is winning".
likbez 10.01.18 at 3:18 am
72 I believe Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly
damaged. Probably ruined.
Her yearbook said she had had 54 consensual sexual encounters. But apparently only the
alleged encounter with Kavanaugh was the one that traumtized her. Is she kidding me?
Despite those efforts, the Palo Alto University psychology professor's fears have come
true since she came forward over the weekend: Her lawyers say she's facing harassment and
death threats. Supporters and opponents have found pictures of her on the Web and converted
them into memes. And her Palo Alto home address was tweeted, forcing her to move out.
In the age of the internet, what's to keep the same thing from happening to any victim of
sexual harassment or assault who decides to come forward? Can they -- or anyone -- completely
erase their online presences to protect themselves?
"The extremely short and brutal answer is no," said Gennie Gebhart, of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. She does research and advocacy for issues that include consumer privacy,
surveillance and security.
ph 10.01.18 at 5:14 am (no link)
I've been wrong before and a month is an eternity, so the prognosis is subject to revision.
I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a
robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates
the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone.
To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs
to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health
care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are
people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by
Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you
suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have
converted?
Wasn't that the strategy with the access Hollywood tape? How'd that work out?
Good for the Dems isn't good enough. Dems might take the House, which looks very doubtful
to me now, and are unlikely to take the Senate. That's the best case, which still leaves
Trump and the GOP set up well for 2020. Notice how nobody is pinning their hopes on Mueller
at the moment.
"... They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened. ..."
Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the
Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty, as reported in the Hill, on Fox
News and elsewhere:
"HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh. But on Friday night's
show he conceded that a last-minute attempt to smear President Trump's Supreme Court
nominee with accusations of sexual assault is making liberals "look bad."
They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in
the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse
such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened.
But this accusation without substance seems to be standard operating procedure to
justify anything the government, or some faction within the government, wants to do, even
to the point of starting major wars. If THAT is permissible, merely destroying one man's
career and good name might be considered a trivial price to pay for the Dems to get their
way.
If this lynching succeeds, nothing will ever again be decided in a civilised manner
according to a set of standard rules and principles again in this country. Tyranny will
rule when guilt by accusation becomes the new standard. No one will ever again be safe and
secure if a mere denunciation can remove you from the picture. That was called the "Reign
of Terror" during the French Revolution. It was a hallmark of the Nazis, the Stalinists and
the Maoists.
That these women can feign critical memory loss of most details, but just enough to
claim "attempted rape," is preposterous. Fifty years later and I can still remember the
exact details of both wonderful dates and times I was stood up by callous females who
didn't care what those suddenly useless concert tickets might have cost you. You don't
forget when people truly ride roughshod over you.
backwardsevolution , September 27, 2018 at 8:20 pm
Realist – great post! Maher, who I used to always agree with, but hardly ever do now
(amazing how you change), is right here. Kavanaugh with accusations and no real evidence,
Trump with Russiagate and no evidence at all, chemical weapons attacks with fake evidence,
etc.
They just throw stuff out there and hope that it sticks, and their base laps it up. They
don't care about evidence; they're too busy shouting for the lynch mob. This is dangerous
stuff. I'm not exactly the most conservative person either, but I still see the importance of
maintaining the Rule of Law, freedom of speech, sacred and hard-fought-for principles.
Yep, there's mean women out there (just as there are mean men). I remember overhearing
women at work talking about going out for dinner with guys who they openly said they didn't
even like, but it was a free dinner. When I called them on this, they just laughed, could
have cared less. They're probably out there wearing pink pussy hats.
I've got both sexes as children, so I have to stay neutral.
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence
of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.
But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in
the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in
pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price
for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden
issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.
What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely
invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational,
educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently
mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse –
most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers,
or others.
Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last
night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in
the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual
intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did
believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials
to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.
The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement
in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central
and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.
It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently
at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within
the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the
whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and
most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly
shown – completely contrived diagnoses.
It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the
mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course.
Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud
seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to
hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted
in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient
reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the
rest of his life.
The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both
hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate
the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without
the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly
propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated
to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been
suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian
doctrine.
The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of
the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of
the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component
the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and
the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from
the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger
individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.
This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were
the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities,
and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to
a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining
a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself
was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which
he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This
was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay
behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their
fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof.
Masson.
Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded
with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions
women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem
was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't
find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they
are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical
Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation
to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims,
but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations
imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.
This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of
interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be
the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical
method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated
to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European
and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I
think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it
betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform
to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely
eliminated.
But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of
common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity
to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such,
I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with
the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon
has been nearly entirely disproved.
Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in
testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.
Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the
Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus
of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and
emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent
some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems
likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was
announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election.
Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.
Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly
she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological
injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory,
however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been
exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical
advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the
scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim
into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively
projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.
A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along,
often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money.
William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.
Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics
and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played.
However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual
proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.
She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough
information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.
We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we
only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story
with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could
prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.
We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore
girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older
boyfriend
and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was
a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first
base at the party.
From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone
without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.
This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those
were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom
with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her
demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment
into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up.
She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too.
And as a teacher she must be a real screwball.
Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten. Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago
Funny how Democraps are getting their panties in a wad over BK drinking beer in college,
yet were okay with Slappy Sotoro snorting cocaine in college....go figure...
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
Sinophile , 19 hours ago
If the bitch 'struggled academically in college' then how the hell did she get awarded a
freaking P(ost)H(ole)D(igger)?
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
onewayticket2 , 18 hours ago
He is not the first college student to get drunk.
Equating getting drunk to charges in every newspaper and TV news station for weeks stating
he is a gang rapist ring leader etc is laughably idiotic. Nice job. Thx for the laugh.
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."
Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been
treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.
deja , 19 hours ago
Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
sunkeye , 21 hours ago
T/y Prosecutor Mitchell for conducting yourself w/ professionalism, decency, & honor -
personal traits none of the Democratic senators seem to possess, or would even recognize if
shown to them directly as you did. Again. t/y & bravo.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She allowed Ford to refuse to speak the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. Chris
Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who was Ford's one-time boyfriend. Some speculate that he was the
unnamed final boy at the party and that he may have assaulted Ford and/or dumped her after
she refused to go to the next level with him. Hence the trauma.
Paracelsus , 21 hours ago
I am having trouble keeping these personalities separate as I want to give everyone the
benefit of the
doubt. When I see Justice Kavanaugh, I think of the confirmation hearing as a political
attack on the
Trump administration . Also as an attempt to score points, or make the other side
screw up, before the
upcoming elections.When I see Dr. Ford, I see Hillary Clinton and all the bitterness
from a failed
politician.
The funny thing is I thought all the Trump "fake news" statements were a load of crap.
Turns out he hit the
mark quite often. The lefties are so damn mad because Trump is succeeding and they haven't
been able to
score points against him. So they feel that it is justified to use other
methods,regardless of the fallout.
There is a whiff of panic and desperation present.
I have stated this before, as have others: The loss of the White House by the Democrats
provided a
unique opportunity to clean out the deadwood. This may have seemed cruel and heartless
but the
Obama era is over and the Dem's urgently need to return to their roots before it is too
late. Did they
use this moment of change or did they revert to business as usual? To ask the question
is to
answer it.... This is commonly described as bureaucratic inertia. The Dem's only needed
to get the
ball rolling and they would be moving towards the objective of regaining power. New,
younger
and more diplomatic and law abiding types need to be encouraged to apply. Put out the
help wanted
sign. Do what Donald does,"You're fired!".
RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago
Well, if others have stated it before, it MUST be true. Republiconarists and Demcraps are
playing the same stupid games. Dems got punked w Garland, and now Reps are getting their
comeuppance w Kavanaugh (who really made it worse for himself by holding up such an obviously
false pious portrait of himself).
American Dissident , 22 hours ago
I believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I believe Rachel Mitchell, Esq. I believe Leland Keyser.
I believe Mark Judge. I believe P.J. Smyth.
I believe the evidence. That's why I don't believe Ms. Christine Blasey Ford.
Anunnaki , 17 hours ago
But she only had one beer!
Torgo , 11 hours ago
What do you think of the Chris Garrett hypothesis?
VWAndy , 22 hours ago
Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They
have gotten away with it before.
Aubiekong , 23 hours ago
Never was about justice, this is simply a liberal/globalist plan to stop Trump.
Prince Eugene of Savoy , 20 hours ago
Squeaky Ford only testified to what she had written down. She never used the part of the
brain dealing with actual memory. https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
Barney08 , 1 day ago
Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated
ditz.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Right Barney, not an undereducated and-proud-of-it slob like you.
MrAToZ , 1 day ago
You Dims are so willing to just swallow the hook. You idiots have been trained to react,
leave common sense at the door, slap on the vagina hats and start marching in circles.
What a cluster f*ck. Evidently there are suckers born every minute.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
"... Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day. ..."
"... Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members. ..."
"... She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi". ..."
"... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! ..."
"... Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists ..."
"... Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop... ..."
"... Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? ..."
"... Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. ..."
"... She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him. ..."
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said
she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by
name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of
questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
fleur de lis , 13 hours ago
What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up. She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too. And as a teacher she must be a real screwball. Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these
people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn
as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly
not members.
Brazillionaire , 14 hours ago
I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if somebody already brought this up... can
this woman (who was 15) explain why she was in an upstairs bedroom with two boys? Did they
drag her up the stairs? In front of the others? If she went willingly, for what purpose?
Some things reign eternal... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old
drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! Thank you
for paving the road to ruin! Don't forget to breathe in-between. You ARE the FACE OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GIRL! Suck it up, Buttercup!
alfbell , 15 hours ago
I BELIEVE!!
... that America's institutions are being torn down by Leftists. The attempt to create a
new totalitarian regime has been upon us for decades and is now perfectly clear.
We will not say goodbye to morality.
We will not say goodbye to science.
We will not say goodbye to democracy.
We will not say goodbye to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Logic,
Decency, etc. etc. etc.
MAGA!
AHBL , 15 hours ago
Morality: Your dear Leader cheated on 3 different wives, one of them with a
prostitute,...while she was pregnant (or had a 4 month old, I forget); filed for bankruptcy 5
times, cheating many people out of money; settled fraud lawsuits; lied about charity
donations; your party nominated an actual PEDOPHILE (Moore) for Senate and now wants to
appoint an angry drunk to be SCJ!
Science: You folks are literally disputing the conclusions of the vast, vast majority of
scientists (97% by my last count) when it comes to global warming.
Democracy: this is a Democratic Republic...if it was a Democracy Trump wouldn't be
President.
The rest of the nonsense you wrote was just filler...obviously.
Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago
Still better than the rapist and intern cigarer and Benghazi killer clintons. why do retarded libturds not see that!!
alfbell , 11 hours ago
You are clueless. Have all of your priorities and importances upside down. Have zero
critical thinking.
Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an
end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists. Look at the big picture AHBL. C'mon you can
do it.
aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago
Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As
a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the
purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...
NeigeAmericain , 13 hours ago
Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely
or would they ? 🤔
Dormouse , 15 hours ago
She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten.
Her family glows in the dark with CIA
connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto.
Oh,
something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and
their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!
What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to
call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled
and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost
like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.
" The episode occurred on a September evening in 1985 after Kavanaugh, Ludington and
Dudley, attended the UB40 concert ."
UB40? Well, there you have it, if that isn't disqualifying, I don't know what is.
Debt Slave , 16 hours ago
She is a cross eyed boobis and we have to believe her because she says Kavanaugh, a white
hetero catholic man without any decent upbringing or engrained scruples raped her like a
monkey savage out of the jungle. Oh sorry, TRIED to rape her. As a teenager. Tried to raped a
pathetic, stupid cross eyed retarded moron that has since been successfully lobotomized at a
'modern' American university.
When is the last time you saw a 'mentally challenged' person being abused? Oh yes I
remember now, it was Chicongo, January 2017. Four negroes shoved a retarded white man's head
in a toilet and demanded he swear that he loved Niggers.
Never heard what happened to the savage fuckers, eh? Not surprised.
i know who and what I am voting for white man, do you?
benb , 16 hours ago
Time for the un-redacted FISA docs and the text messages. That should send Schumer and the
gang into a tailspin.
MrAToZ , 17 hours ago
The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are
building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.
If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be
crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put
the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.
It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly
what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.
BankSurfyMan , 18 hours ago
Fordy had sexual encounters, she drinks beer and flies all over the globe... One day she
had a beer and cannot remember getting home on time to watch, MOAR DOOM NEWS! Fucktard Fordy!
Doom 2019! Next!
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
Just had lunch with a democrat. He's generally tolerable, so his level of anger at
Kavanaugh and his acceptance of "anything goes" to derail Kavanaugh was surprising to me.
Democrats believe that Roe V Wade is instantly overturned if Kavanaugh gets in. They also
think that if Roe V Wade is overturned, no woman will ever be able to abort another baby in
the US.
I explained to him that destruction of Roe V Wade will only make it a state issue, so
girls in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc will be able to kill as many babies as
they want to. It will only be girls in Wyoming or Utah or some other very red state that
might have to schlep their *** to another state to kill their kid.
Democrats see this as a battle for abortion, and if Kav gets confirmed, abortion is
completely gone in the USA. That's why you have these women freaking out. They think the
stakes are much higher than they actually are. Almost all of the women that are so worried
about this live in states where it won't have any effect on them at all.
Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago
I think I kind of calmed him down. We need to let them know that their world doesn't end
if Roe V Wade is overturned. I am also not at all sure it would be overturned, even with Kav
on the court, but they insist it will be, so not worth arguing. Reminding them that it
doesn't effect them, if they live in a blue state should calm their fears a little.
The right to abort is their 2nd amendment, God help us. If you explain to them they are
not really in danger, it may calm them down. They'll still make noise about those poor girls
who can't get an abortion after school and still make it home for dinner, and instead, have
to take a bus to another state to kill their kid, but they won't be as personally threatened
and lashing out as they mistakenly are now.
when the saxon began , 17 hours ago
And therein lies the fatal flaw of an elected representative government. The votes of the
ignorant and stupid are counted the same as yours or mine. And there are far more of
them.
VisionQuest , 18 hours ago
Democrats stand for atheism, abortion & sodomy. Ask yourself this question: Who stands
with Democrats? If your answer is "I do." then you'd best rethink your precious notions of
morality, truth, common decency, common sense and justice.
It is undoubtedly true that, in our entirely imperfect world, the American Way of life is
also far from perfect. But it is also true that, compared to every other system of government
on the planet, there is no comparison with the level of achievement accomplished by the
American Way of life.
Democrats hate and will destroy the American Way of life. Have you been a Democrat? Walk
away.
freedommusic , 19 hours ago
At this point the FBI should recommend a criminal investigation to the DOJ for treasonous
actors who are subverting the constitutional process of SC nomination. The crimes of perjury,
sedition, and treason, need to be clearly articulated to the public and vigorous prosecution
ensue.
We are STILL a Constitutional Republic - RIGHT?
Giant Meteor , 18 hours ago
Well, I am betting 27 trillion dollars that the answer to your question is a resounding ,
no ...
eitheror , 19 hours ago
Thank you Rachel Mitchell for having the courage to tell the truth about the testimony of
Ms. Blasey Ford, P.h.D.
Ford is not a medical Doctor but is a P.h.D.
The Democrats seem to have abandoned Ms. Ford like a bad haircut, instead focusing on
other smoke and mirrors.
onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago
Again, So What??
The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about
delay.
Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with
them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to
get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to
investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....
Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago
About 35 years ago, at a party in San Francisco where everyone was very drunk, now Senator
Feinstein sexually molested me. Don't remember the date or location or anything else, but it
happened, I swear! Naturally, want to remain anonymous to protect my integrity, but it did
happen! She shoved me down onto my knees and ground her crotch in my face. It was terrible, I
can still recall the horrible smell to this day! The stench was a combination of rotting
flesh and urine. Makes me nauseous just thinking of that sexual assault. INVESTIGATE this
serial molester!
Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago
The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations.
That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she
would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.
It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier
to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details
that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their
bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.
Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago
She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot
remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or
copying them less than 3 months ago?
Not possible.
She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible
situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to
say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her
to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that
day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next
level with him.
American Dissident , 20 hours ago
McConnell on the Senate Floor 50 minutes ago: "The time for endless delay and obstruction
has come to a close.... Mr. President, we'll be voting this week."
xear , 21 hours ago
Brett is obviously innocent. Groping her, holding her down, grinding into her... it's not
like it was rape. And as far as covering her mouth so she couldn't scream... after a heavy
night of drinking who wants to hear screaming? Almost anyone would do the same.
I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 20 hours ago
it's always interesting to see where and why people claim to know things about which they
have literally no 'knowledge.'
Also interesting to see how the same people who would protest assuming the guilt of an
alleged Muslim terrorist or Black liquor store robber now argue it is 'whiteness' and
'patriarchy' to not assume the guilt of a white male regarding decades old uncorroborated
charges... which 4 named witnesses deny having knowledge of, by a woman who lied about a fear
of flying to try to delay the process.
We can all be hypocrites.
But watching the Left embrace hypocrisy as social justice has been, in the pure sense of
the word, awesome to behold.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript
shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It
strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further
exploration.
FBaggins , 21 hours ago
To fix things if after all of this crap from the feminazis and Kavenaugh simply withdraws
his name, Trump should put forward Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next candidate. It would
really ensure support for Trump candidates in the midterms from women in general and from
social-conservative family-values people in the US and it would perhaps teach the feminazis a
lesson at the same time.
istt , 20 hours ago
No, Kavanaugh deserves better. He has earned his place on the USSC.
Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago
My prediction was, and still is Kavanaugh goes forward. Even the revered CNN is starting
to walk the drinking issue back.
By the way , the Trump presser today was a ******* hoot!
ToddTheBabyWhale , 21 hours ago
Nine page memo, Tyler. Your starting to write like a pro journalist now.
aloha_snakbar , 22 hours ago
Ms Ford, the newly minted millionaire, is probably lying poolside in Mexico, indulging in
her favorite psychotropics and getting pounded by the local brown talent. Wow...having a
vagina is like having a meat 3D printer that spews out money...
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
Was there in 1965, and I can recall what my classmates wore, who could dance, who kissed
great, who had the best music, who got laid and how often...and it was NOT the head of the
football or basketball team.
Her memory is selectively scripted, and I am 20 years older and my memory is just
fine.
charlewar , 23 hours ago
In other words, Ford is a liar
JohnG , 23 hours ago
She's a goddamned sociopathic lying bitch.
arby63 , 23 hours ago
A highly paid one. Gofundme alone is over $900,000.
1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago
Her two *** lawyers doing well for their time and attention. McCabe's lawyer comes to the
rescue for Ford.
Dead how? We already know that these corporation are die hard neo-liberal but name me 2
republicans or ANY federal entity that would EVER go after a corporation like that.
You are not aware of the score if you think anything will be done to them.
HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago
My hippocampus is turgid and throbbing after seeing Chris Ford in those Adrian (Talia
Shire) spectacles.
blind_understanding , 23 hours ago
I had to look it up ..
TURGID - from Latin turgidus , from turgēre to be swollen
peippe , 22 hours ago
nothing better than a confused lady who forgets stuff...........
I'm all over that if she was thirty-six years younger. oops.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
I was the victim of an abuse event when I was 4. I'm 47 now. I know exactly where the
house is, we were in the backyard and I can tell anyone what happened and who was there. It
happened a few days back to back maybe three days, it was during the winter in the
midafternoon. I guess my hippocampus is in better shape than hers.
sgt_doom , 1 day ago
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was poised, articulate, clear and convincing. More than
that, she radiated self-assured power ."
----- So says Robert Reich
Saaaaay, Bobby, have you ever met Wesley Allen Dodd or Ted Bundy? I once came into contact
with Dodd, the epitome of calm, cool and collected --- and he was later executed for
torturing to death small children!
A (female) law professor from Seattle University said:
" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (why do they keep referring to a professor of
psychology as doctor --- s_d) was credible and believable. " (Evidently, we don't need
no stinking proof or evidence where a law professor is concerned!?)
Sgt_Doom says: Prof. Christine Blasey Ford sounded credible, believable and completely
unsubstantiated.
Credible Allegations
Over this past weekend I learned three startling facts:
(1) All American women have been raped;
(2) All American males are rapists and liars; and,
(3) "Credible allegations" are accusations not requiring any shred of evidence.
Fake news facts , that is . . . . .
All this was conveyed by high-middle class (or higher) females who worship globalization
and American exceptionalism --- from the same news conduits who once reported on
weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and other similar mythologies!
Not a single so-called reporter --- not a single self-described journalist in American ---
thought to ask that most obvious of obvious questions:
Where in bloody perdition is Christine Blasey Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks?
After all, they introduced Kavanaugh's yearbook, so why not Christine Blasey's
yearbook?
Second most obvious question:
When one searches online for Holton Arms yearbooks, the searcher can find the yearbooks
for the years preceding Ford's last several years at Holton Arms, and the years following ---
why have the last several years when Christine Blasey attended missing? Why have they been
removed --- even cached versions --- from the Web?
Takes some serious tech resources to accomplish this in such a short period of time?!
How very odd . . . .
I do not want Kavanaugh, nor anyone like him, on the Supreme Court bench, but that does
not mean I automatically believe any and all unsubstantiated accusations and am sane enough
to comprehend that credible allegations require proof --- also referred to as
evidence.
It is not enough to state that this person drinks and is therefore guilty or that person
is a male and is therefore guilty.
I fully support an expanded investigation into both Kavanaugh AND Christine Blasey Ford,
including Ms. Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks and any and all police blotter activity/records
for her ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16.
And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . .
. and finally start doing their jobs!
Sidebar : Sen. Chris Coons claimed that Prof. Ford was courageous to have come forward as
she had nothing to gain , yet within several days after her testimony, Christine
Blasey Ford is almost one-half million dollars wealthier --- nothing to gain?
Hardly . . . .
[Next rant: MY elevator encounter with a 14-year-old psychotic blonde student, and her
buddy, many years ago in Bethesda, Md.]
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
She (Mitchell) was there to handle her like the delicate flower. To the pubes defense,
someone was smart enough to realize that a bunch of GOP white guys questioning her was not
going to play well. Enter the female prosecutor and her report.
On the other hand the dem guys and dolls could not genuflect enough , so their questioning
was fine. I mean they had her painted as the courageous hero of the modern era. So brave, so
noble , so, so, utterly awesome!
Puke ....
scraping_by , 23 hours ago
She had an emotional meltdown for a big finish. Note who gave her the run-in for it. (Not
Mitchell).
nicholforest , 1 day ago
Seems pretty obvious that Mitchell could not see a case for prosecution - what we heard
was mostly 'He said ... She said". So an unsurprising conclusion.
And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the
Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their
houses.
But what struck me was the behavior and style of Kavanaugh. He came across as belligerent,
petty, evasive, aggressive and impulsive. Those are not the characteristics that we want in a
candidate for the Supreme Court.
Little Lindsey G would say that Kavanaugh has a right to be angry, which may be so - but
the way that such anger is manifested is critical. In the military we look for leaders to be
cool under fire. The same should be true for a judge in the highest court in the land.
Instead he came across like a fearful, reactive, spiteful, spoilt frat boy. That will not
do.
scraping_by , 1 day ago
Ah, the double bind. Either he's robotic and reciting a script, or he's wild and howling
brat. Nice how that works.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nicholforest - And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the
process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A
curse on both their houses.
Please enlighten us on specifically which Dem. SC nomination the Republicans did a full on
character assassination .... were waiting!
It is mindless comments and a lack of rigorous thinking and moral equivocation like yours
that has led the country into the abyss of nonsense and division.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
Look at the time line provided and then tell me the Democrats aren't a pack of lying
weasles. The truth means absolutely NOTHING to them. Their agenda (to **** over Trump in any
way possible) is all that matters. Could anyone imagine what would have happened if the
Republicans would have pulled just 1/10th of that kind of ******** with the Homo *****??
There would have been continuous MSM inspired riots in the streets.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
They play by Alinsky Rules
rksplash , 1 day ago
I guess the only way this nonsense is going to go away is if the GOP start using the same
tactics. Hire some wannabe spin doctors to go through some old high school yearbooks in a
church basement somewhere in Alabama. An old black and white of some poor pimple faced
senator grabbing his crotch at the prom in 72.
Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago
She did take a polygraph - and passed.
Yeah that's what the lying sacks of **** say, but of course there's absolutely no proof it
happened. She passed? O.k., let's assume they are at least not lying about that . . . what
questions were asked?
Bastiat , 1 day ago
A polygraph with 2 questions apparently. In other words a complete joke. A real poly has
scores if not hundreds of questions.
robertocarlos , 23 hours ago
Two questions were asked. "Are you a woman"? and "Are you a liar"?
Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago
It's amazing what a false memory can do.
Is there a verbatim transcript of the questions asked?
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Mitchell said it was irresponsible to give a polygraph to someone grieving the loss of a
loved one. Grandmother in this case.
peippe , 22 hours ago
rumor has it the exam included two questions.
Two Questions.
you decide what that means.
nsurf9 , 1 day ago
Not one shred of corroboration evidence of Ford's testimony, not even from her friend, who
flatly denied she ever went to such party, NONE, NADA, UNBELIEVABLE!
Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons'
bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with democrat financed malicious intent to defame?
And further, Montgomery County Police has formally stated that, as a misdemeanor, the
statute of limitations ran out on this allegedly crime - 35 frigging years ago.
And lastly, with regard to drinking in college, not one democrat mentions he finished top
of his Yale undergrad class and top of his Yale Law School class.
FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago
nsurf9 - Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy
loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with malicious intent to defame?
Please tell me how you or I could possible "safeguard" ourselves from "crazy loon" and
"bald-face lies" ....?
That is why we're supposed to be a nation of laws and innocent until proven guilty.
It is one thing to disagree over a person political position and or ideas but that is not
what is happening here. The Dems are in full assault mode to destroy BK and his family as a
warning to any future Conservative judge who may dare accepts a nomination to the SC.
What the Dems are doing will lead to some type of civil war if they do not stop this. It
will not be pretty if that happens.
nsurf9 , 23 hours ago
Requiring even a modicum of corroborated facts or evidence, outside of mere "words," would
be a good start!
JLee2027 , 1 day ago
Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all
have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too
vague,etc.
dogmete , 1 day ago
Yeah what an incredible story. She was at a party with some drunken creepy guys and got
sexually assaulted. Everyone knows that never happens!
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The current sleaze isn't overturning the legal right to abortion, it's making it
impossible to get one. It's a legal right that a woman has to sit through lectures, travel to
specific places, make certain declarations, and get a physician who's usually under attack at
the state level. It's not illegal, it's impossible.
It's not about restricting women, it's about making life harder for middle and lower class
people. Women of the Senator's economic class have always had and always will have access to
safe abortions. It's wage earners who have to depend on local providers.
Whether Catholic K will go along with the sabotage of a privacy right isn't clear. But
he's probably going to be sympathetic to making those working class wenches show some
responsibility.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
To quote famed feminist and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, women can always "Keep
their pants zipped". But then Granholm only extended her authoritarian control freakery to
the male half of the human race when she said that a few years ago. If women lose some
"reproductive rights" then some of them might start to have some empathy for men and our lack
of rights. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to empathize with us.
Kelley , 1 day ago
One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever
assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used
that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.
It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most
traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or
something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads
me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her
claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would
have felt it and reacted far differently.
Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact
memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford
went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of
emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.
Giant Meteor , 1 day ago
Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter ,
not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that
moment, have been accidently killed.
As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the
**** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.
pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago
Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in.
It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies
(surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in
college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell
that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and
travels the world surfing
Nunny , 1 day ago
If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they
didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They
can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful
idiots on the left buy it.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was
wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett,
nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't
outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.
I Write Code , 1 day ago
Wasn't there an old SNL skit about the "amygdala"?
YouTube doesn't seem to have an index on the term, LOL.
seryanhoj , 1 day ago
One more example of US governance and party politics on its way down the tubes. There is
no topic, no forum nowhere where the truth is even something to be considered. Media, law
makers, everyone looks at a story and says " Let's make this work for our agenda even if we
have to reinvent it from scratch". Then it is more than easy to find people to testify any
which way you want. Vomits copiously.
mabuhay1 , 1 day ago
The standard for females should be "They are lying if their lips are moving." Any claims
of sexual abuse should require proof, and witnesses that can back up said claims. Many
studies have found that years before the MeToo# lies began, about 60% of all claimed rapes
were false. Now, with the "Must believe all women" and the "MeToo#" scam, I would suspect the
rate of false claims to be very close to 100%
scraping_by , 1 day ago
The standard for any criminal investigation is ABC. Assume nothing, Believe no one, and
Check everything. The current feminist howl is sweep that aside and obey a women when she
points at a man.
Jack McGriff , 1 day ago
And yet every single MSM outlet is claiming she is credible! WTF!!!
MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago
If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone
records for the last 2 years.
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
Kill shots:
Ranging from "mid 1980s" in a text to the Washington Post to "early 80s"
No name was listed in 2012 and 2013 individual and marriage therapy notes.
she was the victim of "physical abuse," whereas she has now testified that she told her
husband about a "sexual assault."
she does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does
not remember how she got to the party." Mitchell continued: "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any
specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party to
her house."
In her letter to Feinstein, she said "me and 4 others" were at the party but in her
testimony she said there were four boys in additional to Leland Keyser and herself. She did
not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser's presence should
have been more memorable than PJ Smyth's,
· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party
· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying
any memory of the party whatsoever,
· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever
being at a party or gathering where he was present with
· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr.
Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.
· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate
Committee.
· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the
Washington Post.
· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not
know how to do that."
· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who
was grieving.
· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's
symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly
frequently."
· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.
· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely
affected Dr. Ford's account.
Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago
Major Hegelian dialectic **** going on with the Ford/Kav reality show.
Women everywhere side with Ford because she's a women, claims she was abused, and "has to
be believed", in order to settle some personal score that they all claim empathy for, even
though she has given every tell in the book that she is lying.
Men everywhere empathize with a man being falsely accused, regardless of his politics and
judicial history, even though he made his bones in the Bush administration, and can probably
be relied on to further the authoritarian state via the Supreme court. Guilty of this myself,
because it could be anyone of us next.
Pick a side, doesn't matter, because we've already lost.
Bastiat , 1 day ago
I "Believe the Women" -- the 3 women Ford named as witnesses who denied it ever happened,
the 65 women who signed the letter in support of Ford, and all the women who have worked with
him and had no issues. I don't believe this one, though.
phillyla , 1 day ago
truly embarrassing answer
were I a self important college professor I might lie and say "Shakespeare" but the truth
will out I learned it from The Avengers movie when Loki called Black Widow a 'mewling
quim'
Anunnaki , 1 day ago
A lot of women have seen their sons and brothers falsely accused. Ford was completely
unconvincing in her "I don't remember the details of a traumatic "sexual assault"
BGO , 1 day ago
Mitchell the "veteran prosecutor" also failed to ask Ford who hosted the party where the
alleged assault took place.
This is an important question. Maybe the most important question.
No one should be expected to remember their high school friends' home addresses, just like
no one should be expected to remember every person who attended a specific high school
party.
One thing ANYONE who suffered a violent attack would remember is WHO OWNED THE HOUSE where
the attack took place.
High school parties generally are hosted by a the same people throughout a students high
school years. It's not like everyone in class takes their turn throwing a kegger.
As anyone who drank to get drunk at parties in high school will tell you, it was always
the same handful of kids, maybe three or four, who let their friends drink alcohol in their
parents' home.
Narrowing down exactly who owned the home where the alleged attack took place should be
easy due to the fact that, according to Ford, it was more of a small get together than a full
blown party.
All investigators should need to do is ask the known attendees, under oath, whether or not
they hosted the party where the alleged attack took place.
The fact that Ford's testimony includes exactly one person whose name she cannot remember
is NOT a coincidence.
The phantom attendee was created out of thin air to give Ford an out if the known
attendees claimed the attack did not occur at their homes.
There are so many things wrong with this political farce. Liberal mental illness, as with
any case, is a given, automatically assumed.
Flip flopping dufuses on the other side, weakness, gross ineptitude.
The entire system needs to be culled via a massive firestorm; no one or thing left
standing.
Cassander , 1 day ago
@BGO -- Re your first sentence, Mitchell notes in her memo "She does not remember in what
house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity".
I think this covers your point implicitly. If she doesn't remember what house it was, how can
she remember whose house it was?
Just thought you were going a bit hard on Mitchell, whose memo seems pretty damning to
me...
BGO , 1 day ago
Asking *what* house and *whose* house are two ENTIRELY different things.
Think about the most traumatic experience of your life. You know EXACTLY where the
traumatic experience took place, right?
FUBO , 1 day ago
She didn't ask one sexual question of her either,bu but dove right in on Kavanaugh.
istt , 1 day ago
And now we find out Leland Keyser was Bob Beckel's ex-wife. Unbelievable. Small circle
these libs run in.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
Actually nothing about the Democrats is surprising. They are predictable in keeping within
their closed ranks.
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago
They brought the wrong tool to the fight. Mitchell is a sex abuse prosecutor? Her tactics
may well work in the courtroom but the Judiciary Comm hearing was not a platform of
Mitchell's expertise. She apologized to Ms Ford and stated at the onset she would not ask Ms
Ford about the "incident" other than her recollections of location, date and witnesses.
Mitchell then hit Judge Kavanaugh head on with questions of gang rape, rape, sexual assault,
drinking behaviors. All validating Kavanaugh's guilt for the sheeple.
My two Eng Springer Spaniels exhibit better strategy than what we saw here.
Herdee , 1 day ago
Her father was in the CIA. Who was it within the organization that planned this?
aloha_snakbar , 1 day ago
If Fords alleged/imaginary groping is allowed to stand, what about all of the groping that
the TSA dispenses daily?
phillyla , 1 day ago
if touching over your clothes = rape I have several lawsuits to file against the TSA
...
Luce , 1 day ago
How does this ballsy ford bitch keep her PTSD in check when the TSA gropes her for all of
her exotic vacations?
phillyla , 1 day ago
some one should investigate if she signed up for the TSA's skip the line service for
frequent fliers ...
Also telling... nobody from her family (mother, father, brother) has come forward to
support her. Only her husband's family. They likely know she is making it up as it relates to
Kavanaugh. They know who she is.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
That's actually false. However, the muted support from her father is likely due his not
wanting to be ostracized from his upper-crust old boys golf club.
....and the biggest indications of fraud here are 4 go fund me accounts now raising over
$2M for CBF. Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a good gig if you can get it
now days.
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Y'all are being distracted and played, as usual, I am sad to say...
The judge Napolitano video at the end should have been played to Congress.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Yup, this man is not a friend of liberty, or justice.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
His *** is rethinking it now
istt , 1 day ago
"Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person's car without first
obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn't constitute a "search" as defined by the
Fourth Amendment."
I like him more now that I have read this article. Police should be able to legally track
known or suspected drug dealers. You got a problem with that? I suppose you're outraged over
our treatment of MS-13 as well?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Yes, I have a problem with that. Police must have enough prior evidence to get a warrant
to put a device on anyone's property (car, phone, email account, internet router) - any
private property is protected by the 4th.
Once they convince a judge of probable cause and get the warrant, they can plant the
tracking device. Most cops are power hungry, petty, vindictive, control freaks, with too much
time on their hands - one tried to make my life hell simply because I cut him off in
traffic.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
The hypocrisy of ZH posters in favor of this douche is unreal. Where is the libertarian
outrage?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
I think most libertarians have left ZH and this is a predominantly Republican partisan
site now. The internet is quickly becoming a bunch of echo chambers for like minded people,
with trolls appearing from time to time to fan flames if interest and eyeballs starts to
wane. We are lucky if one post out of 50 has any insight or real information.
11b40 , 1 day ago
Once you start down this slippery slope, the next step down is easy.
spieslikeus , 1 day ago
Eye opening, thanks for that. Appoint Judge Napolitano!
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
It would be nice to have a token libertarian voice on the court. Kavanaugh is not only a
statist, but a deep statist.
Golden Phoenix , 1 day ago
If taken completely at her word the gist of her story is someone touched the outside of
her clothes. Prison for tailors! They are all rapists!
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford says she ran from the house, Question, how did you get home? Answer, I don't
remember.
No Time for Fishing , 1 day ago
No one followed her out. No one said where are you going.
She is outside the house, no car, no phone, maybe clicked her heals and was magically at
home, worked for Dorthy.
Walked six miles home but just doesn't remember that? could be.
Knocked on a neighbors door to ask to use the phone and had someone pick her up but
doesn't remember that? could be.
Walked a few blocks to a pay phone and with the quarter she had in her bathing suit called
someone to pick her up, waited for them, didn't tell them what happened and then they drove
her home, just doesn't remember it? could be.
When she ran from the house did she not leave her purse or bag behind? Did she ever get it
back? Did her girlfriend never ask why she left?
Maybe I should just believe her......
Bastiat , 1 day ago
She ran all the way, got home in 35'32" -- she would have been a track star but the coach
looked at her *** at the team tryouts.
Benjamin123 , 1 day ago
Auntie delivers
The Swamp Got Trump , 1 day ago
Ford is a lunatic and a liar.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
so she does not remember how she got to the party or how she left the party but she
suggested she narrowed down the year because she knew she did not drive to the party since
she could not drive yet so she must have been 15.
I beg your pardon!
bh2 , 1 day ago
So does anyone recall Comey giving Clinton a free pass despite her many deliberate and
clear violations of US security laws on the basis that no reasonable prosecutor would take
action against her?
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
Dr. Fraud was a planned hit. Her social media presence was methodically deleted over the
last few months. There is nothing about her anywhere.... it's almost as if her name is fake
too.
Heard on 4chan that her and her husband have a big interest at the place she used to work,
Corcept Therapeutics. Apparently Corcept has developed a new abortion drug and have invested
a ton in R&D.
As always, follow the money.......
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
yeah, yeah. you do realize that her father plays golf with Kav's dad at their local
country club.
don't forget your tinfoil hat your way out, nutjob.
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
And you do realize that Kav's mother was the judge that presided over Dr. Frauds' parents
home foreclosure?
Lots of motives here.
Thanks for chiming in so we can all get to he truth.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Presiding over a foreclosure is not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a strictly
administrative task. The bank is the one foreclosing, you dolt.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
another unhinged, faux compassionate, rude leftist
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Another braindead gaslighting troglodyte
11b40 , 1 day ago
Then what is the judge for?
istt , 1 day ago
Turns out Ford is not even a psychologist. Some of the stupidest people I know carry PhD
titles because they are perpetual students. This just starkly shows the difference between
the two worlds people live in, if they can find Ford credible. She is the face of left wing
hysteria and partisanship.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And angry-boy Kavanaughty is the perfect reflection of unhinged conspi-racist GOP.
istt , 1 day ago
Keep repeating the mantras, losers. I'm sure there are many single mom's out there who
made lousy decisions, who hate their lives, who are willing to buy your whole story. YOU
resonate with them. But they are not here so get lost.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I crap bigger than you.
Got The Wrong No , 1 day ago
That's because you are Crap
Slaytheist , 1 day ago
Real men that live lives of principal and truth, get angry when women (inclues numen like
you) lie like children to get their way.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
So pretty much all of Kavanaugh's old cronies turn out to be degenerate drunkard
misogynist ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist toolbags and somehow Kavanaugh himself is Mr.
Squeaky Clean? <cough>********<cough>
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
No, they were all drunken college kids.
So have you lefties changed it and would like to charge him for partying?
lmao.....
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Lol, drunked college kids? More like degenerate a-holes. Troll harder.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
Yes. Troll harder.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
your being spoon fed a narrative by the msm like rice pudding to a gay cowboy, you make me
sick
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself, please.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
I thought I was being kind with the gay cowboy remark
istt , 1 day ago
Get the **** out of here, wingnut. Switch back to your CNN. We don't need your ilk here,
loser.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I have been here farrrrr long than the vast majority of you pikers. Long enough to recall
what ZH was intended to be for, before it became the cesspool it is today, infested with
russian trolls, nazi-fascist thugs, lunatic fringe d-bags spouting off like they know
anything about anything. So GET the F OFF MY LAWN, punk.
istt , 1 day ago
Anyone who finds this woman and her story credible need their head examined. They are
incapable of critical reasoning.
A political hit job and the stupid, ignoramus Ford was willing to do the hit. She should
be in jail for this disgraceful action.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
So she was communicating on Whatsup with the Washington Post on JULY 6th! How is that
consistent with wanting this whole story to be confidential?
She knew the person she was in contact with since she admitted she was the same journalist
who wrote the article in September. In whatsup you know each other's phone numbers so the
journalist knew her identity from the very beginning. Stop lying about the anonymous tip line
!
Let's call this for what it is: a conspiracy to hijack a supreme court nomination and Mrs
Blasio Ford, the Washington Post, democratic parties operatives (including senator
Fienstein's staff or the senator herself and the Kats legal firm) were co-conspirators).
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Hired by Pukes, no surprise here.
cheech_wizard , 1 day ago
So elections have consequences, right?
I'll bet you didn't miss a single one of Hillary's campaign events in Wisconsin, did
you?
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I really don't get it, there are many qualified conservative judges who would do a much
better job on SCOTUS and not damage the court's honor and credibility. Why Kavanaugh?
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Because he is a political heck and Drumpf likes it that way.
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford doesnt remember much, except when it matters. She doesnt know exactly when she was
raped or where she claims to be raped, but remembers seeing Mark Judge in a Safeway exactly 8
weeks later.
Hell I remember where I was when the space shuttle blew up in the 80s, I remember where I
was and who I was with when Mt St Helens blew her top in 1980.
People will always remember notable events, PERIOD!
Here is a classic, if you believe her story, I have a bridge for sale
Endgame Napoleon , 1 day ago
Back when the Roy Moore thing was keeping MSM ratings up, I, a person in Dr. Ford's age
group, recalled a 100% harmless event from my 16th year. The reason it sprang to mind is: it
echoed things they were accusing him of.
Accusers said he was in the mall, flirting with girls in their late teens and in other
commercial venues, chatting it up girls in that age group.
Although this event had not crossed my mind in years -- so un-traumatic was it -- I
remembered in much greater detail than Ford the specificities of this harmless event.
I was working at a locally owned steakhouse as a hostess, a glorified and very bored door
opener. I was wearing a pink, medium-warm-gray and light-warm-gray, striped dress (ugh, the
Eighties).
After work, I decided to stop at a local grocery store, and I felt pleased that a
candidate for office who later won handed me his card, trying to convince me to vote for him.
He also mildly flirted with me, not knowing how old I was, and I did not tell him my age,
enjoying the feeling of being older, sophisticated and attractive enough to get his
attention.
He put his phone number on the card, not that anything happened as a result. I knew that I
would not be allowed to go out with this man who really wasn't that much older than me,
anyway, probably about a decade older.
If this man ever ran for another office, or was appointed to a high office, I could call
this sexual assault, I guess, in this insane world. But I would never do that, nor would
almost any woman that I have met.
There must be something in the water, producing more barracudas with a mission to
criminalize things that earlier generations would have called flirting.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
was she on valium for funeral and polygraph test ?
this explains why test was done after funeral and her passing this test,
FBI must check this
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And while they're at it, they should also check all the stories from Yale classmates who
can attest to the fact that Kavanaugh was often spotted late at night stumbling and slurring
his words, and sometimes aggressively starting sh*t.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
inconsequential, nothing will come out of this,
opposite of her being on drugs for polygraph test, this just ends her story
"... The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up? ..."
"... Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis . ..."
"... Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep. ..."
"... Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill. ..."
"... My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen. ..."
Hey, John Brennan said to dig deeper, so we are. Keep peeling the onion and expose more
and more layers. She had a second door put in to improve the house's curb appeal, but you
can't see the door from the curb. The door helped with her claustrophobia but it only allows
egress from living space separate from her main residence.
As the commenter above said, "look squirrel"!
The whole point of discussing door #2 was to
bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford,
suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be
tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a
clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of
acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up?
The only pacifier evident here is the one up your ***.
Beatscape , 1 hour ago
Follow the money... it almost always takes you to the real motivating factors.
Sounds more like hubby didn't want strangers in the house, and she wanted the extra income
or potential. Perhaps, he was scared of the consequences of getting busted, after spending
the money...doing something non code compliant.
Builder here.
This starts to make sense...in a fucked up way.
digitalrevolution , 2 hours ago
Too far in the weeds on this one.
Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis .
NoPension , 1 hour ago
Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep.
PGR88 , 2 hours ago
Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad
acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill.
ChartRoom , 2 hours ago
My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the
field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago
Can confirm
45North1 , 2 hours ago
A floor plan would be instructive.
NoPension , 2 hours ago
Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In an area where that setup probably
commands $2000 a month.
The gotcha moment for me was Ford's response to a question in which she declared that she
wanted Sen. Feinstein's office to know about her story while there was still time to find another
candidate. Not political at all.
Notable quotes:
"... after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of fatal attraction for him. . ..."
...In recent days I've seen teenage photos of both Ford and Kavanaugh. His handsomeness was
obvious. And he was evidently a leader in his school when it came to sports and academics.
I'm beginning to suspect, after hearing rumors/remarks about her having been a troubled
youth (attorney Joe DiGenova is much more blunt and explicit), that she harbored a kind of
fatal attraction for him. .
Except for claiming she's 100% certain that Kavanaugh assaulted her, I
wonder if she's been vague enough to prevent any perjury charges?
There is this interesting passage, here as cited by the WP:
***************************************** Feinstein: How were you so sure that it was [Kavanaugh] ?
Ford: The same way that I am sure that I am talking to you right now: It's basic
memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that
sort of, as you know, encodes that neurotransmitter, encodes memories into the
hippocampus. And so the trauma-related experience then is kind of locked there whereas
other details kind of drift.
Feinstein: So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken
identity?
Ford: Absolutely not
*****************************************
Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and
Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford
said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him
by name in public.
I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected
by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.
Torgo , 11 hours ago
Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different
school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home
from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi".
She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the
name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy
that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and
soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that
day.
Being Free , 23 hours ago
Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy
foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...
Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus
skewing the results.
blindfaith , 23 hours ago
So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?
How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How
does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air
sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill
and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches
she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did
she perjer herself?
Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL
complaint in Maryland.
Blasey-Ford's squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child voice was both poor acting, and creepy.
If it wasn't acting, then its a clear sign of a deranged mind.
Blasey-Ford resides at 3872 Duncan Place in Palo Alto CA. Her house (according to Zillow)
is currently valued at $3,000,000.00+. There must be a lot of idiots out there contributing
to her GoFundMe account. She will need a lawyer, soon. I believe that there will be a trail
leading back to witnesses who will admit the entire thing was a hoax. And, the band played
on.
morongobill , 1 day ago
Saw this over at Burning Platform. Interesting that Ford's address is reveled.
Philip Rolfes
Leader
Philip Rolfes
@PhilipRolfes552
Leader
View Profile
3d
She can recall the number of beers she consumed but she cant recall the date or place?
Such a traumatic event and yet she did not tell police, parents?
Reply
Share
78
Likes
roc993
Leader
Philip Rolfes
3d
Somewhere in Maryland :-) "Good luck disproving my story!"
Reply
Share
23
Likes
Mason Williams
Philip Rolfes
3d
Very easy to see why she didnt tell as a 15 year old. But I agree with the rest of your
statement.
Reply
Share
9
Likes
Philip Rolfes
Leader
Mason Williams
3d
If she was honestly assaulted by him in 1982 she should of come forward then if nothing
more to remove the danger to other girls and women.
alan wong
Leader
3d
Edited
OMG. Feinstein not only cheapened the meaning of rape. She cheapened our Constitution. Shame
on her. What is fair about this process. Feinstein weaponized rape. Shameless!!
alan wong
Leader
3d
Edited
This is the same Senator that hired a spy and employed him for decades because she and
hiusband enriched themselves from China. Shameless!! Hey Senator Feinstein those women you
mentioned are not credible. Even NY Times are doubtful. I hope Kavanaugh's children are not
watching this tawdry hearing.
Reply
Share
11
Likes
Le Modele Francais
Leader
alan wong
2d
I hope Kavanaugh's family retains competent council and sues a mess of people into
bankruptcy...
roc993
Leader
3d
She talks and handles herself like a 20-year-old valley girl. She's what, 50+?
I for one see her as a political operative, may be crusader for abortions right (which I
support) and very troubled human being, possibly on antidepressants or something similar (her
facial expression, and kind of "permanently glued smile" are not natural at all and she looks
like a female of over 60 biological age while being 51 years old)
Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure." And his former colleague, James
Comey, has urged investigators to "dig deeper."
So begin at the beginning of her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony :
" I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couple's counseling
session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very
extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that
he and others disagreed with and could not understand.
In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in
detail."
Under questioning
from Sen. Diane Feinstein, Ford described an agonizing after-effect of the alleged Kavanaugh
attack that caused her to demand that second door :
"Anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms are the types of things that I've been coping
with," Ford said. "More specially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."
FEINSTEIN: "Is that the reason for the second front door? Claustrophobia?"
FORD: "Correct."
The trade-off, apparently, was evident in Ford's statement that "our house does not look
aesthetically pleasing from the curb." From the view on Google Earth, or Redfin, one can't see
the second door easily and the house appears no uglier "from the curb" than it ever did, if it
did. But a glance at the real estate databases about Ford's house are instructive.
The Fords bought the house on June 20, 2007. And the "very extensive, very long remodel,"
including the second front door, were completed under a building permit granted in 2008.
So a natural question is why, four years after the remodeling, which also added two rooms
and a bathroom, is the installation of that second door still such a bone of contention between
the couple that it was an issue in the counseling they were undergoing in May 2012?
One key may be Ford's continuing testimony to Feinstein, after describing the aesthetic
difficulties "from the curb."
FEINSTEIN: "I see. And do you have that second front door?"
FORD: "Yes."
FEINSTEIN: "It "
FORD: "It - it now is a place to host Google interns. Because we live near Google, so we
get to have - other students can live there."
Now that she mentions it, the additional remodeling in effect added a self-contained unit to
the house, with its own entrance, perfect for "hosting" or even possibly renting, in violation
of the local zoning . Perhaps a
professional office might be a perfect use, if an illegal one. And in the tight Palo Alto real
estate market, there are a lot of games played for some serious income.
And that may
answer another strange anomaly.
Because since 1993, and through some listings even today, there was another tenant at what
is now the Ford property . It is listed as this person's residence from 1993 to July 2007, a
week or so after she sold the house to the Fords.
Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed
practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in
2007.
Currently she only practices in that state, where she also pursues her new career as a
talented artist as well.
But many existing directories still have Dr. Randall's address listed at what is now the
Ford residence.
Which raises other questions.
Why has Christine Ford never said a word about Dr. Randall? And why has she been evasive
about the transcripts of her crucial 2012 therapy session, which she can't seem to recall much
about either? Did she provide them to the Washington Post, or did she just provide the
therapist's summary? Who was the psychologist?
In a phone call, I asked Dr. Randall if she had sold her house to the Fords. She asked back
how I had found out. I asked if she was the couples therapist who treated the Fords. She would
not answer yes or no, replying, "I am a couples therapist."
So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting her
terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the
second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for
the primary resident, how did the door's existence ameliorate Ford's professed
claustrophobia?
None of this means that her charges against Kavanaugh might not be perfectly valid, but her
explanation for the "second door" looks like it could use more investigation. At the very least
it appears to be a far more complicated element of Ford's credibility than it originally
appeared.
lulu34 , 3 minutes ago
It's a simple property tax scheme. Rent out the spacw to offset the taxes. You don't
report this income to the "authorities".
hannah , 22 minutes ago
first...******* NO ONE STATES THAT THERE ISNT EVEN A DOCTOR MUCH LESS THEIR NOTES...?
everyone wants to see the doctors notes yet no one has even mentioned the name of the doctor.
i dont think there are notes about a door. that is all ********. feinsteins people typed up
'the notes'.......also if she is renting the remodel area is she paying taxes on that income.
in california it could be $24,000 to $48,000 a year easily........
lulu34 , 2 minutes ago
Bingo...it's a cost $$$ collection to offset property taxes
Automatic Choke , 34 minutes ago
Illegal and unzoned apartment added to a house? Watch out, here comes the tax collector.
She just might have talked her way into a tax fraud conviction.
Seal Team 6 , 47 minutes ago
Randall ran a business from her home so I would wonder if she put the door in in the 90s,
as businesses run from homes typically have alternate entrances. Ford and husband listed it
on the permit in 2007 to cover it up otherwise it could be used as a basis to walk on a real
estate deal...no building permit was granted. Happens all the time. Boy if someone has a
picture of Ford's house from the 90's and see's that second door, she is done done done.
"... " The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles ..."
"... "The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive." ..."
"... Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system? ..."
" The Republican and Democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the Republican-Democratic party, represent the capitalist class
in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to
spoils and not to principles ."
(The Socialist Party and the Working Class". Eugene V. Debs' opening speech as Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party in
Indianapolis, Indiana, www.marxists.org . September 1, 1904. )
I haven't paid any attention to the "Kavanaugh hearings" other than reading some headlines and some comments here and there. It's
not that I don't care about the Supreme Court, although my paying attention to this bullshit won't change a damn thing, it's more
that the entire spectacle of watching this country's political system in action, with or without sex crime accusations, makes me
sick.
I'm writing this because I clicked on an article titled,
"More Like a
Hijacking Than A Democracy, Senator Graham" because the reference to democracy interested me (we don't live in one for the ten
thousandth time). I scanned the article, which has a photo of Lindsey Graham and some suits against a wood grained background of
political importance, and saw it contained information about the process and system being followed by the oligarchy controlled duopoly.
At this point in my life, I'm adamantly against having a "Supreme" court with nine One Percenter assholes appointed for LIFE by
the duopoly unrepresentatives having the power of life, death or misery over hundreds of millions of people, and beyond when it comes
down to it. What bullshit. As with everything else in our national political system, the system and process has become so warped,
corrupt, partisan and ideological it's pathetic.
Plenty of people are asking why the process is unfolding the way it is, with the sex allegations as the focal point, but very
few are asking why we have a system like this at all. Why do we need this? Who and what is this for? Aren't there better options?
Why are we letting all these assholes do this to us? WHY do we let the corrupt and oligarchy controlled democratic and republican
parties completely control this process? In the end, isn't this just another example of how fucked up our political system is at
the national level?
"The real question before the American people is why are they, the media, the government, MeToo feminists, the Identity Politics
Democrats and liberal-progressive-left, and conservatives stone silent while Washington enables Saudia Arabia to murder the Yemeni
people to the point that Yemenis have to eat leaves in a desperate attempt to survive."
Kind of the same old, same old Paul. I think the real question is why can't enough of us organize together to challenge those that
rule us. I mean really challenge, like revolution type challenge. Overthrow these motherfuckers type challenge. This isn't new. Look
at that Debs quote, 1904. Nothing is new, we keep doing the same shit over and over. Maybe that's just the way it is, but then again,
we're smarter than that aren't we? Why aren't more people calling for/demanding radical change to our fucked up political system
completely controlled by the rich? Why are vastly more people wondering whether Ford's accusations are true than those wondering
how to change our FUBAR/SNAFU political system?
They're doing all this shit and then we're going to have another election. Shit.
The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to
face up to many urgent issues on which the bi-partisans in Washington, DC are united and
wrong.
Kavanaugh's career as
a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security
state and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have
provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying and the
domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of
these.
Kavanaugh's behavior as a teenager who likely drank too much and was inappropriately
aggressive and abusive with women, perhaps even attempting rape, must also be confronted. In an
era where patriarchy and mistreatment of women are being challenged, Kavanaugh is the wrong
nominee for this important time. However, sexual assault should not be a distraction that keeps
the public's focus off other issues raised by his career as a conservative political
activist.
The Security State, Mass Spying and Torture
A central issue of our era is the US security state -- mass spying on emails, Internet
activity, texts and phone calls. Judge Kavanough
enabled invasive spying on everyone in the United States . He described mass surveillance
as "entirely consistent" with the US Constitution. This manipulation of the law turns the
Constitution upside down a it clearly requires probable cause and a search warrant for the
government to conduct searches.
Kavanaugh
explained in a decision, "national security . . . outweighs the impact on privacy
occasioned by this [NSA] program." This low regard for protecting individual privacy should
have been enough for a majority of the Senate to say this nominee is inappropriate for the
court.
Kavanaugh ruled multiple times that police have the
power to search people, emphasizing "reasonableness" as the standard for searching people.
He ruled broadly for the police in searches conducted on the street without a warrant and for
broader use of drug testing of federal employees. Kavanaugh applauded Justice Rehnquist's views
on the Fourth Amendment, which favored police searches by defining probable cause in a flexible
way and creating a broad exception for when the government has "special needs" to search
without a warrant or probable cause. In this era of police abuse through stop and frisk, jump
out squads and searches when driving (or walking or running) while black, Kavanaugh is the
wrong nominee and should be disqualified.
Kavanaugh also played a role in the Bush torture policy. Torture is against US
and international law , certainly facilitating torture should be disqualifying not only as
a justice but
should result in disbarment as a lawyer . Kavanaugh was appointed by President Trump, who
once vowed he would "bring back waterboarding and a hell of a lot worse than
waterboarding." Minimizing torture is demonstrated in his rulings, e.g. not protecting
prisoners at risk of torture and not allowing people to sue the government on allegations of
torture.
Torture is a landmine in the Senate, so
Kavanaugh misled the Senate likely committing perjury on torture . In his 2006
confirmation, he said he was "not involved" in "questions about the rules governing detention
of combatants." Tens of thousands of documents have been kept secret by the White House about
Kavanaugh from the Bush era. Even so, during these confirmation hearings documents related to
the nomination of a lawyer involved in the torture program showed
Kavanaugh's role in torture policies leading Senator Dick Durbin to write : "It is clear
now that not only did Judge Kavanaugh mislead me when it came to his involvement in the Bush
Administration's detention and interrogation policies, but also regarding his role in the
controversial Haynes nomination."
Durbin spoke more broadly about perjury writing: "This is a theme that we see emerge with
Judge Kavanaugh time and time again – he says one thing under oath, and then the
documents tell a different story. It is no wonder the White House and Senate Republicans are
rushing through this nomination and hiding much of Judge Kavanaugh's record -- the questions
about this nominee's credibility are growing every day." The long list of
perjury allegations should be investigated and if proven should result in him not being
confirmed.
This should have been enough to stop the process until documents were released to reveal
Kavanaugh's role as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and
as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006. Unfortunately, Democrats have been
complicit in allowing torture as well, e.g. the Obama administration never prosecuted anyone
accused of torture and advanced the careers of people involved in torture.
Shouldn't the risk of having a torture facilitator on the Supreme Court be enough to stop
this nomination?
Corporate Power vs Protecting People and the Planet
In this era of corporate power, Kavanaugh sides with the corporations. Ralph Nader
describes him as a corporation masquerading as a judge . He narrowly limited the powers of
federal agencies to curtail corporate power and to protect the interests of the people and
planet.
This is evident in cases where Kavanaugh has favored
reducing restrictions on polluting corporations. He dissented in cases where the majority ruled
in favor of environmental protection but has never dissented where the majority ruled against
protecting the environment. He ruled against agencies seeking to protect clean air and water.
If Kavanaugh is on the court, it will be much harder to hold corporations responsible for the
damage they have done to the climate, the environment or health.
Kavanaugh takes the side of businesses over their workers with a consistent history of
anti-union and anti-labor rulings. A few examples of many, he ruledin favor of the Trump Organizatio
n throwing out the results of a union election,
sided with the management of Sheldon Adelson's Venetian Casino Resort upholding the
casino's First Amendment
right to summon police against workers engaged in a peaceful demonstration -- for which
they had a permit, affirmed the Department of Defense's discretion to negate
the collective bargaining rights of employees, and overturned an NLRB ruling that allowed
Verizon workers to display pro-union signs on company property despite having given up the
right to picket in their collective bargaining agreement. In this time of labor unrest and
mistreatment of workers, Kavanaugh will be a detriment to workers rights.
Kavanough
opposed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruling in favor of net neutrality,
which forbids telecom companies from discrimination on the Internet. He argued net neutrality
violated the First Amendment rights of Internet Service Providers (ISP) and was beyond the
power granted to the FCC. He put the rights of big corporations ahead of the people having a
free and open Internet. The idea that an ISP has a right to control what it allows on the
Internet could give corporations great control over what people see on the Internet. It is a
very dangerous line of reasoning in this era of corporations curtailing news that challenges
the mainstream narrative.
Kavanaugh will be friendly to powerful business and the interests of the wealthy on the
Supreme Court, and will tend to stand in the way of efforts by administrative agencies to
regulate them and by people seeking greater rights.
On the third day of his confirmation hearings, Judge Brett Kavanaugh seemed to refer to the
use of contraception as "abortion-inducing drugs ." It was a discussion of a case where
Kavanaugh dissented from the majority involving the Priests for Life's challenge to the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). Kavanaugh opposed the requirement that all health plans cover birth
control, claiming that IUDs and emergency contraception were an infringement of their free
exercise of religion.
Kavanaugh clerked for Judge Kosinski who he describes as a mentor. Kosinski was forced to
resign after being accused of harassing at least 12 women in the sanctity of his judicial
chambers. Kavanaugh swears he never saw any signs that the judge was sexually harassing
women, but the Democrats did not ask a single question about it.
Multiple accusers
have come forward to allege Kavanaugh's involvement in sexual assault and abuse. While Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford is viewed as credible – she was the only witness allowed to testify
– it is not clear these allegations will be thoroughly reviewed. After being approved by
the committee, the Republican leadership and President Trump agreed on a limited FBI
investigation. It is unclear
whether the FBI will be allowed to follow all the evidence and question all the witnesses.
As we write this newsletter, the outcome has yet to unfold but Jeffrey St.
Clair at Countpunch points out, "the FBI investigation will be overseen by director
Christopher Wray, who was two years behind Brett-boy at both Yale and Yale Law. After
graduation, they entered the same rightwing political orbit and both took jobs in the Bush
Administration. How do you think it's going to turn out?"
Why don't Democrats, as Ralph Nader
suggests , hold their own hearing and question all the witnesses? If there is corroborating
evidence for the accusers, Kavanaugh should not be approved.
During his confirmation process, in response to the accusations of assault, he claimed they
were "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" and "revenge on behalf of the Clinton's." He
demonstrated partisan anger and displayed a lack of judicial temperament, making him unfit to
serve on the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh exposes the true partisan nature of the highest court, which is not a neutral
arbiter but another battleground for partisan politics. The lack of debate on issues of spying,
torture and more shows both parties support a court that protects the security state and
corporate interests over people and planet. Accusations of sexual assault must be confronted,
but there are many reasons Kavanaugh should not be on the court. The confirmation process
undermines the court's legitimacy and highlights bi-partisan corruption.
The potential payoff is exaggerated. There's nothing stopping a lame-duck Senate ramming
an equally-conservative alternative justice through before they're gone. The SCOTUS payoff is
for seating someone like Kav , not for seating Kav. The payoff for seating Kav is
far narrower. And the seating of a Kav-or-equivalent justice ahead of the election is
an entirely and unevaluated different matter
What are the odds? No, the question should be: what are the ends?
cian 09.26.18 at 7:41 pm (no link)
More on Anita Hill:
"But conservative members of the State Legislature, led by Representative Leonard E.
Sullivan, a Republican from Oklahoma City, have called Professor Hill a perjurer, said she
should be in prison, demanded her resignation, tried to cut off matching money for the
professorship and introduced legislation to shut down the law school."
Post-Thomas, nobody made any claims of sexual misconduct, true or false, against Stephen
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Harriet Meyers, Sonia Sotomayor, or
Elena Kagan (though there were some whispers about matters that, in decent circles, don't
count as "misconduct"). Let's add in perhaps the only people who have a higher profile than
Supreme Court nominees: No one made any claims of sexual misconduct against Al Gore, George
H.W. Bush, whoever-the-hell was his VP candidate, Bob Dole, whoever-the-hell was his VP
candidate, Joe Lieberman, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom
Kaine, or Mike Pence. There were claims of sexual misconduct against Bill Clinton, John
Edwards, and Donald trump, but they were true. It just doesn't look s if claims of sexual
misconduct, true or false, are that likely.
@Rational It seems to me that the FBI investigation should include an investigation of
who leaked the Ford information, over her stated objections.
On the other hand, the Dems were VERY interested in having the FBI do a further
investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, the same FBI that got a FISA warrant to "wiretap" Trump
under false pretenses. Can we really be sure that there aren't arrangements already in place
to frame Kavanaugh?
Former CIA Director John Brennan assures us that Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh's accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is "a national treasure."
national treasure
Is CLEARLY a code word.
Payoff? Bribe?
silverserfer , 22 minutes ago
Creepy as **** that a former CIA diector would say soemthing like this.
surf@jm , 18 minutes ago
Fords father was CIA....
Dont forget that.....
thebigunit , 42 minutes ago
Very curious.
So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford's terrors or was documenting
her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances?
What I find MOST curious is the fact that Dr. Ford's internet persona has been completely
"sanitized".
Someday, the master conspiracy will be revealed, and it will look something like this:
The main plotter and organizer of the anti-Trump coup d'etat was former CIA director
John O. Brennan.
Venture capital funding for Google was provided by CIA venture capital operation
In-Q-Tel.
Google was started by Stanford University grad students Larry Page and Sergey
Brin.
Stanford University is located in Palo Alto, California
Palo Alto is a company town for Stanford University
Stanford University is a captive technology incubator for the CIA
One of the biggest technology companies in Palo Alto is CIA contractor Palantir
Palo Alto is a company town for the CIA.
Dr. Christine Baseley Ford was a professor at Palo Alto University and also taught at
Stanford University.
Overy 1750 Stanford University graduates work at Google.
The CIA developed the plan to take out Judge Kavanaugh using radical feminist
operatives associated with Stanford University and Stanford Law School to claim sexual
misconduct.
The CIA used its control of the technology industry and Google in particular to
sanitize Christine Ford's internet personna and to obscure or suppress any information that
might disclose her radical history and associations.
The CIA, Stanford, and Google are joined at the hip.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
Deschutes says:
September 29, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT 400 Words John Derbyshire – another shitty,
adolescent article from the angry white conservative man child who blames everybody whose not
white and male for his own failings and problems. The way you portray women in this article
reveals a man child who never matured beyond 16 years of age. It is little wonder you portray
women as nothing more than angry children's book characters who vomit if they don't get their
way: a man child can't see it any other way. Not once in this diatribe do you mention abortion
rights. It never occurred to you that losing abortion rights might piss off some women. If
Kavanaugh is put on the court, abortion will be made illegal in USA. Debryshire, you remind me
Jeff Sessions: you're a couple of bookends from the 1940s. Same racist mind set, same 'war on
drugs' reactionary bullshit, same 'women belong in the kitchen' nonsense etc. What's more,
anybody who actually likes Lindsey Graham is a total complete asshole. There is nothing to like
in that self-righteous reactionary, war criminal piece of shit from the Old South. If you've
enjoyed the last 17 years of wars without end and the wretched 'war on terror' and all that has
come to pass since 9-11, then Lindsey Graham is your man. Like McCain, he never saw a war he
didn't love starting. And watching Graham's temper tantrum meltdown in the congressional
hearings the other day made for rather uncomfortable viewing, like watching a 5 year old in a
toy store who didn't get his GI Joe doll. Since when is losing your temper, foaming at the
mouth and screaming at the entire caucus because you are not getting your way acceptable
behavior? It isn't. But it is a sure sign of a person who is a total, complete egotistical
asshole. I always hated Scalia, and was really happy when he died. That Obama and the dems were
too spineless to stick a replacement on the bench when they had the chance only reinforced my
total lack of respect for the dems. The tragedy in waiting was that now we will have a
reactionary conservative majority scotus headed by Kavanaugh, and abortion will be made
illegal; more laws passed to favor giant corporations like Citizens United; more anti-worker
legislation passed; more war and more police state measures domestically: that's your
Trump/Kavanaugh/Lindsay Graham/John Derbyshire shit stain USA coming yer way!
@Deschutes Ah, ah, the main issue here is not where Kavanaugh will stand on abortion laws
but whether the campaign of slander against him could have any possible truth.
The way I see it, a woman over 50 years old goes on the stand, tries to put on the
helpless cute little girl act complete with a six-year old's lisp, and pretends to have
traumatic memories of something she claims happened over 35 years ago. Well, where on earth
was she all these years? She ended up with a Ph.D. in psychology so she could not have been
ignorant of laws and remedies surrounding rape and attempted rape through her years in
university. Where was her "great courage" all these years? A tad too much of a coincidence
this, her finding her memories and courage right on the eve of Kavanaugh's proposed
appointment. Kavanaugh may or may not be a good choice for the Supreme Court; opinions can
differ legitimately. But putting him on a show-trial where he comes out looking unclean no
matter what is a travesty of natural justice and a grave injury to common decency and common
sense.
@anon I know all of this woman-howling is covering up his role in the Vince Foster
'suicide' making him a George HW Bush CIA (Iran-Contra, cocaine trafficking) lap-dog. Oh, and
he ruled the USA can kidnap American citizens abroad and hold them at black sites
Kavanaugh hearings are just another episode of bad political theater.
Like professional wrestlers, Republicans pretend to fight-but a Flake or someone like him,
always appears in the nick of time, to save the day for the left.
I find the charge that Kavanaugh was acting like a spoiled baby because he defended himself
outrageously shabby and undeserved.
So, trying to defend himself against the utter devastation of his character and reputation
is considered petulant? Absolutely not! He defiantly denied the allegations most indignantly
after Democrats made him and his family their outhouse floormat on which they continuously
wiped their feet. Instead of trying to defend his honor, his family, and his life, I guess he
was supposed to take it with groveling submission and withdraw his name in humiliation? To
the chagrin of the left he did not. He called Democrats out for what is patently obvious to
anyone with a thinking brain, this was a carefully orchestrated political hit job and he was
spot on in leveling the indictment.
As for Dr. Ford? I found her not credible. Her allegations were just plausible enough to
smear Kavanaugh, but Kafkaesque enough to deny the possibility of any exculpatory evidence to
clear Kavanaugh. Wouldn't it be nice if we could question the driver who took her home? They
could testify as to her state of mind, the location of the house, possibly the time, and
date. Or did she walk? She left without warning her best friend she could be in danger? Did
her sudden exit raise eyebrows? She remembers how many beers she had but not the house she
was drinking in? Was there not a down stairs bathroom? If you're going to put the mark of
Cain on somebody, you had better have something damn more credible than just a free-floating
assault story, because the bare allegation itself is not proof of truth no matter how
believable she tells it after thirty years.
And there are other troubling inconsistencies. She seemed confused by some of Ms.
Mitchell's questions. She could not arrive in Washington earlier in the week because she said
she had a fear of flying, but she flew to Washington and flies all the time. It's clear that
she was being heavily managed by her liberal handlers. She wasn't even told that Grassley had
proffered to come to her in California to take her statement. Of course, this would have
upset the objective to delay as long as possible. Her own witnesses cannot corroborate her
story. We can't check the veracity of her questionable lie detector test because her lawyers
won't cooperate in turning over any recordings. She supposedly turned over her medical
records to the WP, but refused to make them available to the Judiciary Committee. Just out of
curiosity, what PhD doesn't know the meaning of "exculpatory?" What PhD doesn't know how to
get in touch with her elected representatives? Meanwhile her social media accounts have been
scrubbed So we can't see the true extent of her political activism. A proper FBI
investigation of these allegations could have been done in due time had not Feinstein been up
to her skullduggery.
Now that they have their one week FBI investigation, look for the goalposts to move yet
again. Only an anencephalic would be fooled into thinking Democrats are operating in good
faith.
As someone (male) who has helped victims of sexual crimes, I did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's
accusation to be credible, nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation
will never reach the level of a charge because it lacks basic evidence. Further, the
accusator's tale remains just that without a proper interrogation. For instance, it is
improper to assume that Ms. Blasey Ford's demeanor is evidence of her "truth". Sure, she may
be convincing to a naive person, but how often have we been convinced by a sincere victim,
only to find out later that the accused was innocent?
The facts are:
At best Ms. Blasey Ford is a willing stooge, at worst she is a co-conspirator in a
political scheme to destroy the nomination of an innocent man to be a SC Justice. It is she
and her Dem. allies who need to be investigated.
All this could have been avoided if they had gotten the FBI to investigate from day 1. The
investigatin should be conducted by professionals not by amateur cops and lawyers who learned
it from TV. That would keep the theorizing at bay "We are waiting for their findings" is the
kind of response that does not raise hackles.
It would take a bit more time, of course, but it would not turn into a three ring
circus.
The greatest irony is that all those indignant Democratic Senators voted to return alleged
serial rapist and sexual predator, Billy Jeff Clinton, and his enabling wife, Hillary, to the
White House.
Like commenter Randy S Williams I "did not find Ms. Blasey Ford's accusation to be credible,
nor did I find her testimony to be persuasive. This allegation will never reach the level of
a charge because it lacks basic evidence."
Victor Davis Hanson (National Review, Sept 28) gives this succinct summary of the Ford
testimony: "The "process" of memorializing Ford's testimony involved a strange inversion of
constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate
testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity;
the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated
to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered
proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant;
the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state's investigation of the allegations; and
the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar
allegations."
The endless sympathy, empathy, claims of "sincerity", given to Dr. Ford are mystifying to me.
What, if anything, ever happened to her I don't know, but the possibility that NOTHING of
this nature, a sexual assault, has ever happened to her is certainly not one I can rule out,
and, as a adult woman, a citizen in this republic, that she should be showered with so many
calls of "respect", and hosannas to her "bravery" is bizarre and inexplicable. She has
PERMANENTLY damaged, irrevocably, the reputation, up to now a sterling one, of a sitting
United States federal judge with this reckless allegation of criminality of the most serious
sort. She has no sympathy from me whatsoever, no matter what her motives were, which I care
not at this point after watching such a sickening display of politically-motivated character
assassination in America.
Sure, concentrate entirely on the Democrats. Republicans are the soul of honor in this. They
know that former drunken frat boys have to stick together.
Here and there, but certainly not here at TAC, one can find posts which actually state
what is wrong with both sides in this typically American bipartisan idiocy. Here is one
--
Personally, I don't care a hoot who Americans appoint to their Supreme Court but the
political game is amusing to watch. Clearly, the target is Trump and the prize is the
midterms but what's amusing is that the Republicans have left themselves no choice but to
shoot themselves in the foot. The only choice being which foot they're going to shoot
themselves in! If they confirm Kavanaugh, they will alienate middle-of-road swing voters. If
they fail to confirm him, they will alienate Trump's core supporters. The latter aren't all
that numerous. Trump got only about 25% of the registered electorate in 2016 and part of that
will have been Republican loyalists. The loss of either of those groups could swing the
election. Trump needs a massive "October surprise" to overcome that and another "I'll
denuclearize when you do" meeting with Kim Jong-un will hardly surprise anyone. A war,
perhaps?
It is hard to believe that the shy, shrinking violet, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, could stand
before students at Stanford and Palo Alto and teach them. She came off as a case of arrested
development, hiding behind oversized glasses, like a 6th grade girl, so demure, timid, and
afraid of flying. Give me a break! She deserves an academy award for that performance!
For the Republicans and Trump to buy into her little act makes me gag.
@33 Jerry Springer and politics, true, and I'm glad we're finally getting to the nub of your
pieces: politics – and the mid-terms?
Meanwhile, I did a little more background reading on the latest round of accusations.
Witness number 2 confirms that BK was an obnoxious drunk at Yale, and very much a "man's man"
in the infantile sense of the expression. From CNN
"James Roche, Kavanaugh's roommate in the Fall 1983, also issued a statement saying that
Kavanaugh was a "notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time."
"(H)e became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk," Roche said.
One classmate who attended many of the same parties as Brett Kavanaugh but did not want to
be identified, says he was "aggressive, obnoxious drunk, part of the crowd he hung out
with."
Roche added that he became close friends with Ramirez in the early days at Yale and while
he "did not observe the specific incident in question," he did remember "Brett frequently
drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."
BK whipped out his male parts on at least one occasion, seems hopelessly immature, and
could be grabby and inappropriate. First time I've heard of that kind of behavior, ahem.
My own narrow experiences in this community as a youth were limited to middle-school
athletics. Members of the rugby team liked to pull down their pants when drunk. Even at
sixteen I could see that kind of behavior wasn't going to lead me to the promised land. That
said, after migrating into a much more mixed community, I distinctly recall being dragged
into a totally dark bedroom at a party and thrown down onto a bed in a manner quite different
to Ms. Ford. Lines blurred. I've known a number of women who owned to intimate contact with
two or more partners in an evening in high school and after, and who are now successful
parents and hold good jobs. People do grow and change.
Yet, it's clear BK and I would never have been at the same parties, but I'm not sure I've
read anything that makes him a sexual predator, (a charge you withdrew), or guilty of rape.
He seems guilty of nothing more than being an asshole to both girls and boys as a high-school
student, and an entitled and ugly drunk at Yale.
Rob
Holston Rachel Mitchell failed to cross examine properly.
Dr Ford gave credible testimony in her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and was seemingly
made more credible by an almost non-existent cross examination by Rachel Mitchell. Mitchell had
many failures but I'll just mention a couple. Dr. Ford testified that her life was so disrupted
after the alleged "attack" on her that she had a very difficult time with her first two years
of college. Here is where Mitchell dropped the ball. She had no idea of where the ball was, how
to pick it up or which direction to run with it.
Her immediate line of question should have been:
What grades did you earn in math, science, english, history during your freshman year in
high school. What was your freshman GPA. Could you please tell me the same answers for your
sophomore year? Your junior year? Your senior year? If the attack happened as you allege,
wouldn't your GPA in high school take a drop during your junior and senior year?
Of course I would recommend that Mitchell would know the answers before asking the
questions. The point is IF the attack happened as alleged between Ford's sophomore and junior
year then one would expect a dramatic change in her academic and social life during her junior
and senior years, NOT 3 & 4 years after the alleged attack. And IF Ford's GPA and social
life in high school DID make a dramatic change after the next two years, Ford should be able to
present teachers and high school classmates to testify as as to Ford's dramatic change IN HIGH
SCHOOL not 3-4 years latter in college.
Another line of questioning should have been questioning Ford's drinking habits: When did
you begin attending parties with boys and drinking beer. Did you ever drink to excess? Did YOU
ever drink so much that YOU didn't remember much about the previous night's party? Did your
drinking habits increase through the years? What years of your life has your drinking of beer
been the greatest. Were your drinking habits perhaps responsible for your failure at college
during your first two years?
I am NOT saying that Dr. Ford's testimony was NOT credible. It was in ways incredible, in
the positive meaning of the word. But I AM saying that Mitchell was obviously not the right
choice for the job of cross examination. Paul Dent I actually think Mitchell's questioning
was on the right track. She did not ask questions on the practiced lie, but rather on
peripheral details that the lying brain would not have stored in the hypothalamus. All of the
answers "I don't know" etc are proof that the main story is a big lie because it has no anchor
to surrounding realities. I would have loved to have asked how she dried her bathing suit after
swimimig
KCMark
Leader
2d
Mitchell's questioning was actually very good. She attacked Ford's credibility without
attacking her personally. Examples:
Ford alluded to a fear of flying caused by the alleged incident (PTSD), yet Mitchell
highlights how Ford has flown professionally any numerous times on vacation.
Mitchell demonstrated Ford's lack of recall when Ford could not remember if she
provided her therapist notes to the Washington Post.
Ford could not provide specifics in the polygraph test, and even had trouble recalling
the actual day.
Say It Ain't So
Johnny
Leader
Randall Dornier
2d
All this NEVER should have happened
It should have been dealt with weeks ago in private
This is a circus
And the democrat clown car was in full display
These are evil despicable clowns
Chuck Schumer, Feinstein, Durbin, Gillibrand ...... -evil, disgusting, skivey, rotten, despicable, CLOWNS!
RichardC
Leader
2d
Dershowitz has his strong opinions, and both the knowledge and experience to back them up.
That doesn't make him right in all cases, though. Would it have been better to push harder
and give Ford yet more sympathy? Would a different line of questioning have gotten her to be
more open? We will never know. All we really know now is that it is still an accusation
without supporting evidence.
Reply
Share
9
Likes
Say It Ain't So
Johnny
Leader
RichardC
2d
Calling for more investigation is nonsense
Tell you what though
The republicans better hire a private investigator to find out EVERYTHING about this accuser so that when the clown
democrats continue there are FACTS about what she has been doing for 30 years
Reply
Share
5
Likes
Wisconsin ex-Democrat
Leader
RichardC
2d
Agree that it was theater. But even if it was not, what 51 y.o. professional woman affects
a childish and sex-kittenish façade for any reason besides parody? And clearly, she was
not trying to present a parody of victimhood in this venue.
Then there is her appearance. A prudent, moderate lifestyle won't make you look ten years older than your chronological age,
no matter who your parents were.
Steve Scale
Leader
2d
But you are not allowed to question women. They are to be believed above all logic and
reason. Sic.
Reply
Share
8
Likes
Rumpelstilskin
Leader
2d
Edited
I thought Rachel Mitchell was effective in interviewing Ms. Blasey Ford. I'm not a lawyer,
but she was easy for me to follow, and she didn't offend anybody, and she stayed focused. I
felt like she disarmed Ms. Blasey Ford. I thought she got a lot more information out of her,
(in the time available) than the Republican Senators would have. (We saw how ineffective the
Democratic Senators were).
I felt sorry for Ms. Blasey Ford, she was a total mess.
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time,
not decades later. Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later,
but because real sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
If Blasey Ford was really attacked, she's in part responsible for the next attack,
having enabled it by her silence.
Not that, after the hearing, I believe she was really attacked.
Do you think the leadership of the Democrat Party care any more for women than Trump?
The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding
the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement
in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have
been sealed. Why?
Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.
The flimsy, salacious allegations that they have put forward masks real issues surrounding
the Kavanaugh nomination such as his support for the imperial presidency and his involvement
in the Bush Administration's rendition and torture program. Most of his Bush-era records have
been sealed. Why?
Democrats are complicit. And undermining MeToo is a bonus for them.
This of course is the way the whole "elite" in the Democratic Party is behaving towards
Russia in the accusations of interference in the 2016 election. The dozens of "sanctions" to
punish Russia for its alleged transgression are based on no real evidence. It is even more so
in the completely fabricated story of the Skripal poisonings in the UK, where no evidence has
been presented which would have any chance of standing up in a court, and the punishments
have been inflicted in droves on the "guilty party" which "everyone knows" is at fault.
Innocent until proven guilty????not in the 21st century, it seems.
backwardsevolution , September 26, 2018 at 11:26 pm
I don't even know what to say. Do we no longer believe in the presumption of
innocence?
"When political animus spills over into action in the real world such as repeated criminal
assault, as has been happening now with regularity and is being increasingly documented in
video form and in their own voices by the political left, there is a major problem.
When that sort of activity is intentionally amplified and permitted by major corporate
firms such as Facebook and Twitter while suppressing any sort of pushback whatsoever, you now
add an attempt to con the public into believing this is some sort of 'organic' series of
events -- when nothing of the sort is the case.
When Chuck Schumer states on CSPAN that "There is no presumption of innocence", then the
Rule of Law and due process are both dead and he is inviting, provoking and in fact inciting
civil war.
The conduct alleged is criminal; whenever one makes such an allegation due process rights
attach. If one cannot find recourse in due process before the law, then the only remaining
recourse is to the law of the jungle.
There are also those (Hirono) who have gone even further and stated that Kavanaugh is
presumed guilty because she does not like his written judicial opinions. This is exactly
identical to the Salem witch trials where one was presumed a witch because they had a black
cat and were unmarried, which certain people found 'distasteful'.
The media, specifically but not exclusively CNN, is even worse -- they are intentionally
lying and when the civil war they are inciting comes they are and should be first on the list
of parties held responsible for the outcome.
As just one example, in the context of Ramirez they have intentionally lied about the fact
that her attorneys have ignored and deflected seven separate attempts to obtain some sort of
formal statement of facts and allegations made under penalty of perjury; instead her
attorneys continue to insist on a trial in the media where there is no penalty for outright
lies. Why is this?"
What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?
Ford is a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California. A
biostatistician, she "specializes in the design and analysis of clinical trials and other forms
of intervention evaluation,"
according to the university .
Her work has also been published in several academic journals, covering topics such as 9/11
and child abuse.
Ford has also taught and worked at Stanford University since 1988, according to a
Holton-Arms' alumni magazine, the Bethesda, Maryland, school from where she graduated,
The Wall Street Journal reported . She teaches at both schools in consortium, according to
the newspaper.
The magazine also noted she is an "avid surfer, and she and her family spend a great deal of
time surfing in the Santa Cruz and San Francisco areas."
Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged
assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. During therapy, he said his wife talked
about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned
her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.
He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh's name. She said during the
session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme
Court.
Ford provided a copy of the therapist's notes to The Washington Post, which detailed her
recollection of being assaulted by young men "from an elitist boys' school" who would become
"highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."
Additional notes from a later therapy session said she discussed a "rape attempt" that
occurred when she was a teenager, The Washington Post reported. Ford is a registered Democrat
who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington
Post.
She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive
candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Once it was clear that Kavanaugh was President Trump's pick to replace retired
Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Ford contacted The Washington Post's tip
line, according to the newspaper.
She also contacted her representative in Congress, Democrat Anna Eshoo. She sent a letter to
Eshoo's office about the allegations that was passed onto Feinstein.
After she retained the services of Debra Katz, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, she
took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. According to the results shared
with The Washington Post, the test concluded that Ford was being honest.
(1) Kavanaugh is telling the truth and Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are lying.
(2) Blasey-Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick are telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying.
Of course with four witnesses testifying there are many other possibilities, but I don't
think anyone here (me included) has patience for more than two hypotheticals.
Which of (1) or (2) one believes is largely subjective, the outcome of a life's worth of
cognitive experience. Myself, based on the balance of probabilities, Occam's Razor,
yesterday's testimony, and my personal political biases, I go with (2). Many others here go
with (1); I don't have a problem with that, individuals' beliefs cannot be adjudicated.
I think the problem is the people in general and the political sphere in particular have
never come to terms with unresolvable doubt. We may never know "beyond a reasonable doubt"
which of (1) or (2) is closer to the truth, and yet we must make a decision soon on whether
Kavanaugh should be appointed to the SC.
But it is not necessary for those who believe (x) to demonize those who believe (y).
Frank , September 28, 2018 at 3:22 pm
Andrew,
I agree with you about the need to stop demonizing friends and neighbors because they
disagree with us. I don't agree with your other point. There is actually quite a bit of
evidence out there already. Trained investigators face the problem of older evidence all the
time. Although the FBI does not have a good record with regards to objective and depolitized
work, I do think it is possible for them to reach a conclusion about who is telling the truth
here. Whether they will do an honest investigation is an open question for me, but they could
do one and we would have a well reasoned conclusion.
Realist , September 29, 2018 at 4:30 am
So, you say there are basically two possibilities with no way to objectively decide
between them.
What consequences should therefore follow from such uncertainty?
1. Destroy the man's career and reputation because???? Or
2. Ignore this undecidable issue with respect to his qualifications and appointment?
Now, which makes more sense and is closer to an approximation of justice?
Punish a potentially innocent man for??? Or
As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one
innocent be punished?
Miranda M Keefe , September 29, 2018 at 6:38 am
"As Jefferson (or Sir William Blackstone) said, better 10 guilty men go free than one
innocent be punished?"
Uh, if he is not confirmed to SCOTUS he will go free. This is a job interview, not a
criminal trial.
Realist , September 29, 2018 at 9:49 am
Really, it's more than that. It's an attempted character assassination to achieve a
political goal. Don't pretend otherwise. Moreover, it's still a form of punishment to have
his reputation ruined even if he is confirmed.
Kim , September 29, 2018 at 10:30 am
What your equation ignores here is the harm to others that would ensue were the guilty man
to be free to impose his warped views on the nation's justice system.
Andrew Dabrowski , September 29, 2018 at 11:26 am
There are multiple evidentiary standards used in different contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
In the US, criminal cases use that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil cases the
standard is preponderance of evidence. That was why OJ Simpson could be held liable in the
civil case after having been acquitted in the criminal one.
Confirmation hearings seem much more akin to a civil case than to a criminal one; in fact
even less is at stake here than at many civil trials, where multi-million dollar penalties
are often sought. So I believe the correct standard should be preponderance of evidence, if
not an even weaker one.
You are so soaked in Rachel Maddow type kool-aide it is probably pointless to post this
for you but I will for others to read.
It is astounding to try to tie Russia and Putin as behind every perceived wrong in the world
,they ARE two separate things ya' know as in Trump is not America. However he does represent
it but with mask off, no charming words unlike Obama who spoke so well while bringing about
the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Libya or funding terrorists in an attempt at
another regime change so the U, UK and France can't loot the resources.
i guess you missed this "On Tuesday of this week, in a story that's almost impossible to
find anywhere, Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, agreed to cave in to Republican majority
leader Mitch McConnell so that they could fast-track 11 of the pro-corporate, anti-consumer
judges that Republicans are wanting to ram through the courts, or through the nomination
confirmation process, before the midterm elections. This is why people get mad at the DNC,
and the establishment Democrats, and at the Democratic Party itself in general. There was no
reason whatsoever for the Democrats to cave on this issue, none." https://trofire.com/2018/08/31/democrats-cave-agree-to-fast-track-trumps-corporate-judges/
I agree with your statement that "[the FBI] will try to figure out what will best serve
their interests. I believe in Michael Avenatti, however, and that he and his client will
prove to be Kavanaugh's undoing.
backwardsevolution , September 28, 2018 at 5:11 pm
Diana – Ms. Ford WAS NOT RAPED. She was GROPED.
If the incident occurred at all, could it have been done in jest? Ms. Ford, by her own
admission, said that the two guys who did this were maniacally laughing and very
intoxicated.
The groping probably lasted for all of about one second before the other boy jumped on top
of them, and they all fell off onto the floor, laughing. There appears to have been no
"seriousness" involved here.
Ms. Ford was not challenged at the hearing. In fact, Ms. Mitchell, the prosecutor brought
in specially to question her at the hearing, specifically said that she would not be asking
her about the allegations at all, and she didn't. What? She should have been strenuously
challenged.
The only things Ms. Mitchell brought out were:
– she established a potential political bias
– she established that even though the hearing was held up from Monday until
Thursday because Ms. Ford stated she was afraid to fly and needed more time to get to the
hearing, this turned out to be a lie. Ms. Ford DID fly.
Ms. Ford was not challenged. I say bring her back and put her under some serious
cross-examination.
"If he is rejected -- although his confirmation seems to be a substantial likelihood at this
point -- my only disappointment will be that Democrats think they won."
Illya's post on job interview vs. criminal standard is good
I respectfully disagree. Illya's post is naïve because the key problem with
this nomination is that it tips the scale in the Supreme Court. That's why we see torture
supporting female senator assaulting torture supporting nominee and rebuffed by the best friend
of Senator John McCain.
But I agree that the discussion is good and illustrate various point that are missing from
this thread, especially the fact that this creates a new standard that Dems will now face, if
they have a chance to nominate a new member of Supreme Court. They might regret about
elimination of filibuster. Now it is about vicious attacks in the personally of the nominee
with no stone unturned in his/her personal history.
I will provide some interesting quotes below. Not that I agree with them all (I would like
Kavanaugh to be derailed due to his participation in justifying torture in Bush II
administration)
No, but this isn't a job interview. A better analogy would be more like a TV interview. If
the interviewer is reasonably fair and asks sensible questions, it would be foolish to get
angry with him / her. But if the interviewer is obviously biased, asks loaded questions,
constantly interrupts your answers, and paraphrases your answers into the opposite of what
you said, then rather than sit and take it meekly, it may be more sensible to push back and
call the interviewer out.
Senators and Congesscritturs in committees have been allowed to get away with the pretense
that they are owed deference for their showboating and that people up before them must meekly
submit to the most egregious abuse. A nominee who tells them where to get off, in no
uncertain terms, is very welcome.
Miguel Estrada's comment that he would never accept a nomination because it might require
him to be civil to Chuck Schumer is one way out. The other is to accept the nomination and
forget about being civil to people like Schumer.
The discussion also raised the importance of the fact that the supposed assault
was reported so late and that there is a possibility that 2012 therapist session served as a
justification of creating a separate entrance to the master bedroom in order to rent it to Dr.
Ford students, the hypothesis that is now circulating at alt-right sites:
We want actual assaults reported, but we want them reported at the time, not decades later.
Not just because they can't effectively be investigated decades later, but because real
sexual predators don't stop at one victim.
Another interesting point is that the potential benefits for Dr. Ford create a
perverse incentive in the future to come forward with false accusations with the expectation of
a huge monetary reward from "Me too" funding sources :
"I'm becoming convinced the only thing that will actually deter such unsupported accusations,
is to abolish the "public figure" rule for libel. Blasey Ford is already better than a half
million dollars richer having made this accusation, and faces a future of lucrative speaking
fees and possibly even a movie. And having carefully avoided any claims specific enough to be
proven false, she has no need to fear perjury charges."
"As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether
the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the
Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will
ask that of Christine Blasey Ford "
That's right: "No one will ask that of Christine Blasey Ford."
But why will no one ask that of her?
She knew that her accusation had the potential -- no, the certainty -- of tainting forever
the good name and the good reputation of another human being. But she was still willing to go
forward with her accusation.
And that's all there was, and all there is: Her accusation. To this day there is no
corroborating evidence. None. As Peter Van Buren lays it out:
"Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been
refuted by everyone she said was present at the party Ford admitted not remembering specifics
that could have formed the basis of exculpation, including how she got home from the party,
that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's condition and thus support or weaken her
story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged assault, Ford did not allow for
Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact couldn't say where they both
were supposed to be to begin with, apart from 'a suburban Maryland house'."
Again, there is only her accusation. There is no corroborating evidence at all.
Regardless of whether Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the US Supreme Court, Ms. Ford's
accusation has tainted Judge Kavanaugh's good name and his reputation -- forever.
How does Ms. Ford get away with making an entirely unsubstantiated accusation that forever
taints a man's good name and his good reputation – yet not herself have to answer the
accusation that she is lying? Because the accusation that should be made -- that Ms. Ford is
lying -- is well-substantiated.
I believe, in this country, when an accusation is made we follow the evidence. Sometimes the
crime cannot be proven. Yesterday's hearing showed two troubling facts that no one seems to
think much of but I believe they lend credence to the Democrats making this a political hit
jobrather than trying to get at the truth. Mrs. Ford said at the end she wished she could
have done this in California as she would have welcomed the committee. Well, Chairman
Grassley offered her attorneys' that option for her. Her attorneys also said they couldn't
make the Monday hearing because Mrs. Ford was afraid to fly and would have to drive to
Washington. Another lie as she flies often. So who were the attorneys really representing,
Mrs. Ford or the Democrat party?
A DC Wonk said: "There might be corroborating evidence. But GOP refused to ask the FBI to
re-open the investigation."
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC, Thurs, Sept 28) to Judge Kavanaugh: Did you meet with Senator
Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?
JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein
GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?
KAVANAUGH: I did not know that.
GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this -- allegations for over 20 days?
KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.
GRAHAM [turning to the Democratic members]: If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could
have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope
you win in 2020. You've said that, not me This is the most unethical sham since I've been in
politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done
what you've done to this guy.
"... There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences. ..."
Identity politics is going to get us all killed or worse.
CitizenOne , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 am
Transactional politics or the nomination or promotion of any entity which supports the
political ambitions of political leaders has become a replacement for deliberative
jurisprudence of the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of government under
the rule of the Republican Party. The entire force of the Republican Party has become
focused on supporting special interests with one goal which is the disestablishment of
government. The Constitution of the United States is despised by the leadership of the
Republican Party and their aim is to make The Constitution null and void like a bad check
bounced by the banks which declare our constitutional democracy is a debtor to be
foreclosed on.
Every effort from shutting down the government to anointing a plenary president with
extra-constitutional powers to end our system of laws and replace them with a president
with plenary or absolute authority hinges on preserving the current president and his
powers to dismantle the government and all of the constitutional law which preceded.
Make no mistake. We face a constitutional crisis where our president backed by
republicans will seek to permanently control the three branches of government for the
benefit of the wealthy and the money interests. The banks and the stock market and the
billionaires in industry, securities and high finance see an opportunity to wrap up control
of the government which is a long sought after goal using the current administration to
close the deal to end all social programs. But that is not their real intent.
Their real intent is to end government abolish the defense budget along with social
spending, collapse the government by abolishing the income tax and establishing themselves
as the rulers of the land by controlling all of the levers of power which they will use for
their personal gain. Does this mean they will diminish our ability to defend the nation?
Yes.
There is nothing but profit for themselves if they are able to do it. How better to
clean up if there is a war in which the economy is collapsed and the nation divided just
like the Great Depression where labor is forced into servitude for the preservation of the
nation and all monies flow to the wealthy defense contractors and the investors as the
entire nation is plunged into a new global war.
This is a very old plan. Render the nation defenseless and filled with ignorant
propagandized paupers and wait for the inevitable external threat to attack. Then the
populace will be willing to rise against the foreign threat and sign up for war to preserve
their "freedom".
Here is a suggestion. Use the power of the vote to get rid of these plutocrats because
they don't give a damn if you live or die and elect some politicians who care about
preserving our nation and its Constitution before it is too late. When the next financial
collapse comes as it will and has done before many times do not fall prey to the propaganda
that it is our Constitution and our system of laws and our system of justice which is to
blame but focus efforts on removing the billionaires who wield too much power in government
and in our supposed free press to be able to spin us all to the "fight for the right" and
have us fight their battles and die for their monetary gain.
Already we have failed and the propaganda is winning. We need to see our current
situation for the ancient monster of unbridled greed in search of power that it is and vote
to protect our democracy and its Constitution founded on the principle that everyone is in
charge of where we go from here.
Where we go from here is up to the populace of this free nation.
Blame republicans all day long and it won't change the fact that democrats are and have
been accomplices to it all and worse.
Obama had the only chance we had to correct it and did what?Let the bush criminal cabal
walk and legalized their crimes.Worse he expanded their crimes and wars and let the
criminal banks keep their loot and continue their crime spree.
And then we get Hillary?Who is worse?
Democrats long ago abandoned any pretense of caring about the country or working people
who they are supposed to represent.They don't even pretend anymore.
"For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two
moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and
Illinois and Wisconsin."
Chuck Schumer
And you wonder why we have Trump?
Republicans control both houses and 2/3rds of the states?
And you blame republicans?
Democrats love republicans rule.Its empirical since they even rule like republicans when
elected.
We even got Romneycare instead of single payer healthcare that 80% of Democrats
wanted.
There really is little difference in what the two parties do when actually in
office. They are both imperial, establishment-supporting institutions, only separated by
some social rhetoric no one pays and attention to anyway. I always find it bizarre when I
see writing from Americans that pretends there are significant differences.
Aw man, McGovern went full SJW .but don't believe me, I'm an evil white male.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:39 pm
Marc – this is what I said further down the page:
"The Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship. Unbeknownst to the Left, the
Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and conquer – get women, blacks
and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't look our way, says the Deep State.
Look over there to that "white man".
The white man is the new villain in town.
The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil."
O Society – the Left – or the Democrats, if you want to call them that
– are playing Identity Politics. The mainstream media is almost exclusively pro-Left
(or pro-Democrat).
Their aim is to get everybody focused on blaming the "white man". It's all over the
media – have a listen. You'd be surprised at how many times the "white man" is being
blamed for everything wrong in the country.
I know the Republicans and the Democrats are joined in a single uniparty, but the
average person doesn't know that. They think they're are on the Left or the Right.
The Democrat side of the uniparty is playing up Identity Politics in order to drum up
campaign contributions and get votes and take everybody's eyes off Clinton, Comey, McCabe,
Strzok, Page – the criminals involved in conspiracy.
This Kavanaugh business is being used to hide what's going on behind the scenes –
the unraveling of the criminal conspiracy to oust the President of the United States.
Mustn't let the Democrat voters hear about that!
Don't look at the conspiracy; look over here at Kavanaugh, the "white man".
In America, people use the terms "Democrat" and "Liberal" and "Left-wing"
interchangeably, as if they mean the same thing.
But if they mean the same thing, why would we need 3 different words for the same thing?
That's redundant.
Is this pedantic or semantic or picky? Well, no.
No because Americans lack the words to say what is wrong. If we don't have the words to
say what is wrong with America, we have a difficult time thinking about it and fixing the
problems.
The Ds blame it on the Rs and the Rs blame it on the Ds.
They are both wrong.
The problem is both the Democratic and Republican parties are corrupt. The politicians
pretend there is no other way except the D way and the R way. They are lying.
Here's an example of actual left-wing people (socialists) calling out the Democratic
party for being in bed with the CIA:
"An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as
Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history."
It is understood by the Super Rich that it is in their interest to corrupt, control, and
purchase every important institution of our society and government. They have been busy
doing that from the founding of America, and they have by now nearly perfect control of all
our affairs. There remains only the struggles between competing Mafias for dominance. But
they remain united in the goal of stripping our country and it's citizens of everything
they can get their hands on, by whatever means are necessary. If we don't stop them, there
will be nothing left soon but a ravaged planet and it's murdered human population.
mike k , September 30, 2018 at 11:27 am
I fully approve of the nonviolent harassment of senator Rubio, and whitehouse
spokesperson Sarah Huckabee in restaurants and public places. I think these criminals
should be called out whenever they appear in public. Let them cower together in their gated
enclaves with others of their sickening kind. We need to let them know what we think of
them. The rich do not deserve the deference they seek from others. In light of their crimes
against humanity, they deserve only our contempt. If you see them in public, let them know
how you feel about their despicable actions.
Ditto Clinton's who stole the nomination and gave us Trump who looked decent next to
them.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:32 pm
Ditto Maxine Waters, who doesn't even live in her own constituency. Ditto Pelosi, Diane
Feinstein, Chuck Schumer. But it's interesting that only those on the Right get
targeted.
Mild -ly - Facetious , September 30, 2018 at 11:15 am
This link posted by O Society is a disturbing indicator of a dire American future.
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:26 pm
ML – with respect, you must have known different girls in high school than I did.
The majority were nice, but there were some who would do "anything" to be popular, even if
that meant having sex with the jock. They were bragging rights. I remember hearing them in
class, "I slept with so and so," and then they'd giggle. Years later, maybe feeling guilty,
they want to blame the guy.
I also remember hearing, "So and so got her pregnant." I used to speak up and say,
"Unless she was raped against her will, she had a lot to do with it." The guy always got
the blame, though, and I could never figure that one out.
How about we all take responsibility for what we've done, the situations we've gotten
ourselves into, instead of blaming someone else.
In Ms. Ford's situation, we don't even know if what she is saying is true as she can't
remember details. Again, if it did happen, was it done in jest? Was it done to take her by
surprise and scare her, as teenage boys would do, with no intention of rape? What was she
doing upstairs to begin with? Why didn't she use the bathroom downstairs? Did she continue
going to parties after this occurred? So many questions, but unfortunately she was not
questioned at all about what happened.
Ms. Ford was responsible for having the hearing postponed from Monday until Thursday
because she needed time to get there as she was afraid to fly. Then we find out she flew,
and she apparently flies a lot.
The Judicial Committee offered to fly out to California (where she lives) in order to
interview her there (to save her from having to make the big drive). She did not inform the
Judicial Committee that she was already back East, had been for quite some time, and was
only a few hours away from Washington by car.
These last two paragraphs add up to lies or omissions. What else does?
"Dr. Ford's poignant story"– that's exactly what it is–a story, unless there
is evidence to back it up. Dr. Ford is definitely a good story teller.
ML , October 1, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Nancy, Dr. Ford is believable, credible, and I and millions of others believe her
recounting of what happened to her. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is telling the
truth about this lying, arrogant, belligerent misogynistic man. But what we all should be
focusing on as well as his bad character, are his judicial opinions meant to lay waste to
what is left of worker's rights, women's rights, not to mention his disregard for
environmental protections. His position that the executive branch is infallible and
untouchable is also a grave threat to the country. I am neither a Democrat nor a
Republican, for the record. I dislike very much, both diseased and rotten parties.
Whether she is credible, believable or that you and others believe her is irrelevant;
she has no evidence or corroborating witnesses!
I agree that there are many reasons to oppose Kavanaugh, but he is right– this
spectacle is a circus. It just serves to distract the population from the real issues
Just like Russiagate.
Sifting , October 1, 2018 at 1:53 pm
Why not an FBI check on Ford, too? Unbelievably one sided!
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 3:30 am
The Rubin Report had on Claire Lehmann. She said that our educators are not teaching the
importance of institutions like due process and the presumption of innocence. There is no
history being provided as to why these institutions came into being and why they are so
important, or how they go against our instincts, our human nature.
She said there appears to be a collective punishment in society, that it's almost an
instinct to want to desire retribution and vindictive justice. It's part of our nature to
want to punish people and punish groups. If we've been wronged by a member of a particular
group, then, hell, they're all guilty and they're all going to pay!
Presumption of innocence becomes: just shut up, you're guilty.
How about the false resistance active at CN, pretending that Trump is protecting us from
the Deep State?
backwardsevolution , September 30, 2018 at 11:03 pm
Andrew – ha, the Deep State and the Left have a symbiotic relationship.
Unbeknownst to the Left, the Deep State are using them to take Trump down. Divide and
conquer – get women, blacks and gays to join hands and attack the "white man". Don't
look our way, says the Deep State. Look over there to that "white man".
The white man is the new villain in town.
The story is all over the MSM. The white man is evil.
The thing about the Trump family grifters is they are so blatantly corrupt. They flaunt
their graft and debauchery, so it cannot be ignored. We have to see it and talk about
it.
Therefore, we begin talking about the corruption of John Brennan, Paul Manafort, and so
on too. Obvious criminals whose social positions would keep them from being arrested in
normal circumstances.
These are not normal circumstances, so people begin hoping the whole building will come
down. Yes, Al Capone is a gangster. But so is Herbert Hoover.
Trumps, Clintons, Adelesons, the Mercers, the Kochs, the Pelosis, Ryan, Clapper,
Brennan, Kavanaugh they're all evil sons of bitches.
There are no good guys. People want to see them take each other out.
The real problem is Brett Kavanaugh's record as a judge shows "reverence for
authoritarian war powers, protecting government corruption and violence, and denying
justice to citizens and noncitizens alike."
9/11 war criminals, corporate malfeasance, unconstrained growth of the police state it's
all there.
"What I don't understand is: how did Kavanaugh's candidacy get this far? How did his bid
last long enough to get to the point where it was imperiled by #MeToo-related personal
misbehavior? Why didn't it founder first on the rockier shoals of his insane ideology?"
"Supporting torture. Undermining Congress and the rule of law. Contempt for habeas
corpus. Giving the president the powers of a king. Any of these are more than enough reason
to oppose Kavanaugh but Democrats ignored or barely mentioned them during judiciary
committee hearings. There were no rants, no floor speeches. Liberal protesters did not
gather to condemn Kavanaugh on torture. Liberal groups did not air ads about it."
Of course he is .All the more reason democrats should have picked a less despicable
candidate and risk it.Elections have consequences and democrats are to blame.
I think both the accused and the accuser exaggerated in their testimony. Ford did
everything possible to make sure her accusations were made public, and her use of the word
"terrified" rings hollow, given that she was coached on her testimony by the same woman who
coached Anita Hill. Ford does not seem, given her current academic position and family
life, as someone who has suffered emotionally for 35 years. As for BK, I doubt that he was
the altar boy he claims he was in high school. And his diary was not likely to include that
he went after Blasey during a drunken night in Silver Spring. Millions of boys, in the
past, have encountered alcohol in high school for the first time and have undoubtedly done
things they later became ashamed of. I can understand BK's emotions. He's forever tarred,
whether or not he's confirmed. The GOP, meanwhile, has learned how to handle things.
Sympathize with Ford while pushing the nominee slowly toward confirmation so as to offend
fewer women voters.
Now we're taking this to rape level, Dennis Rice? That's what I was saying, we have
reached absurd levels of discourse in America, and I wonder if 'God' can save America. What
I find astounding is that the #metoo women seem to have little or no interest in the wars
caused by the US, which have wrecked lives of millions of women and children, yet it's all
about 'me, me, me'. We're talking about white, privileged teenagers, sent to expensive,
exclusive private schools. This is a 'he-said, she-said' case about teens, no DNA, no
statement of rape, 36 years later, in the age when a women's 'sexual revolution' occurred.
Ms. magazine debuted about that time. Has rational thought disappeared? Looks like it to
me. And I am certainly not impressed with Trump's rational thinking, either. Nor Clinton's,
as she has blood of Libyans and Hondurans on her hands.
Groping someone over their clothes is not rape. Trying to remove their clothes while
groping is not rape. Agreed Mrs. Ford supplied little in the way of facts but those she did
supply do not constitute rape. Be careful.
My comment went down the rabbit hole again. To me, Jean's points are most important,
Kavanaugh has been part of coverups including Foster's 'suicide', Bush stealing the 2000
election and lying in runup to Iraq invasion. However, Ford made it through the rigors of a
doctoral program in psychology to become a professor at Stanford and published
biostatistician, so her story does not compute, either. The rest of the world must be
laughing at the teenage level of American discourse.
Mild -ly - Facetious , September 29, 2018 at 2:06 pm
Gregory Herr , September 30, 2018 at 7:48 am
Yep, and the circus that is the U.S. Senate "provides the ideal cover for a Democratic
elite that colludes with the Republicans on nearly every issue of corporate dominance of the
polity (both major parties oppose public financing of elections), coddling of the corrupt
financial elites, job-draining investor-rights ("trade") pacts like WTO/NAFTA, the omnivorous
national security state, the bloated military, and disastrous imperialist aggressions abroad.
Frantically wave the distracting handkerchief of concern over a high school party in 1983,
and then hope that the electorate won't notice your treachery on every other issue that
affects their economic and ecological well-being."
A short quote: "Kavanaugh seized the opportunity provided by the Democrats to portray
himself as the victim of a left-wing crusade. In fact, there is nothing left-wing about
either the use of sexual allegations to discredit an opponent, or the claim that all victims
must be believed regardless of evidence. The Democrats are embracing the arguments that were
traditionally those of the extreme right."
There are plenty of reasons to be against Kavanugh least of which is his enabling Bush to
steal the election.
Kavanaugh is a Bush criminal who stood by while Bush shredded the constitution and
illegally spied on us.
Why not go after his proven crimes?
Could it be democrats are complicit and are left with nothing but unprovable
accusations?
backwardsevolution , September 29, 2018 at 3:34 am
Dr. Ford's Go-Fund-Me account is now sitting at $530,000.00.
Her lawyers stated on record at the hearing that they are working pro bono (for free).
He is a qualified Bush criminal.He was part of the Starr investigation and helped Bush
steal the election for Bush in Florida and stood by Bush as he lied us into war and shredded
the constitution.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be against him as a Supreme Court Justice .
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
anastasia says:
September 28, 2018 at 4:47 am GMT 300 Words They were too afraid of the women's movement,
and therefore could not bring themselves to challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the
prosecutors questions which did not have the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by
the democrats to the honoree.
But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean
up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her
handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little
girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later and
expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not
remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if
she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips
– all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to
see.
She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently needed
explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to explain her
inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later politicized the
confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her several go fund me
sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.
She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid
to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to
remain anonymous.
Ludwig Watzal says:
Website
September 28, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT 400 Words As a foreign observer, I watched the whole
hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up
by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As
their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will
do everything to prevent his confirmation. They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford,
not to speak of the other two disgraceful women that prostituted themselves for base motives.
Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which
seemed to make a great impression on the CCN tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks
of the hearing committee. It was a great TV-propaganda frame.
Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15,
and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart
from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after the
"incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as it is.
Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American youths should
not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of Penn for my M.A.
degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great experience. Every
weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed around like hell.
Nobody made a big fuss out of it.
On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a
state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions and
accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which only
happens in totalitärian states.
Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth and
humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in advance
of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham with his
outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they ought to be
ashamed of themselves.
This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence,
men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant
was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more
tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get
my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable.
Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM”
;
Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and
that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide
at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None
of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's
character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end
it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive,
because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas –
because that's what those people are."
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed
Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their
President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person,
but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement,
wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact
that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently
disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted
to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that
mold, IMHO.
One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended
rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to
me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e.,
molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once
more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not
remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not
remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself.
No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
@anastasiaI think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a
few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman.
The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix,
who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to
praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and
Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham
they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick
Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the
Senate.
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist.
Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.
It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking
bleak.
Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until
I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not
abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh
will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The
kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and
brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.
"... Christine Blasey Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak? "Deak is said, for example, to have handled CIA funds in 1953 when the agency overthrew Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne. In that instance, the money went through Zurich and a Deak correspondent office in Beirut. During the Vietnam war, Deak & Co. allegedly moved CIA funds through its Hong Kong office for conversion into piastres in Saigon on the unofficial market." ..."
Christine Blasey Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak? "Deak is said, for example, to have handled CIA funds in 1953 when the agency overthrew
Iran's Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and restored the Shah to the throne. In that instance, the
money went through Zurich and a Deak correspondent office in Beirut. During the Vietnam war,
Deak & Co. allegedly moved CIA funds through its Hong Kong office for conversion into
piastres in Saigon on the unofficial market."
It is all theater.
mike k , September 28, 2018 at 8:56 pm
What are you trying to imply, that Dr. Ford being someone's granddaughter makes her
somehow suspect? Isn't that a little ridiculous?
Deniz , September 28, 2018 at 9:21 pm
Not quite at the WMD or Gulf of Tonkein scale, but yes, a little ridicoulous is a fair
comment.
irina , September 28, 2018 at 10:40 pm
It has also been credibly stated that Dr. Ford runs
the CIA internship program at Stanford . .. .
"... If there is, say, a 25 or 30 percent chance that the nominee committed a crime as serious as sexual assault, that may be too much ..."
"... "In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them." ..."
But the problem is that these allegations are so vague, so far after the fact, and
lack any sort of substantiation, that what is to prevent EVERY candidate from having these
sort of allegations flung at them at the last second. If we set the precedent that you can
stop filling this job by waiting until the last second and then making accusations with no
way to even corroborate them, will we ever get the Supreme Court vacancy filled?
Presumption of innocence is more than a right or a legal standard, it's a principle. I
don't require everyone I interact with daily to prove that they aren't a rapist, I'm
willing to presume they're not a criminal without asking them for evidence. Basic trust is
the fabric of a functioning society.
What a lot of people don't realize, is that memory is malleable . The
first time you remember something, you're remembering what happened. The second time?
You're remembering some mix of what happened, and of having remembered it. The third time,
the original memory is even more contaminated.
Basically, when you obsess about a memory, keep recalling it over and over, you're
playing a game of "telephone" with yourself. The memory becomes more of a story you're
telling yourself.
It's sad, but people don't really remember the events of their long ago childhoods. They
just remember the stories they've told themselves about it.
If there is, say, a 25 or 30 percent chance that the nominee committed a crime
as serious as sexual assault, that may be too much
What is the percentage we assign to allegations when:
• the complainant cannot remember when or where the event took place (or even the
year)
• four witnesses (the number keeps changing) she names (including her "lifelong
friend") all deny any knowledge of it
• at one point she says she was in her "late teens" but then later that it happened
when she was 15
• she cannot remember how she got home
• her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of
support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband's side of the family
• she has demonstrated political opposition to the alleged perpetrator
• her memories are 35 years old, a period known for rendering memories suspect
• she denies knowing that she was offered the chance to testify privately, resulting
in greater delay (such testimony being rejected and even boycotted by the Democrats, who
want greater delay)
• she insists on greater delay by claiming a fear of flying but has a history of world
travel by air
• she has a Ph.D. but says that she didn't know how to contact the Senate Judiciary
Committee
• she says she wanted confidentiality but contacted the Washington Post with her
allegations
• the defendant has lived an exemplary life and supplies the names of 65 women as
character witnesses at the relevant time
What is the effect when Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor, said in her
report
that:
"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A "he said, she said" case is incredibly
difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other
witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to
corroborate them."
Mitchell cited details supporting these major issues:
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault
happened
• Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name
• When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to
become less specific
• Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question
• Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she
identified as having attended -- including her lifelong friend
• Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault
• Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her
allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her
memory
• Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions
• The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected
Dr. Ford's account
The job interview vs criminal trial meme is Dem/liberal misdirection to divert
your thinking away from what is actually happening, personal destruction. The Dems,
including those on the Judiciary Committee, stated from the moment Kavanaugh's nomination
was announced, that he needed to be defeated by any means necessary. Surfacing events
thirty years plus in the past, for which no actual evidence exists, is a technique to put
Kavanuagh in an impossible situation.
In a job interview, presumably the personal doing the hiring begins with an open mind
and a willingness to consider the candidate's point of view. Not so with Kavanaugh's "job
interview" the Dems have only one objective: prevent Kavanaugh from being confirmed "by any
means necessary". Let's not dignify what is at work here by characterizing it is a good
faith job interview. There is/was no good faith here.
You seem to be comfortable with the proposition that a man's life can be turned
into a dumpster fire on a basis of an uncorroborated, unverifiable complaint going back to
his days in high school by an acknowledged political opponent, augmented and indeed
supervised by senators who not only prevented the charges from being presented in a timely
fashion but who have already vowed to do anything to prevent the nominee from being seated.
I wonder how quickly you'll be changing your sorry tune if you're ever picked for high
office with such enemies lying in wait.
The last few weeks and Kavanaugh's behavior during that time have led me to conclude that he
should not be confirmed, and the main reason for that is that he has lied repeatedly
under oath. Everyone that watched his testimony on Thursday was witness to it, and the
evidence
that he lied to
the Judiciary Committee
many times seems to me to be
overwhelming . For the purposes of determining whether he should be a Supreme Court
justice, it doesn't really matter why he lied or what he lied about. The fact that he knowingly
gave false statements under oath should disqualify him.
The hearing on Thursday was a spectacle and an embarrassment for the nominee. Judge
Kavanaugh comported himself poorly throughout, and during his angry opening statement he gave
the committee members and the public ample reason to doubt his fitness for the Court before he
answered any questions. Kavanaugh's anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who
aspires to sit on the highest court, but the real problem lies with the
multiple lies he told during his testimony. The judge has sought to present himself as
someone beyond reproach both now and in the past, but he has gone so far to whitewash his
excessive
drinking habits and crude yearbook references that he has blown up his credibility in the
process. Kavanaugh has gone to such lengths because he stands credibly
accused of sexual assault when he was 17, and so he has attempted to eradicate anything
from his past that might make that accusation seem easier to believe. His evasions and
misrepresentations on these other points have only made his fervent denials of the very serious
charge less believable, and in the process he has torched his reputation and rendered himself
unworthy of the Supreme Court.
"Almost twenty years ago, the House impeached then-President Clinton for perjury and
obstruction of justice."
Indeed. At that time, Brent Kavanaugh was working for Kenneth Starr. He wrote a legal memo
that argued forcefully that the President should be impeached for lying under oath to deny
allegations of sexual misconduct. Which is to say, the EXACT thing Kavanaugh did right in
front of the Senate last week.
By his OWN standards, Kavanaugh should be rejected.
And judging by the votes of Mike Crapo, Mike Enzi, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, James
Inhofe, Jon Kyle, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Roberts during the Clinton impeachment trial, they
agreed with Kavanaugh's position. So they should vote to reject him now.
I agree that there are plenty of reasons to reject Kavanaugh. Yet as it stands, if he is
rejected, it'll be because of vague allegations of sexual misconduct over three decades ago.
Now, it sounds like Kavanaugh was the sort of drunken, rich frat boy I could easily imagine
going too far under the influence of alcohol, so the accusation is plausible. However, the
basic details are lacking, not to mention anything resembling proof, so I wouldn't call it
credible. I bet the FBI investigation won't turn up anything either, because to really look
into "he said, she said" cases this old would take a time machine. People can be questioned,
but if they don't want to answer the question, it's trivially easy to claim they don't
remember, and very hard to call them out on that.
Depressingly, the way things are is that people need to choose between rewarding an unfit
candidate or an unworthy accusation. Both choices have bad consequences and will anger a lot
of people, for very understandable reasons. Pox on the house of Trump for putting up this
candidate, and pox on the house of liberalism for trying to take him out in this way.
I despise the idea that we are going to hold a grown adult liable for what appears to be
offenses in his high school year book. It really has no bearing on one's qualifications for
anything that I can think of.
And the lady making her claims of sexual molestation brought forward no evidence of same,
and it should be rejected out of hand. Because she could just be lying. There's no way to
know.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh's nomination should be rejected out of hand due to his
rulings on any number of topics which empower both government and corporations against the
best interests of the people. Of course this cannot be discussed in public.
However, our Republican Senators will approve of Kavanaugh's nomination. Because of those
rulings noted above. They could care less about the rule of law. And they know, without a
doubt, that their voters are so intellectually corrupt that they will vote them right back in
power, and do it with pride and joy. And I say that as a life-long, and disgusted,
Republican.
Seemed appropriate to me for someone falsely accused of sexual assault. Kavanaugh has a
wife and kids, coaches his daughters basketball team. What alternative did Kavanaugh have
other than assertively calling a spade a spade?
Moreover, apart for her own tearful histrionics, Ford's testimony was anything but
"credible" because she has not produced even one scintilla of evidence that she ever met
Kavanaugh and ever told anyone about the alleged assault before she told a therapist years
later.
Moreover, Kavanaugh presented implicit evidence of not being at some party attended by
Ford with his calendar. He noted parties he was to attend and they people we met with. If
those entries were listed as prospective, then Kavanaugh's attendee at the vague party in
question should be on the calendar. Where is it?
Hating on Kavanaugh is fine with me. But implicitly validating the rancid (hypocritical)
political machinations of the Democrats is not. Accusations are not evidence. Hysterically
confronting a Senator in an elevator is not evidence. That Kavanaugh drank too much is not
evidence that he assaulted Ford. Note that almost everybody in that environment drank too
much.
What Daniel Larison apparently does not get, is that Kavanaugh was correct when he said
that "advise and consent" has morphed malignantly into "search and destroy". If Kavanaugh is
rejected by the Senate, expect a repeat of Total War by pathetically sanctimonious Left for
the next candidate and the next candidate after that.
The Democrats assembled their M.O. with the targeted destruction of the women assaulted by
that sociopathic sexual predator Bill Clinton. 25 years later, everything and everybody is
fair game.
Kavanaugh's anger and accusatory tone were bad enough for someone who aspires to sit on
the highest court
I admit never to understand this charge. If someone is accused of being a serial rapist
including being a gang rapist, wouldn't you expect them to get a little angry? Anger seems
the natural emotion to have. If a man didn't get angry over these accusations, I would
question his fitness for the court, and maybe even his innocence.
the main reason for that is that he has lied repeatedly under oath.
This is spoken of, like it's a fact. I have a hard time jumping from "yes, I drank in high
school" and references to drinking in high school to "this man was an alcoholic who blacked
out and couldn't remember events."
The emptywheel article linked to ("The Record Supports Christine Blasey Ford") cites as
evidence the fact that Blasey Ford was calm during her questioning. (Why wouldn't she be? Who
couldn't take 3 questions at a time of bland, trivial facts interspersed with 5 minutes of
Democratic senators stroking your ego? What would have constituted "breaking down"?) More
evidence is Ford's "normal amount of time" versus Kavanaugh's "45 minutes". Gasp! Practically
a confession! More assertions that Kavanaugh has admitted to "blacking out". (Not true, but
also wouldn't establish the "credibility" of the accusation. Just that he had blacked
out.)
Additionally, the proof of Kavanaugh's drinking problem on weekdays is the fact
that Mark Judge drank on weekdays. (How does the fact he drank on weekdays mean this is a
"credible" accusation again?)
Oh, and he attended a party that summer with the more boys than the party that
Christine Blasey Ford attended.
To cite accusations that he lied under oath as reasons for why his accuser is
"credible", then using that established "credibility" for why he would lie under oath is a
little circular, to say the least.
I'm not saying Larison's wrong for believing in Blasey Ford or that Kavanaugh lied
under oath. (Two different questions of course). But it's not exactly a slam dunk case. And
there's no reason to go around acting like it is.
It would be helpful to specify which lie is he guilty off. He said he is innocent (perhaps
he is not, but no evidence provided yet he did not say he doesn't drink, blackouts are hard
to prove) angry ok, is that deal breaker? vs 20+ years of service Still confused "
***************
I think I'd be a wee bit angry, too if I was accused falsely of a violent felony .
I don't know any of the individuals in this case & can't read hearts but as we must
first presume innocence under the law, Mr. Kavanaugh would have seemed far less credible to
me had he *not* reacted in the manner he did. Not that my feelings about either party amount
to anything.Due process isn't about feelings.
Has anyone here visited a college campus recently & observed what kind of drinking
goes on? I remember back in the 1980's students were drinking cheap grain alcohol &
falling off balconies. Beer was considered pretty mild stuff.
@SteveM What happened to "advise and consent" for these same Senators when President Obama
Nominated Merrick Garland for Supreme Court? Different standards for different parties?
Kavanaugh has at no point been accused of rape, gang or otherwise. He's been accused of
drinking too much and committing sexual assault, but never of rape. Ms. Ramirez described
gang rapes in her affadavit, but very specifically never claimed Kavanaugh (or Judge)
participated in them, just that they were at parties where they happened.
Just look at the lies he's told before this hearing about his actions in the Bush
administration. Exclude the ridiculous little lies about "boofing" "devil's triangle" and the
"Renate club" boast. Those previous lies about his work in the Ken Starr years disqualify him
here's just one example:
"Kavanaugh was asked if he was involved with a scheme to steal Democratic staff e-mails
related to judicial confirmations. He lied about it. E-mails showed that he was
involved."
Ford's accusation as she repeated it in front of the Judiciary Committee had already been
refuted by everyone she said was present at the party when Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. Her "evidence" was she had told a similar story earlier to
her husband, friends, and her therapist (without mentioning Kavanaugh by name), repetition, not
corroboration. When asked about the possibility the assault took place but that she
misremembered the assailant as Kavanaugh, Ford just said no and things were left there.
Ford admitted not remembering specifics that could have formed the basis of exculpation,
including how she got home from the party, that driver being in a key position to assess Ford's
condition and thus support or weaken her story. By not providing an exact date for the alleged
assault, Ford did not allow for Kavanaugh to present proof he was somewhere else. Ford in fact
couldn't say where they both were supposed to be to begin with, apart from "a suburban Maryland
house."
The attorney speaking for the Republicans gently pointed out multiple inconsistencies
between Ford's previous statements and today's testimony, walking Ford back from assertions to
assumptions. The questioning was consistent with what is done in sexual assault prosecutions to
help evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Ford in the end presented a heartfelt but
ultimately general accusation, backed only by the hashtag #BelieveWomen that precluded any
serious questioning.
Brett Kavanaugh made clear Thursday none of what Ford (or his later accusers) said happened,
had happened. He was unambiguous. He left no wiggle room. He could add no additional details to
describe something that had not taken place. Clever lawyers created the appearance of a he
said/she said. These are typically a case of two contradictory versions of a single event, as
in date rape cases where sex is acknowledged by both parties who differ over the presence of
consent. Kavanaugh's situation is different; for the past four decades there was no "she said"
until a handful of Democratic senators standing behind a victim they may have outed themselves
forced Kavanaugh to deliver another round of "he said" denials today.
Kavanaugh showed real emotion in today's testimony, describing how he has been treated as a
political hit, before finally breaking into tears. He called out the media for slut-shaming one
of his female friends based on a vague high school yearbook reference. No mind, multiple
Democrats returned to the same accusations later anyway. Some women it seems testify, and
others play their role as sluts off stage.
About the only real question was whether 99.99% or 100% of the people watching today had
already made up their minds in advance. Ford was unable to prove the positive and Kavanaugh
could never prove a negative. Truth became in the end extraneous to what was really going on.
Ford was a prop used against Kavanaugh by Democrats seeking to change a confirmation hearing
they would likely lose into a referendum on mistreatment of victims they might win.
The strategy was clear as Democrats used their questioning time to make speechlets everyone
could agree with about sexual violence. Nearly every Democrat ceremoniously entered thousands
of letters of support for Ford "into the record." To make sure everyone really, really got the
point, Senator Dianne Feinstein invited #MeToo activist Alyssa
Milano to attend Thursday's hearing (and speak with the media, of course.) This was
theater.
At times things seemed one step away from bringing in Handmaiden's Tale cosplayers.
The once great Senator Patrick Leahy engaged in an argument about the meaning of slang terms
used in a 40-year-old high school year book with a nominee to the Supreme Court, as if proof of
immaturity was proof someone was also gang rapist. Another exchange focused on whether a word
meant puke or fart. For every careful courtesy shown Ford, Democrats treated Kavanaugh like a
punching bag.
A strategy seemed to slowly emerge after Feinstein failed to coerce Kavanaugh into
requesting an FBI inquiry. Senator Durbin next demanded Kavanaugh turn to the White
House Counsel present and demand an FBI investigation on live TV. Durbin told Kavanaugh
if he had nothing to hide, he had nothing to fear, a line often attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
Senator Klobuchar then tried playing good cop, trying to persuade Kavanaugh in a sisterly way
to call for the FBI. Kamala Harris went in as bad cop, shouting down whatever was said to her.
It was pathetic; Kavanaugh had been to law school, too, saw the trap, and refused to give the
Democrats the opening they needed – why even the nominee wants the FBI in, put the brakes
on this confirmation, maybe until 2020. To call it all a circus is a disservice to real
clowns.
How did the very serious business of #MeToo end up a political tool?
Only days ago, without the votes to reject Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats started throwing stuff
against the wall hoping something would stick. It started with Cory Booker's failed Spartacus
stunt. Kamala Harris demanded more documents, likely hoping there might be a perjury trapplet
buried in those 100,000 pages. Kavanaugh was accused of having a
gambling problem , and of being an alcoholic
(Senators Hirano, Klobuchar, and Booker accused him of having a drinking problem again today,
Klobuchar explaining she knew one when she saw one because her grandpa is in AA.) And how
had he paid off his debts after buying baseball
tickets for friends? The goal wasn't to show Kavanaugh was unqualified as a jurist. It was
to show he was unqualified as a human being. Yet in each instance Kavanaugh coolly denied the
accusations. Until
Until a 2018 strategy emerged. One can still these days deny being a drinker, or a gambler,
or stealing money, but one is no longer allowed to simply say no when accused of sexual
assault. The Democrats would box Kavanaugh in, demanding he #BelieveWomen and withdraw, or
somehow prove a negative to escape.
Ford was a near-perfect accuser for the Democrats' purposes, the archetype Clinton voter,
down to a photo circulating of her in her pink pussy hat. And when idea emerged really
"credible" cases had multiple accusers, the always-reliable Ronan Farrow and Michael Avenatti
dug around until they found more, upping the charges to
gang rape along the way.
The counter-narrative this was not a Democratic set-up with Ford as an unwitting victim is
everything emerged organically and righteously, albeit right on time. The accusers were never
compelled to speak up during Kavanaugh's years in the White House or on the Court of Appeals.
And the FBI, which conducted six full background checks on Kavanaugh over his decades of
government employment, had just plain missed it all. And Feinstein didn't request an FBI
investigation weeks ago because something, and Ford's identity was leaked by someone else, and
Feinstein never questioned Kavanaugh at his earlier hearings when she had the information
literally in hand because.
Something terrible happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she was in high school, there
seems little doubt, but it is quite unclear that that also involved Brett Kavanaugh. Ford,
despite her doctorate, came off as almost naive, claiming not to know what exculpatory evidence
was, testifying she didn't know why she took a polygraph test and had know idea who paid for
it. She appeared a bit mystified by the vast forces swirling around her, and seemed to trust
so-called honorable people would empower her, not use her.
As the day ends no one in America will have the conversation they need to now about whether
the Democrats' ends justify their means. Long after Kavanaugh either takes the bench on the
Supreme Court, or returns to his lifetime appointment on the Court of Appeals, no one will ask
that of Christine Blasey Ford.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He is permanently
banned from federal employment and Twitter.
mrscracker said: " As a Christian, I'd like to think there's the possibility Mrs. Ford's a
troubled soul rather than a cold hearted liar. I don't know how much she believes about her
accusations or how much consent she has had "
If someone is shown to have been actually coerced into committing a crime, we take that into
account when determining if charges should be laid. If someone has "a troubled soul" -- I take
that to mean is suffering from a certain type of severe, diagnosable mental disorder -- we take
that into account in determining if charges should be laid and, if charges are laid and there
is a conviction, in determining sentence.
Why are there so few conservative posters on The American Conservative?
As an attorney myself, Fords case is garbage. She has no case. It's old allegations with no
evidence, witnesses that don't back her and she's really hazy on the details. Its literally the
worst plaintiffs case ever. Yet democrats are trying to gaslight everyone and say that she's
credible, and brave, and truthful, and explain away all the inconsistencies and lack of
detail.
If this were a civil case it would be kicked out of court and her attorneys would have to
pay for kavanaugh's lawyers for a bad faith filing of a meritorious case. Instead of
acknowledging the utter deficiencies in her case the D are acting like it's a slam dunk. But
it's not.
It's a lie that everyone sees and half the population believes because they don't want Roe
overturned. It's a complete charade.
Chapter XX
Eighth Commandment
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Article II. – Respect Due To Reputation
1. Defamation.
#56. Is there not another kind of detraction besides slander and calumny?
Yes; it consists of those reports, true or false, which are spread secretly and, as it were,
in confidence, as to what some one has said or done against another. The purpose of these
reports is to sow discord between friends and embroil families. This species of detraction is
called tale-bearing.
#57. Is tale-bearing specially malicious?
It is the worst form of detraction, since it not only ruins the reputation of another, but
also destroys friendship.
But Republicans said they see signs that Kavanaugh's defiant testimony brought the GOP
together and fired up apathetic base voters the party needs to stave off a disaster in
November.
Conservatives cheered the judge's Trump-like denunciations of "the left," "the media," and
his claim that he was the victim of a "political hit" from opponents who wanted "revenge on
behalf of the Clintons."
"I think the Democrats' campaign to smear Kavanaugh has united Trump and Bush Republicans as
never before," said Cesar Conda, a former chief of staff to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. "The GOP
base will be energized to stop the Democrats from taking over the Congress."
Conda and other Republicans who spoke to NBC News pointed to recent polls by Gallup
and others that showed that the GOP's enthusiasm matched that of Democrats after months of
imbalance.
Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster with Public Opinion Strategies, said he'd seen a similar
trend, but couldn't predict whether it would last.
"There hasn't been any lessening in Democratic enthusiasm, but the gap between Democrat and
Republican enthusiasm has gone away," Bolger said.
While he acknowledged that women's antipathy toward Republicans, especially in the suburbs,
is giving a boost to Democrats around the country, Bolger argued that it would be hard to push
their turnout beyond its current highs.
"They're already angry at the president, they're already angry at the Republican Party," he
said.
...Josh Holmes, a former aide to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, said the treatment of Kavanaugh
was a "grenade" that internal polls suggested could take out Democratic incumbents.
As was reported yesterday, a lawsuit against Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick was filed by her former employer, Webtrends. The
documents from the case have been obtained and published by Big League Politics
. The accusations by Webtrends include Swetnick lying about attending Johns Hopkins University, fraudulently claiming unemployment
benefits, defaming the company, and that Swetnick herself was engaging in sexual harassment. The case was filed in 2000 in Multnomah
County, Oregon, home to everyone's favorite unhinged liberal paradise of Portland.
Brett Kavanaugh's third accuser Julie Swetnick was the defendant in a defamation case filed by her former employer, WebTrends.
Big League Politics has obtained the court documents from this case.
Webtrends, represented by Perkins Coie, sued Swetnick, who has multiple liens against her including a federal tax lien, and
whose ex-boyfriend filed a restraining order against.
"Swetnick began her fraud against Webtrends before she was hired. On her job application she claimed to have graduated
from Johns Hopkins University. That university has no record of her attendance. She also falsely described her work experience
at Host Marriott Services Corp Since this initial fraud and despite her brief tenure, Swetnick has continued over the last several
months, to defraud, defame and harass WebTrends and its employees, " the complaint reads.
"Shortly after becoming employed with Webtrends, a co-worker reported to WebTrends' Human Resources department that Swetnick
had engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct. Rather than accept responsibility for her actions, Swetnick made false and
retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her . Swetnick then began a leave of
absence for suspicious and unsubstantiated reasons and from which she has never returned. During her absence, Swetnick has engaged
in a campaign of false and malicious allegations with the intent to harm the reputations of WebTrends and its employees and in
the hope that WebTrends would pay her money rather than uphold and defend its reputation," the complaint reads.
The original complaint also includes:
Beyond deceiving WebTrends, Swetnick applied for an began collecting unemployment benefits from the Washington D.C. unemployment
office based on the untrue statement that she had voluntarily left WebTrends in September of 2000
Huetter receiver a complaint about Swetnick from Larry Hountz, a co-employee of Swetnick in June of 2000. At this point, Swetnick
had been employed for approximately three weeks and had worked only three days at customer sites. Hountz stated that Swetnick
had engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct directed towards himself and David Anish, another co-employee,
during a business lunch. Swetnick's inappropriate conduct occurred with customers present.
Swetnick also allegedly went on to claim a temporary disability for health problems while employed with WebTrends, but when she
failed to provide necessary information, she instead sent a "confrontational letter" to the HR department.
Kavanauch confirmation brought a very interesting set of female charaters (as his accusers). One of them is Julie Swetnick.
In her resume out of 12 former employers that are listed there are only few places where whe worked for more then a year.
Julie Swetnick_IDC.docx - Google Drive
. Despite more then two decades in Web business she does not list any scripting skills in her resume but lists "server tuning, hardening,"
which are impossible with shell scripting knowledge.
Notable quotes:
"... After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint. ..."
Swetnick's alleged conduct took place in June 2000, just three weeks after she started working at WebTrends, the complaint shows.
WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in "unwelcome sexual
innuendo and inappropriate conduct" toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint said.
Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, "in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate
behavior [made] false and retaliatory allegations" of sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.
"Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating
evidence existed to support Swetnick's allegations against her coworkers," the complaint said.
After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment
allegations she had made, she "remarkably" walked back the allegations, according to the complaint.
In July, one month after the alleged incident, Swetnick took a leave of absence from the company for sinus issues, according to
the complaint. WebTrends said it made short-term disability payments to her until mid-August that year. One week after the payments
stopped, WebTrends received a note from Swetnick's doctor claiming she needed a leave of absence for a "nervous breakdown."
The company said it continued to provide health insurance coverage for Swetnick, despite her refusal provide any additional information
about her alleged medical condition.
In November, the company's human resources director received a notice from the Washington, D.C. Department of Unemployment that
Swetnick had applied for unemployment benefits after claiming she left WebTrends voluntarily in late September.
"In short, Swetnick continued to claim the benefits of a full-time employee of WebTrends, sought disability payments from WebTrends'
insurance carrier and falsely claimed unemployment insurance payments from the District of Columbia," the complaint states.
Swetnick allegedly hung up the phone on WebTrends managers calling to discuss why she applied for unemployment benefits, according
to the complaint. She then sent letters to WebTrends' upper management, detailing new allegations that two male co-workers sexually
harassed her and said that the company's human resources director had "illegally tired [sic] for months to get privileged medical
information" from her, her doctor and her insurance company.
WebTrends also alleged that Swetnick began her fraud against the company before she was hired by stating on her job application
that she graduated from John Hopkins University. But according to the complaint, the school had no record of her attendance.
An online resume posted by Swetnick
makes no reference to John Hopkins University. It does show that she worked for WebTrends from December 1999 to August 2000.
It's unclear what transpired after the complaint was filed against Swetnick. One month after WebTrends filed the action, the company
voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.
"... "Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct committee investigations," ..."
The Senate Judiciary Committee asked the FBI Saturday to
investigate a man who made an unfounded rape claim against Supreme Court nominee Judge
Brett M.
Kavanaugh and then later recanted, saying the man had acted in bad faith.
Chairman Charles E. Grassley said the committee had to waste resources tracking down the
claim by the man, who said Judge Kavanaugh raped one of his
friends back in the 1980s. The man said he and another friend went to beat Judge Kavanaugh up --
then said he recognized him recently when television showed Judge Kavanaugh after he was
nominated to the high court.
Mr. Grassley didn't name the man, but after reporters tracked him down he recanted.
"Such acts are not only unfair; they are potentially illegal. It is illegal to make
materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators. It is
illegal to obstruct committee investigations," Mr. Grassley wrote in a letter to Attorney
General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.
"... Frankly, observing the two parties under interrogation, Kavanaugh had the red eyes and facial contortions that suggested a true pain. Ford's eyes were cold throughout, and she maintained the simple character of a 16-year-old girl at her first job interview. ..."
"... I had to laugh at the moment that Kamala Harris called for the specially trained and effective FBI to investigate the matter. So, the noble FBI, "an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement" that produced Comey, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the Russiagate team more than likely has the investigation in the can, ready to be rolled out in 7 days. I guess we'll see. ..."
"... "Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including "surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands and French Polynesia to surf." Her response was to giggle inanely and nobody pressed the issue. ..."
"... Christine Ford testified she went to the country club frequently to swim. She may have forgotten how she got home after the alleged assault, but there is no way she could forget how she routinely got to the country club. Did she walk or ride a bike? Did she take public transportation or a cab? Did someone drive her there? If someone drove her to the country club, why didn't that person bring her home? This person was most likely her brother or her parents who have not come forward in a meaningful way. ..."
"... 'theater of dramatic distractions'... well said. all i continue to see is the political version of professional wrestling. no matter who 'wins' this or that match, the wwe always wins :) ... ..."
"... Brett Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team when Slick Willie was being investigated for consensual sex with Monica. Does anyone recall his position on these matters then? ..."
"... The omnipresent hysterical media is seductive; gossip appears elevated to the status of news. ..."
"... Enhanced protections for men from such a weapons in the post #MeToo age are badly needed. ..."
"... Am I to be believe that a women her age, a Prof, mind you, does not seriously reflect on the consequence of her letter and her accusation? Confidential or not given the context. ..."
"... And then, Leland makes a formal statement. She doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh! Party pooper! And she can't remember any such occasion. And the two of them never talked about any such horrific thing happening. All these years. ..."
"... But Ms. Blasey Ford does not think her best friend should be that concerned about her disappearing from a party, and is not surprised that she does not remember it happening. Why do I smell a strong odor of rat? ..."
Ford's pro-bono attorneys paid for the polygraph. She received advice on finding attorneys
from Sen. Feinstein and her social network. It was Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell who in
the end made the golden point that a) the 5-minute format for the panel's hearing was the
wrong way to go about getting testimony from a sex-crime victim and b) the right way, which
would have been a forensic interview, was not recommended by Ford's attorneys. So the expert
in the room in the end somewhat invalidated the proceedings.
The gotcha moment for me was Ford's response to a question in which she declared that she
wanted Sen. Feinstein's office to know about her story while there was still time to find
another candidate. Not political at all. So, while she implores the senator's office to
protect her privacy, she runs around telling her friends who, in turn, leak the story to the
press. Consistent more with willingly participating the orchestration of her outing. If so
many girls were subjected to the ravages of this roaming pack of predatory jocks, where is
the Weinstein effect of the numerous victims coming forward to support the courageous
one?
Frankly, observing the two parties under interrogation, Kavanaugh had the red eyes and
facial contortions that suggested a true pain. Ford's eyes were cold throughout, and she
maintained the simple character of a 16-year-old girl at her first job interview.
I had to laugh at the moment that Kamala Harris called for the specially trained and
effective FBI to investigate the matter. So, the noble FBI, "an agency of men and women who
are sworn and trained law enforcement" that produced Comey, Strzok, Page, and the rest of the
Russiagate team more than likely has the investigation in the can, ready to be rolled out in
7 days. I guess we'll see.
Perhaps you can answer some questions I have.
1 Was she told beforehand what questions would be asked
2 How many times did she take the polygraph
3 Did she take any medication the day of the polygraph
4 Have the raw results of the polygraph been released
5 Who was the psychiatrist that treated her in 2012
6 What techniques did the psychiatrist use to help elucidate her memories
7 Did these techniques involve hypnosis or "age regression"
8 Were any of the techniques similar to those used to "prove" alien-abduction
9 Were any tape recordings of the psychiatric sessions made
10 Will any of the relevant portions of the psychiatrist's note be made public
Ford also claimed to have a fear of flying. She refused to fly to DC and only did so when she
was told that her no show would not prevent Kavanaugh testifying and the committee
authorizing a vote on his nomination.
Then it emerged she has more frequent flyer points than than the pope:
"Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including
"surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands
and French Polynesia to surf." Her response was to giggle inanely and nobody pressed the
issue.
I agree that the FBI won't find much without additional witnesses. But I believe you are
overthinking the geography. (I know. That's what intelligence professionals do.) Teenagers
with beer and cars can turn up almost anywhere. I have (parental) experience of that.
Also, a key question the non-brilliant prosecutor neglected to ask: "You say you swam at the
country club. Then you went to a party at which you were still wearing your bathing suit.
Didn't it get wet while you swam? If so, why were you still wearing a wet bathing suit?"
Christine Ford testified she went to the country club frequently to swim. She may have
forgotten how she got home after the alleged assault, but there is no way she could forget
how she routinely got to the country club. Did she walk or ride a bike? Did she take public
transportation or a cab? Did someone drive her there? If someone drove her to the country
club, why didn't that person bring her home? This person was most likely her brother or her
parents who have not come forward in a meaningful way.
Perhaps, more specifically, this is all about: 1) Midterm elections, 2) Merrick
Garland.
The 2-party power struggle in its current guises. Sometimes it does seem like a theater of
dramatic distractions, doesn't it?
'theater of dramatic distractions'... well said. all i continue to see is the political version of professional wrestling. no
matter who 'wins' this or that match, the wwe always wins :) ...
She lied, that's my vote for multiple reasons. She should go to prison for lying to Congress.
There is too much anger to let the slander slide this time. There will be NO respect for
Congress or the Judiciary if she is not punished. This whole thing has been a morality play,
and you know how those are supposed to turn out. Quitacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree",
"silence implies/means consent". Whatever happened to Chrissy by some other boy in 1982 was
not what she claims.
Brett Kavanaugh was on Ken Starr's team when Slick Willie was being investigated for
consensual sex with Monica. Does anyone recall his position on these matters then?
If Christine Blasey is convinced an assault took place why isn't she filing a criminal
complaint? Why is Kavanaugh claiming that he wasn't a big partier in high school and college?
His good friend's book was all about the party lifestyle at school.
It seems all that can be accomplished with the FBI review is delay as there's no real
criminal investigation which would be problematic in the first place as there's no physical
evidence. At the end of the day will McConnell hold his caucus together on the full Senate
vote? Flake and Corker could vote against confirming Kavanaugh just to stiff Trump.
Though I admire your efforts to analyze and debunk Ms Ford's testimony, I feel that our
attention should remain focused on the bigger issue here. Guilt or innocence is the business
of the courts and no one else. Ms Ford may or may not be telling the truth. Kavanaugh will
now be confirmed, or not. All who respect the law have a duty to presume him innocent of any
charge until proven otherwise. These are the facts we should consider. Those who make
criminal accusations must be countered by our unanimous chorus of "prove it in court". Anyone
not joining this chorus, either willfully or otherwise, is potentially helping to undermine
the rule of law.
The omnipresent hysterical media is seductive; gossip appears elevated to the status of
news. It is not and we must resist the temptation to treat it as such. Until or unless Ms
Ford brings a criminal case against Kavanaugh I refuse to legitimize this spectacle as
anything other than just that by offering an opinion either way. I believe it would be wise
for us all to do likewise.
"Those who make criminal accusations must be countered by our unanimous chorus of "prove it in court". Anyone not joining this chorus, either willfully or otherwise, is potentially helping to undermine the rule of law."
Are you calling for a criminal investigation? Or to phrase it more accurately, would you
prefer that Ford contact the local authorities and file a criminal complaint?
I suspect that given the closeness of any Senate vote, that any ongoing criminal
investigation would cause the nomination process to be put on hold until the investigation is
finished, which could easily be weeks and week of delay.
The OP has called Ford a liar, effectively saying she committed a felony. By your standard
quoted above, it follows that there should also be a criminal investigation of her, that her
accusers should "prove it in court".
I have no opinion on whether Ms Ford should file charges or not, it
is up to her. But if ongoing criminal charges would cause a delay in the nomination process
one must question why Ms Ford's handlers council have not suggested such
action. I suspect it is an indication of the quality of the case - i.e. poor to non existent.
On the flip side, if PT is right and she is a fantasist (or worse) it is Kavanaugh's right
to sue Ford for defamation to prove as much and vindicate himself. However, I believe the
current law requires a very high burden of proof that her statements are both false and
malicious. Herein of course lies the value of such unprovable/refutable accusations as a
political weapon against a man.
The twist in this sordid tale is that if K is confirmed he may one day be in a position to
help set landmark precedent in defamation cases himself. I am no expert, but I think New York
Times Co v. Sullivan (1964)* was the origin of the 'actual malice' test in libel cases, for
instance. We have just witnessed a devastating weaponizing of First Amendment rights. It
would be justice of the most elegant kind if the victim were ultimately instrumental in
adjusting the scales. Enhanced protections for men from such a weapons in the post #MeToo age
are badly needed.
What I am wondering about ever since I heard the story and looked into it. Am I to be
believe that a women her age, a Prof, mind you, does not seriously reflect on the consequence
of her letter and her accusation? Confidential or not given the context.
*********
What's really bad about these stories and we had a prominent case over here. You can go to
court after you are acquitted of course. But you will never be able to clear your name. The
man in question was a rather prominent figure on TV over here. He was never able to return.
In the end he had to sell his company specialized in the field of weather.
What makes me slightly suspicious about Ford, admittedly, is that she seems to be both a
Prof and an activist.
The only way to end this charade and get the Dems to let off the gas peddle is for the
Republicans and/or Trump to start circulating the name of an even more conservative judge as
Kavanaugh's replacement.
Thank you for your good work. And by the way, are you a fan of John O'Hara? I hope we can get
more from you about those two country clubs. I perked up when you started talking about them.
Got out my O'Hara short stories. I haven't read this one, but isn't O'Hara's 'From the
Terrace' also about the cold, sex-haunted WASPS of country-clubland? Said it was his best
book. But isn't it non-u to say "wealthy"? Shouldn't it be "rich"? And are these club members
all that rich? How can you be rich if your wife works? Come on. Shouldn't she be a lady who
lunches? ('Answered Prayers'.) Doesn't she need to be a board member of a foundation or
museum that is a legit blue chip part of the Benevolent Empire?
But to business. Leland Ingham (Keyser) is one of Ford's best friends. She was a close
friend at prep school and she is her close friend even now. So how can Ford say: "I remember
.feeling an enormous sense of relief that I had escaped the house and that Brett and Mark
were not coming after me." Yet she has just left Leland in real danger with two physically
strong male teenagers who have suddenly become sexually violent, who are drunk/drugged,
dangerously out of control. And what could be happening to her friend even as she shoves off
down the street? Given what she has told us about how bad it was--leading even to her post--
traumatic flight to California--isn't it reasonable for her to suddenly come to her senses
and begin to consider what to do? Her friend Leland could even then be being beaten down,
swarmed over, torn, until she is suddenly a broken, bleeding corpse. Her body to be found
later on the Eastern Shore in a marsh? In the surf at Dewey Beach? What is she going to tell
Leland's parents? Just let it slide? It's a dadgum problem, sugarpie.
How can Ford be so out of tune with basic situational ethics that she doesn't seem to
realize that her million dollar story still needs to provide the public with a good reason
why she --the heroine--could feel so good after abandoning her friend. As a created fiction
the lady's story is unsound. She needs to read Tommy Thompson's 1983 novel 'Celebrity'.
(Three young men of great promise participate in the killing of a girl just when they are
ending their careers in high school. They make a pact. The secret must be kept. The secret is
kept. Each goes his own way. Each becomes wildly successful. Famous. Rich. And yet, and
yet...) Or did she read it? See the tv series? It was broadcast from February 12, 1984 to
February 14, 1984, on NBC. Bigly smash-hit.
And then, Leland makes a formal statement. She doesn't even know Judge Kavanaugh! Party
pooper! And she can't remember any such occasion. And the two of them never talked about any
such horrific thing happening. All these years.
Additionally, having made good her escape, without anyone noticing, she says that she does
not expect best friend Leland Ingham (Keyser) to remember the party because from her friend's
point of view nothing noteworthy happened.
If I'm at a party with my best friend and he disappears without me knowing when or why he
did so, I regard that as very noteworthy indeed, and I become rather worried about my friend.
I certainly look him up the next day and ask what happened, and I certainly remember the
event when asked about it later.
But Ms. Blasey Ford does not think her best friend should be that concerned about her
disappearing from a party, and is not surprised that she does not remember it happening. Why
do I smell a strong odor of rat?
She is a delusional Flake. Any young guy reading this blog marry a woman from overseas. The
women here are miserable and rich. You will never be happy if you marry an American citizen.
"... All this being said Kavanaugh would probably be best served at a personal level by withdrawing from the nomination. His reputation is destroyed along with that of the Senate Judiciary Committee ..."
"... No competent attorney would advise Kavanaugh to sue anyone for libel. His entire life would be subject to the discovery microscope and, regardless of what sort of person he is, I doubt if he or anyone else would want that. ..."
Kavanaugh, as a public figure, would have a difficult time prevailing as he would have to surmount the very high standard that
the accusers acted with malice or reckless disregard of the truth. The least difficult case for Kavanaugh to win would be the
case against Swetnick (Avenatti) who has alleged under oath that,while a college student, she attended at least 10 parties where
gang rapes occurred, some of which were organized by Kavanaugh and Judge, and continued to attend such parties until, presumably,
she had been gang-raped herself. If none of the 10 gang-rape victims and none of the scores of asserted party-goers come forward
to support her claims, a jury would have little difficulty finding malice and/or statements made in reckless disregard of the
truth.
Kavanaugh's spouse and children would not be able to bring a case as they were not the direct targets of the defamation.
My questions: Does Kavanaugh have standing to sue these women for libel or defamation in any jurisdiction? Would someone else
have standing to sue them on his behalf? Pl
Morning Colonel. Your questions hinge of course on whether or not the FBI can produce evidence that disproves Fords assertions.
The nature of this could only be to show that she or Kavanaugh were elsewhere at the time of the alleged assault. Since Ford has
furnished no such information (she says she does not remember the date or location) disproving it will be nigh to impossible.
Though I am not a lawyer I would have thought that any legal action Kavanaugh might take would require this same information as
a minimum for action. He cannot prove that he was libelled or defamed unless he can show that the charges are false. Catch 22!
All this being said Kavanaugh would probably be best served at a personal level by withdrawing from the nomination. His
reputation is destroyed along with that of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
When unsupported accusations become accepted as evidence then all legal process as we have come to understand it in the West
ceases to be. It is the return to Salem!
Colonel,
Re a 3rd party standing and defamation....again, based on memory gonna say because Defamation law is considered a tort, basic
principles of tort law apply and something tells me the plaintiff must personally experience the injury/damages....
Hopefully someone not as far removed from law school will know the correct rule of law to the question.
Mac
Colonel,
Going on memory here from Defamation in law school many moons ago, something comes to mind that states the standard for persons
who are, like Judge Kavanaugh, public figures is 'knowingly false statements.' Or is "reckless disregard for the truth" types
of statement. Can't recall which. But these rules come from case law and change over time and I have not checked if this is accurate
still.
Mac
Would that not open a discovery process that would give her lawyers subpoena powers that they have not had up to now? I don't
know what they could find after 36 years, but he probably has some ideas.
No competent attorney would advise Kavanaugh to sue anyone for libel. His entire life would be subject to the discovery
microscope and, regardless of what sort of person he is, I doubt if he or anyone else would want that.
Plus, as in any litigation he runs the risk of losing since as a public figure the burden of proof is his to show actual malice,
and what then?
Losing the case would be taken as confirmation by the media of the truthfulness of the allegations against him despite the
fact that any verdict may only be based on his inability to meet that high bar.
Sir, As you know I'm not a lawyer. I didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn recently. However, I'm pretty sure that if Kavanaugh is
personally barred from suing for reason of being a public figure, govt employee or something like that, that his wife and children
have a very real and viable cause of action for very real damages.
FACTS about this case--->Christine Blasey Ford - After 36 Years, she threw herself under
the bus for "the cause". Party was held; she forgot who she was with or how she got home;
she was drinking and said nothing to anyone. 1983, through to 2002 She said nothing. July
25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C Circuit...
She said nothing. 2004, 2005... She said nothing. May 11, 2006: The United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by
the United States Senate... She said nothing. June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice
Anthony Kennedy...
She said nothing. 2007, through to 2011... She said nothing. 2012... She remembered
'something' happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh, still said nothing to
authorities. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 -
She becomes an anti-trump activist 2018 - Now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS
confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh
regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals
herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations?
Who does she think she is?.......and then there's this picture of her and George
Soros...hmmm....Can anyone else see what's REALLY going on here? and now the Corrupt FBI is
"Investigating" this? LOL!!!!
I was sexually assaulted by that woman. I talked to my therapist about it. It happened like
30 years ago and I couldn't remember her and then I remembered how she closed her eyes
weirdly and was always smiling like a psychopath and I instantly remembered her. Nobody saw
her do it but oh well. Now she needs to defend herself.
Unfortunately, Christie Setzer has sexually assaulted her own anus with her head and it's
contemporary! Using a stolen car as a metaphor, still asks the same question. "Prove the car
was stolen and not moved or reposessed!" The same asks the moron of accusations against
Kavanaugh, "show proof of allegations to sexual wrongdoing!" Without this, this becomes
nothing but a smear campaign designed to oust the credibility of an honest man for nothing
but political purposes. Shame on Frankenstein, Climate Change Harris and Spartacus Booker!
Low life animals!
Look at her body language when she answers Tucker's question. She knows how ridiculous her
answers sound. She can't even keep a straight face. The burden of proof is on the accuser,
and that has never changed. All the other grandstanding is just to take up time. It is very
sad that the Democrats will knowingly attempt to unjustly ruin this mans reputation with no
regard for him or his family. I believe the Democrats know full well that he is innocent and
just don't care. To them the end justifies the means no matter who gets hurt. How do they
sleep at night?
"... There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats' treatment of the sexual assault allegations, are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. ..."
"... A central aim of the Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has been to obscure the most important class issues. They adopt the tone of phony moral outrage over the three-decade-old allegation while expressing no similar anger or even concern over the crimes committed by the American ruling class throughout the world. ..."
"... Not a day goes by where the US military is not dropping bombs or launching drone strikes, with the death toll from the "war on terror" well over one million. Thirteen thousand immigrant children are currently locked up in internment camps. Thousands of workers in the US die each year from industrial accidents and work-related illnesses. When Democratic Senator Cory Booker complains about the "patriarchy," he looks past the fact that the fall in life expectancy in the working class is largely driven by alcoholism, drug abuse and depression among men. ..."
"... Kavanaugh is himself complicit in these crimes, from which the relentless focus on allegations of sexual misconduct is intended as a diversion. There is documentary evidence Kavanaugh helped author Alberto Gonzales' "torture memos" during the Bush administration. He is on the record praising the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the National Security Agency. Email exchanges prove he advocates repealing the right to abortion for millions of women across the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party's refusal to address such issues is a deliberate decision. They are themselves guilty of involvement in these crimes -- and intend for them to continue, whether Kavanaugh or some other reactionary is on the court. ..."
"... twenty years ago Kavanaugh was a central player in the Republicans' anti-democratic use of sex scandals to attempt to bring down the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton ..."
After nearly nine hours of Senate testimony by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his
accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, the public is no closer to knowing what did or did not happen
over thirty years ago, when Ford alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh's future
as the nominee now depends on the outcome of an FBI investigation to which Senate Republicans
agreed on Friday.
The allegations of sexual assault have become the sole issue in Kavanaugh's confirmation,
and the Democratic Party and the media have presented Kavanaugh's guilt on this matter as a
foregone conclusion. The focus of the proceedings reflects the political priorities of the
Democratic Party and the interests of the affluent social layers to which it is appealing.
There are some who, though uncomfortable with the abrogation of the presumption of
innocence that is characteristic of the Democrats' treatment of the sexual assault allegations,
are eager to seize on any opportunity to keep Kavanaugh off the court. The ends, as the
saying goes, supposedly justify the means. They should be warned: This is bad politics, bad
strategy and even worse tactics. There are political consequences to such efforts to confuse
and cover up the real issues confronting the working class.
A central aim of the Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has been to obscure
the most important class issues. They adopt the tone of phony moral outrage over the
three-decade-old allegation while expressing no similar anger or even concern over the crimes
committed by the American ruling class throughout the world.
Not a day goes by where the US military is not dropping bombs or launching drone
strikes, with the death toll from the "war on terror" well over one million. Thirteen thousand
immigrant children are currently locked up in internment camps. Thousands of workers in the US
die each year from industrial accidents and work-related illnesses. When Democratic Senator
Cory Booker complains about the "patriarchy," he looks past the fact that the fall in life
expectancy in the working class is largely driven by alcoholism, drug abuse and depression
among men.
Kavanaugh is himself complicit in these crimes, from which the relentless focus on
allegations of sexual misconduct is intended as a diversion. There is documentary evidence
Kavanaugh helped author Alberto Gonzales' "torture memos" during the Bush administration. He is
on the record praising the constitutionality of mass surveillance by the National Security
Agency. Email exchanges prove he advocates repealing the right to abortion for millions of
women across the country.
The Democratic Party's refusal to address such issues is a deliberate decision. They are
themselves guilty of involvement in these crimes -- and intend for them to continue, whether
Kavanaugh or some other reactionary is on the court.
The Democrats are not even capable of addressing the fact that twenty years ago
Kavanaugh was a central player in the Republicans' anti-democratic use of sex scandals to
attempt to bring down the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton . To raise
this issue would expose the fact that the Democrats are engaged in the same methods today.
As part of their effort to center opposition to Kavanaugh on allegations of sexual
misconduct, the Democrats are utilizing the methods of #MeToo, which have consisted of treating
allegations as fact and the presumption of innocence as an unnecessary burden that must be
dispensed with.
The WSWS takes no position on whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations against
him. However, as a legal matter, all that has been presented are the uncorroborated assertions
of one individual. At Thursday's hearing, Democratic senators carried out a degrading
spectacle, poring over Kavanaugh's high school yearbook and his puerile, 16-year-old references
to drinking, flatulence and vomiting as though they prove he is guilty of sexual assault.
The media has followed suit. In an editorial board statement published Thursday night, the
New York Times presented Kavanaugh's testimony as "volatile and belligerent." The
statement makes no reference to Kavanaugh's political views, but concludes that he was "hard to
believe," "condescending," "clumsy," "coy," "misleading" and likely a "heavy drinker." The
reader is led to conclude that he must be guilty of the alleged crime.
Speaking on CNN last week, Hawaii Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono said the presumption of
innocence "is what makes it really difficult for victims and survivors of these traumatic
events to come forward." New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer told reporters that there
is "no presumption of innocence" in Kavanaugh's case because "it's not a legal proceeding, it's
a fact-finding proceeding."
The character of the Democrats' operation in relation to the Kavanaugh hearing allowed this
arch-reactionary to present himself as the victim of what he referred to in his opening
statement as a "left-wing" conspiracy. The Democrats are, in fact, engaged in a highly staged
political operation. However, there is nothing left-wing about it. On the contrary, the
Democrats have adopted the political methods of the far-right.
The presumption of innocence is no small matter and dispensing with it has the most
far-reaching consequences. Socialists have always stood against efforts by representatives of
the bourgeoisie to obscure the class issues and undercut democratic consciousness. The causes
with which the left has been historically associated involve a defense of the democratic and
egalitarian principles established by the bourgeois revolutions of the late 18th century,
including the presumption of innocence and due process.
The use of emotion and prejudice to weaken popular support for these rights, divide the
working class, and facilitate state repression, militarism and corporate exploitation is the
historical tradition of right-wing politics. Basic democratic principles are always most
vulnerable when the ruling class is able to play on moods of mass retribution against alleged
perpetrators of crimes, particularly sexual violence, due to its inherent emotional appeal.
The Democrats' strategy in the Kavanaugh hearings has much in common with these traditions.
Appeals to moods of vengeance and encouragement of visceral hatred of the accused are the
methods of medieval justice. They are being employed to advance the Democratic Party's efforts
to consolidate a political constituency among the affluent upper-middle class.
Socialists hold no brief for Brett Kavanaugh. But the tactics used against him will be
employed with a thousand times more force and power against the oppressed and those opposed to
the policies of the ruling elite. The case of WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, persecuted for
years on the basis of trumped-up sexual allegations, is one such example.
The operation of the Democrats in the Kavanaugh hearing cannot be separated from the
character of its entire opposition to the Trump administration. It has sought to suppress and
divert popular opposition to Trump behind the reactionary militarist and anti-democratic agenda
of dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. In this conflict within the ruling
class, there is no progressive or democratic faction.
Kavanaugh is a political reactionary and an enemy of the working class. However, in waging
its opposition to this right-wing Republican and the Trump administration, the working class
must not allow itself to be subordinated to the agenda of the Democrats. To do so would only
disarm the working class, undermine democratic rights and facilitate the ever more right-wing
trajectory of American politics.
"... The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable. ..."
"... Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty. ..."
"... In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not for it. ..."
"... As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence. ..."
"... First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never saw him at any party? ..."
@Ron Unz Ron .Think harder. First the entire process is cynical. 45 Dems were going to
vote against him regardless, This is all about peeling off a handful of votes.
Its about black balling a SC nominee because something might have happened. Of course
those 45 Dems could care less why they vote against him.
The Polygraph, to the extent it means anything, can only test if she believes it happened,
And it was administered as paid for by her Lawyers.
As far as drinking, it is a tactic to increase FUD. If he ever drank to the extent his
memory was ever hazy, he 'could've done anything and not remember it.
Finally, she volunteered herself. Its not like she was was identified as someone that was
in Kavanaugh's circle. She may never have met him.
Finally, why was it so traumatic? Because he laughed? It is not unlikely that someone that
fought off a drunken groping would actually felt empowered.
Rape is now a social construct entirely defined by women. Its their right to enjoy BSDM
like that promoted in 50 Shades of Gray but more extreme. Yet it is weaponized. Its like
being a commie or homo in the 1950s. Now 1950s commies and homos are celebrated. Traditional
definitions of rape were stranger rape and it was a potential capital crime. Its been
conflated to include what would have been considered bad manners.
In the Court System, there are enough due process safeguards to have forced College
officials to set up their alternative adjudication procedures.
Sorry Ron the only people who believe polygraphs work is the industry trying to
sell them. Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer passed them. So did Aldrich Ames our own
Russian Mole spy. If a person believes something then her vitals like Ford may be in a
certain range not to make the examiner find anything out of the ordinary. The polygraph
theoretically measures the autonomic system response. Any nervousness, stress, blood pressure
etc. can change whether the person is telling the truth or not.. I believe there have been
people that have passed the test that claim they were abducted by Aliens and UFOs.
Ford's memories have little validity because these therapies often produce false memories
and fill in the blank episodes. The Repubs should have asked her if she was on any drug or
had taken drugs in the past. How much does she still drink because all of these could
influence memories. Instead they became a door mat for the sick Me Too movement. Her memories
could also be a form of release for guilt of her drugged laden sexual past which now lets her
not blame herself. It was all of those drunken white guys who did it not me I am not
responsible. Now I feel better.
@Nicephorus Freud is a perfect representation of the Jewish obsession with all manners of
sexual perversion. The man was seriously F in the head, a total fraud who plied his patients
with cocaine and morphine then faked his test results...
Does anyone among us think that the FBI that has vetted Judge Kavanaugh six times already
won't turn up something on their seventh attempt? After all, DJT has been at war with them
nearly since Inauguration Day and Rosenstein is still riding high...
@Ron Unz I haven't followed the proceedings myself – apart from anything else I'm
not American – but one of the blogs I follow is the Irish Savant and he has a short,
punchy article about this affair if you're interested. I find him generally quite reliable
– even though he's obviously quite annoyed in this particular posting, as opposed to
his usual more laid-back and witty self.
From my own point of view, she-said, he-said unsubstantiated stuff from people now in
their 50′s, talking about stuff that happened in their mid to late teens, is just plain
bonkers. Totalitarian states demand that the accused prove their innocence – I was
under the impression that Western jurisprudence found you innocent until proven guilty. So is
a mere allegation now considered proof?
Not a road we'd want to go down, surely. And there's probably good reasons why polygraph
tests aren't accepted in law courts, as a circa 80% reliability just isn't good enough.
@Ron Unz Her polygraph exam was a joke. She and her lawyer drafted a vague, one-page
statement that does not say "Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape me."
The test-giver then asked her exactly one question, in two different ways: (1) Is your
statement true? and (2) Did you make it up?
The theory of polygraph is that confronting a liar and making him speak a specific lie
will cause a nervous response whose physical manifestations are detectable.
Deliberately letting her off the hook from having to speak (or even listen to) the lies
she is being asked to affirm seems like a transparent way to avoid triggering her galvanic
skin response or other physical indicia of dishonesty.
In my mind, the fakey nature of the polygraph exam counts against her credibility and not
for it.
P.S. It's also entirely possible that she failed a prior (more rigorous) exam, and they
just threw it away and tried again. Because it is attorney work product they wouldn't have
had to disclose that.
P.P.S. I wish I knew how to grab and paste a link from my phone, but a copy of her
polygraph report with the written statements and examination questions is easily findable
online if anyone wants to see it.
I am pro-choice and anti-gun, Kavanaugh is not at all my ideal judge. But
truth and fairness is much more important than my personal views on social issues.
I watched the trial with an open mind, and I came away thinking that the whole thing was a
farce, an embarrassment not just to Ford and Kavanaugh, but to all of Congress and the entire
country. This is a hearing that never should've been in public, it should've been in private
between the two parties, but Democrats clearly manipulated the situation and wanted to use it
to destroy an innocent man whose only crime is harboring certain political views that they
disagree with. It is pure evil.
Ford probably had been groped or worse treated in her youth, partly thanks to her own hard
partying lifestyle(according to her yearbook she was a popular cheerleader with a reputation
for hard partying and chasing boys), but she's got the wrong man in Kavanaugh, and her
accusations are at least partially politically motivated. All 3 people she named as
witnesses, incl. her best friend, swore under oath that such a party never even took place.
What she has is a bullshit case.
As Graham and Ted Cruz, both lawyers, pointed out, people who commit such acts tend to
have a trail of such activities, but after 6 FBI background checks, Kavanaugh came out
squeaky clean. The man of God swore to God and the whole country that he did not do any of
these things, that to me is good enough to attest to his innocence.
The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for such foul play, they are an
embarrassment to the whole country. Honor and integrity no longer matters to the left. They
have lost all sense of decency in their quest to hold on to power. The end justifies the
means. Flake the idiot needs to go ESAD.
Most of us would probably be far more upset if we were wrongly accused by a
bunch of crazy women whose only goal was to prevent us from getting that one job we worked
our whole lives for.
I am a woman and I think Ford lied through her teeth while Kavanaugh told the truth, and I
don't even like Kavanaugh's politics. Not a single witness she named corroborated her story.
She came across as someone who had one too many drinks in her life.
First, what about the testimony of her best friend, who wrote in a sworn
testimony that the party never took place, that she does not know Kavanaugh, and had never
saw him at any party?
Second, even if this all did happen, which is a big IF, they were both underage. We're
talking about a bunch of teenagers here. He groped but did not rape her. Who among us have
not done stupid things we wish we hadn't done when we were young and stupid? Judge the man
for who he is today, not who he was when he was a kid. There's a reason why we allow people
to expunge their juvenile records when they reach 18.
This whole trial is a FARCE, an embarrassment to the whole country.
Well, here's my impression of a possible "bare-bones" version of the incident
At an unsupervised suburban pool party, a couple of drunken teenage football players
pulled a girl into a bedroom, pawed at her a little while they were laughing, then let her
run away. Since they knew they hadn't had the slightest intent of gang-raping her, they
didn't regard what happened as being a big deal. However, it's quite possible that the
15-year-old girl had actually been pretty scared, and she long remembered it.
Doesn't she claim she mentioned it to people years before Kavanaugh was nominated for the
SC? Didn't Mike Judge write a whole book about how he had spent years in crude drunken
misbehavior? Isn't he currently hiding so that he can't be called as a sworn witness?
Also, isn't Kavanaugh now claiming he remained a virgin all through HS and college or
something like that? Given that he and his friend Judge were drunken jocks and his yearbook
was filled with all sorts of crude sexual humor, is that really plausible?
I suspect that administering official polygraphs to Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge would soon
clear up the facts. We're not talking about trained spies or anything. And three polygraphs
would probably increase the likelihood of a solid result.
Since I haven't watched the hearings or paid much attention to the story, maybe some of
the above material is just erroneous. But offhand, I think it's more plausible than claiming
this is all part of a CIA plot.
Whether this is a good test of Supreme Court Justices is entirely a different story
The FBI is also investigating allegations by Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor
at Palo Alto University in California, whose tearful dramatic testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee this week nearly derailed Kavanaugh's nomination - that is, until he
stepped up and delivered an impassioned denial that satisfied President Trump and Senate
Republicans. Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s when they
were in high school in Maryland. Ramirez told the New Yorker that Kavanaugh pulled out his
penis and shoved it in her face during a drunken dorm room party during their freshman year at
Yale.
Ramirez's lawyer confirmed that she would cooperate with the investigation, but declined to
comment further.
"We can confirm the FBI has reached out to interview Ms. Ramirez and she has agreed to
cooperate with their investigation," the attorney, John Clune, said in a statement. "Out of
respect for the integrity of the process, we will have no further comment at this time."
In addition to at least two of Kavanaugh's named accusers (two women more women have
anonymously accused him of misconduct though their claims are widely viewed as not credible),
several of the alleged witnesses whom Ford said also attended the party where the assault
allegedly occurred have agreed to cooperate.
But already, two potentially crucial witnesses have said they will cooperate with the FBI,
raising the possibility that at least more statements and recollections will be added to the
record, even if they're not ultimately definitive.
An attorney for Leland Keyser, a friend of Ford's who Ford says was at the party, said
Keyser also was willing to cooperate with the FBI investigation. But the attorney emphasized
that Keyser has no recollection of the party where Ford alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her.
"Notably, Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the
press that she believes Dr. Ford's account," the attorney, Howard J. Walsh III, wrote in an
email to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that
she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in
question."
Judge, the high school friend of Kavanaugh who Ford says was in the room during the
alleged assault, has also agreed to cooperate with the FBI. His account has been particularly
sought after because, unlike Kavanaugh, Judge has not denied Ford's allegations but has said
he has no memory that such an assault occurred.
Ford told the Judiciary Committee that some weeks after the alleged assault, she ran into
Judge at a local grocery store where he was working for the summer.
As WaPo reminds us, the FBI's investigation is merely a background check, not a criminal
probe. Notably, sex crime prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both Kavanaugh and Ford on
Thursday, said she wouldn't be able to pursue an investigation or even request a search warrant
given Ford's testimony.
A background investigation is, by its nature, more limited than a criminal probe, and FBI
agents will not be able to obtain search warrants or issue subpoenas to compel testimony from
potential witnesses. The FBI's interviews, which will take a few days to conduct, won't turn
into a sprawling inquest of everyone Kavanaugh went to a party with in high school, said a
person familiar with the investigation.
The paper also reminded readers, perhaps with a dash of tongue-in-cheek irony, that the
results of the investigation would only be shared with a small group of senators and would not
become public (though we imagine they will almost inevitably leak).
The FBI's findings will not necessarily become public. When investigators have completed
their work, anything they've discovered will be turned over to the White House as an update
to Kavanaugh's background check file. The White House would then likely share the material
with the Senate committee.
At that point, all senators, as well as a very small group of aides, would have access to
it.
The White House or the Senate would decide what, if anything, should be released publicly.
The bureau's work will likely consist mostly of reports of interviews with witnesses and
accusers. The bureau will not come to a conclusion on whether the accusations are credible
and will not make a recommendation on what should become of Kavanaugh's nomination.
While Democrats heralded the probe as an unmitigated win for their stalling strategy,
there's still a solid chance that it could backfire. As Bloomberg's Jennifer Jacobs revealed,
high school friends of Ford and Kavanaugh say the investigation could uncover some "fairly
unpleasant things" about Ford's behavior. Despite the dramatic footage teased to the media by
Showtime, which recorded an interview with Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick, the third
woman to publicly accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct (she claimed that Kavanaugh and Judge
participated in the "gang rapes" of disoriented young women at parties back in high school),
NBC News and
the Wall Street Journal reported Saturday afternoon that the White House has limited the
FBI investigation to Ramirez and Ford, and has not permitted the FBI to interview Swetnick.
While some accused the White House of "micromanaging" the FBI probe, and a spokesperson for the
White House said the parameters of the investigation were actually set by the Senate, which
said it wanted to limit the probe to only "credible" accusers,
NBC reported that it isn't unusual for the White House to set these types of boundaries for
background-check investigations, since the FBI is conducting the investigation on behalf of the
White House.
Avenatti was, understandably, less than pleased.
"I don't know how this investigation could be called complete if they don't contact her,"
Avenatti said.
Here's the teaser of the Swetnick interview, which is set to air Sunday night:
Regardless of what Ramirez tells the FBI - whether it's stunningly revelatory or utterly
mundane - we imagine it will leak to WaPo or the New York Times by mid-week.
"... And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians. ..."
"... The fact that Brock... has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Hillary never forgets a grudge. ..."
"... @UntimelyRippd ..."
"... @UntimelyRippd ..."
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
"... The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate at all. ..."
"... @Fishtroller 02 ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The Washington Post. ..."
"... The therapist's notes, ..."
"... do not mention Kavanaugh's name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... @Unabashed Liberal ..."
"... one bit of advice ..."
"... to listen very carefully to the question, and answer it, and only it. ..."
After watching the whole miserable spectacle yesterday, I found neither Dr. Ford's nor Judge Kavanaugh's testimony particularly credible.
As a former trial attorney, it was clear to me that Dr. Ford had been coached on her answers in coordination with the Democrats on
the committee, with the tip off being Sen. Leahy stumbling through the printed setup question that elicited the canned 'laughter...uproarious
laughter' answer.
Another example of coordination is found in the strong objection by her attorney to questions regarding the polygraph test, followed
by her failure to recollect any details of how she came to take the test or who paid for the test. Apparently we have only her counsel's
word that she passed, as they have yet to release the actual results.
Regardless of her memories of the facts surrounding the allegations, the appearance of coaching and collusion with Democratic
politicians diminishes her credibility as an impartial witness and suggests political bias as a motive for her statements.
Then this happened:
I have no idea what was in that envelope (Lee claims they were only fan letters), but the mere fact that a furtive Congresswomen
is passing secret documents to the witness's counsel after the hearing is further evidence of the Ford team's less than forthright
political impartiality.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, came across as a mean drunk. While I believe his tears and anger were sincere (especially when talking
about his dad), I did not find them particularly dispositive of his innocence. He has obviously been put through the ringer by the
drawn out hearing, and frustration and impatience at having to endure this ordeal to gain a position he clearly believes he is entitled
to seemed to be more the motivation than outrage at having been falsely accused.
Once he calmed down, Kavanaugh spent much of the hearing too-expertly filibustering the Democrats (incredibly lame) questioning.
He was combative at times, but again, mostly out of anger at the process rather than the allegations. He also clearly liked (and
still likes) to drink, and his repeated statements about how much he loves beer left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to
post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years.
The whole thing left me shaking my head as to what really happened. Ford supplied no new factual corroboration or other witnesses
to back up her testimony, and indeed, when asked under questioning about her counselor's notes on the incident stating there were
four other people in the room at the time, she admitted that the notes contradicted her hearing testimony that there were only two
others. Another credibility strike.
Kavanaugh too, despite his protestations, was clearly no choir boy in high school. He was a smart jock who hung out with a pretty
fast crowd. I don't think he is necessarily lying about being a virgin, but as the hearing went on I started envisioning a scenario
where his party buddy 'Judge' saw an opportunity to alleviate that condition by exploiting a troubled girl who was having a tough
time fitting in.
So while the lawyer in me is still certain that the totality of evidence in no way rises to the threshold necessary to disqualify
Kavanaugh, after watching the hearing the 'juror' in me is left with more doubts than answers about what really happened.
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's
procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
that Ford claimed to be claustrophobic about flying, so she wanted to delay the hearing several days so she could drive,
then she turns around and flies to D.C. And as one would expect to find, it turns out she flies to all kinds of places.
Ford has been claiming a life-long condition of claustrophobia caused by K. She supposedly didn't want to fly because of this
condition caused by K. The entire confirmation process was held up because of this condition. Then, viola!! She has been flying
all along!
So, how credible is her claim that she has this condition?
because I think the statement was probably a product of the gamesmanship between the committee members - basically a lawyer's
procedural excuse that doesn't really affect the witnesses basic credibility.
And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say
secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before
Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians.
In the email blasted out to Democratic donors on Wednesday, Brock writes that his organization American Bridge, which has
already raised $20 million this cycle , is launching a rapid response and polling operation specifically to counter Bannon
-- one that will test in real time any Republican lines of attack and try to quash them before they gain any steam. He is also
launching a digital advertising campaign across 70 House races.
...
Brock, who hosted a three-day donor retreat in Miami during Trump's inauguration last year to plot lines of attack against
Trump, has been less visible since the election. He shut down his organization Correct The Record, which served as an outside
press shop for the Clinton campaign in 2016. But he said he's been working just as hard behind the scenes, and sees the midterm
elections as make-or-break for Democratic chances in the 2020 presidential election.
The fact that Brock...
has a history with Kavanaugh and specifically mentioned him in his book about the Starr chamber is just more evidence that Hillary
and Brock were pulling the strings behind the scenes. Hillary never forgets a grudge.
#6.1 OMG OMG OMG - K called
HRC a bitch (like who hasn't?), OMG OMG OMG, K was heavily involved in repub politics (just like prominent dems have been in
their politics).
internet censorship and mass spying on We the People, that's enough for me. Obviously if they were serious, the discussions
and debates would be about more than these allegations. This is such kabuki it reeks. Anyone who doesn't realize that is lost
in the wilderness. I get a kick out of some right wing/libertarian type friends and acquaintances of mine who complain about the
democrats and the left attacking this asshole, saying it's all a setup and all this. Then I ask them if they support someone who
wants to let the government spy on them, censor the internet and continue the war OF terror forever. Ooops, brain gears all fucked
up. The only answer, abolish the supreme court.
During the confirmation hearings, there was very little (none from the Rs) examination of his actual court rulings. Although,
I am guessing he would have provided evasive answers if called on those just like he did on the Roe v Wade questions. (His own
rulings and the precedence he cites both show which way the wind blows.)
Someone needs to start an Adopt a Right-Winger Program like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs.
trial attorney then you should already understand that first-hand professional experience in the American trial system is the
opposite of useful epistemological training, except as a negative case. the entire process is a ludicrous parody of truth-finding.
anybody with an adequate education (including an autodidact) in the processes of reasoning, investigation, inference and proof
should, when presented with the way our trials are conducted, and in particular the sorts of "arguments" that actually fly in
American courtrooms, dismiss the entire endeavor with unceremonious contempt.
you've provided us your interpretation of these events through the lens of a trial lawyer -- but that's a fun-house lens when
applied to anything that isn't actually a trial, which this was not.
or the legal system, trial procedures and rules are carefully designed to ferret out as best as possible, the objective truth
of the matter (ie., what actually happened). Although this was not a court proceding, the basic principles of what constitutes
probative evidence and credible testimony can be applied to any hearing. I figured it was far past time somebody around here did
that.
@Not Henry Kissinger
for example, it has generated considerable wealth and elevated social status for its initiates. and it manifests a set of accepted
social institutions to which the wealthy and powerful can point for justification in their depredations. and it satisfies the
public's thirst for justice/vengeance by providing a robustly "successful" means for blame-assignment -- regardless of actual
blame (that TRVTH thing) -- by being so fucked up that various socioeconomically marginalized citizens can be
cowed into false confession via the threat of merciless retribution should they choose the recourse of their constitutional right
to a trial. and, and, and. yes, very useful indeed.
Both sides fight to win. They don't care about either truth or justice. Prosecutors want to convict. They use any and all legal
tactics to win. Defense lawyers try to get their client found not guilty, or failing that, a hung jury or mistrial. Both sides
seek ways to suppress facts and limit the jury's access (if there's a jury) to key information if they can get it deemed inadmissible.
Neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys want any facts that don't help their case brought into it, and will try every legal
tactic they can to keep them out.
The idea that they are seeking objective truth is obviously false. Justice is a bit more fuzzy of a concept perhaps, but from
my own experiences in court rooms, mostly as a juror, that's not the goal either. I was on one jury that ultimately acquitted
someone who we all believed to be guilty, but the prosecutor was unable to prove the case. So the defendant got away with the
crime. Is that justice?
On that case I did my civic duty and voted to acquit -- in fact, I was a voice in the deliberations on the side to find not
guilty, because that's the law. No proof, no conviction. Even though the defendant was pretty clearly guilty. The "but she's guilty!"
jurors, those who wanted to convict because thought it was about truth and justice, did come around.
We found out after the trial about some key evidence that had been suppressed due to legal technicalities, which we had not
even been allowed to consider. The thought that trials are about seeking the "truth" is clearly incorrect.
#8.1.1 You believe that our
whole judicial system never results in justice?
You keep saying this, but I am not aware of any witness that she "produced" nor of any witness who contradicted her. The only
actual witness is Mark Judge, and he refused to testify to support Kavanaugh. He said he doesn't remember. Dr Ford's friend who
she said was at the party also said she didn't remember it. That's not saying it didn't happen, just that she doesn't have memories
of that specific gathering. She did say she believes Ford regardless of her lack of specific recall. There's no witness that contradicted
her, that I know of.
Anyway, it's a bit odd how obsessed you are with attacking this woman, while you appear to have no issues or problems whatsoever
with Kavanaugh's many lies. Or his evasions, his obvious bias and partisanship, his odious positions like justifying torture and
literally unlimited presidential power, and the many other problems with his legal mindset as well as his entitlement and spoiled
frat-boy temperament.
And he's still going to end up on the Supreme Court anyway ffs. So don't worry, your idol will be in a position to ruin many
more lives very soon.
I think the poster is confused by K's claims that Dr Ford's allegations were "refuted" (he used the word every time he mentioned
them) by the three people she said were there. You are correct. They have said they do not remember which is not a refutation.
The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate
at all.
It remains remarkable that Kavanaugh has been allowed to repeat again and again that Christine Blasey Ford's high school
friend Leland Keyser had "refuted" her account of the party she was assaulted at. Viewers of this hearing would have no idea
that Keyser had in fact told The Washington Post while she does not recall the event, she believes Ford's allegation.
Not the same as saying that the witness contradicted her. Did you perchance read the article that I linked to? I didn't make
it clear that it's a link not just part of my comment. There are many tweets that have videos of key parts of testimony.
#9 people is not probative.
Anybody can say anything anytime.
She originally brought up K when he was on Romney's short list. So what? The witnesses she produced contradict her story. That
they contradicted her is actually worse than having no one to corroborate at all.
mostly because of my own personal experience (with a federal suit/hearing). Personally, I don't believe that anyone in this
thread intends to be offensive.
BTW, Blasey Ford--according to The Washington Post --didn't name Kavanaugh to her counselor in 2012.
Here's the reporting,
. . . the therapist notes and the polygraph test results were turned over to The Washington Post.
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.
The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not
mention Kavanaugh's name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on
to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington."
The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist's part. Ford said there were
four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
As far as 'coaching' is concerned, my only personal experience did not consist of prompting me to tell a certain 'story,' or,
telling me 'what' to say.
Met with the hearing attorney for quite a few hours--two days in a row--with my local attorney, and his extensive files. What
the trial attorney did do, was question me extensively.My impression was that he was testing my veracity, partly,
by comparing what I said to the notes of the other attorney. (Who, BTW, had complete confidence in my integrity and accuracy--that,
I know for certain.) At times, he would jump back to a topic--sorta out-of-the-blue. (Again, trying to test me, I thought.)
I've always understood that attorneys don't want any 'surprises.' So, I'm 'guessing' that it's the reason that both of them
covered any and all possible venues of questioning/topics.
At any rate, I had no complaints.
We won.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong." ~~W. R. Purche
to answer questions you expect the other side to ask. Coordinating the questions and answers with hearing panel members (as
was clearly evident) is a whole different issue. Glad your case turned out so well.
I did hear all but the first 10 or so minutes of Kavanaugh's testimony. Sounded to me like he had an overdose of caffeine--not
beer!
I have seen coke users (no, not the soft drink) do this with their mouth and nose, It occurred to me particularly as he was
sniffing long before he started his crying scene.
I believe them no less that I believe history books written by survivors of their era, which form the foundation of a modern
Western education.
I also know a thing or two about how memories are stored when the brain is intoxicated -- and what three decades of living
life on earth can do to those memories. And I most fervently believe that the outcome of all of this has almost nothing to do
with those long ago events. Instead, I am certain that this moment is about one's current political and social desires, going
into the future -- because that's the only thing that really means anything.
It looks to me like maybe K has just now figured out that there ain't gonna be no forgiveness. Not anymore. For decades, much
male misbehavior has been predicated on the notion that hazing, harassment and even assault of women will always be indulged,
smoothed over, and forgiven, no matter how crude and cruel, on account of how cute us women find him and how we just can't do
without him. Except, we can. And K, and other men are hurt and angry and crying because Mommy isn't here anymore, and we, many
if not most women, are not in a forgiving mood.
As for the lady, using the term advisedly, my first reaction is that I am happy and grateful that my daughter has chosen to
raise my teenaged granddaughter in a small town where sleepovers are allowed only if Mom has met the parents and NO private house
parties at all. My second is that it is a hard and cold world and the Lord doesn't love stupid.
A Republican Party strategist was quoted as saying he would be willing to loose the House to get K confirmed and I think that
may have just happened. I suspect K did the Rethugs no favors at all, electorally speaking.
There are videos of his testimony in the
link
I posted in my comment. As I stated I don't want someone with his demeanor on any court. He seemed pissed that anyone would
question his integrity. He interrupted democrats and gave snide comments back. And what's with all that sniffling? Allergies?
She was only used to question Ford, but when she started questioning him and asked him about the people who were named in
his calendar where he mentions "PJ" the republicans stopped her right then. Ford mentioned "PJ" too.
Regardless of his attitude, his previous testimony when he might have perjured himself he is going to be confirmed. As many
have stated this is just a circus for the rubes. Democrats had so many chances to question him on more important topics, but
they had no intentions of doing so. Ringling brothers came to DC.
I recall a black co-worker who went into a meeting angry over a chimp poster he felt was racist. The women were scared of him
too and testified such. He eventually settled with the employer; his own boss testified on his behalf (and I was glad for him).
Alot of women, for all their tough talk and grrrrrrrl power, are snowflakes.
I am hired by attorneys to school witnesses on how to answer questions. Like, "I think, I guestimate, it might, maybe, " are
not answers to questions. You either know for sure and certain, as a fact witness, or you answer "I cannot truthfully answer that
question."
As to lie detectors. If the operator asks more than 5 questions, the results are a joke. That is straight from the Texas Rangers
who trained in DC. They are the damn best. I have no idea how many questions Dr. Ford was asked.
@Unabashed Liberal
Listen to the question. Formulate the answer before you respond. Keep it short. Do not hesitate to say "I do not know" or "I do
not understand the question." Stay on point, do not stray. Look directly at the jurors, or at the judge if it is a bench trial.
Do not show anger during cross examination. Smile. Voice low and calm. If your hands shake, sit on them.
Take your time. Think. Be sure, be truthful.
If that is "evil witness coaching", so be it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with telling a witness what to say.
It is coaching the witness on the best way to get the truth onto the record.
I have coached eye witnesses with low IQ's.
They sailed through.
The Democrats, who are a criminal party, must have coached her and offered her a few
100K under the table, disguised as speaking fees, or scholarship, for manufacturing this
racket.
It isn't under the table – it's over it. She has a couple of GoFundMe accounts that
have already racked up $ 700,000. Of course, the 6-7 figure book deal will follow.
The FBI is about to investigate something that
didn't happen somplace on some uncertain day in 1982 to see if someone did something that
contradicts a large body of evidence that shows this would be totally out of character. This is
considered rational thought in the public space!
I'm sorry you could not account for Graham's outburst. I thought it the only honest thing
any of the Senators did. It makies me think less of you that you didn't see the outrage of the
whole presumption that this could even be discussed.
And no I don't believe that preposterous [to think that] Blasey [is CIA] operative. She and
her whole family work for the CIA.
Jones is circulating what many may call a conspiracy theory that Ford's father is a previous
CIA operative and a heavy-weight in arranging many avenues for the CIA to launder illicit
money. He implies that this was a classic CIA op.
He doesn't say so directly in anything I've read, although I don't read everything he
writes or listen to everything he says. But he clearly implies this.
Trump is at war with the IC. So, it's not unimaginable that such a thing is happening.
"... By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore". ..."
"... However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions. ..."
"... What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism. ..."
"... Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism. ..."
"... I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine, irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature. That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue, or invalid. Outmoded. ..."
"... Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth. IOW, Google fired him for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth ..."
"... Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent". ..."
"... "It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue. ..."
"... So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left. ..."
"... Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice; on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so he may not be aware of this. ..."
"... This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture , which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even being a civilization worth living in while it lasts. ..."
"... Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion. We still have peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes. ..."
"... This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely vulnerable to this. ..."
"... If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they bring to the table that men do not? ..."
"... I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda. ..."
In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the best modern Russian right-wing intellectual , period.
Unfortunately, he is almost entirely unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media
outlets like Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very small part
to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles (
Europe's Week of Human Sacrifice ;
A Cruel French Lesson ). Still, there's
only so much one blogger with many other things to write about can do.
Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating
fellow in his own right -- he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture -- though his insistence on anonymity constrains
what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's Galactus.
We hope to make translations of Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.
In the meantime, I am privileged to present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.
***
A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective
The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female
differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects. Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All
too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men. Women are looking for a balance between work
and private life, men are obsessed with status and sex.
Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the
society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the
long run).
It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately
charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear
purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was fired with immediate
effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing
harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair.
Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly
confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian Assange has already
tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity
as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore
will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative
criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative
naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore
unremovable and therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should
be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore
"true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision",
but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view
of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition
for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some
natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the
prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness that acts when individual
reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than
contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time.
And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired
engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed
to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative
as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic
model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is
indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and
housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our
options boil down to mostly agreeing with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and
culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural,
and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires
very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion.
Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating
true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate
degradation of the "superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the Communist
revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting
the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview
is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society.
It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call
them roles -- the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and females from expressing themselves
in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent.
The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical
memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true
charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater reverence towards fathers
that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued
by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous
issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic
classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well,
given our current hostile relations, it's probably for the better.
Thanks for translations of Russian authors. Russian is a hard language to learn and its grammatical subtleties are often difficult
to convey in English.
I think that Martin Luther received a more respectful and impartial hearing at the Imperial Diet of Worms in 1521 than James
Damore got from Google.
Dream on it would take a Henry 8 Lenin and Trotsky type revolution to get rid of affirmative action.
If it ever happens, the first thing to do would be to put every judge and their families in some kind of detention center,
close down every state and federal courthouse and completely re write the constitution to give all power to the elected executive
and legislative branches.
Every woman and minority organization would have to be treated the way Henry treated the monasteries and Lenin and Trotsky
treated the Russian counterrevolution.
I'd say only White men with 4 grandparents born in the USA be allowed to vote, but the damage was done between 1964 to 1973 or
so by native born American White men.
The feminazis are just fronts for the cannibal capitalists who used them to destroy the private sector unions, lower wages
for everyone and create a docile work force eager to work 80 hours a week for 40 hours wages.
I'd love to be the commissar in charge of ending affirmative action and punishing those who created and enforce it.
He does know history well for a polemicist, certainly better than anyone else on AK's shortlist. Not surprisingly, he's also the
only monarchist among them. But that in itself marks him as detached observer, ineffectual intellectual to put it more harshly,
not part of a practical movement or party.
Egor certainly deserves much more publicity than he is getting right now. I wouldn`t agree on the other Egor being the most talented,
but he did his own important thing, creating a first real media platform for the Russian nationalism.
"but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like
relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career."
Damore doesn't say that – he explicitly says the opposite:
" I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological
causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of
these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual
given these population level distributions."
The author of this piece has made the same error as much of the Anglo MSM. Damore has been a victim of liberal arts people
not being able to understand that he is talking about population averages, not individuals.
"Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each
gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions,
claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven
by objects and career."
He said no such thing. He said that as a group more women than men fit these stereotypes, percentages undetermined.
I thought the adjective Google chose to use to describe its rejection of his suggestion that there may be some genuine,
irreducible core of difference between sexes that is biological in nature. That adjective was "outmoded." Not inaccurate, or untrue,
or invalid. Outmoded.
Outmoded simply means unfashionable or out of date. It says nothing at all about accuracy or truth. IOW, Google fired him
for saying something that is unfashionable. Unintentional truth.
A focused and methodical approach is at least arguably not the key to innovation. Quite the opposite.
Such an approach is, more or less by definition, working within the box. It can locate and exploit all possibilities of the
space inside the box.
But true innovation, the kind that changes companies, industries and the world, is often created by those who aren't really
aware a box exists. They envision a new box. Once that innovation has been made, then the focused and methodical approach can
expand on and implement it. Build the box.
Don't know whether it's accurate or not, but there's a stereotype that East Asians are great at exploiting and elaborating
on and implementing the inventions of other groups. This would make the EAs classic focused, methodical, inside the box types.
But for that same reason not likely to invent world changing ideas.
Had a very interesting experience at a new company 20-some years ago. The CEO had a big thing about psychological testing.
Ran me through three days of standardized tests scored by computer, which was state of the art at the time.
I just about broke the computer. I scored waay on the right on certain things (beliefs, values, etc.) and waay on the left
for being open to new ideas.
You see, the people who wrote the programs saw those two issues as the same thing. To over-simplify (some) the authors thought
the only possible reason why a man might reject the idea of cheating on his wife is that he's not open to new experiences. That
belief in traditional moral values must spring from the same spring as an unwillingness to try a new cuisine.
To my mind, this tells us a lot more about the people who write the programs than it does about those who take the tests.
"and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant "Only to those too blind to see.
"The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization
of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes
would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and talent."
Excellent point. Allow people to do what they are good at. If a woman is good at & enjoys STEM then give her a fair
go -- but don't agitate & force women (or anyone) to do things they lack the enthusiasm for (while discriminating against those
who actually may have ä genuine calling & talent".
"It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West: men and women
are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as members of antagonistic classes." A lot of
truth here: although what is cause & what is effect is a knotty issue.
This type of diversity politics is stupidity to the Nth degree, offering up us white guys as sacrificial lambs for any and all
insults, crimes and sins of the last 400 years, real or not.
It's a shrewd trick by the ones in the USA who really control our nation and I don't mean Trump or Congress or the CIA.
It's that ethnic group that controls the FED, the US Treasury, those TBTF banks we get to bail out every 10 years or so, the
MSM, where they keep agitating for endless wars that do nothing for America, but do protect Apartheid Israel from a reality check.
They also control Hollywood, pumping out brain-numbing slop (mostly) filled with over-the-top violence, sex and nudity and most
of the music business, letting artists–mostly rap–sing indulgent songs about violence, sex, nudity and drugs.
They also have Congress begging to do anything for their Master, while we get told to PO when we ask for help.
And they control the two biggest Internet outlets, Google and FAKEBOOK, both of whom are into being self-appointed cops protecting
us feeble ones from allegedly fake stories, but actually shutting down stories that don't goose step to the glorious future they
envision, which doesn't contain us white guys.
After nearly 16 years of non-stop war, tens of thousands of dead American troops, hundreds of thousands horribly wounded, a
monstrous debt and a falling apart infrastructure with good paying jobs disappearing, Americans are rightly PO and want change,
but instead outfits like GOOGLE are directing that anger elsewhere and protecting the guilty.
"is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity
as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services."
Yep, we can discuss it in what the Libs consider to be our own little conspiracy-theory echo chamber. Sometimes you have to
accept that there is evil and then decide what to do about it.
The last sentence is my own main sentiment regarding this affair. It's something of a pity, but if they want to make each other
more a little more miserable and poor, then fine by me.
The Martin Luther analogy is, in my mind, vastly overblown (Google is not the Church, this guy is not some radical rebel but
a very mild internal critic, his – honestly somewhat surprising – current level of notoriety is probably as far as he is going
to get), but I suppose you have to compare it to something BIG or you don't have an article.
Egor Kholmogorov is a very intersting new voice – – thanks – all – for your efforts.
(James Damore is no Martin Luther: Luther is the person in world history , that is written about the most. By putting
Damore in such oversized boots, no wonder Kholmogorov after a while finds, that his subject doesn't walk properly. What Damore
tries to do is not, to understand our times, or to reform modern society or some such: He simply takes a position in a debate
over role models – and a debate about a pretty Marxist question, if you think about it: Just how many of our character traits
have a material (=biological) basis. That task Damore solves clear and well, I think. But more, he doesn't, – – whereas Luther
for example (or Brenz from Schwäbisch Hall & Melanchthon from Bretten) really tried – and (mostly) achieved)).
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement to
divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
This is turning out to be the most incendiary firing since James Comey.
Damore's essay is an expression of his self-interest
in retaining male dominance in software engineering and his anger that his employer is making moves of artificial reverse-discrimination
in order to try and reverse the dominance. It is guised in intellectual terms but that's really all there is to it. His company's
management supports the attempt to shift power from men to women – and are worried Damore or the likes of him will succeed in
organizing a male rebellion – which would bring the company down because of its dependence on the male workforce. That's why they
panicked and fired him. And to top it off, Google is run by a foreign feminized beta male – which – being a member of a minority
– is unable himself to take on The Powers That Be in America. Because a being a Hindu he's presupposed to need reeducation himself
to fit in American society.
Good article, Anatoly. Thanks for the translation.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and
therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor
of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all
of them away indiscriminately.
Not quite. Cultural Marxists actually seem to reject biology as such, believing that everything is merely cultural. (And
of course, just for good measure, they hate our culture, too.) As we all know, they definitely do not reject prejudice;
on the contrary, they loudly endorse reverse-prejudice as a 'necessary corrective'. But the author doesn't live in the US, so
he may not be aware of this.
Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most
importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Prejudice is simply the layman's empiricism -- i.e., learning from experience. When you don't know the individual in question,
you are always going to fall back on assumptions based on known patterns. That's why prejudice is impossible to get rid of: you
would have to get rid of human nature.
This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all
women are unfit for competition, that all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and
career.
I agree with commenter #10 above that this is not a fair characterization of Damore's argument. Damore spoke of statistical
averages. He never said "all men" or "all women".
However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just
biological determinism The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist
functionalization of society.
So true, and I wonder how you reacted to reading that, Anatoly. This is what Dugin (like Heidegger before him) is getting
at: a working, enduring civilization requires more than mere "rationalist functionalization". It also requires a proper culture
, which includes a worthwhile aesthetical and moral system. Maybe you might consider such a thought to be 'obscurantism', but
it is very hard to imagine a whole civilization premised exclusively on means-reasoning and efficiency lasting very long or even
being a civilization worth living in while it lasts.
"Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames
of class struggle."
In the long run, this is good. Natural selection will ensure that in a few decades Google and many other big Western corporations
who follow these lines will fail due to incompetence of their managers and employees, and more pragmatic ones will appear and
replace them, usually from more traditional and rational societies in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia) and East
Asia (China, South Korea, Singapur).
Martin Luther succeeded only because there was money to be made. Catholic Church had property and money. Princes of German
states went after Church property. This is why and how Protestant Revolution succeeded. W/o the princes the Protestant Revolution
would fizzled out and grass root movements would be squashed and destroyed like Thomas Muntzer peasant rebellion. We still have
peasants. But we do not have princes who are not part of the Church. So do not raise your hopes.
We know a lot about Martin
Luther private life but we know less about James Damore. Is there also the issue of getting laid?
Kholmogorov: " First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social
default and requires very good reasons to justify. "
I'm born and raised in late 20th century South-Eastern Europe and haven't seen a single thing that fits this description. Things
called traditions in my part of the world are exactly at odds with ever-growing accumulation of experience.
If Russia is preserves such traditions, I can only say it's a society such as I have never seen and have trouble even imagining.
Kholmogorov: " [T]he prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness
that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such circumstances, following the prejudice
is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but
still works most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in
disaster "
Following traditional prejudices was the choice of Nazi Germany toward Slavs.
The SJW's (Maoists) have been taught to hate everything white and/or male including the entire history of white culture. Damore's
supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet. White men who will not bend their knee
to Maoists are being hunted in Maoist controlled environs. This article is well reasoned. But there is no reasoning with zombies.
Even if they are former friends or family. White men have the same options as soldiers in the field. Fight, flee or fortify. Or
surrender. Avert your eyes and shuffle to the back of the bus.
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement
to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently
So in your world Bolsheviks didn't divide the population and loot the country?
This contemporary Leftist strategy is pretty Lenin-like. It's not a top down strategy, it's vanguardist takeover. These
corporations that promote leftism don't usually start off that way, they get taken over, and tech companies have proven extremely
vulnerable to this.
Once a company hits some success and starts growing beyond the start-up of tech geeks they hire lawyers, PR, marketers and
leftism gets its foot in the door. Once the old techie core cedes hiring and firing to some human resources department the company
starts hiring more leftists and minority puppets. The techies that brought the initial success are likely to be politically inept
and uninterested individualist personality types and eventually some clique of leftists realizes that the old guard of the company
is a bunch of pushovers when faced with a tight-knit group of political plotters.
They may realize that profits die in the process of converting a successful company to the leftist agenda but it doesn't matter
to them – they might even see it as a benefit, after all, the original success of the company was likely due to white men with
insufficiently progressive views so they get to both destroy something their enemies created and use the accumulated resources
for their agenda.
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the
capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution
and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
The English title was suggested by the author himself, likewise, he didn't object to my removal of the Sharikov allusion in
the text proper. Our joint opinion is that it would have been lost on 99% of readers and taken unnecessary effort to explain in
a footnote.
What is often forgotten is that whenever the term "intellectual" is used it must be the measure of correctness (supported by
empirical evidence, both prior and after) not just the measure of the knowledge (historic, economic, military, scientific etc.)
base one operates in order to sound "intellectual" and "sophisticated". This principle is long gone from Western "humanities"
field and it goes both ways: for so called progressives and so called "conservatives". I liked you using the term polemicist.
Once upon a time socialists dreamed that the proletariat would spontaneously rise up to break its chains and overthrow the
capitalists, then they got bored of waiting for that and invented the radical vanguard to lead the proletariat into the revolution
and then eventually they realized that the proletariat is superfluous and they just need the vanguard.
Ooookey Dookey! And how about other two fundamental signs of impending revolution? I agree with vanguard argument, after all
school in Longjumeau was doing just that–preparing the vanguard. But what about economics of revolution? What about political
crisis?
If men and women are in fact NOT different by nature, then what's the business advantage in hiring more women? What do they
bring to the table that men do not?
This same observation applies to all "diversity" hiring. If one denies the differences
among groups, there can be no business justification for diversity – aside, that is, from Lefty boycotts.
Very good, although I wish people would stop using the ideologically loaded term "gender" instead of "sex." Conservatives
should use traditional language if possible, especially when backed scientifically in this case by chromosomal evidence. Recall
Solzhenitsyn's observations on the totalitarian control of language to further their agenda.
So called contemporary left has nothing in common with old Marxism/ Leninism. It is artificial led from the top movement
to divide population to rule it and fleece more efficiently. In short, it is not left.
Damore's supposed conservatism is not the issue. He was punished for bringing it out of the closet.
Damore doesn't seem too conservative to me. If he were a conservative, he would be arguing against Google's policies on the
basis of cultural tradition. No, Damore is simply a scientist arguing on the basis of science. Nothing wrong with that, but it
isn't conservatism.
There's a lot to unpack in the national psychodrama that played out in the senate judiciary
committee yesterday with Ford v. Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford laid out what The New York Times is
calling the "appalling trauma" of her alleged treatment at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh 36
years ago. And Mr. Kavanaugh denied it in tears of rage.
Dr. Ford scored points for showing up and playing her assigned role. She didn't add any
validating evidence to her story, but she appeared sincere. Judge Kavanaugh seemed to express a
weepy astonishment that the charge was ever laid on him, but unlike other questionably-charged
men in the grim history of the #Metoo campaign he strayed from his assigned role of the
groveling apologist offering his neck to the executioner, an unforgivable effrontery to his
accusers.
The committee majority's choice to sub out the questioning to "sex crime prosecutor" Rachel
Mitchell was a pitiful bust, shining a dim forensic light on the matter where hot halogen fog
lamps might have cut through the emotional murk. But in today's social climate of sexual
hysteria, the "old white men" on the dais dared not engage with the fragile-looking Dr. Ford,
lest her head blow up in the witness chair and splatter them with the guilt-of-the-ages. But
Ms. Mitchell hardly illuminated Dr. Ford's disposition as a teenager -- like, what seemed to be
her 15-year-old's rush into an adult world of drinking and consort with older boys -- or some
big holes in her coming-forward decades later.
For instance, a detail in the original tale, the "locked door." It's a big deal when the two
boys shoved her into the upstairs room, but she escaped the room easily when, as alleged, Mark
Judge jumped on the bed bumping Mr. Kavanaugh off of her. It certainly sounds melodramatic to
say "they locked the door," but it didn't really mean anything in the event.
Ms. Mitchell also never got to the question of Dr. Ford's whereabouts in the late summer,
when the judiciary committee was led to believe by her handlers that she was in California,
though she was actually near Washington DC at her parent's beach house in Delaware, and Mr.
Grassley, the committee chair, could have easily dispatched investigators to meet with her
there. Instead, the Democrats on the committee put out a cockamamie story about her fear of
flying all the way from California - yet Ms. Mitchell established that Mrs. Ford routinely flew
long distances, to Bali, for instance, on her surfing trips around the world.
Overall, it was impossible to believe that Dr. Ford had not experienced something with
somebody -- or else why submit to such a grotesque public spectacle -- but the matter remains
utterly unproved and probably unprovable. Please forgive me for saying I'm also not persuaded
that the incident as described by Dr. Ford was such an "appalling trauma" as alleged. If the
"party" actually happened, then one would have to assume that 15-year-old Chrissie Blasey, as
she was known then, went there of her own volition looking for some kind of fun and excitement.
She found more than she bargained for when a boy sprawled on top of her and tried to grope her
breasts, grinding his hips against hers, working to un-clothe her, with his pal watching and
guffawing on the sidelines -- not exactly a suave approach, but a life-changing trauma? Sorry,
it sounds conveniently hyperbolic to me.
I suspect there is much more psychodrama in the life of Christine Blasey Ford than we know
of at this time. She wasn't raped and her story stops short of alleging an attempt at rape,
whoever was on top of her, though it is apparently now established in the public mind (and the
mainstream media) that it was a rape attempt. But according to #Metoo logic, every unhappy
sexual incident is an "appalling trauma" that must be avenged by destroying careers and
reputations.
The issues in the bigger picture concern a Democratic Party driven by immense bad faith to
any means that justify the defeat of this Supreme Court nominee for reasons that everyone over
nine-years-old understands : the fear that a majority conservative court will overturn Roe v.
Wade - despite Judge Kavanaugh's statement many times that it is "settled law."
What one senses beyond that, though, is the malign spirit of the party's last candidate for
president in the 2016 election and a desperate crusade to continue litigating that outcome
until the magic moment when a "blue tide" of midterm election victories seals the ultimate
victory over the detested alien in the White House.
"I'm going to rely on all of the people including Senator Grassley who's doing a very good
job," added Trump.
During meeting with the president of Chile, President Trump says he found Dr. Christine
Blasey Ford's testimony "very compelling." https:// cbsn.ws/2Oj63Rs
Meanwhile, CNBC reports that an attorney for Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's high school friend said
to have been in the room during an alleged groping incident, says that Judge "will answer any
and all questions posed to him" by the FBI.
"If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr. Judge's cooperation, he will answer
any and all questions posed to him," Judge's lawyer Barbara Van Gelder told CNBC in an email.
-
CNBC
Accuser Christin Blasey Ford says that both Judge and Kavanaugh were extremely drunk at a
1982 party that she has scant memories of, when Kavanaugh grinded his body against hers on a
bed and attempted to take her clothes off. She testified that it was only after Judge jumped on
the bed that the attack stopped.
Of note, four individuals named by Ford have all denied any memory of the party - including
Ford's "lifelong" friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, who says she has never been at a party where
Kavanaugh was in attendance.
American Dissident , 7 minutes ago
The same FBI that couldn't get to the bottom of the Las Vegas mass shooting in a year is
going to uncover new information about a 1982 high school party in a week - Right.
didthatreallyhappen , 13 minutes ago
the democrats are moving the goal posts to infinity. that was their plan all along. This
will never stop. Due process in this country is OVER, DONE, GOOD BYE
"... even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true ..."
"... Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC . ..."
"... "The Democrats have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him [Kavanaugh] answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's ridiculous." ..."
"... It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has consistently defended -- or believed -- women. ..."
"... I don't know that we are "revictimizing victims". There is no evidence that either of these ladies are actually victims. Just hazy memories, or possibly just partisan lies. There's no way to know. ..."
"... Judge Kavanaugh, like him or not (and I don't), appears to be the real victim. ..."
Christine Blasey Ford (CSPN) There are many reasons members of the U.S. Senate might object
to the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Take, for instance, the decisions he
handed down from the D.C. Court of Appeals, where he substantially affirmed the Patriot Act,
the surveillance state, and a broad use of executive power.
Instead of discussing Kavanaugh's controversial decisions, however, Americans are currently
transfixed by salacious stories of alleged 35-year-old sexual assaults committed by the
alcohol-addled teenage children of Washington's elite. As legislators ponder whether to place a
man in a permanent position of power, like salivating characters from Idiocracy, we remain
entranced by the hazy memories of women who allege that Kavanaugh assaulted
them.
Kavanaugh's accusers not only did not report the assaults, some 35 years later, they
are unsure of the dates, times, other people present, and even the locations where it happened.
Kavanaugh
categorically denies them. And now two other men have stepped forward to say
they were the ones who assaulted accuser Christine Blasey-Ford in 1982, not Kavanaugh. That
isn't to say the women's stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the fact and
without
corroborating witnesses , it is virtually impossible to disprove them.
Yet even before the facts were in, both the right and the left reached for well-worn
storylines, seemingly
eager to touch off a gender war. As a rumor that someone had accused Kavanaugh of sexual
misconduct emerged, some swiftly seized hold of a "boys will be boys" defense for Kavanaugh.
Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono, meanwhile, declared
that half the human population -- men -- should "shut up." Congresswoman Jackie Speier
warned Republicans to "beware the wrath of women scored. It will be your party's downfall."
To some supporters of the #MeToo movement, casually destroying an innocent man's life is an
acceptable price to pay "
in the process of undoing the patriarchy."
The question of whether the women accusing Kavanaugh should be believed should turn on the
credibility of the stories rather than on the gender of the accusers. The hyper-partisan
handling of the allegations, starting with Senator Diane Feinstein's decision to sit on
Blasey-Ford's accusation until the eleventh hour, helped the perception that Democrats
would go to any length to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination. Citing the obviously advantageous
timing, and the fact that
Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill Clinton's accusers , many
Republicans quickly called into question the veracity of Blasey-Ford's and Deborah
Ramirez's accounts.
Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual
harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen by the political parties as
nothing more than a means to advance the left's and right's familiar narratives. Both the ready
rape apologists and the myriad misandrists herald a scary new world, one where nearly 30
percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be confirmed
even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true .
One wonders how that
is possible.
Supposedly, the purpose of the #MeToo movement was to give enhanced visibility and
believability to victims of sexual assault. Yet the very opposite is achieved when political
parties callously parade alleged victims before the kangaroo court of public opinion as nothing
more than a prop to gain political advantage. Throwing reason, logic, and the presumption of
innocence out the window can only cause cause a serious backlash against victims -- not that
the monkeys in the Senate circus care about that.
The partisan political score has gotten pretty off-kilter when CBS News takes to
quoting a "moderate Republican living in the Boston suburbs" named Alice Shattuck, a mother
of four:
she's disturbed by the allegations Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez have made
against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and says that if there's proof the alleged attacks happened,
he's disqualified for the Supreme Court. "I don't care if he was a teenager or not."
But ask her what she thinks of the way the Kavanaugh case has been handled: "The Democrats
have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him [Kavanaugh]
answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's ridiculous."
Politico even ran an
article admitting that the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy's "illustrious family --
let's be honest -- includes men who have done as much damage to women as they have done good
for the country, with offenses including serial infidelity, an affair with a babysitter and
even deaths, including that of Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned when Kennedy drove a car off a bridge.
Kennedy and his pal, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, were notorious for alcohol-infused
misbehavior that, by one account, included a game of 'waitress toss,' which is just what it
sounds like."
It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the
mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has
consistently defended -- or believed -- women. The reason for that is, of course,
partisanship.
Regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh, this massive circus has contributed to the
revictimization of victims everywhere. And because the partisanship has become so rank, that's
made victims less likely to be trusted rather than more.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner. Her work has
been featured on Fox News, the Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics,
and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General Patton in World War
II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
I blame the GOP for trying to rush through Kavanaugh without releasing all his papers and
allowing the Senate to examine them closely. As for the accusations of sexual misconduct,
there are enough voices speaking about his drinking and crude behaviour to discredit all his
denials. I simply don't think he's honest, he seems to be slippery with the truth.
You lost me when you gave any credence to the two men who came forward to claim
responsibility for Ford's assault. The problem is that the crime that was committed is not
some light weight sexual assault but in most jurisdictions an incredibly severe felony.
In Louisiana (where I practice law) they would be charged with Attempted Aggravated Rape.
The underlying crime Aggravated Rape is subject to a minimum of life in prison without the
possibility of parol, so since it was 'just' attempted they would be facing 10-50 years in
prison. And of course there is no statute of limitations.
The idea that two men are going to voluntarily come forward and subject themselves to the
rest of their lives in prison is so fanciful it really cannot be believed absent so
incredibly compelling factor.
"That isn't to say the women's stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the
fact and without corroborating witnesses, it is virtually impossible to disprove them."
***************
It's worse than that. They also left out any detail that could be disproven through
criminal investigation: the time, exact locations, etc.
I know how investigations for sexual assault work when the crime's been committed years or
decades earlier. I had to give evidence to a detective to help prove victims were with an
offender on various occasions. I had to provide law enforcement with those physical addresses
& approximate dates. Other witnesses had to come forward & testify to back that up.
However terrible the accusation, the accused has rights to due process as well.
Thankfully he's behind bars now.
It's really appalling to me that young girls who are assaulted by non-celebrities have to
endure months & months of testimony & evidence gathering to be judged "credible". But
accuse someone in the public eye when it's politically expedient & all the rules
change.
[ ] and the fact that Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill
Clinton's accusers [ ]
To be fair, neither did Kavanaugh.
a scary new world, one where nearly 30 percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be
confirmed even if Blasey-Ford's accusations of sexual assault are true.
One wonders how that is possible.
If you're wondering, it's because you haven't been paying attention. Just about any time
some well-liked guy gets accused of this stuff, there will be defenders who say various
shades of "she lead him on", "she was asking for it", "how dare she ruin a good man's life",
and so-on. There is a significant number of people in this country who see being
accused of rape/assault/harassement as worse then doing it .
There's a reason so few women come forward with these stories. Because they don't get
believed, and when they do, they get blamed for it happening in the first place and then
blamed for ruining the life of a "good man".
So I'm not saying you should understand why some people think this way. But you shouldn't
wonder how it's possible because it's been evident that a large number of people just don't
care about abusing women for a very long time.
"It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the
mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has
consistently defended -- or believed -- women. The reason for that is, of course,
partisanship."
The reason for that is, of course, the pervasive enabling of men to be violent towards
women in our society. Couple that with the immediate move to blame the (female) victim. Toss
in the outcomes of cases like Brock Turner. Small wonder so few women report right away, if
at all. At some point, we husbands and fathers are going to have provide what the justice
system cannot or will not.
"Democrat Senators seem to genuinely think hiding allegations of rape and then springing them
in public are equivalent to the Republicans refusing to consider Merrick Garland for the
seat."
You think a two week delay is some sort of momentous thing? If the Dr. hadn't wanted to
testify, then there was serious debate as to whether the letter should be released
The fact that Kavanaugh and republicans see this as some sort of Democratic huge action is
just a partisan attack. He got accused of some stuff that became more credible with
publicity, because she decided to pursue it, and lots of corroboration happened. None of that
is the democrats fault
I am not so sure partisanship will do this. In reality victims of sexual abuse have never
been believed unless there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt that could not be ignored. In
which case very often the victims were blamed for the abuse instead of the perpetrator(s), at
least when they were adults instead of children and adolescents.
So maybe partisanship is helping victims of sexual abuse in the sense that there is at
least one party that will lend them an ear.
Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of
sexual harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen byone and
only one ofthe political parties as nothing more than a means to advance the left's
and right's familiar narratives.
Fixed it for you, Ms. Boland.
This war against men must stop. The Democrats started the Culture War. Can they stop it or
will they continue to the bitter end? When the Left and their useful idiots ruin the USA they
won't like what replaces it.
"The Democrats have been terrible. They're acting like partisan hacks. They want to make
him [Kavanaugh] answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It's
ridiculous."
Ford's attorneys asked for Kavanaugh to go first in a letter they wrote to the committee.
I haven't seen any Democrats endorse that idea. Barbra Boland doesn't name any Democrats who
endorsed the idea. Boland never the less tosses the quote out there as though it indicated a
problem with Democrats rather than with the conservative propaganda machine.
It's a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to
embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that
has consistently defended -- or believed -- women.
What's next, a reminder that southern Democrats supported slavery in 1850? The #MeToo
movement would not be necessary if we weren't talking about a widespread problem, one not
confined to any particular party or group. I suspect that Boland is engaging in this straw
man because she doesn't want to discuss question of which party supports the #MeToo movement
today. The Democratic party does, by and large, and not just in the context of the Kavanaugh
nomination. The Republican party is led by Donald Trump.
",Kavanaugh -- and Hatch, and Lindsey Graham -- seemed [bent on] exterminating the faint
notion that a massively successful white man could have his birthright questioned or his
character held to the most basic type of scrutiny"
Well, I am going to take issue with your dismissal of context. And note, I have routinely
maintained that youth male or female are measured by a different standard -- because they are
-- in fact youth. The attempt to make them into adults is the flip side of youth seeking
adult "pleasures." I am not going to be at linear to the rules of conduct of a young woman
who beds around in HS as I might adult women who bed around. Such context matters. There's a
reason we increase our expectations of children as they grow older to adulthood. And frankly,
it makes sense. This business of holding a sixteen year old to that of a thirty year old is
simplistic nonsense. Now each child is different, but children are in fact, children despite
the differences between them.
I agree, that this is not a boys will be boys matter. It is accurate that most boys seek
relationships with girls. It is not accurate that most boys seek to sexually accost women.
The pursuit of girls is not by definition accosting girls. When people say boys will be boys
-- they are not saying -- boys should get drunk and attempt sexual assault.
Nor do I buy that the story is credible therefore, such and such should happen. These
issues get played out in the political arena as if there some level of human perfection that
frees others to go crashing into people lives -- who reflect a level of humaness, that
plagues all of us. I have never been drunk. I can't even remember being invited to a party
where drinking was part of the main -- that did not include adults. And yet I am keenly aware
of at least one incident that plagues me to this day – it did not involve alcohol or
sex. And I can think of numerous events in which others were both verbally and physically
abusive -- teens in HS can be a mean, brutal, etc., etc. sort. And most of that is boy to
boy. The level of potential humiliation that teens are exposed to laughingly has no end
– the pecking order, is far less excruciating than the process is used to establish it.
And in that the girls can be as vicious. Needless to say, most boys exit HS virgins and I
suspect more exit college virgins more than we know. But the number of boys assaulting women
-- is nothing to the numb er of assaults that go one between boys. I won't even hazard a
guess how many of those had to do with girls --
High school is supposed to be figuring out the rules. I was teaching when Columbine
occurred. During that week, students expressed their HS days -- and very few would return it.
I cannot think of a single student who saw HS as a safe place -- yet, every year there are
thousands of HS reunions. So excuse me, if I am jaded to the tales of the privileged and
their Peyton Place dramas. I would that members of Congress would be so inclined.
Where this particular story falls apart for me, besides, its inappropriate introduction into
the process, hence the attempts to link her performance in college, some two more years
afterwards with no trauma reflection through HS --
The men and one woman she claims is her best friend, lifelong friend, whom she referenced to
support her story, does just the opposite. That does not mean what she experienced in her
mind was not real for her. But it does lend serious question as the events in reality. Then
she proceeded to throw her lifelong friend under the bus by suggesting her illness had
effected her mind.
I am fuming my housemate pestered into watching and listening -- laughing -- it's all her
fault. Jesting.
I think you are correct, this re-traumatizes women, discourages men or women who would serve
consider the matter not worth it, if every event in their lives can be used as claw hammer in
public castigation.
I also agree that the real issues are his views on the law, governance and the consitution
– and those areas you note have some serious concern for me. That our judiciary has not
had a clear eye on holding off government intrusion and the various order tactics in the name
pf the law that are in themselves unlaws and worse unethical is disturbing. But in truth,
Congress as a whole has not come to their senses that 9/11 was but a blip and a lucky strike
due to a lot of carelessness on the part of our agencies responsible for our security. To
this date not a single foreign state has been implicated in the planning or operation of
those events. But twenty years down the road the US has manged to topsy bturvy more than four
stable states. Making more room for discontented opponents. So its interesting that they did
not use this opportunity to enlighten the public on the issues that most to the the citizens
of this country will be impacted as to policy and polity. Some discussion of the games played
and court complicity in circumventing the law and ethics to obtain warrants.
I have no doubt that this woman as most have experienced some painful HS experiences and
more since. But it's hard to square, whatever she claims as traumatizing had no effect until
college and even more thirty years later while remodeling her house. But unlike some people
in HS her enemies, if she had any, did not follow her seeking to make hay of her life –
there are people who experience that level nastiness.
Nothing prevented her from escaping a home-life, education and community she didn't like
and head off to the beaches of California. Where she dumped the rigors of math for something
she liked better. In all that time she never once sought to redress what she thinks happened
to her. Now one might give room for people without means, connections and privilege brio, but
this young lady had all that and more and did nothing. There men and women in with nothing
who fight everyday for some relief from wrongs done to them.
Note: I am not referencing the escape clause of it's past the dead line – so the
injustice must stand -- that's a rather tawdry mechanism – in view of the integrity
demanded by government. Statute of limitations is often a management dodge. Government and
the powerful stonewall, but if that limit is to the benefit of a target, they move heaven and
earth find ways around it or manipulate by changing it outright.
I don't know that we are "revictimizing victims". There is no evidence that either of
these ladies are actually victims. Just hazy memories, or possibly just partisan lies.
There's no way to know.
Judge Kavanaugh, like him or not (and I don't), appears to be the real
victim.
But we no longer live in a great country. Just a place where people will happily perform
any unethical act in hopes that their team will win. On both sides of the aisle.
"... I think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman. The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix, who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the Senate. ..."
They were too afraid of the women's movement, and therefore could not bring themselves to
challenge her in any way. Interspersed between the prosecutors questions which did not have
the time to develop, was the awards ceremony given by the democrats to the honoree.
But we , the people, all saw that she was mentally disturbed. Her appearance (post clean
up); her testimony, her beat up looks, drinking coke in the morning, the scrawl of her
handwriting in a statement to be seen by others, the foggy lens, the flat affect, the little
girl's voice and the incredible testimony (saying "hi" to her rapist only a few weeks later
and expecting everyone to believe that is normal, remembering that she had one beer but not
remembering who took her home; not knowing that the offer was made to go to California as if
she were living on another planet, her fear of flying, her duper's delight curled up lips
– all the tell tale signs were there for all the world, except the Senate the media, to
see.
She went to a shrink with her husband in 2012, and it was her conduct that apparently
needed explaining, so she confabulated a story about 4 boys raping her when she was 15 to
explain her inexplicable conduct to her husband, and maybe even to her friends. She later
politicized the confabulation, and she is clearly going to make a few sheckels with her
several go fund me sites that will inexplicably show $10.00 donations every 15 seconds.
She was the leaker. She went to the press almost immediately in July. They were too afraid
to point that out to everyone because the phoniest thing about her was that she wished to
remain anonymous.
As a foreign observer, I watched the whole hearing farce on CNN till midnight in Germany. For
me, from the beginning, it seemed a set up by the Democratic Party that has not emancipated
itself from the Clinton filth and poison. As their stalwart, Chuck Schumer said after the
nomination of Judge Kavanaugh that the Dems will do everything to prevent his confirmation.
They found, of course, a naive patsy in Dr. Ford, not to speak of the other two disgraceful
women that prostituted themselves for base motives. Right from the beginning, Dr. Ford played
to me the role of an innocent valley girl, which seemed to make a great impression on the CCN
tribunal that commented biasedly during the breaks of the hearing committee. It was a great
TV-propaganda frame.
Don't forget; the so-called sexual harassment occurred 36 years (!) ago. Dr. Ford was 15,
and Judge Kavanaugh was 17 years old. But Dr. Ford discovered her "suffering" after she heart
from the nomination of Kavanaugh in July 2018. Why didn't she complain to the police after
the "incident" happened in 1982 or at least after the "me to movement" popped up? May it as
it is. Everybody who knows the high school or prep-school-life and behavior of American
youths should not be surprised that such incidents can happen. When I studied at the U of
Penn for my M.A. degree, I got to know American student campus life. For me, it was a great
experience. Every weekend, wild parties were going on where students were boozed and screwed
around like hell. Nobody made a big fuss out of it.
On both sides, the whole hearing was very emotional. But get one argument straight: In a
state of the law the accuser has to come up with hard evidence and not only with suspicions
and accusations; in a state of the law, the accused has not to prove his innocence, which
only happens in totalitärian states.
Why did the majority of the Judiciary Committee agree on a person like the down-to-earth
and humdrum person such as Mitchell to ask questions? It seems as if they were convinced in
advance of Kavanaugh's guilt. The only real defender of Kavanaugh was Senator Lindsey Graham
with his outburst of anger. If the Reps don't get this staid Judge Kavanagh confirmed they
ought to be ashamed of themselves.
This hearing was not a lesson in a democratic process but in the perversion of it.
@WorkingClass Really – everyone should know by now that in any sex related offence,
men are guilty until proven innocent .& even then "not guilty" really means the defendant
was "too cunning to be found guilty by a patriarchal court, interpreting patriarchal Law."
My comment on those proceedings today was this: "This is awful, I've never seen a more
tawdry, sleazy performance in my life – and I've seen a few. No Democrat will ever get
my vote again. They can find some other party to run with. Those people are despicable.
Details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKSRUK-l7dM”
;
Later on, I noted: "None of this has anything to do with his record as a judge – and
that's not such a good record: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-brett-kavanaugh-national-security-readers-guide
at least if you're concerned with the Constitutional issues SCOTUS will actually decide. None
of it, not one word. It's irrelevant. It's partisan harassment, it's defamation, it's
character assassination, and all of it is *irrelevant* , it's useless – and in the end
it will be both futile, because there will be a party line vote, and counterproductive,
because a lot of people will be totally repelled by the actions of the Clintonistas –
because that's what those people are."
The Neocons are evil. They despise Middle America almost as much as do the wild-eyed
Leftists, just in a different way for slightly different specific reasons.
Well it looks like the repubs will get what they want – a woman abusing (like their
President) alcoholic defender of the rich and powerful. Fits right into their "elite" club.
After watching the Big Circus yesterday, I rate Ford's performance a 6 (sympathetic person,
but weak memory and zero corroboration). Cavanaugh gets an 8 (great opening statement,
wishy-washy and a dearth of straight answers during questioning). Had it been a tie, the fact
that the putative event occurred when he was 17 would break it.
@anastasia Good points, but yesterday's inference is that she became permanently
disturbed by the incident 36 years ago . In my experience, most psychologists are attracted
to that field to work out personal issues -- and aren't always successful. Ms. Ford fits that
mold, IMHO.
One thing I haven't heard is a challenge to Ford's belief that her attackers intended
rape. That may or may not be true. Ford testified about "uproarious laughter." That sounds to
me more like a couple of muddled, drunken male teens having their idea of "fun" -- i.e.,
molestation and dominance (which is certainly unacceptable, nonetheless).
Much ado about nothing. Attempted political assassination at it's best. American's have once
more been disgusted to a level they previously thought impossible. Who among us here does not
remember those glorious teenage years complete with raging hormones? What man does not
remember playing offense while the girl's played defense? It was as natural as nature itself.
No harm, no foul, that's just how we rolled back in the late 70′s and early 80′s.
@anastasiaI think you've really nailed it, Anastasia. Watching this farce on TV, a
few things were quite obvious to me: Christine Ford is a very disturbed and unhappy woman.
The Republicans were afraid to question her. So, they brought on this attorney from Phoenix,
who was a total flop. Senator Graham finally rode in to save the day. (I am not accustomed to
praising Graham. But he was effective yesterday.) The lead democrats, Feinstein, Leahy, and
Durbin, were actually ashamed when senior Republicans publicly called them out for the sham
they were perpetrating on the American people. The silly Senator from Hawaii and Dick
Blumenthal demonstrated that they had no shame. All in all, it was a low point for the
Senate.
For his part, Kavanaugh is oddly obtuse for one who is said to be such a great jurist.
Meek, mild and emotional, he does not seem up to the task of defending himself.
It appears that Ms. Mercer wrote this before the second half when things were looking
bleak.
Reminded me of Super Bowl 51 at halftime. I even tuned out just like I did that game until
I checked in later to see that the Patriot comeback was under way.
@mike k You are a useful idiot for the destruction of western civilization. Men are not
abusers of women, excepting a few criminals. Men protect families from criminals.
@Haxo Angmark Yes, Ms Mitchell did a very incompetent job, but it won't matter. Kavanaugh
will be confirmed Saturday, due to his own counterattack and refusal to be a victim.
Little miss pouty head cute face was a huge liar, obvious from the second I heard her. The
kind of chick who can go from a little sad voice to screaming and throwing dishes and
brandishing a knife in a heartbeat.
The hearing about potential Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh is still going on, but the
hearings have clearly missed 90% of key material facts that as always - as we have explained in
our books Splitting Pennies and
Splitting Bits , the world is not as it
seems; and certainly, not ever - as seen on TV. The peculiar thing about this particular
political circus is that the GOP is allowing this to happen, as if there's nothing they can do
to allow the left to manipulate the masses before the elections coming up, all we need after a
victimized woman by an old, respectable white man is another school shooting, this time with a
white rich kid holding the gun at a minority school. Having said that, if you do have children
at public schools, it might be worth considering home schooling or private school at least
until the swamp is drained, if it ever will be (or consider a remote rural public school where
staging such events is less likely). As these deep-state nut jobs will stop at nothing to
acheive their ends, which seem simple but evil: vindicate the Soros - Clinton Mafia (which is a
multi-family 'faction 2' power center that goes well beyond Bill & Hillary) and in the
process destroy Trump and everything connected to it.
Why wasn't this 'accuser' vetted, as one would be in a court case? This is after all the
'judiciary committee' we know the answer to that, this is political theater of the worst kind.
However if this were a court case, and the complaining witness were to undergo
cross-examination and deposition, they should ask the following questions:
What is Dr. Ford's relationship with the CIA, and with her father?
The importance of noting the CIA banking connections of Ralph G. Blasey Jr. , this
report explains, is due to the outbreak of what is now known as the " CIA
Bank War " -- and whose start of, in 1982, a CIA seized from publication news report
( Declassified
in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/05: CIA-RDP90-00965R00150010-7 )
describes as: " This is Wall Street, the center of the international banking system, a
system on the edge of a crisis so severe that the Central Intelligence Agency is
preparing drastic measures. Something must be done to avert the breakdown of the Free
World's monetary system. "
Who paid for her lawyer, lie detector test, and other items related to her
testimony?
Was she offered a book deal?
What is Dr. Ford's association with the Soros foundation, directly or indirectly?
What is the association with Frederick_T._Melges and specifically,
did they collaborate on work involving mind control, memory, and time while at Stanford, or a
CIA think tank, or any other time?
What is the explanation that no other witness can testify to verify the statements of
what happened that night, combined with the lack of other physical evidence, and even
evidence to the contrary? (Such as Brett Kavanaugh's diary/journal he kept)
What are the political associations of Dr. Ford, specifically are there direct
connections to the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, including but not limited to
when Clinton
was the Secretary of State ? (For those of you who don't know, the State Department is
the political cover for CIA operations globally.)
This staged, orchestrated, and artificial testimony is no doubt the creation of deep-state
actors connected to Soros/Clinton/CIA et. al. The GOP doesn't want to mention MKUltra in a
public hearing as this would take things in an entirely different direction. If this was a
court, it is highly doubtful that a jury would convict Kavanaugh based on he said she said with
no evidence for the complaining witness but an overwhelming amount of evidence for the defense.
Not only the hundreds of character letters of support, the diaries/journals, and all the work
Dr. Ford has done over the years on mind control as a qualified and practicing Dr. of
Psychology (Edited 10:00 am 9/28/2018, it was misreported "Psychiatry" Dr.
Ford works as a practicing psychologist in Stanford's department of Psychiatry ); but the
fact that Kavanaugh has actually worked for the Federal Government and the White House
specifically on a number of occasions and has gone through a Congressional confirmation many
times - why now? Something is fishy here, just as it was proven that several of the 'victims'
of Trump were actually paid actors, the mere accusation is enough to cast doubt on the whole
topic. And this accusation isn't from a poor helpless child, it is from a Dr. of Psychiatry
that has authored more than 50 papers on the topics of behavioral science, including topics of
great interest to the CIA such as:
Ford has written about the cognitive affect of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, too. She and her co-authors wrote, "[Our] findings
suggest that there may be a range of traumatic experience most conducive to growth and they
also highlight the important contributions of cognitive and coping variables to psychological
thriving in short- and longer-term periods following traumatic experience."
Finally, why is the GOP so defenseless as to allow such a show to occur, which will do much
greater damage to the mind of the Sheeple than it will to actually affect the appointing of
Judge Kavanaugh or not. Whether he is appointed or not, the damage to the minds of the masses
is done - this further polarizes an already polarized country divided between the 'sane' and
the 'insane.'
Article update 9/28/2018 - We have updated the article to reflect change in name, we wrote
'Psychiatry' which should have been 'Psychology' this was a mis-read on our end, in a rush to
publish quickly. Mistakes happen in quick sloppy journalism which operates under real-time
market conditions like trading. However, we do not believe it significantly impacts the
argument here, however, if we are to publish an article about misrepresented facts we better
have all of our facts right! Other elaboration will come in another article, to be composed
over the weekend. Stay tuned. www.globalintelhub.com
Requiem To Marion Barry: The Kavanaugh Sex Spectacle
By Robert Willmann
Update (Friday, 28 September): It looks like Senator Lindsey Graham (Repub., South Carolina)
might be reading SST. On the radio shortly before 9:00 a.m. central time, he was talking,
probably in the hallway, and was saying that there is no statute of limitations on rape in
Maryland, and so if someone wanted to make a complaint to start the investigation of a criminal
case, that could be done. There are additional issues to research, such as whether a person to
be charged was a juvenile or adult for purposes of crime at the time of the alleged offense,
its effect on the statute of limitations, and so forth, as mentioned below.
-----
As a coincidence theorist, I find it mathematically interesting that accusations against
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh began when they did, and continued in sequence spaced out
up to and including yesterday.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California) is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. She is
also, surprisingly, on the Senate Intelligence Committee, given the financial investments and
activities by her husband Richard Blum in China. Right on cue, after the Kavanaugh confirmation
hearing ended, Feinstein began Act 1 of the three act play you could see coming from a mile or
kilometer away, with its three act structure: the set-up, conflict, and resolution--
In Act 1, Feinstein revealed a mysterious letter that she would not disclose to her
Democratic colleagues about an unnamed accuser who did not want to be known or get involved. In
Act 2, the accuser "comes forward" and her name becomes known and there is the demand that
there be an investigation, that she testify before the committee, and that any vote be delayed.
Act 3 is played out today.
Having been involved in the prosecution and defense of criminal sex cases, I am not watching
the contrived spectacle now underway, which is political maneuvering and propaganda. But I have
seen an image of the goings-on, and am wondering who did Christine Blasey Ford's hair this
morning and picked out the clothes she is wearing for her role as accuser.
The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee scuttled around and painted themselves into a
corner by tentatively agreeing on Saturday, 22 September, to a hearing of sorts for Thursday,
27 September, at which Ms. Ford would testify [1]. Then, by coincidence, of course, up popped a
story in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday, 23 September, that a female named Deborah Ramirez
claimed that in the 1983-84 school year at Yale University, Kavanaugh exposed his male sex
organ to her at a drunken dormitory party [2]. Waiting until the seventh paragraph of the
article, authors Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer begin the disclaimers--
"Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and
that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will
inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned
about her memory, given her drinking at the party."
In paragraph 10--
"The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the
party."
Then on Wednesday, 26 September, purely by coincidence, and the day before the new committee
hearing for Ms. Ford, up pops Julie Swetnick, with her written statement--
Since some writers and commentors and certainly some readers here on SST have spent much
time at work analyzing information, statements, and situations -- especially when soldiers'
lives are at stake -- I do not have to take apart the Swetnick statement and discuss its
unusual characteristics. It is so full of holes you can drive an 18-wheeler truck through it,
and readers can see for themselves. Yesterday, 'Publius Tacitus' examined her "declaration" in
a posting on this site.
An easy example: notice the contradiction in paragraphs 11 and 13 in which Swetnick claims
that in 1981-82 she purposely avoided drinking the punch at the parties because Kavanaugh and
others made efforts to "spike the punch", but that in approximately 1982 was gang raped after
being incapacitated by "Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking".
Swetnick's salacious statement seeks to make a direct criminal accusation against Kavanaugh
by saying, in paragraph 12, that she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and
others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so that they could then be 'gang
raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys". She continues: "I have a firm
recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties [when? where?]
waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett
Kavanaugh".
This accusation crosses the line into what is called in Texas the "law of parties" and
"criminal responsibility for the conduct of another" [3]. In the federal court system the
doctrine is referred to as "aiding and abetting".
In her crafty little statement, Ms. Swetnick is deliberately vague about where these
"numerous" parties that were a "common occurrence" and "occurred nearly every weekend during
the school year" actually took place. She says in paragraph 2 that she graduated from
Gaithersburg High School in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which tells us nothing about the location
of the alleged bad conduct. In paragraph 7 she said that she attended "well over 10 house
parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the years 1981-83 where Mark Judge and Brett
Kavanaugh were present". She further says in paragraph 9 that she "witnessed such conduct on
one occasion in Ocean City, Maryland during 'Beach Week' " [what conduct? that claimed in
paragraph 8?].
Every District Attorney "in the Washington, D.C. area" (as Ms. Swetnick likes to say) can
research the law to see what the statute of limitations is as to rape and other possible crimes
alleged by Swetnick in her statement. A "statute of limitations" or "limitation of actions" is
the time period in which a civil or criminal case can be filed. If the time period has expired,
a case cannot be brought. Some crimes have no statute of limitations. The age of the
participants is also part of the research. There will be an age at which a juvenile becomes an
adult as far as crime is concerned. In Texas and likely in other states, criminal cases against
juveniles are handled differently than those against adults. In some instances, a juvenile can,
after a hearing, be designated as an adult, or "certified to stand trial as an adult", for a
crime allegedly committed as a juvenile. How this is affected by the statutes of limitation is
also an issue that can be researched.
I see that the University of Maryland has a law school [4]. With the privilege of available
time in the academic world, a professor and perhaps some students could do this research and
easily write an article on the issues of what the law says about the statute of limitations,
possible crimes for investigation, and their relation to the matter of juveniles and adults,
relating to this Swetnick matter.
Washington, D.C. itself is a separate entity, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia prosecutes both federal and "serious local crime committed by adults"
there [5]. It is interesting that the Justice Department website does not refer to juvenile
offenses committed in Washington, D.C. They may be handled by a locally elected D.C. "attorney
general" [6].
If politicians want an investigation, let one begin by the District Attorneys in the area
and the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. So far as is known, Ms. Swetnick has not approached any
of them with her dramatic complaint.
As a final note, why a requiem to former Washington, D.C mayor Marion Barry? Not publicized
much, if at all, were his academic accomplishments, as he had a master's degree in chemistry,
which is not an easy thing to achieve. He was a formidable politician and activist. He was
interrupted by an FBI sting operation in 1990 and arrested for a drug offense in the presence
of a female in a hotel room. Now with the current ongoing revelations of hostile attitudes and
even actions by personnel of one or more federal agencies against candidate and now president
Trump, the targeting of a politican with real charisma might be more than a coincidence. The
undercover FBI video of the event recorded for posterity the immortal words of Marion Barry,
candidly repeated in paragraph 3 of this Washington Post story--
If I may address this as a lifelong feminist roughly the same age as Ford, here are my
observations from yesterday:
Women are very susceptible to groupthink. I wish it were not true, but it appears to
be hardwired in us to be empathetic, and this makes us prone to mass movements of many
different sorts, from belief in witchcraft (usually by other women, of lower status) to
belief in epidemic levels of sexual assaults (mostly experienced by others, but if we
lower the bar to touching, rubbing, or unwanted passes, we all get to play).
Men are expected to "shut up" and take it in the era of MeToo. Which is very
interesting because it assumes (even demands) the maintenance of a chivalric code of
honor amongst men, whilst destroying the comity between the sexes that has prevailed in
the West since it was revived and democratized in the 19th and 20th centuries. What we
saw yesterday in the impassioned (yet reasoned) testimony by Kavanaugh and his savior,
Lindsay Graham, was a crack in that comity.
MeToo is undermining the tacit agreement by men and women to play by rules agreed to
long ago, rules that suspend the age old logic of "might makes right" and has enabled
women to tread a long road to something like equality of opportunity. I read the results
of a poll this morning that strongly suggests the only group that changed its mind as a
result of the testimony yesterday was college educated men. They swung significantly into
Kavanaugh's camp. I can tell you that my own husband, a kind and committed feminist of
many years who finds Trump repugnant has followed this trajectory as well.
The Democrats have thus pushed many men out of their camp. They are now the party of
women. Of angry women. Of hateful women. Let's see how that plays out in November.
I am a 75 year old male, raised Republican. I have been voting Democratic for several
decades. The past ten years my voting pattern has been mostly anti-incumbent. This
display of dishonoring the democratic process has returned me pretty firmly to my
Republican roots.
When the Weinstein and Cosby issues created the #metoo movement, I was on board. This
event was the last straw in driving me into the camp that considers the movement a power
struggle, one which has as its sole purpose the total subjugation of the male gender. All
of which would seem to bolster your point.
It's like all the anti-Putin accusations. Personally I think it's wrong to get into the
minutiae of this or that detail: more "details" are easily created and it all serves to
keep the smear alive. A robust contempt is best, I think.
Patrick, #babbling: probably the most manipulative woman I ever experienced, pretty close
up, was engaged with a lawyer, who also wrote her thesis, while she slept with all of his
friends. One thing he manged to accomplish otherwise after he left was that he made her
aware of evidence apparently: Keep and store your calendar, it's evidence. Always be
prepared.
Kavenaugh: The only thing that doesn't quite fit into my own stored memories is the
fact that the mother was the lawyer and the father did this as did he tells us. he did
following tradition. Thus is life. But the father may have done on the mother's advise,
or may have been a descendant of lawyer family?
There was this odd tongue signaling during his "testimony" I have never seen before.
We have a politician who as a tic on the nose It reminded me of it.
The investigations issue not only arose in the "hearings" but was a Democratic cudgel at
great length, and Democratic supporters are pillorying Kavanaugh because he "refused 16
times to agree to an FBI investigation." Apparently that proves his guilt.
The Democrats, of course, want an investigation to delay a confirmation vote. With
some luck and the cooperation of the FBI, that delay could last until the midterm
election, after which the confirmation vote might go against Kavanaugh. He knows this
very well, and did not agree to any such delay, which might allow the Blasey Ford
accusation to succeed indirectly in derailing his confirmation.
So even if he is innocent of what the woman accuses him of, the delay of a lengthy FBI
investigation proving that (or failing to prove guilt) might still serve the purpose for
which the accusation was made, which is keeping him off the Supreme Court. And Democrats
accuse the Republicans of engaging in dirty politics.
I don't think this was as purposeful as ringing Fort Sumter with artillery. But, if
mankind survives, this hearing will be identified as the start of the globalist verses
nationalist Civil War in the West. Democrats don't have the votes and are powerless to
halt Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court. Rather than addressing issues
and serving the people; they used a gender canon to try to derail the nomination because
he is a Donald Trump selection.
Brett Kavanaugh is a mean drunk. He has not done the 12 Steps. He showed his anger
when he said he is a victim of revenge on behalf of the Clintons. If the GOP rams this
through today, comity and compromise are gone. Equal justice for all is dead. This is
power for power's sake. Damn the Torpedoes. Full Speed Ahead.
Hi VietnamVet, I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that "Brett Kavanaugh is a
mean drunk". I am just wondering how you would react if someone you don't even know that
well accuses you of attempted rape or mental anguish for 36 years? It is possible that
Dr. Ford might have confused Bret Kavanaugh for someone else. it seems that you have
watched the TV yesterday, please tell me how can a professor of Psychology and with years
of experience in teaching doesn't even know who and how to contact her representative for
some 36 yeaars? Also it seems to me that she didn't even know that Chuck Grassley offered
to interview her since she claimed that she didin't know about the offer to interview her
in Palo Alto Ca? Are we supposed to be that she is that dumb? If so we sure have
professors in Palo Alto and Stanford Univ who are not worth a dime. God help us if these
world famous institutions are employing such people to educate our future leaders. Never
mind the excuse that she was afraid of flying when she was taking various trips for fun
and other activities. I just can't believe that people are falling for such a confused
person. I am not saying that she didn't experience sexual assault, I have no idea but it
seems to me that she was confused about the perpritrator of that assault. Thanks
One possibility say's Kavanaugh and Ford BOTH are telling the truth. Seeing that
Kavanaugh more less admits to heavy drinking during this time in his life, he could quite
possibility have been drunk enough that night to have no recollection of specifically
what went down that night - especially seeing that all might be endemic of these rich
kids mode of "party on" at the time.
Where are all the other examples of him being a mean drunk in his life? How about an
example from last month, last year or even sometime in the last decade?
But, what's this habit of his of sticking his tongue into his cheek? Never seen it
before. We have a CSU politician over here that cannot speak without twisting his nose
once in a while. By now I find him quite amusing to watch. Is this a stress symptom or
does he do it all the time. I wonder?
Just assure me it's not unusual. Will you?
Things that stick out tend to draw my attention. And yes for a second, I wondered if
he was signalling.
That must be more common in Germany than it is here. As a sitting federal judge he has
the advantage of writing his opions out and not being required to perform theatrics when
making legal judgemets.
A Marion Barry reference is better than discussing accuasations against Congerssman Keith
Ellison, the same kind that got Senator Franken to resign. Interesting to note that
Senator Feinstein not only had the letter from Dr. Ford, both as forwarded by
Congresswoman Eshoo and later by Dr. Ford herself; did nothing with it but wait for
weeks, then had her staff advise Dr. Ford on which attorney to hire, then claim neither
she (the senator) nor her staff leaked the thing to the press, thus not only throwing Dr.
Ford under the bus with the leak but running her over with the denial. Unless it was that
other Democrat, Congresswoman Eshoo, did it.
Great script writing. Worthy of an Oscar. Justice Kavenaugh of course gets to play the
role assigned by Alinsky: "make them live up to their rules". I wonder how many votes the
"blue wave" picked up with this performance?
A powerful man as "victim" is somewhat unbecoming...Kavanaugh's "judicial temper tantrum"
was a little "hot" by Marshall McLuhan standards. I sure wouldn't want him on any bench I
was standing before in court.
A man is not made of stone, but flesh and blood. The law is the law, but judges are human
beings, and human beings feel attacks upon our person and our families very deeply. No
one is pure intellect. We knew he had the intellect to do the job. We did not see until
yesterday that he had the backbone to do it well. And Lindsay Graham channeled the
righteous outrage of millions of Americans perfectly in his supporting role. I was
pleased. You, of course, are free to disagree.
I don't agree. How should he have defended himself, objectively speaking after 35?
years? ...
She may, subjectively have experienced real danger at her age. I admittedly was a bit
startled when she told about her fear in the WP, more precisely about one word, she felt
she could have been "accidentally", interestingly enough, killed/murdered. ... I wondered
about it. And she repeated it precisely that way.
Although yes am heavily aware of something that may be a female shortcut, rape,
decision between surrender and murder. To shut you up. But accidentally?
Now put on your common sense hat. It is a hot Saturday afternoon. You are hanging at the
pool. She goes to a "small" party. Where did she go? She does not remember. What we know for
certain is that none of the three boys she identified being at the party did not live in
Bethesda/Chevy Chase. Kavanaugh and Smith lived near the traffic circle at Western Avenue and
Massachusetts Avenue, NW. That is almost four miles from the Columbia Country Club. Mark Judge
lived quite aways outside the beltway (I-495) in an area between Potomac and Rockville. He was
a good 12 miles away.
Who was the mystery fourth boy? She cannot remember. Maybe he lived near the Columbia
Country Club.
The house was not the home of her friend Leland Ingham either. Ingham actually lives within
a mile of Georgetown Prep.
None of the four people identified by Blasey Ford corroborate her account. None recall such
a party. Most damning is the fact that Leland Ingham says she did not know Brett Kavanaugh.
While she reported has told Blasey Ford that she believes Ford's account, she herself failed to
provide any supporting testimony.
According to Blasey Ford, Kavanuagh and Judge were very intoxicated. Okay. How did they get
to the mystery house? Did both drive drunk to the location? More importantly, Kavanaugh was not
a member of Columbia Country Club. He was a member of Chevy Chase Country Club (which is about
two miles south of Columbia). Although the two clubs are in the same general vicinity, the
members of these clubs did not interact/socialize with one another. Those hanging at the Chevy
Chase Club pool were not on the phone with those laying around the Columbia Club pool.
The Democrats are pinning their hopes on an FBI magic bullet. They will be disappointed.
Here is what the FBI will do and discover:
They will interview Christine Blasey Ford, but she already has provided her sworn
statement. If she starts changing her tune then she has new credibility problems.
They will interview the four people she identified as allegedly being at this party. All
four are already on the record with sworn statements that no such party took place and no
assault occurred.
They will be able to use Kavanaugh's calendar to check all possible dates where such an
event could have taken place and interview the persons listed by the Judge.
Since Ford cannot identify the location where the alleged assault took place it will be
impossible for the FBI to visit the scene of the supposed crime and interview owners and
neighbors.
It is possible that the FBI will interview the two men who came forward claiming they may
have been responsible for the assault the Blasey Ford is claiming.
The FBI will submit the 302 reports and will note that there is no corroborating evidence
or testimony to back up Blasey Ford's allegations.
At this point the Democrats will probably begin insisting that the FBI was under duress and
did not conduct a proper investigation. They will call for a Special Prosecutor and independent
investigator. This is not about discovering truth. This is all about thwarting Donald
Trump.
This looks like a modern reincarnation of inquisition.
Notable quotes:
"... this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009. ..."
"... the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction ..."
"... [Some] Women if you reject, or even if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary. ..."
"... A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing. ..."
"... I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen. ..."
"... Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and didn't report it. This is mass hysteria. ..."
"... When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually a lot of pleasure to be around. ..."
"... I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off. ..."
"... Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts. ..."
"Besides filing
a federal civil lawsuit against police officers, prosecutors and other witnesses in his case, Filler
filed a complaint about former prosecutor Mary Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar, which resulted in Kellett
becoming the first prosecutor in recent memory to be publicly sanctioned by the state over prosecutorial misconduct. Kellett, who
now works as a defense attorney,
prosecuted Filler at his first trial in 2009.
Filler, who now lives in suburban Atlanta, was contacted via email but declined to say how much money he is getting in the settlement.
"I am grateful to all my attorneys but most of all I am grateful for my strong family and my two amazing children who I
have been blessed to see grow up," Filler wrote in a statement Monday night." Bangor Daily News
------------
Ok folks, this fellow, in the back in this picture, has so far received $375,000 in damages from various parties in Maine
for having been railroaded by his ex-wife and her friends, who included the woman prosecutor, in his rape trial in 2009.
The review process decided that his wife lied about him to gain revenge in a custody case over their two children and that
the prosecutor who has now been sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct withheld exculpatory evidence to obtain a conviction
. A friend of the wife, a female RN, coached the wife to cry in court so as to make "it seem more real." The RN has been sued by
the now vindicated ex-husband. I hope she loses every cent she might ever have.
Several here on SST have maintained that women seldom falsely accuse men. What a joke!
"... the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male." Kipling
Every guy worth his salt knows this to be true. Even most women know this to be true. There was a reason for the line "hell hath
no fury like a woman scorned."
Most not ALL women are extremely emotional and not rational. The average IQ is 100. So 50% of the women are below that but
I am supposed to believe that any accusation is 100% to be believed.
It's such a joke as to bring contempt upon the part of society who is pushing this. [Some] Women if you reject, or even
if they perceive you as a threat will do anything to crush you. Probably evolutionary.
Men murder women at an obscene rate and it is probably hardwired into them for protection. That part I can understand and emphasis
with strongly.
However, these stories such as this poor guy endured are nauseating. A bunch of SJW warriors have created a system of traps
for even the good guy who tries to do the right thing.
I have had several discussions with friends outside the reach of the current inquisition. We reckon that 90% of the women
are lying. Where do you think this derives from? If emotions rule you then by definition you are not rational. Young women for
the most part are ruled by extreme emotions probably dictated by estrogen.
How about the UVA rape case rolled out by the Rolling Stones? Just another delusional female that the press demanded we believe.
How about the Duke Lacrosse team? Another false accusation pushed by the female dominated press who dominate their SJW warrior
co-workers and secretly have contempt for them being so feminine. Right now there is a twitter #tag called #whyididntreport
and within 2 days an article I read claimed there are over 700,000 women who claimed they were sexually assaulted or raped and
didn't report it. This is mass hysteria.
The number I am sure is in the millions now so there are millions of women in America mostly who have been raped and not reported
it. I call bullshit.
Why do women hate other women? Why can't we discuss the truth anymore?
When I lived in South America the first thing I noticed were the women behaved differently. Much less aggressive and actually
a lot of pleasure to be around. I should have never left regardless how bad the air was.
Years ago I attended Medical School and 50% of the students were female. And normal, fun, and I miss them. Maybe it is intelligence
and not the gender. They were certainly as smart or smarter in many cases than us guys. Top 2 students were female. So I am not
an ogre. But stories like this piss me off.
Not surprised. I have twice found myself on the receiving end of lying women as a teenager. Once by a girl trying to score
points on another girl at my expense and another time by a butt ugly who boasted to her sisters that she had had to fend me off.
Most men, I think, have similar tales. We (both sexes) are still unreformable primates and we follow natural instincts.
"... Of course women can be just as cruel, heartless and power hungry as men. It is rather ironic that the Dems are relying on the attitudes about women 100 years ago... that women are the fairer and gentler sex and need to treated with kid gloves. Oh, and they are more moral too! Once upon a time feminism was about aiming for "equality" but it has devolved into victimhood and power games. ..."
"... Oh the poor babies! I'm sure such party changes have never happened in history before (/snark). The difference this time is the losers are acting like children having a tantrum because their mommy won't buy them the toy they want. And the Republicans don't know how to handle the tantrums. ..."
"... Trump and Trump supporting candidates to give a voice to the conservative/libertarian/independent opposition to the establishment RINOs. There is a civil war going on within the Republican party. ..."
"... The Walkaway movement is only one of several movements taking place on YouTube encouraging independent thinking and analysis versus unquestioning submissive loyalty to a power hungry political party. ..."
"... The Kavanaugh situation is just a symptom of the partisanship tearing America apart. ..."
"... I know many of your will argue that we are a Republic and majority opinion in America as a whole is irrelevant. That being the case maybe Americas has gotten too big for its britches. Would it not be better for an amiable Divorce where Red states and Blue states can build their own countries and see how things shake out for their respective peoples. ..."
"... Obviously the country cannot be divided by counties. My point was that if you look at NY state for example you will find that most of the state is red. ..."
"... Women often lie about men because they are angry at them or resentful of rejection or some other reason. "those few?" Surely you jest . It happens a lot. ..."
Yes, I know you are not supposed to say things like that, but, it happens to be true that
women are not semi-divine beings, born with few traces of original sin. Like men, they lie,
fornicate, cheat and steal. US senators are apparently constrained by politics into adopting a
rhetorical position in which they pretend that women are better and more filled with integrity
than men. To hell with that! Such a position is so obviously untrue as to be absurd. I am not
going to soften my words by whining about all the wonderful, brilliant, adorable, madonnesque,
but still desirable women I have known. (so to speak). In the present circumstance such an
attempt to mollify the harridans, male and female, is just weakness.
It is clear to me that a silent coup is underway, a coup against the conservative/deplorable
side of America. This is a coup that seeks to deny the Republican Party the ability to govern
by abandoning the customs and norms of civility that lie at the center of the US form of
government while reverting to the law of the jungle "red in tooth and claw." In US government
it has been long understood that recognition of the fragility of the Union within the framework
of the constitution should be accepted as a basis for what people are wise to say and do to
each other.
There have been rash actions in recent years, actions that have damaged the comity that once
prevailed in places like the US Senate. McConnell's decision to deny Merrick Garland a hearing
was a terrible mistake which provides the Progresso Democrats with an excuse to stonewall any
and all Republican nominations for the judiciary. Harry Reed's decision to abandon the 60 vote
rule for cloture in judicial appointments was very short sided.
The Progresso Democrats are delaying the Kavanaugh confirmation in the hope that they will
recover one or both houses of congress. If they control the House, they will pass bills of
impeachment against Trump and probably Kavanaugh as well. If they also control the senate then
one or both of these might result in convictions and removals. This would not be politics. It
would be war conducted as politics. The Progresso Democrats should not expect that such actions
would be meekly accepted.
The Republican leadership in the senate looks weak as it seeks to placate the Progresso
Democrats over proliferating and shaky claims of molestations leading to wounding of the female
soul. There is no reason to think that procrastination will not continue endlessly if this is
allowed to govern Republican actions. Why should conservative/deplorables turn out to vote for
weaklings afraid of being called misogynists by people like Senator Blumenthal?
The Judiciary Committee should have voted him out today and the full senate should have
confirmed him on this Wednesday. Every day that passes without that confirmation is a victory
for the Progresso Democrats. pl
I wouldn't call it a coup, it's politics in a new form. The new form is brought about by
social media mobilization boosting tribalism and an unprecedented form of gender
politics.
There's a big gap between reality and what the media reports on any gender issue.
When I was practicing criminal law, it was accepted in the courthouse halls that women
lied to put their partners in jail, usually in domestic abuse cases. The motive was often
revenge for cheating or breakups. There were also bad dates, cheating relationships, and
one night stands without a callback that turned into rape cases. Talk to bailiffs/court
security officers in any criminal court about this issue.
Women and men are different. Their fundamental goals, sexual and otherwise, are just
attenuated, obscured and expressed in politics. Otherwise, we're on the plains of the
Rift Valley, 10000 BC.
This guy explains a lot of it and its political expression pretty well. He calls it
"the Feminine Imperative." Maximum constraints on male sexuality, maximum freedom for
women to trade up. Evolutionary psychology.
Some of my best friends cannot stand Donald Trump but voted for him only because
of the power the POTUS wields when it comes to the federal judiciary. So far, they've not
been disappointed.
I can't fault Grassley's indulgence entirely, since the GOP has such a slim,
unreliable majority - he HAS to tap dance for the benefit of Flake, Corker, Collins and
Murkowski or else there aren't enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh. The delay of a few days
has allowed time for the accuser's OWN WITNESSES to refute her claims. Delicious!
The fact that Democrats had another dubious claimant come forth just as Ford's claims
crumbled only succeeded in proving how craven and sleazy their game plan is. I may be
wrong, but I suspect the Democrats are performing a GOTV service for the Republican Party
by reminding hitherto complacent voters just how much is still at stake. This has been a
blaring wake-up call if ever there was one.
To the right of me - spineless, cowardly Republicans.
To the left of me - anti-American socialist Democrats.
If Kavanaugh is not appointed, there will be many Republican FORMER office holders.
A shame that Grassley (Feinstein's bitch) can't be one of them.
Sen. Chuck Grassley in trying to be open and run a "fair" hearing has instead created
a circus. Exactly what the NeverTrump media want.
Both Chrstine Blasey and Debbie Ramirez have provided names of corroborators to the
assault, who have all denied any knowledge. Sen. Feinstein sat on Blasey's letter for 2
months and did nothing until the vote was scheduled. As you rightly point out this is
just drive-by-shooting by the Democrats and their allies in the media to create the
necessary hysteria. Their hope is that this will wake up their supporters to turn out and
vote for their candidates in the mid-term.
We'll see if Grassley and McConnell schedule votes this week.
Of course women can be just as cruel, heartless and power hungry as men. It is rather
ironic that the Dems are relying on the attitudes about women 100 years ago... that women
are the fairer and gentler sex and need to treated with kid gloves. Oh, and they are more
moral too! Once upon a time feminism was about aiming for "equality" but it has devolved
into victimhood and power games. This is why the young Youtubers are increasingly
adopting anti-feminist rhetoric (anti this current sick wave of toxic pseudo-feminism).
It has been surprising to see how many young women (20's and 30's) have become
ex-feminists.
This is the Democrat party fighting for its life. If it loses this, then the walls will
tumble in. They went from a shoe in candidate to the implosion of their party inside of
24 months.
Oh the poor babies! I'm sure such party changes have never happened in history before
(/snark). The difference this time is the losers are acting like children having a
tantrum because their mommy won't buy them the toy they want. And the Republicans don't
know how to handle the tantrums.
Fighting for it's life? ROTFL... That's basically similar to saying a corporation is a
person. It's the party leaders that are fighting to maintain their power - their jobs and
influential roles. They are fighting for gov't power, dominance and control for their
donors and fellow elites just like the Republicans are. They still have lots of it, but
are not satisfied and are willing to go to disgusting lengths to maintain and increase
it. At least on the Republican side there is Trump and Trump supporting candidates to
give a voice to the conservative/libertarian/independent opposition to the establishment RINOs. There is a civil war going on within the Republican party.
This behavior as poor losers, their increasing nastiness and obvious authoritarian
ways have triggered huge numbers of people away from the Democrat party. I have been
following trends on YouTube, which is where all the interesting political trends are
playing out these days IMO. I have been listening to #Walkaway stories. The MSM does not
want to talk about these, and has been trying to actively suppress the info. Facebook
"conveniently" banned the gay leader of the #walkaway movement for a nothing-burger
recently, for a month, just before their rally in DC end of October. I think some
conservative groups such as Turning Point USA are having rallies at that time as well.
Alex Jones is planning on reporting on it all. I'm sure Antifa won't be able to resist.
That's good news because they simply trigger more people to walk away. Should be really
entertaining.
What's fascinating to me is that they aren't leaving over policy or political platform
issues as has been typical of politics in the past. They are leaving because of the
nastiness, the intolerance of any dissent from the narrative
(authoritarian/totalitarian), and the over the top propaganda/lying. Some are becoming
independents that will be voting Republican for the time being because of their current
disgust with the Dems but have not joined the other tribe. However many have become
conservatives and they have been welcomed with open arms. Especially the black, Hispanic
and gay #walkaway folks who are all pleasantly surprised by that. There are even a few
Republicans in the movement who are walking away from their party to being an independent
voter while maintaining an identity as a conservative.
The Walkaway movement is only one of several movements taking place on YouTube
encouraging independent thinking and analysis versus unquestioning submissive loyalty to
a power hungry political party. It is overall a right leaning trend which is a reaction
to the cultural over reach of the left. There is a New Right emerging culturally. They
are young, hip, witty, insightful, and real (as opposed to news anchors on MSM). They are
not at all like the old school Repubs. They use humor and memes to mock which is very
effective. So of course, the MSM is starting to write hit pieces about these influential
YouTubers. The elites want the masses controlled, not laughing at them and thinking for
themselves.
These young smart Youtubers give me hope and often make me laugh. Much more fun and
enlightening than MSM propaganda.
There sure is a lot of anger out there. The Kavanaugh situation is just a symptom of the
partisanship tearing America apart. Both the left and the right consider themselves
aggrieved and thus justified in their anger. We have some elections coming in less than 2
months. This should provide some clarity in what most Americans want. I suspect the
Democrats will take back the House but the Senate probably will be evenly divided. Is
that not how Democracy should work?
I know many of your will argue that we are a Republic and majority opinion in America
as a whole is irrelevant. That being the case maybe Americas has gotten too big for its
britches. Would it not be better for an amiable Divorce where Red states and Blue states
can build their own countries and see how things shake out for their respective
peoples.
This is a FEDERAL republic. A unitary republic like France is equally possible. If you
are thinking of an "amicable divorce," you need to look at election results by county. To
get any kind of uniformity of political opinion it would be necessary to divide many of
the states. These would include California and New York.
Pat - I was merely being practical when I suggested state divisions. Chopping up America
into really small county divisions would yield entities that are too small to be
self-supporting along with transportation issues of crossing boundries. Perhaps some of
the big states could be split into a few new entitties and still be economically
feasible. I would hate to see this but I have no answer to the anger which seems to be
roiling the country.
I am still stunned to see that each side of our political divide seem to think they
have the only true answers to our issues and the other side are idiots.
Obviously the country cannot be divided by counties. My point was that if you look at NY
state for example you will find that most of the state is red.
Yes but most of the population in those states is Blue and that is an important economic
factor. GNP figures are only available at a state level but Blue states are still
producing most of America's GNP. When I have mentioned this fact to some people the
retort is how are blue state people going to eat. The answer obviously is there are lots
of places in the world willing to import food to blue states.
How many of the 22+million illegal immigrants live in those states? How many additional
members of Congress do they have as a result and for how many years? (Based on the basic
math that's enough people to account for 30 seats in the House) Why should any American
citizen want to put up with that disparate impact on representation any longer?
See the Yale study updating the illegal immigrant numbers here:
https://insights.som.yale.e...
Livia Drusilla. Ancient sources claimed she murdered all her stepsons or other family
members by poison who were a threat to her son becoming Emperor of Rome. Human nature
doesn't change. My guiding light when dealing with most women is to remember Livia.
Are you familiar with the story of Athalia?
2 Kings 11
For a really splendid musical depiction of (parts of) the life of Athalia, watch the fine
McCreesh-conducted version of Handel's Athalia : Play
Hide
"From the very first, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, inimical to woman than
truth.." (BGE §232) seems appropriate here.
Nietzsche's view of women is perhaps most generously described as 'old fashioned',
though he was right to identify femininity as the eternal source of female power.
Nietzsche saw a trade off of femininity in exchange for emancipation. But instead it
appears that 21st century sexual politics now affords women the best of all worlds. She
may now participate as an equal in dorm party drinking games with men. And yet she
remains so vulnerable that 35 years later an alleged incident involving the exposure of a
(presumably flaccid) male member - as a result of such activities - seemingly merits
serious investigation as an 'assault'. Germain Greer was wrong too - it is the male that
has been emasculated.
"What inspires respect for woman, and often enough even fear, is her nature, which is
more "natural" than man's, the genuine, cunning suppleness of a beast of prey, the
tiger's claw under the glove, the naiveté of her egoism, her uneducability and
inner wildness, the incomprehensibility, scope, and movement of her desires and
virtues."
"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than
truth -- her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and
beauty."
' "goodness" in women is a sign of "physiological degeneration", and that women are on
the whole cleverer and more wicked than men'
"the emancipation of women, and feminists, was merely the resentment of some women
against other women, who were physically better constituted and able to bear
children."
"Woman's love involves injustice and blindness against everything that she does not
love... Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or at
best cows..."
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she
needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as
divine: or better, she makes the strong weak--she rules when she succeeds in overcoming
the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests,
against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-"
I imagine that a lot of Democrats secretly wish to be done with this mess lest
the fingers start pointing to themselves. A spate of sexual/financial accusations
against them just might restore some sanity. But of course I daydream, since we all know
that our elected officials are pure as the driven snow.
Bill Clinton and Keith Ellison are 2 Dems that have had credible accusations from women.
What's happening with those? Crickets, except for Fox News and alternative media. Dem
women seem not to care about women who've been sexually harassed when defending their own
tribe.
I suggest that each of you ask every woman you know if she has ever been sexually
assaulted...by HER definition. You might be surprised. Start with your daughters.
FWIW, in college my wife was the victim of a sexual assault from a drunken classmate, a
muscular member of the wrestling team, which she managed to fight off, though not without
him almost doing what he had in mind (I'll spare you the details). At her 35th college
reunion, which we both attended, that former classmate shamefacedly came up to her and
tried to apologize for what he'd done back then, saying that after graduating he realized
that he was an alcoholic. Her response was reserved but cool, and I didn't quite get what
had just gone on there until she filled me in. She'd never mentioned the incident to me
before. She's a strong woman; call her "poor baby" at your peril.
Do women lie? Of course they do; they're human beings; we all lie. Do they lie about
being sexually assaulted? In those few cases where the goal is extortion or where the
accuser is just nuts, yes. Otherwise what's the point, given what is, to this day, the
typically quite negative upshot for the accuser of making such an accusation?
Why, you ask, did she not report this assault at the time? See the last sentence of
the previous paragraph, plus there's the sense of shame and shock that one can feel in
the wake of such an assault and the resulting desire to just escape from it and go on
with one's life.
You say that her experience is the outlier here? Not by the testimony of many of the
women she knows quite well.
Women often lie about men because they are angry at them or resentful of rejection or
some other reason. "those few?" Surely you jest . It happens a lot.
"by her definition" - exactly! .....And that definition is as changeable as the wind. I
am 68 years young and on reflection even my occasional innocent amourous behaviour, when
unmarried, is quite capable of being construed as sexual assault if taken out of context.
Even something as simple as an arm around the shoulders and a peck on the cheek. All men
know what I am talking about; ask your sons.
"Why should conservative/deplorables turn out to vote for weaklings..." spot on sir. It
is one reason Flake and Corker are retiring, right along with Paul Ryan. In addition the
white male Democrat is going to be an endangered species. (It isn't helping the image of
white female democrats either.) Black male democrat turnout isn't going to be any higher
because to the incumbant democrats 'white women come first' is the latest democratic
party objective. Senate Republicans don't need to wait any longer on a vote on Kavenaugh
for the voting pattern shift in the mid-terms to happen but the longer they do your
prediction of "deplorables" viewing incumbant Republicans as weak and not to be voted for
is going to bear more weight.
I mean I support chemical castration for all rapers, BUT, BUT all crimes committed lose
their validity or what is the exact jurisdicial expressions if not reported. except
crimes against humanity. In Hungary it is 5 years.
Modern IDENTITY LEFTISM WILL EAT ITSELF Support BPS via Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/blackpigeon ✅ Tip Jar: via PayPal to: [email protected]
✅2nd Channel- Navy Hato: ... Black Pigeon Speaks September 22,
2018 (8:02) 95,236 Views 1
CommentReply
Email This Page to Someone
Old, unproven, timed to ruin: Kavanaugh accusations perfect example of all that's wrong
with #MeToo Published time: 19 Sep, 2018 22:08 Edited time: 20 Sep, 2018 07:35 Get short URL The
out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming
aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political
divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others
weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett
Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the
damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary
There is no direct, or circumstantial evidence, or eyewitness statements proving that a
drunk teenage Kavanaugh really pinned down Blasey Ford on the bed, and tried to rape her while
covering her mouth with his hand, during a house party. In fact, other than this vivid scene,
the accuser has failed to remember the dates or places or context of the events. Beyond that:
as soon as the story broke, when the details were still just anonymous Beltway hearsay, for
some that was enough to disqualify the nominee.
Brett Kavanaugh
during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters
Now, if, out of the blue, I accuse a colleague of stealing my lunch sandwich, people will
ask for evidence or an explanation. The burden of proof will be on me. No one will simply brand
Alex from HR a thief or fire her on my word, and no one would want to work in an office where I
would have such power over another human being. This is fundamental justice, developed over
thousands of years in societies throughout the world. Even Elon Musk doesn't get to accuse
someone of being a "pedo" without consequence.
That such an obvious thing even needs to be said out loud is a testament to how far the
accusations against Kavanaugh, and other #MeToo cases, stray from these principles –
farcically so. Sexual assault is inherently murkier than lunchtime comestibles theft, yes, most
victims have no reason to lie, but most would prefer to live in a society where a random person
can't destroy someone else's life at will, even if that means that some rapists go
unjailed.
Other examples: most #MeToo accusations aired on social media, the Inquisition, medieval
witchcraft trials, neighbors' denunciations in Stalin's Russia.
No legal case
While reputation has always mattered, a person used to be able to clear his or her name with
law. The #MeToo movement insists that even those who have been accused or convicted of no
crimes can be just as guilty.
It doesn't matter that there was no police report in the Kavanaugh case, no investigation,
and that the FBI has repeatedly insisted that there is nothing to investigate, despite demands
from Blasey Ford's legal team.
Kavanaugh's only recourse is to accuse her of slander, and hope that the ensuing process
doesn't bring out more unflattering claims, while knowing for sure that those who considered
him guilty in the first place will likely not change their mind.
Ronan Farrow /
Reuters
Other examples: Woody Allen was investigated for molesting his pre-teen daughter and no
charges were filed, and was able to continue working freely for another 25 years. After his
son, Ronan, became a leading #MeToo accuser, he is unable to release his already-finished film,
and will receive no further funding for projects.
Accusations from decades ago
Previously, the strength of a case would grow weaker the longer ago the alleged crime was.
Evidence was impossible to collect, social mores changed, people grew and reformed. The statute
of limitations is a legal reflection of that.
Christine Blasey
Ford in her school yearbook.
#MeToo has turned this on its head.
Charges from the distant past are harder to disprove, it is easier to paint the 1980s as a
warzone of sexual abuse (just look at that Sixteen Candles ending – very "problematic")
while if you squint hard enough you can picture the white-bread square Kavanaugh as a marauding
party-boy.
Brett Kavanaugh, on
the right, in his high school yearbook.
The result: any questionable, misinterpreted or altogether fictitious incident in your
teenage years (Kavanaugh was 17 at the time of the alleged assault) will forever hang over
you.
Other examples: Plenty, but equally interesting is the revisionist history even in cases
where the truth was widely known at the time, such as Monica Lewinsky, an adult engaged in a
consensual relationship, suddenly re-emerging as a #MeToo victim.
Timed to destroy
Yet, however, long the traumatic memories are kept private – and there is no doubt
that is a genuine reaction of many victims – they seem often to emerge just at the right
time.
There is of course, genuine concern about rapists taking up Supreme Court seats, but perhaps
it wasn't quite necessary for the Democrats to wait until less than a week until Kavanaugh's
appointment, considering the information has been in their possession since July. And then to
pretend to be surprised when their motivations are being questioned.
While revenge is a dish best served cold, it is also not a good look for a justice movement
to appear as if its participants are waiting for the targets to become important and successful
before sticking the knife in.
Other examples: Often the best time to come out of hiding is when someone is on their way
down. There is no risk to being the twentieth person to accuse producer Harvey Weinstein in
2018, even if doing that two decades earlier could have helped dozens of other
women.
Transparent self-interest
The mention that the accusers are motivated by money, hunger for publicity, career
ambitions, personal grudges or political views is impermissible within the #MeToo
conversation.
What Dianne
Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters
But even if Blasey Ford is a true victim, pretending she is some neutral vessel of justice
is laughable: she is a long-time Democrat donor, who has signed petitions against Trump, and
wrote on her Facebook that "'a basket of deplorables' is far too generous a description" of his
staff.
As is claiming that this is a purely criminal matter, not a calculated attempt by a
political party to exploit a scandal for its own ends: #MeToo is a social movement weaponized
for politics.
Pure motivations:
Asia Argento / Reuters
Other examples: Actress Asia Argento went out with Weinstein for several years after he
allegedly raped her, then garnered sympathy and attention as she described their relationship
as "re-victimization" since 2017, all while reportedly arranging a confidentiality
payout with an underage man she had sex with.
Social media & activists decide
Unless you have backing from the electorate and your own party (Donald Trump has both, so he
stays, Al Franken had one but not the other, so he had to go) in the absence of any due
process, it will be social media that decides your fate.
Are these the people who should handle justice?
The efforts to railroad Dr. Blasey Ford and rush Brett Kavanaugh's nomination through as
she faces death threats are reprehensible. This process was clearly not designed to get at
the truth. Dr. Blasey Ford deserves better. #StopKavanaugh
I really take issue with the description of Kavanaugh as an "attempted rapist." It wasn't
an attempted rape because he started and then decided to stop. It was an attempted rape
because *she got away.*
Brett Kavanaugh is not a mediocre man. He's an extraordinarily talented agent of radical,
right-wing forces. He will dismantle the modern regulatory state with frightening
efficiency.
It's also worth nothing that even men who openly treat women like shit for years are
believed over their accusers. I mean, consider President Pussy Grabber.
It doesn't matter how men treat women - in a rape culture, they're always given the
benefit of the doubt.
The Kavanaugh nomination is a good reminder that in the Republican Party, there are
rapists and rape apologists. There is no one vehemently opposed to rape.
What is the first thing anyone can tell you about Clarence Thomas, the most senior justice
on the US Supreme Court? Anita Hill, "larger than normal penis" boasts, pubic hair on
a Coke can.
Whereas, as Thomas before him, Kavanaugh will likely be approved, he can never wash away the
image of his lunging body from the public's mind, nor will he ever be completely believed. The
cost for Blasey Ford will likely be as high.
In the era of ersatz and ad hoc #MeToo justice both of their names forever linked together,
and forever stained.
But another running disaster is the feminists' attempt to derail nomination of Judge
Kavanagh. One can like or dislike the judge, one can agree or disagree with his views, one may
wish him in or out of the Supreme Court, but stopping him for allegedly trying to lay a girl
while in high school is completely insane. MeToo, Kavanagh, I also had affairs with girls so
many (and more) years ago!
Even if all the complainant claimed was true (and Kavanagh denied it) I'd find him not
guilty and vote for him to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind, we speak of events that took (or
not) place years ago. In those years, girls were expected to surrender only to some token
force. "No means no" was a totally unheard-of idea.
Prosvirnin
is the most talented writer.
Limonov
has by far the most colorful personality.
Dugin
has been the most effective at promoting himself in the West. Prokhanov probably has the most name
recognition in Russia. Galkovsky created the most powerful memes.
Krylov
provided the esoteric flavoring.
And yet out of all of Russia's
right-wing intellectuals
, there is perhaps none so unique as Egor Kholmogorov.
This
is ironic, because out of all of the above, he is the closest to the "golden mean" of the Russian
nationalist memeplex.
He is a realist on Soviet achievements,
crimes, and lost opportunities, foregoing both the Soviet nostalgia of Prokhanov, the kneejerk Sovietophobia
of Prosvirnin, and the unhinged conspiracy theories of Galkovsky. He is a normal, traditional Orthodox
Christian, in contrast to the "atheism plus" of Prosvirnin, the mystical obscurantism of Duginism, and the
esoteric experiments of Krylov. He has time neither for the college libertarianism of Sputnik i Pogrom
hipster nationalism, nor the angry "confiscate and divide" rhetoric of the National Bolsheviks.
Instead of wasting his time on
ideological rhetoric, he reads Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century and writes
reviews
about it on his website.
And about 224 other books
.
And this brings us to what makes
Kholmogorov so unique: He is an extremely well-read autodidact.
This allows him to write informed and
engaging articles on a very wide variety of different topics and breaking news.
In my opinion, Kholmogorov is simply the
best modern Russian right-wing
intellectual
, period.
Unfortunately, he is almost entirely
unknown in the English-speaking world; he does not angle for interviews with Western media outlets like
Prosvirnin, nor does he energetically pursue foreign contacts like Dugin. Over the years I have done my very
small part to remedy this situation, translating two of Kholmogorov's articles (
Europe's
Week of Human Sacrifice
;
A Cruel French Lesson
). Still, there's only so much one blogger with many other things to write about
can do.
Happily, a multilingual Russian fan of
Kholmogorov has stepped up to the plate: Fluctuarius Argenteus. Incidentally, he is a fascinating fellow in
his own right – he is a well recognized expert in Spanish history and culture – though his insistence on
anonymity constrains what I can reveal, at least beyond his wish to be the "Silver Surfer" to Kholmogorov's
Galactus.
We hope to make translations of
Kholmogorov's output consistently available on The Unz Review in the months to come.
In the meantime, I am privileged to
present the first Fluctuarius-translated Kholmogorov article for your delectation.
***
A New Martin Luther?: James Damore's Case from a Russian Conservative Perspective
Google fires employee James Damore
for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.
– You persecute your employees for
having opinions and violate the rights of White men, Centrists, and Conservatives.
– No, we don't. You're fired.
A conversation just like or similar to
this one recently took place in the office of one of modern information market monsters, the Google
Corporation.
Illustration to the Google scandal.
James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
Google knows almost everything about us,
including the contents of our emails, our addresses, our voice samples (
OK Google
), our favorite
stuff, and, sometimes, our sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the
world with our own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably
temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine algorithms has been
discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a central
House of Cards
plotline.
Conversely, we know next to nothing
about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of
corporate values and convictions that the company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and
American worldview even more so. Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology,
suffused with Leftist and aggressively feminist values.
The story goes this way. In early
August, an anonymous manifesto titled
Google's Ideological Echo Chamber
was circulated through the
local network of Google. The author lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of
so-called diversity. This policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far
as to appoint a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white
cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them fast-track
promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based advantage.
The author argues that Leftism and
"diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber" within the company, where a person only talks to
those who share their opinions, and, through this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their
beliefs are the only ones that matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines
work efficiency, with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.
In contrast to Google's buzzwords of
"vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed
ideological blindfold and is stuck in a morass.
As Google employs intellectuals, argues
the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist
clique within the company. If the Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the
Left declares all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.
The central Leftist idea is the class
struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs. bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of
struggle has been transposed onto gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White
oppressors, oppressed women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently,
the US presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing the
"diversity" policy.
The critic argues that the witch-hunt
of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to conceal their political alignment or resign from the job,
is not the only effect of this Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes
not to the best there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation
programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies, disincentivizes White men
from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness, if not sabotage. Instead of churning
out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic, Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of
class struggle.
What is the proposed solution?
Stop diving people into "oppressors" and
"the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an
immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.
The diversity of opinion must apply to
everyone. The company must stop alienating Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that
needs their rights to be protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages,
such as a focused and methodical approach to work.
Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only
those deemed worthy by the politically correct America.
End diversity programs discriminatory
towards White men and replace them with non-discriminatory ones.
Have an unbiased assessment of the costs
and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not only expensive but also pit one part of the company's
employees against the other.
Instead of gender and race differences,
focus on psychological safety within the company. Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss
facts. Instead of cultivating sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.
Admit that not all racial or gender
differences are social constructs or products of oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.
The last point proved to be the most
vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences
that should be accepted as fact if Google is to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are
as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men
are more interested in objects.
Women are prone to cooperation, men to
competition. All too often, women can't take the methods of competition considered natural among men.
Women are looking for a balance between
work and private life, men are obsessed with status and
Feminism played a major part in
emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks
to "feminize" men, this will only lead to them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken
society in the long run).
It was the think piece on the natural
differences of men and women that provoked the greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with
propagating outdated sexist stereotypes, and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with
a clear purpose of giving him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a
programmer. He was fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of
the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our
workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age,
that is why the Western press is far from having a unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a
typical sexist", for others he is a "free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google
implicitly confirmed that all claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely
on point. Julian Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to
fired Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore
Memo may play the same breakthrough part in discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and
Snowden files did in discussing the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass,
Damore will make history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity
notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism.
Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural
constructivism" and Conservative naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible
viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and
therefore should always be taken into account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and
should be destroyed for being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the
opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate "biological" with "natural" and therefore "true",
and "social" with "artificial" and therefore "arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor
of "vision", but politically correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls
for throwing all of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with
an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is
quite superficial. The main Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon
tradition for creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google
Leftists and their critic is their vision of stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If
both sides went for an in-depth reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that
the prejudice is a colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective
consciousness that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such
circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it. Prejudice is
shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works most of the time. And, most
importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A
fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James
Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to
diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we could control them better, as opposed to blind
obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a
country as conservative as Russia is, that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of
our prejudices and their efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender
relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of the genders" with a technocratic model of
maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own
way, but is indeed based on too broad assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that
all of them like relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as
Damore claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing with him
or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles
historically developed based on biology but are, as a whole, a construct of society and culture does not
give an excuse to changing or tearing them down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social,
cultural, and historical determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same
form without any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an
ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is tantamount to social default and requires
very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution",
only its parodic inversion. Putting men into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in
public WCs only reverses the polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees
the "male" as "superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the
"superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility during the
Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women but the triumph of gender
Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in
abandoning the domain of the social and the historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere
of influence to the natural, biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative
worldview is defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative
solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a rationalist functionalization of society. It
should lead to discovering a social cohesion where adhering to traditional male and female ways and
stereotypes (let's not call them roles – the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players)
would not keep males and females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine
calling and talent.
The art of war is not typical of a
woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave a much greater impact in historical memory. The art
of government is seen as mostly male, yet it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness
but true charisma, all the more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads
to greater reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it
being the harmony of men and women in the temple of the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian,
Orthodox, Conservative society. It is the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an
enormous issue in the West: men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against
one another as members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is
already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile relations, it's
probably for the better.
A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global
hyperpower.
Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age.
So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he
will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for
women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was
a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."
The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights.
Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more
under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst
"fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for
women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.
Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify
what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild
comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.
What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when
McEnroe/Connors did.
Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is
fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in
America so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not American
exeptionalism.
Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Americans, but by American training of
the best players regardless of their origination
"... "I'm here, fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] ..."
"... "I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it, women should be able to, too,' ..."
"... "Rather, I think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our sport and to respect our opponents?" ..."
"... "we cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court." ..."
After being penalized for calling chair umpire Carlos Ramos a "thief," Williams
summoned up the evil spirits of political correctness to plead her case. She was heard
telling officials
that many male tennis players have done "much worse" without any sort of retribution.
In other words, Ramos was a cave-dwelling "sexist" put on earth to thwart the progress
of womanhood.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here,
fighting for women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think
that it was a sexist remark [referring to the penalty Ramos awarded her] .
There were faint echoes of Oprah Winfrey's famous speech
at the Golden Globes in that it was the right message delivered at exactly the wrong time and
place.
So now, America's dethroned tennis queen, playing the gender card game instead of tennis, is
acting spokesperson for downtrodden women everywhere. Yet certainly Williams has heard of John
McEnroe, the former American tennis star whose on-court temper tantrums are now legendary. In
1990, for example, this loudmouthed male was tossed out of the Australian Open – not
just penalized – for verbally abusing the chair umpire, much like Williams did.
Since it may come off as chauvinistic for me – a burly male – to criticize
Serena, perhaps it would be more appropriate to quote Martina Navratilova, 61, one of the
greatest
female tennis players of all time.
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' Navratilova
wrote in a New York Times op-ed regarding Williams' epic meltdown. "Rather, I think
the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor our
sport and to respect our opponents?"
The Czech-born American went on to comment that "we cannot measure ourselves by what we
think we should also be able to get away with this is the sort of behavior that no one should
be engaging in on the court."
Eureka! Navratilova – who hails from a bygone era when the vision of political
correctness, 'virtue signaling' and 'social justice warriors' was just a flash in the pan
– nailed it. Instead of looking to some external other to explain our life circumstances
– like losing a tennis match, for example, or a presidential election (wink, wink)
– people should look to themselves as the agents for proactive and positive change. Such
a message, however, would quickly sink the Liberal ship, which is predicated upon the idea that
the world is forever divided between oppressor and oppressed. What the Liberals fail to
appreciate, however, is that they are becoming the real oppressors as they continue to sideline
anybody who does not think and act exactly as they do.
Following Serena's epic meltdown, the Melbourne-based Herald Sun published a cartoon by Mark
Knight that shows the American tennis star as she proceeds to stomp on her racket, mouth open
and hair going straight up. It was not a flattering or subtle drawing, but given the
circumstances, that should probably come as no surprise.
2015: 12 Charlie Hebdo illustrators shot dead for depiction of prophet Muhammad -
thousands line streets demonstrating for freedom of sattire & humour
2018: Mark Knight draws caricature of Serena Williams - thousands shout racist &
demand his removal from Twiter and the media pic.twitter.com/NDpFrbigca
The Liberal outrage came fast and heavy as critics slammed the caricature as racist and
offensive. It would take hundreds of pages to recite them all, but as one example, CNN
columnist Rebecca Wanzo
labeled the cartoon as an example of – wait for it – "visual
imperialism," which is manifest by "a black grotesque seeming natural."
Never mind that the behavior of Serena Williams was "grotesque," which is what
inspired Knight's unflattering drawing of her in the first place. That is what is meant by a
'caricature', where the artist attempts to convey the essence of an event through imagery. Yes,
sometimes brutal imagery.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The
Moscow News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in
2013.
A quick observation and a fascinating parallele. Serena Williams and the US global
hyperpower.
Serena at 36 got bitten fair and square at US open by a girl of 20, almost half her age.
So she throws up a nuclear tantrum, publicly calling the referee a thief, threatening that he
will never referee again, obviously thanks to her money, power and gender.
During her post-game interview, Serena told a news conference, "I'm here, fighting for
women's rights, for women's equality, and for all kind of stuff it made me think that it was
a sexist remark [referring to the penalty the referee Ramos awarded her]."
The declining US fights for human rights as declining Serena fights for women's rights.
Both invoke exceptionalism and higher principles and go nuclear when they cannot win any more
under the established international rules. The irony of killing the Yemenis en mass whilst
"fighting" for the human rights of terrorists in Syria is just like Serena fighting for
women's rights against another younger and more capable woman.
Kiza - interesting point. Yes clearly Serena retrofitted the women's movement to justify
what was an old-fashioned Connors/McEnroe male tennis tantrum, although extremely mild
comapred to some of the crap those two pulled back in the day.
What goes without saying is the behaviour is as repulsive when Serena does it as when
McEnroe/Connors did.
Serena at 36 is no longer the dominant force just as America is no longer. However, it is
fair to say the winner is where she is because she trained extensively and I believe lives in
Amerikkka so really she is an example of globalism and racial diversity, if not Amerikkkan
exeptionalism.
Women's tennis post Serena will not be dominated by Amerikkkans but by Amerikkkan training
of the best players regardless of their origination
I agree with Martina Navratilova on Serena Williams conduct
" Navratilova went so far as to write an editorial for the New York Times in which she
claimed that, in complaining post-match that Ramos would not have reacted the same way to an
argumentative male player, Williams was "missing the point" and would have been better served
conducting herself with "respect for the sport we love so dearly."
"I don't believe it's a good idea to apply a standard of 'If men can get away with it,
women should be able to, too,' " Navratilova said of Williams in her editorial. "Rather, I
think the question we have to ask ourselves is this: What is the right way to behave to honor
our sport and to respect our opponents?"
Serena Williams behaviour ruined the experience of victory for Naomi Osaka, if you get a
chance to see film of the whole debacle with the booing crowd! She looked like the most
miserable winner in ever.
Another issue is that Williams deliberately puts on a tantrum and then claims the tantrum is
normal emotional behaviour. On top of that, she tries to pass off this spoilt-brat outburst
as characteristic of how strong, feminist women behave. All done as much to deny Osaka the
joy of winning her first major championship as to attack the umpire.
And people who should know better swallow Williams' idiocy hook, line and sinker.
Very apt: "So we excuse the
rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people"
I suspect nationalism or ethnocentrism were also factors, not only identity politics. Selena has ungly history of tantrum thouth
and that might point to poriblems with performance enhancing drags (she did have a unexplained meltdown in Wimbledon 2014)
Notable quotes:
"... Drama and literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their application." ..."
Serena Williams Serves Tantrum, Scores for Identity PoliticsSo we excuse the
rules and condemn their application---but only for certain people
Drama and
literature at their best offer illustrative anecdotes -- small stories that represents larger
truths. The absurdist theater of the women's U.S. Open tennis final, along with the mania it
provoked, has become just such an anecdote. It illustrates the bleak assessment Edward Ward, my
former philosophy professor and friend, once uttered over cheese sandwiches in the campus
cafeteria: "We live in a society where we excuse the rules, and condemn their
application."
Indifference to behavioral regulations and standards of practice had become common to the
point of banality, Ward argued, subjecting anyone who attempted to enforce the rules to
vilification.
For those who do not closely follow professional tennis, here's a review of the controversy.
Serena Williams, undoubtedly one of the greatest players in the history of the game, was facing
a rising superstar from Japan, Naomi Osaka. Williams is only one grand slam championship away
from tying the all-time record, but has recently struggled to triumph over her younger
opponents (most tennis players retire in their early to mid-thirties; Williams is 37). Osaka
had already defeated Williams with ease at the Miami Open in March.
It appeared that the U.S. Open was headed for a repeat early in the match, with Osaka
asserting swift dominance. Early in the first set, however, the linesman, Carlos Ramos, called
a court violation on Williams' coach because he was signaling her -- an illegal activity in the
sport of tennis. Rather than accept the warning, Williams unleashed a reality TV-style tirade
on Ramos, excoriating him for "misreading" her coach's hand gestures and making bizarre
reference to her daughter: "I never cheat I have a daughter, and I stand for what is right for
her."
(Immediately following the match, in a rare and refreshing moment of honesty, Williams'
coach admitted that he was signaling her the entire time, making Williams look both deceitful
and foolish. Most post-match commentary has conveniently omitted the coach's confession from
the record.)
After Williams lost the opening set's fifth game, she slammed her racket into the ground,
causing its frame to bend. Intentional damage to a racquet is a code violation, and Ramos
penalized her a point, the standard punishment for a second offense. Osaka quickly won the next
game, making her the winner of the first set with a lopsided score of 6-2.
Williams then began screaming at Ramos, telling him that he was wrong to penalize her and
protesting that the warning she received should not count as a violation because she was not
cheating. Ramos sat silently as Williams ridiculed his performance as linesman and demanded
that he apologize.
The second set advanced quickly with Osaka continuing to make fast work of Williams. During
every break in play, Williams continued to badger Ramos, indicating that she would not stop
until he announced over his microphone that he was sorry for what he did to her. He ignored her
expressions of anger.
After Osaka pulled ahead 4-3, Williams again berated Ramos for his monstrous failures as a
human being. Bringing her rant to a climax, she called him a "liar" and a "thief."
To impugn the character of a linesman violates the code of conduct governing play in
professional tennis. Ramos flagged her for the third time, issuing the penalty of a forfeited
game, making the set score 5-3. Williams pleaded with supervising officials of the tournament
-- one man, one woman -- to overturn Ramos' calls, and they refused. She then made the
contemptible claim that excited countless social media users and political commentators around
the country: "I've seen men get away with his all the time. Just because I'm a woman, you are
going to take this away from me."
Osaka won the second set, 6-4, and in doing so, became the first Japanese champion of the
U.S. Open. The audience loudly booed and jeered throughout the awards ceremony, and the
commissioner of the U.S. Open disgraced herself by saying, on air and in front of the rightful
champion, "This isn't the end we were looking for." Williams made an attempt to recover some
dignity by instructing her vulgar fans to stop heckling, but the entire event had already
transformed into an ugly American extravaganza. Most infuriating was that Osaka looked
dejected, unable to enjoy her first grand slam victory.
The next day, USA Today ran an opinion piece with the headline "Sexism Cost Serena
Williams Tennis Title." Many other writers and TV analysts, none of whom seemed to know
anything about tennis rules or history, began reciting from the same fatuous and phony script.
A few have even tried to racialize the story, though given that Osaka's father is Haitian, that
narrative has failed to gain traction.
Acting as though Ramos were self-evidently a misogynist, most media mouthpieces ignored that
throughout the U.S. Open, male players have been called for 86 violations and women only 22.
Nine of the 10 largest fines in tennis history for on-court violations have gone to men. Ramos
himself has earned the wrath of men's champions Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer
for making calls they felt were too rigid and punitive.
The mob has also compared Williams' tantrum with the boorish imbecility of 1980s tennis
stars John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. While it's true that both players often acted with
disrespect more reminiscent of barroom drunks than professional athletes, they also benefitted
from terribly lenient regulations of professional tennis. The ATP did not standardize the rules
or crack down on outlandish player conduct until the late 1980s. Not coincidentally, McEnroe
was ejected from the 1990 Australian Open after his fourth violation in a single match.
And yet arguing about the rules and pointing to the score of the match -- it is almost
certain that Osaka would have won regardless -- feels oddly archaic. Many of Williams'
desperate defenders are acting in emotional accordance with some strange, eschatological
commitment to identity politics, and no amount of factual information will dissuade them.
Another term my friend was fond of using was "biased apperception." The critics who call Ramos
sexist without giving him the opportunity to defend himself have adopted a position and are
working backwards to validate it. To pull this off, they have no choice but to excuse the rules
and condemn their application. There is no debate that Williams broke three different rules,
yet the lineman is sexist because he chose to apply them.
Rebecca Traister, a leading feminist writer for New York , begins her boring and
predictable interpretation of the events with the following admission (which negates all the
subsequent sentences in her essay):
I don't care much about the rules of tennis that Serena Williams was accused of violating
at Saturday night's U.S. Open final. Those rules were written for a game and for players who
were not supposed to look or express themselves or play the game as beautifully and
passionately as either Serena Williams or the young woman who eventually beat her,
20-year-old Naomi Osaka, do.
Overlooking Traister's weird disparagement of every women's champion who proceeded Williams
and Osaka as ugly and impassive, and her incoherent grammar (how is a game supposed to "express
themselves"?), it is revealing that she prefaces her entire argument by saying that rules do
not matter if the right people did not author them. The crime is not the transgression, but the
enforcement.
The "excuse the rules, condemn the application" mentality is a societal sickness responsible
for much that troubles our body politic.
To begin with an example that will interest those who practice identity politics, President
Donald Trump has thrived on condemning those who enforce the rules. Though he regularly
demonstrates a daunting pattern of dishonesty, is an unnamed co-conspirator in a criminal
indictment, has seen several of his associates indicted or convicted of crimes, and continually
makes a mockery of decorum and etiquette, whenever he is caught in an act of wrongdoing, his
immediate response is to spit a venomous stream of clichés: "fake news," "deep state,"
"witch hunt."
Another example is the bailout of the big banks that followed the 2008 financial crisis. Few
disagreed that the world's major financial institutions violated the rules, but the idea of
accountability was suddenly radical and unthinkable.
If a connection between corporate malfeasance, presidential malpractice, and a tennis
champion's childish outburst seems tenuous, consider that in all three cases the
get-out-of-jail-free card is an appeal to ideology. Rules, we are asked to believe, are
irrelevant, and even themselves infringements on belief systems like populism and feminism that
are regarded as more important.
The self-involvement and extreme subjectivity necessary for such a destructive belief
permeates into non-ideological aspects of culture. Grade inflation in higher education, as any
instructor can attest, exists largely because students cannot fathom suffering consequences for
lazy or mediocre work. The issuance of assignments and exams is fine, but to actually grade
them according to an objective standard is evil.
America needs a serious dose of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. One should act only
in such a way that one would approve of everyone else acting in a given situation.
Writing for The New York Times , retired tennis champion Martina Navratilova wisely
states, "We cannot measure ourselves by what we think we should also be able to get away with.
In fact, this is the sort of behavior that no one should be engaging in on the court. There
have been many times when I was playing that I wanted to break my racket into a thousand
pieces. Then I thought about the kids watching. And I grudgingly held on to that racket."
Obvious to anyone but the willfully ignorant, this is a far better formula for a healthy
society than "I don't care about the rules."
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) released the following statement relating to
umpiring decisions during the 2018 US Open Women's final:
"Carlos Ramos is one of the most experienced and respected umpires in tennis. Mr. Ramos'
decisions were in accordance with the relevant rules and were re-affirmed by the US Open's
decision to fine Serena Williams for the three offences. It is understandable that this high
profile and regrettable incident should provoke debate. At the same time, it is important to
remember that Mr. Ramos undertook his duties as an official according to the relevant rule
book and acted at all times with professionalism and integrity."
"The Grand Slam Rule Book can be found here. Player on site offences including the point
penalty schedule used in this instance can be found in Article III."
ARTICLE III: PLAYER ON-SITE OFFENCES -- pages 36-48
I follow tennis and am not a feminist. There were two things the ump should have done. First, everyone knows that all players
in tennis are getting coached. If ump was going to call it, he should have warned both players and coaches before the match.
Second, when Serena was mouthing off during the changeover, he should have told her: "you've made your point, one more insult
and you're going to get a penalty" and then, just ignore her. If she keeps it up then you dick her.
As for Serena, she is a brand. Which is why she blew up for being caught cheating. It was more important for her to defend her
image than to win the match
Kalmia, September 15, 2018 at 9:17 am
Serena Williams is not unusual in being a world-class athlete/competitor who is also a very very bad loser. Her behavior
wasn't that unusual and the punishment in the game was appropriate, it should have ended with that. In my view, it's the crowd
and her supporters who are the real villains here for letting their bias towards her (and identity politics) warp their sense of
justice and fairness. Poor Osaka deserved much better than the booing and rash of hot takes.
Jeeves, September 15, 2018 at 4:36 pm
Rat: Williams was livid because she was getting her tutu kicked all over the court. Desperate and depraved gamesmanship was
all it was.
Although you'd never know it from the terrible reporting in this article, following the game-penalty imposed by Ramos, Osaka
intentionally gave Serena the next game by missing returns of Serena's serve -- I suppose hoping to calm down the woman who was
her tennis idol growing up. It didn't work, though, because Serena was unappeased–and outplayed. (To top it off, the stupid TV
commentators wanted to give Serena kudos for her quieting of her booing fans at the awards presentation. No-class athlete,
no-class fans.)
Sisera, September 15, 2018 at 10:16 pm
@WorkingClass
Agreed & isn't it funny how in the world of many centrist 'apologist' types, fighting back against identity politics,
entitlement of elites, etc. is in and of itself identity politics?
I mean it's like the grade school insult of 'I know you are but what am I'….and many (albeit not this author) say it with all
the smugness and gotchaness in the world.
They adhere to identity politics and have no self awareness and hence can't recognize it.
Ivo Olavo Castro da Silva, September 16, 2018 at 12:31 am
The fact that Serena's fans and the media supported her disgusting actions only confirm their total absence of any moral
standard.
Tennis Fan, September 16, 2018 at 10:05 am
In response to "Rat says…Why did the judge decide that the final was the time to start applying an otherwise-ignored rule?
Sure, it would have been preferable for her to keep her cool, but it's understandable why Williams was livid."
It may be that coaches get away with coaching quite often, however, IMHO the umpire happened to actually catch the coach
right in the act of coaching (and if you see the video of the supposed incident, her coach, Patrick, actually gives two head-nods
in that very brief moment and to me, the head-nods acknowledge that they made eye contact-my personal opinion only).
The umpire immediately decided to call it out... Who knows, maybe in that very moment, he felt it wasn't fair for her to
be getting coaching, he actually caught the coaching, and his gut instinct was to make the call on it. I don't fault the umpire
one bit. Had Serena accepted the call and moved on, the entire tide of the match may have taken a different turn.
"... The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society ..."
"... "Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." ..."
"... "A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview with the Times ..."
Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they should look much closer
to home. This is from the Jerusalem Post in 2007:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal
democracy, Britain's top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book
Jonathan Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm
Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and
respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society , he said
the movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to
segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the
Times of London.
"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The politics of freedom
risks descending into the politics of fear." Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned
by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for
rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken
up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive."
"A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain,
injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others," he said. In an interview
with the Times , Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in the
highest order." ( Sacks:
Multiculturalism threatens democracy , The Jerusalem Post , 20th October
2007 ; emphasis added)
So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a self-serving,
self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began with Jews" and had been "inexorably
divisive." His claim is absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as
subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish agitation has done huge harm to a
gentile society.
Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did indeed invent the
"identity politics" that has poisoned British politics (and
American ,
Australian ,
French and Swedish
politics too).
By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than Jeremy Corbyn was, even by
the harshest interpretation of those comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that
Corbyn was right. Zionists do lack irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed
that the "poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's condemning Jeremy
Corbyn for saying something much milder about Zionists.
Fourth Wave Feminism:Why No One EscapesToday's outsized Femocracy is more
desperate and (self) destructive than it's successful progenitors. By JOANNA WILLIAMS
• September
4, 2018
Feminism, in its second wave, women's liberation movement guise, has passed its first half
century. And what a success it has been! Betty Friedan's frustrated housewife, bored with
plumping pillows and making peanut butter sandwiches, is now a rarity. We might still be
waiting for the first female president, but women -- specifically feminists -- are now in
positions of power across the whole of society.
Yet feminism shows no sign of taking early retirement and bowing out, job done. Instead, it
continues to reinvent itself. #MeToo is the cause du jour of fourth-wave feminism but,
disturbingly, it seems to be taking us further from liberation and pushing us towards an
increasingly illiberal and authoritarian future. It's time to take stock.
Over the past five decades, women have taken public life by storm. When it comes to
education, employment, and pay, women are not just doing better than ever before -- they are
often doing better than men too. For over a quarter of a century, girls have outperformed boys
at school. Over 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees are awarded to women. More women than men
continue to graduate school and more doctorates are awarded to women. And their successes don't
stop when they leave education behind. Since the 1970s, there has been a marked increase in the
number of women in employment and many are taking managerial and professional positions. Women
now comprise just over half of those employed in management, professional, and related
occupations.
Women aren't just working more, they are being paid more. Women today earn more in total
than at any other point in time and they also earn more as a proportion of men's earnings. For
younger women in particular, the gender pay gap is narrowing. Between 1980 and 2012, wages for
men aged 25 to 34 fell 20 percent while over the same period women's pay rose by 13 percent.
Some data sets now suggest that women in their twenties earn more than men the same age.
Although high-profile equal pay campaigns appear to suggest otherwise, when we compare the pay
of men and women employed in the same jobs and working for the same number of hours each week,
the gender pay gap all but disappears. Four out of every 10 women are now either the sole or
primary family earner -- a figure which has quadrupled since 1960.
But this is not just about the lives of women: it is feminism as an ideology that has been
incredibly successful. For over four decades, feminist theory has shaped people's lives. Making
sense of the world through the prism of gender and seeking to root out sexual inequality is now
the driving force behind much that goes on in the public sphere.
Back in 1986, in one of the first examples of new legislation explicitly backed by
feminists, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. This
has had a profound impact upon all aspects of employment legislation. As a result, a layer of
managers and administrators, sometimes referred to as "femocrats," are employed to oversee
sexual equality and manage sexual harassment complaints in workplaces and schools.
Elsewhere, the influence of feminism can be seen in the expansion of existing laws. When
Title IX of the Education Amendments was passed in 1972 it was designed to protect people from
discrimination based on sex in education programs that received federal funding. It was a
significant -- and reasonably straightforward -- piece of legislation introduced at a time when
women were underrepresented in higher education. It first began to take on greater significance
following a 1977 case led by the feminist lawyer and academic Catharine MacKinnon in which a
federal court found that colleges could be liable under Title IX not just for acts of
discrimination but also for not responding to allegations of sexual harassment.
Not surprisingly, definitions of sexual harassment began to expand in the late 1970s. In
education, the term came to encompass a "hostile environment" in which women felt uncomfortable
because of their sex. By this measure, sexual harassment can occur unintentionally and with no
specific target. Furthermore, a hostile environment might be created by students themselves
irrespective of the actions of an institution's staff. As a result, colleges became responsible
for policing the sexual behavior of their students too.
Pressing forward under the Obama administration, sexual misconduct cases on campuses were
tried under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than a higher standard of clear and
convincing evidence. Within these extrajudicial tribunals, students -- most often young men --
could be found guilty of sexual assault or rape and expelled following unsubstantiated
allegations and with little opportunity to defend themselves. Although current Education
Secretary Betsy DeVos has revoked the Obama-era guidelines that instituted these kangaroo
courts, many institutions under pressure to react have expanded their zero tolerance policies,
often at the expense of basic due process and fairness.
In the 1970s, radical feminists opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that it
individualized and deradicalized feminism. "We will not be appeased," they asserted. "Our
demands can only be met by a total transformation of society, which you cannot legislate, you
cannot co-opt, you cannot control."
Yet today, a feminist outlook now shapes policy, practice, and law at all levels of the
government, as feminists seek to transform society through the state rather than by opposing
it. Most recently this has taken form in the demand for affirmative consent, or "yes means
yes," to be the standard in rape cases. This places the onus on the accused to prove they had
sought and obtained consent; in other words they must prove their innocence.
This is a radical shift, yet it is being enshrined in legislation with little discussion.
California and New York have passed legislation requiring colleges to adopt an affirmative
consent standard in their sexual assault policies. In 2016, the American Law Institute,
influential with state legislators, debated introducing an affirmative consent standard into
state laws. The proposal was ultimately rejected but the fact that it was even taken seriously
shows feminism's growing legal influence.
History tells us that legislation driven by feminism can have unintended consequences. The
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton's massive $30
billion crime bill, aimed to put 100,000 police officers on the street and funded $9.7 billion
for prisons. VAWA sought more prosecutions and harsher sentences for abuse in relationships.
But a more intensive law enforcement focus on minority communities, coupled with mandatory
arrests of both partners on the scene of a dispute, resulted in unanticipated blowback. Police
were accused of over-criminalizing minority neighborhoods; critics said women were disinclined
to call the police for fear of being arrested themselves. A 2007 Harvard study suggests that
mandatory arrest laws may have actually increased intimate partner homicides and, separately,
women of color have described violence at the hands of the arresting police officers.
Ultimately, the crime bill merely punished; it didn't help prevent domestic abuse against
women.
♦♦♦
Although all women have in some way benefited from feminism's decades-long campaign against
inequality, it is clear that some -- namely middle- and upper-class college graduates -- have
been more advantaged than the rest. Feminists in the 1960s argued that all women had interests
in common; they shared an experience of oppression. The same can hardly be said today. An elite
group of women with professional careers and high salaries has little in common with women
juggling two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Yet the feminist voices that are heard most
loudly continue to be those of privileged women.
High-profile feminists like Anne-Marie Slaughter, the first woman director of policy
planning at the State Department, and Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, sell books and make headlines
for criticizing family-unfriendly employment practices and the gender pay gap. Good for them!
But remember that these women have incomes and lifestyles that put them in a different league
from the vast majority of women -- and men. They identify more closely with the tiny proportion
of male CEOs than they do with women who have jobs rather than careers, who wear uniforms
rather than dry-clean-only suits to work, who have no time to hit the gym before heading to the
office. Their push for "lean-in" circles appeals more to young college grads than women
struggling just to put food on the table. Their vociferous feminist call to arms falls flat in
Middle America -- yet we are told they speak for all women.
In 2018, feminists do walk the corridors of power. But in order to maintain their position
and moral high ground they must deny the very power they command. For this reason, feminism can
never admit its successes -- to do so would require its adherents to ask whether their job is
done. For professional feminists, women who have forged their careers in the femocracy,
admitting this not only puts their livelihoods at risk, but poses an existential threat to
their sense of self. As a result, the better women's lives become, the harder feminists must
work to seek out new realms of disadvantage.
The need to sustain a narrative of oppression explains the continued popularity of the
#MeToo phenomenon. In October 2017, The New York Times ran a story alleging that
Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who had the power to make and break careers, had committed
a number of serious sexual offenses. (The allegations against Weinstein mounted and he is now
being charged with sexual assault and rape.) Over the following weeks and months, accusations
of sexual misconduct were leveled against a host of other men in the public eye.
Such serious accusations need to be dealt with in the courts and, if found guilty, the
perpetrators punished accordingly. But rather than arrests, trials, and criminal proceedings,
#MeToo has gathered pace through social media. Actress Alyssa Milano took to Twitter on October
18 and asked women who had been sexually harassed or assaulted to "write 'me too' as a reply to
this tweet." Thousands of women came forward to call out their own abusers or simply to add
their names to a growing list of victims. #MeToo took on a life of its own; it readily lent
itself to an already-established fourth-wave feminist narrative that saw women as victims of
male violence and sexual entitlement.
Women in the public eye are now routinely asked about their own experiences of sexual
harassment. Some have publicly named and shamed men they accuse of sexual assault or, as with
the case of comedian Aziz Ansari, what can perhaps best be described as "ungentlemanly
conduct." Others are more vague and suggest they have experienced sexual harassment in more
general terms. What no woman can do -- at least not without instigating a barrage of criticism
-- is deny that sexual harassment is a major problem today.
The success of #MeToo is less about real justice than the common experience of suffering and
validation. It is a perfect social media vehicle to drive the fourth-wave agenda into another
generation. Hollywood stars and baristas may have little in common but all women can lay claim
to having experienced male violence and sexual harassment -- or, failing that, potentially
experiencing abuse at some indeterminate point in the future. Statistics on domestic violence,
rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment are used to shore up the narrative that women, as a
class, suffer at the hands of men.
But scratch the surface and often these statistics are questionable. In recent years, at the
hands of femocrats, definitions of violence and sexual harassment have been expanded. On
campus, all kinds of behaviors, from touching through clothes to non-consensual sex, are
grouped together to prove the existence of a rape culture. When sexual harassment is redefined
as unwanted behavior it can encompass anything from winking, to whistling, to staring, to
catcalling. There is little objectively wrong with the action -- it is simply the fact that it
is unwanted that makes it abusive. Today, we are encouraged to see violence, especially
violence against women and girls, everywhere: in words that wound, personified in a boorish
president, in our economic and legal systems. This is violence as metaphor rather than violence
as a physical blow. Yet it is a metaphor that serves a powerful purpose -- allowing all women
to share in a common experience of victimhood, and, as such, justifying the continued need for
elite feminism.
Problems with #MeToo are too rarely discussed. Violence and sexual assaults do occur, but
these serious crimes are trivialized by being presented as on a continuum with the metaphorical
abuse. The constant reiteration that women are victims and men are violent perpetrators does
not, in itself, make it true. It pits men and women against each other and, in the process,
infantilizes women and makes them fearful of the world. It also masks a far more positive
story: rates of domestic violence have been falling. Between 1994 and 2011, the rates of
serious intimate partner violence perpetrated against women -- defined as rape, sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated assault -- fell 72 percent.
The consequences of entrenching in law assumptions that women are destined to become victims
of male violence and harassment are dangerously authoritarian. Feminists now look not to their
own resources, or to their family and friends, but to the state to protect them. Black men in
particular can find themselves disproportionately targeted by feminist-backed drives for legal
retribution. A 2017 report from the National Registry of Exonerations suggests that black men
serving time for sexual assault are three-and-a-half times more likely to be innocent than
white defendants who have been convicted of the same crime.
In the meantime, demands for the punishment of bad behavior are inevitable. Male catcalling
in the UK and France could soon be a criminal offense. While similar bans have been
unsuccessful in the U.S., there are plenty of street harassment laws at the state level that
feminists could co-opt if necessary. Additionally in England, there are proposals to
criminalize "upskirting" or taking a photograph up a woman's skirt. Upskirting is a vile
invasion of a person's privacy. However, the majority of instances are covered under existing
indecency and voyeurism laws. The proposal, as with others, is a feminist signaling device: the
message is, yet again, that the world is a hostile place for women and their only course of
action is to seek redress from the state.
Meanwhile, working-class women are effectively exploited as a voiceless stage presence,
brought on when convenient to shore up the authority of the professional feminist. On occasion
this means the livelihoods of regular women are placed in jeopardy for the greater good of the
collective. Earlier this year, a group of A-list Hollywood actresses petitioned against tipping
waitresses in New York restaurants, arguing it was exploitive and encouraged sexual harassment.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, servers shot back that they would like to continue receiving tips,
thank you very much.
♦♦♦
Fourth-wave feminism is increasingly authoritarian and illiberal, impacting speech and
behavior for men and women. Campaigns around "rape culture" and #MeToo police women just as
much as men, telling them how to talk about these issues. When The Handmaid's Tale
author Margaret Atwood had the effrontery to advocate for due process for men accused of sex
crimes, her normally adoring feminist fans turned on her. She referred to it in a Globe and
Mail essay in January entitled "Am I a Bad Feminist?"
"In times of extremes, extremists win," she wrote. "Their ideology becomes a religion,
anyone who doesn't puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and
moderates in the middle are annihilated."
The fact is, men are publicly shamed every day, their livelihoods and reputations teetering
on destruction, before they even enter a courtroom.
Frankly, it is disastrous for young women to be taught to see themselves as disadvantaged
and vulnerable in a way that bears no relationship to reality. Whereas a previous generation of
feminists fought against chaperones and curfews, today's #MeToo movement rehabilitates the
argument that women need to be better protected from rapacious men, or need "safe spaces."
Women come to believe that they will be harassed walking down the street, that they will be
paid less than men for the same work, and that the world is set against them. The danger is
that, rather than competing with men as equals, women will be so overwhelmed by the apparent
size of the struggle that they will abandon all efforts and call upon external helpmates, like
the state and ugly identity politics that push good men away. Women's disadvantage thus become
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All the while, the real problems experienced by many American women -- and men -- such as
working long hours for a low wage and struggling to pay for child and healthcare costs, are
overlooked.
When second-wave feminism burst onto the scene more than 50 years ago it was known as the
women's liberation movement. It celebrated equality and powerfully proclaimed that women were
capable of doing everything men did. Today, this spirit of liberation has been exchanged for an
increasingly authoritarian and illiberal victim feminism. With every victory, feminism needs to
reassert increasingly spurious claims that women are oppressed. For women and men to be free
today, we need to bring back the spirit of the women's liberation movement. Only now it's
feminism from which women need liberating.
"The people I've heard archly denounce whites have for the most part been upwardly-mobile
people who've proven pretty adept at navigating elite, predominantly white spaces. A lot of
them have been whites who pride themselves on their diverse social circles and their
enlightened views, and who indulge in their own half-ironic white-bashing to underscore that it
is their achieved identity as intelligent, worldly people that counts most, not their ascribed
identity as being of recognizably European descent." • Also "Asian American professional,"
although when you think about it, "Asia American" is a pretty problematic ascribed
identity.
The best-case scenario looking
forward is that Donald Trump is successful with rapprochement toward North Korea and Russia and
that he throws a monkey wrench into the architecture of neoliberalism so that a new path forward
can be built when he's gone. If he pulls it off, this isn't reactionary nationalism and it isn't
nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated. ..."
I thought this part of Urie's piece was especially good:
Left apparently unrecognized in bourgeois attacks on working class voters is that the
analytical frames at work -- classist identity politics and liberal economics, are ruling
class ideology in the crudest Marxian / Gramscian senses. The illusion / delusion that they
are factually descriptive is a function of ideology, not lived outcomes.
Here's the rub: Mr. Trump's critique of neoliberalism can accommodate class analysis
whereas the Democrats' neoliberal globalism explicitly excludes any notion of economic
power, and with it the possibility of class analysis. To date, Mr. Trump hasn't left this
critique behind -- neoliberal trade agreements are currently being renegotiated.
Asserting this isn't to embrace economic nationalism, support policies until they are
clearly stated or trust Mr. Trump's motives. But the move ties analytically to his critique
of neoliberal economic policies. As such, it is a potential monkey wrench thrown into the
neoliberal world order. Watching the bourgeois Left put forward neoliberal trade theory to
counter it would seem inexplicable without the benefit of class analysis.
"... The identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. ..."
"... Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment. Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best. ..."
"... Precious time is spent fighting against those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or 'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping ..."
"... It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism. ..."
"... There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing thought, it is anathema to the very concept. ..."
"... 'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity politics. ..."
"... The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment when in reality they strengthen it. ..."
"... Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in charge keep the masses divided and distracted. ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra. ..."
The
identity politics phenomenon sweeping across the Western world is a divide and conquer strategy
that prevents the emergence of a genuine resistance to the elites. A core principle of
socialism is the idea of an overarching supra-national solidarity that unites the international
working class and overrides any factor that might divide it, such as nation, race, or gender.
Workers of all nations are partners, having equal worth and responsibility in a struggle
against those who profit from their brain and muscle.
Capitalism, especially in its most evolved, exploitative and heartless form - imperialism -
has wronged certain groups of people more than others. Colonial empires tended to reserve their
greatest brutality for subjugated peoples whilst the working class of these imperialist nations
fared better in comparison, being closer to the crumbs that fell from the table of empire. The
international class struggle aims to liberate all people everywhere from the drudgery of
capitalism regardless of their past or present degree of oppression. The phrase 'an injury
to one is an injury to all' encapsulates this mindset and conflicts with the idea of
prioritising the interests of one faction of the working class over the entire collective.
Since the latter part of the 20th century, a liberally-inspired tendency has taken root
amongst the Left (in the West at least) that encourages departure from a single identity based
on class in favour of multiple identities based upon one's gender, sexuality, race or any other
dividing factor. Each subgroup, increasingly alienated from all others, focuses on the
shared identity and unique experiences of its members and prioritises its own empowerment.
Anyone outside this subgroup is demoted to the rank of ally, at best.
At the time of writing there are apparently over
70 different gender options in the West, not to mention numerous sexualities - the
traditional LGBT acronym has thus far grown to LGBTQQIP2SAA
. Adding race to the mix results in an even greater number of possible permutations or
identities. Each subgroup has its own ideology. Precious time is spent fighting against
those deemed less oppressed and telling them to 'check their privilege' as the ever-changing
pecking order of the 'Oppression Olympics' plays out. The rules to this sport are as fluid as
the identities taking part. One of the latest dilemmas affecting the identity politics movement
is the issue of whether men transitioning to women deserve recognition and acceptance or
'whether trans women aren't women and are apparently " raping "
lesbians'.
The ideology of identity politics asserts that the straight white male is at the apex of the
privilege pyramid, responsible for the oppression of all other groups. His original sin
condemns him to everlasting shame. While it is true that straight white men (as a group) have
faced less obstacles than females, non-straight men or ethnic minorities, the majority of
straight white men, past and present, also struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck and
are not personally involved in the oppression of any other group. While most of the world's
wealthiest
individuals are Caucasian males, millions of white men exist who are both poor and
powerless. The idea of 'whiteness' is itself an ambiguous concept involving racial profiling.
For example, the Irish, Slavs and Ashkenazi Jews may look white yet have suffered more than
their fair share of famines, occupations and genocides throughout the centuries. The idea of
tying an individual's privilege to their appearance is itself a form of racism dreamed up by
woolly minded, liberal (some might say privileged) 'intellectuals' who would be superfluous in
any socialist society.
Is the middle-class ethnic minority lesbian living in Western Europe more oppressed than the
whitish looking Syrian residing under ISIS occupation? Is the British white working class male
really more privileged than a middle class woman from the same society? Stereotyping based on
race, gender or any other factor only leads to alienation and animosity. How can there be unity
amongst the Left if we are only loyal to ourselves and those most like us? Some 'white' men who
feel the Left has nothing to offer them have decided to play the identity politics game in
their search of salvation and have drifted towards supporting Trump (a billionaire with whom
they have nothing in common) or far-right movements, resulting in further alienation, animosity
and powerlessness which in turn only strengthens the position of the top 1%. People around the
world are more divided by class than any other factor.
It is much easier to 'struggle' against an equally or slightly less oppressed group than
to take the time and effort to unite with them against the common enemy - capitalism.
Fighting oppression through identity politics is at best a lazy, perverse and fetishistic form
of the class struggle led by mostly liberal, middle class and tertiary-educated activists who
understand little of left-wing political theory. At worst it is yet another tool used by the
top 1% to divide the other 99% into 99 or 999 different competing groups who are too
preoccupied with fighting their own little corner to challenge the status quo. It is ironic
that one of the major donors to the faux-left identity politics movement is the privileged
white cisgender male billionaire
George Soros , whose NGOs helped orchestrate the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine that gave
way to the emergence of far right and neo-nazi movements: the kind of people who believe in
racial superiority and do not look kindly on diversity.
There is a carefully crafted misconception that identity politics derives from Marxist
thought and the meaningless phrase 'cultural Marxism', which has more to do with liberal
culture than Marxism, is used to sell this line of thinking. Not only does identity politics
have nothing in common with Marxism, socialism or any other strand of traditional left-wing
thought, it is anathema to the very concept.
'An injury to one is an injury to all' has been replaced with something like 'An injury
to me is all that matters'. No socialist country, whether in practice or in name only, promoted
identity politics. Neither the African and Asian nations that liberated themselves from
colonialist oppression nor the USSR and Eastern Bloc states nor the left-wing movements that
sprung up across Latin America in the early 21st century had any time to play identity
politics.
The idea that identity politics is part of traditional left-wing thought is promoted by
the right who seek to demonise left wing-movements, liberals who seek to infiltrate, backstab
and destroy said left-wing movements, and misguided young radicals who know nothing about
political theory and have neither the patience nor discipline to learn. The last group seek a
cheap thrill that makes them feel as if they have shaken the foundations of the establishment
when in reality they strengthen it.
Identity politics is typically a modern middle-class led phenomenon that helps those in
charge keep the masses divided and distracted. In the West you are free to choose any
gender or sexuality, transition between these at whim, or perhaps create your own, but you are
not allowed to question the foundations of capitalism or liberalism. Identity politics is the
new opiate of the masses and prevents organised resistance against the system. Segments of the
Western Left even believe such aforementioned 'freedoms' are a bellwether of progress and an
indicator of its cultural superiority, one that warrants export abroad be it softly via NGOs or
more bluntly through colour revolutions and regime change.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Tomasz Pierscionek is a doctor specialising in psychiatry. He was previously on the
board of the charity Medact, is editor of the London Progressive Journal and has appeared as a
guest on RT's Sputnik and Al-Mayadeen's Kalima Horra.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. Read more
In a conversation with the Financial Times last week, Henry Kissinger made a highly
significant remark about President Donald Trump's attempt to improve the United States'
relations with Russia. The conversation took place in the backdrop of the Helsinki summit on
July 16. Kissinger said: "I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from
time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences. It doesn't
necessarily mean that he knows this, or that he is considering any great alternative. It could
just be an accident."
Kissinger did not elaborate, but the drift of his thought is consistent with opinions he has
voiced in the past – the US' steady loss of influence on global arena, rise of China and
resurgence
of Russia necessitating a new global balance .
As far back as 1972 in a discussion with Richard Nixon on his upcoming trip to China,
signifying the historic opening to Beijing, Kissinger could visualize such a rebalancing
becoming necessary in future. He expressed the view that compared with the Soviets (Russians),
the Chinese were "just as dangerous. In fact, they're more dangerous over a historical period."
Kissinger added, "in 20 years your (Nixon's) successor, if he's as wise as you, will wind up
leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese."
Kissinger argued that the United States, which sought to profit from the enmity between
Moscow and Beijing in the Cold War era, would therefore need "to play this balance-of-power
game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to
discipline the Russians." But in the future, it would be the other way around.
Of course, Kissinger is not the pioneer of US-Russia-China 'triangular diplomacy'. It is no
secret that in the 1950s, the US did all it could to drive a wedge between Mao Zedong and
Nikita Khrushchev. The accent was on isolating "communist China". Khrushchev's passion for
'peaceful co-existence' following his summit with Dwight Eisenhower in 1959 at Camp David
became a defining moment in Sino-Soviet schism.
But even as Sino-Soviet schism deepened (culminating in the bloody conflict in Ussuri River
in 1969), Nixon reversed the policy of Eisenhower and opened the line to Beijing, prioritizing
the US' global competition with the Soviet Union. The de-classified Cold-War archival materials
show that Washington seriously pondered over the possibility of a wider Sino-Soviet war. One
particular memorandum of the US State Department recounts an incredible moment in Cold War
history – a KGB officer querying about American reaction to a hypothetical Soviet attack
on Chinese nuclear weapons facilities.
Then there is a memo written for Kissinger's attention by then influential China watcher
Allen S. Whiting warning of the danger of a Soviet attack on China. Clearly, 1969 was a pivotal
year when the US calculus was reset based on estimation that Sino-Soviet tensions provided a
basis for Sino-American rapprochement. It led to the dramatic overture by Nixon and Kissinger
to open secret communications with China through Pakistan and Romania.
Will Putin fall for Trump's bait? Well, it depends. To my mind, there is no question Putin
will see a great opening here for Russia. But it will depend on what's on offer from the US.
Putin's fulsome praise for Trump on North Korean issue and the latter's warm response was a
meaningful exchange at Helsinki, has been a good beginning to underscore Moscow's keenness to
play a broader role in the Asia-Pacific.
Beijing must be watching the 'thaw' at Helsinki with some unease. The Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesperson welcomed the Helsinki summit. But the mainstream assessment by Chinese
analysts is that nothing much is going to happen since the contradictions in the US-Russia
relations are fundamental and Russophobia is all too pervasive within the US establishment.
The government-owned China Daily carried an editorial – Has the meeting
in Helsinki reset US-Russia relations? – where it estimates that at best, "
Helsinki summit represents a good beginning for better relations between the US and Russia."
Notably, however, the editorial is pessimistic about any real US-Russia breakthrough, including
on Syria, the topic that Putin singled out as a test case of the efficacy of Russian-American
cooperation.
On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times featured an editorial
giving a stunning analysis of what has prompted Trump to pay such attention ("respect") to
Russia -- China
can learn from Trump's respect for Russia . It concludes that the only conceivable
reason could be that although Russia is not an economic power, it has retained influence on the
global stage due to military power:
Trump has repeatedly stressed that Russia and the US are the two biggest nuclear powers
in the world, with their combined nuclear arsenal accounting for 90 percent of world's total,
and thus the US must live in peace with Russia. On US-Russia relations, Trump is
clearheaded.
On the contrary, if the US is piling pressure on China today, it is because China, although
an economic giant, is still a weak military power. Therefore:
China's nuclear weapons have to not only secure a second strike but also play the role
of cornerstone in forming a strong deterrence so that outside powers dare not intimidate
China militarily Part of the US' strategic arrogance may come from its absolute nuclear
advantage China must speed up its process of developing strategic nuclear power Not only
should we possess a strong nuclear arsenal, but we must also let the outside world know
that China is determined to defend its core national interests with nuclear power.
Indeed, if the crunch time comes, China will be on its own within the Kissingerian triangle.
And China needs to prepare for such an eventuality. On the other hand, China's surge to create
a vast nuclear arsenal could make a mockery of the grand notions in Moscow and Washington that
they are the only adults in the room in keeping the global strategic balance.
"To my mind, there is no question Putin will see a great opening here for Russia."
So, what exactly can Trump offer Russia? Letting them "win" in Syria, when the Syrian
people, lead by Assad and aided by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, have already won?
Perhaps, it is the return of bankrupt and banderised Ukraine? Now that would be a
prize!
Perhaps, Trump could offer the withdrawal of NATO forces from Russia's borders and a
place in the "international community"? That worked out well in the 90s, didn't it?
Maybe, relief from sanctions could be the clincher? That would rescue the "tattered"
Russian economy, wouldn't it?
The Nixon to China gambit by Trump ignores the stark reality that Trump is in office but
not in power. The entire media and the "intelligence community" has been angling to
impeach him since his election, and they may well succeed after the mid-terms.
Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?
Besides, Putin and loyal Russians have seen through the true reasons behind what can only
be called anti Russian RACIST hysteria.
Its not ideological or cultural. It is an ancient urge: Russia must submit to the
US/EU/NATO Borg Collective, or be destroyed. Could anyone have missed the rant in the US
media, incited by the "intelligence community", which just happened to be "thrown under
the bus", by Trump, just because he met Putin?
Trump is also going to be the victim of the same urge.
He cannot be controlled, so he must be destroyed.
Simples!
The Yanks will start their endless electioneering soon, four years is nothing, the
dolts start the game going for new president years berfore the election date. Sure they
hate any nation that stands-up to them they actually beleive they have a god-given righ
to rule the world as they spread their sick ways around the globe calling them freedom?
choice?, playing one nation against the other is an old game, lets hope Russia never
crosses China, as together they can keep the war-monger, nation-destroyer two faced snake
USA in check.
"Why would Putin and loyal Russians take any offer to dump China seriously?"
There is not even room for that question. Russia is STRATEGIC partner of China and
they never contemplate under no circumstances to have that differently.... Whoever thinks
Russia might take some offer in consideration to turn against China is DEAD WRONG.
The idea that demography is political destiny is not new. Peter Brimelow and Edwin Rubenstein
warned of its dangers in the pages of National Review in the 1990s. Steve Sailer later
argued
that Republicans would fare better by targeting white voters. The problem with these observations was not their accuracy, but their
audience. The GOP establishment and donor elites had little interest in such thinking until Donald Trump's
breakthrough
in 2016. But what happens when Trump leaves office? Will the GOP return to its old ways, as Trump's former chief of staff Reince
Priebus has
predicted ? The answer is almost certainly no. The reasons have little to do with the GOP elite, however, whose views have not
substantially changed. They instead have everything to do with what is happening in the other party. As Brimelow and Rubenstein recently
pointed out in VDARE (and as I did at
American Renaissance
), while the nation is not expected to reach majority-minority status until
2045 , the Democratic Party is already approaching that historic milestone. The political consequences of these changes will
be profound and irreversible. The developments that are unfolding before our eyes are not a fluke, but the beginning of a new political
realignment in the United States that is increasingly focused on race.
The Emerging Majority-Minority Party While warnings of brewing demographic trouble were being ignored by the establishment
right, they received a better reception on the left. In 2004, Ruy
Teixeira and John Judis wrote a book called
The Emerging Democratic
Majority that triumphantly predicted that demographic change would soon produce a "new progressive era." The theory's predictive
powers waxed and waned over the years, but after Trump's 2016 election Teixeira and another coauthor, Peter Leyden, insisted that
Democrats would soon sweep away an increasingly irrelevant GOP and forcibly
impose their will, much as had already happened in California. These arguments have a glaring weakness, however. They assumed
that Democrats would continue to draw the same level of support from white voters. Instead, many have been fleeing to the GOP. Throughout
the 20 th Century, Democrats had won the presidency only by winning or keeping it close among these voters. Barack Obama
was the first to break this pattern, defeating John McCain in 2008 while losing the white vote by
12 percent
. Four years later he beat Mitt Romney while losing it by
20 percent
. Hillary Clinton lost the white vote in 2016 by a similar 20-point
margin . This
loss of white support, coupled with the continued demographic change of the country, has helped push the Democratic Party toward
majority-minority status. Since 1992, the white share of the Democratic presidential vote has dropped an average of about one percent
per year. At its current rate, it could tip to majority-minority status by 2020. It will occur no later than 2024. The political
consequences of this shift are already apparent. In 2008, Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination with
the overwhelming backing of
black voters.
Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in 2016 with similar black and Latino
support . This year's state elections have continued the trend, with minority candidates winning Democratic gubernatorial nominations
in Georgia ,
Texas , New Mexico , and
Maryland , with another likely win in
Arizona later this year. This sudden
surge in minority candidates is not an indicator of increased open mindedness, but of demographic change. While the national
Democratic Party is only just approaching majority-minority status, in much of the nation it is already there.
While the demographic trend of the Democratic Party seems clear enough – as does its leftward drift and increased embrace of minority
candidates – it is still possible to argue that the nation's politics will not divide along racial lines. The most obvious alternative
is that both parties will compete for minority votes and both will experience demographic change in an increasingly
multiracial nation. Could this happen? Black voters seem least likely to change. They already routinely provide Democrats with
90 percent of their votes. They are the backbone of the party, with a former president, nearly 50
members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and numerous mayors in
major American cities among their ranks. Given the Democratic Party's steadfast commitment to black issues such as affirmative action
and Black Lives Matter, few are likely to be won over by the occasional attempts at Republican
outreach . Latinos also typically
support Democrats in presidential elections by a 2-to-1 margin, but they have been a more serious target for Republicans, including
President
George W. Bush , his acolyte
Karl Rove , authors of the
GOP autopsy
released after Mitt Romney's 2012 loss, and occasional
writers
in National Review . Some have observed that many Latinos
value whiteness and are more likely to
self-identify
as white thelonger they have been in the country.
In fact, some Latinos arewhite , particularly
those from Latin America's leadershipclass . Others have
reported on
substantialhostility
that exists between Latinos and blacks that may make them more likely to see whites as natural allies. There are several problems
with these arguments. The most important are
persistent
race-based
IQ differences that will keep most mestizos (who are the
bulk of Latino immigrants)
trapped at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum regardless of their racial identification. Arguments that they will assimilate
like their European predecessors fail to explain why
racialhierarchies have
persisted in their home
nations for hundreds of years. These inequalities probably explain the high levels of
Hispanicsupport for government programs that
are likely to keep most of them tied to the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. Although Asians also
support Democrats
by a 2-to-1 margin, they seem potentially more
promising . Unlike America's black and Latino populations, East Asians (such as Japanese and Chinese) have IQs that may be slightly
higher than that of white Americans on average.
Moreover, affirmative action policies backed by Democrats typically
work to
their detriment
. However, most Asian immigrants
are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much
lower . Finally, no matter
what their nationality, Asians are generally unsympathetic
to whites
who want to restrict nonwhite immigration. Unsurprisingly, all of these reasons have contributed to Asians
movingaway
from the Republican Party, not toward it. Some argue that Republicans have no choice but to accept demographic change and move left
to gain minority support. The GOP may well move left in
ways
that
are
acceptable to its white
working class
base and help it with white moderates – such as protecting Social Security and Medicare. But it will never win a
bidding
war with Democrats for their base of minority voters, nor would the GOP base let it try.
White polarization is the mirror image of nonwhite polarization and its causes are similar. Numerous
scholars have
citedgenetics
as a basis for reciprocal altruism among closely-related kin and hostility toward outsiders among humans and in the animal kingdom
in general. This ethnocentrism is instinctual, present
amongbabies , and whites are
not immune from its effects. Most are socialized to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a
shortdistance beneath the surface. Academics sometimes
argue that
positive direct contact is a promising strategy for overcoming racial differences, but research has shown that the
negativeeffects are more
powerful – something a cursory glance at
crime statistics would
confirm. Rampant white flight and segregation in
neighborhoods
,
schools , and personal
relationships provide the most definitive evidence on the negative influence of direct contact. Its impact on voting is also
well established, particularly for whites and blacks. The shift of white Southerners away from the Democratic Party after civil rights
legislation was enacted in the 1960s was almost immediate and has
remained
strong ever since. White flight produced similar
political
advantages for Republicans in suburbs across the country during this period. Their advantage has softened since then, but primarily
because the suburbs have become
less white , not
lesssegregated . White voting is similarly affected
by proximity to Hispanics. White flight and segregation are a constant in heavily Latino areas in
both
liberal and conservative
states. The resulting political backlash in places like
California and
Arizona has been well-documented and confirmed
by
academicresearch
. Support for President Trump has also been shown to be highly
correlated with
whiteidentity
and
opposition to immigration. These trends are expected to become stronger over time.
Experimental
research has shown that growing white awareness of demographic change makes them more
conservative , less favorably disposed to
minorities, and feel greater attachment to other whites. The effects are heightened the more whites think they are
threatened . The associated
ideological effects are just as important. The influence of ideology is obvious in socially conservative states like North Dakota
and Kansas . However, the Democrats'
growing leftward tilt has become an issue even in liberal states like those in New England, many of which now regularly
elect
Republicans as governors
. In fact, liberal Massachusetts has had
just one Democratic governor in the past quarter century. The power of leftist ideology to drive whites together may reach its
zenith if Democrats resume their attack on segregation in neighborhoods and schools.
De facto segregation has
protected
white liberals from the consequences of their voting
decisions for years. If Democrats are
returned to power, however, they appear
ready
to
touch this electoral
third rail
.
Further evidence of racial polarization can be found by looking abroad. Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations –
everywhere and throughouthistory . More recently,
64 percent of
all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines
. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and
ethnic polarization . Some of the worst examples,
such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide. Race-based identity politics are just a lower
form of ethnic conflict. Like ethnic conflict more generally, the strength of such politics depends on the level of ethnic diversity
and corresponding racial polarization. In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines.
As a society becomes more diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing
role . Politics and
parties that are explicitly
ethnically-based usually do not appear until much later, when a nation has become more diverse and has begun to suffer extreme racial
polarization. Such politics have been shown to produce substantial ethnic
favoritism
. Their appearance is often a
prelude to civilwar or
partition . The United
States has not reached this stage, but its future can be seen in other nations that are further down the road. One example is Brazil.
While the United States will not become majority-minority until 2045, Brazil reached that milestone in
2010 . For much of the 20
th Century, Brazil viewed itself as a harmonious racial
democracy and a model for the rest of the world, but this image has been tarnished in recent years. The nation's changing demographics
demonstrated their power with the election of Lula da Silva in 2002 and his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, in 2010. Support
for these two presidents – both members of the leftist Workers Party – was
concentrated
in the largely black northern half of the country, while opposition was concentrated in the mostly
white south . Their victories depended on
the nation's changing demographics. Once elected, they rewarded their black supporters with substantial expansions of
affirmative action and
a new cash transfer system, called Bolsa Família, which disproportionately
benefitted
Afro-Brazilians. Since then, Brazil's fortunes have taken a turn for the
worse . Rousseff was
impeached
after a massive corruption scandal in 2016. Crime has
exploded . Black activists
nowderide the notion of "
racial democracy " and have become
more
militant
on racial issues. An explicitly
black political party has
also appeared. This has corresponded with a similar backlash in the white population. The leading candidate for the presidential
election this year is Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes referred to as the
Trump of the Tropics . A white separatist movement called the
South is My Country is drawing substantial support. Brazilians are reportedly
losing faith in
democracy and becoming more receptive to
military
rule .
The preponderance of the evidence – domestic, international, historical, and scientific – suggests that American politics will
continue to polarize along racial and ethnic lines. At least in the short term, Republicans will benefit as white voters flee from
the other party. But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?
Various elements of the
GOPestablishment
, including the
business elite and pro-immigration donors like the
Koch brothers , continue to hold substantial
power within the party. Reince Priebus probably echoed their views when he
said , "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and a traditional platform."
Such status quo thinking ignores too much. There are numerous signs that the party is changing. Trump's popularity within his
own party is the
second highest among all presidents since World War II, trailing only George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. Congressional
Never Trumpers like Bob
Corker , Jeff Flake
, and
Mark Sanford have been defeated or stepped aside. Prominent
columnists ,
analysts , and at least
one former GOP leader
are now declaring it Trump's party.
These changes are not solely about Trump, however. There were signs of change before his arrival. Eric Cantor's primary defeat
in 2014 was widely
attributed to softness on immigration, which met furious
grassroots opposition . Moreover, if Trump's rise were
merely a one-off event, we would not be seeing the simultaneous rise of nationalist movements in Europe, which is facing its own
immigration crisis .
The more likely answer is that these changes reflect something more powerful than any individual, even the president of the United
States. The same survival
instinct that is present in all living creatures still burns brightly within the world's European peoples. Trump was not the
cause, but a consequence – and we will not go gently into the night.
Patrick McDermott(email him)is a political analyst in Washington, DC.
This ethnocentrism is instinctual, observable even among babies. Whites are not immune from its effects. Most are socialized
to suppress their ethnocentric instincts, but they remain only a short distance beneath the surface.
Even the most vile race-virtuosos' ethnocentric instincts boil to the surface in the flight to "good schools" for their children.
The "Good schools" rationale works for them. Gets them away from the city, away from those awful Blacks. It was always diversity
for thee. The closest most liberals get to diversity is the Hispanic housekeeper. Because the Blacks, you know, they steal the
liquor/silver/Waterford". Heard variations of this a million times..
Brilliant synthesis. Excellent article. Patrick McDermott hits it out of the ballpark, noting correctly that ethnocentrism is
"instinctual". So true. So obvious. And this suppressed truth is just the tip of the iceberg. America lives under 'intellectual
occupation'.
But the hardening scientific facts involving race, kinship, and phenotype are testament to the hollowness of 'anti-racist'
rhetoric and ideologies that dominate so much of the American landscape.
These liberal creeds pretend to repudiate (all) 'racism' and bigotry, but in political fact, they strategically target only
white Americans. This makes these lofty 'values' not only disingenuous but unfair and destructive.
Highfalutin (but bogus) liberalism has come to play a diabolical role. It undermines white cohesion and white solidarity. Meanwhile,
from high above, irreversible demographic changes are being orchestrated.
MacDermott correctly observes that the West's unsought ethno-racial transformation is what's behind the reinvigoration of white
identity in Europe and America. This at least is good news.
Says MacDermott:
"Ethnic conflict has been a constant in human relations -- everywhere and throughout history. More recently, 64 percent of
all civil wars since 1946 have divided along ethnic lines. Such conflicts are highly correlated with genetic diversity and ethnic
polarization. Some of the worst examples, such as Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Sudan, have included ethnic cleansing and genocide."
Very true. Very important. And while MacDermott avoids mentioning a more obvious example, the most persistent expression of
this phenomena can be seen in Israel/Palestine, where allegedly 'Semitic' Jews are doing whatever it takes to keep their lesser
(Semitic) cousins at arms length–in this case, in the caged ghettos of Gaza and the West Bank.
Undue and uncompromising Jewish influence in Zio-America is allowing this race-born outrage to continue. Sadly, Israeli savagery
routinely receives Zio-Washington's unconditional blessing, trillion-dollar subsidy, and unflinching diplomatic cover.
But besides the disputed territory and Israel's untouchable political power, what nourishes the endless Israel/Palestine impasse?
Jewish 'exceptionalism' is one key motivator.
The Chosen people are convinced that they are born vastly superior to their Semitic cousins.
Thus, strict segregation is required for the assurance of 'Jewish (genetic) continuity'. This objective however requires steadfast
cruelty since the natives are still restless and rebelling.
Supremacism means never having to say you're sorry. This is especially true since, ironically, peace between Jews and Arabs
could potentially lead to increased Jewish 'outmarriage' in Israel and consequently, the gradual reduction in Israeli (Jewish)
IQ and Jewish 'exceptionalism' (supremacy).
Over time, potential genetic intermingling would very possibly undermine Jewish magnificence and therefore, Jewish cohesion.
This could then translate into a loss of Jewish solidarity and 'community'. It's possible.
This downturn could subsequently affect Jewish wealth and power, and that is certainly not an outcome that the Jewish community
desires.
Leaders of the global Jewish community are smart enough to envision this scenario and to prevent it from happening. They use
The Holocaust (and it's potential re-0currance) as an all-purpose excuse. But it's phony. Self-segregation is a sacred, ancient
Jewish value. Thus the glamorization of interracial romance is directed only at the goyim, as is the message of Open Borders.
Just turn on your TV. It's there constantly.
These 'liberal, democratic' messages however are never advocated in Israel, nor are they directed at young Jews via Israeli
TV, news, entertainment or education.
You will never see glamorous depictions of Jewish/Arab miscegenation on Israeli television, even though black/white 'family
formation' on Jewish-owned mass media in America is ubiquitous.
Hostile US elites (Jews) apparently want non-Jewish whites to become mixed, brown. This racial objective however is anathema
to Jewish values. It's strictly for the goyim.
Meanwhile, whites in America are not permitted to think or hold values like Israeli Jews, or to even express similar preferences
inside the civilization that they and their forefathers created. This speaks volumes about the lack of freedom in America. Yes,
we live under intellectual occupation.
For many Israeli Jews (the dominant thinking goes) strict segregation–if not active warfare–is the only sure way to maintain
'hafrada' (separation) for Jews in Israel since they are surrounded by tens of millions of similar-looking but 'unexceptional'
Arabs.
Unlike America, walls (and segregation) remain sacred in Israel. But not here.
In fact, some Latinos are white, particularly those from Latin America's leadership class
I think the reality is, Latinos/Hispanics simply form lines like any group would do. I am white, all my fellow Hispanic friends
are white, and we consider ourselves essentially an ethnicity within Whiteness, just like Italians, or high-caste French Creoles,
White Persians, Lebanese or Jordanians.
The easiest way to tell if an "ethnic" is conservative or republican (outside of obvious virtue signalers), is to ask yourself,
" Is this person white ?". Other than famous actors and political types that have the luxury being "liberal" (e.g. Salma
Hayek) every day Hispanics, Persians and Arabs that are white, act, do and think, like every day White Anglo-Saxons, Germanics
and Nordics–for the most part (obviously IQ plays a part). Don't get me wrong, there is a difference in IQ and mindset in the
particulars between a Norman and a (white-ish) Sicilian, some IQ, some cultural, but if and when a civil war comes–no one will
have ANY problem knowing where they and others stand and belong.
Reince Priebus: "I think post-Trump, the party basically returns to its traditional role and traditional platform."
And that would be U.S. hegemony and market fundamentalism? Unlikely and unattractive. U.S. military dominance starves our society
and enriches the national security state and the rogue regimes in Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Market fundamentalism does not take into
account human frailty, and would produce widespread desperation.
What can be gleaned from Mr. McDermott's instructive article is that, like it or not, identity needs to be included in the
political lexicon of working class and middle class whites. Elite whites continue to cede power to blacks and browns in politics
and business as the slide into Idiocracy accelerates. This is an opportunity for disaffected whites from the Democratic Party
and Republican Trump supporters to form a coalition.
The political consequences of these changes will be profound and irreversible.
When Ted Kennedy was pushing the 1965 opening of our borders to atone for racism, he made repeated assurances that we would
not end up where we ended up. He said the level of immigration would remain the same, the ethnic mix would not inundate America
with immigrants from any particular place or nation, that the ethnic pattern of America would not be changed, and that we wouldn't
have something crazy like a million immigrants a year, certainly not poor ones who would place a burden on citizens.
When Reagan's amnesty happened, again promises where made that we could and would keep our country. Now, it looks like Brazil
is our future.
Elections are already being decided by racial votes of minorities, which aren't considered racist by that half of America that
eagerly anticipates our demise. What a rude surprise they are in for when they discover they are still white and will be honorary
deplorables once they no longer have political power.
But will the GOP adequately capitalize on these gains?
Ha, Derbyshire doesn't call it the Stupid Party for nothing.
Regarding my home state of Arizona, that 66% figure is an interesting anomaly. Except for my fellow writers, most of the white
folks I know are pretty conservative. Many secretly supported Trump or voted Libertarian in protest of the lousy mainstream choices.
Perhaps this is a reflection of white flight from California.
You dense "scientific" racists can't see the forest for the trees, as is always the case. The importance of this election has
nothing to do with demographics. But you wouldn't know that because all you want to do is scream raceracerace all de liblong day.
No. The importance of this race is that Ocasio-Cortez is "a strikingly perfect candidate, both in policy positions and refusal
to take corporate money. She fits the identity politics profile without once using identity politics virtue-signaling to cover
for lousy policies. This is shattering to the Clintonista crowd, who are spinning like tops."
However, most Asian immigrants are not East Asians and their IQs (such as those of Indians or Pakistanis) are much lower.
Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers? Those aren't typically low-IQ professions. Is this
just a case of aggressive brain-drain? Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?
In homogenous societies, for example, politics tends to divide along class and cultural lines. As a society becomes more
diverse, however, ethnicity begins to play a growing role.
Yup. That's probably why the Democratic Party traded class war for race war.
Really? How come so many are doctors, scientists and computer programmers?
The advance guard in the US was the professional elite. Not so in the UK. Subcontinentals are much closer, or even below, average
there. Even here, motel owners may outnumber doctors, scientists, and computer programmers combined.
Is this just a case of aggressive brain-drain?
Yes.
And it's worse in Canada.
Do all the stupid ones stay behind in India?
There are a billion more people in India than in the US. Do the arithmetic.
OK. I'll make it simple for you because your understanding doesn't extend beyond simple.
Ocasio-Cortez is a very good candidate, and, unless she is co-opted–which, 99 out of a 100 (notice my use of "statistics,"
I mean damned lies, you statistics-worshipers) is the chance she will be–she is a hundred times better than Crowley the Clintonite
hack. Racists are really stupid. They vote against their own interests, just like all "conservatives."
The author throws around 'left' and 'right' as if they transparently applied in the case of ethnic politics. I would argue that
it has been the economic 'right' that has relentlessly pursued diversity of populations – quite arguably for millennia, and certainly
in the last 50 years. Some sane economic leftists realize this, although they are an endangered and shrinking group.
However if it is the right that is the main mover in favor of diversity (empire preferred to nation state for the easier control
of labor), I'm not sure what solutions there are. Whites voting for the Republican Party is not a long time viable solution since
the owners of that party have fundamentally different interests than the white working class (as leftists have correctly pointed
out over and over).
Ocasio's victory is a nightmare for the Democrats. The Leftist media is touting her as the future of the party, but her platform
makes Obama look like a rightwing extremist.
- Federal Jobs Guarantee
- Medicare for All
- Tuition-free public college
- Reduce prisons by 50%
- Defund ICE
But the real poison pill is her unwavering support for the Palestinians. I'm not making a value judgment on this or any other
of her policies, but if the GOP can tag the next Democratic presidential candidate with Ocasio's worldview, then expect a Trumpslide
in 2020.
What do the (((brains))) and (((primary funders))) behind the Democratic party think of this rising star? Here are some choice
quotes from NY Jewish Week:
To some, the stunning victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, an outspoken critic of Israel, over 10-term Rep. Joseph Crowley
(D-Queens-Bronx), an Israel supporter, in Tuesday's Democratic primary is seen as another nail in the coffin of Democratic support
for the Jewish state.
"If she maintains her anti-Israel stance, she will be a one-term wonder," predicted George Arzt, a New York political operative.
"I don't think you can have someone with those views in New York City. If she moderates, she could win again. If she doesn't,
there will be massive opposition to her -- maybe even a cross-over candidate from the Latino community with pro-Israel views."
Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he sees Ocasio-Cortez's overwhelming victory -- she won with 57.5
percent of the vote -- as "another step in the ongoing divorce proceedings between the pro-Israel community and the Democratic
Party."
Jeff Wiesenfeld, a former aide to both Republican and Democratic elected officials, said he read Ocasio-Cortez's Twitter
and Facebook postings and said she has voiced opinions that are "downright hostile to Israel."
After 60 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military in May while attempting to breach the fence along the Israel-Gaza
border, Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter: "This is a massacre. I hope my peers have the moral courage to call it such. No state
or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protestors. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity,
as anyone else. Democrats can't be silent about this anymore."
"We have never stepped into a situation in New York City in which a member of Congress starts out hostile to us," he added.
"This is a new frontier."
"While Jewish Democrats support much of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's domestic policy agenda, we disagree with her past statement
regarding Israel, as well as her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott, divestment
and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel," it added. "In the coming days and months, we hope to learn more about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's
views, but at the moment, her position on Israel is not in line with our values."
What will Jewish Democrats do if the Ocasio/DSA platform becomes mainstream in the Democratic party? Join up with the anti-Trump
neocons and vote for a third party? While the Republicans can win nationwide elections without Jewish money and votes, there's
no evidence that the Democrats can, at least not yet.
Another factor in Ocasio's surprise victory, as so delicately pointed out by the noted political analyst Andrew Anglin, is
that:
"Furthermore, people want to f*ck her."
No shit. Her good looks and likeable personality mean that she's likely in the media spotlight to stay, no matter how much
the MSM (((gatekeepers))) might want to shield the general public from her, ahem, "problematic" views.
As an aside, I believe her nationwide appeal is enhanced by her complete lack of the godawful, ear-grating Nuyorican accent
so commonplace among her co-ethnics. In fact she speaks with a general American accent with barely even a hint of New Yorkese.
I don't know if this is part of a generalized homogenization of regional accents throughout the country, or if she affects this
dialect for personal and/or political reasons. Either way, it only adds to her appeal.
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, then Donald Trump will start looking more and more
like the moderate adult in the room compared to the infantile, gibsmedat, tantrum-throwers on the far left. Which is terrible
news for the Clintonite, corporate bloodsucker wing of the Dems, but fantastic news for the rest of us.
If the Ocasio-Sanders wing of the Dems continues its electoral ascendancy, the same people who voted for Trump will vote for them.
You have no understanding whatsoever about the mood of the current polity.
Economics is just a tool to that end. When identity looked to be more productive, they pivoted quite gracefully.
Welfare bureaucrats derive their power from the poor, not the working, and there are many more poor abroad than at home. Creating
a welfare state thus creates a giant constituency for importing more poor, and poorer.
One of the credos of realism has been "There are no angels, so set the devils against one another." As pie-in-the-sky as economists
can be, they're closer to the truth on this one than the pro-regulation forces, who assume, by definition, that the regulators
will be angels.
Americans, at least Unz reviewers, lump all Hispanic speakers into one category. Does Cortez even speak Spanish, except for her
ethnic purposes? More important, a Puerto Rican origin is both Creole and Roman Catholic. That puts them in a category all their
own. She has no love for Israel because her background did not come under the influence of the Christian Zionist Churches. Her
black origins make her atavistically side with the Palestinians.
You have no clue about "Trump supporters." For your information, they will vote for anyone who shakes things up. Their second
choice after Trump was Sanders. These are facts. Read 'em and weep.
The Establishment wants to pretend that these voters don't exist. Even though they tipped the election. Along with most people
(even here) they want to keep everything in neat boxes labelled Right vs Left, Rep vs Dem, etc etc. Spares them the 'vexation
of thinking'.
Actually, I have a quite contrary view of the political implications of these shifts in racial demographics. For those interested,
here's a link to a long article I published a few years ago on this same exact topic:
"... Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is less expensive than ending inequality! ..."
Numerous sources give very high figures for Jews and these have tended to be memory-holed
and maligned as you know what.
Consequently sources which report a low number of jews (do you know of any?) from the period
are at least as suspect, and ones from a later period and embraced by Jewish scholars more
so.
And one must remember that apart from the many name changes by Jews in the Old Bolshevik era
(lots of name changes amongst Israel's 'founders' too) they made substantial effort to hide
their jewishness, as have later sources.
One might consider the attempted Bokshevik coup in Germany a year after the Russian one.
Even wikipedia has to report that this 'Spartacus uprising' was led almost wholly by Jews.
What would they have done had they won? Might the conflation of anti-nationalist communist
violence and Jewish Supremacy have been what led in part to Hitler and his racial nationalists?
There was also a coup in Hungary led by Bela Kun. I agree with you that the threat of Communism
played a role in the rise of militant nationalism and its anti-Semitic aspect. The role of Jews
in the leadership of every Communist uprising is crisply documented by Winston Churchill in his
1920 article http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
Paul Johnson in Modern Times claims that Jews did not make up a large percentage of party
members but that is less impressive than their domination of the top ranks. Germany in the 20s
and 30s had an abundance of motives to support a strong nationalist leader since the terms of
the Versailles Treaty were unjust and unendurable, and the solution seemed to involve at least
the willingness to use force to remove the burden. The democratic parties were insufficiently
decisive and would likely have succumbed to Communist agitation or at best preserved a very
unpleasant status quo. The weakness of Communism is that it reduces everything to economics and
the material dimension. It demands the right to dictate without addressing the spiritual
dimension of life. Hitler, by contrast, appealed to national pride and national unity, in
addition to the national need to escape from poverty.
Today we see anti-racism being elevated into a quasi-religion that may be used to
justify totalitarian policies. One benefit of this initiative is that it allows the elite to
preserve the gap in material wealth between themselves and the victim class. Ending racism is
less expensive than ending inequality!
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational
Zionist, among them, being many NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism) , but
party slithering is a another name for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
them me Total vote for against my idea
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 ME 7 Me 6 I lose
divide by party D R D R D R ME 7 Me+3 3 I win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyse current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led west. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican,it keeps the pharaoh options open.
DemoRats use identity politics to achieve their goals. And if it does not suit their goals it
is thrown in the garbage can as used napkin.
Also it is stupid to view candidates from the prism of identity politics: "In a mature
society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but
what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT
and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and
that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society."
Notable quotes:
"... Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that other thing she said. ..."
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living
on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby,
Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny
Albright: "Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you" plus that
other thing she said.
How cynical is the Democratic Party's support for identity politics? To this observer,
it seems impossible not to notice that those in control of the Democratic Party care about
"identity politics" -- about supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ
candidates, etc. -- only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that their
vocal support for the underlying principles of "identity politics" is both cynical and
insincere.
As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I've never seen it documented so well in
one place, however, until this
recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.
For example, Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 not only encouraged a vote for Clinton
because men and women had a duty to support her as a woman, yet they attacked support for
Sanders as specifically misogynist:
The 2016 presidential election was the peak, at least thus far, for the tactics of
identity politics in U.S. elections. In the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton's potential
status as the first female candidate was frequently used not only to inspire her supporters
but also to shame and malign those who supported other candidates, particularly Bernie
Sanders.
In February 2016 -- at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle -- former Clinton
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by
predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory
Booker cheered: "There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other!" she
announced.
Though Albright apologized
in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did
reaffirm her central point: "When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits.
They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or
oppose."
At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of
Sanders
were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow "the boys," who, she claimed, were behind
Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump
won "because some dudes had mommy issues," then clarified that she
was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: "I also have those
moments where I'm like, 'Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake
socialists and jackass mansplainers.'"
Greenwald notes in passing that no one was making the case for supporting Sanders because he
would be the first Jewish president, and he doesn't expect that case to be made in 2020 should
Sanders run again.
He concludes from this that "despite the inconsistencies, one of the dominant themes that
emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important
to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support
such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying
bigotry."
The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon
Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary
Clinton includes
herself on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As Greenwald notes,
"Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight,
white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible
and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color.
Clinton herself has led the way."
The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman battle in
Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa McCormick three-way
contest in New Jersey, to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea Manning primary in Maryland. In all
cases, the Party backed the white male candidate (or in Menendez's case, the whiter male
candidate) against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not even the smoke
of 2016's identity fire remains.
Which brings us to the 2018 candidacies of Cynthia Nixon and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
Let's start with Cynthia Nixon, running against corrupt ,
anti-progressive NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo sides with Republicans to defeat progressive
measures, rules with an iron hand, is white and male. Yet he's also supported and endorsed by
almost every national Democrat who matters:
In New York state, Cynthia Nixon is attempting to become the first female governor, as
well as the first openly LGBT governor, in the state's history. She's running against a
dynastic politician-incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom the New York Times denounced this
year for being "tainted" by multiple corruption scandals.
But virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male
dynastic prince, Cuomo, over his female, LGBT challenger. That includes Clinton
herself, who
enthusiastically endorsed Cuomo last month, as well as Democratic Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand , who -- despite starting a political action committee with the explicit
purpose of supporting women running for office -- also
endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in March. [emphasis mine]
To make the main point again: How cynical and insincere is the Democratic Party's support
for identity politics? Very.
A Local Race with National Consequences: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Joe Crowley
This cynical drama is also playing out in the race between corrupt
Joe Crowley , the likely next Democratic leader of the House (if he survives this election)
and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The same dynamic is now driving the Democratic Party primary campaign in New York's 14th
Congressional District, a district that is composed of 70 percent nonwhite voters. The
nine-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, is a
classic dynastic machine politician . His challenger, a 28-year-old Latina woman,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has generated nationwide excitement for her campaign after her
inspiring introduction video went viral . At a fundraising event, Crowley accused his
opponent of playing identity politics, saying she
was trying to make the campaign "about race."
Despite all that, virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the
white male incumbent, and virtually none is supporting the woman of color who is challenging
him. Yesterday, the very same Gillibrand who has a PAC to support female candidates
and who endorsed Cuomo over Nixon announced that she was supporting Crowley over
Ocasio-Cortez. [emphasis added]
Note that these are not low-profile, low-consequence races. Both are positions of enormous
power -- in Nixon's case, due to the office; in Crowley's case, due to his position as the
Dauphin to Nancy Pelosi's soon-to-step-down monarch.
These are races with exponentially greater consequences than usuals. And where is the
Democratic Party in this? With the (corrupt) white male and against the woman, as always these
days.
"Identity Politics" Is Not a Cookie-Cutter Solution to Electoral Choices
I'd like to make two additional points. First, by any intelligent standard, candidates
"identities" should only be one factor only in considering support for them. Only the right
wing and 2016 Clinton advocates like Madeleine Albright, quoted above, make the most simplistic
argument about "identity" support -- and even then, the simplistic argument seemed to apply
only to support for Clinton herself and never to other women.
For example, would even Clinton supporters have supported Carly Fiorina against a male
Democrat for president? Obviously not. And Clinton herself, a former New York senator, did not
support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 when
Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for governor . Nor did then-Democratic primary candidate
Hillary Clinton campaign for Zephyr Teachout in her 2016 race for the the NY-19
House seat .
Ideological concerns also drive decisions like these, as in fact they should. Fiorina would
likely be too far right for Clinton to support, and Teachout too far left. This is a fair basis
on which to decide. It was also a fair basis on which to decide support for Clinton as
well.
The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight
A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressive involving themselves
heavily in high-leverage races -- like the Bernie Sanders 2016 race, for example -- where the
payoff would have been huge relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument
here: " Supporting
Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices ".)
The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage -- first, because he's
perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees , and second because it would, to use a
chess metaphor, eliminate one of the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from
House leadership in a single move.
Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the House. He would be worse
by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he's dangerous. He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of
his colleagues into supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them
committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He also controls funding as
Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC. Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally
a reliable progressive voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his
colleagues.
Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him from the House for
the next two years, would produce a benefit to progressives far in excess of the effort
involved.
Progressives, were they truly smart, would have nationalize this race from the beginning and
worked tirelessly to win it. The payoff from a win like this is huge. Larry
Coffield ,
June 26, 2018 at 5:27 am
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
responding to PG's comments and the comments of Rational Zionist, among them, being many
NY Intellectuals, invented mugged reality (Neoconism), but party slithering is a another name
for divide and conquer.
Fudmier's example as to how to control the vote:
You present an idea to 6 people (there are seven votes including yours, you are the one);
virtually everyone is indifferent or against your idea. Before the vote, how can you make the
outcome favorable to your side? Divide the opinions on a related subject so that the people
must vote for your idea if they take a side on the related subject. I am always either a
Democrat or a Republican, cannot vote for anything the other party presents, no matter how
good it is. So make the idea Republican or Democratic.
Here is a simple example:
no division 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total votes 7. Voted for me 1 (myself only) I lose
divide by party D R D R D R R Total votes 7. Voted for me (3 republican votes and myself) 4 I
win
As the simple analysis suggests: it is easy to win a vote when the idea is Glued to the
two AAs (glue, attached, or associated). The unpopular idea Glued and attached or associated
with the political party issue splits the vote (such activity divides and weakens the
political power inherent in the voting power of the masses). For example, if we make the vote
to turn off all of the drinking water. the only vote will be mine, but if we say turn off the
drinking water to all but those who are green, we divide the vote. and control the
outcome.
This brings us to the democratic dilemma: should the non green people be included in vote
on that issue? In fact, it is exactly this problem that those who wrote the constitution
intended to establish.
The aggressive foreign policies and national security positions mentioned by PG have been
attached to the standard Jewish line; in other words the duty of a Jew to recognize
him/herself as a Jew and to vote as a member of the clan has been glued to the AAs. It is
nearly impossible to vote for Jewish interest and not vote to demolish Palestinian homes.
I am hoping this list can develop ways to analyze current events into a set of fair play
rules, reading, learning and analyzing books, journals and events and writing about them is
not enough; some kind of action is needed to bring into reality the findings of these
readings, learning and analysis produce. The best way to offset misleading, false or invented
propaganda is to force it to into a rule based debunking process. Simple rules that everyone
can learn, understand and adopt.
Capitalist Russia and its resources represent a major competitor to the resources and
schemes of the capitalist neocon led West. Hating Russia is like being a democrat or a
republican, it keeps the pharaoh options open.
Working-class white people may claim to be against identity politics, but they actually
crave identity politics.
I think they probably see it more of a "if you can't beat them, join them" scenario. They
see the way the wind is blowing and decide if they want representation, they have to play the
game, even if they don't really like the rules.
They know enough about the EU to know that it isn't one of their patrons and sponsors.
They also know that Westminster have been systematically misrepresenting the EU for their own
purposes for decades, and they can use the same approach.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may
also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
Not a fool and I don't hate anyone at 55 I have 1.2M in investments, I make 165k a year and
pay 40k+ a year in taxes. I to come across people who live off of we everyday and expect to
free load. I am not a blowhard just an engineer who pays for sloth.
I've met many fools like you in my over 50 years on the planet, blowhards parading their
ignorance as a badge of pride, thinking that their hatred of anyone not exactly like them is
normal, mistaking what some cretin says on the far right radio for fact.
You people would be comical if not for the toxicity that your stupidity engenders.
Al Jazeera tries to do a better job, at least providing a spectrum of opinion and a lot of
depth in quite a few issues, something most other networks fail to do these days.
Don't fall into the associated trap either, of the false equation between STATED and ACTUAL
goals.
Fox and Hunt are fully aware that to actually admit their actual goal, would be (probably)
just about the only thing which would provoke an electoral backlash which would sweep the
Conservatives from office. The NHS is proverbially "the nearest thing the English have, to a
religion" and is a profoundly dangerous subject for debate.
Fox and Hunt may be weaving an incomprehensible web of sophistry and misdirection, but no
part of it is accidental.
Please, please don't make the unfounded assumption that people like Fox, Johnson, Cameron et
al are as stupid as they sometimes appear.
Fox and Hunt, in particular, know exactly what they are engaged in - a hard-right coup
designed to destroy government control over the NHS and route its enormous cash flows into
the pockets of their private, mostly American sponsors. It isn't necessary to look far, to
discover their connections and patronage from this source.
Johnson is consumed by ambition, as was Cameron before him; like Cameron, he makes much of
his self-presumed fitness for the role, whilst producing no supporting evidence of any
description.
Brexit, as defined by its advocates, CANNOT be discussed precisely because no rational
debate exists. It hinges upon the Conservative Party's only fear, that of disunity leading to
Opposition. They see that Labour are 50-odd seats short of a majority, and that's ALL they
see.
What in God's green world are you talking about? Did you read that before pressing "Post"?
It's obvious that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.
The "race riots" of the 1940s and 1950s were essentially about employment protection (the
first, regarding the importation of Yemeni seamen into the North-East of England). The mostly
Pakistani influx into the North-West of England was an attempt to cut labour costs and prop
up a dying, obsolete industry, mortally wounded by the loss of its business model in the
aftermath of Empire; an industry whose very bricks and mortar are long since gone, but the
imported labour and their descendants remain... the influx of Caribbean labour into London
and the South-East was focussed around the railways and Underground, to bolster the local
labour force which had little interest in dead-end shift-work jobs in the last days of steam
traction and the increasingly run-down Underground.
Labour, in those days, was strongly anti-immigration precisely because it saw no value in
it, to their unionised, heavy-industry voter base.
Regarding the ideological, anti-British, anti-democratic nature of Labour's conversion to
mass immigration, you need only read the writings and speeches of prominent figures of the
day such as Roy Hattersley and Harriet Harman, who say exactly this, quite clearly and in
considerable detail. Their ideological heirs, figures like Diane Abbot (who is stridently
anti-white and anti-British), Andrew Neather and Hazel Blears, can speak for themselves.
I was recently struck by this part of the Guardian obituary of Lady Farrington of Ribbleton:
' she possessed the important defining characteristic that, above others, wins admiration
across all the red leather benches in the House of Lords: she knew what she was talking
about'
Too often these days we are governed by people who don't know what they are talking about.
Never has this been truer than the likes of Fox, Davis, Johnson, and other Brexiteers.
But this doesn't seem to matter much anymore. At times it seems that anyone can make
generised assertions about something, without having to back them up with evidence, and then
wave away questions about their veracity.
Opinion now trumps evidence regularly, even on the BBC where Brexit ideology is often now
given a free pass. The problem for those of us who value expertise is that with the likes of
Trump, and some EU Leavers, we are up against a bigotry which is evangelical in nature. A
gospel that cannot be questioned, a creed that allows no other thinking.
The best you can do is complain about "this?" This WHAT? Try a noun. You're being an
embarrassment to troglodytes everywhere. Don't just point and leap up and down. Your
forefathers died in bringing you a language. Be an expressive hominid and name the thing that
hurts.
It seems at the moment the Guardian also suffers from a glut of experts without expertise.
Not a day goes by that my jaw doesn't drop at some inane claim made by what seems to be a
retinue of contributors who have neither good writing skills nor a particularly wide look on
things. An example today: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never wanted to be someone's wife". How
extraordinary. Who says she ever 'wanted to be someone's wife'? Maybe she fell in love with
someone all those years ago and they decided to get married? Who knows. But sweeping
statements like that do not endear you to quite a few of your once very loyal readers. It's
annoying.
I think this posits an overriding explanation for people's actions that doesn't exist. Even
the idea that immigration is a new liberal plot. Take the wind rush generation of immigrants
while there was a Tory government at the time I think the idea this was an attempt to
undermine white working class gains is provably nonsensical
The problem with this article, and the numerous other similar pieces which appear in the
various editions of the Guardian on a "regular-and-often" basis, is that it completely avoids
a very basic point, because it has no answer to it.
It is this.
The white British (and by extension, Western) populations never wanted mass immigration
because they knew from the outset, that its purpose was to undermine the social and political
gains they had wrested from the political and financial elite after 1945. They cared not at
all for the fratricidal conflicts between alien religions and cultures, of which they knew
little and regarded what they did know as unacceptable.
The US achieved a huge economic boom without it. Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the
USA were popular destinations for the British population whose goal and mantra was "no return
to the thirties" and who emigrated in large numbers.
White semi-skilled and unskilled (and increasingly, lower middle class) populations
everywhere reject, and have always rejected third world mass immigration (and more recently,
in some areas, mass emigration from the former Soviet Union) for the simple, and sufficient
reason that they have no possible reason or incentive to support or embrace it. It offers
them nothing, and its impact on their lives is wholly negative in practical terms - which is
how a social group which lives with limited or no margins between income and outgoings,
necessarily
perceives life.
Identity politics has no roots amongst them, because they correctly perceive that whatever
answer it might produce, there is no possible outcome in which the preferred answer will be a
semi-skilled, white family man. They inevitably pick up a certain level of the constant blare
of "racist bigot, homophobe, Islsmophobia" from its sheer inescapability, but they aren't
COMPLETELY stupid.
"... For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want". They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression. ..."
"... Democrats act the same way about different things. When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much. When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male". Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten. ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
"... @thanatokephaloides ..."
"... -- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) ..."
I've come to realize that there's a lot of confusion out there due to people using words with very specific definitions.
For example, when a Republican talks about "freedom" they don't mean "freedom from want".
They mean "freedom from government oppression", but only government oppression.
Private oppression? Republicans will either deny it exists, or justify it.
When a Republican is "pro-life" it only refers to birth.
Because those very same pro-life people are generally pro-war and pro-death penalty.
Democrats act the same way about different things.
When a Democrat says "diversity", they only mean diversity of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of class? Not so much.
When a Democrat says "privilege" it refers to "white" and "male".
Privilege of wealth? (i.e. like the dictionary definition) That generally gets forgotten.
And then there is the bipartisan misuse of words, which revolves around war and wealth.
When they say "humanitarian war" they mean, um, some contradictory concepts that are meaningless, but are designed to make you feel
a certain way.
When they say "socialism" they really mean "state oppression" regardless of the economic system.
As for the many version of socialism with minimal or non-existent central governments? Or when socialist programs work? No one talks
about them.
Let's not forget substituting or mixing up "middle class" for "working class".
"Working class" now equals "poor", which isn't right.
They use "working class" as a smear too.
When you say "working class" some people
automatically insert certain words in front of it, as if it's generally understood.
When many hear discussion of outreach to "working class" voters, they silently add the words "white" and "male" and all too often
imagine them working on a factory floor or in construction. They shouldn't. According to another analysis by CAP from late last
year, just under 6 in 10 members of the working class are white, and the group is almost half female (46 percent).
The topic of the needs and interests of the working class is usually race and gender neutral. Only the dishonest or indoctrinated
can't wrap their minds around that fact.This is important because working class values don't require a race or gender lens.
a new report released today by the Center for American Progress makes a convincing argument, using extensive polling data, that
this divide does not need to exist. As it turns out, in many cases, voters -- both college educated and working class, and of
all races -- are in favor of an economic agenda that would offer them broader protections whether it comes to work, sickness or
retirement.
"The polling shows that workers across race support similar views on economic policy issues," said David Madland, the co-author
of the report, entitled "The Working-Class Push for Progressive Economic Policies." "They support a higher minimum wage, higher
taxes on the wealthy, and more spending on healthcare and retirement. There is broad support among workers for progressive economic
policy."
This shows that it's possible to make economic issues front and center in a campaign platform in a way that doesn't just talk
to working class whites and dismisses the concerns of female and minority voters. It also shows that the oft-discussed dilemma
among Democrats -- whether to prioritize college educated voters or working class ones -- may be a false choice.
Propaganda is all about false choices. To accomplish this, the media has created a world in which the working class
exist only in the margins .
With the working class largely unrepresented in the media, or represented only in supporting roles, is it any wonder that people
begin to identify in ways other than their class? Which is exactly what the
ruling class
wants .
I can't believe I used to fall for this nonsense! It takes a stupendous level of cognitive dissonance to simultaneously celebrate
the fortunes of someone from a specific identity while looking past the vast sea of people from said identity who are stuck in
gut-wrenching poverty. We pop champagnes for the neo-gentry while disregarding our own tribulations. It's the most stunning form
of logical jujitsu establishment shills have successfully conditioned us to accept; instead of gauging the health of the economy
and the vitality of our nation based on the collective whole, we have been hoodwinked to accept the elevation of a few as success
for us all.
Diversity has become a scam and nothing more than a corporate bamboozle and a federated scheme that is used to hide the true nature
of crony capitalism. We have become a Potemkin society where tokens are put on the stage to represent equality while the vast
majority of Americans are enslaved by diminishing wages or kneecapped into dependency. The whole of our politics has been turned
into an identity-driven hustle. On both sides of the aisle and at every corner of the social divide are grievance whisperers and
demagogues who keep spewing fuel on the fire of tribalism. They use our pains and suffering to make millions only to turn their
backs on us the minute they attain riches and status.
It's only when you see an article written by the ruling elite, or one that identifies with the ruling elite, that you realize
just how out-of-touch they can be. The rich really
are different - they are sociopaths.
They've totally and completely bought into their own
righteousness,
merit and virtue .
Class ascendance led me to become what Susan Jacoby classifies in her recent New York Times Op-Ed "Stop Apologizing for Being
Elite" as an "elite": a vague description of a group of people who have received advanced degrees. Jacoby urges elites to reject
the shame that they have supposedly recently developed, a shame that somehow stems from failing to stop the working class from
embracing Trumpism. Jacoby laments that, following the 2016 election, these elites no longer take pride in their wealth, their
education, their social status, and posits that if only elites embraced their upward mobility, the working class would have something
to aspire to and thus discard their fondness for Trump and his promises to save them.
That level of condescension just blows my mind. It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working
class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil, or Russia, than I do with the wealthy elite in my own country. Don't think that the wealthy
haven't figured that out too.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
That is the only word you need pay attention to.
I am inferior therefore expendable.
How the lofty will fail. They will succumb to those who are lessor in their minds.
Nice post gjohn.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
@thanatokephaloides I have been a worker and an employer for most of my career. I associate with many of the same ilk.
None of us working / employer types can afford to hire the millions of under employed. Maybe a few here and there. We are not
wealthy, nor are we taking advantage of the poor. Try to put this lofty idealism into perspective.
It occurred to me some time ago that I have much more in common with a working class slob in France, or Mexico, or Brazil,
or Russia, than a do with the wealthy elite in my own country.
Don't think that the wealthy haven't figured that out too.
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.
There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among
millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing
class, have all the good things of life.
-- Preamble to the Constitution of the Industrial Workers Of The World (IWW) source
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents family,
then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours."
Especially when one considers the chances of that being true are really quite small.
Contrary to the Randian beLIEf, they didn't build what they have all by themselves. Society carried quite a bit of the freight
here.
pay $125K per kid for college if you earn more than 125K. That makes zero sense. A parent has no legal obligation to a child
after age 18, but the 18 year old must include parental income if they apply for PELL. If they are included in their parents
family, then the family must be legally obligated to pay for college. 18 can legally die, go to war, be incarcerated, and contractually
bound, but they can't have a drink or be legally entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.
Since the college-educated express less support at any price, it reeks of pettiness and tit for tat. "I paid for mine, you
pay for yours." It is no wonder there is so much resentment at all levels and an economic coalition can't be formed. Somebody
is always measuring who mom loves best. At no time did Bernie say a word about means testing a GD thing. It is why he was able
to transcend labels.
That starts out on disparities in housing, but rounds abouts to the "Elite Class" and the urban gentrification by corporatist
democrats. It points out how the democratic party caters to this elite wing, and how the NIMBY-ism of the elites blocks affordable
housing laws. It ends up with some observations:
"Taking it a step further, a Democratic Party based on urban cosmopolitan business liberalism runs the risk not only of leading
to the continued marginalization of the minority poor, but also -- as the policies of the Trump administration demonstrate --
to the continued neglect of the white working-class electorate that put Trump in the White House."
We really can't afford the wealthy parasite class anymore nor should we suffer their think tanks that make folks worship them
and their lifestyles of indulgence and greed!
"... The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers. ..."
"... Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues," in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history with fake history. ..."
PCR's latest is really good. I love it when he gets to ripping, and doesn't stop for 2000+ words or so. It reads a lot better
than Toynbee, fersher.
The working class, designated by Hillary Clinton as "the Trump deplorables," is now the victimizer, not the victim. Marxism
has been stood on its head.
The American ruling class loves Identity Politics, because Identity Politics divides the people into hostile groups
and prevents any resistance to the ruling elite. With blacks screaming at whites, women screaming at men, and homosexuals screaming
at heterosexuals, there is no one left to scream at the rulers.
The ruling elite favors a "conversation on race," because the ruling elite know it can only result in accusations that will
further divide society. Consequently, the ruling elite have funded "black history," "women's studies," and "transgender dialogues,"
in universities as a way to institutionalize the divisiveness that protects them. These "studies" have replaced real history
with fake history.
All of America, indeed of the entire West, lives in The Matrix, a concocted [and false] reality. Western peoples are so
propagandized, so brainwashed, that they have no understanding that their disunity was created in order to make them impotent
in the face of a rapacious ruling class, a class whose arrogance and hubris has the world on the brink of nuclear Armageddon.
History as it actually happened is disappearing as those who tell the truth are dismissed as misogynists, racists, homophobes,
Putin agents, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theorists. Liberals who complained mightily of McCarthyism
now practice it ten-fold.
The United States with its brainwashed and incompetent population -- indeed, the entirety of the Western populations are
incompetent -- and with its absence of intelligent leadership has no chance against Russia and China, two massive countries
arising from their overthrow of police states as the West descends into a gestapo state. The West is over and done with. Nothing
remains of the West but the lies used to control the people. All hope is elsewhere.
It has nothing to do with marxism. I think "cultural marxism" is used in the same context.
It's basically just a label used by right-wingers to describe all the identity politics
etc that faux lefties like the neoliberal democrats engage in to distract their voters from
looking at actual leftist economic policies. So instead of trying to narrow the gaps between
economic classes it's focuses on giving all identities, cultures and subcultures equal
worth.
If that makes sense.. My vocabulary kind of lacked the words I was looking for to try to
give a good description just now.. (English being my 2nd language an all)
On February 21, the New York Times published a notice calling on college students
to describe and document any sexual encounter "that may not be viewed as sexual assault but
which constitutes something murkier than a bad date." The notice incldues a submission form
where students can accuse individuals of having engaged in something the Times calls
"gray-zone sex." The Times asks its young tipsters to include names, email addresses,
phone numbers and colleges, plus text message records and photographs documenting the
encounters.
The Times ' announcement, written by gender editor Jessica Bennett and Daniel
Jones, reads in its entirety:
As stories of sexual misconduct continue to dominate the news, a debate has erupted over a
particular kind of encounter, one that may not be viewed as sexual assault but which
constitutes something murkier than a bad date.
We've seen it play out on a public stage, from the Aziz Ansari incident to The
NewYorker's "Cat Person" story. So-called "gray-zone sex" has prompted
impassioned conversations about -- and personal reflection on -- what constitutes consent and
how we signal our desire or apprehension in the moment. This debate is especially vibrant on
college campuses, where for years students and administrators have grappled with the
issue.
We want to hear how you handle consent for sexual intimacy in relationships and
encounters. Do you have a particular experience you find yourself thinking back to? What was
said, texted or hinted at, through words or physical cues, that moved the encounter forward
-- or stopped it? How did it make you feel at the time, and how do you think about it
now?
The February 21 solicitation links to an article Bennett wrote on December 16, 2017 titled,
"When Saying 'Yes' Is Easier Than Saying 'No,'" which sheds further light on what the
Times means when it asks "what constitutes consent?" The two articles together show
the provocative and witch-hunting character of the Times ' efforts to compile a
database of sexual harassment allegations on college campuses across the country.
"For years," Bennett begins in the December article, "my female friends and I have spoken,
with knowing nods, about a sexual interaction we call 'the place of no return.' It's a kind of
sexual nuance that most women instinctively understand: the situation you thought you wanted,
or maybe you actually never wanted, but somehow here you are and it's happening and you
desperately want out, but you know that at this point exiting the situation would be more
difficult than simply lying there and waiting for it to be over. In other words, saying yes
when we really mean no."
Bennett provides two examples, one from her personal life and another from a short story
published late last year in the New Yorker titled "Cat person." In both cases, the
woman is interested in the man, they court one another, and they both agree to have sex. In the
New Yorker story, which is also linked in the February 21 announcement, the
protagonist is physically unsatisfied by her partner, who she complains is "heavy" and "bad in
bed." Later, the protagonist tells all her friends a version of this encounter, "though," the
author explains, "not quite the true one."
Bennett says "there are other names for this kind of sex: gray-zone sex, in reference to
that murky gray area of consent; begrudgingly consensual sex, because, you know, you don't
really want to do it but it's probably easier to just get it over with; lukewarm sex, because
you're kind of 'meh' about it; and, of course, bad sex, where the 'bad' refers not to the
perceived pleasure of it, but to the way you feel in the aftermath Sometimes 'yes' means 'no,'
simply because it is easier to go through with it than explain our way out of a situation."
"Consent" is a legal term that marks the line between noncriminal and criminal conduct. Sex
without consent can, and should, lead to the filing of a complaint followed by the initiation
of a criminal investigation, prosecution and, if a jury is persuaded by the evidence,
conviction. It is a basic legal tenet that the accused cannot be punished by the state for acts
that are not proscribed by law, and in the American system, conduct that falls in a "gray zone"
by its very nature does not meet the threshold for conviction: guilt "beyond a reasonable
doubt."
But the Times 's call for young people to submit reports of "gray-zone sex" is
aimed at creating a parallel system, outside the framework of the law, in which the accused
have no right to privacy or to due process. As law professor Catharine MacKinnon wrote in a
Times column on February 4, "#MeToo has done what the law could not."
Playing the role of prosecutors in the court of public opinion, the gender editor and her
cohorts at the New York Times are creating a massive database that it can dig through
to ruin the careers and lives of students and professors based on unproved accusations of
sexual conduct that, in any event, is not illegal.
The aim of this reactionary campaign is both political and pecuniary.
First, the Times hopes to create a political and cultural climate in which a broad
array of consensual conduct is deemed punishable, even if it does not violate any legal
statute.
The Times 's appeal for accusations comes after a number of spreadsheets have
surfaced where students and faculty can anonymously submit accusations of harassment or "creepy
behavior" on the part of male collegues or teachers. The submissions will involve a massive
invasion of privacy. Individuals, without their knowledge or consent, may be placed in a
situation where their most intimate behavior is being secretly documented and forwarded to the
New York Times . Texts and even photographs will be examined and leered over by the
gender editor and her colleagues. It is not difficult to imagine the abuses of privacy that
will flow from the Times 's efforts to procure salacious material.
There are countless legal issues involved. There are many states that outlaw the
transmission of sexually explicit and lewd material over the Internet. Will the individuals who
foolishly transmit the material requested by the Times be opening themselves up to
prosecution? If the Times 's editors discover that one or another submission describes
sexual behavior that occurred between minors, will they inform the police that they have
evidence of a violation of age-of-consent laws?
If the Times receives a submission that describes a consensual sexual encounter
between a student and an older faculty member or administrator, will it decide that it must
inform the institution of a possible violation of institutional regulations? And what happens
if and when prosecutors, having initiated investigations into "gray-zone sex," obtain
supboenas, demanding that the Times turn over its files? Who can doubt that the
Times will comply with court orders, regardless of the consequences for those who are
caught up in the escalating witch hunt?
Second, the call for "gray-zone sex" stories is a shameless effort to make money. In early
February, the Times announced a 46 percent increase in digital subscriptions over the
past year, and its stock price has increased 40 percent since October, the month it published
the allegations against Harvey Weinstein. Reuters wrote, "Subscriptions in the quarter also got
a boost from the newspaper's coverage of Harvey Weinstein's sexual harassment story, helping
the company post the highest-ever annual subscription revenue of $1 billion." It was also in
October 2017 that the Times announced the position of "gender editor," at which point
Bennett declared that gender "needs to exist throughout every section of the paper."
However, the newspaper has had trouble attracting younger readers who are more likely to
turn to social media and independent websites for news. In 2017, the Times launched
its own Discover section on Snapchat "with the aim of capturing younger demographics,"
Business Insider wrote. The Times 's campaign to broaden the #MeToo campaign
to include "gray-zone sex" stories, with a focus on college campuses, is a part of its filthy
business strategy.
Don't worry about republicans ..democrats are ruining themselves all alone .every time the
deplorables see something like this they will double down on anything but a Dem.
Regardless of one's view on blacks or whites this is a major Stupid for a politician.
Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's
white
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected President Donald Trump's nominee for a
long-vacant South Carolina federal judgeship not because of his qualifications but because of
his race.
The decision drew the quick ire of South Carolina's two U.S. senators and U.S. Rep. Trey
Gowdy, R-Spartanburg, a former federal prosecutor.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech Wednesday he would not support
Greenville attorney Marvin Quattlebaum for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court in South
Carolina
Voting for Quattlebaum, he said, would result in having a white man replace two
African-American nominees from the state put forth by former President Barack Obama.
Schumer said he would not be a part of the Trump administration's pattern of nominating
white men.
"The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President
Trump's selections for the federal judiciary," Schumer said.
"It's long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it
represents," he continued. "Having a diversity of views and experience on the federal bench
is necessary for the equal administration of justice."
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Senate's sole black Republican, pushed back on
Schumer's rationale and urged other Senate Democrats to instead address diversity issues by
starting with their offices.
"Perhaps Senate Democrats should be more worried about the lack of diversity on their own
staffs than attacking an extremely well-qualified judicial nominee from the great state of
South Carolina," Scott tweeted Thursday morning.
"... The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites. ..."
"... And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself. ..."
"... With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong" by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests". ..."
On New Year's Day, the economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman issued a series of
tweets in which he proclaimed as follows:
The central fact of US political economy, the source of our exceptionalism, is that lower-income whites vote for politicians
who redistribute income upward and weaken the safety net because they think the welfare state is for nonwhites.
and then, a few minutes later:
And by voting against its own interests, the white working class isn't just making itself poorer, it's literally killing itself.
Was I psyched to see this! With some slight variations, Krugman was essentially re-stating the thesis of my 2004 book, What's
the Matter With Kansas?, in which I declared on the very first page that working people "getting their fundamental interests wrong"
by voting for conservatives was "the bedrock of our civic order; it is the foundation on which all else rests".
... ... ...
Let me be more explicit. We have just come through an election in which underestimating working-class conservatism in northern
states proved catastrophic for Democrats. Did the pundits' repeated insistence that white working-class voters in the north were
reliable Democrats play any part in this underestimation? Did the message Krugman and his colleagues hammered home for years help
to distract their followers from the basic strategy of Trump_vs_deep_state?
I ask because getting that point wrong was kind of a big deal in 2016. It was a blunder from which it will take the Democratic
party years to recover. And we need to get to the bottom of it.
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.
Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated
sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array
of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing
globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.
A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into
question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the
public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities
we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible
opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008,
despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.
With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is
no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis
and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting
freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire.
A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership
is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.
Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species
of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise
to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA.
They chatter
about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace
problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics
-- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth
on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.
The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of
an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish
a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting
down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called
cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of
not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry
anyone?
The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads
and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming
human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual
despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.
In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the
kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about
ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting!
In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny
is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.
Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor
pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that
unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right
of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).
The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the
graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy,
where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of
one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down
to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this
scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally
"people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed"
and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).
This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is
to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the
social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual
boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and
administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear
puzzling to the casual observer.
I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair
over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring
about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today,
there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress
on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the
Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of
ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.
The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why
a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely
Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent
rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with
a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively
nullifies the concept of a national common culture.
What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors
and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified
oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized
ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the
university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain
to invite that fate.
Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically,
this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births,
drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their
homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood
how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing
him to pose as their champion.
The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of
stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life
is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of
the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud
that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine
and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !
Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering
public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism
-- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just
a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some
years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the
post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings
and the belief that only raw power has meaning.
Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations
don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves
in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of
worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore,
including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them
around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.
James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking,
Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at
Kunstler.com .
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.
The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence
in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan
of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about
our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's
biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that
comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this
strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We
are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies
and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth,
is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced
considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."
Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants
from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American,
influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made
by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats
to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis
actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage
underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the
standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion
of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.
I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard
of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.
Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the
same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness
will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.
Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."
When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to
say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia,
or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped
equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights.
Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry,
anyone?
You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated
now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial
divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt
"shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.
I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation,
not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.
But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued
while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and
contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take
a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.
The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream
of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.
As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative
-- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are
two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that
he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.
My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either
of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is
why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers
from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware
of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols
engenders this tension, this angst.
Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has
been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.
The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the
problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself
as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy
or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call
to arms.
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class
-- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."
And to whom do we hand
the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately,
under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?
Russia
and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the
USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).
And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity,
which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further
greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake
wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial,
and even legal).
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case
for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."
Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would
give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.
Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around
older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's,
much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much
better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\
It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute
ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard
telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!
Here is the direct quote;
"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant
-- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore
pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan
isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero
on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé
runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners
-- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)
I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to
get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one
moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality,
what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100
years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time
to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the
industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into
a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance
but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market.
In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you
run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because
it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place
at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government,
just a different piece of legislation.
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that
demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.
E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany
has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution
of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to
maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.
The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was.
Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites.
(E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)
P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care
system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme
of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects
the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people
AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included.
You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.
Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more
towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.
If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad
doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.
Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous
serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton
hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.
Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances.
Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising
from birth selling illusion.
Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even
capable of normal thought?
Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling
the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.
Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced
everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both
liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount
of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond
anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three
years to go.
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying
so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.
The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives,
from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national
dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and
obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar
and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.
for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about
it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices
at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.
in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give
a tired horse a rest.
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic,
at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one
of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.
However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:
But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common
culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies
the concept of a national common culture.
The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.
Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of
the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass
murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality
much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with
fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a
'victim group.'
While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better
take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made
in China).
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act
Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians
and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist).
To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is
the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied
to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the
game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards
until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.
To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and
shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches
around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied
about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption
binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into
the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers
who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who
handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue,
but you get the picture.
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from
their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster
fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."
Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. ..."
"... Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." ..."
"... A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones." ..."
"... According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied." ..."
"... "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.] ..."
"... Do you still trust Windows Update? ..."
"... As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. ..."
"... "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here . ..."
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive. ..."
"... Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. ..."
"... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. ..."
"... I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail. ..."
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... 4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices. ..."
"... So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events." ..."
"... My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table. ..."
"... To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out? ..."
"... Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them ..."
"... The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options. ..."
"... "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me. ..."
"... It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours. ..."
"... "These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened." ..."
Yves here. The first
release of the Wikileaks Vault 7 trove has curiously gone from being a MSM lead story yesterday to a handwave today. On the one hand,
anyone who was half awake during the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in full spectrum surveillance and data storage
mode, and members of the Five Eyes back-scratch each other to evade pesky domestic curbs on snooping. So the idea that the CIA (and
presumably the NSA) found a way to circumvent encryption tools on smartphones, or are trying to figure out how to control cars remotely,
should hardly come as a surprise.
However, at a minimum, reminding the generally complacent public that they are being spied on any time they use the Web, and increasingly
the times in between, makes the officialdom Not Happy.
And if this Wikileaks claim is even halfway true, its Vault 7 publication is a big deal:
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero
day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more
than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to
have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided
WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
This is an indictment of the model of having the intelligence services rely heavily on outside contractors. It is far more difficult
to control information when you have multiple organizations involved. In addition, neolibearlism posits that workers are free agents
who have no loyalties save to their own bottom lines (or for oddballs, their own sense of ethics). Let us not forget that
Snowden planned his career job moves
, which included a stint at NSA contractor Dell, before executing his information haul at a Booz Allen site that he had targeted.
Admittedly, there are no doubt many individuals who are very dedicated to the agencies for which they work and aspire to spend
most it not all of their working lives there. But I would assume that they are a minority.
The reason outsiders can attempt to pooh-pooh the Wikileaks release is that the organization redacted sensitive information like
the names of targets and attack machines. The CIA staffers who have access to the full versions of these documents as well as other
major components in the hacking toolkit will be the ones who can judge how large and serious the breach really is. 1 And
their incentives are to minimize it no matter what.
By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living
on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow
him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
CIA org chart from the WikiLeaks cache (click to enlarge). "The organizational chart corresponds to the material published
by WikiLeaks so far. Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement
of the EDG [Engineering Development Group] and its branches is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released
so far. It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org
chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently."
* * *
"O brave new world, that has such people in it."
Bottom line first. As you read what's below, consider:
That the CIA is capable of doing all of the things described, and has been for years, is not in doubt.
That unnameable many others have stolen ("exfiltrated") these tools and capabilities is, according to the Wikileaks leaker, also
certain. Consider this an especially dangerous form of proliferation, with cyber warfare tools in the hands of anyone with money
and intent. As WikiLeaks notes, "Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used
by peer states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike."
That the CIA is itself using these tools, and if so, to what degree, are the only unknowns. But can anyone doubt, in this aggressively
militarized environment, that only the degree of use is in question?
Now the story.
WikiLeaks just dropped a huge cache of documents (the first of several promised releases), leaked from a person or people
associated with the CIA in one or more capacities (examples, employee, contractor), which shows an agency out-of-control in its spying
and hacking overreach. Read through to the end. If you're like me, you'll be stunned, not just about what they can do, but that they
would want to do it, in some cases in direct violation of President Obama's orders. This story is bigger than anything you can imagine.
Consider this piece just an introduction, to make sure the story stays on your radar as it unfolds - and to help you identify
those media figures who will try to minimize or bury it. (Unless I missed it, on MSNBC last night, for example, the first mention
of this story was not Chris Hayes, not Maddow, but the Lawrence O'Donnell show, and then only to support his guest's "Russia gave
us Trump" narrative. If anything, this leak suggests a much muddier picture, which I'll explore in a later piece.)
So I'll start with just a taste, a few of its many revelations, to give you, without too much time spent, the scope of the problem.
Then I'll add some longer bullet-point detail, to indicate just how much of American life this revelation touches.
While the cache of documents has been vetted and redacted
, it hasn't been fully explored for implications. I'll follow this story as bits and piece are added from the crowd sourced research
done on the cache of information. If you wish to play along at home, the WikiLeaks
torrent file is here . The torrent's
passphrase is here . WikiLeaks
press release is here (also reproduced below). Their FAQ
is here .
Note that this release covers the years 2013–2016. As WikiLeaks says in its FAQ, "The series is the largest intelligence publication
in history."
Preface - Trump and Our "Brave New World"
But first, this preface, consisting of one idea only. Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies,
agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny
writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons,
the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." Plus Vladimir Putin, whose relationship
with Trump is just "business," an alliance of convenience, if you will.
I have zero sympathy for Donald Trump. But his world is now our world, and with both of his feet firmly planted in spook world,
ours are too. He's in it to his neck, in fact, and what happens in that world will affect every one of us. He's so impossibly erratic,
so impossibly unfit for his office, that everyone on the list above wants to remove him. Many of them are allied, but if they are,
it's also only for convenience.
How do spooks remove the inconvenient and unfit? I leave that to your imagination;they have their ways. Whatever method they choose,
however, it must be one without fingerprints - or more accurately, without their fingerprints - on it.
Which suggests two more questions. One, who will help them do it, take him down? Clearly, anyone and everyone on the list. Second,
how do you bring down the president, using extra-electoral, extra-constitutional means, without bringing down the Republic? I have
no answer for that.
Here's a brief look at "spook world" (my phrase, not the author's) from "
The Fox Hunt " by John
Sevigny:
Several times in my life – as a journalist and rambling, independent photographer - I've ended up rubbing shoulders with
spooks. Long before that was a racist term, it was a catch-all to describe intelligence community people, counter intel types,
and everyone working for or against them. I don't have any special insight into the current situation with Donald Trump and his
battle with the IC as the intelligence community calls itself, but I can offer a few first hand observations about the labyrinth
of shadows, light, reflections, paranoia, perceptions and misperceptions through which he finds himself wandering, blindly. More
baffling and scary is the thought he may have no idea his ankles are already bound together in a cluster of quadruple gordian
knots, the likes of which very few people ever escape.
Criminal underworlds, of which the Trump administration is just one, are terrifying and confusing places. They become
far more complicated once they've been penetrated by authorities and faux-authorities who often represent competing interests,
but are nearly always in it for themselves.
One big complication - and I've written
about this before - is that you never know who's working for whom . Another problem is that the hierarchy of handlers,
informants, assets and sources is never defined. People who believe, for example, they are CIA assets are really just being used
by people who are perhaps not in the CIA at all but depend on controlling the dupe in question. It is very simple - and I have
seen this happen - for the subject of an international investigation to claim that he is part of that operation. [emphasis added]
Which leads Sevigny to this observation about Trump, which I partially quoted above: "Donald Trump may be crazy, stupid, evil
or all three but he knows the knives are being sharpened and there are now too many blades for him to count. The intel people are
against him, as are the counter intel people. His phone conversations were almost certainly recorded by one organization or another,
legal or quasi legal. His enemies include Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU,
every living Democrat and even Rand Paul. Putin is not on his side - that's a business matter and not an alliance."
Again, this is not to defend Trump, or even to generate sympathy for him - I personally have none. It's to characterize where
he is, and we are, at in this pivotal moment. Pivotal not for what they're doing, the broad intelligence community. But pivotal for
what we're finding out, the extent and blatancy of the violations.
All of this creates an incredibly complex story, with only a tenth or less being covered by anything like the mainstream press.
For example, the Trump-Putin tale is much more likely to be part of a much broader "international mobster" story, whose participants
include not only Trump and Putin, but Wall Street (think HSBC) and major international banks, sovereign wealth funds, major hedge
funds, venture capital (vulture capital) firms, international drug and other trafficking cartels, corrupt dictators and presidents
around the world and much of the highest reaches of the "Davos crowd."
Much of the highest reaches of the .01 percent, in other words, all served, supported and "curated" by the various, often competing
elements of the first-world military and intelligence communities. What a stew of competing and aligned interests, of marriages and
divorces of convenience, all for the common currencies of money and power, all of them
dealing in
death .
What this new WikiLeaks revelation shows us is what just one arm of that community, the CIA, has been up to. Again, the breadth
of the spying and hacking capability is beyond imagination. This is where we've come to as a nation.
What the CIA Is Up To - A Brief Sample
Now about those CIA spooks and their surprising capabilities. A number of
other outlets have written up the story, but
this
from Zero Hedge has managed to capture the essence as well as the breadth in not too many words (emphasis mine throughout):
WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release
of confidential documents on the CIA It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of 'Vault 7', a series of leaks on the agency,
which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center
For Cyber Intelligence in Langley , and which can be seen on the org
chart below, which Wikileaks also released : [org
chart reproduced above]
A total of 8,761 documents have been published
as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said
that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company
products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs
, which are turned into covert microphones."
WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley,
Virginia.
Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, "
would rock the technology world ", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services
such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate
Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied."
With respect to hacked devices like you smart phone, smart TV and computer, consider the concept of putting these devices in "fake-off"
mode:
Among the various techniques profiled by WikiLeaks is "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB),
which infests smart TVs , transforming them into covert microphones. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target
TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode , so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates
as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.
As Kim Dotcom chimed in on Twitter, "CIA turns Smart TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles and many other consumer gadgets into open
microphones" and added "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand,
including via Windows update "[.]
Do you still trust Windows Update?
About "Russia did it"
Adding to the "Russia did it" story, note this:
Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant
. Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial
library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.["]
As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, " CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy
state ."
This doesn't prove that Russia didn't do it ("it" meaning actually hacking the presidency for Trump, as opposed to providing
much influence in that direction), but again, we're in spook world, with all the phrase implies. The CIA can clearly put anyone's
fingerprints on any weapon they wish, and I can't imagine they're alone in that capability.
Hacking Presidential Devices?
If I were a president, I'd be concerned about this, from the WikiLeaks "
Analysis " portion of the Press Release (emphasis added):
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments [that the intelligence community would
reveal to device manufacturers whatever vulnerabilities it discovered]. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal
are pervasive [across devices and device types] and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" [that it] is able to penetrate, infest and control both the
Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts . The CIA attacks this software by using
undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA[,] but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone
else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and
Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.
Does or did the CIA do this (hack presidential devices), or is it just capable of it? The second paragraph implies the latter.
That's a discussion for another day, but I can say now that both Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Colin Powell and a non-partisan (though
an admitted Republican) expert in these matters, and
William Binney,
one of the triumvirate of major pre-Snowden leakers, think emphatically yes. (See
Wilkerson's
comments here . See
Binney's comments here .)
Whether or not you believe Wilkerson and Binney, do you doubt that if our intelligence people can do something, they would
balk at the deed itself, in this
world of "collect it all
"? If nothing else, imagine the power this kind of bugging would confer on those who do it.
The Breadth of the CIA Cyber-Hacking Scheme
But there is so much more in this Wikileaks release than suggested by the brief summary above. Here's a bullet-point overview
of what we've learned so far, again via Zero Hedge:
Key Highlights from the Vault 7 release so far:
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of
"zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products , include Apple's iPhone,
Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized
"zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation . This extraordinary collection, which
amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The
archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one
of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI),
had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other
"weaponized" malware . Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than
that used to run Facebook.
The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question
as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds , to be used by rival states, cyber
mafia and teenage hackers alike.
Also this scary possibility:
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks.
The purpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIA to engage in nearly undetectable assassinations
.
Journalist Michael Hastings, who in 2010
destroyed the career of General
Stanley McChrystal and was hated by the military for it, was killed in 2013 in an inexplicably out-of-control car. This isn't
to suggest the CIA, specifically, caused his death. It's to ask that, if these capabilities existed in 2013, what would prevent their
use by elements of the military, which is, after all a death-delivery organization?
And lest you consider this last speculation just crazy talk, Richard Clarke (that
Richard Clarke ) agrees: "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism
chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush,
told the Huffington
Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating
article here .
WiliLeaks Press Release
Here's what WikiLeaks itself says about this first document cache (again, emphasis mine):
Press Release
Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault
7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero
day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more
than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to
have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided
WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of
"zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android
and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA
found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own
substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations
to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's
Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over
5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware.
Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The
CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether
such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.
In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public
, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency.
The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia
and teenage hackers alike.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'.
Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain
them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the
choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."
Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the
distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and
how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.
Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some
identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack
machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen,
we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero")
already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.
Be sure to click through for the Analysis, Examples and FAQ sections
as well.
"O brave new world," someone once wrote . Indeed.
Brave new world, that only the brave can live in.
____
1 Mind you, the leakers may have had a comprehensive enough view to be making an accurate call. But the real point
is there are no actors who will be allowed to make an independent assessment.
Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump
campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.
The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump's relationship with Moscow. They were
drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published
the documents, which it said were "unverified and potentially unverifiable".
The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents' contents,
Emphases mine. I had been sitting on this link trying to make sense of this part. Clearly, the Trump Whitehouse has some major
leaks, which the MSM is exploiting. But the start of this article suggests that para-intelligence (is that a word? Eh, it is now)
was the source of the allegedly damaging info.
This is no longer about the deep-state, but a rouge state, possibly guns for higher, each having fealty to specific political
interests. The CIA arsenal wasn't leaked. It was delivered.
hmm.. as far as I can see, noone seems to care here in Germany anymore about being spied on by our US friends, apart from a
few alternative sources which are being accused of spreading fake news, of being anti-american, russian trolls, the matter is
widely ignored
I have read a few articles about the Vault 7 leak that typically raise a few alarms I would like to comment on.
1) The fact that the
CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services
does not mean that it has broken encryption, just that it has a way to install a program at a lower level, close to the operating
system, that will read messages before they are encrypted and sent by the messaging app, or just after they
have been decrypted by it.
As a side note: banks have now largely introduced two-factor authentication when accessing online services. One enters username
(or account number) and password; the bank site returns a code; the user must then enter this code into a smartphone app or a
tiny specialized device, which computes and returns a value out of it; the user enters this last value into the entry form as
a throw-away additional password, and gains access to the bank website.
I have always refused to use such methods on a smartphone and insist on getting the specialized "single-use password computer",
precisely because the smartphone platform can be subverted.
2) The fact that
"Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), [ ] infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert
microphones.
is possible largely because smart TVs are designed by their manufacturers to serve as spying devices. "Weeping Angel" is not
some kind of virus that turns normal devices into zombies, but a tool to take control of existing zombie devices.
The fact that smart TVs from
Vizio ,
Samsung or
LG constitute an outrageous intrusion into the privacy of their owners has been a known topic for years already.
3) The
CIA [ ] also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks
is not a "scary possibility" either; various demonstrations of such feats on
Tesla ,
Nissan , or
Chrysler vehicles have been demonstrated in the past few years.
And the consequences have already been suggested (killing people by disabling their car controls on the highway for instance).
My take on this is that we should seriously look askance not just at the shenanigans of the CIA, but at the entire "innovative
technology" that is imposed upon (computerized cars) or joyfully adopted by (smartphones) consumers. Of course, most NC readers
are aware of the pitfalls already, but alas not the majority of the population.
4) Finally this:
He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office,
Trump is arguably unfit for office, does not have a clue about many things (such as foreign relations), but by taxing him of
being "erratic" Gaius Publius shows that he still does not "get" the Donald.
Trump has a completely different modus operandi than career politicians, formed by his experience as a real-estate mogul and
media star. His world has been one where one makes outrageous offers to try anchoring the negotiation before reducing one's claims
- even significantly, or abruptly exiting just before an agreement to strike a deal with another party that has been lured to
concessions through negotiations with the first one. NC once included a video of Trump doing an interactive A/B testing of his
slogans during a campaign meeting; while changing one's slogans on the spot might seem "erratic", it is actually a very systematic
market probing technique.
So stop asserting that Trump is "unpredictable" or "irrational"; this is underestimating him (a dangerous fault), as he is
very consistent, though in an uncommon fashion amongst political pundits.
While I agree that it's worth pointing out that the CIA has not broken any of the major encryption tools, even Snowden regards
being able to circumvent them as worse, since people using encryption are presumably those who feel particularly at risk and will
get a false sense of security and say things or keep data on their devices that they never never would if they thought they were
insecure.
Re Gaius on Trump, I agree the lady doth protest too much. But I said repeatedly that Trump would not want to be President
if he understood the job. It is not like being the CEO of a private company. Trump has vastly more control over his smaller terrain
in his past life than he does as President.
And Trump is no longer campaigning. No more a/b testing.
The fact is that he still does not have effective control of the Executive branch. He has lots of open positions in the political
appointee slots (largely due to not having even submitted candidates!) plus has rebellion in some organizations (like folks in
the EPA storing data outside the agency to prevent its destruction).
You cannot pretend that Trump's former MO is working at all well for him. And he isn't showing an ability to adapt or learn
(not surprising at his age). For instance, he should have figured out by now that DC is run by lawyers, yet his team has hardly
any on it. This is continuing to be a source of major self inflicted wounds.
His erraticness may be keeping his opponents off base, but it is also keeping him from advancing any of his goals.
Yes, not breaking encryption is devious, as it gives a false sense of security - this is precisely why I refuse to use those
supposedly secure e-banking login apps on smartphones whose system software can be subverted, and prefer those non-connected,
non-reprogrammable, special-purpose password generating devices.
As for Trump being incompetent for his job, and his skills in wheeling-dealing do not carrying over usefully to conducting
high political offices, that much is clear. But he is not "erratic", rather he is out of place and out of his depth.
I am writing this in the shower with a paper bag over my head and my iPhone in the microwave.
I have for years had a password-protected document on computer with all my important numbers and passwords. I have today deleted
that document and reverted to a paper record.
I think he means a machine dedicated to high-security operations like anything financial or bill-pay. Something that is not
exposed to email or web-browsing operations that happen on a casual-use computer that can easily compromise. That's not a bad
way to go; it's cheaper in terms of time than the labor-intensive approaches I use, but those are a hobby more than anything else.
It depends on how much you have at stake if they get your bank account or brokerage service password.
I take a few basic security measures, which would not impress the IT crowd I hang out with elsewhere, but at least would not
make me a laughingstock. I run Linux and use only open-source software; run ad-blockers and script blockers; confine risky operations,
which means any non-corporate or non-mainstream website to a virtual machine that is reset after each use; use separate browsers
with different cookie storage policies and different accounts for different purposes. I keep a well-maintained pfSense router
with a proxy server and an intrusion detection system, allowing me to segregate my secure network, home servers, guest networks,
audiovisual streaming and entertainment devices, and IoT devices each on their own VLANs with appropriate ACLs between them. No
device on the more-secured network is allowed out to any port without permission, and similar rules are there for the IoT devices,
and the VoIP tools.
The hardware to do all of that costs at least $700, but the real expense is in the time to learn the systems properly. Of course
if you use Linux, you could save that on software in a year if you are too cheap to send a contribution to the developers.
It's not perfect, because I still have computers turned on :) , but I feel a bit safer this way.
That said, absolutely nothing that I have here would last 30 milliseconds against anything the "hats" could use, if they wanted
in. It would be over before it began. If I had anything to hide, really, I would have something to fear; so guess I'm OK.
They're key fobs handed to you by your IT dept. The code displayed changes every couple of minutes. The plus is there's nothing
sent over the air. The minus is the fobs are subject to theft, and are only good for connecting to 'home'. And since they have
a cost, and need to be physically handed to you, they're not good fit for most two factor login applications (ie logging into
your bank account).
I watched (fast forwarded through, really) Morning Joe yesterday to see what they would have to say about Wikileaks. The show
mostly revolved around the health care bill and Trump's lying and tweeting about Obama wiretapping him. They gave Tim Kaine plenty
of time to discuss his recent trip to London talking to "some of our allies there" saying that they are concerned that "all the
intelligence agencies" say the Rooskies "cyber hacked" our election, and since it looks like we aren't doing anything when we
are attacked, they KNOW we won't do anything when they are attacked. (more red baiting)
The only two mentions I saw was about Wikileaks were, first, a question asked of David Cohen, ex Deputy Director of the CIA,
who refused to confirm the Wikileaks were authentic, saying whatever tools and techniques the CIA had were used against foreign
persons overseas, so there is no reason to worry that your TV is looking at you. And second, Senator Tom Cotton, who didn't want
to comment on the contents of Wikileaks, only saying that the CIA is a foreign intelligence service, collecting evidence on foreign
targets to keep our country safe, and it does not do intelligence work domestically.
So that appears to be their story, the CIA doesn't spy on us, and they are sticking with it, probably hoping the whole Wikileaks
thing just cycles out of the news.
The unwillingness of the main stream media (so far) to really cover the Wikileaks reveal is perhaps the bigger story. This
should be ongoing front page stuff .. but it is not.
As for using ZeroHedge as a source for anything, can we give that a rest. That site has become a cesspool of insanity. It used
to have some good stuff. Now it is just unreadable. SAD
And yes I know the hypocrisy of slamming ZH and the MSM at the same time we live in interesting times.
Your remarks on ZH are an ad hominem attack and therefore a violation of site policies. The onus is on you to say what ZH got
wrong and not engage in an ungrounded smear. The mainstream media often cites ZH.
NC more than just about any other finance site is loath to link to ZH precisely because it is off base or hyperventilating
a not acceptably high percent of the time, and is generally wrong about the Fed (as in governance and how money works). We don't
want to encourage readers to see it as reliable. However, it is good on trader gossip and mining Bloomberg data.
And I read through its summary of the Wikileaks material as used by Gaius and there was nothing wrong with it. It was careful
about attributing certain claims to Wikileaks as opposed to depicting them as true.
My rules for reading ZH:
1- Skip every article with no picture
2- Skip every article where the picture is a graph
3- Skip every article where the picture is of a single person's face
4- Skip every afticle where the picture is a cartoon
5- Skip every article about gold, BitCoin, or high-frequency trading
6- Skip all the "Guest Posts"
7- ALWAYS click through to the source
8- NEVER read the comments
It is in my opinion a very high noise-to-signal source, but there is some there there.
Discerning a 'news from noise' is NEVER that easy b/c it is an art, developed by years of shifting through ever increasing
'DATA information' load. This again has to be filtered and tested against one's own 'critical' thinking or reasoning! You have
to give ZH, deserved credit, when they are right!
There is no longer a Black or white there, even at ZH! But it is one of the few, willing to challenge the main stream narrative
'kool aid'
In addition to the "para-intelligence" community (hat tip Code named D) there are multiple enterprises with unique areas of
expertise that interface closely with the CIA The long-exposed operations, which include entrapment and blackmailing of key actors
to guarantee complicity, "loyalty" and/or sealed lips, infect businesses, NGOs, law enforcement agencies, judges, politicians,
and other government agencies. Equal opportunity employment for those with strong stomachs and a weak moral compass.
Yes I can't remember where I read it but it was a tale passed around supposedly by an FBI guy that had, along with his colleagues,
the job of vetting candidates for political office. They'd do their background research and pass on either a thick or thin folder
full of all the compromising dirt on each potential appointee. Over time he said he was perturbed to notice a persistent pattern
where the thickest folders were always the ones who got in.
I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being
imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?"
and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they
have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that
you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics,
on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always
blackmail.
I find the notion that my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones somewhat irritating, but my imagination quickly runs
off to far worse scenarios. (although the popular phase, "You're tax dollars at work." keeps running thru my head like a earworm.
And whenever I hear "conservatives" speak of their desire for "small government", usually when topics of health care, Medicare
and social security come up, I can only manage a snort of incredulousness anymore)
One being malware penetrating our nuke power plants and shutting down the cooling system. Then the reactor slowly overheats
over the next 3 days, goes critical, and blows the surrounding area to high heaven. We have plants all around the coast of the
country and also around the Great Lakes Region – our largest fresh water store in a drought threatened future.
Then the same happening in our offensive nuke missile systems.
Some other inconvenient truths – the stuxnet virus has been redesigned. Kaspersky – premier anti malware software maker – had
a variant on their corporate network for months before finally discovering it. What chance have we?
In China, hacking is becoming a consumer service industry. There are companies building high power data centers with a host
of hacking tools. Anyone, including high school script kiddies, can rent time to use the sophisticated hacking tools, web search
bots, and whatever, all hosted on powerful servers with high speed internet bandwidth.
Being a bit "spooked" by all this, I began to worry about my humble home computer and decided to research whatever products
I could get to at least ward off annoying vandalism. Among other things, I did sign up for a VPN service. I'm looking at the control
app for my VPN connection here and I see that with a simple checkbox mouse click I can make my IP address appear to be located
in my choice of 40 some countries around the world. Romania is on the list!
Actually, I very much doubt that does work. The mic "pickup" would feed its analog output to a DAC (digital to analog converter)
which would convert the signal to digital. This then goes to something similar to a virtual com port in the operating system.
Here is where a malware program would pick it up and either create a audio file to be sent to an internet address, or stream it
directly there.
The article is just plugging in a microphone at the output jack. The malware got the data long before it goes thru another
DAC and analog amp to get to the speakers or output jack.
It depends on how it is hooked up internally. Old fashioned amateur radio headphones would disable the speakers when plugged
in because the physical insertion of the plug pushed open the connection to the speakers. The jack that you plug the ear buds
into might do the same, disconnecting the path between the built-in microphone and the ADC (actually it is an ADC not a DAC).
The only way to know is to take it apart and see how it is connected.
The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US is also the panacea for the public. And some are buying it. Along with everyone
knows they can do this is fueling the NOTHING to see here keep walking weak practically non existent coverage.
At what point do people quit negotiating in terrorism and errorism? For this is what the police, the very State itself has
long been. Far beyond being illegitimate, illegal, immoral, this is a clear and ever present danger to not just it's own people,
but the rule of law itself. Blanket statements like we all know this just makes the dangerously absurd normal I'll never understand
that part of human nature. But hey, the TSA literally just keeps probing further each and every year. Bend over!
Trump may not be the one for the task but we the people desperately need people 'unfit', for it is the many fit who brought
us to this point. His unfit nature is as refreshing on these matters in its chaotic honest disbelief as Snowden and Wiki revelations.
Refreshing because it's all we've got. One doesn't have to like Trump to still see missed opportunity so many should be telling
him he could be the greatest pres ever if (for two examples) he fought tirelessly for single payer and to bring down this police
state rather than the EPA or public education.
This cannot stand on so many levels. Not only is the fourth amendment rendered utterly void, but even if it weren't it falls
far short of the protections we deserve.
No enemy could possibly be as bad as who we are and what we allow/do among ourselves. If an election can be hacked (not saying
it was by Russia).. as these and other files prove anything can and will be hacked then our system is to blame, not someone else.
What amazes me is that the spooks haven't manufactured proof needed to take Trump out of office Bonfire of The Vanities style.
I'd like to think the people have moved beyond the point they would believe manufactured evidence but the Russia thing proves
otherwise.
These people foment world war while probing our every move and we do nothing!
If we wait for someone fit nothing will ever change because we wait for the police/media/oligarch state to tell us who is fit.
But being fit by the standards of our ruling class, the "real owners" as Carlin called them is, in my book, an automatic proof
that they are up to no good. Trump is not my cup of tea as a president but no one we have had in a while wasn't clearly compromised
by those who fund them. Did you ever wonder why we have never had a president or even a powerful member of congress that was not
totally in the tank for that little country on the Eastern Mediterranean? Or the Gulf Monarchies? Do you think that is by accident?
Do you think money isn't involved? Talk about hacked elections! We should be so lucky as to have ONLY Russians attempting to affect
our elections. Money is what hacks US elections and never forget that. To me it is laughable to discuss hacking the elections
without discussing the real way our "democracy" is subverted–money not document leaks or voting machine hacks. It's money.
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on Trump's list? Iran that has never been involved in a terrorist act on US soil is but not Saudi Arabia?
How many 911 hijackers came from Iran? If anything saves Trump from destruction by the real owners of our democracy it is his
devotion to the aforementioned countries.
The point again is not to remove him from office but to control him. With Trump's past you better believe the surveillance
state has more than enough to remove him from office. Notice the change in his rhetoric since inauguration? More and more he is
towing the establishment Republican line. Of course this depends on whether you believe Trump is a break with the past or just
the best liar out there. A very unpopular establishment would be clever in promoting their agent by pretending to be against him.
Anyone who still believes that the US is a democratic republic and not a mafia state needs to stick their heads deeper into
the sands. When will the low information voters and police forces on whom a real revolution depends realize this is anyone's guess.
The day is getting closer especially for the younger generation. The meme among the masses is that government has always been
corrupt and that this is nothing new. I do believe the level of immorality among the credentialed classes is indeed very new and
has become the new normal. Generations of every man for himself capitalist philosophy undermining any sense of morality or community
has finally done its work.
Go take a jaunt over to huffpo, at the time of this post there was not a single mention of vault 7 on the front page. Just
a long series of anti trump administration articles.
Glad to know for sure who the true warmongers were all along.
No.. The Church commission was a sweep it under the rug operation. It got us FISA courts. More carte blanche secrecy, not less.
The commission nor the rest of the system didn't even hold violators of the time accountable.
We have files like Vault 7. Commissions rarely get in secret what we have right here before our eyes.
River: Interesting historic parallel? I believe that the Ottomans got rid of the Janissaries that way, after the Janissaries
had become a state within a state, by using cannons on their HQ
From Wiki entry, Janissaries:
The corps was abolished by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 in the Auspicious Incident in which 6,000 or more were executed.[8]
Took less than a minute to download the 513.33MB file. The passphrase is what JFK said he'd like to do to CIA: SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds.
"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, 1975.
The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates.
A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized
by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something
that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and
the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.
The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would
be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed,
Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward
Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.
And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.
We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This
is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with
subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.
What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus,
one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.
This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.
Yeah I downloaded it the day it came out and spent an hour or so looking at it last night. First impressions – "heyyy this
is like a Hackers Guide – the sort I used in the 80s, or DerEngel's Cable Modem Hacking" of the 00s.
2nd impressions – wow it really gives foundational stuff – like "Enable Debug on PolarSSL".
3rd impressions – "I could spend hours going thru this happily ".
4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just
a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original
firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK.
Its quite fascinating. But trying to find the "juicy stuff" is going to be tedious. One can spend hours and hours going thru
it. To speed up going thru it, I'm going to need some tech sites to say "where to go".
It seems clear that Wikileaks has not and will not release actual ongoing method "how-to" info or hacking scripts. They are
releasing the "whats", not the tech level detailed "hows". This seems like a sane approach to releasing the data. The release
appears to be for political discussion, not for spreading the hacking tools. So I wouldn't look for "juicy bits" about detailed
methodology. Just my guess.
That said, love what you're doing digging into this stuff. I look forward to a more detailed report in future. Thanks.
Yves, I think that you much underestimate the extremity of these exposed violations of the security of freedom of expression,
and of the security of private records. The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device
microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your
private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows
10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices.
This goes far beyond the kind of snooping that required specialized devices installed near the target, which could be controlled
by warrant process. There is no control over this extreme spying. It is totalitarianism now.
This is probably the most extreme violation of the rights of citizens by a government in all of history. It is far worse than
the "turnkey tyranny" against which Snowden warned, on the interception of private messages. It is tyranny itself, the death of
democracy.
Your first sentence is a bit difficult to understand. If you read Yves' remarks introducing the post, she says that the revelations
are "a big deal" "if the Wikileaks claim is even halfway true," while coming down hard on the MSM and others for "pooh-pooh[ing]"
the story. Did you want her to add more exclamation points?
So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military
refers to as "being overtaken by events."
It's easy to gather information; not so easy to analyze it, and somehow impossible to act on it in good faith. With all this
ability to know stuff and surveil people the big question is, Why does everything seem so beyond our ability to control it?
We should know well in advance that banks will fail catastrophically; that we will indeed have sea level rise; that resources
will run out; that water will be undrinkable; that people will be impossible to manipulate when panic hits – but what do we do?
We play dirty tricks, spy on each other like voyeurs, and ignore the inevitable. Like the Stasi, we clearly know what happened,
what is happening and what is going to happen. But we have no control.
My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects
there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is
aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table.
AS, I would interpret it as saying that there was so much coming in it was like trying to classify snowflakes in a snowstorm.
They could pick a few subject areas to look at closely but the rest just went into the files.
Leaking like a sieve is also likely, but perhaps not the main point.
The archive appears to have been circulated among government hackers and contractors in a authorized manner
There, that looks the more likely framing considering CIA & DNI on behalf of the whole US IC seemingly fostered wide dissimilation
of these tools, information. Demonstration of media control an added plus.
Todd Pierce , on the other hand, nails it. (From his Facebook page.)
The East German Stasi could only dream of the sort of surveillance the NSA and CIA do now, with just as nefarious of purposes.
Perhaps the scare quotes around "international mobster" aren't really necessary.
In all this talk about the various factions aligned with and against Trump, that's one I haven't heard brought up by anybody.
With all the cement poured in Trump's name over the years, it would be naive to think his businesses had not brushed up against
organized crime at some point. Question is, whose side are they on?
Like all the other players, the "side" they are on is them-effing-selves. And isn't that the whole problem with our misbegotten
species, writ large?
Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hzds9aGdA
Maybe these people will be around and still eating after us urban insects and rodents are long gone? Or will our rulers decide
no one should survive if they don't?
To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats
worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out?
I've long thought that the reason Snowden was pursued so passionately was that he exposed the biggest, most embarrassing secret:
that the National "Security" Agency's INTERNAL security was crap.
And here it is: "Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal "
The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release.
We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation,
it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it,
was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the
past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't
kill him or his family. That being one of their options.
Ah, that's the beauty of contracting it out. No one gets fired. Did anyone get fired because of Snowden? It was officially
a contractor problem and since there are only a small number of contractors capable of doing the work, well you know. We can't
get new ones.
What I find by far the most distressing is this: "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability
." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is
intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Republic is lost because we didn't stand guard for it. Blaming others don't cut
it either – we let it happen. And like the Germans about the Nazi atrocities, we will say that we didn't know about it.
Hey, I didn't let it happen. Stuff that spooks and sh!tes do behind the Lycra ™ curtain happens because it is, what is the
big word again, "ineluctable." Is my neighbor to blame for having his house half eaten by both kinds of termites, where the construction
is such that the infestation and damage are invisible until the vast damage is done?
And just how were we supposed to stand guard against a secret and unaccountable organization that protected itself with a shield
of lies? And every time some poor misfit complained about it they were told that they just didn't know the facts. If they only
knew what our IC knows they would not complain.
It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place
the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be
yours.
Studiously avoid any military celebrations. Worship of the military is part of the problem. Remember, the people you thank
for "their service" are as much victims as you are. Sadly they don't realize that their service is to a rotten empire that is
not worthy of their sacrifice but every time we perform the obligatory ritual of thankfulness we participate in the lie that the
service is to a democratic country instead of an undemocratic empire.
It's clearly a case of Wilfred Owen's classic "Dulce et Decorum Est". Read the poem, google it and read it. It is instructive:
" you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria
mori." Make no mistake. It is a lie and it can only be undone if we all cease to tell it.
"These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward
Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from
virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears
to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's
box has been opened."
Yes, it can be used for that , but often the goal is to channel, and contain the thinking
from or to whatever, not degrade. Using modern neoliberal economics as an example. The older
19th and early 20th century mainstream political economy were deeper, more comprehensive, and
often better at explaining economics. It was also called political economy, and not just
economics for that reason.
There was a real financed campaign to narrow the focus on what we call economics today.
Part of that effort was to label people very narrowly as just economic beings, which is what
libertarianism is, and to label economic thought outside of it as socialism/communism, which
is Stalinism, which is the gulag, which is bad thought. The economists studying this were
just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the idea, the worm of
people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment of anything else,
the inability to even see anything else.
I sometimes think some are against the masses getting any higher education because one is
exposed to other ways of thinking, and believing. A student might never change their beliefs,
but the mind is expanded for considering the possibilities and at looking at where others are
coming from. Those mindworms are also more obvious, and less useful.
So you could be ninety year blockhead, but if you are willing to listen, to think on what
you are exposed to in college, your mind is expanded and strengthen. Which is perhaps the
main goal of a liberal arts education. Even a very hard college education will still have
some of the same effect.
"The economists studying this were just as intelligent, thoughtful, and incisive, but the
idea, the worm of people=money=economics created a thought stop, or an an un-acknowledgment
of anything else, the inability to even see anything else."
So would you say identity politics is the same thing in reverse? Intelligent people
looking at issues from every perspective but that of money and economics?
Yes, as it is used now. It can be very important, but what I have against identity
politics as it is done today is that it is the first and last answer to everything. Many
people can see, they just think one's identity is paramount. MLK said it best when he talked
about being judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their
skin.
Please keep in mind that the identity being used could anything. Your sex, gender,
orientation, age, class, religion, anything.
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
"... Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine she'll be -- and the more she'll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorning pussy dunce-caps on the same occasion. ..."
"... By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty. The sluts among us don't. On social media, women outstrip men in the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches, and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, "I Own It." ..."
"... men are punished when they react normally to women behaving badly ..."
"... So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that "protesters" routinely disrobe or perform lewd acts with objects in public. Vladimir Putin is a great man if only for arresting a demented band of performance artists, Pussy Riot, for desecrating a Russian church. ..."
"... If men flashed for freedom; they'd be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex Offender Registry. ..."
"... haute couture, ..."
"... Feminism promises women empowerment. However, there is a pornographic side to the promise. There are legions of women trying to give the world a hard-on for attention, money, status, etc. When the world reacts, as in the story, they say, "Don't touch me what do you think I am?" ..."
"... What's the big difference between Weinstein and former president Bill Clinton except that one was the frickin president of the US? Clinton used his various positions throughout the years to intimidate women, from the days of using Arkansas state troopers to act as procurers for him to later using federal agencies to harass them into shutting up. His wife Hillary, the almost-president, ran interference for him in muzzling the various women who might have spilled the beans. The Clintons postured themselves as champions of women's rights even as the reality of this sleazy couple was really tawdry. Weinstein was just a studio boss with money and film roles to dispense to a never-ending line of wannabe actresses. He fits right in with the Clintons as part of the Hollywood celebrity and glitz crowd and Hillary would never have called him a "deplorable". Yet even now there's many people who are Clinton fans and supporters even as they hypocritically play this game of 'get the fat guy'. The Clintons are a hundred times worse. ..."
"... You do not need philosophy to explain a love for money. Whether the profiteering Kardashians or the profiteering Madonna (and a legion of her imitators), these women did the indecent, lewd, into-your-face pornographic performances for financial gains. They have been denigrating themselves (and other women, by association) for money. They wanted the money. By any means. ..."
"... That the US government has extolled the deeply amoral Pussy Riot scum tells a lot about the moral crisis in the US, including the unending and very expensive wars of aggression run by the country that has no money for a single-payer medical system. ..."
"... Yes, the culture today is far, far more crass and degenerate than say, in the 50s, when Leave it to Beaver played on America's TVs, and Norman Rockwell and all that. But what has happened to our culture? Has the race into the sewer been a consequence of loose women of America (England, etc..) driving the decline? Or, are the causes a more a top down affair? IOW resulting from the big-money producers and all those men who run Hollywood? ..."
"... women, as indeed many men, are given to fashions and peer pressure. If the prevailing culture is one of modesty and self-respect, the women's behavior will reflect that. The American women of the 1950s were of more or less the same stock of women as the gutter skanks Ilana rightfully laments today, but did women drive this downward trend, or did (a few) men? ..."
"... One thing that has been noticed, are the striking similarities between American culture today and that of Weimar, Germany. Weimar was notoriously corrupt, with sexual degeneracy and prostitution rampant. Berlin was described as a giant brothel, where the desperate German youth were exploited and debased. ..."
"... the relentless, drum-beating agenda to destroy Western values. To eviscerate the culture of 1950s America (with virtues like honor and temperance) once and for all, and replace it with a septic tank value system, where self-respect is replaced with self-loathing. Where dignity and femininity is replace with twerking with your tongue out. Where Hollywood starlets howl about how "nasty" they are, as if being a skank is a moral badge of feminine honor. ..."
"... I am nearly 60 years old. And jokes and stories about "hollywood casting couches" and how pretty young women got roles in productions have been around longer than I have. To me, this whole story is just filed under more "fake news". No, I don't doubt the stories. I don't doubt that harvey was not a good man. But, its all basically propaganda. Harvey supported a political opponent of the people now attacking him 24.7 all over the right-wing media, so now these stories that are older than I am are suddenly headline news and the big lead on right-wing sites all over the internet. ..."
I'd like to better understand the conservative media's orgy over Harvey Weinstein, the
disgraced and disgraceful Hollywood film producer and studio executive who used his power over
decades to have his way with starlets.
To listen to conservative talkers, the women affronted or assaulted by Weinstein were all
Shakespearean talent in the making -- female clones of Richard Burton (he had no match among
women) -- who made the pilgrimage to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hollywood Hills, for the purpose
of realizing their talent, never knowing it was a meat market. Watching the women who make up
the dual-perspective panels "discussing" the Weinstein saga, it's hard to tell conservative
from liberal.
"Conservative" women now complain as bitterly as their liberal counterparts about
"objectification."
However, the female form has always been revered; been the object of sexual longing, clothed
and nude. The reason the female figure is so crudely objectified nowadays has a great deal to
do with women themselves. By virtue of their conduct, women no longer inspire reverence as the
fairer sex, and as epitomes of loveliness. For they are crasser, vainer, more eager to expose
all voluntarily than any male. Except for Anthony Weiner, the name of an engorged
organism indigenous to D.C., who was is in the habit of exposing himself as often as the
Kardashians do.
The latter clan is a bevy of catty exhibitionists, controlled by a mercenary, ball-busting
matriarch called Kris Kardashian. Kris is madam to America's First Family of Celebrity
Pornographers. (To launch a career with a highly stylized, self-directed sex tape is no longer
even condemned.) Lots of little girls, with parental approval, look up to the Kardashians.
From Kim, distaff America learns to couch a preoccupation with pornographic selfies in the
therapeutic idiom. Kardashian flaunts her ass elephantiasis with pure self-love. Yet millions
of her admirers depict her obscene posturing online as an attempt to come to terms with her
body. "Be a little easier on myself," counsels Kim as she directs her camera to the nether
reaches of her carefully posed, deformed derriere. While acting dirty and self-adoring,
Kardashian delivers as close to a social jeremiad on self-esteem as her kind can muster.
Genius!
Liberalism and libertinism are intertwined. The more liberal a woman, the more libertine
she'll be -- and the more she'll liberate herself to be coarse, immodest, vulgar and plain
repulsive. Think of the menopausal Ashley Judd rapping lewdly about her (alleged) menstrual
fluids at an anti-Trump rally. Think of all those liberal, liberated grannies adorning pussy
dunce-caps on the same occasion.
By nature, the human woman is a peacock. We like to be noticed. The conservative among us
prefer the allure of modesty. The sluts among us don't. On social media, women outstrip men in
the narcissistic and exhibitionist departments. In TV ads, American women, fat, thin, young and
old, are grinding their bottoms, spreading their legs, showing the contours of their crotches,
and dancing as though possessed (or like primates on heat), abandoning any semblance of
femininity and gentility, all the while laughing like hyenas and hollering hokum like, "I Own
It."
The phrase a "bum's rush" means "throw the bum out!" When it comes to Allison Williams,
daughter of NBC icon Brian Williams, a bum's rush takes on new meaning. Thanks in no small
measure to her famous father, the young woman has become a sitcom star. And Ms. Williams has
worked extra-hard to hone all aspects of an actress's instrument (the body). Alison has carried
forth enthusiastically about a groundbreaking scene dedicated to exploring "ass motorboating"
or
"booty-eating ," on HBO's "Girls."
The lewder, more pornographic, and less talented at their craft popular icons become -- the
louder the Left lauds their artistically dodgy output. (The "Right" just keeps moving Left.)
"Singer" Miley Cyrus was mocked before she began twerking tush, thrusting pelvis and twirling
tongue. Only then had she arrived as an artist, in the eyes of "critics" on the Left. The power
of the average pop artist and her products, Miley's included, lies in the pornography that is
her "art," in her hackneyed political posturing, and in the fantastic technology that is
Auto-Tune (without which
all the sound you'd hear these "singers" emit would be a bedroom whisper).
Liberal women, the majority, go about seriously and studiously cultivating their degeneracy.
If "Raising Skirts to Celebrate the Diversity of Vaginas" sounds foul, wait for
the accompanying images. These show feral creatures (women, presumably), skirts hoisted,
gobs agape, some squatting like farmhands in an outhouse, all yelling about their orifices.
Do you know of a comparable man's movement? If anything, men are punished when they
react normally to women behaving badly .
Female soldiers got naked and uploaded explicit images of themselves to an online portal.
The normals -- male soldiers -- shared the images and were promptly punished
for so doing. And the conservative side of that ubiquitous, dueling-perspectives political
panel approved of the punishment meted to the men.
So endemic is distaff degeneracy these days that "protesters" routinely disrobe or perform
lewd acts with objects in public. Vladimir Putin is a great man if only for arresting a
demented band of performance artists, Pussy Riot, for desecrating a Russian church.
If men flashed for freedom; they'd be arrested, jailed and placed on the National Sex
Offender Registry.
Talk about the empress being in the buff, I almost forgot to attach an image of this
celebrity, bare-bottomed on the
red-carpet. Rose McGowan is hardly unique. Many a star will arrive at these events barely
clothed. (Here are 38 more near-naked
Red-Carpet appearances .)
Expect a feminist lecture about a woman's right to pretend her bare bottom is haute
couture, rather than ho couture, and expecting the Harveys of the world to behave
like choir boys around her. Fine.
Being British, BBC News anchors are not nearly as dour about the Harvey hysteria as the
American anchors. A female presenter began a Sweinstein segment by saying men claim the
coverage of the scandal is excessive; women say the opposite. "That's why we're covering it,"
quipped her witty male sidekick. She roared with laughter. That's my girl!
Look, Harvey is a lowlife. But Hollywood hos are not as the sanctimonious Sean Hannity
portrays them: "naive, innocent young things," dreams shattered.
Thank you, Ilana, for pointing out the hypocrisy of women behaving like sluts who object to
men reacting to them signaling the world that they are sluts. Is the real issue that
actresses in Hollywood will only take off their clothes for hard cash and Harvey was not
offering hard cash but only nebulous hints at future roles in his productions? This is
important when surveying the careers of many of the actresses jumping on the bandwagon to
destroy Harvey Weinstein. We know they have and will take off their clothes for
the right price.
This is captured in the story of a man offering a woman a million dollars to go to bed
with him. She agrees. Then, he changes the offer to one dollar. The woman objects! "What do
you think I am a prostitute." The man answers, "We know what you are. We're negotiating the
price."
Feminism promises women empowerment. However, there is a pornographic side to the promise.
There are legions of women trying to give the world a hard-on for attention, money, status,
etc. When the world reacts, as in the story, they say, "Don't touch me what do you think I
am?"
So, it's about power and control, something dear to the hearts of feminists. "You can want
me but you can't have me (until you meet my price)." Men have a word for these women. We call
them "prick teasers". It is a dispute over price, and it makes men very, very angry to react
to the signals and then be ridiculed for reacting to the signals.
Cuckservatives are hardcore woman-worshipping feminists first and foremost. They will put aside any other objective when the prospect of groveling to women presents
itself.
Miley Cyrus may have been an exhibitionist earlier in her career, but no scare quotes
belong around "singer" when describing her. She can sing. See below.
Must as I hate a lot of liberal ideology, I would disagree with the argument that
left-liberal woman are more libertine than mainstream conservative women. Social class,
personality and intelligence have a much bigger bearing on female (and male) sexual behaviour
than political ideology. And there is no evidence than liberal women tend to be more sexually
explicit in their appearance than non-liberal women. The make up is thicker, the women are
louder, and the skirts are shorter on Fox News rather than CNN.
Liberal women like Ashley Judd making vulgar comments to annoy religious conservatives
doesn't really count. Playing up for the camera isn't necessarily an indication of real life
behaviour.
Thank you for saying what you said about more equitably apportioning the blame among males
and females. Fortunately or unfortunately only a woman such as you can say such things in our
PC world. In our unfair world this is the best that is possible and for this you deserve our
thanks.
Clueless 'feminists' ignore Muslim treatment of women while they protest for women's dignity,
yet they say that Miley Cyrus is advancing women's dignity.
Women are legally stoned in Muslim countries and gays & lesbians are legally executed
for being gay / lesbian in Muslim countries. And HILLARY took millions in 'donations' from
those countries.
The Clearest Problem With Modern Feminism
Muslim Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), where are the 'feminists'?
In the grand times of Hollywood, before the War, an open secret was that all aspiring
starlets had to pass through the couch of a personage known by the nickname of Ben Cinema or
Kalkeinstein, (described as "horrible and more! ugly, old and dirty, lumbering and stupid, a
real piece of garbage, in his person and in his surroundings a real vomiting forth from the
ghetto").
History repeats itself
Well I think there's a causality issue here. Weinstein & co pick on them when they're
mostly very young; they become degenerate later. There is an element of truth, but the really
obscene behaviour is a feature of established veterans.
Great article. Also funny: "ho couture" well, I liked it.
Couple points:
Worth remembering that often Weinstein selected women with NO power/influence; ie those way
beneath Kardashians etc. This is not to contest Illana's points about female celebrities
exploiting their sexuality, merely to note that Weinstein really was a slithering
predator.
Also worth noting that, although dreckification of female (actually, all) sexuality goes
beyond simple commerce, there has been a rough parallel between unleashed Capitalism
(neoliberalism) & unleashed sexuality. Of course, it's "old hat" that "sex sells"
however, now increasing degrees of pornography are accepted, indeed celebrated as
"liberated", artistic etc.
Illana is completly correct when she refers to the rank hypocracy re: male female sexuality.
definitely "not equal" (unless male sexuality is considered under the heading of "gay" etc)
How can Hollywood proclaim to always be for women and their rights, shouting they are at the
front of protecting women when the movie factories in that town have portrayed many a lead
actress as a prostitute?
This isn't something recent, women as prostitutes in films goes back decades. How can degrading women by showing them as money-craving whores be in any way defending
women?
For thousands of years the terms Prostitute and Actress were interchangeable. Sure Harve is a
douche bag but he's far from the only one. They knew what they were in for and were duly
compensated.
It's not that hard to deflect unwanted male attention or to downplay your looks. When I hear
a woman complain of sexual harassment, I suspect she is most likely a trouble maker and
desperate for attention. There are likely exceptions, but this tends to be my first reaction.
It's rarely the prettiest women who complain of sexual harassment.
I know plenty of liberal women who are not crude nor overtly sexual. I guess they just ignore
that facet of the left.
When I was in grad school, there were some women grad students who exchanged sexual favors
for the possibility of career advancement. Sometimes the women initiated the swap. Sometimes
the more well-connected male (or female) faculty member or administrator initiated the swap.
Some women (and possibly men) who were propositioned declined.
Query: If you said yes and got your payoff and if those who said no didn't get an
equivalent payoff and if, by virtue of the payoff, you succeeded while those who declined the
exchange didn't succeed, do you owe them anything? Morally.
Many who are posting #metoo on social media seem to feel that their membership in the
victim class entitles them to receive benefits in exchange for sexual favors and then to
recover, in attitudes of righteousness, the consideration they paid for those benefits:
shaming, intimidating and threatening, under potential penalty of false or ambiguoous
accusation, those who might seek to call them on their hypocrisy.
And let's not turn a blind eye to the feminized male enablers who seek women's approval by
lauding this instance of having one's cake and eating it too.
Lest I be susceptible to laches (the legal term for clean hands that do the dirty work,) I
was never tempted and, perhaps for that reason, recall the lady who died and sought admission
to the pearly gates.
"May I have some evidence of your virtue," Saint Peter said as he riffled through her
dossier.
"Indeed. I never succumbed to temptation," the lady proudly asserted.
"But were you ever tempted?"
"No," she said, fearing to lie to Saint Peter.
"Well, madam, if you've never been tempted, you get no credit for not having succumbed to
it."
Excellent article, Ms. Mercer. And thanks for the puncture holes delivered to Conservative
Inc. (Hannity etal). As to the, er, "ladies" who prowl about Hollywood and are now crying wolf, "what goes
around comes around."
What's the big difference between Weinstein and former president Bill Clinton except that one
was the frickin president of the US? Clinton used his various positions throughout the years
to intimidate women, from the days of using Arkansas state troopers to act as procurers for
him to later using federal agencies to harass them into shutting up. His wife Hillary, the
almost-president, ran interference for him in muzzling the various women who might have
spilled the beans. The Clintons postured themselves as champions of women's rights even as
the reality of this sleazy couple was really tawdry. Weinstein was just a studio boss with
money and film roles to dispense to a never-ending line of wannabe actresses. He fits right
in with the Clintons as part of the Hollywood celebrity and glitz crowd and Hillary would
never have called him a "deplorable". Yet even now there's many people who are Clinton fans
and supporters even as they hypocritically play this game of 'get the fat guy'. The Clintons
are a hundred times worse.
You do not need philosophy to explain a love for money. Whether the profiteering
Kardashians or the profiteering Madonna (and a legion of her imitators), these women did the
indecent, lewd, into-your-face pornographic performances for financial gains. They have been
denigrating themselves (and other women, by association) for money. They wanted the money. By
any means.
That the US government has extolled the deeply amoral Pussy Riot scum tells a lot about the
moral crisis in the US, including the unending and very expensive wars of aggression run by
the country that has no money for a single-payer medical system.
The pink pussies that demonstrated against Donald and for Hilary, used to be offended when
reminded about Libyan tragedy ("we came, we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha ") and about the
hundreds of thousands of human beings (including thousands and thousands children)
slaughtered there on the Obama/Clinton watch. Did we have the pink pussies demonstrating
against Obama's seven wars? – No. The pink pussies needed some brainwashing before
suddenly going into a public activism phase with silly hats on their empty heads. Are pussy
hats demonstrating against the impending wars of the US with Iran and Korea? – No.
Nobody gave an order for and provided money for organizing the parades. These "progressive"
female activists are ridiculous.
By the way, is Dershowitz cleared re his visits to Lolita Island where real underage
victims were held for the pleasure of powerful sex predators?
I love reading Ilana Mercer's politically incorrect take on events and her brilliant use of
language.. Seeing how far US society has descended since I was growing up in the
1960′s, I'm glad to be a married, monogamous senior citizen. We certainly had our
problems then, with the Vietnam War at the top of the list, but at least the women were not
covered in disgusting tattoos and man-hating feminism was still in its infancy.
I still don't get all the fuss about this. The wannabe starlets knew the price of fame and
fortune (or if not, found out quickly), and were willing to pay it. It is just straight up
prostitution. Seems to me the only ones with a claim are the ones who paid the price and
didn't get the part.
Sergey, you posted here an example of femininity of Senchina – a value long destroyed
by feminism in the West–as opposed to sexuality, which is the fad. It is the same as
comparing real love and real intimacy to raw sex, or porn. For former one needs a real woman,
for the latter a slut will suffice.
The scandal, as I have portrayed it, was the leftist hypocrisy in their political attacks
against Trump. All Trump did was describe a woman's nature around powerful men. They
volunteer themselves. Weinstein was far more coercive and they said nothing all these years.
Women were victimized by this , but not the ones we know. It was the women who didn't advance
their careers by any means who were victims. Perhaps that is one reason why women do not draw
so much at the box office. We do not get to enjoy the talent that got them there.
Yes, the culture today is far, far more crass and degenerate than say, in the 50s, when Leave
it to Beaver played on America's TVs, and Norman Rockwell and all that.
But what has happened to our culture? Has the race into the sewer been a consequence of loose women of America (England, etc..)
driving the decline? Or, are the causes a more a top down affair? IOW resulting from the big-money producers
and all those men who run Hollywood?
women, as indeed many men, are given to fashions and peer pressure. If the prevailing
culture is one of modesty and self-respect, the women's behavior will reflect that. The
American women of the 1950s were of more or less the same stock of women as the gutter skanks
Ilana rightfully laments today, but did women drive this downward trend, or did (a
few) men?
One thing that has been noticed, are the striking similarities between American culture
today and that of Weimar, Germany. Weimar was notoriously corrupt, with sexual degeneracy and
prostitution rampant. Berlin was described as a giant brothel, where the desperate German
youth were exploited and debased.
Perhaps it was the fault of those young Germans who, while likely starving from the wrath
and rapine of the allies, (who deliberately looted the German economy dry). Or perhaps it was
more the fault of the wealthy and powerful non-German men, who preyed on these young, often
desperate women (and girls and boys). But the parallels are unmistakable.
which is why people are posting propaganda cartoons from back then, because the images are
eerily familiar to what seems to be going on today, no?
how can you not think of Harvey Weinstein when you see those cartoons?
Perhaps Ilana is right, and the blame starts and ends with the women. But then I think of
all those Mickey Mouse Club girls who turned into skanks,
[I won't post the pictures, but you can find them..]
and I notice that they were raised in Hollywood, like Miley Cyrus, who seemed to be
groomed specifically as an all American type of innocent Hanna Montana who then morphs
straight into the gutter skank we all wince at- for all those preteen American girls to
emulate. Just like Madonna was a generation before.
I confess it seems to me that the skankification of America's young women is part of a
deliberate agenda coming straight out of Hollywood. No?
Women have been sexually exploiting Men for a living for 5 million years. Women's price for
sex has always been that men provision them. There is nothing wrong with this. It helped
shaped both human physical and cultural evolution and we might have gone extinct without it.
The thing that interests me is, why now. The casting couch has been a stereotype all of my
life. Why the piling on at this time?
The fuss is about glamour Hollywood whores trying to teach others non-stop what is good
and right. Obviously they do all this form the supposition that prostitution is good and
liberating. You know, lowest common denominator? Most of them are also dumb as fvcks and this
goes not only to wo..sluts there, to the so called men too. Look at Clooneys and other Damons
of that cabal. They should concentrate on doing what they allegedly do best–pretend to
be other people. Most of them have no serious analytical skills to start with. Hey, at least
Brad Pitt is in this just for fvcking chicks at the height of their hotness–at least it
is honest.
I first began to totally ignore the MSM's comments on Putin when he had the degeneracy of the
"Pussy Riot" in a Russian Church forcefully stopped. It was great to see the Cossacks beat
the beejebans out of those morally offensive hooligans trying to illegally impose George
Soro's world view on others.
Every woman could have said No to Mr. "Sweinstein". Bros before hos are the name of the game
not only in Hollywood. The hypocrites should not lament. It takes two to tango!
"I confess it seems to me that the skankification of America's young women is part of a
deliberate agenda coming straight out of Hollywood. No?"
Here you go.
From: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann.
Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress:
"The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of
humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of
global society requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old
established order, secondly, design and imposition of the new order. The first stage
requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical
barriers and social definitions, only then can the destroyed old system elements be
replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.
The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social
formations created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women
must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no
tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms
must only be viewed as a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is;
nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must
be gone."
The casting couch has been a stereotype all of my life. Why the piling on at this
time?
perhaps because of The Trumpening
perhaps now that Trump is in DC, there are forces at work that have bristled under the
excruciatingly dishonest levels of hypocrisy coming out of the leftisphere.
accusing Trump of being disrespectful to women, as they rape women and girls wholesale,
and the entire leftist power structure always looks the other way, so long as the rapist is a
leftist himself, and will use his power for the leftist agenda.
so these serial predators like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein all get a pass from the
feminists and liberal, progressives, so long as they assist with The Agenda to destroy
Western Civilization, (and the people who created it ; ).
As long as Bill Clinton hails the day when whites will be a minority in this country, (to the
cheers of liberal college students), he can rape women all day long. He can sexually harass,
as the most powerful man in the world, powerless girls in the White House, and all to a
thunderous silence from the entire leftist, progressive (hypocritical / hatred-consumed)
power structure. Because he works towards their agenda. [the same agenda, BTW - that
destroyed S. Africa and Rhodesia]
But for a man like Trump, who seems to have raised daughters who respect themselves, and
seem to conduct themselves with a certain dignity- that isn't what's important. What's
important is what is always important
THE AGENDA
the relentless, drum-beating agenda to destroy Western values. To eviscerate the culture
of 1950s America (with virtues like honor and temperance) once and for all, and replace it
with a septic tank value system, where self-respect is replaced with self-loathing. Where
dignity and femininity is replace with twerking with your tongue out. Where Hollywood
starlets howl about how "nasty" they are, as if being a skank is a moral badge of feminine
honor.
That's what's going on here. We're in the trenches of the cold culture war, turned hot
culture war.
They wanted to destroy Trump and the deplorables with shrieking about how Trump was
disrespectful to women. But now the cover of the giant septic tank known as Hollywood has
been lifted off, for all the world to gasp at the slithering creatures and whiff the terrible
stench.
I wonder if it's a kind of payback time for Hillary and her army of morally preening orcs,
feasting on the flesh of young women, and smacking their liver lips with anticipation of the
next young shiksa to walk though that hotel room door.
I only hope we get an investigation into Pizzagate next, with perhaps a nice expose' of
Jeffrey Epstein's Child Rape Island, and all those liberal, progressive morally preening men
who take so many trips there.
this might just be all a sign of the great Trumpening
Let's be fair here. Women strut their 'stuff' same as men but in a different way. A man will
buy a very expensive car or some other display of wealth or power to attract a female and
females respond to these displays by highlighting their sexual desirability and availability.
We are animals seeking mates after all and males have to demonstrate their dominance in
nature before the female will mate with the male. Thus a Harvey Weinstein could no more have
sex with an Ashley Judd than a derelict laying on the sidewalk absent some display of power
and wealth that interested Judd.
The other side of this coin is that a woman cannot compel a man to have sex with her no
matter how much money or power she has. Men do not sexually respond to a physically repulsive
female and he cannot 'fake' an orgasm. This is why I do not believe in criminally
prosecuting, e.g., a female school teacher for having sex with a 16 year old student. Fire
her for improper conduct but jail her? Come on the boy was willing if he had sex with
her!
It's like the old joke:
Will you have sex with me for a million dollars?
OK.
What about one dollar?
What kind of girl do you think I am?
We've already established what kind of girl you are. We're just negotiating.
Excellent piece, showcasing your good sense as always. I yield to no man in my hyper
enthusiasm for the undraped female form but to cynically "launch a career with a highly
stylized, self-directed sex tape" incites my scorn, not lust. I have been fed up for years
when perusing the morning headlines seeing articles about the latest, most egregious examples
of Hollyweird bimbos showing up at events more or less naked. I've long since ceased looking
or caring; they just annoy me.
Putting all one's assets on constant public display destroys
the allure and mystery that is woman and does not empower them, it makes them the "pieces of
meat" that they've been screaming about for close on a century, especially for the last 50
odd years. Women have made quite the cottage industry of whining that guys don't understand
them, "don't get it" but refuse to acknowledge the obverse. By tripping the lights fantastic
with their fun bits exposed they appear to the primal great white shark which is the male sex
drive as easily gotten chum; and like the Assyrian of old, we fall upon and devour them, in a
manner of speaking. A rather old adage said "If it ain't for sale, don't advertise it". As
for Harvey, the fascination of the hogs at the slop trough is that the revolting pig~man
didn't just want to have sex with these women, but to have them observe his disgusting
degeneracy. The Cities of the Pains had nothing on us.
I am nearly 60 years old. And jokes and stories about "hollywood casting couches" and how
pretty young women got roles in productions have been around longer than I have. To me, this whole story is just filed under more "fake news". No, I don't doubt the
stories. I don't doubt that harvey was not a good man. But, its all basically propaganda.
Harvey supported a political opponent of the people now attacking him 24.7 all over the
right-wing media, so now these stories that are older than I am are suddenly headline news
and the big lead on right-wing sites all over the internet.
These stories have even bumped the stories about which NFL players should be lined up in
front of a firing squad and shot for not maintain the proper posture during the sacred
National Anthem here in the Land of the Free.
So, to me, this just more Fake News. Its propaganda and political attack using weaponized
'news'. And I don't care. If I had a daughter going to Hollywood, I'd give her the same
warnings about scum-bags in the movie business and the casting couch that have been given out
for a century now. Nothing new here.
Strange -- it seems that Harvey had the only casting couch in Tinsel Town. Hollywood is wall
to wall Jews – yet NO new Jew names are being exposed by all those brave women.
Only Gentile names.
Hmm??? What could be going on? Stonewalling maybe – total fear absolutely! Say it isn't so.
p.s. Maybe Weinstein, Woody Allen, Polansky, and Weiner are the only sex obsessed
Jews?
As I understand it, movies is a very high stakes business, and you cannot get cast in a
role by being alone with an obviously-horny-as-a-jackrabbit producer and submitting to sex
acts or harassment. It doesn't guarantee anything, and they all knew it.
Casting happens though getting an agent, who sends you to an audition, where there are
other people around and the acts performed are of an acting nature. The only
professional film actor I know cited Ellen Barkin's acting as superlative. Barkin studied
acting for ten years before landing her first audition.
I try to restrict devoting any of the precious time I have left on Earth to such matters. I
made an exception for the Mercer column, which is spot on. 99% of the time, I merely see the
unavoidable headlines and continue surfing for something worth the time to read or watch.
My one take-away from l'affaire Weinstein is this: I am enormously enjoying the
internecine, riotous and indiscriminate feeding frenzy it has generated. Like Heinlein's
Igli, the Left is consuming itself.
Their existence is only to provide sexual pleasure to these perverts, and they like it;
however, when something goes wrong, they howl and cry, 'he raped me!" Reminds me when I was
at a military base, and a friend of mine found his girlfriend screwing another guy, she
claimed, well, rape! How appropriate. the poor guy was court martial-ed, and done with!
I am 1000X more attractive and in far better shape that Harvey Fatstein. Yet he has
tapped far better poon than I can ever hope to tap.
You should have gone into show biz. If you're what you claim to be, you've have tapped
more poon than Justin Timberlake and John Mayer combined. And it would have all been
consensual, so no worry about lawsuits.
Alden's response to you is perfectly correct. But you'd have a good point if you talked
about MGM.
Ms. Mercer is not defending Weinstein but attacking the women who allowed this to go on
for decades. I declare a half-hearted "boycott" against Hollywood every time something like
this happens; alas, this is rendered without force by the fact that I refuse to pay modern
ticket prices for what is likely utter trash anyway.
I tend to assume by default that Hollywood producers (Jewish or otherwise) pressure actresses
to have sex, so even if Weinstein was particularly egregious, I wonder what he really did to
ignite this shit-storm. He obviously pissed off the wrong person(s).
Sergey, realistically, most women–especially the lumbering, low skill, know-nothing
women of America–cannot possibly match the woman you put before us in the video
above.
They can't measure up and they know it. So instead of dieting, exercising, taking voice
lessons or even mastering humble talents like cooking and sewing they take the cowards way
out and denigrate her. They will revile her as an unliberated woman who depends on male
affirmation for her self esteem, an unwitting tool of the Patriarchy.
While they, themselves? They don't need to charm no stinking men. They themselves depend
on their cohort of disagreeable feminists for their "self esteem".
"The conservative among us prefer the allure of modesty." I'm a fan of 1970s-1980s Bollywood,
with its casts of heart-stoppingly beautiful women, like Hema Malini and Sridevi, who
performed in modest attire, and were all the more lovely for it. I can't bear to watch
today's Bollywood product, featuring writhing undressed wenches indistinguishable from
western gangsta ho's. Decades ago, Indian film assimilation from western pop culture often
yielded bizarre but charmingly cute mash-ups, but now they've mimicked the very worst of what
we have. Or maybe now we have only cultural garbage left for them to adapt.
"... There is a big difference between shills for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation. ..."
"... The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics. ..."
DN: What about the impact that you've seen of identity politics in America?
CH: Well, identity politics defines the immaturity of the left. The corporate state embraced
identity politics. We saw where identity politics got us with Barack Obama, which is worse than
nowhere. He was, as Cornel West said, a black mascot for Wall Street, and now he is going
around to collect his fees for selling us out.
My favorite kind of anecdotal story about identity politics: Cornel West and I, along with
others, led a march of homeless people on the Democratic National Convention session in
Philadelphia. There was an event that night. It was packed with hundreds of people, mostly
angry Bernie Sanders supporters. I had been asked to come speak. And in the back room, there
was a group of younger activists, one who said, "We're not letting the white guy go first."
Then he got up and gave a speech about how everybody now had to vote for Hillary Clinton.
That's kind of where identity politics gets you. There is a big difference between shills
for corporate capitalism and imperialism, like Corey Booker and Van Jones, and true radicals
like Glen Ford and Ajamu Baraka. The corporate state carefully selects and promotes women, or
people of color, to be masks for its cruelty and exploitation.
It is extremely important, obviously, that those voices are heard, but not those voices that
have sold out to the power elite. The feminist movement is a perfect example of this. The
old feminism, which I admire, the Andrea Dworkin kind of feminism, was about empowering
oppressed women. This form of feminism did not try to justify prostitution as sex work. It knew
that it is just as wrong to abuse a woman in a sweatshop as it is in the sex trade. The new
form of feminism is an example of the poison of neoliberalism. It is about having a woman CEO
or woman president, who will, like Hillary Clinton, serve the systems of oppression. It posits
that prostitution is about choice. What woman, given a stable income and security, would choose
to be raped for a living? Identity politics is anti-politics.
"... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House, but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
"... And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites and posturing. Granted, this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best technique is based on so-called wedge issues. ..."
"... A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center", mostly clueless undecided voters. ..."
"... Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the adversaries to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless in your direction. Wash, repeat. ..."
"Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House, but he and his
third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first
place and how to address the root despair of the western working class." VietnamVet
I do not know how highly rated the staff was, but it was sufficiently high. If the opponent
has fourth-rate staff, it would be wasteful to use anything better than third-rate. Figuring what
gave rise to the deplorable is a wasted effort, sociologist differ, and in politics the "root
causes" matter only a little.
And all authorities suggest to exploit the despair with soundbites and posturing. Granted,
this is a platitude, but how to obtain compelling soundbites and posturing? I think that the best
technique is based on so-called wedge issues.
A good wedge issue should raise passions on "both sides" but not so much in the "center",
mostly clueless undecided voters.
Calibrate your position so it is a good scrap of meat for your "base" while it drives the
adversaries to conniptions, the conniptions provide talking points and together, drive the clueless
in your direction. Wash, repeat.
(Never mind that if Thomas Frank is correct, and the Democrats are the party of the professional
classes, the Democrats cannot possibly be the party of "marginalized" people.) Being the sort of
person I am, my first thought was to ask myself what the heck Reid could mean by "tribe," and how
a "tribe" can act as a political entity.[1] Naturally, I looked to the Internet and did a cursory
search; and it turns out that, at least at the scholarly level, the very notion of "tribe" is both
contested and a product of colonialism.
David
Wiley, Department of Sociology and African Studies, Michigan State University, 2013
Tribe, a concept that has endeared itself to Western scholars, journalists, and the public
for a century, is primarily a means to reduce for readers the complexity of the non-Western societies
of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the American plains. It is no accident that the contemporary
uses of the term tribe were developed during the 19th-century rise of evolutionary and racist
theories to designate alien non-white peoples as inferior or less civilized and as having not
yet evolved from a simpler, primal state. The uses and definitions of 'tribe' in the sociological
and anthropological literature are varied and conflicting. Some authors appear to define tribe
as common language, others as common culture, some as ancestral lineages, and others as common
government or rulers. As anthropologist Michael Olen notes, "The term tribe has never satisfied
anthropologists, because of its many uses and connotations. Societies that are classified as tribal
seem to be very diverse in their organization, having little in common." Morton H. Fried and this
author contend that "the term is so ambiguous and confusing that it should be abandoned by social
scientists."
Even more striking is the invention of ethnic (labeled tribal) identities and their varied
and plastic salience across the African continent. In some cases, "tribal identifies" have been
invented in order to unite colonial and post-colonial clerical workers or other occupational and
social groups to serve the interests of the members even though they were not bound together by
language or lineage.
In the United States, where similar derogatory language of tribe has been used to characterize
and stereotype Native American or First Nations peoples, the identity has been reified in federal
legislation that requires "tribes," formerly under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to accept that
formal tribal identification in order to access the hunting, fishing, farming, and casino rights
of reservations. Almost humorously, the Menominee peoples of Wisconsin decided to decline that
nomenclature because many members lived in Milwaukee and other non-reservation sites; however,
they then learned they must reverse that vote and re-declare themselves as "a tribe" in order
to regain their reservation rights.
So, from the 30,000 foot level, it seems unlikely that what scholars mean (or do not mean) by
"tribe" is the same as what Reid means, simply because there is no coherent meaning to be had.[2]
My second thought was to try to fit "tribe" into the framework of identity politics, where tribes
would be identities, or possibly bundles of allied[3] identities. Here's a handy chart showing the
various ways that identity can be conceptualized, from
Jessica A. Clarke*, "Identity and Form," California Law Review , 2015:
(Clarke gives definitions of ascriptive, elective, and formal identity --
for Adolph Reed on ascriptive identity, see here -- but I think the definitions are clear enough
for our purposes from the examples in the table.) However, if we look back to Reid's quote, we see
that she conflates ascriptive identity ("black or brown") with elective identity ("the sort of Pabst
Blue Ribbon voter, the kind of Coors Lite-drinking voter")[4], and also conflates both of those with
formal identity (if one's ethnicity be defined by one's own citizenship papers, or those of one's
parents, or a changed surname; one thinks of Asian cultures putting the family name last in American
culture, for example). So there is no coherence to be found here, either.
Let's return then to Reid's words, and look to her operational definition:
which party goes out and find more people who are like them
JANELLE MONÁE: Hi, sweetie. You know I love, love, love you. First: pronouns! I want to make
sure that I'm being respectful of how I'm referring to you. I know that the way we view ourselves
and how we want to be addressed can change depending on where we are in life.
AS: I love that you asked me! Thank you. I have felt at times that she/her pronouns weren't
entirely fitting, but I've never felt uncomfortable with them. It's more important for me to open
up that conversation around pronouns and how gender itself is a construct that doesn't make much
sense in our society.
JM: Got it. I remember seeing you for the first time in Colombiana, and then, like many people,
I was drawn to your character in The Hunger Games as Rue. I'm a huge sci-fi nerd, so just seeing
this little black girl in a dystopian world being a hero for an oppressed community, I was intrigued!
The way you embodied this character felt like you were mature enough to understand how important
she was to the movie but also how important the Rues all over the world are to our society.
AS: That's one of the best compliments that I've received! I remember we saw each other at
the Tyler, the Creator show; we took a picture with Solange. You were wearing a jacket that said
"black girl magic" on it, and I flipped out.
JM: Me, too! I was like, I am right between you and Solange, two people who are the epitome
of black girl magic! I saw you later on, and you had just shot Everything, Everything, which,
by the way, you are incredible in. The original story was written by a black woman [NicolaYoon],
and your director [Stella Meghie] is also a black woman. What was going through your mind as you
were considering the role?
AS: I kind of wrote it off initially because I figured it was one of those instances where
I was receiving a script for a YA romance project that was intended for a white actress. I thought
maybe they'd float the idea of casting it in a more diverse manner but that ultimately it wouldn't
end up going that direction, because that's happened to me a lot. Then I realized that this project
was based on a book written by a black woman and that the casting was intentionally diverse. I'd
never seen a story like this made for an interracial couple. I'm not someone who generally has
a pop or mainstream sensibility, but I see the incredible power of infiltrating these larger movies
that show a lot of people who we are and how diverse and beautiful our community is. I thought
it would be really powerful to see a black girl [lead] character like Maddy who is joyous and
creative and dimensional specifically marketed to teenagers and young adults. We don't always
get to see black women carrying that energy. That's one of the reasons why I respect and love
you so much!because I feel like you perpetuate such whimsy and joy!
JM: Aw! Well, whenever I see you doing your thing, I feel like we're from the same tribe
because I take a similar approach when I'm choosing projects. With the roles of Teresa in
Moonlight and Ms. Mary Jackson in Hidden Figures , they're two women of color
from totally different backgrounds and eras!from the hood to NASA, these black women were the
backbones of their communities. I thought it was so important to let the rest of the world know
that we're not monolithic. And with Hidden Figures in particular, I was so proud to be a part
of exposing that if it were not for these women, we would not have gone to space. That's American
history! Black history is part of American history, and it should be treated as such.
(Note in passing that I loathe the phrase "open up," which I define as "carefully engineered for
a celebrity by public relations professionals." ) Of course, both actors are -- and rightly --
proud of their work, but note the carefully calibrated ways they establish that they are (as
Joy Reid says) "like" each other. Oh, and do note the caption: "Miu Miu dress, price upon request."
Class snuck in there, didn't it? In fact, we might go so far as to formalize Reid's definition of
"tribe" as follows:
Tribes are people who are "like" each other when class is not taken into account
With that, let's take an alternative approach to conceptualizing tribes and tribalism, one that
incorporates class. From former Arab Spring
activist Iyad El-Baghdadi , I present the following charts, taken from
the Twittter . (I'll present each
chart, then comment briefly on it.) There are five:
Figure 1: Tribal Divisions
Comment: I'm taking El-Baghdadi's "ethnic affiliation," as a proxy for Reid's "tribe"; the verticality
is clearly the same.)
Figure 2: Class Divisions
Comment: El-Baghdadi's representation of class divisions is fine as a visual shorthand, but I
don't think it's an accurate representation. I picture the class structure of the United States not
as a "normal distribution" with a fat "middle class" (I don't even accept
"middle class" as a category) but as a power curve with a very few people at the head of the
curve (
the "1%," more like the 0.01% ), followed by a steep shoulder of
the 10% (white collar professionals, from Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal ), and trailed
by a long tail of wage workers (and unwaged workers, as I suppose we might call the disemployed,
unpaid caregivers,
System D
people like loosie-selling Eric Garner, and so on). If you want to find who hasn't had a raise
in forty years, look to the long tail, which I would call l "working class," rather than "lower class."
Figure 3: Privilege Divisions
Comment: Taking once again El-Baghdadi's "ethnic affiliation," as a proxy for Reid's "tribe,"
and conceptualizing WASPs as a tribe, it's clear to me, if I look at my own history, that I'm
more likely ti have good luck than some other tribes. I'm more likely to have intergenerational
wealth in the form of a house, or even financial assets, more likely to be highly educated, more
likely to have the markers and locutions that enable me to interact successfully with bureaucratic
functionaries, etc. I didn't earn any of those advantages; I would have had to have chosen to be
born to different parents to avoid them. I think we can agree that if we were looking for an operational
definition of justice, this wouldn't be it.
Figure 4: Punching Sideways
Comment: Classically, we have owners following Gould's maxim by bringing in (mostly black) scabs
to break
the Homestead Strike in 1892, with a resulting "tribal" conflict -- although those scabs might
protest -- and rightly -- that (a) they were only trying to provide for their families and
(b) that the Jim Crow system
had denied them the "good jobs" that in justice would have given them (leaving aside the question
of who implemented Jim Crow, and for what material benefits). In modern times we have "tribes" (white,
black, Asian, at the least) battling on the field of "affirmative action" having weaponized their
ascriptive identities. Here again, representatives of some "tribes" would protest -- and
rightly -- that systems like "legacy admissions" give some "tribes" unjust advantage over others, but
the hidden assumption is one of resource constraint; given a pie of fixed size, if Tribe A is to
have more, Tribe B must have less. Note that programs like "tuition-free college" tend to eliminate
the resource constraint, but are "politically feasible" only if Tribes A and B solve their collective
action problem, which is unlikely to be done based on tribalism.
Figure 5: Punching Up
Comment: This diagram implies that the only "legitimate" form of seeking justice is vertical,
"punching up." This eliminates clear cases where justice is needed within and not between classes,
like auto collisions, for example, or the household division of labor. More centrally, the nice thing
about thinking vertically is that it eliminates obvious absurdities like "Justice for black people
means making the CEO of a major bank black (ignoring the injustices perpetrated using class-based
tools disproportionately against black people in, say, the foreclosure crisis, where
a generation's-worth of black household wealth was wiped out under America's first black President).
Or obvious absurdities where justice is conceived of as a woman, instead of a man, using the power
of office to kill thousands of black and brown people, many of them women, to further America's imperial
mission.
* * *
Concluding a discussion on politics and power that has barely begun -- and is of great importance
if you believe, as I do, that we're on the midst of and ongoing and highly volatile legitimacy crisis
that involves the break-up and/or realignment of both major parties -- it seems to me that El-Baghdadi
visual representation, which fits tribalism into a class-driven framework, is both analytically coherent
(as Reid's usage of "tribe" is not) and points to a way forward from our current political arrangements
(as Reid's strategy of bundling "punching sideways" tribes into parties while ignoring class does
not).
More to come .
spending nearly
$13.7 billion. Just two years ago, it seemed that Seoul and Beijing were embarking on a honeymoon
phase when President Park Geun-hye attended a military parade in Tiananmen Square commemorating the
end of World War II!the only U.S. ally to do so.
Then THAAD happened.
In July 2016, Seoul and Washington announced their decision to deploy the anti-missile system.
China opposed the deployment, saying it undermined China's security and would destabilize the region
because its radars could be used by the United States to track China's missile activities.
China wanted to "teach South Korea a lesson" for the effrontery of the THAAD deployment. Shortly
after the announcement, Beijing
banned the airing
of Korean TV shows, films, and K-pop acts in China. After it was revealed that Lotte Group!a South
Korean conglomerate operating 112 stores in mainland China!once owned the land THAAD would be based
on, Chinese state media called for a nationwide boycott of the company. By March 2017, nearly half
of Lotte's stores on the mainland
were shutdown , due to vague "safety violations." That same month, Beijing banned its travel
agencies from selling trips to Korea, resulting in a 66 percent
decrease in Chinese
visitors from last year. Shortly after President Moon Jae-in was elected to the Blue House in May
2017, he announced the suspension of further THAAD deployments until further review.
Many South Koreans told me they expected blowback from the decision to deploy THAAD, but the swiftness
and intensity of Beijing's retaliation caught them off guard. Beijing's response to THAAD, they said,
"opened our [South Korean] eyes to China's true colors ." Simply put, they believed Beijing
could not be relied on to consider South Korea's interests if China's interests were on the line.
This disillusionment is fanning mistrust and has damaged China's image in South Korea. A March 2017
Asan Institute poll found that,
for the first time ever , Koreans had a more favorable view of Japan than of China. This was
a shocking finding; Japan has consistently been South Koreans' least favorite country after North
Korea.
In spite of growing mistrust, South Koreans recognize the crucial role Beijing plays in reining
in Pyongyang. Many interlocutors said they believed, in spite of THAAD, that Chinese officials wanted
to maintain good relations with South Korea!albeit on China's terms.
the purpose of identity politics is to avoid economic issues when they are more pressing
than at any time since ww ii. the brainwashing of americans against socialism has continued
for those born after 12/26/1991. as long as the alt-right is dominated by the brainwashed it
will fail.
It needs to stop calling itself conservative and right.
What the majority of the
electorate wants is bernie sanders, a wall, e-verify and the subsequent self-deportations,
more environmental regulations, the end of affirmative action, etc..
the purpose of identity politics is to avoid economic issues when they are
more pressing than at any time since ww ii. the brainwashing of americans against socialism
has continued for those born after 12/26/1991. as long as the alt-right is dominated by the
brainwashed it will fail. it needs to stop calling itself conservative and right. what the
majority of the electorate wants is bernie sanders, a wall, e-verify and the subsequent
self-deportations, more environmental regulations, the end of affirmative action, etc..
Yes,
identity politics are a distraction, it's the political equivalent of sugar, it gets you high
but eventually ruins you.
It also answers the question why is Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the bankers all of a
sudden are supporting identity politics? Because it's a counter to populism and economic
awareness.
This keeps people from noticing their politicians are all owned by wealthy special
interests who don't give a shit about the people and it fact plan to reduce most to serfs in
the name of profit. No one ever talks about why Wall Street gets a multitrillion dollar bail
out for what amounted to was a scam concocted by the bankers and real-estate moguls and bond
ratings agencies. Yet no one ever went to jail over this.
It distracts the young why they can't file for bankruptcy after graduating with a
worthless college degree that they paid $150k for.
So said Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, during a keynote address
he gave at the Stigler Center's
conference on the political economy of finance that took place in June.
Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about
the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in
areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion.
In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is
anger focused on trade? 2. Why now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements?
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
There's quite a bit more. I don't agree with everything he (Raghuram) says, but thought it might
provoke discussion.
The understanding of exploitation
Of wage earning production workers
Is a better base then the 18 th century liberal ideal of equality
Exploitation and oppression are obviously not the same
even if they make synergistic team mates oftener then not
So long as " them " are blatantly oppressed
It's easy to Forget you are exploited
Unlike oppression
Exploitation can be so stealthy
So not part of the common description of the surface of daily life
Calls for equality must include a careful answer to the question
" equal with who ? "
Unearned equality is not seen as fair to those who wanna believe they earned their status
Add in the obvious :
To be part of a successful movement aimed at Exclusion of some " thems " or other
Is narcotic
Just as fighting exclusion can be a narcotic too for " thems "
But fighting against exclusion coming from among a privileged rank among
The community of would be excluders
That is a bummer
A thankless act of sanctimony
Unless you spiritually join the " thems"
Now what have we got ?
Jim Crow thrived for decades it only ended
When black arms and hands in the field at noon ...by the tens of millions
were no longer necessary to Dixie
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
I thought this sort of thinking was widely accepted only in 2016 we were told by the center
left that no it's not true.
"Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke
about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities
in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion."
Instead the center left is arguing that workers have nothing to complain about and besides
they're racist/sexist.
'"These communities have become disempowered partly for economic reasons but partly also because
decision-making has increasingly been centralized toward state governments, national governments,
and multilateral [agreements]," said Rajan. In the European Union, he noted, the concentration
of decision-making in Brussels has led to a lot of discontent.'
I'd suggest that this part is not true. Communities have become politically disempowered in
large part because they have become economically disempowered. A shrinking economy means a shrinking
tax base and less funds to do things locally. Even if the local government attempts to rebuild
by recruiting other employers, they end up in a race to the bottom with other communities in a
similar situation.
I'd also suggest that the largest part of the "discontent" in the EU is not because of any
"concentration of decision-making", but because local (and regional, and national) politicians
have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for any required, but unpopular action.
"... Many of the memo's assertions were risible, such as the idea that women are not coders because they are less intrigued by "things" than men are. ..."
"... Assertions in that category are not "risible" unless you have a strong ideological determination to find them so. The claim that men have one less rib than women could fairly be called "risible" since it is so easily disproved. Damore's claim, as stated, is of a different kind. ..."
"... To the best of my knowledge, it has not been disproved: but even if it has been, it's still not "risible," as the disproving would have involved painstaking research and lengthy debates in scholarly journals. To persons not current with all that specialized research, it is a thing that might be true . ..."
"... Google is 80% male in its most technical departments. This hiring "anomaly" cannot be blamed on the young Damore, as I doubt he has any say in hiring matters. Brin, Page and Schmidt built up the company in its present form. ..."
"... Should Larry Page be so foolish as to write the sneering epistle suggested by the Economist, he would then have a hard time explaining Google's demographic makeup as he would have thrown away many of his best arguments. ..."
If all this sneering and gloating were not sufficiently emetic, this issue gives over
four full pages to grinding a boot heel into the face of James Damore, the programmer fired
by Google on August 7th for his internal company memo on sex differentials in suitability for software
work.
This was actually The Economist's second attempt to break this particular butterfly on
the wheel. Their previous edition (August 12th-18th) had run
a 600-word editorial and
a 1,000-word article in the Business Section both arguing that Google should not have
fired Damore but that his arguments about women and men displaying different interests were wrong,
wrong, wrong .
From the editorial:
An unbiased eye would light on social factors rather than innate differences as the reason
why only a fifth of computer engineers are women It would have been better for Larry Page, Google's
co-founder and the boss of Alphabet, its holding company, to write a ringing, detailed rebuttal
of Mr Damore's argument.
From the article:
Many of the memo's assertions were risible, such as the idea that women are not coders
because they are less intrigued by "things" than men are.
This is just ideological enforcement. Why is it more "unbiased" to presume social factors than
to presume innate differences? It's not more unbiased; it's just more CultMarx-compliant.
And why is that latter assertion "
risible " ("causing or
capable of causing laughter; laughable; ludicrous ")? It's not preposterous; it's in the category
of things that might or might not be true. Whether it is true or not can be determined by
careful empirical enquiry.
Assertions in that category are not "risible" unless you have a strong ideological determination
to find them so. The claim that men have one less rib than women could fairly be called "risible"
since it is so easily disproved. Damore's claim, as stated, is of a different kind.
To the best of my knowledge, it has not been disproved: but even if it has been, it's still
not "risible," as the disproving would have involved painstaking research and lengthy debates in
scholarly journals. To persons not current with all that specialized research, it is a thing that
might be true .
Well,
the four-page heel-grinding in this current issue is an attempt to write the "ringing, detailed
rebuttal of Mr Damore's argument" that The Economist recommended to Larry Page in last week's
editorial. It is a jeering, sneering specimen of equalist triumphalism.
Your interpretation is wrong. Your memo was a great example of what's called "motivated reasoning"!seeking
out only the information that supports what you already believe.
Uh: pot, kettle?
It was derogatory to women in our industry and elsewhere. Despite your stated support for diversity
and fairness, it demonstrated profound prejudice.
You should be free of ideological prejudices,
pure of
heart , as we are!
Your chain of reasoning had so many missing links that it hardly mattered what your argument
was based on. We try to hire people who are willing to follow where the facts lead, whatever their
preconceptions. In your case we clearly made a mistake.
So then wouldn't it be right to fire him?
You don't seem to understand what makes a great software engineer You clearly don't understand
our company, and so fail to understand what we are trying to do when we hire.
See previous.
I shouldn't have had to write this: I'm busy and a little effort on your part would have made
it unnecessary. But I know I have it easy. Women in our industry have to cope with this sort of
nonsense all the time.
Yours,
Larry
My impression is that Damore put considerable effort into his memo. And again, while some of his
assertions could be wrong, they are not missing-rib-level "nonsense."
But then, who's this James Damore pest, anyway? How many billion is he worth? Feugh!
Google is 80% male in its most technical departments. This hiring "anomaly" cannot be blamed
on the young Damore, as I doubt he has any say in hiring matters. Brin, Page and Schmidt built
up the company in its present form.
Should Larry Page be so foolish as to write the sneering epistle suggested by the Economist,
he would then have a hard time explaining Google's demographic makeup as he would have thrown
away many of his best arguments.
I share Joe Levantine's sorrow over the demise of this once great weekly. What a shame.
"... the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire ..."
"... To distill it to an aphorism, "A million guys with one buck, are no match for one guy with a million bucks." ..."
"... Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics. ..."
"... What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common? An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats. ..."
"... Some minorities are more equal than others. The Deep State, for example. ..."
"... It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation via the Republicans. ..."
My thesis is very simple: the reason why the US always support
foreign minorities to subvert states and use domestic minorities to suppress
the majority US population is because minorities are very easy to manipulate
and because minorities present no threat to the real rulers of the
AngloZionist Empire. That's all there is to it.
I think that minorities often, but not always, act and perceive things in
a way very different from the way majority groups do. Here is what I have observed:
Let's first look at minorities inside the US:
They are typically far more aware of their minority identity/status
than the majority. That is to say that if the majority is of skin color
A and the minority of skin color B, the minority will be much more acutely aware
of its skin color. They are typically much more driven and active
then the majority. This is probably due to their more acute perception of being
a minority. They are only concerned with single-issue politics , that single-issue being, of course, their minority status. Since minorities
are often unhappy with their minority-status, they are also often resentful
of the majority . Since minorities are mostly preoccupied by their minority-status
linked issue, they rarely pay attention to the 'bigger picture' and that, in
turn, means that the political agenda of the minorities typically does
not threaten the powers that be . Minorities often have a deep-seated
inferiority complex towards the putatively more successful majority.
Minorities often seek to identify other minorities with which
they can ally themselves against the majority.
To this list of characteristics, I would add one which is unique to foreign
minorities, minorities outside the US: since they have no/very little prospects
of prevailing against the majority, these minorities are very willing
to ally themselves with the AngloZionist Empire and that, in turn, often
makes them depended on the AngloZionist Empire, often even for their physical
survival.
The above are, of course, very general characterizations. Not all minorities
display all of these characteristics and many display only a few of them. But
regardless of the degree to which any single minority fits this list of characteristics,
what is obvious is that minorities are extremely easy to manipulate and that
they present no credible (full-spectrum) threat to the Empire.
The US Democratic Party is the perfect example of a party which heavily relies
on minority manipulation to maximize its power. While the Republican Party is
by and large the party of the White, Anglo, Christian and wealthy voters, the
Democrats try to cater to Blacks, women, Leftists, homosexuals, immigrants,
retirees, and all others who feel like they are not getting their fair share
of the proverbial pie. Needless to say, in reality there is only one party in
the US, you can call the the Uniparty, the Republicracts or the Demolicans,
but in reality both wings of the Big Money party stand for exactly the same
things. What I am looking at here is not at some supposed real differences,
but the way the parties present themselves. It is the combined action of these
two fundamentally identical parties which guarantees the status quo in US politics
which I like to sum up as "more of the same, only worse".
I would like to mention an important corollary of my thesis that minorities
are typically more driven than the majority. If we accept that minorities are
typically much more driven than most of the population, then we also immediately
can see why their influence over society is often out of proportion with the
numerical demographical "weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities
being more intelligent or more creative and everything to do with them willing
to being spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most
people.
So we have easy to manipulate, small groups, whose agenda does not threaten
the 1% (really, much less!), who like to gang up with other similar minorities
against the majority. Getting scared yet? It gets worse.
Western 'democracies' are mostly democracies only in name. In most of them
instead of "one man one vote" we see "one dollar one vote" meaning that big
money decides, not "the people". Those in real power have immense financial
resources which they cynically use to boost the already totally disproportional
power of the various minorities. Now this is really scary:
Easy to manipulate, small groups, highly driven, whose agenda does not threaten
the ruling plutocracy, who like to gang up with other similar minorities against
the majority and whose influence is vastly increased by immense sums of money
invested in them by the plutocracy. How is that for a threat to real people
power, to the ideals of democracy?!
The frightening truth is that the combination of minorities and big money
can easily hijack a supposedly 'democratic' country and subjugate the majority
of its population to the "rule of the few over the many".
Once we look this reality in the face we should also become aware of a very
rarely mentioned fact: while we are taught that democracies should uphold the
right of the minorities, the opposite is true: real democracies should
strive to protect majorities against the abuse of power from minorities!
I know, I have just committed a long list of grievous thoughtcrimes!
At those who might be angry at me, I will reply with a single sentence: please
name me a western country where the views of the majority of its people are
truly represented in the policies of their governments? And if you fail to come
up with a good example, then I need to ask you if the majority is clearly not
in power, then who is?
I submit that the plutocratic elites which govern the West have played a
very simple trick on us all: they managed to focus our attention on the many
cases in history when minorities were oppressed by majorities but completely
obfuscated the numerous cases whereminorities oppressed majorities.
Speaking of oppression: minorities are far more likely to benefit and, therefore,
use violence than the majority simply because their worldview often centers
on deeply-held resentments. To put it differently, minorities are much more
prone to settling scores for past wrongs (whether real or imagined) than a majority
which typically does not even think in minority versus majority categories
.
Not that majorities are always benign or kind towards minorities, not at
all, humans being pretty much the same everywhere, but by the fact that they
are less driven, less resentful and, I would argue, even less aware of their
"majority status" they are less likely to act on such categories.
Foreign minorities play a crucial role in US foreign policy. Since time immemorial
rulers have been acutely aware of the " divide et impera " rule, there
is nothing new here. But the US has become the uncontested leader in the art
of using national minorities to create strife and overthrow a disobedient regime.
The AngloZionist war against the Serbian nation is the perfect example of how
this is done: the US supported any minority against the Serbs, even groups that
the US classified as terrorists, as long as this was against the Serbs. And,
besides being Orthodox Slavs and traditional allies of Russia, what was the
real 'crime' of the Serbs? Being the majority of course! The Serbs had no need
of the AngloZionists to prevail against the various ethnic (Croats) and religious
(Muslims) minorities they lived with. That made the Serbs useless to the Empire.
But now that the US has created a fiction of an independent Kosovo, the Kosovo
Albanians put up a
statue of Bill Clinton in Prishtina and, more relevantly, allowed the Empire
to build the
Camp
Bondsteel mega-base in the middle of their nasty little statelet, right
on the land of the Serbian population that was ethnically cleansed during the
Kosovo war. US democracy building at its best indeed
The same goes for Russia (and, the Soviet Union) where the US went as far
as to support the right of self-determination for
non-existing
"captive nations" such as "Idel-Ural" and "Cossakia" . I would even argue
that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo (What in the world
is a "Belarussian"?!).
I am fully aware that in the typical TV watching westerner any discussion
of minorities focusing on their negative potential immediately elicits visions
of hammers and sickles, smoking crematoria chimneys, chain gangs, lynchmobs,
etc. This is basic and primitive conditioning. Carefully engineered events such
as the recent riots in Charlottesville only further reinforce this type of mass
conditioning. This is very deliberate and, I would add, very effective. As a
result, any criticism, even just perceived criticism, of a minority immediately
triggers outraged protests and frantic virtue-signaling (not me! look how good
I am!!).
Of course, carefully using minorities is just one of the tactics used by
the ruling plutocracy. Another of their favorite tricks is to created conflicts
out of nothing or ridiculously bloat the visibility of an altogether minor topic
(example: homo-marriages). The main rule remains the same though: create tensions,
conflicts, chaos, subvert the current order (whatever that specific order might
be), basically have the serfs fight each other while we rule .
In Switzerland an often used expression to describe "the people" is "the
sovereign". This is a very accurate description of the status of the people
in a real democracy: they are "sovereign" in the sense that nobody rules over
them. In that sense, the issue in the United States is one of sovereignty: as
of today, the real sovereign of the US are the corporations, the deep state,
the Neocons, the plutocracy, the financiers, the Israel Lobby – you name it,
anybody BUT the people.
In that system of oppression, minorities play a crucial role, even if they
are totally unaware of this and even if, at the end of the day, they don't benefit
from it. Their perception or their lack of achievements in no way diminishes
the role that they play in the western pseudo-democracies.
How do with deal with this threat?
I think that the solution lies with the minorities themselves: they need
to be educated about the techniques which are used to manipulate them, and they
need to be convinced that their minority status does not, in reality, oppose
them to the majority and that both the majority and the minorities have a common
interest in together standing against those who seek to rule over them all.
Striving to remain faithful to my "Putin fanboy" reputation, I will say that
I believe that Russia under Putin is doing exactly the right thing by giving
the numerous Russian minorities a stake in the future of the Russian state and
by convincing the minorities that their interests and the interest of the majority
of the people are fundamentally the same: being a minority does not have to
mean being in opposition to the majority. It is a truism that minorities need
to be fully integrated into the fabric of society and yet this is rarely practiced
in the real world. This is certainly not what I observe today in Europe or the
US.
The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant motto
to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement "Equality
and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only political movement
in France which does not want to favor one group at the expense of the other.
Everybody else either wants to oppress the "français de souche" (the native,
mostly White and Roman-Catholic majority) on behalf of the "français de branche"
(immigrants, naturalized citizens, minorities), or oppress the "français de
branche" on behalf of the "français de souche". Needless to say, the only ones
who benefit from this clash is the ruling Zionist elite (best represented by
the infamous
CRIF , which makes the US AIPAC look comparatively honorable and weak).
As for Soral, he is vilified by the official French media with no less hate
than Trump is vilified in the US by the US Ziomedia.
Still, equality and reconciliation are the two things which the majorities
absolutely must offer the minorities if they want to prevent the latter to fall
prey to the manipulation techniques used by those forces who want to turn everybody
into obedient and clueless serfs. Those majorities who delude themselves and
believe that they can simply solve the "minority problem" by expelling or otherwise
making these minorities disappear are only kidding themselves. To 'simply' solve
the "minority problem' by cracking down on these minorities inevitably
"While we all typically [have] several co-existing identities inside
us (say, German, retired, college-educated, female, Buddhist, vegetarian,
exile, resident of Brazil, etc. as opposed to just "White"), in manipulated
minorities one such identity (skin color, religion, etc.) becomes over-bloated
and trumps all the others." -- The Saker
That's a great critique of "identity politics" and one reason why identity
politics is self-limiting, maybe even self-destructive (as well as destructive
of democracy).
Another point: The poorer people are, the more vulnerable they are to identity politics.
It's like an Indian movie I once saw that was constructed as a family
history. When the family experienced many setbacks, one after another, until
they were all disheartened, the patriarch of the family spoke up, saying,
"Remember, we are Bengali!" That was the turning point in the film: after
that things began to improve for the family so that the film could have
a happy Bolliwood ending.
That was like saying, "Remember, we have a proud history!"
There was also a Yiddish joke that someone told me, like this: There
was a young Jewish man in some place like Minsk, somewhere in Eastern Europe,
and he saw an advertisement by none other than a great member of the Rothschild
banking family. The ad said "Wanted: young Jewish man for difficult and
physically challenging assignment." So the hero (or anti-hero?) of this
story set out immediately for Paris. Unfortunately, our hero experienced
many tragedies, even losing an arm and a leg. But he was determined and
he persevered, with the help of a crutch. Finally, he had to camp out in
front of the gate of the Rothschild mansion outside of Paris.
Eventually,
the great Rothschild had his carriage stop and spoke to the man, saying,
"You know, I've seen you standing here day after day what is it that you
want?"
Our hero brought out the advertisement that he had carried with him
through all his misadventures. The great Rothschild read the advertisement
and exclaimed, "What's the matter with you? Did you not read that the job
was physically challenging?" To which our hero responded, "Yes, but, Mr.
Rothschild, the ad says "young Jewish man."
Being myself a gentile, I did not at first get the joke, but eventually
I got a chuckle out of it.
What do all races, genders, nationalities and creeds have in common?
An overwhelming majority of them are working class. That's why I am white
and Nationalist but not a White Nationalist. The working class wants work
and wages. The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the
only effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the
working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness the
American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others throats.
I also lived for 5 years in Washington, DC, which was something like
70% Black and, at the time, openly and often rudely hostile to Whites
(I never thought of myself as a color before, but I sure felt like one
during those 5 years). And now I am a "legal alien" living in the US.
Anyway, while I am "White" (what a nonsensical category!)
Nonsensical? Really? Both the DC blacks and their DC (((paymasters)))
hate your "category" but you're still confused and want to hold hands and
educate them ? Do you have children?
The French author Alain Soral has proposed what I think is a brilliant
motto to deal with this situation in France. He has called his movement
"Equality and Reconciliation" and as of right now, this is the only
political movement in France which does not want to favor one group
at the expense of the other.
Demographically speaking, the native French group ( white category
FYI) is already doomed to lose their homeland unless they reverse the invasion
and punish the plotters. Reconciling with their invaders would be assisted
suicide, surely. Almost as bad as the forced miscegenation idea proposed
by Nicolas "Jew Midget" Sarkozy a few years back.
You need to wake up and check for any vitamin/mineral deficiencies you
might have, Saker. Our ancestors butchered countless invaders to
give us the land we're standing on – they didn't reconcile it away.
One single question shows how profoundly silly The Saker's his "solution"
is:
Why would it be easier to convince resentful, envious minorities to just
get along with the majority than to convince the elites to act better, according
to the noblesse oblige principle?
Elites will always misuse their power. Minorities/majorities will always
quarrel and resent each other.
Give us (back) ethnically homogeneous states instead. No panacea, but
the besf we can hope for.
The ruling elites of US (both democrats and republicans) can be divided
into 2 categories:
1. The ones who think that they are better because of their race.
2. The ones who think that they are better because they were able to overcome
the feeling of being better because of their race. In other words – the
morally superior ubermensch instead of racially superior ubermensch.
In reality, category 2 doesn't exist (at least not among the ruling elites)
– they are all liars. They haven't been able to overcome any feeling of
superiority, they just added another one – the one of moral superiority.
Actually, the ruling elites for the most part are still category 1, only
pretending to be category 2. Not only do they feel they are superior to
other races, they feel they are superior to their own race – the poorer
members of it.
The ruling elites are manipulating the population of US into declaring
that they belong in either one of these 2 camps. Result: Charlottesville
riots.
This post would sound eminently reasonable if the white identitarians
had any kind of state blessing, but they are a de facto criminal element
being suppressed. Not for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of the
elite who are Jewish, not Zionist, and not very Anglo.
White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white leadership
were transparently in control over the state. The wellspring of their support
comes from the fact that what whites do exist in the power structure are
absolutely and transparently subservient to other interests.
One of the problems is that the US was (and still is) a republic-with
a small r. The republican form of government assumes that the voters are
too stupid or ignorant to pass laws, so they have to hire professional political
types to write their governing laws for them. The politicos are easy targets
for the powers that be to manipulate, evidently.
The problem is – as always – with the numbers. The large influx of migrants
is changing the demographics and that changes the goals and behaviour of
each group. The minority groups can see the promised land in the future
when they will take over. The majority knows that they cannot stop it by
"equality and reconciliation" (whatever that would mean in practise, maybe
endless workshops to whine about each other?).
The numbers game has gone too far and there is no easy way to restore
stability. E.g. the labor markets in the West cannot be fixed without drastic
restrictions on supply of new labor from the Third World. The article has
some valuable insights, but the lame 'solution' it suggests is useless.
Another issue not addressed is that many minorities are a majority in
their regions leading to a geographic instability by putting borders in
question. That separation actually makes sense in many cases.
What we have had for some time are the elites behaving badly, they have
stopped being responsible and thoughtful. The best solution I can see would
be for the elites to sober up and start taking their role seriously again.
Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos. Those
are the wages of the baby boomer idiocy.
Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.
At the last French elections the political elite did anything possible to
prevent Front National getting legal political power.
With fifteen % of the votes, of those who bothered to vote, some 44%, Macron
got an absolute majority in French parliament, some 360 seats.
FN six or so.
Yet, alas, anyone knows he won the elections, but not the streets.
As his popularity goes down, Sun King habits, the strikes announced for
11 and 12 September will show who really is in power in France.
If you want to lesson the influence of minorities in western democracies,
then its essential to provide a more a la carte form of democracy that is
less open to elite manipulation. Options include getting rid of political
parties and voting directly for heads of government departments, or allowing
voters to vote on which party gets to run each of the key government departments.
It's impossible to have a functional political system when the political
parties themselves are allowed to decide what issues voters get to vote
on, and can racially divide the electorate by providing policy packages
which play to voter weaknesses. This results in absurd results like blacks
in the US voting for mass unskilled immigration via the Democrats, and poor
American whites voting for increased defense spending and financial liberalisation
via the Republicans.
There is no way around this problem without radically changing the political
system.
Easier said than done. Most minorities would support anti-majority politics
even IF they knew they were being manipulated. You severely underestimate
the human attraction to tribalism.
A more plausible plan would be to turn minorities against so-called 'AngloZionist'
values, which is already partially complete, since minorities are rarely
Anglos and therefore don't subscribe to their values as much. Have a look
at any SJW gathering. Always disproportionately white, even in very diverse
cities. It's much easier to convince even longtime resident minorities like
blacks that things like transgenderism is bullshit, than it is to convince
emotionally committed whites.
This would result in a country that allows multiple competing tribalisms,
but none of which would be very useful as pawns by the elites. Not as good
as homogeneity, but better than the current situation.
"Everybody gang up against the WEIRDs" is a nice thought and I would
love to see it, but it's just not very likely.
There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:
Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being
manipulated
Offer the minorities a future based on equality and reconciliation
Put the spotlight on those who fan the flames of conflict and try to
turn minorities and majorities against each other
Surprisingly weak and naive.
A simple question:
What's wrong with Serb approach in Kosovo before Western intervention?
Spare me "virtue signalling" .. if you can.
I think it would've worked if West hadn't stepped up with overwhelming
FORCE.
It worked in "Operation Storm". Serbs as victims but that's precisely the
point.
Perfect example how it CAN work.
So .following the same logic ..if IF .West used the same approach why
it wouldn't work?
Say .French government does exactly the same as Croats did with Serbs in
Croatia or Serbs with Albanians/whatever in Kosovo.
There is only effective way defuse the explosive potential of minorities:
Educate minorities and explain to them that they are being manipulated
Educate those joining anti-minority movements that they are also being
manipulated
While those ideas have merit, I predict they'll be impossible to implement.
Education is an active process and one cannot "be" educated in the passive
sense. People, like other creatures, can be schooled and trained, but that's
not the same as acquiring an education.
There are several reasons why the majority will never acquire any meaningful
education. Most people simply do not possess the requisite curiosity to
begin any sort of educational process and would rather make decisions based
on immediate emotions. A true education requires active questioning of the
standing myths and myths are evidently too comfortable for most to discard
or even doubt. Most folks appear too lazy and or too timid to face the hard
truths and would rather follow the dictates of some slick Peruna peddler.
A shocking percentage of people apparently love the feeling of "superiority"
of "knowing" something even if their belief is utter, easily discardable,
hogwash and actively reject any challenges to it. For example, the mindless
charge of "conspiracy theorist" is used to dismiss, without thinking, anything
but the spoon fed drivel they see on teevee.
I could go on, but this is already too long and is mostly preaching to
the choir.
Which is a key reason that things are not likely to improve for at least
a few more millennia. Accepting wages is a form of slavery, and most folks
simply cannot see beyond that trap. The system has evolved so that people
readily accept the idea of wages as a necessity (along with the extortion
and theft known as taxes). There's a huge difference between making (earning)
a living and holding a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince
anyone of that.
Tolstoy wrote about the concept of wage slavery over a century ago and
it makes good reading to this day.
"But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of [chattel] slavery was
only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary,
and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds
a greater number of people in bondage."
The ruling class gives us war and welfare. Solidarity is the only
effective defense against concentrated wealth. Absent solidarity the
working class is a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Witness
the American prole. Simultaneously under the lash and at each others
throats.
All true, except the part about solidarity, which would definitely be
a huge step in the right direction for us proles and peasants, but is probably
as unobtainable as true education of the masses.
As I see it, the best an individual can do is to toss a monkey wrench
into the system whenever we can get away with it, but that requires an understanding
of who are enemies are and that seems nearly impossible to achieve. Thus
it's effective only in theory. In practice, it's probably as ephemeral as
a gas emission in a tornado.
Short of that, we will have chaos, and not the fun type of chaos.
Chaos is on the march.
It appears the minority has magically organized itself and planned
a 10-day march from Charlottesville to DC, there to demand the impeachment/removal
of Donald Trump, and to carry on a non-violent occupation (irony
alert).
Manipulated majorities are an even greater danger.
An even bigger threat is the manipulat ing minorities aka certain
(most?) elements of the money bag crowd.
This problem has been recognized for millennia and was discussed in detail
by many early Americans who nevertheless argued in favor of a constitution
and a centralized bureaucracy that favored the rich.
Virtue cannot dwell with wealth either in a city or in a house.
-Diogenes of Sinope, quoted by Stobaeus, iv. 31c. 88
But if you will take note of the mode of proceedings of men, you
will see that all those who come to great riches and great power have
obtained them either by fraud or by force; and afterwards, to hide the
ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the false title
of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence.
- Niccolo Machiavelli , HISTORY OF FLORENCE AND OF THE AFFAIRS OF
ITALY, Book 3 chap 3Para 8
" wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want
of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of
dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence."
THOMAS PAINE, DISSERTATION ON FIRST-PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT, 1795
AfroAmericans who are descended from slaves should take into account
the fact that their ancestors were protected because they had value. As
a result they now number some 42 million and produced the last President.
Comparison with the indigenous natives who after centuries of genocide number
about 2 million and are mostly on reservations should give pause.
Nonwhites within the borders of the US are not innocent bystanders They
are enthusiastically voting The Historic Native Born White American Majority
into a violently persecuted racial minority within the borders of America..
If you have a greater identification with Muslim "Americans" and Hindu
"Americans" than European American Natives then just go back to Russia..and
take the Hindus and Muslims with you.
It wasn't very nice of you not to let my comment go through yesterday
in response to commenter Eric .on The Vineyard of the Saker
You are waging demographic warfare against my Racial Tribe .
@WorkingClass The Chinese in California are Chinese Race Nationalist
The Hindus in California are Hindu Race Nationalists You are a Civic Nationalist
Cuck.
Using minorities as an excuse to oppress majorities is a classic colonial
technique. The British set themselves up as the "protectors" of the Muslims
in India, the Turks in Cyprus and the Protestants in Ireland, for example.
Putin justifies his actions in Ukraine by claiming that he is "protecting"
the ethnic Russian minority from the dastardly ethnic Ukrainian majority.
Ditto for the various cyber-attacks on Estonia. One assumes that the same
treatment would be meted out to the Belarusians if they dared to assert
their national sovereignty. The US captive nations legislation the author
refers to includes Belarus (designated "White Ruthenia"), Ukraine and the
three Baltic republics. I am unaware of any alliance ever having existed,
or existing today, between Serbia and Russia. Like "Eurasia", that "alliance"
seems to have been invented by US neocons when they were trying to use Putin
as an "asset".
Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted The
Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into a racial
minority?
"Manipulated minorities represent a major danger to democratic states."
Well, yes. But the manipulation of minorities to change legal frameworks
or disassemble governments has been ongoing since the French Revolution.
'They' first foster a sense of oppression, more or less justified, then
move to grant the new rights. Monarchies suffered the strategy. Europe should
know the drill, witness the received oral tradition "Czechoslovaquia is
another spelling for Rothschild."
Breaking up the US along racial lines is exactly what 'they' want. They
want the fighting "whites" to come out, give the reason for changes in law.
The Trump impeachment is deliberate provocation.
There has never been a 'white nation', it is a silly, ahistorical idea.
Nations are built around culture. Fight for the culture. Use the damn high
IQ.
@Issac "White nationalism would have zero credibility if actual white
leadership were transparently in control over the state."
Nope, but thanks for playing. White nationalism would have zero credibility
if the leadership actually promoted American–WASP–interests. There is no
escaping the Posterity clause, period. There is no magic dirt, no civic
nationalism, no immersion in American culture, that can replace descendants
of the English colonists that understand the importance of the Rights of
Englishmen. The US was never intended to be the world's largest rest stop
for every poor downtrodden person on Earth. Minorities now all undocumented
immigrants since 1965 (Hart-Cellar).
Homogeneous nation's are born from Heterogeneous nation's. We are witnesses
to the birth pains. The length of the labor depends on how long the majority
will tolerate the minorities. Reconciliation isn't just impossible–its not
even on the table, unless you reverse time. They. Have. To. Go. Back.
@Anon Well..you are wrong about that..America since it's inception has
always been a White Nation If you don't believe me..just ask Professor Noel
Ignatieve-the Father of White Studies. Where I differ from Professor Noel
Ignatieve:I think it's GREAT that America has historically been a White
Nation as did Socialist Labor Leader Samuel Gompers.
As far as your last two sentences go:Bring back the 1888 Chinese Legal
Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!!
Saker
The highly racialized Nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc is the Voting
Bloc for War on Christian Russia not Trump's Whitey Racist Voting Bloc..
@Intelligent Dasein Damned right. If anything, he is the descendant
of African slave traders . But his skin is sort of black and he's
got a funky name, so he can pass as one of the "oppressed" minorities.
@jacques sheete 1 Timothy 5:18 ESV /
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain," and, "The laborer deserves his wages."
Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable.
But with what will you replace them?
There's a huge difference between making (earning) a living and holding
a job for wages, but I doubt I'll ever be able to convince anyone of
that.
Try me.
I was a union man back in the day when private sector unions were active
and had support in Washington. We had a contractual relationship with employers
that was qualitatively different from serfdom or chattel slavery and a huge
improvement over the wage slavery that prevailed before the American labor
movement.
As ideologies go the Anarchists have the best of it. But even they are
Utopians. Capitalism sux. There will never be a free market utopia. But
neither will there be a workers paradise. Human beings are limited in what
they can accomplish by human nature. That's the law. I'm only interested
in what works in the real world, however imperfectly.
Nature does not know political frontiers. She first puts the living
beings on this globe and watches the free game of energies. He who is
strongest in courage and industry receives, as her favorite child, the
right to be the master of existence.
If a people limits itself to domestic colonization, at a time when
other races cling to greater and greater surfaces of the earth's soil,
it will be forced to exercise self-restriction even while other nations
will continue to increase.
For some day this case will occur, and it will arrive the earlier
the smaller the living space is that a people has at its disposal. As,
unfortunately only too frequently, the best nations, or, better still,
the really unique cultured races, the pillars of all human progress,
in their pacifistic blindness decide to renounce the acquisition of
new soil in order to content themselves with 'domestic* colonization,
while
inferior nations know full well how to secure enormous areas on this
earth for themselves, this would lead to the following result:
The culturally superior, but less ruthless, races would have to limit,
in consequence of their limited soil, their increase even at a time
when the culturally inferior, but more brutal and more natural, people,
in consequence of their greater living areas, would be able to increase
themselves without limit.
In other words: the world will, therefore, some day come into the
hands of a mankind that is
inferior in culture but superior in energy and activity.
For then there will be only two possibilities in the no matter how
distant future: either the world will be ruled according to the ideas
of our modern democracy, and then the stress of every decision falls
on the races which are stronger in numbers, or the world will be dominated
according to the law of the natural order of energy, and then the people
of brute strength will be victorious, and again, therefore, not the
nations of self-restriction.
But one may well believe that this world will still be subject to
the fiercest fights for the existence of mankind.
In the end, only the urge for self-preservation will eternally succeed.
Under its pressure so-called 'humanity,' as the expression of a mixture
of stupidity, cowardice, and an imaginary superior intelligence, will
melt like snow under the March sun. Mankind has grown strong in eternal
struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.
Hint: today in an appearance on an internationally broadcast program,
a minion from Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD) dismissed as "conspiracy
theory" the suggestion that the USA/(Trump admin) is involved in Afghanistan
"because Afghanistan has vast lithium resources, which US needs for new
technologies" [see this 2010 report,
Read More
Minorities are nothing but trouble, even though political correctness
demands that we not see that or dare to say so. History offers not a single
– NOT ONE SINGLE – example of harmony and mutual love between the minorities
and the majority in any community/country/nation. Prove me wrong, cite one
significant exception.
Don't cite Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans in the American melting
pot. They came with full intent to be melted, they came white, Christian,
and western in outlook and culture. They came pre-cooked for the melting
pot. Can't say the same for the Muslims streaming in today. Nor for the
Hindus and the Orientals coming in today. Leaving aside the Muslims (not
even worth discussing in any talk of assimilation), the Hindus and Orientals
today stand aside and apart, both groups highly conscious of their groups'
share in the American pie. The Hispanics will make Spanish the lingua Franca
– already largely done in California. So what exactly can the melting of
Spanish and English languages produce? Spanglish? No, it will be one or
the other, depending on which group acquires demographic majority and sufficient
political clout. Who will melt whom?
Is it ok with you that the Chinese and Hindus in California voted
The Historic Native Born White American Majority in California into
a racial minority?
Please elaborate on what you mean. I definitely do not see myself as
a racial minority in California.
Manipulated Minorities Represent a Major Danger for Democratic States
The solution is an easy one – we must abandon the Jew Matrix of identity
politics and return to the Christian Matrix of neighborliness.
Jew thought is about biological identity, and all the fear and hate associated
with it – the Christian philosophical mindset is an intellectual entreaty
to "love your neighbor as you love yourself." Hmm – one favors gonad driven
actions – the other using our brains to overcome our biology, and make peace
and abundance.
The differences are stark and profound – we can see what the Jew way
has brought us – Jew tribalism is killing America and the West.
If we want a just kind world we cannot abandon philosophical Christianity.
Philosophical Christianity is not about "the virgin birth" and "the ascension
into heaven" – it is about a practical way to peaceably live with each other
and build an abundance for all.
@Cloak And Dagger Non-Hispanic white is now down to 37.7% of the California
population as of 2016 according to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts ..probably
less if you include all the uncounted illegals.
"I would even argue that the Empire has created several nation ex nihilo
(What in the world is a "Belarussian"?!)."
Hey, us Anglo-Zionists didn't create Belarus. That was an indigenous
or possibly German puppet state created (sort of) in early 1918. It was
then conquered by the Bolsheviks and reborn as the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, a constituent republic of the USSR till it fell apart, at which
point it became (sort of) independent.
The Anglo-Zionists had nothing to do with any of this, with probable
exception of the collapse of the USSR.
@Intelligent Dasein Actually, if we go back a dozen or two generations,
it's probable most people on the planet are descended from both slaveowners
and slaves. Especially if you're a little loose with the definition of slave.
@Bragadocious If we had ever made a serious consistent effort to kill
all the Indians, they'd be gone. But there seem to be quite a few of them
still around. About 5M, in fact, considerably more than lived in the boundaries
of the USA in 1491.
Argentina had similar Indian problems during the same time period (late
19th century) we were fighting our final Indian wars. But they had a different
approach: extermination.
Quite successful at it, too. Very few Indians left in Argentina. And
they didn't import any other minorities, which means Argentina is now upwards
of 90% "white." Much more so than USA, in fact.
If we accept that minorities are typically much more driven than
most of the population, then we also immediately can see why their influence
over society is often out of proportion with the numerical demographical
"weight". This has nothing to do with these minorities being more intelligent
or more creative and everything to do with them willing to being
spend much more time and efforts towards their objectives than most
people.
It's true that there is greater activism, but the key ingredient is probably
ethnic patronage.
A.H. gave an (approving) explanation of how it works:
"In the old Austria, nothing could be done without patronage. That's
partly explained by the fact that nine million Germans were in fact rulers,
in virtue of an unwritten law, of fifty million non-Germans. This German
ruling class took strict care that places should always be found for Germans.
For them this was the only method of maintaining themselves in this
privileged situation. The Balts of German origin behaved in the same way
towards the Slav population."
Hitler's Table Talk. Conversation Nş 109, 15th-16th January 1942
American Jewry has been following the same policy since the early 1900′s,
pushing for Jewish candidates in key placings, who if successful, are expected
to return the favour. On a "level playing field" this has a ratchet effect
whereby corporate management and key media, finance and government positions
can be gradually taken over with Anglos squeezed out in a rather unobvious
way ("He wasn't the right candidate for reasons A,B,C X,Y,Z").
Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years. I
believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education. How
has it worked? What does the US Census data show for the indicator median
education level persons over 25 years of age in 1960 demonstrate when compared
to 2010? Compare for both white and black. Wow! we all are much smarter.
Okay, as Rodney King so aptly stated it "why can' t everbody just get along?"
@Wally okay wally, i'm only going to say this once, so please pay attention.
the gas chambers were but one method by which jews were killed. starvation,
disease, forced labor, firing squads, killed legions. what if it was only
4 million jews who perished in the camps? or 3? does that make it better.
one last thing: elie wiesel is not the wonderful man he is purported to
be.
Wages are as old as dirt. I can understand why you find them objectionable.
But with what will you replace them?
Dear Sir, as I've often stated, I like what you have to say and agree
with 99% of it. I also respect the fact that your reply to me was obviously
respectful and sincere.
My usual answer to your question is to replace them with nothing. For
example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it; I'd rather
do without. Instead of wages and a time clock, I advocate finding other
(hopefully respectable) sources of income.
I realize that in this environment, it's nearly impossible to do without
wages, but that shows how much our system sux, hence my objection to them
and the system. I pretty much became disgusted with the concept after working
at a few jobs that were really akin to slavery or some other unsavory paid
profession, so I worked to make a living without punching time clock. That's
not to say that I did not receive money for my services, but I managed to
do without a direct boss during my earning days. Several other rather cantankerous
members of my family manged to do the same, and some still do. I'm not saying
that to brag, but to point out that it can be done.
I do admit that it now seems nearly impossible to do that sort of thing,
but a close neighbor, in his thirty's, manages to do that and does quite
well. He does have the advantage of both a good work ethic and access to
a family business though.
The bottom line for me is that it's too bad that we have to submit to
bosses for the most part to earn a living. From that we seem to learn to
submit to other forms of "authority" with little or no questioning, and
it seems to be a downhill slide from there. Also, the more power the bosses
get, they more they control, and the less chance there is for people to
become independent. that's no way to live.
Since you consider "working for wages" as not "making a living,"
That is a false statement. It is both illogical and unreasonable based
on what I actually said.
Working for wages in one of several ways of earning a living. It just
happens to be, in my way of thinking, one of the least desirable for many
reasons.
I'm curious what you would consider to constitute "making a living."
Educate the minorities! I have bwen hearing that for over 50 years.
I believe that was a substantial rationale for Federal Aid to education.
Most folks are entirely ineducable and seem to like it that way. Of course,
it's a fine sounding pretext for mass brainwashing and it's attendant bureaucracy
and source of profits.
How has it worked?
It's probably worked just as intended but not at all as advertised!
See John Taylor Gatto and Upton Sinclair's "The Goslings" and the Goosestep"
which basically describe schooling in America as a tool for corporations.
what if it was only 4 million jews who perished in the camps? or
3? does that make it better?
Well, in several countries you can go to jail, and many have, for saying
it was less than 6, so go figure. Norman Finkelstein was destroyed by the
"Holocaust Industry" for showing in the simplest terms that if you add up
the numbers of supposed "victims" and "survivors", the official figures
are patently absurd. The more you dig, the more absurd it gets.
The Saker: You are not a "minority." You are a Caucasian, the European
branch, ethnically Russian. You are Christian, specifically Orthodox. You
are one of the interesting groups that make up the Caucasian peoples. You
have nothing in common with blacks/Asians.
The Democratic party is the party of nonwhites, non-Christians, sexual
degenerates. Manipulation has nothing to do with this. Minorities know they
are inferiors. What they are doing is because they realize they can never
accomplish what Caucasians/Europeans/ Christians/neopagans have accomplished.
This means it is time for separation/deportation/repatriation.
This is coming. An RCC priest "confessed" to having been in the KKK when
he was a teenager. The US Conference of Bishops has established an ad hoc
committee to address racism. This is the final nail in the coffin of the
RCC. Homosexuals have taken over the priesthood. Priests do not preach about
hell, sin, repentance. Now that this KKK priest has been exposed, from now
on sermons will only cover "racism," the worst sin.
Caucasian Christans/pagans have to deal with the reality that world history
can be summed up in two words: IQ, which is tied to race. The past 2000
years of Western civilization united under the RCC are gone. There has to
be a new paradigm shift to deal with the future and what needs to be done.
@anonymous I hope they act like they have at every event they have been
a part of and the president acts accordingly. Trump needs to hire people
to record the whole thing and put it all up on a new website thats created
just to host the event. Dozens of live feeds from dozens of angles. All
put up on this new website just so there will be no confusion. Once the
left riots, because they will riot, National guard needs to be called and
these domestic terrorists need to be put down. He then needs to put out
an executive order to shut down all propaganda news agencies that are spinning
this, and if people want to see what happened, view the live feeds from
dozens of angles on the newly created website. And if people bitch about
how its wrong to have this up, fuck them. Its time to take off the kiddy
gloves.
@Tim Howells It was more like around 300,000 in all of the German camps
since their inception back in the mid-1930′s, according to the International
Red Cross. And that refers to all camp inmates of all ethnic backgrounds.
It is entirely possible that many Jews may have been killed on the Eastern
Front or in the Soviet Union, but that can hardly be blamed solely upon
the Germans, who were not known to be savagely cruel or vengeful- even though
the anti-partisan actions may have led to some excesses.
In any case, there is zero evidence for "millions of Jews" killed by
the Germans. There are no mass graves commensurate with such figures, nor
is there any documentary evidence of a deliberate plan of "extermination."
@jacques sheete I understand you quite well I think. I have worked on
commission. I have been self employed. For a time I was a soldier. I have
worked for wages for mom and pop business and for large corporations and
held both union and non union jobs. I did a few years working for a not
for profit homeless shelter. I am a Jack of all trades and (unfortunately)
master of none.
On union jobs (IBEW and Teamsters) I had the great benefit of having
a contract with my employer that spelled out the duties and privileges of
both the worker and the company. This meant that both labor and management
worked from the same set of rules. The path to promotion was defined as
was the possible cause for termination. Personalities had nothing to do
with anything. The boss and I followed the same rules. It was nothing like
being subject to the whims and prejudices of one man.
" For example if I had a case of the gleet, I'd rather not replace it;
I'd rather do without."
Having a "job" can be worse than the gleet.
Unfortunately a mans gotta eat.
@Ivy The white trash (as of 2016, down to 37.7% of California's population)
has simply been replaced by brown trash in California. The only question
remaining is which ethnic elite will run the state ..the jooies or the chinkies
or the hindus. Or will the ethnics simply rule via a de facto coalition?
Whitey's demise in CA is an accomplished fact ..with AZ and TX soon to follow
and eventually OR, WA, ID, and CO. The efforts of James K. Polk are soon
to be fully reversed. And yes, Ivy, you will have employment ..every Chinese
has been promised a white house boy and white concubine by 2050.
the same tolerant technology has been applied five thousand years ago
in the Sumerian civilization
what was a non semitic composed society. Few hundred years prior to the
destruction of that culture
semitic tribes were allowed to settle in, first in smaller numbers , then
in the name of tolerance larger migrating groups were allowed , and enjoyed
benefits of education, comfortable, cultured living. The original majority
of the population were builders and workers , the migrants for the most
part were users, who's interest were to find an easy way to become the more.
The complete opposite of mentality. In time the semitic migrants were able
to build up a fifth column , moved in to powerful positions such as religion
and astrology , and from then on destruction has begun. The original populous
were pushed out, part of them were forcefully crossbred , the rest of them
flee and
build new countries in Europa . The migrants of that time gained written
culture , tailored clothing ,
the benefit of toilet so not to go to the bushes to relieve themselves .
This time around there is no place left to flee.
@WorkingClass I, too, think I understand from whence you come.
I agree with the concept of labor unions but recognize that they too
can be turned against the interests of the workers, and unfortunately, have
been.
I do applaud you for your success working within the system and I have
no doubt that you did it as a sincere, able and good man. I also respect
your views and thank you for sharing them.
As for bosses, I loathe them so much that I myself never hired employees
because I didn't want to be a boss any more than I wanted to answer to one.
I almost get physically sick when I see that the window of opportunity for
youngsters to follow a independent lifestyle is next to nil and getting
tougher all the time.
I do still counsel my younger relatives to acquire as much experience
as they can so that they are in a position to have some control over their
own lives. I'm also actively involved in fortifying my grandkids with both
defiance and the attitudes and skills to back it up.
Is that attitude Utopian? No doubt to some degree it is, but so is the
attitude of submission, i.e., the wish for everything to be taken care of
so long as one submits.
There is much contention as to whether even a single jew was killed
in a gas chamber.
Not only is there much contention, but there is no credible evidence
that it really happened. Besides, the numbers are farcical.
Where do they get 6 million?
"Allowing for a maximum of 100,000 who succeeded in emigrating from
Europe, this would bring the total number of Jews under the direct rule
of Nazi Germany to about 3,200,000."
Distribution of the Jewish Population of Europe 1933-. 1940," prepared
by Mr. Moses Moskowitz
AMERICAN JEWISH YEAR BOOK 1941-1942, page 662
"I submit that the real truth is totally different. My thesis is very
simple: the reason why the US always support foreign minorities to subvert
states and use domestic minorities to suppress the majority US population
is because minorities are very easy to manipulate and because minorities
present no threat to the real rulers of the AngloZionist Empire. That's
all there is to it."
That is pretty much it, save for the origins. WASP culture's Germanic
basis began by hating the native British Isles. That set the pattern:WASPs
most hate those from whom they steal or otherwise wrong gravely. The Reformation
provided the perfect theological and philosophical justifications for that
pattern to become something much greater.
The Anglo-Saxon Puritans were Judaizing heretics. You cannot over-emphasize
that point. WASAP culture from the moment it was crystalized, truly formed,
was one that saw the world through Jewish-influenced, Jewish-fawning, eyes.
Naturally and inevitably, once the true WASPs gained total control of the
government, with the Puritan Revolution, their fearless leader, Oliver Cromwell,
allied with Jews. He took Jewish money to wage war, to exterminate cultures
and make at least virtual serfs of whole populations.
White Christian populations.
WASP culture began with an alliance with Jews, allowing Jews back into
England, with special rights and privileges that the vast majority of British
Isles native Christians did not have, that allowed the WASPs to continue
waging war to exterminate white Christian cultures.
When WASPs encountered non-whites, they began to grasp the value of using
them – non-whites and non-Christians – as tools and weapons with which to
batter the white Christians they wished to destroy.
That is the reason the 'Anglo-Zionist Empire' uses minorities as it does.
You cannot separate the Jewish Problem from the WASP Problem. You cannot
solve the Jewish Problem without solving the 'WASP Problem.
Buchanan lost it. he does not understand what neoliberalism is about and that dooms all his
attempts to analyse the current political situation in the USA. Rephrasing Clinton, we can say:
This is the crisis of neoliberalism stupid...
And it was President Reagan who presided of neoliberal coup detat that install neoliberal
regime in the USA which promply started dismanteing the New Deal (althouth the process of
neoliberalization started in full force under Carter administration)
Decades ago, a debate over what kind of nation America is roiled the conservative
movement.
Neocons claimed America was an "ideological nation" a "creedal nation," dedicated to the
proposition that "all men are created equal."
Expropriating the biblical mandate, "Go forth and teach all nations!" they divinized
democracy and made the conversion of mankind to the democratic faith their mission here on
earth.
With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this. Result: Ashes in
our mouths and a series of foreign policy disasters, beginning with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Behind the Trumpian slogan "America First" lay a conviction that, with the Cold War over and
the real ideological nation, the USSR, shattered into pieces along ethnic lines, it was time
for America to come home.
Contra the neocons, traditionalists argued that, while America was uniquely great, the
nation was united by faith, culture, language, history, heroes, holidays, mores, manners,
customs and traditions. A common feature of Americans, black and white, was pride in belonging
to a people that had achieved so much.
The insight attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville -- "America is great because she is good, and
if America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great" -- was a belief shared by almost
all.
What makes our future appear problematic is that what once united us now divides us. While
Presidents Wilson and Truman declared us to be a "Christian nation," Christianity has been
purged from our public life and sheds believers every decade. Atheism and agnosticism are
growing rapidly, especially among the young.
Traditional morality, grounded in Christianity, is being discarded. Half of all marriages
end in divorce. Four-in-10 children are born out of wedlock. Unrestricted abortion and same-sex
marriage -- once regarded as marks of decadence and decline -- are now seen as human rights and
the hallmarks of social progress.
Tens of millions of us do not speak English. Where most of our music used to be classic,
popular, country and western, and jazz, much of it now contains rutting lyrics that used to be
unprintable.
Where we used to have three national networks, we have three 24-hour cable news channels and
a thousand websites that reinforce our clashing beliefs on morality, culture, politics and
race.
... ... ...
To another slice of America, much of the celebrated social and moral "progress" of recent
decades induces a sense of nausea, summarized in the lament, "This isn't the country we grew up
in."
Hillary Clinton famously described this segment of America as a "basket of deplorables
racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic bigots," and altogether
"irredeemable."
So, what still unites us? What holds us together into the indefinite future? What makes us
one nation and one people? What do we offer mankind, as nations seem to recoil from what we are
becoming, and are instead eager to build their futures on the basis of ethnonationalism and
fundamentalist faith?
If advanced democracy has produced the disintegration of a nation that we see around us,
what is the compelling case for it?
A sixth of the way through the 21st century, what is there to make us believe this will be
the Second American Century?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
With his global crusade for democracy, George W. Bush bought into all this.
The GWOT was never about exporting democracy. It has always been about war profiteering
and imperial hegemony.
We have a democratic facade but we do not have government by consent of the governed Pat.
Our political and financial institutions are absolutely corrupt. Imperial Washington is
determined to rule the Earth by force of arms. Legions of Maoists want to turn white people
into untouchables. It's over for our republic. Our Constitution is stone cold dead. The
empire itself is in steep decline.
After the collapse the U.S. will be just another big country in the Americas. Survivors of
the crash will have an opportunity to build something new.
This is a HUGE topic, hard to cover in a short article.
First, I echo Pat's sorrow at the negativity evidenced viz. our past.
However, the fact is that, much like the present, most of our history comprises lies covering
up huge crimes, mainly massive deception on the part of those in charge. Only in the past two
decades has any idea of the scale of decimation of the indigenous populations in North and
South America emerged. When I was a boy I was told there were only a couple of million of
Indians in America, whereas more recent estimations have it at 50 million plus. And Central
America had larger cities than any in Europe at the time with close to 200 million perhaps,
90% of whom died in a matter of decades, an appalling price to be paid for our arrival. That
most of this was due to lack of resistance to our imported microbes does not excuse that our
history fails to tell this. What an appalling and inhuman lack of respect and decency. We are
not as superior and tolerant as we pretend to be.
Similarly: the slavery story: Slavery is a nasty business, but life back then was
extremely hard, and furthermore blacks weren't the only ones in slavery – for a while
white slaves far outnumbered them. In the late 1800′s children were sent down to the
mines in England, many of them dying young. If you were an able-bodied male, even one as
young as 12, and out at night in the wrong place and time, a press gang was legally allowed
to knock you out and drag you into a life of service on the high seas.And if you tried to
escape, it was the noose for you. It is both hard for us and wrong to judge people in the
past based on our own more delicate sensibilities.
Indeed, it is thanks to their great work, sacrifice and yes, crimes, that we have
progressed to the point that we can look back at many of their practices with disapproval.
Unfortunately we seem unwilling to merge that with understanding, largely because of an
inadequate educational institutions and a sensation-driven public press.
In order for us to unite, we have to dig much deeper, reject the storm und drang of
outrageously polemic, Deep-State-managed press and many other institutions, and tap into our
fundamental humanity along with learning what the constitution is and why it is the way it
is. The attempt is to create a genuinely uplifted, and also flexible, society. But it can be
hijacked by determined powers and become a plutocracy, which is what has happened.
What will unite us, truly, is when we realise the degree to which all normal people, both
'left' and 'right', 'black' and 'white' have been and are being manipulated so that they
don't come together. We should unite to throw off the yoke of oppression placed and used by
the Elites who have infested and bloated all major social institutions, private and
public.
Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists.
And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib
Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in
politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched
when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters
did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually
been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions
they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully
condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist
enough
In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly
lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and
their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the
alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully
deny that they are driven by racial animus.
... ... ...
To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not
only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders
against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars
that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites
exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know
what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant
additional study.
A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in
outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman
in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus,
when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are
taken by surprise.
It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically
from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about
alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.
People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long
now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides
something compelling and firm to grab.
The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a
coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the
side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions
and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days.
People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and
now permanent quest to find new victim groups.
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality
behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein
white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward
identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend
to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.
The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless
The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant
in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin
Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important
work by Thomas Sowell.
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right
of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist
objectives.
It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union,
enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force
and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.
With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American
Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig
Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire abound in contemporary America.
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who
they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they
are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they
are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are
sick and tired of it.
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through
what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors,"
hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball
players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB,
the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now,
and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation
of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's
ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition
much like this:
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election
in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans
and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from
Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt
Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and
53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the
2016 race.
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus
of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even
itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs,
since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's
reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."
In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's
words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That
he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation
of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides
of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.
Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty,
having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not
much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this
point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.
Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we
are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone
even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially
in our humanities departments.
I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested
in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has
grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter
issues that really matter to most Americans.
I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions
to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa
left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by
no means just a problem of the right.
Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good.
The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start
to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made.
Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl,
and it should start NOW.
But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere
near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides
has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are
depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics
themselves in not surprising
One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he
left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the
world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that
he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.
The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their
own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is
now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might
question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity
of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and
heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist
takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits
and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more
social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).
The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such
that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.
The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to
white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to
have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture,
harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe
(Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the
Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be
an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).
Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable,
even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it
was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and
ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).
So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white
supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did
not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked
their butts.
Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise
hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among
pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the
NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar"
was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease
in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed
for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately
and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."
I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural
"Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".
Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is
where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial",
or "feelings" overtake "facts".
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing.
They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful
white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far
from being illiterate.
***
Todd Pierce,
Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu
I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite
a bit of a stretch.
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the
way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites
have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my
frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all
the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players
in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent
years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around
sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they
are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all
sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously,
the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries
who know how to develop soccer talent.)
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors
show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can
see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until
blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's
just the way it has to be.
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called
alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney
left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.
"... There seems to be an attempt by an elite cabal to destroy this country through division and vilification of the Founding Fathers. Shame!!! ..."
"... "The past is never dead. It's not even past." ..."
"... From this point of view ..."
"... All of the deaths and serious injuries were suffered by members of the leftist side and none by the white supremacists, even though they were much smaller in number. ..."
"... relative to this baseline ..."
"... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ..."
He also raises the question of what can we do to make a positive difference in our lives?
And this may sound terribly mundane, but for those of you who have time and money for the fees:
get emergency training. IMHO, everyone should know how do to the Heimlich maneuver, but I only
know the idea of how to do it. Ditto with CPR, and that bothers me. If I had been at the scene
with all the horrible injuries, the only principles I know are "Don't move the injured since
they may have a spinal break and you could increase the damage to nerves" and "If they are
bleeding, put pressure on the wound". But is that OK if all you have is not clean cloth? I
assume yes if they are bleeding profusely, but still
I assume there must be what amounts to first responder training (as in what to do before the
medics get there). If readers can indicate what this type of training is usually called and
where to go to find it, please pipe up in comments.
Separately, I've kept out of the discussions of Charlottesville in comments. I'm perplexed
and disappointed on the fetishization of statues by both sides in this debate. I'm not enough
of an anthropologist to get to the bottom of it, but the desire of some Southerners to preserve
and elevate figures like Robert E. Lee isn't just about the Civil War. It has to do with the
fact that the South was late to industrialize and remained poor relative to the rest of the US
and is not part of the power structure at the Federal level (to my knowledge, there are no
tracks from Southern universities to important positions in the Acela corridor. That isn't to
say that people from the South don't get there, but it's not a well-greased path). And of
course, people from the rest of the country tend to forget that Southerners are regarded as
hicks and regularly treated as such in movies and on TV (remember My Cousin Vinny, for one of
many examples?). Having a Southern accent = minus 10 attributed IQ points outside the South,
with the possible exception being Texans. I had a Virginia client who used the "Southerns
aren't so sharp" prejudice brilliantly to their advantage in negotiations, but I am sure on
another level the perception still bothered them.
Mind you, I'm not defending the Southern position. If I were to believe family lore, I have
a Hungarian ancestor whose statue in Budapest was torn down by the Soviets. Do I care?
But my guess is that while for some Southerners, Civil War iconography is meant to
intimidate blacks, for many others, the storied Civil War generals are the only local boys held
up as having historical importance. LBJ and Jimmy Carter weren't seen as great presidents.
There must be important Southern scientists and inventors, but oddly I can't think of any,
which means they aren't generally depicted as such.
By contrast, it's easier to present the point of view of blacks and reformers: that losers
in war pretty much never get to have memorials, so that on its face, having so many images
touting loserdom is perverse, and not justified because it separately holds up aggressive
defenders of slavery as role models.
And I know I've probably touched on too many disparate threads in this short post, but the
other part about Charlottesville that has been mentioned, but cannot be said enough is that
this was a huge policing fail, and the passivity was no accident. As Lambert and others have
said, if you'd had black protestors show up similarly attired and armed, you can bet you'd have
seen mass head-breaking and arrests. The Charlottesville police knew this was coming and appear
not to have sought advice from police forces with lots of experience in crowd control
(Washington DC and New York City), nor did they get reinforcements (state troopers). It's one
thing if they had tried to cordon off or break up the two sides and lost control of the
situation. But there's no evidence they attempted to intervene.
In addition to watching the Lee Camp video, I strongly urge you to
read
the article from The Root
that goes with this photo (Lambert flagged it yesterday):
Perhaps most important, this fight over symbols is diverting energy from tackling the many
areas where African Americans have been promised equal protection under the law but don't get
it. Let's start with the War on Drugs, which Richard Nixon envisaged as a way to disenfranchise
blacks. Consider this comment from
Governing
(hat tip UserFriendly):
[Richmond's] Mayor Levar Stoney, who has rejected the idea of removing statues, spoke to
reporters Monday about the controversy after a groundbreaking ceremony for the American Civil
War Museum. He said he wanted the city to acknowledge "the complete truth" about its history
as the Confederate capital.
"At the end of the day, those statues are offensive to me, very offensive to me," said
Stoney, who is black. "But you know what I'm going to focus my time on? Destroying vestiges
of Jim Crow where they live in our city -- public housing, public education, you name it."
Here's a significant Southern figure who has statues to honor him, a self-made scientist
and inventor to whom today's kids and sandwich eaters owe so much: George Washington Carver.
http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ca-Ch/Carver-George-Washington.html
He was even a person of color, and born in Kansas, a violent battleground "border state" in
the "time of Troubles."
Yes, as a Southerner, I was hoping someone would mention Carver early on. But the larger
point is valid. IIRC the first Southerner to win a Nobel Prize, Medicine/Physiology, was Earl
Sutherland at Vanderbilt in about 1971.
There have been a few since, I think. The reasons are historical, well covered by C. Vann
Woodward (Johns Hopkins and Yale) in his Origins of the New South. Regarding E.O. Wilson, who
is mentioned below, yes, he is a great scientist who knows more about ants than any other
human being. And being of a certain age and a biologist-in-preparation when Sociobiology was
published in 1975, I was well aware of him from that beginning.
That book was a great synthetic triumph, until the last pages. Then came On Human Nature
and the unfortunate collaboration with Lumsden.
Still, Yves' friend is correct about the anti-Southern "feelings" directed at Wilson. He
was not alone. Even inconsequential scientists like yours truly felt it. I spent nearly 5
years at the best medical school in the United States in the late 1990s, a famous place in
sight of Fort McHenry.
Because I was from the South, more than one New England Yankee assumed that I had a Klan
hood in my closet, mostly because of how we do things "down there," the latter being a direct
quote.
You get used to it, but having a president from the South like Clinton LLC doesn't help,
much. As far as the statues go, my compatriots don't believe me when I tell them most of
these monuments appeared starting in the late-19th century, during the flourishing of the
"Moonlight and Magnolias" glorification of the "Lost Cause" that accompanied the hardening of
Jim Crow.
Just a bunch of Bourbons jerking working class chains, but damn, it worked well. And
continues to work with money largely from elsewhere.
Probably in the 1980's I had the task of demonstrating some expensive electronic equipment
at a Bell Labs facility in New Jersey.
The local sales engineer advised our visiting California group to be wary of Bell Labs
people with southern accents as they were teased by the northern Bell-Labs people about their
accents and education and the Southerners had reacted to this when dealing with outside
visitors/vendors..
As I remember, the advice was to be aware that a Bell-Labs Southerner might start with
some basic questions and progressively ask more and more difficult questions simply to back
the visitor into a corner.
Strange advice to receive, considering that at this time, Bell-Labs was one of the top
industrial research/development facilities in the world.
I did not observe this behavior at all, but still remember the caution.
And I think southerners aren't obsessed with the Civil War the way they used to be. When I
was a kid the local radio station would sign off with a lovely choral version of Dixie rather
than the national anthem. If Gone With the Wind played downtown the line would be around the
block. Numerous houses in my town have the columned portico meant to evoke the exterior set
for Tara.
Now increasingly cosmopolitan cities are more likely to feature blocky post modern
architecture and people are more into their smartphones than what happened at
Chancellorsville.
Black and white children can be seen walking home together from school and my town has had
a black mayor and the state currently a black (albeit Republican) senator. These days it
could be the north that is clinging to the past.
As for scientists: Charles Townes, Nobel prize winner, inventor of the laser, fellow
Carolinian.
I grew up in Columbia (a largely mixed demographic area – though often very sharply
racially divided), and while it is true that much of the veneer has changed, it is the
seething beneath that doesn't seem to have changed much since I left. This seems especially
true once you get a few miles outside of those more cosmopolitan cities.
On kids playing together – it has been one of my strangest experiences to go from
elementary school where everyone was friends and played together, regardless of race. And
then, after 3 months of summer, moving to middle school and the racial hell that ensued. But,
maybe things have changed for the better since when I lived there.
I've seen a small data point supporting your theory of the Civil War being less important
to most Southerners than it once was. When I first started visiting Alabama, every book store
had a pretty significant section devoted to Civil War books. Even thought there aren't
anywhere near as many bookstores these days, the few I've visited don't have proportionately
as much space devoted to the Civil War, and some just have it as part of the History
section.
Thanks Rick, especially for the perfect concluding summation, but also from the first-hand
account and historical contextualization of this persistent sort of niche bigotry. From
another continent it was hard to guess how prevalent that phenomenon still might still be,
although harder to imagine that it could have disappeared altogether. It constantly disgusts
me when the same sort of thing is extended to Americans at large by anglo/European bigots
insufferably assured that their tiny colonist cultures are "superior".
As a long-term/tedious polemicist against sociobiology -- mostly as casual normative
framework today, but the academic origins do matter too (see: [
http://www.theharrier.net/essays/kriminalaffe-sultan-at-the-dole-office-written-with-matthew-hyland/
]; (I'm the other one, not JB/The Harrier)) -- I'm aghast at the thought that any critic of
E.O. Wilson would stoop to invoking his geographical/cultural background, especially when
discussing the racist applications of the body of theory. Really, if they can't do better
than that they're missing huge swathes of the obvious, mimicking the worst of their opponents
and ultimately doing latter-day neo-socio-bio presumptions an unwarranted favour.
Also, complete agreement with you, Yves, about the way excessive concern with statues and
symbols generally can skew everything. Not that those things are meaningless, but the whole
present-day world also bears witness to the past in the form of raging injustice -- much but
not all of it involving the malign invention of "race" -- everywhere. Nohow is this a
"bipartisan"/"everyone calm down"-type statement: I side unequivocally with the "grassroots"
BLM, the direct-action anti-fascists and especially the IWW members, and would be delighted
never to see one of those monuments (or its anglo/Euro equivalents) again, but if it had to
be one or the other, I'd rather the statues were left standing while Lee, Sir Arthur 'Bomber'
Harris, Christopher Columbus and friends were made to spin in their graves by the abolition
of racist "criminal justice", housing and immigration policy and racialized top-down class
warfare/imperial admin in general, if the alternative is just to take the statues down while
leaving the policies in place and the Generals smirking in hell.
What about an alternative method to these history rewrites. Every time A legislative body
decides to remove one of these ancient tributes–instead of removing the offensive
statue–the erection of a new and at least equal in size monument that points out the
failure of the earlier tribute.
That is, the new monument would be larger, more noticeable, and will be to point out the
error of the earlier structure. In this way history is preserved–and a much more
educational site is created – pointing out the reasons for the new interpretation of
the site. Thus a site without a physical monument, for example, would be treated in the
following manner. Jefferson Davis Boulevard would become Former Jefferson Davis Bvd, or
Ex-Jefferson Boulvard or such. What do you think?
And add effigies of J. Edgar Hoover (let us debate whether he should appear "dressed" or
not), and Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms, and Al Sharpton, etc. to improve the contextual
mapping
Ah that brigs back a memory. I lived in Raleigh, NC when Jessie was in the Senate, and my
children went to a local Episcopal School.
The head of the Schools was Jessie Helms' daughter, and I was asked, and an outside of my
opinion in from of his daughter. My response is "He is very interesting," was acceptable.
Advice I was given when moving to the south was "Never say anything bad about one
Southerner to another. They are all related."
The animus then, and possibly now, was strong, so much so that my view was "War of
Independence, forgotten. Civil war, not at tall."
I was also told, by another Southern lady, that the difference between English Table
Manners and the US', was devised because the ladies never wanted to entertain the English in
the homes again after the War of Independence.
I'd also point out there is a significant difference between Spanish and English table
manners. In some cases under the English rules you can eat with your fingers (chicken on the
bone or unpeeled fruit, for example)t. Under the Spanish none I know of, its knives and forks
for everything.
There seemed to be a consensus a few years ago after that kid shot up the black church
that confederate flags would not be sold and that any debate about it was over. Looks like
that didn't take.
Point being that one part of the nation can't make another part of the nation erect
certain statues or not carry certain colored pieces of cloth.
I've always been a bit of an iconoclast, but maybe we should get out of symbolic thinking
and communication through pieces of political artwork and try communicating directly instead.
Battling over art and architecture seems wrongheaded. The fundamental message here should be
"What are the ideas we are debating?" not "These people over here are animals, what should we
do about it?"
But as Yves said, this event really went down because of a failure of the local police. It
was amateur hour over there.
And shame on the media for making this event into some kind of referendum on America. How
many people died in Chicago over the weekend? Baltimore? Nationwide? How is that any
different or less political in nature?
The problem is that the statues and flags represent a part of American history, whether
good or bad. I find it reprehensible that history must be rewritten, and the lessons learned
discarded. What's next? Book burning, the destruction of Monticello or the Jefferson
Monument?
There seems to be an attempt by an elite cabal to destroy this country through
division and vilification of the Founding Fathers. Shame!!!
Hitler was the leader of, and policy director, of a genocidal government. Southern Civil
War generals were not. They were leaders of armies, of men not policy makers of slavery.
And the policy they were leading those men to fight for was the "peculiar institution."
Forget Hitler. Are there statues of, say, Rommel in Germany? Yet he, too, a leader of an
army.
It's doubly ironic that all this furor over removal of statues of R. E. Lee, which seem to
be the ones the media likes to focus on, likely because Lee is the only Southern general that
bulk of the under-educated population can recognize, never mentions what the man himself said
about commemorating the war:
"I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those
nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the
feelings engendered." -- Robert E. Lee
What is really funny is that he was teaching the intro biology course at Harvard when I
was there. I didn't take it but one of my good friends did.
She said that she was a hick from California (actually she'd gone to a very good school)
but the point was she didn't know that Stephen Jay Gould was the "hot" professor at the time,
and that Wilson's "Sociobiology" view was considered to be retrograde, as unduly
deterministic. So she got into Wilson's course when most people were pulling strings to make
sure they got Gould, not him.
I saw her recently and asked about the Wilson course. She volunteered that another reason
she thought he got a bad rap at Harvard was that he was Southern.
I'm deeply envious of anyone having the chance to attend classes from either Wilson or
Gould. Both have their detractors (to put it mildly), but the are/were both wonderful
writers, I think I've read pretty much everything both of them have written.
The 'Darwin Wars' between the determinists and the Gouldites was my introduction to just
how deep epistemological divisions can be in science, even between those who essentially
agree on 99% of the data. Wilson, despite his association with Sociobiology, seems to have
kept a wary distance from the Dawkins disciples, quite wisely IMO.
I have the impression she very much liked the Wilson class. Had I been at all clued in, I
would have taken that class, but I oddly wasn't into star professors.
We may actually be talking about different E.O. Wilsons then -- entirely my mistake, and
nothing to do with 'greatness' or otherwise, but surely the one who invented sociobiology, or
at least coined the term, isn't still alive? Quite possibly another mistake on my part there
though.
E.O. Wilson, entomologist, author of "Sociobiology", "Biophilia", and co-author of "The
Theory of Island Biogeography", was born in 1929 and is still alive.
Its just past the 50th Anniversary here in Ireland of one of the most spectacular examples
of removing old outdated symbols,
the blowing up
of Nelsons Column in Dublin.
Despite its origin as an overtly Unionist attempt to mark
the Battle of the Nile, it was popular with Dubliners because you could climb to the top for
a good view.
In Ireland numerous monuments to Imperialism were removed over the years – some by
public authorities, some by way of gelignite planted at night. But most people still accept
the remains as part of history – there are still numerous 'Victoria Roads' around
Ireland, plenty of old post boxes with crowns on them, as well as huge monuments to the the
likes of the Duke of Wellington (who was Irish, although as O'Connell put it, 'just because
you are born in a stable doesn't make you a horse'.) Hardly anyone notices that the beautiful
arch in Stephens Green is a detailed monument to the Boer Wars and all that entailed.
I think monuments that give active offence should be removed, but in most cases its better
to accept that time changes and alters the meaning of all public symbols. Eventually, some
sort of equilibrium comes about and people accept with a shrug.
Not all people, including quite a few Irish– but of course they nurse their
grievances better than they nurse their drink albeit with a lot of good historical basis, and
with current hope of getting their own back, or at least some revenge. For some reason(s),
some subset of every polity just won't let bygones be bygone
Faulkner
had
much to say about the past. Will the Charlottesville events spark some resurgence on interest
in his works? His quote
"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
from Requiem
for a Nun seems to be at once forgotten or disavowed by many in this modern world.
When I went to South Africa, I was in a community of young ex-pats, from may parts of
Great Britain and its far flung parts.
One person was from Belfast, and one night after a few beers, and his round was next, he
looked at me and rattled off a series of "efforts" the English had tried in Ireland, most of
them bloody.
And accused in a strong Irish accent "You English!" Not wishing for a fight, especially
before his round I considered his litany on English misdeeds, and said "You're right!" He
looked utterly surprised, probably because he excreted a denial, and I wanted no fight, and
it was his round.
The I added, "and I personally did none of them." Which after a thought he considered
accurate, and bought his round.
We were friends for years, but time and distance have severed that bond.
The South captured and dominated the federal government for much of the antebellum period
thanks to special gimmicks like the 3/5ths rule. In many ways, Southern interests directed
federal power to advance their economy. The flood of free-thinking Germans and the election
of Lincoln shocked the South, leading to panic and, ultimately, a bitter resentment in
defeat. In this sense, the 1970's Southern strategy of harping on deficits while promoting
tax cuts was just part of a long counterattack against federal power. The entire Republican
policy edifice for a generation has been built around a segregationist backlash and you're
watching it all unravel – Obamacare, tax cuts, deficit-hawkery – even the war on
pot. Even Republican Secretaries of State have refused to cooperation with the voter
suppression commission. It's not a coincidence they can't get anything passed and impotent
rage erupts in the street.
I think you need to read up on the origins of the groups that worked to move the county to
the right. It was a very well funded, loosely coordinated corporate effort. The core group
came out of the John Birch Society, which is based in Belmont, Mass and had people like
William J. Buckley of Yale as prominent members. The Adolph Coors family out of Colorado were
also big players. Fred Koch, the father of the Koch Brothers, was a founding member of the
John Birch Society and a big early funder. The University of Chicago, and in particular
Milton Friedman, played a huge role in promoting neoliberal ideology.
As we flagged in a post yesterday, the reason the country moved to the right wasn't due
just to the Republicans. There were plenty of Democrats who were on board, starting in the
1970s.
And although I don't have data to support it, my perception is that Southerners have long
been underrepresented in high profile Administration positions, like Cabinet members and as
Supreme Court justices. I'd be curious as to whether any lawyers have a sense as to their
participation levels on the Federal bench.
Southern committee chairmen dominated Congress for decades last century. Of course, not
sure many people remember.
I do not think that Southern sense of victimhood is particularly special. More another
example of a more general phenomena, often seen in many times and places.
People are driven quite often by a sense of dignity or no dignity ( humiliation/rage).
That is the emotional force behind many different sorts of notions of glory.
I find it ironic that you are arguing the "identity" angle here, while I feel little
sympathy for it. During election discussions, I argued the emotional angles, and I felt that
you focused more on objective conditions. Today, I feel your approach was better.
Anyway, in the end it is about finding a way forward that is fair to everyone. As you
would probably agree, we have not seen much leadership from any group in that direction.
You're talking about the party funders – largely mining, fossil fuels, agribusiness
and banking/insurance/real estate (mostly interests dominant in the South). I'm talking about
the voters. They had real anger at the federal government over desegregation in the '70s and
the oligarchs channeled that into a deregulatory agenda which is now falling apart. Witness
Trump's pandering to regulate drug prices. He may be pushing deregulation but many popular
parts of his agenda were reregulatory in some aspect – like giving everybody great
health insurance – and he's reneging on them. In this sense, he's what Skowronek would
call a Jimmy Carter – a bridge figure in a disintegrating political order.
Second, the South maintained immense influence throughout the New Deal era and deep into
the '90s thanks to Democratic Party dominance in the region, seniority and the congressional
committee system. No other region could match the clout of the John Stennises or Earl Longs.
Of course, with the South flipping and the committee structure rearranged around fundraising
instead of seniority, all that changed.
But I look at the current Republicans in Congress and I recognize all the major leadership
positions as belonging to the segregationists, regardless of their geographic origin. They
nurse deep racial grievances. They speak Dixiecrat, sputtering about state sovereignty,
states rights and nullification (quite shrilly during the Obamacare debate). They block black
voting. They gerrymander. They race-bait (birtherism/Dred Scott-ism). They attack programs if
black people get it too (Obamacare). They like privatized police, prisons (slave labor) and
civil forfeiture. They love those gun rights (regulators/slave catchers). They all want to
pass laws legalizing private discrimination – which was a pet cause of the defeated
segregationists at the tale end of the '60s. This agenda's contradictions are going down in
flames.
I would also remind you that the Nuremberg laws were inspired by Southern
anti-miscegenation legislation. Nazis came to Southern law schools to study them (though they
weren't limited to the South). Fascism is the idea that private business should own and
operate the government for private profit. That's where the party funders and the street
racists come together.
Though the formal racist state institutions and ideology were never limited to the South,
they did reach their fullest, most overt expression here. You're talking about a group that
has supported the Articles of Confederation for going on two centuries after they fell apart.
It's what the Koch brothers hope to bring back by negating congressional commerce regulation
with a constitutional amendment.
Consider what props this up and you'll understand why their coalition is coming apart at
the seems. New energy sources are slowly eviscerating the petrodollar complex and the money
it pours into politics.
No, I've studied this in depth and you haven't. I have an entire chapter in ECONNED on
this, with extensive footnotes, from contemporaneous sources. All you have is your opinion
and on this it is incorrect.
The "free market" messaging was all about corporate and business interests. It had nothing
to do with narrowcasting on identity politics issues. That came later with the rise of Karl
Rove as a Republican party strategist.
And I'm sorry, Susan Collins just blocked Obamacare repeal and she's not a racist. I don't
like sweeping inaccurate generalizations. We care about accuracy of information and
argumentation. We make that explicit in our written site Policies. If you are not prepared to
comment in line with our Policies, your comments will not be approved.
As someone who used to be a group fitness instructor, I had to take both CPR (adult and
child) and First Aid training to retain my ability to teach. Both are generally available in
the US with the Red Cross (and others), and once you are certified, you can renew the
certificates every 1 or 2 years with a quick multiple choice test and demonstration of CPR
and AED techniques on the test dummy.
CPR standard practices have changed over the years, so it is important to keep up the
certifications if you want to be genuinely prepared to assist. The First Aid cert is mostly
common sense, but some of it seems counter-intuitive, until you know why it's done that way.
The most important thing to know is to make sure someone calls for EMTs/Ambulance if there's
any doubt about the severity of the injury/illness/unconsciousness of a victim. Don't
wait.
Also: I LOVE George Washington Carver. I did my first stand-up school presentation on his
amazing work with peanuts when I was in elementary school, and I've never forgotten what an
impressive person he was.
>The most important thing to know is to make sure someone calls for EMTs/Ambulance if
there's any doubt about the severity of the injury/illness/unconsciousness of a victim. Don't
wait.
Of course here in America you've probably kicked off a series of bills just starting at
$800 for said ambulance making the victim feel like a victim twice over.
As someone who teaches CPR/AED first aid, O2 administration, and lifeguarding for red
cross, yes call them as soon as there is anything serious. If the person is conscious they
can refuse care and not pay anything.
As basic first response; care for severe bleeding by applying constant pressure with gauze
(any cloth will do).
If someone is unconscious check for a pulse and breathing, if they have either they don't
need CPR. If they do need cpr two hands interlocking at the center of the chest push straight
down, hard, and fast (you might break ribs) to the beat of
Another One Bites the Dust
or
Stayin Alive
. Just keep going with that till EMS
comes.
That is basic community level training. 1. level up and I'd teach more about giving rescue
breaths but that should do in most cases.
I live in Canada, that horrible bastion of socialized medicine, and if you have to call
911 for an ambulance here, you will never, ever see a bill. No-one will. B/c there isn't
one.
Note to USA: socialized medicine, you can do this!
I view my limited First Aid Training as hopefully making me slightly less likely to be
totally useless in an emergency situation. I think I'm less likely to just freeze or flap my
arms in panic when confronted by a serious injury than I was before training.
The mainstream Republican have gotten the racist tag thrown at them so much that it
doesn't seem to carry much weight anymore. That this is giving truly virulent racist groups a
pass is a huge problem. Calling everyone a Nazi seems to be working in an unintended
fashion.
The Social Darwinian ideology is a very powerful one, and a natural one for the groups
vilified by identity politics to make. You are empowered because you were mean and took
things from other people, your empowered because you are the sociological group that acts and
thinks the right (Western) way. Your dominance is justified.
Of course given that same dominance, I can sympathize with folks who choose to push back
physically against the storm troopers. But as it stands today, both sides start dressing
themselves up in passive victimhood rather than as fallen warriors. Horst Wessel would be
turning in his grave.
It seems to me that the ideas of a meritocracy and racism, rather than the circumstances
they put in, to explain why some groups/individuals do great and others do not are very
similar. Yet, somehow the neoliberal democrats use the former for poor people especially
whites and the republicans use the latter for poor blacks. Although in the past few years
they have been blending the ideas together into a modern version of Social Darwinism.
That was a good piece, thank you. I think the author hit on the main issue which is that
people now make up their owns facts and often live in their own ideological worlds. It
started with talk radio and cable news but the Internet has made the situation much
worse.
How would the Civil Rights movement get ahead in today's climate? Would the murders of
Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner be declared false flag attacks orchestrated by George Soros
and the Deep State? How about the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, would that also be a
false flag attack?
It is not just the Right that engages in this sort of thinking but some people on the Left
too. How can you successfully promote reform when you cannot even get people to agree on
basic facts or to engage in rational debate? Perhaps the most dangerous outcome of this state
of affairs will be that the political and business elites will decide that the population is
too feral for democratic, constitutional governance and decide to increase the assault on
civil liberties. Many Americans, frightened by more incidents like Charlottesville, will
agree to go along with such a project.
Plus Livius, there is an incredible lack of trust in this country. I don't trust many
public figures nor do I trust that certain public servants will do the right thing. In an
emergency I do think that strangers will help a person in need, but if it isn't considered an
emergency good luck (see opiid crisis, the reactions of many that I thought to be decent
human beings has been ghastly).
I agree. I think the Internet has altered news for the worse. Real factual news is hard
work and expensive to produce. Opinion on the other hand is cheap and plentiful. And the more
outrageous the opinion, the more clicks. So now opinion is the news.
Politics has gone the same route. I worry about societal problems like opioid addiction, a
rise in alcoholism, and affordable healthcare. Dealing with these issues would require hard
work and hard choices. It is a lot easier to shout and insult. So now insults have displaced
policy.
There is no rational debate possible with people who believe that one human being
enslaving another is a right and just thing. There is also no rational debate possible with
people who believe in any form of racial superiority.
Tribalism is one thing, belief in racial superiority leads to dehumanization of others and
that ends in genocide, slavery, and host of other vile behaviors that decent people have
moved beyond. My support for free speech ends at dehumanizing others.
"There is no rational debate possible with people who believe that one human being
enslaving another is a right and just thing. "
Here's the 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So there's no rational debate with anyone who swears alllegiance to the US Constitution;
and, it follows, no possibility of rational debate between such adherents.
Boy, you are really really reaching to claim that the point of the 13th Amendment you
quoted was to permit slavery. Think what one may about the punitive nature of our criminal
justice system (a completely different topic), this language was explicitly aimed at
permitting that system to continue. Not chattel slavery.
Well most of them go to work in highly authoritarian cultures called corporations so they
actually tolerate a great deal of authoritarianism for that paycheck.
But regardless their materialistic lives are merely their lives, or at any rate the number
of people that can actually share in much materialism is ever shrinking (yea I know they have
smart phones or some such horror but by and large). While rampant materialism may have been
at least a temptation to many baby boomers at one time, wages just haven't kept up. But with
no carrot there are always sticks, if not one's physical life or anything, everything else
one needs (needs not wants).
Thanks for the pointer to my article! Note that it is intended at as first cut look at
what happened, putting together the news stories of the first 24 hours to forms a coherent
picture of the event.
It got 10,000+ hits in the first day, which is a lot for us – without any mention in
a major website (the usual way a post goes viral). I assume that results from people who want
to know what happened, and are dissatisfied with the major media's coverage -- which has been,
imo, high school journalism level.
Two aspects are covered. First, the amazing -- even delusional -- statements by civilian and
police officials about the policing of the event. Let's hope we get some accountability for
the incompetent policing (e.g., not taking standard simple measures).
Second, how each side lies. "OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils." That
such nonsense is taken seriously by the tribes of Left and Right is very Weimar. Large
numbers on both sides came armed and eager to fight, and they did fight.
The post linked to by Yves in The Root is typical. These are lies. Doesn't that bother
you?
Reform of America is impossible so long as we prefer lies to truth.
Good request! How is The Root article an example of "how each side lies. "OUR side were
innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils.'" The article is exactly about that theme: good vs.
evil, innocent vs. aggressors. Let's rewind the opening vignette:
"At first it was peaceful protest," Long said softly as he spoke. "Until someone pointed
a gun at my head. Then the same person pointed it at my foot and shot the ground." Long
said the only weapon he had was a can of spray paint that a white supremacist threw at him
earlier, so he took a lighter to the spray paint and turned it into a flame thrower. And a
photographer snapped the photo.
But inside every photograph is an untold story. If you look closely at Long's picture,
there's an elderly white man standing in between Long and his friend. The unknown man was
part of the counterprotests, too, but was afraid, and Long and his friends were trying to
protect him. Even though, Long says, those who were paid to protect the residents of
Charlottesville were doing just the opposite. "The cops were protecting the Nazis, instead
of the people who live in the city," Long said. "The cops basically just stood in their
line and looked at the chaos. The cops were not protecting the people of Charlottesville.
They were protecting the outsiders."
This makes two assertions. First, that the alt-Right were the aggressors, the Left the
victims. Videos and eyewitness accounts show otherwise. They show two sides, elements on both
of which show up armed to fight, and do fight. See
this in
yesterday's LAT
.
Second, it says that the police preferentially sided with the alt-Right. Not only is there
no evidence of that, the alt-right believe the police deliberately flushed them out of their
safe space in the park into the left's mob. See
Rob Sterling's detailed account
.
That does appear to be roughly what happened. The police cancelled the permit and forced
the alt-right protesters out of the park. That decision led the the widespread fighting
because the police had also not set up the standard transit routes for each group to their
designated protest area -- along streets both patrolled and blocked off from vehicular
traffic.
Now we can only guess at why the police did this. Panic, or incompetence, or a confused
chain of command with so many officials present? Only after intensive analysis of the
witnesses testimony and the videos (esp the Guard's video from the rooftop) can we say
more.
E. of the F. M. w. s., I feel like you can make a straightforward case that the Root
article presents a picture of how one side was "innocent" and was attacked by bad "others."
That isn't the same as saying that the first person testimony it provides is "lies." You can
argue that an overall narrative is misleading and partial, and that a particular first person
account plays into that misleading or partial narrative. But moving from this to calling the
account
itself
a lie is
also
an oversimplified narrative, of the sort that
you often zero in on for criticism. So I would suggest – given in particular that you
set as your objective to try to avoid slipping into mass-produced narratives that are
imperfectly grounded in evidence but easily propagated – that you choose your
characterizations with a little more precision.
It's extremely common for eyewitness testimony to reflect a narrative that one side was
the good guys and the others attacked them without provocation. This is true – on both
sides – even when subsequent evidence shows substantial asymmetry in how tensions
flared. It doesn't make those individual accounts baseless, or consciously lying (although of
course out and out lying does sometimes occur in eyewitness accounts). It
does
mean
that it can be quite difficult, in particular cases, to evaluate and synthesize eyewitness
testimony into a big picture account that is fair and accurate.
(A) "That isn't the same as saying that the first person testimony it provides is
"lies."
That's a valid point of wordsmithing. It would be a powerful rebuttal if
(1) I could point to no material factual error. But there is little or no evidence for the
Root's claim about police aiding the Right.
(2) I just said it was "a lie" and did not explain in what sense I meant that -- leaving
ambiguity in my description. But my sentence was explicit in its description:
Second, how each side lies. "OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils."
That such nonsense is taken seriously by
(B) "It's extremely common for eyewitness testimony to reflect a narrative "
It's common for people to throw down hot butts and start forest fires. But it's a bad
thing. DItto for writing a one-sided article that throws kerosene on a burning conflict.
(C) "It doesn't make those individual accounts baseless, or consciously lying"
Here we have different perspectives. I understand what you are saying, and have no basis
to say you are wrong. But I see the situation differently.
* I believe the Founders were right about factionalism as one of the great dangers to the
Republic.
* I believe these Weimerica-like street battles between extremists, cheered by masses on Left
and Right, make us weak. They make rule by the 1% stronger.
* I believe our love for propaganda makes us weak.
(D) " It does mean that it can be quite difficult, in particular cases, to evaluate and
synthesize eyewitness testimony into a big picture account that is fair and accurate."
That is exactly the basis of my dislike for the Root article. It does not even try for
accuracy, just tribal cheering. It is just propaganda.
On (1), I think my explanation on this point still holds. The Root itself (i.e. the
article when it is not quoting Long) does not say the police was aiding the "Unite the Right"
people – only Long does. It's true that Long's statement, if propagated without
context, would spread the idea that the police was literally intervening on behalf of the
white nationalists. I argued in one of my responses to your comments that this is clearly
not
what Long meant. Long actually states clearly that the police did not get
involved. However, Long believed the police
should
have intervened against the white
nationalists, and in fact should not have even allowed them to march.
From this point of
view
, he says that the police "were protecting the Nazis."
This is the sort of way of talking that is very easy to imagine in a participant or a
bystander. For example, imagine if someone were mugged in broad daylight right in front of
the police. Since in this case, we all expect the police to intervene on behalf of the
victims, we might say the police were "obviously protecting the muggers." That doesn't mean
the police were actually helping to beat anyone up, and it's an imprecise form of speech. But
it's an understandable one.
(2) I'm willing to grant that you didn't say in what sense it was a lie and have since
clarified the matter. By a strict standard of the sort we mentioned above, what you said was
potentially misleading (i.e. it was easy to interpret it in another way). The same might be
said of Long's statement about the police protecting the Nazis. In neither case is it
impossible to understand, just a reason to try to be more careful.
(B) True, it would be better if eyewitnesses could strive to be very precise in how they
report what they see. In practice, eyewitnesses come from all walks of life and involve all
sorts of people. We are better off banking on their accounts being partial for the
foreseeable future. I think the onus for completeness and fairness is considerably greater on
journalists, analysts, and others whose putative role is to provide reliable summaries.
(C) I don't disagree with any of this, except that for "factionalism" I would say
"tribalism" – but maybe we mostly mean the same thing.
(D) I think it's fair to criticize news outlets that only provide eyewitness testimony
that fits with one particular frame. It doesn't mean that an outlet should never publish an
article centered around one person's account – but if it does, it should presumably
balance it elsewhere with other information giving a more complete picture.
(E) [not from your reply, but I was curious] As Yves says, the news has mentioned several
cases of serious injuries suffered by counterprotesters (not to mention the deaths), and if
there were serious injuries suffered by the "Unite the Right" side, I at least haven't run
into any reliable accounts of such. Do you know of any?
It passed fact checking by the New Yorker, which reported basically the same information.
And you would have had to have sources who saw that incident, which seems awfully unlikely
given how few there were in that photo (as in it seems to have taken place away from the main
crowds).
The other part is I disagree with the equivalence. The antifa types (and this occurred
with the Black Bloc in Occupy) weren't "our side" in that most of the people who came who
were against the white supremacist types aren't pro violence. By contrast, it appears that
the smaller group of "Unite the Right" types were heavily armed and they consciously and
deliberately used symbols of violence against black people and minorities from the very
outset.
So it would be possible for people in the anti-bigotry group to have marched and not seen
what the anitfa types were up to, while I don't think you can credibly say anyone on the
white supremacist side didn't see all of the intimidating weaponry and violent
encounters.
"It passed fact checking by the New Yorker" is indeed tempting, isn't it?!
However in addition to Fabius Maximus I've come across additional reports with first-person
accounts describing how both sides came prepared to do battle. At this point I'm of the
opinion that there was not one "bad side" and other "poor victim" side. I have come across
lots of info linking the Neo-Nazi side having connections to the Ukranian "revolutionaries"
(funded by CIA among others, thank you very much) and of left-side groups having links to
Soros-funded groups. It looks like the whole situation was a confrontation that was set up.
I'm not suggesting all participants were part of this, but nonetheless there is enough
evidence strewn around that at the minimum one should think twice before accepting
any
major media spin on the event.
Jason Goodman and Crowdsource the Truth on YouTube had lots of videos documenting the
neo-Nazi links to Ukrainian groups ("Blood and Soil"), flags in evidence, starting the night
before the "big event". IIRC Lee Stranahan had info documenting the links to Soros-controlled
organizations.
1. That violent antifa types were representative of most of the marchers on the left side.
You are implying that both sides were raring for a fight. The white supremacists were. Only a
minority of the marchers on the left were, and I further question how many would have
approved of their tactics. I know from Occupy that pretty much everyone were not at all happy
about Black Bloc tactics and regarded them as anarchist interlopers trying to take advantage
of Occupy without having the consent of Occupy (Occupy was big on super-democratic
processes). Black Lives Matter has consistently rejected violent tactics. I know Lee Camp
would reject the antifa types as being part of "our side" or representing his values.
More generally, left-wing protests, particularly anti-globalization protests, have
agitators show up who had nothing to do with the organizers of the protest. They are plants
to make the protestors look bad. Here, I am sure the antifa types were genuinely motivated.
But the bigger point is peaceful leftist marchers often have a violent minority show up that
does not represent the approach of the majority. Hence it is not correct at all to say that
they are representative of that side.
2. #1 above means it is possible for eyewitnesses on the left side not to have seen antifa
provocations and to be truthful in saying and believing that that the fights were instigated
by both sides.
3. The police THEMSELVES said the reason they didn't intervene was that the right wing
protestors were heavily armed! Who are you kidding here?
4. You are ignoring the message that the white supremacists were sending. They made heavy
and deliberate use of symbols of violence against blacks and minorities. The only thing that
was missing was KKK robes. They were visibly carrying guns and bludgeons. Bludgeons are
illegal in NYC because they are more effective in close combat than a gun. They were not
signaling an intent to have a peaceful rally. They were signaling an intent to have a fight
and the antifa types were all too happy to pick one.
And please explain the black schoolteacher who was nearly beaten to death? Pray tell how
does that fit your theory?
All of the deaths and serious injuries were suffered by members of the leftist side
and none by the white supremacists, even though they were much smaller in number.
That's
because the antifa types weren't using anything that would do more than bruise someone or
make them filthy. All I have read is that they threw cans, bottles with urine in them, and I
saw one account saying feces. So the implements used by each side were not remotely
equivalent, contrary to what you imply.
I'm not sure you understood my contention. I didn't say all left-wing side people were out
for a fight, but there is evidence that some were and yes these may have been infiltrators as
you suggest. Numerous protests are infiltrated by troublemakers.
The fact that one side may indeed have felt more pain than another doesn't affect the
point I'm making. What I'm suggesting is to pay attention to the entire "conflict" set up.
It's predictable. There's a degree of scripting. It serves many functions–to make
people insecure, feel convinced that others are out to get them (on either side), to feel
that conflict is inevitable, to want the police/military to take a more active role.
It's not that any of these points necessarily lack merit on their own (e.g., in some
situations law enforcement should play a constructive role), but rather that this is one tiny
event within a larger picture of social engineering that has been taking place over an
extended period of time (decades). Foment conflict artificially (e.g. CIA-funded
insurrections such as Ukraine and many countries in South/Central America and currently
Venezuela; create or increase a feeling of insecurity; get the people to give up rights in
order to have "security" and "protection"; increase military/law enforcement budgets and
sales to interested parties.
Focusing only on a single situation (xxx group was hurt "more" in yyy situation/event) can
lead one to overlook the larger societal pattern, by not recognizing that there was
manipulation occurring that affects both sides.
This is the first time I have had the software do this. I was replying to the editor of
Fabius Maximus' comment and it wound up misplaced. It might be that it didn't go through the
first time and what I did on the retry wound up relocating it.
As to the bigger issue, you are ignoring my contention that the two "sides" were equally
cohesive. If you go to a soccer game, and hooligans who favor your team beat up on fans of
the other side, are you responsible for their actions merely by virtue of having gone to the
game to cheer on your team? That seems to be the basis of your and the editor of FM's
comment. In fact, Black Lives Matter, which is opposed to violence, was represented there and
I am highly confident other marchers opposed to the white supremacists were unarmed and has
not interest in perpetrating or participating in violence.
By contrast, the organizers of Unite the Right called on the participants to come armed
and not only did they come "armed," they brought implements that are designed to maim and
kill. If their aims were defensive, to preserve their right to make a public statement,
pepper spray would have sufficed. How can you depict that as equivalent?
I didn't say anything at all about blaming one side or another. To the contrary, I
suggested it was more important to look at the overall pattern of such conflicts and the
overall societal impact (division! fear! giving up rights! agreeing to surveillance!
increased law enforcement/military power and spending!).
First, the assertion about the police favoring the Alt-Right appears baseless. Both sides
report -- supported by videos -- that the police watched everybody fighting. Where are the
accounts of the police intervening on just one side? The New Yorker fact checkers missed
that.
Second, let's rewind to see what I said -- The Root
article an example of "how
each side lies. 'OUR side were innocent angels attacked by THOSE devils.'" The Root's article
clearly paints that kind of incorrect picture due to its misrepresentations and omissions.
See my reply to Vatch above for details.
The Root article is at all times reporting the perspective of a single person, the
23-year-old Corey Long. Even when the article is not directly quoting Long, it is plainly
summarizing his testimony.
In my opinion, you overstated your case by terming the Root article "lies." As you know,
it's very common for eyewitness testimony to diverge dramatically. In the midst of big,
chaotic situations, each particular person sees only a part of what is going on. They can be
entirely sincere and the picture that they paint might still be a partial one.
Similarly, if you read what Long actually said, he agrees that the police "basically stood
in their line and looked at the chaos." Long felt that the police should have intervened
actively against "the Nazis," and
relative to this baseline
, interprets the police
of having favored the white nationalists. He makes this quite clear when he says that a
rapper was earlier not allowed to march and so why were white supremacists allowed to?
I don't see any evidence for Long lying in the article. When the article, near the end,
says "we are in a Trump presidency, this is the world we live in,"
this
is
editorializing – maybe something Long said at one point, maybe something the article
put in his mouth. But it still isn't distorted testimony about the events on the ground.
It might muddy the waters less if you stick to criticizing MSM accounts that are
straightforwardly presenting themselves as unbiased general accounts of what happened.
You have shifted the grounds of your argument. You made a sweeping attack against The
Roots article: "These are lies."
Despite Outis having patiently picked apart your argument, you in fact have not engaged
with him but are broken recording. Your "let's rewind" is effectively an admission that you
are not about to acknowledge what Outis described, that The Root article is a first person
account, and you have not provided one iota of evidence to suggest that Long misrepresented
what he saw. You are therefore unable to support your original claim and are thus trying to
shout Outis down.
This is a violation of our site's written Policies. We don't make exceptions for anyone.
You either need to engage with him in a good faith manner or stand down.
OK. I should not have said "lies" and just said the remaining text. Consider this an
apology.
I did not claim that the root misreported what he saw, but that the article misrepresented
what happened at the article. If anyone believed that is what I said, then I apologize for
that too.
It's been an interesting discussion. I'm don't believe anyone has engaged with what I said -- but everybody has their own perspective on these things.
Thank you for that. I was of two minds about posting the Lee Camp video because this
horrible affair has gotten people very upset, we only have pieces of what happened, and many
people are drawing inferences that go beyond the information. I think we all agree strongly
with one of your big points, that this was a massive failure on the part of the police.
The history of the neo-liberal revolution is starting to come clear.
James Buchanan first became motivated by the US Government insisting that segregation
between white and black children should end. He saw private schools as a way of maintaining
this segregation outside the control of Government.
He started in Virginia, near Charlottesville, where racism festered not far below the
surface and they still resented the Northern Government telling them what to do; removing the
freedom of the wealthy to do what they liked and taxing them to look after others.
The Government shouldn't have the power to end school segregation in Virginia.
The beginnings of neo-liberalism / economic liberalism.
It is ironic the new liberals should now be so aghast at the goings on in a region where
their own beliefs first started to take shape.
"Democracy in Chains" Nancy Maclean
How a right wing ideology was developed in the US to roll back the "New Deal" and give
economic freedom back to the wealthy to do pretty much as they pleased.
Our Brian C and Sluggeaux, a former state prosecutor, disagree. He disabled the airbag. An
airbag deploying 1. could have injured him and 2. would have made it impossible to drive the
car, as in exit. This is a strong tell that he planned to use the car as a weapon and was
primed to find an excuse.
Both the way he drove into the crowd (hands steady on the wheel and well positioned when
he started( and his impressive exit weren't consistent with road rage.
Perhaps his psychiatrist could answer your very specific question?
If you think this is evidence of a planned attack, you could be right.
But mentally unstable people are perfectly capable of a greater or lesser degree of
'planning' a murder – even if it means only a walk to the woodshed to pick up an
axe.
Arguably, only the 'crime passionel' is free from any prior decision – making.
So I still maintain my original point – that the question of culpability is complex
when the perpetrator is known to be mentally unstable, and, in this case, professionally
diagnosed.
As is the issue of motivation.
That means you cannot characterise his crime as a 'terror attack', as that assumes he was
fully compos mentis, using the car in the same way as, for example, the takfiri attack in
Cannes earlier this year.
Since this seems to be conjecture, what if the driver of the attack was not fully compos
mentis and he was used and manipulated by a group of disaffected radicals?
Why do white men seem to get the pass (with Dylan Roof, also) that they are mentally
unstable and therefore not guilty of acts of terror? Maybe if the jihadists had access to
psychological screening we would find that they are unstable, possibly due to decades of war
and economic privation.
You seem to be quibbling over irrelevancies here. How many members of many terrorist
groups might be diagnosed by the (questionable) standards of the brain babblers? We are all
"insane" according to one section or other. So maybe nobody is to "blame' for anything?
To claim he was not motivated by politics seems insane in itself, given his history of
interest in far right politics and racist ideologies.
There is a specific legal definition of insanity in murder cases, which is not
understanding the difference between right and wrong. The fact that he disabled the airbag to
facilitate a speedy exit and attempted to make one says he knew full well.
There is more here than merely a guy who was "disturbed".
Driving in reverse – totally straight for extended period under duress is quite a
feat. This guy was not an amateur. He was a Pro! Ask any of the posters here, if they can do
that – no one I have asked said they could.
The Cops management of the event was deliberate. This was a permitted event so the
authorities knew what the response would be, there should be no doubt about it. Yet they put
the two groups together on a narrow street.
The typical establishment mime is to say the cops made a mistake and the guy was crazy.
Always giving the benefit of the doubt to the committed narrative. Makes no sense.
New narrative play book to substitute for the dying Russia, Russia, Russia?
It is relevant whether he had occasion in the past to back up at speed. If so, he would
quickly learn how sensitive steering with the now rear wheels is. The trick is to brace one
arm on the door (or door-leg-arm) and make the finest of steering adjustments using the
braced fingers; start relative slow, establish direction, and then speed up. Young bodies
with coordination talent can easily do this.
so its is easy is your promote – at high speed on a narrow street with people
chasing you – any young guy can do that – nerves of steel for any amateur who is
emotionally diagnosed with ??? Baloney
it gets worse:
"the discovery of a craigslist ad posted last Monday, almost a full week before the
Charlottesville protests, is raising new questions over whether paid protesters were sourced
by a Los Angeles based "public relations firm specializing in innovative events" to serve as
agitators in counterprotests.
The ad was posted by a company called "Crowds on Demand" and offered $25 per hour to
"actors and photographers" to participate in events in the "Charlotte, NC area." While the ad
didn't explicitly define a role to be filled by its crowd of "actors and photographers" it
did ask applicants to comment on whether they were "ok with participating in peaceful
protests." Here is the text from the ad:
Actors and Photographers Wanted in Charlotte
Crowds on Demand, a Los Angeles-based Public Relations firm specializing in innovative
events, is looking for enthusiastic actors and photographers in the Charlotte, NC area to
participate in our events. Our events include everything from rallies to protests to
corporate PR stunts to celebrity scenes. The biggest qualification is enthusiasm, a "can-do"
spirit. Pay will vary by event but typically is $25+ per hour plus reimbursements for
gas/parking/Uber/public transit."
aside:
"New narrative play book to substitute for the dying Russia, Russia, Russia?"
This morning's NYTimes throws a curveball. This morning they report that a here-to-for
unknown "witness" to the "hacking" has been found. Someone from Ukraine. (Ignores technical
issues about the data download time-stamps and document meta-data).
" a fearful man who the Ukrainian police said turned himself in early this year, and has now
become a witness for the F.B.I."
Considering the amount of armament the nazi militia brought plus Charlottesville's
knowledge of caches of more weapons hidden – it's a miracle 3 souls were lost & not
dozens.
There was over 1,000 law enforcement members there.
I fear, as I'm sure others do as well, the odds of of dozens dead happening Somewhere USA
are high thanks to the ignorant facilitator in chief.
I for one am thankful police didn't get into the fray sooner. Police always make things
worse. Although I'm curious about reports saying they were waiting on orders to do so which
never happened. Waiting on orders from whom? Who decided to hold back our police state, which
so rarely happens?
And never ever underestimate the possibility of agents provocateurs being all or part of
this.
Isn't it funny how protests with armed citizens cause police to stay out of it.
According to an article in The Guardian, the armed militia members present (from NY and
PA) intended to help keep the protesters separated, asked the police for permission to
attend, and vociferously deny being Nazis in any way. Seems they are just garden variety
survivalists preparing for the day society collapses. That they seemed better armed than the
authorities is a different matter.
"The men in charge of the 32 militia members who came to Charlottesville from six states
to form a unit with the mission of "defending free speech" were Christian Yingling, the
commanding officer of the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia
"We spoke to the Charlottesville police department beforehand and offered to come down
there and help with security," Yingling told the Guardian. "They said: 'We cannot invite
you in an official capacity, but you are welcome to attend,' and they gave us an escort
into the event," he added.
Yingling said he had been asked to bring a team to Charlottesville by a local militia,
the Virginia Minutemen Militia, to reinforce their numbers, and to be in charge on the
day.
But Yingling said the original request for a militia force to attend the event had come
from the organizers of the white nationalist rally, who wanted them to act as security.
The militiamen had said: "No, we will not come and defend just you," Yingling recalled.
"It's important for us to say we were there in a neutral stance."
If a major earthquake (or any disaster) hits, do you
have enough supplies for a minimum of 72 hours up to an entire month for all family
members, including pets?
know how to turn off the gas?
know how to safely turn off the power?
know how to apply first aid?
have enough water for all of your family and your pets?
have provisions for living outside your home for a length of time if the structure is
compromised?
It is important to know, if a major disaster occurs, the LAFD, paramedics, police WILL NOT
COME! They will be deployed FIRST to major incidents such as collapsed buildings. That is why
you constantly hear You MUST be prepared to take care of yourself. In the CERT course they
say "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People." When you are trained, you are far
more equipped to deal with your circumstances without needing aid from outside sources.
CERT members are trained in basic disaster response skills such as fire safety, light
search and rescue, team organization and disaster medical operations. You will learn how to
prepare for emergencies, what supplies you should NOW have in your house, how much food, how
much water but most importantly, how to protect your family in an emergency!
How could you call the guys in "Deliverance" hicks? Especially the banjo player and the
dude pumping gas in overalls. The white collar guy with the glasses was no match for the
banjo player on the porch. He was befuddled and he fumbled like an amateur. I guess they
can't put up a statue of William Faulkner since not too many people have read his books.
Maybe a statue of Janis Joplin who was from Texas and maybe Buddy Holly. I think Buddy Holly
actually has a statue someplace. And Mississpi Muddy Waters too. And the guitar player to end
all guitar players, the famous Robert Johnson from Mississippi. I'm not sure if he has a
statue. He might! I'm not sure. But these could be southerners you could make statues of. How
about Ted Turner?? We'd have to think about that one. As long as he's alive he's his own
statue. That's the way a man should be.
No real southern hick would go to one of these race rallies -- it takes waaay to much
effort, they have to work the Wal-Mart shift, they're too overweight, and it gets in the way
of fishing. All those white guys are northerners, probably from the mid-west even.
That pic says it all. Jousting as a form of self-expressionary theater. Look at the laid
back lazy gestures by both actors. What truly amazes me is this -- if it hadn't been for a
mentally ill psycho behind the wheel of a car and a helicopter accident almost nobody would
have been seriously hurt. That really is incredible, given all the guns and presumably ammo.
I'm not sure if the armed individuals there just carried guns and no ammo but I doubt it. I
find that really really amazing -- and that photo captures the underlying energetic structure
of the whole phenomenon quite aptly.
This is a form of theater of the kind suggested by the great wacko himself -- Antonin
Artaud. Who was a French guy. I suspect it will stay that way (I could be wrong, but I don't
think so.) To grasp and grapple with the phenomenon at hand requires a conceptual vocabulary
that I have yet to see in the media coverage and "I was there" narratives.
All those guns cost money. Trips to the protest cost money.
Just like the false meme that Trump was elected by the working class. Nope. It was the
gated community suburban megachurch religious nuts who elected him. Affluent small town and
suburban nabobs
High-quality guns and good ammo cost serious money. This, in a nutshell, is why Yours
Truly had to give up the shooting sports. I could no longer afford the cost of
participation.
Leaving aside all other issues I always thought: Confederate memorials/statues commemorate
actual treason and people who tried to dismember the country. Solely for the purpose of
keeping other human beings as slaves. Thus zero sympathy from me to the "Heritage not Hate"
crowd.
I am, however, unsympathetic to "applies 21st century standards of PC virtue-signalling to
centuries-old figures" types, as they will inevitably be the authoritarian leftists that are
as distasteful to me as the Confederafluffers.
Pretty well impossible to deal with the imbeciles who immediately jump to "George
Washington owned slaves so 100% of everything about him must be rubbished." Unproductive on
every level and outright destructive on most of them.
Historically, those officers were taught that it was constitutional to secede from the
Union. Constitutional law classes at West Point taught constitutional secession so when many
of the southern states seceded those officers thought that these States were being denied
what was their constitutional right. They lost the war so they were wrong. Most of these
men's primary reason for fighting was for honor. Sadly, they were defending slavery as an
institution.
Not the US Constitution but from the Declaration "
But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security
."
I think the Declaration of Independence seems more like a justification for slave revolts
than for the secessions of 1861. The slaves experienced absolute despotism.
Careful, Vatch.
Justifying one interpretation and denying the other smacks of bias.
My problem is it's just so damned difficult to find my own response to being a
hypothetical Southern farmer in 1860, without slaves, but facing a Northern pressure that
puts my family and living at risk. I'm a let's say..Virginian. Neighbors (State) over
strangers (Nation)? Practical over principle? What principle?
I guess my point is the Declaration of Independence isn't so much about economic models
(although THAT is there) as it is about the ideals of freedom from political domination.
And in that interpretation, both slave revolts and the War for Succession are totally
valid.
Well, the Northern states violated the Constitution when they (rightfully so) didn't
return fugitive slaves back to the South.
Article 4, Section 2: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be
discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to
whom such Service or Labour may be due.
We have the fugitive slave law passed by congress, the dread scott decision passed by the
Supreme Court and a slew of other federal policies that (irony) the Northern states
nullified.
I wonder when we Americanized the word Labor?
So if the North was in violation of the Constitution, at what point do you have the right
to succeed? I don't know to be honest.
I think this is being far too kind. Most officers were from the landowning class, and the
rationale for the secession was very clearly to preserve slavery. Saint Lee was not a kind
master, he did little to stop the lynching and capturing or Northern freemen when his army
invaded the north, nor did he actively oppose the rise of the neo-confederate terror groups
during the postwar era.
I'd like to see a link or something that states (or even implies) that instructors at a
facility for training officers for the US Military would ever say that it was "constitutional
to secede" .sounds a bit treasonous to me ..
Re. statues: My first reaction is that it is easy to predict the mindset of someone quick
to defend Confederate symbolism. On the other hand it seems wrongfooted to spend energy
trying to expunge all of it from our public spaces. I nevertheless cannot help but find the
en masse demonstration in favor of the statue to be super predominantly white supremacist in
nature. I do not come to this uninformed. As a middle American born white male, I have been
privy in my life to the kinds of things white people say to other white people, who they
either assume are like them, or simply don't care. As a one-term military enlistee, I found a
similar saturation of racial bigotry in those ranks. It had already been abundantly clear to
me from my upbringing that those who tend toward the police force likewise harbor racial
animosity and wilful ignorance of the history that would inform the reasons behind some of
the superficial observations made by those who don't bother to get to know black or brown
people if they can avoid it.
In short, the military and police forces have a white supremacy problem, so
institutionalized, it would explain how it is that even minority officers engage in brutal
tactics against "their own". I hasten to add to your bit about Nixon's war on drugs the fact
that someone in the Reagan/Bush realm also knowingly created the crack epidemic in South
Central Los Angeles, something we now know is fact, thanks to the late Gary Webb. The culture
that grew out of that era is paradigm shifting.
So whenever we are tempted to say that law enforcement failed in such situations, we
should quickly reassess and remind ourselves of the proverbial "feature not a flaw". The
authoritarian impulse in America has its own dynamic, but even here in Berlin, where there
are plenty of ultra-right demonstrations, none of which exist without a counter demo that
includes an antifa presence, the police don't fail as demonstrably, but it's pretty clear
where their sympathies lie. The first such demo I attended was where I first heard the taunt
out of the ranks of the right: "Sie schützen uns! Sie schützen uns!" (They [the
police] 're protecting us! They're protecting us!") And they were in no way implying this
meant they needed protection from the counter demonstrators; it was a taunt that clearly
meant that the cops were on their side
One more thing: Trump has shown an ability to selectively and tactically tell truths
otherwise unspoken in the political sphere. His comment on Washington and Jefferson memorials
is totally legit. But it's couched in the rest of his rhetoric, which is utterly
bullsh**.
I fear that I may have to make issue with Yves's characterization of statues as fetishism.
Do statues contain an element of ancestor-worship? Maybe likely. Are most of them poorly
designed and thought out? Definitely. In any case in our culture, it is usually the leaders
that get the statues, not the engineers and scientists who actually got it all done. But
remember that they are actually symbols and people live by symbols and incorporate them into
their lives. The pert Manhatten woman who totes a Gucci handbag and the San Fransisco hipster
who takes pride in his artisanal cheese may look dissimilar but they are both using symbology
to establish their identities. To threaten people's symbols is to threaten their identity and
people will resist that to the hilt. That is why the resistance to the removal of those
statues.
I think that we are going to have to go back to the old stick-and-stones attitude. That is,
if you come to me and say that you see a statue in another state that causes bad feelings in
you and makes you feel angry or that you find it wrong that the candidate that you voted for
did not win, I would say build a bridge and get over it. But if you come to me and say that
people are trying to restrict your voting rights, the courts charge you constantly so that
that can fill their coffers with your fines, your churches are burnt and so on then brother,
that is something that is actually worth fighting against. This is real damage versus
emotional damage and I think may be the only workable way to go.
One last thing that came to mind. There were all sorts of rat-bag groups in Charlottesville
and I am wondering just where the hell they came from. But then a disturbing thought occurred
to me. Could it be that the identity politics that has been used for the past couple of
decades in America for political gain has led to the unintentional formation of these
sub-groupings? The politicians may have played it too clever by half in their angling for
power and this may be the result. Movements like this from the left and the right do not come
about spontaneously but must have a lineage somewhere. The only one that I recognize that has
a lineage is the KKK but they just look ridiculous.
What makes you think the sub-groupings are unintentional? It's a classic divide and
conquer strategy. Without it, after all, the great unwashed might have noticed that tea party
and occupy sympathizer had more in common with each other than with the establishment, and
started talking to each other instead of heaping ridicule on the other.
I know we're not big on smartphones around here, and it should be treated as a supplement
rather than a replacement for training, but there is a Resucitate! app that gives a guide to
assisting someone in a CPR, AED, or choking situation.
Josh Marshall, a historian by training, has a nice piece about this over at TPM. In brief,
the elevation of the generals from the South after the War of Northern Aggression was one of
the pacts that formed the post-reconstruction South. It whitewashed, hrm, their personal
treason and allowed the South to rewrite its history, exonerating its leadership. It gave the
planter class icons around which to form a revised culture, one that reconstituted slavery in
all but name. Jim Crow lasted a hundred years; the culture that built it survives its
demise.
Jim Crow kept a reconstituted planter class and its courtiers in power, It built on
earlier culture and characterized former slaves as an extravagant threat, sexually,
economically, politically. A variation on the British empire's divide and conquer. African
Americans became the focus of poor whites angst rather than the southern elite. That, too,
survives Jim Crow. It's part of the white supremacy that informs Trump.
The Charlottesville driver/killer, for example, is a minimum wage 20 year-old outcast,
rejected by the US Army, and apparently with untreated mental health problems. (Not that he
– or anyone similarly situated – would have had access to health care.) He's a
textbook example of one personality type for whom white supremacy and the victimhood and
promises of neonazism hold the most attraction.
Without a doubt the southern aristocracy fought the war over slavery but what doesn't get
mentioned as often is that the north, by and large, fought the war over union, not slavery.
As for "treason," this was not a term that got bandied about so much back when people were
closer to a Revolutionary War that was also called treason. Gore Vidal for one said that the
south had a right to secede and perhaps the US would have been better off if they had done
so. The premise of Vidal's book Lincoln was that Lincoln suffered under the great moral
weight of almost single handedly keeping the Union together at the cost of 500,000 lives.
Of course few southerners now (certainly speaking for myself!) think the south would have
been better off if they had won. An enduring south is the be the premise of an upcoming HBO
series by the Game of Thrones creators–a very bad idea, especially in light of recent
events.
He sounds a lot like Jared Lee Loughner, who was the killer of six people at
then-Representative Gabrielle Giffords' Congress on Your Corner event. The guy needed help,
didn't get it, and the rest, they say, is history.
Interesting graph that. Only comment is that that second blimp in the 1960s was only
marked down as the era of the civil rights movement. What should be noted is that it was also
the centennial of the civil war so you would expect more memorials to be dedicated then.
By propagating this word you are playing into the hands of the security establishment who
want to turn the tools of war against the American people. Terrorism is a tactic used by
smaller, less powerful groups to effect a response in what is generally a war.
By falling into the trap of misusing this word people are setting trap for themselves when
law enforcement is given blanket authority to violate civil liberties.
I agree. And it's good you post that and it bears repeating, perhaps ad naseum. I doubt
most people clamoring for equal inclusion in the terminology have given it any
consideration.
Terror is a violent political tactic conducted in full awareness and as part of the
terrorists arsenal to reach specific goals.
State-sponsored terror is the real scourge of our times. Where's the outrage? Or is the
killing of countless Brown people only 'racist' on US soil?
As Fields only known political affiliation was his registration as a Republican, we would
have the to logically designate that party a terrorist organisation, if he is categorised as
a terrorist.
While many would agree with that (Iraq) it is hardly practical, given the Democratic
Party's equal enthusiasm for state – sponsored terror (just look at who is supplying
arms to the numerous takfiris in Syria,or the destruction of Libya.)
So branding Fields a terrorist instead of a mentally disturbed killer opens up a real can
of worms.
Are we to also allege 'religious motivation' for the 'God/Satan – told – me
– to – kill' contingent too?
if you'd had black protestors show up similarly attired and armed, you can bet you'd
have seen mass head-breaking and arrests
If the question of fascism is at all relevant here, it's not in the mouthing of phrases
and the medieval accoutrements of the neo-fascists. It's in the inaction of the police.
Mcauliffe's recourse to saying the cops were outgunned to explain why the police didn't stop
the neo-fascists, his hesitation to say this was a profound screwup, is a replay of the
history of fascism in Germany and Italy. Tolerance and support from the cops were essential
in its success. Demonstrators should be going after Mcauliffe, not Robert E Lee. The next
move on the part of the neos, if they're smart, will be to see how much state support they
can get if they more tightly focus on the left. Support/tolerance on the part of the state
should be attacked in whatever form it takes, from Trump on down.
Agree. The inaction of the police, the "both sider-ism" of Trump and the Trumpertantrums
which normalizes white supremacist extremism on all of the right, and in its use by
libertarians and neoliberals to advance the cause of the rich because that's the way to
oppose the liberals, the left, and socialist antifa.
I can't pull a link right now but recommend the Vice documentary on Charlottesville. Bit
chilling.
And honestly, it's not just the excluded who are being radicalized, as the MRA phenomenon
shows, the openly superior attitudes of silicon valley tech bros, etc.
Yves, the point you make about the perceived lack of greased tracks from Southern
universities to the Acela corridor's hall's of power got me thinking about C. Wright Mills
and where else the power elite create leverage points
NOTE: This is a reprint of a journal article with the following citation:
Domhoff, G. William. 2006. "Mills's The Power Elite 50 Years Later." Contemporary Sociology
35:547-550.
Mills's career (and that of Sloane Coffin at Yale) certainly engendered a response of
"Never again" among the Ivy League and its patrons. The likes of Alfred McCoy at Wisconsin
and G. William Domhoff at UCSC were confined to the state ivies. Later nonconformist critics
of the establishment were lucky to be hired at mid-rank state schools. It was essential to
deprive them of formal inclusion among the nation's intellectual elite. Stanford, under its
longtime patron, arch-conservative Herbert Hoover was especially vigilant in excluding
nonconformists. UC San Diego spent a long time in purgatory for hiring Herbert Marcuse.
Among many other achievements, Mills made a mockery of the McCarthy era demand for
conformity and bland acceptance of the status quo.
It saddens me that the shrill media echo chamber (including that ridiculous Jacobin
article) has me -- a lifelong 'liberal' -- reading TAC.
I reject identity politics. I am an American citizen. But I have no political home. I had
hopes for the DSA, but now I see they were a proud part and parcel of the thuggery in
Charlottesville.
Yes, I have a very tight tinfoil hat but I smell the fire and brimstone of Soros,
provocations and color revolutions. "Heightening the differences" is I believe what this
violent street theater was intended to do.
Yes, they do have really good foreign policy analysis. Reality-based. But you have to wade
through quite a bit of Christian-values-under-attack and Culture War yaya to get there.
IMHO.
I only have Daniel bookmarked, and my browser takes me right to his exposes of the Peace
Prize President's support of the horrors in Yemen, the bipartisan war crime disaster which is
Syria, and the insanities of Trump's ignorant babbles. :)
The video of Fields attack broadcast on corporate media was mainly the one filmed by one
Brennan Gilmore.
The only description I found in an MSM report said he was a Charlotte resident, involved
in start – ups, and had been present with friends at the scene.
He had tweeted extensively, characterising the incident as a :terrorist attack ' by' Nazis
'.
He also claims that Nazis are running the White House.
Definitely not a' neutral' observer.
Now turns out he is a former State Dept employee, whose work smacks not a little of CIA
regime – changing.
This is definitely looking more and more like a psyops.
"This is definitely looking more and more like a psyops.
But what's the goal?"
I think the goals are clear. (Just look at the effects.)
What's less clear to me is what people/groups are orchestrating this. The
aftermath–creating division and opinion regarding even the facts of what
happened–is part of the goal. Look at this website and the data being generated by
commenters. Who defends themself? Who attacks? Who retreats? What is the nature of the
language used?
Quinn Michaels has analyzed that stirring things up in this way provides opportunities for
Smart AI to create more data regarding how individuals and groups respond emotionally, thus
further enabling future manipulation of society with even greater precision. Michaels'
extensive analysis of advanced bot networks is chilling. But even so he sees beneficial
opportunities. It's pretty intriguing, these games and deliberate disruption. His YouTube
discussions (many of which include extensive screenshots to document what he has observed)
are interesting stuff.
Thanks for the info – I can well believe that is a motive for some.
But I am focusing more on the political aims of what is looking more and more like an
orchestrated event.
Trump's condemnation of both 'sides' was greeted with predictable outrage from much of the
MSM.
Yet having watched an hour long video filmed by a non – partisan, who positioned
himself between the :warring parties, it is clear he is correct : the police were ordered to
stand down while both sides – one of which did not have a permit for a rally –
went at it hammer and tongs.
That casualties were greater for one 'side'(though I take such reports with a large dose
of salt given media disdain for facts, including' WMD: NYT) does not reduce culpability.
Interesting that Richard Spencer (the humanities graduate from an upper middle class
background who supposedly represents the grievances of much of the Deplorable class –
really?) was in Hungary months ago. Meeting with the 'far right' there. He sure gets
around.
With no visible means of support, I can only assume he's being bankrolled by some very shy
folk .
Hungary also happens to be run by Soros nemesis, Victor Orban.
A little digging might turn some 'unexpected' connections.
'Unexpected 'to those who are unfamiliar with events in the Ukraine that is.
Wilderness First Responder (WFR) training is great you get everything you would in the
above-mentioned Red Cross courses but with a wilderness overlay, the upshot being there is a
focus on helping injured people for a longer period of time than just waiting for an
ambulance. So longer term patient stabilization, splint making, assessment, etc. Strikes me
as useful in a situation where professional medical help is not going to be immediately
available for whatever reason. The Wilderness Medical Institute (WMI) runs courses all across
the country but there are other outfits that teach the course as well.
I have a unique perspective of sorts on this as I used to be "Robert E. Lee" on the Radio.
Other than being kidded about the name, I never, ever saw any push back or any negativity
from anyone. And my show was top-rated. Of course this was back in the 70's and things
change. But seems to me some of these people protesting over confederate statues are missing
the point and should read a book on the Civil war, which was mostly about oppression from the
Northern states and really not that much about slavery.
There are plenty of books that completely invalidate "the Civil war, which was mostly
about oppression from the Northern states and really not that much about slavery." Not that
any post here is going to change your mind.
What about the theory that the economic interests of the North in opposition to those of
the South motivated the Civil War? The North wanted to compel the South to sell its cotton to
Northern Mills at a lower price than the South could sell its cotton to English Mills. I
thought I read about that in a Post here at NakedCapitalism -- ? I have trouble believing the
Civil War was about slavery. If slavery were the driver then why did Lincoln wait until 1863
to make his emancipation proclamation? After the Civil War why did the North do so little to
help the slaves they emancipated and protect their freedom? It took 100 years and
considerable political and social pressure to compel the North to enforce even the most basic
civil rights in the South.
Every single version of the secession articles issued by the Southern states says they
were doing so to preserve their "peculiar institution." It's not about "belief." It's about
demonstrable facts. That the North didn't really give a [family blog] about the actual
slaves, and that anti-black racism was as bad north of the Mason-Dixon is irrelevant to this
discussion.
Likewise, the reason why none of the freed slaves got their "40 acres and a mule" is
available in any number of reliable historical sources, and just as has always been the case
is the result of a combination of rich people and politics.
Read some diaries by Northerners who fought in that war. Whether they liked it or not,
they knew the war was about ending slavery. An awful lot of them volunteered based on that
understanding (except the mobs in NYC that attacked an orphanage for black children). In his
memoirs Grant, writing much later in a time when the myth of "it was only about union" by
then had a firm hold, was clear about the role abolitionism played. Those in the South at the
time didn't pretend otherwise either.
Many of those fighting in the Civil War were motivated by their feelings about slavery.
However I am extremely skeptical that either a strong desire to abolish slavery or a
commitment to maintain the union motivated the Elite of the North to war with the South.
Their concern for the human condition didn't extend very far in time or space. Emancipated
slaves were left to suffer under Jim Crow. Northern Mills and factories operated in
conditions not greatly different than outright slavery.
Disclaimer: I am totally not a historian. Evidence *wholly* anecdotal, *wholly* oral and
simply a family story. My father had two great-uncles who died in Andersonville Prison, I
have seen the letters and the little carved Bibles send back to their family in Ohio/
Pennsylvania but not otherwise verified anything. The story in the family is that they went
for the substitute money, $100 (a whole lot of money back then). The draft was only for
landowners, ie voters, but they could and very often did pay to have non-landowners, such as
my greatuncles, take their duty for them. Irony: the family was awarded land, in
Michigan.
Yves, CERT or Community Emergency Response Training is what you might want to check out
for basic emergency training/preparedness. CERT operates on both a national and local level.
Out here in earthquake country the local chapter is pretty active.
Yves, here in NYC, I took a good basic first aid course at the American Red Cross (it
included CPR, dealing with burns, broken bones, seizures, etc.); someone upthread mentioned
the American Heart Association and their offerings look intriguing too. And NYC does indeed
have an active CERT chapter; which fields teams of trained volunteer first-responders for all
sorts of disasters. (I had looked into all this stuff just post-9/11; picked up a good manual
on disaster prep from the ARC and still carry their first-aid kit and a pair of construction
gloves in my backpack, just in case.)
I'm not sure what to make of the events in Charlottesville. They hold a dark foreboding I
can't decipher.
Lee Camp's portrayal of how fleetingly brief is our moment of life and consciousness and
his admonition to use that moment is what most moved me in his brief video.
While Red Cross and other organization offer courses, you might try to find a good edition
of the Boy Scout's First Aid Merit Badge booklet. It has probably been updated over the
years, but was a good read and taught me enough to help several injured people since earning
my Eagle rank. Not sure I could revive the dead, but I've kept a heart attack victim alive
until help arrived, as well as many bleeding people.
The South has long dominated key sectors of the US power structure, if not the ones where
Yves has spent her time/ drawn her acquaintances.
Just look at those who have had prominent roles in Congressional leadership and committee
chairmanships over the last century. What about Mitch McConnell? Jeff Sessions (before he
became AG)? Russell Long? Jamie Whitten? Herman Talmadge? George Smathers? Lindsay Graham?
John McCain (Mississippian by birth)? Strom Thurmond? Theodore Bilbo? Just to name a few.
Southerners are also over-represented in the military.
http://www.ozy.com/acumen/why-the-us-military-is-so-southern/72100
NB, as Yves has mentioned, the retired general and flag officers often end up running defense
contractors when they leave active duty– so Southern influence is also strong
there.
The South continues to dominate our political life and our military industrial complex.
Guilt tripping non Southerners about anti Southern prejudice continues to enforce such
dominance. While that prejudice certainly exists, it's no reason to give the white South a
pass, or the affirmative action program Trump wants to grant by re-orienting DoJ's Civil
Rights Division.
McCain was born in Panama, there was a birther issue with his candidacy. I see nothing in
his bio about MS, though he moved a great deal as a military brat.
The fact that southern pols attain such positions does not necessarily reflect dominance.
And while Yves's' characterization elides some issues, it has the virtue of pointing up the
obvious: there is prejudice toward white southerners and, like most prejudice, tends to
prevent us from seeing the region clearly.
Furthermore, McCain makes no bones about his Southern heritage. He has also, among other
things, defended the Confederate flag and spoken highly of his treasonous ancestors who
fought for the Confederacy (as noted in Salon link above).
Regarding your disputation of Southern dominance on Capitol Hill -- I worked at CBO and got
to see it first hand back in the 70s. With all due respect, your statement about the
prevalence of southern pols in high positions on the Hill not "necessarily" reflecting
dominance, is clueless. It may be a little different now but given the continued power of
Southern Republicans on the Hill I tend to doubt that.
Of course there's prejudice towards just about everyone who isn't in one's own group.
Unfortunately, that is the way humans are. The real issue is, has that group been victimized?
Not all that much in the case of white Southerners, who run a great deal of the country.
I would also say: the prejudice against Southerners actually works in many ways to their
advantage. Both in terms of outsiders underestimating them, and in terms of outsiders' being
clueless about how powerful the South really is.
Simply saying that Southerners dominate the America power structure doesn't make it the
case. Put that case together and I am interested. Calling me "clueless" looks to me like a
sign that you are either operating out of your own prejudice rather than solid fact or just
disputatious. I would gladly accept that Southerners are a disproportionate part of the power
structure; that they dominate? Pony up.
Out here in Seattle we seem to be more and more segregated. The city is basically cut in
half, with the north side of downtown/ship canal being primarily white and the south side of
downtown being the last vestige of minority home ownership in the city. Gentrification is
alive and well in the Pacific Northwest. We call it the "San Francisco-zation" of Seattle.
Everyone is being priced out and the City of Seattle Government seems perfectly ok with it.
Perhaps the era of the City-State is here?
Yes, policing fail. But there were some reasons for that. This "From a member of UVA
staff," which appeared on a trusted friend's FB page, which has a ring of authenticity:
'A few specifics that I learned from a very somber staff meeting with our Dean of
Libraries just now. Some of these details may have been available in news reports but they
were new to me. (1) Apparently on Friday night there was a 'very low level' request for
permission for a group of 20 people to read a speech at the Rotunda. This overture to the
University was then bait-and-switched to the march with torches that circled Central Grounds.
(2) During the white nationalists' intimidating march around Grounds, many UVA police
officers were actually located downtown, where they had been seconded to support
Charlottesville City police. (3) On Saturday, there were "several deliberate attempts to
spread police thin" through tactics such as fake bomb scares in parts of town away from the
main action. (4) By UVA policy, students and employees are prohibited from carrying firearms
on Grounds, but by state law, because this is a public property, people with no University
affiliation are allowed open carry without a permit and concealed carry with a permit. UVA
can make policy enforceable on its own students and employees but not on the general public
.
"I am sharing all of this because I think there were several specific, calculated tactics by
the white nationalists to leverage our laws and policies against us and to maximize the
terrorizing effect of their activities in Charlottesville over the weekend. I believe the
white nationalists are not done with us here in Charlottesville and I believe they will
target other universities, university towns, and communities with progressive political
reputations for similar attacks. I hope that forewarned is forearmed and that by
disseminating information about the white nationalists' tactics we can be better prepared in
the future.' (thanks to Gregory N Blevins)"
Nature. Skilled Labor. Community Bank credit creation. Shorting nature into a battery with
debt expertise always ends the same way, a black hole of symptoms chasing their own tail,
until all the financial and operational leverage is stranded.
An elevator eliminates the arbitrary clock in the compiler, allowing an increasing
diversity of events to time themselves.
"... This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. ..."
The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a
policy to protect the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice, the putative
benefits of diversity or any other standard justification. It is this peace- keeping function that
explains why the entire establishment, from mega corporations to the military, endorses
constitutionally
iffy racial discrimination and why questioning diversity's benefits is the most grievous of all
PC sins. Stated in cost-benefit terms, denying a few hundred (even a few thousand) high-SAT scoring
Asians an Ivy League diploma and instead forcing them attend Penn State is a cheap price to pay for
social peace.
This argument rests on an indisputable reality that nearly all societies contain distinct ethnic
or religious groups who must be managed for the sake of collective peace. They typically lack the
ability to economically compete, may embrace values that contravene the dominant ethos, or otherwise
just refuse to assimilate. What makes management imperative is the possibility of violence either
at an individual level, for example, randomly stabbing total strangers, or on a larger scale, riots
and insurrections. Thus, in the grand scheme of modern America's potentially explosive race relations,
academically accomplished Asians, most of whom are politically quiescent, are expendable, collateral
damage in the battle to sustain a shaky status quo.
Examples of such to-be-managed groups abound. Recall our own tribulations with
violent Indian tribes
well into the 19 th century or what several European nations currently face with Muslims
or today's civil war in Burma
with the Karen People. Then there's Turkey's enduring conflict with the Kurds and long before the
threat of Islamic terrorism, there were Basque separatists (the
ETA ), and the
Irish Republican Army
. In the past 45 years, there have been more than 16,000 terror attacks in Western Europe according
to the
Global Terrorism Database . At a lower levels add the persistently criminal Gypsies who for 500
years have resisted all efforts to assimilate them. This listing is, of course, only a tiny sampling
of distinct indigestible violence-prone groups.
The repertoire of remedies, successful and failed, is also extensive. Our native-American problem
has, sad to say, been largely solved by the use of apartheid-like reservations and incapacitating
a once war-like people with drugs and alcohol. Elsewhere generous self-rule has done the trick, for
example, the Basques in Spain. A particularly effective traditional solution is to promote passivity
by encouraging religious acceptance of one's lowly state.
Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable for
its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled
despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs.
To appreciate the value of affirmative action recall the urban riots of the 1960s. They have almost
been forgotten but their sheer number during that decade would shock those grown accustomed to today's
relative tranquility. A sampling
of cities with major riots includes Rochester, NY, New York City, Philadelphia, PA, Los Angeles,
CA, Cleveland, OH, Newark, NJ, Detroit, MI, Chicago, IL, Washington, DC and several smaller cities.
The damage from these riots! "uprisings" or "rebellions" according to some!was immense. For example,
the Detroit riot of 1967
lasted five days and quelling it required the intervention of the Michigan Army National Guard and
both the 82 nd and 101 st Airborne divisions. When it finally ended, the death
toll was 43, some 7200 were arrested and more than 2000 buildings destroyed. Alas, much of this devastation
remains visible today and should be a reminder of what could happen absent a policy of cooling out
black anger.
To correctly understand how racial preferences at elite colleges serves as a cost-effective solution
to potential domestic violence, recall the quip by comedian
Henny Youngman when asked
"How's your wife?" He responded with, "Compared to what?" This logic reflects a hard truth: when
confronting a sizable, potentially disruptive population unable or unwilling to assimilate, a perfect
solution is beyond reach. Choices are only among the lesser of evils and, to repeat, under current
conditions, race-driven affirmative action is conceivably the best of the worst. A hard-headed realist
would draw a parallel with how big city merchants survive by paying off the police, building and
food inspectors, and the Mafia. Racial preferences are just one more item on the cost-of-doing business
list–the Danegeld .
In effect, racial preferences in elite higher education (and beneficiaries includes students,
professors and the diversity-managing administrators) separates the
top 10% measured in cognitive ability from their more violent down market racial compatriots.
While this manufactured caste-like arrangement hardly guarantees racial peace (as the black-on-white
crime rate, demonstrates) but it pretty much dampens the possibility of more collective, well-organized
related upheavals, the types of disturbances that truly terrify the white establishment. Better to
have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating
about white racism at Princeton where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street
corner. This status driven divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street
socialize with the bro's left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale,
organized rebellion by decapitating its potential leadership. Violence is now just Chicago
or Baltimore-style gang-banger intra-racial mayhem or various lone-wolf criminal attacks on whites.
Co-optation is a staple in the political management repertoire. The Soviet Union adsorbed what
they called the "leading edge" into the Party (anyone exceptionally accomplished, from chess grandmasters
or world-class athletes) to widen the divide the dominant elite, i.e., the Party, and hoi polloi.
Election systems can be organized to guarantee a modicum of power to a handful of potential disruptors
and with this position comes ample material benefits (think Maxine Waters). Monarchies have similarly
managed potential strife by bestowing honors and titles on commoners. It is no accident that many
radicals are routinely accused of "selling out" by their former colleagues in arms. In most instances
the accusation is true, and this is by design.
To appreciate the advantages of the racial preferences in higher education consider Henny's "compared
to what"? part of his quip. Certainly what successfully worked for quelling potential Native American
violence, e.g., forced assimilation in "Indian Schools" or confinement in pathology-breeding reservations,
is now totally beyond the pale though, to be sure, some inner-cities dominated by public housing
are increasingly coming to resemble pathology-inducing Indian reservations. Even less feasible is
some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.
I haven't done the math but I would guess that the entire educational racial spoils system is
far more cost effective than creating a
garrison state or a DDR-like police state where thousands of black trouble-makers were quickly
incarcerated. Perhaps affirmative action in general should be viewed as akin to a nuisance tax, probably
less than 5% of our GDP.
To be sure, affirmative action at elite universities is only one of today's nostrums to quell
potential large scale race-related violence. Other tactics include guaranteeing blacks elected offices,
even if this requires turning a blind eye toward election fraud, and quickly surrendering to blacks
who demand
awards and honors on the basis of skin color. Perhaps a generous welfare system could be added
to this keep-the-peace list. Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than
dealing with widespread 1960s style urban violence.
This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those
smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs. Now, given all
the billions that have been saved, maybe a totally free ride at lesser schools would be a small price
to pay for their dissatisfaction (and they would also be academic stars at such schools). Of course
this "Asian only" compensatory scholarship might be illegal under the color blind requirements of
1964 Civil Right Act, but fear not, devious admission officers will figure out a way around the law.
1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return
to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when
they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like
Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged
gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white
West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats
in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by
blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good
weather, and attractive women.
@Carlton Meyer At first, I was surprised that they listened to him.
After a while, I realized that many negros are stupid enough to think that Hispanics and Asians
would like to be in some anti-white alliance with blacks as a senior partner. In reality, they
have an even lower opinion of blacks than whites do. US blacks have zero knowledge of the world
outside America, so this reality just doesn't register with them.
John Derbyshire has made similar arguments–racial preferences are the price for social peace.
But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian children to buffer
black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial lambs"
for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.
There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain
in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant
retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites
can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they
are able.
Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional
domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
Could care less about your smart Asians The smart Asians are enthusiastivally voting Whitey
into a racial minority on Nov 3 2020 They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and
Breeding Space
Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.
Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.
They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.
Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.
Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.
Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.
Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.
If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform
to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.
But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal
PC tards.
Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate,
and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell
Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.
Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then,
you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who
ran from dirty browns shi ** ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches
about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must
mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After
all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?
PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of
slave ancestry. That's it.
Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent
the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the
lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but ' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination
but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest.
Please stop trying to confuse Orientals with Indians and other subcontinentals. They are
quite distinct.
In their original countries they are, but in America they are almost identical in all ways
except appearance and diet.
Plus, since SE Asia has always had influence from both, there is a smooth continuum in the
US across all of these groups by the time the 2nd generation rolls around.
They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding Space
Three things wrong with this sentence.
1) I don't think you know that Native Americans (i.e. Siberians) were here first.
2) I will bet anything that all 128 of your GGGGG-GPs are not English settlers who were here in
1776. You are probably some 2nd gen Polack or something who still worries that WASPs look down
on you.
3) There is very high variance among whites, and white trashionalists are SOOOO far below the
quality threshold of any moderately successful white that they can't claim to speak for all whites.
White Trashionalists represent the waste matter that nature wants to purge (which is the process
that enables exceptional whites to emerge on the other end of the scale). That is why white women
are absolutely doing what nature wants, which is to cut off the White Trashionalists from reproduction.
If you care about the white race, you should be glad that white women want nothing to do with
you and allow you to complete you wastebasket role.
Obama was one of the beneficiaries of AA along with his wife and their kids. Did that prevent
Baltimore and Chicago and etc from blowing up?
In a way, AA and Civil Rights made black communities more volatile. When blacks were more stringently
segregated, even smart and sensible blacks lived among blacks and played some kind of 'role model'.
They ran businesses and kept in close contact with black folks.
It's like white communities in small towns used to be much better when the George Baileys stayed
in them or returned to them and ran things.
But as more and more George Bailies left for the big cities, small towns had fewer top notch
role models and leaders and enterprisers. Also, the filth of pop culture and youth degeneracy
via TV corrupted the dummies. And then, when globalism took away the industries, there were just
people on opioids. At least old timers grew up with family and church. The new generation grew
up on Idiocracy.
Anyway, AA will just taken more black talent from black community and mix them with whites,
Asians, and etc. Will some of these blacks use their power and privilege to incite black mobs
to violence? Some do go radical. But most will just get their goodies and forget the underclass
except in some symbolic way. It's like Obama didn't do crap as 'community organizer'. He just
stuck close to rich Jews in Hyde Park, and as president, he was serving globo-wars, Wall Street,
and homos.
When he finally threw a bone at the blacks in his second term, it lit cities on fire.
Did the black underclass change for the better because they saw Obama as president? No. If
anything, it just made them bolder as flashmobs. The way blacks saw it, a bunch of fa ** ogty
wussy white people voted for a black guy created by a black man sexually conquering a white woman.
They felt contempt for cucky whites, especially as rap culture and sports feature blacks as master
race lording over whites. To most underclass blacks, the only culture they know is sports and
rap and junk they see on TV. And they are told blacks are magical, sacred, badass, and cool. And
whites are either 'evil' if they have any pride or cucky-wucky wussy if they are PC.
The Murrayian Coming-Apart of whites took place already with blacks before. And more AA that
takes in smarter blacks will NOT make things better for black underclass. And MORE blacks in elite
colleges will just lead to MORE anger issues, esp as they cannot keep up with other students.
Even so, I can understand the logic of trying to win over black cream of crop. Maybe if they
are treated nice and feel 'included', they won't become rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton and act
more like Obama. Obama's race-baiting with Ferguson was bad but could have been worse with someone
like Sharpton.
The Power can try to control a people in two ways. Crush everyone OR give carrots to comprador
elites so that sticks can be used on masses. Clinton did this. He brought over black elites, and
they worked with him to lock up record number of Negroes to make cities safer. As Clinton was
surrounded by Negroes and was called 'first black president' by Toni Morrison, many blacks didn't
realize that he was really working to lock up lots of black thugs and restore order.
Smart overlords play divide-and-conquer by offering carrots to collaborator elites and using
sticks on masses.
British Imperialists did that. Gandhi would likely have collaborated with Brits if not for the
fact that he was called a 'wog' in South Africa and kicked off a train. Suddenly, he found himself
as ONE with the poor and powerless 'wogs' in the station. He was made equal with his own kind.
Consider Jews in the 30s and even during WWII. Many Western European Jews became rich and privileged
and felt special and put on airs. Many felt closer to gentile elites and felt contempt and disdain
for many 'dirty' and 'low' Eastern European Jews. If Hitler had been cleverer and offered carrots
to rich Jews, there's a good chance that many of them would have collaborated and worked with
the Power to suppress or control lower Jews, esp. of Eastern European background.
But Hitler didn't class-discriminate among Jews. He went after ALL of them. Richest Jew, poorest
Jew, it didn't matter. So, even many rich Jews were left destitute if not dead after WWII. And
this wakened them up. They once had so much, but they found themselves with NOTHING. And as they
made their way to Palestine with poor Eastern European Jewish survivors, they felt a strong sense
of ethnic identity. Oppression and Tragedy were the great equalizer. Having lost everything, they
found what it really means to be Jewish. WWII and Holocaust had a great traumatic equalizing effect
on Jews, something they never forgot since the war, which is why very rich Jews try to do much
for even poor Jews in Israel and which is why secular Jews feel a bond with funny-dressed Jewish
of religious sects.
For this reason, it would be great for white identity if the New Power were to attack ALL whites
and dispossess all of them. Suppose globalism went after not only Deplorables but Clintons, Bushes,
Kaineses, Kerrys, Kennedys, and etc. Suppose all of them were dispossessed and humiliated and
called 'honkers'. Then, like Gandhi at the train station, they would regain their white identity
and identify with white hoi polloi who've lost so much to globalism. They would become leaders
of white folks.
But as long as carrots are offered to the white elites, they go with Glob and dump on whites.
They join with the GLOB to use sticks on white folks like in Charlottesville where sticks were
literally used against patriots who were also demeaned as 'neo-nazis' when most of them weren't.
So, I'm wishing Ivy Leagues will have total NO WHITEY POLICY. It is when the whites elites
feel rejected and humiliated by the Glob that they will return to the masses.
Consider current Vietnam. Because Glob offers them bribes and goodies, these Viet-cuck elites
are selling their nation to the Glob and even allowing homo 'pride' parades.
White Genocide that attacks ALL whites will have a unifying effect on white elites and white
masses. It is when gentiles targeted ALL Jews that all Jews, rich and poor, felt as one.
But the Glob is sneaky. Instead of going for White Genocide that targets top, middle, and bottom,
it goes for White Democide while forgoing white aristocide. So, white elites or neo-aristocrats
are rewarded with lots of goodies IF they go along like the Romneys, Clintons, Kaines, Bidens,
and all those quisling weasels.
" Now to the question at hand: what is to be done regarding American blacks, a group notable
for its penchant for violence whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely
stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs. "
I read an article, making a learned impression, that on average USA blacks have a lower IQ.
I do suppose that IQ has a cultural component, nevertheless, those in western cultures with a
lower IQ can be expected to have less economic success.
A black woman who did seem to understand all this was quoted in the article as that 'blacks should
be compensated for this lower IQ'.
One can discuss this morally endless, but even if the principle was accepted, how is it executed,
and where is the end ?
For example, people with less than average length are also less successful, are we going to compensate
them too ?
"economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of billions
and countless government uplift programs"
It only stalled when the Great Society and the uplift programs started. According to The Bell
Curve there was basically an instant collapse when LBJ started to wreaking his havoc. Go back
to pre-1964 norms and no late-60s riots.
We have sacrificed smart white students for three generations to keep the hebraic component
around 30% at our highest-ranked colleges and universities, and no one (except the jewish Ron
Unz himself) made so much as a peep. And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far
more discrimination than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting
it.
@War for Blair Mountain "They don't belong on Native Born White American Living and Breeding
Space "
Your statement would be perfectly correct if it read, "White people of European origin don't
belong on Native American Living and Breeding Space "
Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall to complain
that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more closely
than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent.
Honestly, what is the world coming to when you spend centuries and millions of bullets, bottles
of whisky and plague-ridden blankets getting rid of tens of millions of people so you can steal
their land – and then more people like you come along and want to settle peaceably alongside you?
That's downright un-American.
Maybe you'd be more comfortable if the Asian immigrants behaved more like the European settlers
– with fire, sword, malnutrition and pestilence.
@Diversity Heretic The Kipling quote is stirring and thought-provoking (like most Kipling
quotes). But it is not entirely correct.
Consider the kings of France in the 10th century, who were confronted by the apparently insoluble
problem of periodic attacks by bands of vicious, warlike, and apparently irresistible Vikings.
One king had the bright idea of buying the Northmen off by granting them a very large piece of
land in the West of France – right where the invading ships used to start up the Seine towards
Paris.
The Northmen settled there, became known as Normans, and held Normandy for the rest of the
Middle Ages – in the process absolutely preventing any further attacks eastward towards Paris.
The dukes of Normandy held it as a fief from the king, and thus did homage to him as his feudal
subordinates.
They did conquer England, Sicily, and a few other places subsequently – but the key fact is
that they left the tiny, feeble kingdom of France alone.
Ratioal cost benefit arguments could be applied much more widely to the benefit of America
and other First World countries. If otherwise illegal drugs were legalised, whether to be prescribed
by doctors or not, it would save enormous amounts of money on law enforcement and, subject to
what I proffer next, incarceration.
What is the downside? The advocates of Prohibition weren't wrong about the connection of alcohol
and lower productivity. That was then. If, say, 10 per cent of the population were now disqualified
from the workforce what would it matter. The potential STEM wizards amongst them (not many) would
mostly be nurtured so that it was only the underclass which life in a daze. And a law which made
it an offence, effectively one for which the penalty was to be locked up or otherwise deprived
of freedom to be a nuisance, to render oneself unfit to perform the expected duties of citizenship
would have collateral benefits in locking up the right underclass males.
@Bro Methylene "Orientals," east Asians, or just Asians in American parlance are indeed quite
different from south Asians, called "Asians" in the UK,. These are quite different groups.
But the groups of east and south Asians include widely differing peoples. A Korean doesn't
have much in common with a Malay, nor a Pathan with a Tamil. Probably not much more than either
has in common with the other group or with white Americans.
That they "all look alike" to use does not really mean the do, it just means we aren't used
to them.
Was recently watching an interesting Chinese movie and had enormous difficulty keeping the
characters straight, because they did indeed all look alike to me. I wonder if Chinese people
in China have similar trouble watching old American movies.
@Carlton Meyer yeah and hispanics are natural conservatives. dont be a cuck once that slant
is here long enough he will tumble to the game and get on the anti white bandwagon. and sure asians
will eventually out jew the jews just what we need another overlord, only this one a huge percentage
or world pop. .
You know weisberg youre not fooling anyone here peddle that cuck crap elsewhere affirmative
action leads to nothing but more affirmative action at this point everyone but white males gets
it, and you my jew friend know this so selling it to sucker cucks as the cost of doing business
is just more jew shenanigans. There is a much better solution to the problem peoples deport them
back where they belong israel africa asia central america.
This is all about nothing now. The only thing White people have to learn anymore is controlled
breathing, good position, taking up trigger slack, letting the round go at exactly the right moment
– one round, one hit.
When your child tosses a tantrum and tears up his bedroom, and you tell him his mean-spirited,
selfish cousins caused it and then you reward him with a trip to Disneyland and extra allowance:
then you guarantee more and worse tantrums.
That is what America and America's Liberals, the Elites, have done with blacks and violence.
A very interesting post. Really a unique perspective – who cares if it's not fair, if it is
necessary to keep the peace?
I do however disagree with one of your points. " whose economic advancement over the last half-century
has largely stalled despite tens of billions and countless government uplift programs."
I think you have missed the main event. Over the last half-century the elites of this nation
have waged ruthless economic warfare AGAINST poor blacks in this country, to an extent that far
dwarfs the benefits of affirmative action (for a typically small number of already privileged
blacks).
Up through the 1960′s, blacks were starting to do not so bad. Yes they were in a lot of menial
jobs, but many of these were unionized and the pay was pretty good. I mean, if nobody else wants
to sweep your floors, and the only guy willing to do it i s black, well, he can ask for a decent
deal.
Then our elites fired black workers en masse, replacing them with Mexican immigrants and outsourcing
to low-wage countries. Blacks have had their legs cut off with a chainsaw, and the benefits of
affirmative action (which nowadays mostly go to Mexicans etc.!) little more than a bandaid.
And before we are too hard on blacks, let me note that whites are also being swept up in the
poverty of neoliberal globalization, and they too are starting to show social pathology.
Because in terms of keeping the social peace, there is one fundamental truth more important
than all others: there must be some measure of broadly shared prosperity. Without it, even ethnically
homogeneous and smart and hard working people like the Japanese or Chinese will tear themselves
apart.
Note that there is not a word in this article about what this does to the white working class
and how it can be given something in return for allowing Elites to bribe blacks with trillions
and trillions of dollars in goodies. Nor is there is there any indication that this process eventually
will explode, with too many blacks demanding so much it cannot be paid.
Was this written tongue in cheek?
Affirmative action will never end. The bribes will never end. The US made a mistake in the 1960s.
We should have contained the riots then let the people in those areas sleep in the burned out
rubble. Instead through poverty programs we rewarded bad black behavior.
By filling the Ivy League with blacks we create a new class of Cornell West's for white people
to listen to. We enhance the "ethos" of these people.
Eventually, certainly in no more than 40 years, we will run out of sacrifices. What then when
whites constitute only 40% of the American population? Look at South Africa today.
We have black college graduates with IQs in the 80s! They want to be listened to. After all, they're
college graduates.
I do not believe you have found "a cost-effective solution to potential domestic violence".
You mix in this "top 10%" and they get greater acceptance by whites who are turned left in college.
"The argument is that admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core,
a policy to protect the racial peace "
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
"We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
"Though we know we should defeat you,
we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"
whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite tens of
billions and countless government uplift programs.
The reality of this is become a huge stumbling block. In fact this group has actually been
mostly regressing into violence and stupidity, going their own separate way as exemplified by
their anti-social music which celebrates values repugnant to the majority. Look at the absurd
level of shootings in cities like Chicago. That's not changing anytime soon. They're by far overrepresented
in Special Ed, juvenile delinquency, prisons and all other indicators of dysfunction. Their talented
tenth isn't very impressive as compared to whites or Asians. Their entire middle class is mostly
an artificial creation of affirmative action. The point is that they can only be promoted so far
based on their capability. The cost of the subsidy gets greater every year and at some point it'll
become too heavy a burden and then it'll be crunch time. After the insanity of the Cultural Revolution
the Chinese had to come to their senses. It's time to curtail our own version of it.
It really is terrible and unfair that an Asian needs to score so much higher than you white
oppressors to get into the Ivy league
A Princeton study found that students who identify as Asian need to score 140 points higher
on the SAT than whites to have the same chance of admission to private colleges, a difference
some have called "the Asian tax."
I think this is brilliant satire.
It is actually an argument that is logically sound. Doesn't mean that it's good or sensible or
even workable over the long run.
It's just logically sound. It holds together if one accepts the not-crazy parts its made out of.
I don't believe it's meant to be taken literally, because both the beneficiaries and those who
get screwed will grow in their resentment and the system would melt down.
New fields with the word "studies' in them would get added and everyone would know – deep down
– why that is so, and Asians would continue to dominate the hard sciences, math and engineering.
Still, as satire, it's so close to the bone that it works beautifully.
@Tom Welsh "Yet there they are, in immense, pullulating numbers. And now they have the gall
to complain that other people – some of whom resemble the few surviving Native Americans far more
closely than Whites do – are coming to "their" continent."
Agree. The country should be returned to pre-1700 conditions and given over to anyone who wants
it.
@Anonymouse I guess one man's riot is another man's peaceful night. There was a bit of rioting
in Brooklyn that night, businesses burned and looted, and a handful of businesses were looted
in Harlem. There was a very heavy police presence with Mayor Lindsey that night and blacks were
still very segregated in 1968, so I'd guess it was more that show of force that prevented the
kind of riots we'd seen earlier and in other cities at that time. Still, there was looting and
burning, so New York's blacks don't get off the hook. As a personal note. my older brother and
his friends were attacked by a roving band of blacks that night in Queens, but managed to chase
them out of our neighborhood.
The costs of BRA may be lower than the costs of 1960s urban riots, though an accurate accounting
would be difficult as many costs are not easily tabulated.
Consider, for instance, the costs of excluding higher performing whites and Asians from elite
universities. Does this result in permanently lower salaries from them as a result of greater
difficulty in joining an elite career track?
What costs do affirmative action impose upon corporations, especially those with offices in
metropolitan areas with a lot of blacks? FedEx is famously centralized in Memphis. What's the
cost to me as a shipper in having to deal with sluggish black customer service personnel?
The blacks are 15% of the population, so I doubt "garrison state" costs would be terribly high.
I am certain that segregation was cheaper than BRA is. The costs of segregation were overlooking
some black talent (negligible) and duplication of certain facilities (I suspect this cost is lower
than the cost of white flight).
How did America ever manage to survive when there hardly any Chinese Hindus..Sihks .Koreans
in OUR America?
Answer:Very well thank you!!!! ..America 1969=90 percent Native Born White American .places
two Alpha Native Born White American Males on the Moon 10 more after this Who the F would be opposed
to this?
Answer:Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" Hindu "Americans" .Sihk "Americans" .Pakistani
"Americans"
There would still be racial peace if affirmative action was abolished. They'll bitch for a
while, but they'll get used it and the dust will settle.
Side note: Affirmation action also disproportionately helps white women into college, and they're
the largest group fueling radical leftist identity politics/feminism on campus. In other words,
affirmative action is a large contributor to SJWism, the media-academia complex, and the resulting
current political climate.
@jilles dykstra The statement "blacks should be compensated for this lower IQ" is no different
than the descendents of the so-called jewish "holocaust ™" being compensated in perpetuity by
the German government. Now, there are calls by the jewish "holocaust ™" lobby to extend the financial
compensation to children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these so-called "holocaust
™ survivors, stating the fake concept of "holocaust ™" transference" just another "holocaust ™"
scam
Same thing.
More Monsanto, DuPont cancers and degraded foods.
New diseases from medical, biological, genetic research
More spying and censorship and stealing by Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, high IQ thieves.
All jobs overseas, domestic unemployment, endless wars, by the best and brightest.
Toxic pollution, mental pollution that dwarfs the back yard pollution of tires and old refrigs
by "low IQ deplorables (white and black and brown".
Degraded, degrading entertainment and fake news to match fake histories by Phds.
Tech devices that are "wonderful" but life is actually better more meaningful without.
[Blacks] "whose economic advancement over the last half-century has largely stalled despite
tens of billions and countless government uplift programs." No, Professor, it is Trillions
spend over the last 50 years and millions before that. Countless Whites and other non-Negroid
people have had to step aside in education, military, government, private industry, to let the
lesser person advance and leap frog the accepted virtue-merit path to advancement. AND IT STILL
IS NOT ENOUGN FOR BLECKS.
The obvious solution is to separate into uni-racial/ethnic states. For Whites, this would include
a separate autocephalous, independent state of Caucasians, Asians, and Hindu. This is the Proto-IndoEuropean
Family, related by genes and languages.
1) Asians will grow in power, and either force more fairness towards themselves, or return
to Asia.
2) WN idiots happy about Asians returning to Asia fail to see that Asians will return only when
they control enough of America to manage large parts of it from afar (like the tech industry).
3) 2-3 million top caliber white male Western Expats might just move to Asia, since they may like
Asian women more, and want to be free of SJW idiocy. This is all it takes to fill the alleged
gap Asia has in creativity, marketing, and sales expertise. Asia effectively decapitates the white
West by taking in their best young men and giving them a great life in Asia.
4) America becomes like Brazil...with all economic value colonized by Asians and the white expats
in Asia with mixed-race children. White trashionalists left behind are swiftly exterminated by
blacks, and white women mix with the blacks. America becomes a Brazil minus the fun culture, good
weather, and attractive women. Could agree 1 and 2.
2-3 millions Top caliber White males moving to Asia?
haha, Top caliber White males (American) will stay in America, screw the rest WN, devour all
the resources available, not only in America, but from the rest of the world.
This is a real White so-called Top caliber White males enjoying in Philippines.
I'm guessing the author would be screaming at the top of his lungs if it was Jewish students
being told to go to some state university–instead of Harvard–since we have to make room for blacks.
BTW, your comment "..Recall our own tribulations with violent Indian tribes" needs clarification.
Maybe the tribes got violent because of the 400 treaties Uncle Sam made with the various tribes,
he honored NONE
@jim jones A great part of that is because, well, let's say that the place where those actresses
have got their work done is the same.
Whites have much greater natural variations in hair and eye color, but skin color among East
Asian individuals is more naturally variable (especially when the effect of tanning is considered),
and their facial features and somatotypes are also more diverse in my opinion. For example, East
Asian populations contain some individuals who have what the Japanese call futae mabuta
"double eyelids" and some individuals who have what they call hitoe mabuta "single eyelids,"
whereas White populations contain only individuals who have "double eyelids." Whether such increased
physical variability is positive or negative probably depends on one's viewpoint; in the case
of that eyelid polymorphism, the variant that is found in Asians but not in Whites is generally
considered neutral or even positive when it occurs in male individuals, but negative when it occurs
in female individuals, so plastic surgeons must be overflowing with gratitude for the single eyelid
gene.
@Thorfinnsson The separate school facilities meant a major saving in the costs of school police
and security guards, resource teachers, counselors buses and bus drivers, and layers and layers
of administrators trying to administer the mess.
Separate schools were a lot cheaper in that the black teachers kept the lid on the violence
with physical punishment and the White teachers and students had a civilized environment.
The old sunshine laws kept blacks out of White neighborhoods after dark which greatly reduced
black on White crime. In the north, informal neighborhood watches kept black on White crime to
a minimum until block by block the blacks conquered the cities.
George Wallace said segregation now, segregation forever. I say sterilization now, problem
solved in 80 years.
Asians??? I went to college with the White WASP American young men who were recruited and went
to work in Mountain View and Cupertino and the rest of Santa Clara county and invented Silicon
Valley.
Not one was Asian or even Jewish. And they invented it and their sons couldn't even get into
Stanford because their sons are White American men.
I think the worst thing about affirmative action is that government jobs are about the only
well paid secure jobs that still stick to the 40 hour work week. Government is the largest employer
in the country. And those jobs are "no Whites need apply".
BTW I read the Protocols years before the Internet. I had to make an appointment to go into
a locked section of a research library. I had to show ID. It was brought to me and I had to sit
where I could be seen to read it. I had to sign an agreement that I would not copy anything from
the protocols.
And there it was, the fourth protocol.
"We shall see to it brothers, that we shall see to it that they appoint only the incompetent and
unfit to their government positions. And thus we shall conquer them from within"
@Thomm Only 4) is remotely possible. And Brazilian women are not that attractive, they are
nice looking on postcards, but quite dumpy and weird-looking in person. But that is a matter of
personal taste.
The reason 1,2,3 are nonsensical is that geography and resources matter. Asia simply doesn't
have them, it is not anywhere as attractive to live in as North America or Europe and never will
be. It goes beyond geographic resources, everything from architecture, infrastructure, culture
is simply worse in Asia and it would take hundreds of years to change that.
So why the constant 'go to Asia' or 'Asia is the future'? It might be a temporary escape for
many desperate, self-hating, white Westerners, a place to safely worship as they give up on it
all. Or it could be the endless family links with the Asian women. But that misreads that most
of the Asian families are way to clear-headed to exchange what the are trying to escape for the
nihilistic dreams of their white partners. They are the least likely to go to Asia, they know
it instinctively, they know what they have been trying to escape.
It is possible that the West is on its last legs, and many places are probably gone for good.
But Asia is not going to step up and replace it. It is actually much worse that that – we are
heading for a dramatic downturn and a loss of comfort and civilization. Thank you Baby Boomers
– you are the true end-of-liners of history.
Bright and talented white kids from non-elite families stuck between the Scylla and Charybdis
of Cram-Schooled Study-Asians with no seeming limit to their tolerance for tedium and 90 IQ entitled
blacks is 2017 in a nutshell.
Said in all seriousness: I genuinely feel sorry for blacks but not because of slavery & Jim
Crow. Those were great evils but every group has gone through that. No, I feel sorry for them
because their average IQ of 85–yes, it is–combined with their crass thug culture, which emphasizes
& rewards all the wrong things, is going to keep them mired in dysfunction for decades to come.
Men like Thomas Sowell & Walter Williams have all the information that blacks need to turn themselves
around but they won't listen, I guess because the message is take responsibility for yourselves
and your families and refuse to accept charity in all its different forms to include AA.
some legally mandated homeland of the types advocated by Black Muslims.
Why not pay people to leave? A law change would convert the money supply from bank money to
sovereign money.
AMI's HR2990 would convert the money supply overnight, and nobody would be the wiser.
At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks that
don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country of
their choice. This public money can be formed as debt free, and could also be directed such that
it can only buy American goods. In other words, it can be forced to channel, to then stimulate
the American economy.
In this way, the future works, to then get rid of disruptive future elements.
It always boils down to the money system. There is plenty of economic surplus to then fund
the removal of indigestible elements.
People automatically assume that the money supply must be private bank credit, as that is the
way it always has been. NO IT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY.
@helena If Whites leave America and go back to their origin, no one, I repeat, NO ONE would
complain about that. They'd be singing "God Riddance" song all along.
No one wants to migrate to Ukraine, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Hungary, a white country.
No one wants to migrate to Austria, a white country.
Everyone wants to migrate to the place where there's an over-bloated sense of job availability.
In this case, America offers an ample amount of opportunity.
Let's wait and see how universities in CA populated with merit-based Asian Americans overrule
all universities in the US anytime soon.
Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in the
world.
Are you utterly oblivious to the fact that well over 95% of the blacks getting AAed into universities
are then being trained/indoctrinated into being future disruptive activists? Activists with credentials,
more money and connections. Entirely counterproductive and much of it on the taxpayers' dime.
If there is a solution, AA isn't it.
@Rdm Can I count you in on the Calexit movement–followed by the purge of whites? Freed from
the burden of those miserable European-origin Americans, the Asian-Negro-Mestizo marvel will be
a shining light to the rest of the world!
I waited to make this comment until the serious thinkers had been here. Did anyone notice the
dame in the picture is giving us the finger? I did a little experiment to see if my hand could
assume that position inadvertently and it couldn't. It aptly illustrates the article, either way.
Name any state in the US that produces more than two universities (in the Top 50 list) in
the world.
No state can compete against CA. You wonder why?
If you took the land mass of CA and imposed it on the U.S. East Coast between Boston and South
Carolina, I don't think it'd be a problem to surpass California in any Top 50 University competition.
Here's a simpler and more effective solution-KILL ALL NIGGERS NOW. See, not so difficult, was
it? Consider it a Phoenix Program for the American Problem. Actually, here's another idea-KILL
ALL LIBERALS NOW. That way, good conservative people of different races, sexes, etc., can be saved
from the otherwise necessary carnage. Remember, gun control is being able to hit your target.
The affirmative action game may well serve the interests of the cognitive elite whites, but
it has been a disaster for the rest of white America. I have a better solution.
Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro
hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.
Send all Asians and other foreigners who not already citizens back to their homelands. End
all immigration except very special cases like the whites being slaughtered in South Africa or
the spouse of a white American male citizen.
@Rdm I am not referring to guys like in the picture.
I am referring to the very topmost career stars, moving to Asia for the expat life. Some of
that is happening, and it could accelerate. Only 2-3 million are needed.
@Kyle McKenna " And as he copiously documented, whites have suffered far more discrimination
than asians have. The difference is, whites are more brainwashed into accepting it. "
And that's the function of the fraudulent, impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers'.
"The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity
to replace the previous social system. This conversion and re-organization of global society
requires two essential steps: firstly, the destruction of the old established order, secondly,
design and imposition of the new order. The first stage requires elimination of all frontier
borders, nationhood and culture, public policy ethical barriers and social definitions, only
then can the destroyed old system elements be replaced by the imposed system elements of our
new order.
The first task of our world revolution is Destruction. All social strata and social formations
created by traditional society must be annihilated, individual men and women must be uprooted
from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type
shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct, traditional social norms must only be viewed as
a disease to be eradicated, the ruling dictum of the new order is; nothing is good so everything
must be criticized and abolished, everything that was, must be gone."
from: 'The Spirit Of Militarism', by Nahum Goldmann Goldmann was the founder & president of the World Jewish Congress
@Rdm Almost all white people would rather migrate to Austria, Hungary, and the Ukraine than
the following citadels of civilization:
Angola
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Djibouti
Ethiopia
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Gabon
Ghana
Kenya
Niger
Nigeria
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable
& dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money
CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax
revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders,
bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action
monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies
to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies
for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the
iceberg
- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples
Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.
It's particularly unfortunate that Asians, who can hardly be blamed for the plight of America's
Blacks, are the ones from whom the "affirmative action" #groidgeld is extracted.
@Diversity Heretic My impression and overall experience from interacting with White Americans
is good in general. I have a very distinct view on both White Americans and Europeans. I'd come
back later.
I don't recommend purging of Whites in America. Neither do I prohibit immigration of all people.
But I do wish "legal" immigration from all parts of the world to this land. But I also understand
why people are fed up with White America.
There is a clear distinction between Europeans and White Americans. White Americans born and
bred here are usually an admixture of many European origins. They usually hide their Eastern European
origin and fervently claim German, French, English whenever possible -- basically those countries
that used to be colonial masters in the past.
White Americans are generally daring, optimistic and very open-minded. Usually when you bump
into any White Americans born and bred here, you can sense their genuine hospitality.
Europeans, usually fresh White immigrants in this land, tend to carry over their old mentality
with a bit of self-righteous attitude to patronize and condescend Americans on the ground that
this is a young country.
My former boss was Swiss origin, born in England, and migrated to America. If there's an opportunity
cost, he'd regale his English origin. If there's a Swiss opportunity, he'd talk about his ancestry.
He'd bash loud, crazy Americans while extoling his European majesty. He became a naturalized American
last year for tax purposes so that his American wife can inherit if he kicks the bucket.
Bottom line is, every immigrant to the US, in my honest opinion, is very innocent and genuinely
hard working. They have a clear idea of how they like to achieve their dreams here and would like
to work hard. It seems after staying here for a while, they all change their true selves to fit
into the existing societal structure, i.e., Chris Hemsworth, an Australian purposely trained to
speak American English in Red Dawn, can yell "This is our home" while 4th generation Asian Americans
will be forced to speak broken English. This is how dreams are shaped in America.
Coming back to purge of Whites, I only wish those self-righteous obese, bald, bottom of the
barrel, living on the alms Whites, proclaiming their White skin, will go back to their origin
and do something about a coming flood of Muslim in their ancestral country if they're so worried
about their heritage.
@Thomm No, he just wants the street-defecating hangers-on like you to go back and show how
awesome you claim you are in your own country by making a success of it rather than milking all
of the entitlements and affirmative action and other programs of literal racial advantage given
to you by virtue of setting foot in someone else's country.
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with unemployable
& dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government, money
CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost CA tax
revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane orders,
bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities, 'affirmative action
monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass transportation', monies
to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies from the Nat. Park Service, monies
for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients, and all this is just the tip of the
iceberg
- Not to mention the counties in CA which will not want to be part of the laughable 'Peoples
Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
CA wouldn't last a week without other peoples money.
Calexit? Please, pretty please. So you're talking about Calexit in AA action?
Let us play along.
If CA is existing solely due to Fed Alms, I can agree it's the tip of the iceberg. But we're
talking about Universities, their performance and how AA is affecting well qualified students.
Following on your arguments,
UC Berkeley receives $373 Millions (Federal Sponsorship) in 2016.
Harvard University, on the other hand, receives $656 millions (Federal sponsorship) in 2012.
I'm talking about how Universities climb up in World ranking, based upon their innovations,
productivity, research output, etc etc etc. Which to me, is reflective of what kind of students
are admitted into the programs. That's my point.
If you want to talk about Calexit, you'd better go and refresh your reading comprehension ability.
The thing that is forgotten is that white Americans DO NOT need the Africans in any way whatsoever.
There is NOTHING in Detroit that we want – we abandoned it deliberately and have no interest in
ever returning.
On the other hand, what do the Africans need from us?
Food. We own and operate all food production.
Medicine. Ditto.
Clean water. Look at Flint.
Sanitation services. Look at anywhere in Africa.
Order.
To put a stop to African behavior from Africans is an idiot's dream. They will never stop being
what they are. They simply cannot. So if we cannot expel them, we must control them. When they
act up, we cut off their food, medicine, water, and sewer services. Build fences around Detroit
and Flint. Siege. After a month or two of the Ethiopian Diet, the Africans in Detroit will be
much more compliant.
@Thomm You just want intra-white socialism so you can mooch off of productive whites. Thomm=the
girly boy blatherings of a White Libertarian Cuck
The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a
White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans" Korean "Americans" .Hindu "Americans"
Sihk "Americans" and Iranian "Americans"?
Answer:0 . Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers go read Denis
Kearney's Rebel Rousing speeches google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the
passage of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act
As some have pointed out, the trouble with appeasement is, it never ends. Those who are used
to the handouts will always want more. There's the saying parents tend to strengthen the strong
and weaken the weak, that's what paternalistic policies like affirmative action and welfare do
to a society. It creates a cycle of dependency.
Those who think multiculturalism coupled with identity politics is a good idea need to take
a good look at Malaysia, arguably the most multicultural country outside the US. The country is
in Southeast Asia, with roughly 30m people, roughly 60% ethnic Malay(100% muslim), 23% Chinese(mostly
buddhist or christian), brought in by the British in the 1800s to work the rubber plantations
and tin mines, and 7% Indian(mostly Hindu), brought in by the British to work the plantations
and civil service.
In 1957 the Brits left and left the power in the hands of the ethnic Malays. The Chinese soon
became the most successful and prosperous group and dominated commerce and the professional ranks.
In 1969 a major race riot broke out, the largely rural and poor Malays decided to "take back what's
theirs", burnt, looted and slaughtered many ethnic Chinese. After the riot the government decided
the only way to prevent more riots is to raise the standard of living for the Malays. And they
began a massive wealth transfer program through affirmative action that heavily favors ethnic
Malays. First, all civil service jobs were given to only ethnic Malays, including the police and
military. Then AA was instituted in all local universities where Malays with Cs and Ds in math
and science were given preference over Chinese with all A's to all the engineering, medicine and
law majors. Today no one in their right mind, not even the rich Malays, want to be treated by
a Malay doctor. I know people who were maimed by one of these affirmative actioned Malay "neurosurgeons"
who botched a simple routine procedure, and there was no recourse, no one is allowed to sue.
Thanks to their pandering to the Malay majority and outright voting fraud, the ruling party
UMNO has never lost an election and is today the longest serving ruling party in modern history.
Any dissent was stifled through the sedition act where dissidents are thrown in jail, roughed
up, tossed down 14th story buildings before they even go to trial. All media is strictly controlled
and censored by the government, who also controls the military, and 100% of the country's oil
production, with a large portion of the profit of Petronas going to the coffers of the corrupt
Malay government elites, whatever's left is given to hoi polloi Malays in the form of fluff job
positions created in civil service, poorly run quasi-government Malay owned companies like Petronas,
full scholarships to study abroad for only ethnic Malays, tax free importation of luxury cars
for ethnic Malays, and when the government decided to "privatize" any government function like
the postal service or telcom, they gave it in the form of a monopoly to a Malay owned company.
All government contracts e.g. for infrastructure are only given to Malay owned companies, even
as they have zero expertise for the job. The clever Chinese quickly figured out they could just
use a Malay partner in name only to get all government contracts.
As opposed to the US where affirmative action favors the minority, in Malaysia AA favors the
majority. You know it can't last. The minority can only prop up the majority for so long. Growth
today is largely propped up by oil income, and the oil reserve is dwindling. Even Mahathir the
former prime minister who started the most blatant racial discrimination policy against the Chinese
started chastising the Malays of late, saying they've become too lazy and dependent on government
largess.
Yet despite the heavy discrimination, the Chinese continued to thrive thanks to their industriousness
and ingenuity, while many rural Malays not connected with the governing elite remain poor -- classic
case of strengthening the strong and weakening the weak. According to Forbes, of the top 10 richest
men in Malaysia today, 9 are ethnic Chinese, only 1 is an ethnic Malay who was given everything
he had. Green with envy, the ethnic Malays demanded more to keep the government in power. So a
new law was made – all Chinese owned businesses have to give 30% ownership to an ethnic Malay,
just like that.
Needless to say all this racial discrimination resulted in a massive brain drain for the country.
many middle class Indians joined the Chinese and emigrated en masse to Australia, NZ, US, Canada,
Europe, Singapore, HK, Taiwan, Japan. The ones left are often destitute and poor, heavily discriminated
against due to their darker skin, and became criminals. Al Jazeera recently reported that the
7% ethnic Indians in Malaysia commit 70% of the crime.
To see how much this has cost Malaysia -- Singapore split off from Malaysia 2 years after their
joint independence from Britain and was left in destitute as they have no natural resources. But
Lee Kuan Yew with the help of many Malaysian Chinese who emigrated to Singapore turned it into
one of the richest countries in the world in one generation with a nominal per capita GDP of $53k,
while Malaysia is firmly stuck at $9.4k, despite being endowed with natural resources from oil
to tin and beautiful beaches. The combination of heavy emigration among the Chinese and high birthrate
among the muslim Malays encouraged by racialist Mahathir, the Chinese went from 40% of the population
in 1957 to 23% today. The Indians went from 11% to 7%.
I fear that I'm seeing the same kind of problem in the US. It's supremely stupid for the whites
to want to give up their majority status through open borders. Most Asians like me who immigrated
here decades ago did it to get away from the corrupt, dishonest, dog-eat-dog, misogynistic culture
of Asia. But when so many are now here, it defeats the purpose. The larger the immigrant group,
the longer it takes to assimilate them. Multiculturalism is a failed concept, especially when
coupled with identity politics. Affirmative Action does not work, it only creates a toxic cycle
of dependency. The US is playing with fire. We need a 20 year moratorium on immigration and assimilate
all those already here. Otherwise, I fear the US will turn into another basketcase like Malaysia.
@Tom Welsh There were only about one million Indians living in what is the United States in
1500. There are now 3 million living in much better conditions than in 1500.
I would be willing to accept non White immigration if the non White immigrants and our government
would end affirmative action for non Whites.
Asians are discriminated against in college admissions. But in the job market they have affirmative
action aristocratic status over Whites.
@Diversity Heretic John Derbyshire has made similar arguments--racial preferences are the
price for social peace. But, as Steve Sailer has pointed out, we're running out of white and Asian
children to buffer black dysfunction and Asians are going to get less and less willing to be "sacrificial
lambs" for a black underclass that they did nothing to create and that they despise.
There are other ways to control the black underclass. You can force the talented ones to remain
in their community and provide what leadership they can. Black violence can be met with instant
retributive counter-violence. (Prior to the 1960s most race riots were white on black.) Whites
can enforce white norms on the black community, who will sort-of conform to them as best they
are able.
Finally, Rudyard Kipling had a commentary on Danegeld. It applies to paying off dysfunctional
domestic minorities just as much to invading enemies.
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
admitting academically unqualified blacks to elite schools is, at core, a policy to protect
the racial peace and, as such, has nothing to do with racial justice,
The Black are protesting relentlessly and loudly verbally and thru assertive actions about
the racial discrimination they have been facing. I have never seen those academically unqualified
blacks admitted to the elite schools have stood up using themselves as shiny examples to refute
the discrimination allegations the Black made against the White.
While the policy to protect the racial peace by admitting academically unqualified blacks to
elite schools failed miserably, the restricting the smart and qualified Asians to elite schools
is blatantly racial injustice practice exercised in broad day light with a straight face lie.
The strategy is to cause resentment between the minorities so that the White can admitting their
academically unqualified ones to elite schools without arousing scrutiny.
Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind
Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are
responsible for Nazism. I mean
Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party.
Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns
with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials.
LOL.
Things change.
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.
Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic
Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.
Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.
Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.
Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was
the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction
was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.
Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.
Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He
favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some
degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past,
they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative'
or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism,
therefore, it was essentially leftist.
@Joe Wong All the Whites and Asians who are admitted to the top 25 schools are superbly qualified.
There are so many applicants every White and Asian is superbly qualified.
The entire point of affirmative action is that Asians and Whites are discriminated against
in favor of blacks and Hispanics. Harvard proudly proclaims that is now majority non White.
Don't worry, the Jews decided long ago that you Asian drones would have medicine and tech,
Hispanics construction, food, trucking,and cleaning and Hispanics and blacks would share government
work and public education.
Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control the
Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.
@Wally So you are a tough guy, and never give in anything to anyone in your life? It seems
the Jews have similar view as yours, the Jews insist that if they give in an inch to those Holocaust
deniers, they will keep demanding more & more, at the beginning the Holocaust deniers will demand
for the evidence, then they will demand the Jews are at fault, then they will demand the Nazi
to be resurrected, then they will demand they can carry out Holocaust against anyone they don't
like, Pretty soon they will demand they to be treated like the pigs in the Orwellian's Animal
Farm.
@Priss Factor Hell with those 'smart Asians'. They are among the biggest Proglob a-holes.
Asians have servile genes that seek approval from the power. They are status-freaks.
They make perfect collaborators with the Glob.
Under communism, they made the most conformist commies.
Under Japanese militarism, they made the most mindless military goons who did Nanking.
Under Khmer Rouge, they were biggest looney killers.
Under PC, they make such goody good PC dogs.
If the prevailing culture of US was patriotic and conservatives, Asians would try to conform
to that, and that wouldn't be so bad.
But since the prevailing culture is PC, these yellow dogs are among the biggest homomaniacal
PC tards.
Hell with them. Yellow dogs voted for Obama and Hillary in high numbers. They despise, hate,
and feel contempt for white masses and working class. They are servitors of the empire as Darrell
Hamamoto said. He's one of the few good guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bs_BbIBCoY
Just look at that Francis Fukuyama, that slavish dog of Soros. He's so disgusting. And then,
you got that brown Asian tard Fareed Zakaria. What a vile lowlife. And that fat Jeer Heet who
ran from dirty browns shi**ing all over the place outdoors to live with white people but bitches
about 'white supremacy'. Well, the fact that he ran from his own kind to live with whites must
mean his own choice prefers white folks. His immigration choice was 'white supremacism'. After
all, he could have moved to black Africa. Why didn't he?
PS. The best way of Affirmative Action is to limit it only to American Indians and Blacks of
slave ancestry. That's it.
Also, institutions should OPENLY ADMIT that they do indeed discriminate to better represent
the broader population. Fair or not, honesty is a virtue. What is most galling about AA is the
lies that says 'we are colorblind and meritocratic but...' No more buts. Yes, there is discrimination
but to represent larger population. Okay, just be honest. Asia is a big continent and Asians of
different ethnicity have very different voting patterns due to their culture and history. Japanese-Americans
tend to be the most liberal ethnic group of all Asian groups because of their experience with
internment during WWII. Somehow they conveniently forgot that it was a Democrat president who
put them in internment, and are now putting the blames squarely on the right for what happened.
These Japanese-Americans are drinking the kool-aid big time, but in the 90s I remember a Japanese
prime minister got in big trouble for saying America's biggest problem is we have too many blacks
and hispanics dragging us down.
Filipinos, Hmongs and other Southeast Asians tend to be poor and rely on government largess
to a certain extent, and also benefit from affirmative action at least in the state of CA, they
also tend to be liberal.
In this election cycle Indian-Americans have become the most vocal anti-Trumpers. From Indian
politicians from WA state like Kshama Sawant, Pramila Jayapal to Indian entertainers like Aziz
Ansari, Hasan Minaj, Kumail Nanjani, to Silicon Valley techies like Calexit mastermind VC Shervin
Pishevar, Google CEO Sundra Pichai, all are socialist libtards. In my local election, several
Indians are running for city council. All are first generation, all Democrats and champions of
liberal policies. It's as if they have amnesia(or just lower IQ), not remembering that socialism
was why they had to leave the shithole India to begin with. A Korean American is running as a
Republican.
There are Chinese idiots like Ted Lieu and other asians who've gone to elite schools therefore
drinking the kool-aid and insisted AA is good for Asian Americans, but most Koreans, Vietnamese
and Chinese tend to be more conservative and lean Republican. During the Trump campaign Breitbart
printed a story about a group of Chinese Americans voicing their support for Trump despite his
anti-China rhetoric because they had no intention of seeing the US turned into another socialist
shithole like China.
Per the NYT a major reason Asians vote Republican is because of AA. Asians revere education,
esp. the Chinese and Koreans, and they see holistic admission is largely bullshit set up by Jews
to protect their legacy status while throwing a few bones to under qualified blacks and hispanics.
Unfortunately it didn't seem to dampen their desire to immigrate here. Given that there are 4
billion Asians and thanks to open borders, if it weren't for AA all our top 100 schools will be
100% Asian in no time. I suggest we first curtail Asian immigration, limit their number to no
more than 10,000 a year, then we can discuss dismantling AA.
California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between
percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Delaware would be
the least dependent state in the US.
California sends far more to Washington than it sends back. Also, there is no correlation between
percentage of federal land and dependence on federal funding. If there were, Maine would be among
the least dependent states in the US.
@Astuteobservor II The Indian tribe in tech is known to favor Indians in hiring. I've read
from other Indian posters elsewhere that Indian managers like to hire Indian underlings because
they are easier to bully.
Indian outsourcing firms like Infosys, TCS, Wipro are like 90% Indian, mostly imported directly
from India, with token whites as admin or account manager.
@Carlton Meyer That's pretty funny. The guy's got balls. Probably son of some corrupt Chinese
government official used to being treated like an emperor back home, ain't taking no shit from
black folks.
I suppose this is what happens when universities clamor to accept foreign students because
they are full pay. His tuition dollar is directly subsidizing these affirmative action hacks,
who are now preventing him from studying. He has fully paid for his right to tell them to STFU.
@Beckow Romans did not think Europe was a nice place to live, full of bloodthirsty barbarians,
uneducated, smelly, dirty, foul mouth and rogue manner, even nowadays a lot of them cannot use
full set of tableware to finish their meal, a single fork will do, it is a litte more civilized
than those use fingers only.
After a millennium of dark age of superstition, religious cult suppression, utter poverty medieval
serf Europe, it followed by centuries of racial cleanses, complete destruction of war, stealing
and hypocrisy on industrial scale, this time not only restricted to Europe the plague flooded
the whole planet.
Even nowadays the same plague from Europe and its offshoots in the North America is threatening
to exterminate the human beings with a big bang for their blinding racial obligatory. The rest
of the world only can hope this plague would stay put in North America and Europe, so the rest
world can live in peace and prosperity.
Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups of diversity.
Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.
1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians
The benefit to the Historic Native Born White American Working Class of being voted into a
White Racial Minority in California by Chinese "Americans"...Korean "Americans"....Hindu "Americans"...Sihk
"Americans"...and Iranian "Americans"?
Answer:0.... Bring back the Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!
Two Great pro-White Socialist Labor Leaders:Denis Kearney and Samuel Gompers...go read Denis Kearney's
Rebel Rousing speeches...google Samuel Gompers' Congressional Testimony in favor of the passage
of The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act... It is MUCH better to be a libertarian than to
be a Nationalist-Leftist. You have effectively admitted that you want intra-white socialism since
you can't hack it yourself.
Socialists = untalented losers.
Plus, I guarantee that your ancestors were not in America since 1776. You are just some 2nd-gen
Polack or something.
@Priss Factor Here is one 'smart Asian' who is not a Self-Righteous Addict of Proglobalism,
but what a clown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNrytSEyUoY
Dineshisms are always funny as hell.
Because KKK were Southern Democrats, Democratic Party is forever the KKK party. Never mind
Democrats represented a broad swatch of people.
And Dinesh finds some parallels between Old Democrats and Nazi ideology, therefore Democrats are
responsible for Nazism. I mean...
Doesn't he know that parties change? Democratic Party once used to be working class party.
Aint no more.
GOP used to be Party of Lincoln. It is southern party now, and most loyal GOP-ers are Southerns
with respect for Confederacy. GOP now wants Southern Neo-Confed votes but don't want Confed memorials.
LOL.
Things change.
Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond came over to the GOP for a reason.
Dinesh seems to be stuck in 'caste' mentality. Because Dems once had KKK on its side, Democratic
Party is forever cast or 'casted' as KKK. And now, 'Democrats are real Nazis'.
Actually, the real supremacism in America at the moment seems to be AIPAC-related.
Anyway, there were leftist elements in National Socialism, but its was more right than left.
Why? Because in the hierarchy of ideological priorities, the most important core value was
the 'Aryan' Tribe. Socialized medicine was NOT the highest value among Nazis. Core conviction
was the ideology of racial identity and unity. Thus, it was more right than left.
Just because National Socialism had some leftist elements doesn't make it a 'leftist' ideology.
Same is true of Soviet Communism. Stalin brought back high culture and classical music. He
favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones. And Soviets promoted some
degree of Russian nationalism. And even though communists eradicated certain aspects of the past,
they also restored respect for classic literature and culture. So, does that mean USSR was 'conservative'
or 'rightist'? No, it had some rightist elements but its core ideology was about class egalitarianism,
therefore, it was essentially leftist. "Stalin brought back high culture and classical music.
He favored traditionalist aesthetics to experimental or avant-garde ones."
Priss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't favor "traditionalist
aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.
@Joe Franklin Asians receive federal entitlements the same as the other protected class groups
of diversity.
Diversity ideology lectures us that Asians are oppressed by Occidentals.
1. Preferential US immigration, citizenship, and asylum policies for Asian people
2. Federal 8a set-aside government contracts for Asian owned businesses
3. Affirmative Action for Asians especially toward obtaining government jobs
4. Government anti-discrimination laws for Asians
4. Government hate speech crime prosecutions in defense of Asians
5. Sanctuary cities for illegal Asians, and other protected class groups of diversity
6. Asian espionage directed at the US is common, and many times goes unprosecuted
7. American trade policy allows mass importation of cheap Asian products built with slave labor
8. Whaling allowance for some Asian ethnic groups
9. Most H1-B visas awarded to Asians That is completely false. You just memorized that from some
bogus site.
Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due
to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.
Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.
H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.
Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success
was not due to AA.
@Thomm Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able
to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against
ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.
There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal
enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad!
Whites will gradually disappear and the 110 year old Jewish black coalition will control
the Asians and Hispanics through black crime and periodic riots.
I don't think this is correct
Since California already has (very roughly) the future demographics you're considering, I think
it serves as a good test-case.
The Hispanic and Asian populations have been growing rapidly, and they tend to hold an increasing
share of the political power, together with the large white population, though until very recently
most of the top offices were still held by (elderly) whites. Whites would have much more political
power, except that roughly half of them are still Republicans, and the Republican Party has almost
none.
In most of the urban areas, there's relatively little black crime these days since so many
of the blacks have been driven away or sent off to prison. I'd also say that major black riots
in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local police forces are heavily Hispanic: they
don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot the black rioters dead while being backed
up by the politicians, and many of the blacks probably recognize this. Admittedly, CA always had
a relatively small black population, but that didn't prevent enormous black crime and black riots
in the past due to the different demographics.
Meanwhile, Jewish-activists still possess enormous influence over CA politics, but they exert
that influence through money and media, just like they do everywhere else in the country.
@F the media that is actually true about indians. I have first hand account of a 100+ tech
dept getting taken over by indians in just 3 years :/ but that is not a "quota" that is just indians
abusing their power once in position of power.
@VinteuilPriss, you haven't the first clue what you're talking about, here. Stalin didn't
favor "traditionalist aesthetics" – he favored vulgar pop-crap.
Right.. Ballet, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and classic literature. That's some pop crap.
Soviet Culture was about commie Lena Dunhams.
Now, most of Soviet culture was what might be called kitsch or middlebrow stuff, but it was
not 'pop crap' as known in the West.
@Saxon Green isn't a color that suits you. You're a subcontinental hanger-on who's only able
to garner any success in any western country due to an anarcho-tyranny in enforcement against
ethnonepotism as well as lavish handouts in the form of all sorts of party favors.
There are very few non-white groups that could do any well on a level playing field with equal
enforcement against nepotism, and yours isn't one of them. Your country? Sad! Whatever helps you
sleep at night..
Yesterday I was called a Jew. Today, it is Indian. In reality, I am a white American guy.
You white trashionalists can't get your stories straight, can you? Well, WNs are known for
having negro IQs.
Asians don't get affirmative action. They outscore whites in the SAT.
@Thomm That is completely false. You just memorized that from some bogus site.
Section 8a is used more by white women than by Asians, and Asians get excluded from it due
to high income. It should be done away with altogether, of course.
Asians face discrimination in University admissions, as the main article describes.
H1-Bs are awarded to Asians because white countries don't produce enough people who qualify.
Plus, Asian SAT scores are consistently higher than whites. That proves that Asian success
was not due to AA. You have reading comprehension problems to have confused Federal 8A government
contacts with Section 8 housing.
8A contracts are federal contracts granted to "socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s)."
The business must be majority-owned (51 percent or more) and controlled/managed by socially
and economically disadvantaged individual(s).
The individual(s) controlling and managing the firm on a full-time basis must meet the SBA
requirement for disadvantage, by proving both social disadvantage and economic disadvantage.
Definition of Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individuals
Socially disadvantaged individuals are those who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice
or cultural bias because of their identities as members of groups without regard to their individual
qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the following individuals are presumed to be socially
disadvantaged:
• Black Americans;
• Hispanic Americans (persons with origins from Latin America, South America, Portugal and
Spain);
• Native Americans (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians);
• Asian Pacific Americans (persons with origins from Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea,
Samoa, Guam, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands [Republic of Palau], Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, Laos, Cambodia [Kampuchea], Taiwan, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Singapore, Brunei, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Macao, Hong
Kong, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru);
• Subcontinent Asian Americans (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands or Nepal);
• And members of other groups designated from time to time by the SBA.
@Joe Wong Romans lived in Europe, get an atlas, Rome is in Europe. I will skip over your silly
summaries of European history, we all can do it to any civilization all day. Pointless. Try China.
Oh, I forgot, nobody knows much Chinese up and downs because it was mostly inconsequential.
If you call others 'racist' all the time, they might just not take your seriously. Or simply
say, fine, if liking one's culture is now 'racism', if it is a white culture, then count me in.
The rest of the world is tripping over itself to move – literally to physically move – to Europe
and North America. Why do you think that is?
I'd also say that major black riots in CA are almost unthinkable since many of the local
police forces are heavily Hispanic: they don't particularly like blacks, and might easily shoot
the black rioters dead
Oh, would you stop being a make-believe pundit, Ron? That is some commentary you copped from
an OJ-era LA Times expose. You've had one conversation with a police officer in your life, and
that was over an illegal left term outside the Loma Linda Starbucksand culminated in disturbing
the peace when exited your Bentley yelling "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?!" at the top of your lungs
for 4 minutes.
Whenever you've had a nudity-mandatory, eyes-wide-shut, type globalist-soiree at your palatial
mansion, the only people you invited were politicians, lawyers, Ivy-league economists, Silicon
Valley tech nerds and hookers.
@Joe Franklin We've been over this. 8a is not given to anyone with over $250,000 in assets,
as your own link indicates. This means most Asians can't use it anyway (not that they need to).
The whole program should be done away with, of course.
What is funny is that you can't accept that Asians have higher SAT scores than whites, which
pretty much proves that they can (and do) outperform without AA. You WN idiots can't come to terms
with that.
But Section 8a should be removed just so that WN wiggers don't have anything to hide behind,
since Asians don't need it to excel.
@Thomm These untalented Socialists you refer to would include the vast majority of America
1969 90 percent Native Born White America .a White Nation that placed two Alpha Native Born White
American Males on the Moon .ten more after that. Seems that Socialism worked just fine.
If you prefer an Asian Majority you can always pack your bags and pick the Asian Nation of
your choice.
@Ron Unz hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will
not have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave
if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be made
for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.
So with future aa population of 14%, that's 60 million blacks in america in 2060 timeframe,
although that will have an increasing amount of immigration from africa, which tends to be more
educated (at least 1st and 2nd generation).
Asians will be about 8%, so that's a poweful community of 40 million. I see tech and wall street
with increasing amount of asian representations.
What i would be interested in seeing if there will any maverick asian billionaires that could
disrupt the narrative.
This article may tend to take your mind off the real racial injustice at Harvard. In an article
"Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans" in the NY Times, August 3, 2017 ANEMONA
HARTOCOLLIS and STEPHANIE SAUL wrote ""The Harvard lawsuit likens attitudes toward Asian-Americans
to attitudes toward Jews at Harvard, beginning around 1920, when Jews were a high-achieving minority.
In 1918, Jews reached 20 percent of the Harvard freshman class, and the university soon proposed
a quota to lower the number of Jewish students."" In my humble opinion this is a misleading statement
which implies that the admission of Jews remained below 20% in the years after 1918. In fact Hillel
reports that in recent years the admission of jews to Harvard has been around 25% of the class.
This means that almost half of the class are white and half of this white group are Jews. That
seems like an amazing over-representation of Jews who are only 2% of our population. So, at least
as many Jews as Asians are admitted to Harvard. No wonder the Asians are upset. I note that this
article does not point out this Jewish bias in admissions at Harvard and neither did the Asians.
Is this another manifestation of political correctness? Or is it an egregious example of racism?
This problem is the real elephant in the room. This is the Jewish racism that dare not speak its
name. Until lately.
@Truth Truth, you is so wise and true. You's right. Them Russian dummies didn't have no vibrant
black folks to make fun music that could make them wiggle their butts all their night long. So,
they grew stale and bored and drank too much vodka, caught fish with penis, and wrestled with
bears and didn't have the all the cool stuff like the US has.
All the world needs to be colonized by superior Negroes cuz folks will just die of boredom.
At least if you get killed by Negroes, it's exciting-like.
hmm i don't know that will be the case nationally. Southern cities like Atlanta will not
have hispanic or white govt. Same with nyc, no need for blacks in harlem or bronx to leave
if government aid continues to pay for rent controlled affordable housing. Same case can be
made for most large northern cities like chicago, detroit, boston, philadelphia, DC, etc.
Well, my California analogy was self-admittedly very rough and approximate given the considerable
differences in demographics. But I strongly suspect that such considerations provide a hidden
key to some contentious national policies of the last couple of decades, and I've actually written
extensively on the subject:
@Anon I imagine it was far different before the defense wind-downs of the mid 90s. Along with
the many cut-backs a lot of defense was moved out of California by the contractors as punishment
for California's liberal Congressmen. Companies that merged with California based operation usually
consolidated outside California such as when Raytheon swallowed up Hughes Aircraft Companies defense
operations and moved R&D to Massachusetts.
@Liberty Mike I know several white people who would rather live in Botswana than the Ukraine.
They have the advantage of having visited . The rest of your list seems pretty sound with the
possible exception of Swaziland.
P.S. If you deleted Austria and Hungary and replaced them by Albania and Kosovo you might make
your point even stronger.
@Thomm You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society.
Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional
civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you
would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins
would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of
the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given
explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say,
some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably
only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
@Thomm I seem to remember you telling everybody that Asians DON'T get affirmative action JUST
GOOGLE IT without ever offering proof. Of course it never occurred to you that there could never
be any documented proof of something like that. There isn't even official documented proof that
white males don't get affirmative action. When people claimed and linked to articles indicating
Asians are considered disadvantaged by the government, you claimed those people didn't know what
they were talking about JUST GOOGLE IT.
I think you made it quite obvious who the idiot is.
It's time to force our "Golden Dozen" (Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Amherst and Williams) to admit
100% black until the average black income($43k) equals that of average white income($71k).
@Thomm The worst hate crimes I have personally witnessed were perpetrated by black men. I
have also seen more casual racism against Asians from blacks than from whites. This might be different
in other parts of the country or world.
Outside of the U.S., East Asians are the least likely to want to engage in some kind of anti-white
alliance since all of the West's most embarrassing military defeats have come from East Asians.
We have always relied on guns and not white guilt for racial equality.
@Ronnie In case you haven't noticed, Jews run this country. They dominate the media, academia,
Wall Street, Hollywood, Capitol Hill via the DNC and lobbying firms, Silicon Valley. Per the NYT
80% of Jews are self-proclaimed liberals. They are obsessed with dismantling the WASP World Order
that in their mind has oppressed them for the last 2000 years. The Ivy League is the pipeline
to these 6 sectors that collectively control the country, whoever controls Harvard controls the
country. Jews not only make up majority of the elite college faculty (esp. in the social sciences)
but are disproportionately benefiting from legacy admission and development cases(admission of
the dim witted sons and daughters of the rich and famous like Malia Obama, Jared Kushner, all
of Al Gore's kids).
Asians are the next up. Practically all Asians who've gone to the Ivy League or Stanford have
voiced their support for affirmative action, many are left wing nuts like the Jews. CA house representative
Ted Liu is one such kool-aid drinking Asian libtard, along with the HI judge Derrick Watson and
Baltimore judge Theodore Chuang, both of whom blocked Trump's temp. suspension of Muslim refugees,
both went to Harvard Law. As an Asian I would be more than happy if the Ivy League simply make
themselves off limits to all Asians and turn their schools 100% black. We don't need more Asians
to get indoctrinated in their dumb liberal ideology and go down in history as the group next to
the Jews and the blacks who destroyed America.
@Saxon You're non-white and really dumb to boot; you don't understand the ecology of a society.
Even the white proles are better than your people's proles because they don't make functional
civilizations impossible. If it were possible for a tiny minority to drag the lowers upwards you
would be able to haul your lower castes upwards and make your own country work, then the Brahmins
would have done it. They can't because the average abilities, intelligence and disposition of
the masses is too low of quality in those countries to the point where tourists need to be given
explicit warnings about rape and other problems which you will never need when visiting, say,
some English village of completely average English people. The "white trash" you decry is probably
only slightly below your midwit level of intelligence.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
Asians do get affirmative action in employment and promotions in the workplace by the way,
just not in education.
No they don't, as this very article explains. Could you BE more of a retard?
Plus, the fact that Asians get higher SAT scores than whites proves that they don't need it.
There is a left-wing conspiracy to hide Asian success.
Now, regarding an underachieving WN faggot like you :
Remember that white variance is very high. Excellent whites (like me) exist only because genetic
waste master has to be removed from the other end of the process. You and other WNs represent
that genetic waste matter, and that is why white women are doing a heroic duty of cutting you
off (at least the minority of WNs that are straight. Most are gay, as Jack Donovan has explained).
Nature wants the waste matter you comprise of to be expelled.
If you cared about the white race, you would be extremely glad that white women are cutting
you off, as that is necessary to get rid of the pollution that you represent.
Heh heh heh heh . it is so much fun to put a WN faggot in its place.
@MarkinLA No, I talked about 8a even two weeks ago. Good god, you WN really do have negro
IQs.
8a benefits Asians the least, and THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE ABOLISHED ANYWAY. There should
be no AA, ever.
8a harms Asians as it taints their otherwise pristine claim to having succeeded without AA.
They don't need 8a, most don't qualify for it as they exceed the $250,000 cutoff, and it lets
WN faggots claim that 'all of Asian success is due to AA', which is demonstrably false.
Read this slowly, 10 times, so that even a wigger like you can get it.
Don't let these WN faggots get away with claiming all of Asian success is merely due to affirmative
action. In reality, Asians don't get affirmative action (other than wrongly being included in
the Section 8a code form the 1980s, which ultimately was used by barely 2% of the Asian community).
Remember that among us whites, variance is extremely high. The prettiest woman alongside pretty
of ugly fat feminists (who the WN losers still worship). The smartest men, and then these loserish
WNs with low IQs and no social skills. White variance is very high.
That is why WNs are so frustrated. They can't get other whites to give them the time of day,
and white women are super-committed to shutting out WN loser males from respectable society.
Don't let them claim that Asian success is solely due to affirmative action. Remember, respectable
whites hate these WN faggots.
@Thomm You're not white, though. You're a rentseeker hanging onto someone else's country and
the fact that you write barely literate garbage posts with no substance to them tells all about
your intellect and your "high achievement." You're not high quality. You're mediocre at best and
probably not even that since your writing is so bad.
Do you even do statistics, though? Whites make up about 70% of the national merit scholars
in the US yet aren't in the Ivies at that rate. Harvard for example is maybe only 25% white. Asians
are over-represented compared to their merit and jews way over-represented over any merit. Now
how does that happen without nepotism? The whole system of any racial favoritism should be scrapped
but of course that wouldn't benefit people like you, Thomm.
Whites aren't more innovative and ambitious than Chinese people. You only have to look at the
chinless Unite the Right idiots in Charlottesville to dispel any idea that whites are the superior
race. The
This Thomm character is obviously of East Asian origin. His tedious, repetitive blather about
Asians, white women, and "white nationalist faggots" is a telltale sign. One of his type characteristically
sounds like he would be so much less distressed if those white males were not white nationalist
faggots.
@Tom Welsh An interesting historical argument My reply Land isn't money Arguably the Normans
came back in the form of the Plantagenets to contest the French throne in the 100 Years War. But
by that time France wasn't nearly so feeble
Giving Negroes land in the form of a North American homeland appeals to me (provided whites
get one too) although I know the geography is agonizing Blacks tend not to like this suggestion–they
realize how depedent they are on whites That wasn't true of the Normans–quite self-reliant fellows!
@Thomm I'm not sure what it was that I said that made you think I think all Asian success
is due to AA. In fact I think the opposite is true, that Asians succeed in spite of AA, which
is set up solely to hinder Asians from joining the club, and as far as I'm concern, it's a club
of sell-out globalist libtards that I wouldn't want more Asians to join.
I've worked in tech long enough to know that in tech, no one gives a fudge where you went to
school. I am surrounded by deca-millionaires who went to state schools, many aren't even flagship,
some didn't even study STEM. Some didn't even go to college or graduate. The only people I know
who still care about the Ivy League are 1st generation often FOB China/India trash, and a small
number of Jewish kids looking to benefit from legacy admission, most are gay and/or serious libtards.
You can tell that Jewish achievement has fallen off a cliff as Ron Unz asserted by looking
at a certain popular college website. The longest running thread that's been up there for nearly
a decade with over a thousand pages and over 18,000 posts is called "Colleges for the Jewish "B"
student". The site is crawling with uber liberal Jewish mothers and monitored by a gang of Ivy
graduated SJWs who strictly enforce their "safe space", posters who post anything at all that
might offend anyone (affirmative action is always a sensitive topic) are either thrown in "jail"
i.e. ban from posting for a month, or kicked off altogether. The SJW forum monitors even directly
edit user comments as they see fit, first amendment rights be damned. This is the future of all
online forums if the left have their way, the kind of censorship that Piers Morgan advocates.
Asians are over-represented compared to their merit
False. The main article here alone proves otherwise, plus dozens of other research articles.
You just can't stand that Asian success is due to merit. But you have bigger problems, since
as a WN, you can't even compete with blacks.
What bugs you the most is that successful white people like me never give WN faggots the time
of day. Most tune you idiots out, but I like to remind you that you are waste matter that is being
expunged through the natural evolutionary process.
Yes, more so if they are leftists (including Nationalist-Leftists like WNs are). But the fact
that WNs are disproportionately gay (as Jack Donovan points out) also explains why they tend to
look grotesque, and it supports the scientific rationale that they are wastebaskets designed to
expedite the removal of genetic waste matter.
White variance in talent/looks/intelligence is high. WN loser males and fat, ugly feminists
represent the bottom. In the old days, these two would be married to each other since even the
lowest tiers were paired up. Today, thankfully, both are being weeded out.
@Pachyderm Pachyderma Not just that, but some of these 'white nationalists' are just recent
immigrants from Poland and Ukraine. They are desperate to take credit for Western Civilization
that they did nothing to create. Deep down, they know that during the Cold War, they were not
considered 'white' in America.
400 years? i.e. when most of what is now the lower-48 was controlled by a Spanish-speaking
government? Yeah Many of these WNs have been here only 30-70 years. That is one category (the
domestic WN wiggers are the other)
@Thomm It's too late, everybody knows what I wrote is true and that you are some pathetic
millennial libertarian pajama boy. The sad fact is that you can't even man up and admit that you
wrote that BS about "Asians don't get affirmative action just google it". See that would have
at least have been a sign of maturity, admitting you were wrong.
There is no point reading anything, even once, from a pathetic pajama boy like you.
@MarkinLA I openly said that I am proud to be libertarian. Remember, talented people can hack
in on their own, so they are libertarians.
Untalented losers (like you) want socialism so that you can mooch off of others.
Plus, Asians don't get affirmative action outside of one obscure place (Section 8a) which they
often don't qualify for ($250K asset cutoff), don't need, and was never used by more than 2% of
the Asian-American community. The fact that Asian SAT scores are higher than whites explains
why Asians outperform without AA.
Plus, this very article says that Asians are being held back. A WN faggot like you cannot grasp
that even though you are commenting in the comments of this article. Could you be any dumber?
I realize you are not smart enough to grasp these basic concepts, but that is why we all know
that white trashionalists have negro IQs.
Now begone; you are getting in the way of your betters.
Remember that White variance in brains/looks/talent/character is extremely high. Hence,
whites occupy both extremities of human quality.
Hence, the hierarchy of economic productivity is :
Talented whites (including Jews)
Asians (East and South)
Hispanics
Blacks
Untalented whites (aka these WN wastebaskets, and fat femtwats).
That is why :
1) WNs are never given a platform by respectable whites.
2) Bernie Sanders supporters are lily-white, despite his far-left views.
3) WN is a left-wing ideology, as their economic views are left-wing.
4) WNs are unable to even get any white women, as white women have no reason to pollute themselves
with this waste matter. Mid-tier white women thus prefer nonwhite men over these WNs, which makes
sense based on the hierarchy above.
5) WNs have the IQ of Negros, the poor social skills of an Asian spazoid, etc. They truly combine
the worst of all worlds.
6) This is why white unity is impossible; there is no reason for respectable whites to have anything
to do with white trashionalists.
7) Genetically, the very fact that superb whites even exists necessitates the production of individuals
to act as wastebaskets for removal of genetic waste. WNs are these wastebaskets.
8) The 80s movie 'Twins' was in effect a way to make these wastebaskets feel good, as eventually,
the Arnold Schwarzenegger character bonded with the Danny DeVito character. But these two twins
effectively represent the sharp bimodal distribution of white quality. Successful whites are personified
by the Schwarzenegger character, while WNs by the DeVito character. In reality, these two would
never be on friendly terms, as nature produces waste for a reason.
This pretty much all there is to what White Trashionalists really are.
Elite colleges are a prime example of left wing hypocrisy. The same people who are constantly
calling for an equal society are at the same time perpetuating the most unequal society by clamoring
to send their kids to a few elite schools that will ensure their entry to or retain their ranks
among the elites. Equality for everyone else, elitism for me and my kids. David Brook's nausea
inducing self-hating pablum "How we are ruining America" is a prime example of this hypocrisy.
Another good example of left wing hypocrisy is on "school integration". The same people who
condemn "bad schools" for the urban poor and call for more integration are always the first to
move into the whitest possible neighborhoods as soon as they have kids. They aren't willing to
sacrifice their own kids, they just want other people to sacrifice their children by sending them
to bad schools.
If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
When I first saw the title of this article, I, being an Asian, was a tad insulted. It smelled
like Dr. Weissberg was attempting to create (or at least escalate) racial strife between Asians
and blacks. I then read through the article and evaluated the bad and the good.
First the bad: Dr. Weissberg's assertion that Asians are being hurt by the Affirmative Action
promotion of blacks is a bit exaggerated. This is because most Asians go into rigorous difficult
programs such as engineering, science, and medicine. Most black affirmative action babies go into
soft programs such as Black Studies (and whatever else the humanities have degenerated into).
Now the good: I think this is the most true portion of the essay.
Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton
where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner. This status driven
divide just reflects human nature. Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's
left behind in the Hood? This is the strategy of preventing a large-scale, organized rebellion
by decapitating its potential leadership.
I have once wrote that whites stopped sneering at MLK when Malcolm X and the Black Panthers
began taking center stage. They sure became more accommodating of "moderate" blacks. With all
of the terrorist attacks going on and with blacks converting to Islam, I don't think we're going
to get rid of affirmative action any time soon.
@Vinteuil Stalin alternated between favoritism and intimidation. The truth is he did have
an eye and ear for culture unlike Mao who was a total philistine.
If Stalin really hated artists, he would have killed all of them.
He appreciated them but kept a close eye.
He loved the first IVAN THE TERRIBLE by Eisenstein, but he sensed that the second one was a
criticism of him, and Eisenstein came under great stress.
OK, well, Stalin loved the movies, and may have had an eye for effective cinema. But when it
came to music he was, precisely, a total philistine. On this point, I again recommend Shostakovich's
disputed *Testimony,* a work unique in its combination of hilarity and horror, both of which come
to a head in his account of the competition to write a new national anthem to replace the internationale
– pp. 256-64. A must read.
@DB Cooper For the same reason North Korea is poorer than South Korea, despite being the same
people.
For the same reason the GDR was so much poorer than the FRG, despite the same people.
You probably never even thought about that.
A bad political system takes decades to recover from. Remember that the British also strip-mined
India for 200 years..
Come on, these are novice questions
If you think the success of Asian-Americans in general (and Indian-Americans in particular)
does not jive with your beliefs, then the burden of explaining what that is, is on you.
Indians happen to be the highest-income group in the US. Also very high are Filipinos and Taiwanese.
Racial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including the elite public
universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative. No black violence ensued. There is little
reason to think the black response would be different if the 8 Ivy League universities ended their
policies of racial preferences. Blacks would adjust their expectations. Fear of black rioting
and the desire to jumpstart the creation of a large and peaceful black middle class may have been
important motives for the initial development of racial preference policies in the late 1960s;
they are not major reasons for their retention and continued support from white administrators
today. Other reasons and motives are operative (including what I call R-word dread).
PS: Cornel West has moved from Princeton to Harvard Divinity School.
"Nevertheless, when all added up, the costs would be far lowers than dealing with widespread
1960s style urban violence."
Except back in the '60′s; the White, Euro-derived people were unwilling to fight back. They
felt guilty and half-blamed themselves. Not. Any. More! The costs -- social, mental, emotional,
physical; pick your metric! -- have now exceeded the patience of WAY more Americans than the media
is letting on.
Did you not see 20- and 30-THOUSAND, mostly White Euro-derived, Americans rallying to candidate -- and now President -- Trump's side? (No, the media carefully clipped the videos to hide those
numbers, but there they (we!) were! We're done! We're fed up! "FEEDING" these destructive vermin
to keep them from destroying our houses and families (and nation and country!) is no longer acceptable!
You "don't let Gremlins eat after midnight"? Well, we did -- and now we're in a war against them.
You think this capitulating in education is preventing 'widespread 1960s-style urban violence?
Have you not watched the news? We pretty much already are: ask NYC how many "sliced with a knife"
attacks they have there! In JUST Jan. and Feb., there were well more than 500! (Seriously vicious
attacks with knives and razor blades -- media mentioned it once for a few days, and then shut up.)
Look at the fair in Indianapolis; count up rape statistics; investigate the "knock-out game" ("polar
bear hunting" -- guess who's the polar bear?!). (Oh yeah, and: Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago; look
at ANY black-filled ruin of a city ) If (when!) we finally have to (CHOOSE to) deal with this
low-grade war -- WHO is better armed, better prepared, SMARTER, and fed up?
"This peace-keeping aspect of affirmative action understood, perhaps we ought to view those
smart Asians unfairly rejected from Ivy League schools as sacrificial lambs."
Wait, wait -- these are White schools, built by White Americans FOR White Americans! "Oh, the
poor Asians are not getting their 'fair share' cause the blacks are getting way more than their
'fair share'?! The Asians' 'fair share' is GO HOME!! The Asians don't have a 'fair share' in White
AMERICAN universities; we LET them come here and study -- and that is a KINDNESS: they don't have
a 'fair share' of OUR country! How about: stop giving preferences to every damned race and nationality
other than the one that BUILT this country and these universities!
@War for Blair Mountain Call them what they are: "paperwork Americans"! Having the paperwork
does NOT make them Americans, and nothing ever will!
Imagine a virgin land with no inhabitants: if you took all the Chinese "Americans" or all the
Pakistani "Americans" or Black "Americans" or Mexican "Americans" (funny, why did you leave those
last two out?! Way more of them than the others ) and moved them there, would they -- COULD they
ever -- create another America? No, they would create another China, or another Pakistan -- or their
own version of the hellholes their forebears (or they themselves) came from. ONLY White, ONLY
Euro-derived Americans could recreate an America.
And this goes, also, to answer the grumbling "Native" Americans who were also NOT native, yes?
Siberia, Bering land bridge, ever heard of those? Do you not even know your own pre-history?!
What "America" was here when it was a sparse population of warring tribes of variously related
Indian groups? What did your forebears make of this continent?
Nothing. There would be no "America" where everyone wants to come and benefit by taking; because
ONLY the White settlers (not immigrants: SETTLERS!) were able to create America! And as all you
non-Americans (AND paperwork "Americans") continue to swamp and change America for your own benefit -- you will be losing the very thing you came here to take (unfair!) advantage of!
At that point, new public money could be channeled into funding people to leave. Blacks
that don't like it in the U.S. would be given X amount of dollars to settle in an African country
of their choice.
Chip 'em and ship 'em! Microchip where they CAN'T 'dig it out' to prevent them from ever ever
ever returning! And ship 'em out! I'd pay a LOT to have this done!
Give the feral negroes what they have been asking for. Pull all law enforcement out of negro
hellholes like Detroit and South Chicago and let nature take its course.
They (we!) tried that years ago. The BLACK COPS SUED because they were working in the shittiest
places with the shittiest, most violent people -- and "the White cops had it easy."
NOT EVEN the blacks want to be with the blacks -- hence them chasing down every last White person,
to inflict their Dis-Verse-City on us!
The larger the immigrant group, the longer it takes to assimilate them.
Alas, typical "paperwork American" lack of understanding! I wrote this to a (White) American
who wants to keep importing everyone ("save the children!") -- and, she insisted, they "could"
assimilate. However, here's what 'assimilate" means:
Suppose you and your family decided to move to, say, Cambodia. You go there intending to "get
your part of the Cambodian dream," you go there to become Cambodian citizens, to assimilate and
join them, not to invade and change them. You want to adopt their ways, to *assimilate.* Yes?
This is how you describe legal immigrants to OUR country (The United States.)
How long would it take for you and your children to be (or even just feel) "assimilated"? How
long would it take for you to see your descendants as "assimilated" -- AS Cambodians? Years? Decades?
Generations? Would you be trying to fit in -- and "become" Cambodians; or would you be trying to
not forget your heritage? ("Heritage"?! Like, Cinco de Mayo, which they don't even celebrate IN
Mexico? Or Kwanza -- a CIA-invented completely fake holiday!)
More important: since it's their country -- how long until THEY see you as "Cambodians" and
not foreigners. I know a man and family who have lived in Italy for over 20 years. To the Italians
in the village where they live, they are still "stranieri": strangers. After this long, to the
local Italians, they're not just "the Americans who moved here" -- they're " our Americans" -- but they are still seen as 100% not Italian, not local: not "assimilated"!
Would you and your children and grandchildren learn to speak, read, and write Cambodian -- and
stop trying to use English for anything much in your new homeland? Would you join their clubs -- would you join their NATIONAL RELIGION!? Does "becoming Cambodian" -- does "assimilating" -- not
actually include (trying to) become Cambodian (and, thus, ceasing to be American)? (If
that were even possible; and it's not.) "Assimilation" is a stupid hope, not a possible reality.
That is where my friend balked. She said: she and her family are very Christian, and no way
at all ever would they drop Christianity and pick up Cambodian Buddhism. So -- how can they EVER
"assimilate" when they (quite rightly) REFUSE to assimilate?!
Please stop buying into the lies the destroyers of OUR nation keep selling. There is no such
thing as "assimilation"; only economic parasitism, jihadi invasion, and benefiting from the systems
set up by OUR forebears for THEIR posterity!
In my origin state of Tamil Nadu, the effective anti-brahmin quota is 100% ( de-jure is just
69% )
Sundar Pichai or Indira Nooyi or Vish Anand ( former Chess champ ) or Ramanujam ( late math
whiz ), cant get a Tamil Nadu State Gov , Math school teacher job
Also, the US gets a biased selection of Indians in terms of caste, class and education
Of Tamil Speakers in USA, about 50% are Tamil Brahmins, vs just 2% in India
The bottom 40% in terms of IQ, such as Muslims, Untouchables and Forest Tribals, are no more
than 10% in the US Indian diaspora
For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower
For comparison, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis ( muslim ), perform much much lower
This is interesting, as it puts paid to the obsession that WN idiots have with 'whiteness'.
Pakistan is obviously much more Caucasoid than India and certainly Sri Lanka.
Afghanistan is whiter still. Many in Afghanistan would pass for bona-fide white in the US.
Yet Sri Lanka is richer than India, which is richer than Pakistan, which is richer than Afghanistan.
Either Islam is a negative factor that nullifies everything else including genetics, or something
else is going on.
What there is no doubt of is that Asia has been the largest economic region of the world by
far except for the brief 200-year deviation (1820-2020), as per that map I posted.
@Thomm Weissberg asks, "Why would a black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's left
behind in the Hood?"
Why focus on the LEFT buttock? His point would be as relevant were he to ask, "Why would a
black Yalie on Wall Street socialize with the bro's RIGHT behind in the Hood?" Either way, I smell
kinkyness deep within Weissberg's question.
"Divide and Rule" said the Romans. Incorporate the potential leaders of those you intend to
rule into your hereditary upper class, and the vast majority will stay inert at the least. And
many will actively support you. See this post by a black woman:
Black Americans: The Organized Left's Expendable Shock Troops .
People like Cornel West are not only NOT rabble-rousing in the 'hood, they're telling blacks
to support the people who actively keep them poor. "Affirmative Action" is designed to sabotage
its alleged goals. Almost all who 'benefit' from it end up among people whose performance is clearly
superior to their own, thus fostering feelings of inferiority, subtly communicating that it doesn't
matter what the 'beneficiary' of AA does, they'll always fail. This is no accident.
Without AA, there might still be separation, (consider "ultra-orthodox" Jews), but the separate
groups would have to be treated with some respect. Really, viewed amorally, it's a marvelous system
for oppressing whites and minorities.
@Thomm Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I have data from California National Merit list, IQ-140 bar
Among Indian Punjabis ;
Jat Sikh peasants = 3 winners ( 75% of Punjabis in USA )
Khatri merchants = 18 winners ( 25% of Punjabis in USA )
Both are extremely caucasoid, both appear heavily among Indian bollywood stars ; genetically
very similar, just the evolutionary effect of caste selection for merchant niche vs peasant niche
@Russ NieliRacial preferences were ended at California public institutions -- including
the elite public universities Berkley and UCLA -- by ballot initiative.
But the admissions people immediately started using other dodges like "holistic" admissions
policies where they try and figure out if your are a minority from other inferences such as your
essay where you indicate "how you have overcome". They also wanted to get rid of the SAT or institute
a top X% at each school policy.
@rec1man I don't know . a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels
and gas stations. Patels and such..
They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.
Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to
correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people
in India today are not 'Brahmins'..
Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined
Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..
Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism
@Thomm I don't know.... a lot of the richest Indians in the US are Gujratis who own motels
and gas stations. Patels and such..
They were not of some 'high caste' in India; far from it.
Plus, a Tamil who is of 'high caste' is not Caucasoid in the least. Caste does not seem to
correlate to economic talent, since business people are the #3 caste out of 4. The richest people
in India today are not 'Brahmins'..
Islam is a negative factor, and the higher IQ castes did not convert to Islam
I disagree. Pakistan is 99% Islam, so all castes converted to Islam and/or many of the lighter-skined
Pakistanis are Persians and Turks who migrated there..
Afghanistan's religion prior to Islam was Buddhism, not Hinduism... Afghanistan was 33% Hindu,
66% buddhist before islam, but in actual practise lots of overlap between Hinduism and Buddhism,
and many families had mixed Indic religions
Pakistan was 22% non-muslim in 1947, these 22% were higher caste Hindus and Sikhs – all got
driven out in 1947 ; Pakistan is low IQ islamic sludge residue of Punjabi society
I am Tamil speaking, 80% of Tamil brahmins ( 2% ) can be visually distinguished from the 98%
Tamil Dravidians ;
Thomm you take up too much oxygen in the room insisting on the importance your opinions, the
whole conversation is much more interesting when i skip past your stupid WN focused city boy sheltered
viewpoint. Big words and that retarded hehehe thing you do would get you wrastled to the ground
and your face rubbed in the dirt
@Thomm Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians
out of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power,
would it not? Moreover how are white males who want to escape SJW idiocy going to like a country
that still actively enforces all sorts of thought control policies of its own? You wannabe libertardian
analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber every time.
Why would 'idiot WNs' be happy about the fact that blacks successfully chased asians out
of the country, though? That would be a sign that they are gaining a scary degree of power,
would it not?
It would be, but WN retards don't think that far.
You wannabe libertardian analysts always say silly things like this and it just sounds dumber
every time.
This is what WNs want, not want I want. It is easy to predict WN opinions.
Plus, being a libertarian is much more desirable than being a WN socialist. Talented people
thrive in a libertarian society. WN losers just want to mooch off of successful whites.
"Better to have the handsomely paid Cornel West pontificating about white racism at Princeton
where he is a full professor than fulminating at some Ghetto street corner."
Really? All that does is give the man a bigger sanctioned soap box. In the ghetto he might
affect a couple of hundred people. Siting in academia he gets a lever than can affect tens of
thousands. Not a good trade.
Truth is often stranger than fictions. The real reason for discriminating against Asian Ams
is not to help make the other minority happy. It is to benefit the whites. The Ivy League schools
are using the diversity to give the white applicants an advantage of 140 pst in SAT points. Please
see below:
In Table 3.5 on p 92 of Princeton Prof. Espenshade's famous book, "No Longer Separate, Not
Yet Equal", the following shocking fact was revealed:
Table 3.5 (emphasis added)
Race Admission Preferences at Public & Private Institutions
Measured in ACT & SAT Points, Fall 1997
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Public Institutions Private Institutions
ACT-Point Equivalents SAT-Point Equivalents
Item (out of 36) (out of 1600)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-
Race
(White) -- –
Black 3.8 310
Hispanics 0.3 130
Asian -3.4 -140
Why are 140 SAT pts. taken away from AsAm applicants? To give the white applicants an advantage
of 140 SAT pts. over the historically disadvantaged AsAms by using the nobility of diversity as
a cover? This is the reverse of affirmative action. This is a gross abuse of affirmation action.
This is outrageous discrimination. If
the purpose is to give the blacks an advantages, why not add more SAT points to blacks and hispanics?
@Avalanche That's an interesting point you brought up, whether anyone can ever really be "assimilated".
Even after hundreds of years, blacks and Jews in this country remain very distinct groups. I think
for blacks the reason is skin color and culture, while for Jews it is the religion. Both groups
have had low out marriage rate until maybe the last couple of decades.
Assimilation is most successful when there's a high intermarriage rate, but intermarriage rate
and immigration rate tend to go in opposite directions. The higher the immigration rate, the lower
the intermarriage rate.
Hispanics and Asians have been in this country since the 1800s yet you rarely ever meet a hispanic
or Asian person who's been here for more than 3 or 4 generations. Why is that? I think it's because
many of these earlier groups, due to their small number at the time relative to the population,
had intermarried, blended in and disappeared. I would say these earlier immigrants have fully
assimilated. The ones who are unassimilated are the new arrivals, those who arrived in large numbers
since 2000.
But for some peculiar reason blacks who are mixed with whites often continue to identify as
blacks. We see this in Obama, Halle Barry, Vanessa Williams and many other black/white mixes.
Black identity is so strong even Indian-black mixed race people call themselves black, like Kamala
Harris.
My theory is that most white-hispanic and white-asian marriages are white males with hispanic/asian
females. In most cases the white males who married hispanic/asian women are conservatives who
prefer women in cultures that are perceived to be more traditional compared to white females who
are often selfish and want a divorce at the first sign of personal unhappiness. Many of them then
raise their children in full white traditions including as Christians and encourage them to identify
themselves as whites.
OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances these
women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children. Jewish women
for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their children as
black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves as black.
Education used to be the biggest tool for assimilation, but these days thanks to libtards running
amok, our schools are where racial identity is amplified rather than de-emphasized. Now all minority
groups are encouraged to take pride in their own cultural identity and eschew mainstream (white)
culture. Lured by affirmative action, more and more mixed race hispanic kids are beginning to
identify themselves as latino. Thankfully mixed race Asian kids are running in the opposite direction
and now mostly identify themselves as white so they are not disadvantaged by AA.
I think assimilation can occur when you have low immigration rate coupled with high intermarriage
rate and a smart education system that discourages racial and individual identity and focuses
on a single national identity. The biggest reason assimilation is failing now is a combination
of high immigration rate, and a failed education system that promotes identity politics and victimhood
narrative. The internet and easy air travels back to the homeland also make it much harder to
assimilate newcomers. For these reasons I'm in favor of a moratorium on immigration for the next
20 years. All those not yet citizens should be encouraged to return to their home countries. No
more green cards, work visas or even student visas should be issued.
@S. B. Woo That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid.
Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed
blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively.
Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like
you are parroting them without thinking things through.
OTOH, many white-black mix marriages are white female with black male, in many instances
these women marry black men because they are liberal nuts who want to raise black children.
Jewish women for instance marry black men at a high rate. Many of these women then raise their
children as black or biracial children and encourage their children to identify themselves
as black.
@Incontrovertible That's the argument of mindless Asian SJWs who've been fed the libtard kool-aid.
Just look at the numbers you yourself provided. Whites who were turned down still vastly outperformed
blacks and hispanics who were given admission, to the tune of 340 points and 130 points respectively.
Libtards who came up with AA want everyone to turn against whites, and mindless Asian SJWs like
you are parroting them without thinking things through.
So much for "smart Asians". But they still needed a lower score for admittance than Asians
The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity
politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in
Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates
at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes
have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies
are increasingly uncertain of their future.
The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation.
WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free
but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from
there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump
is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch.
Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are
no longer so constrained.
It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on
steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the
strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor
the Democrats.
Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments
of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However,
the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because
taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.
So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms
with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch
Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans
to go along.
The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They
hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.
In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.
Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US
was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates
would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.
There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became
US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.
That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win"
Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still
so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going
to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat,
slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class
and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about
his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic
attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses
in the first person).
I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something
for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change
quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people
are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with
Hope!
That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from
a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely
find more.
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together
is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with
the "for all" emphasized frequently.
I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there
seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be
both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others,
no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of
a different way to prepare for the future.
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated
quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...
I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon
to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see
for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a
fair number of converts.
But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations
of old communists who have fallen out of favor.
As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically.
There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there
should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land.
This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.
That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true
for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.
As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a
100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.
I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings,
I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel
or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue.
Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil
War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition
of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot.
I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness.
I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the
Reconstruction and carpetbagging.
I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit
of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking
up their case in regard to free-speech:
http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz
I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.
"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."
I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth
and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in
the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.
They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie
Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number
of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did
not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary:
Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist
media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the
total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.
On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New
Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing
the 2016 election.
The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.
The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the
wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon,
Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves.
After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been
ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing
out what is really happening.
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse
Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.
I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the
Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next
to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist
(or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well
to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different
ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants
to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow,
Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain
and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory
bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.
What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this
overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards
him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment
who are viewed as completely self-serving.
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public
settings.
LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered
a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to
being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for
mental health evaluation.
This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.
Chomsky:
"As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major
gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."
"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally
self-destructive."
"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who
win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the
opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing
their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within
hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group
of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even
claim that they were equally at fault.
There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect
in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence
and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media
of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.
CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly,
but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the
area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area.
A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did,
"they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large
groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.
The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the
Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and
the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will
vote" in every election.
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors
including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were
there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which
were violent and this response was no different.
However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no
effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.
So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left.
I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others,
are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how
offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not
legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.
Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an
infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:
" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word
culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others.
It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head
who have something you want. "
First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary
but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence
among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion
that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms,
this is the ethos driving the radical Left.
Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western
liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless
of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic
culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember
that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave
you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to
articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch
about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization"
is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets
to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you
over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise
out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game
that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering
as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight
to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting
for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would
do well to take their warnings seriously.
If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your
alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless
of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you
and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall
quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.
You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep
at night.
If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating,
and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail,
you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you
along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming
and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty,
and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win,
and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen.
It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.
The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who
were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution
until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate
burning it all down.
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials
in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the
South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments
of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference
to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the
city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as
"a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor
said:
As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's
localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down
these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now
agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while
the decision may not be mine to make...
It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore
simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course,
the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in
force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky,
are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant
racial ideology, symbols, and flags.
Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side,
is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former
presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring
men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free
world.
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section
that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The
same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/
. That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I
wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I
wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that
a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national
reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which
followed it. That is tragic.
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump'
presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him,
possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious
and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat
on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass
negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority
decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not
qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of
to be same.
" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."
That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites
has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states,
especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing
is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control
mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans,
especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government),
Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these
elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the
radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.
The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should
be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."
Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized
Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I
heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by
"teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to
be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."
These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo
chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality,
exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.
Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1
and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant
about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the
South knows the cost of war." pl
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump
and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the
Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump
is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).
But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has
no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced
from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are
because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give
me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?
When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew
their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their
filth with facts and arguments and history.
I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the
US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate
paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back,
is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his
own mental echo chamber).
If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel
system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with
fairness.
But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is
having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be
Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.
"In
an article for Quillette.com on "Methods Behind the Campus Madness," graduate researcher
Sumantra Maitra of the University of Nottingham in England reported that 12 of the 13
academics at U.C. Berkeley who signed a letter to the chancellor protesting Yiannopoulos were
from "Critical theory, Gender studies and Post-Colonial/Postmodernist/Marxist background."
This is a shift in Marxist theory from class conflict to identity politics conflict;
instead of judging people by the content of their character, they are now to be judged by the
color of their skin (or their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, et cetera).
"Postmodernists have tried to hijack biology, have taken over large parts of political
science, almost all of anthropology, history and English," Maitra concludes, "and have
proliferated self-referential journals, citation circles, non-replicable research, and the
curtailing of nuanced debate through activism and marches, instigating a bunch of gullible
students to intimidate any opposing ideas.""
"... So, noting that on average, men have 90% more upper body strength than women, would I not be able to claim that any woman my height or less will not have my upper body strength? ..."
"... The problem is that PC is on the way to functioning like militant Islam with regard to unbelievers and apostates. ..."
"... "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them". ..."
"... "There are only two important days in the life of any person, the day that your are born and then day you find out why." ..."
"... The supreme irony of l'affaire Damore is that was a primary point of Damore's memo and the response was perhaps the best proof of the validity of that point possible. Hence my "inept thinkers" comment. ..."
"... Look how Canadian 'hate speech laws' began with silencing 'Neo-Nazis' (fake ones, btw) and then spread to going after those who don't use proper pronouns. Self-Righteous Addiction created all these Self-Righteous Junkies. ..."
"... The bigger question is why Homo Sapiens is the only primate on the planet where The female is expected to be equal to the male ..."
"... The whole argument "for equality" is fundamentally flawed – it is the wrong goal. As individuals we humans want to be different – not equal. We want to bring something different to the table of social interaction. People who are equal have nothing to give to each other. ..."
"... P.S. No matter our intellectual capabilities, for 99% of us – doing a good job of raising our children – is the most lasting thing that we can ever do. They are our true legacy – what we do on the job is all too soon lost in the evolution of business. ..."
"... it is quite likely that variation is bigger in males, as usual with many other traits. ..."
This argument makes me smile. Hyde seems to take as granted that males have an advantage
on "tightly timed tests for mathematical and spatial tasks". Is it simply my male point of
view that to do well on any test, in the sense of getting things right, and doing so
quickly, would be considered a double advantage? Why regard speedy thinking as a complexity
of interpretation? Why is speed in correctly completing a task judged to be "speed as much
as skill"? Absurdly, the prompt and correct completion of a task seems to be cast as mere
male impetuosity. Furthermore, any employer reading this argument would be justified in
thinking "On difficult tasks involving maths and spatial analysis, women need more time"
so, given a chance, it might be better not to employ them.
Agreed, but the timing issue for spatial tests actually strikes me as even more important
than that. I am good at typical spatial tests, but one thing I have noticed is that for the
hardest items I find myself going through a very working memory loaded process of checking
whether a rotation works for a variety of details (number of details being limited by WM). I
am pretty sure this process is more g loaded than spatial (have to find, remember, and
analyze these differences). It is also slow at my WM limits (I trial and error choose which
details to focus on for the hardest items). I am certain I could improve my performance by
making pen and paper notes, but consider that cheating on those tests. It would be
interesting to explore differences in solution speed and style both within and between groups
(e.g. do similar scoring men and women differ in technique?).
Thus I tend to think the need for more time indicates a relative deficit in "real" spatial
skill in favor of g. Whether this "real" spatial skill is what drives the relationship of
spatial skills with programming is unclear, but I think it might be. I would hypothesize that
it might not be easy for someone like me to emulate the reasoning a higher spatial ability
person might use to solve real world problems (rotations are a relatively simple special case
problem). If so, presumably this problem would be even worse for someone with even less
"real" spatial ability.
Part of what I base my self assessment on is my sense that some people just immediately
see the answer to hard spatial problems. Another part of this is my experience with tasks
like navigating in complex topographical environments (I suspect that is a related skill). I
routinely encounter people who I think are much better at navigation than I am (especially
considered in tandem with more g loaded differences). My sense is that this instant
recognition correlates with g but is a separate ability (perhaps more separate than the
spatial
test
correlations indicate given my substitutability observation above). I
would be very interested in either anecdotal observations or research discussing this!
Overall, my takeaways from the whole l'affaire Damore (surprised I haven't seen this pun
used yet, just searched and
here is a
use
, though I disagree with it that post and the comments are worth a look) are:
Preferences are important and should be the first differences mentioned in this
discussion.
Relevant measurable trait and preference differences exist and the magnitudes seem in
the right ballpark (given tail effects) to explain the representation differences we
observe.
The evidence for biological vs. cultural explanations for these differences is not
definitive and therefore is controversial. This controversy provides much of the heat
underlying the overall debate IMHO.
Sexism and discrimination probably exist. In both directions (Google's hiring practices
are clearly discriminatory in intent, the reason for Damore's memo!). I am not sure which
direction is greater in effect in the Current Year
There are an astonishing number of inept thinkers out there (not a surprise, but rarely
is ineptness displayed so proudly). More than a few call themselves scientists.
@Peripatetic
commenter
Perhaps a good start is to read (or at least skim)
Intelligence, Genes, and
Success: Scientists Respond to The Bell Curve
as a collection of critiques of
The Bell
Curve
which seem better than most. Then look for critiques of that book and its
papers.
Another approach would be to look at Linda Gottfredson's work, most notably:
Mainstream
Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography
The Note makes it very clear that men and women "differ in part due to biological
causes", that many such differences are small, with significant overlaps, and that you
cannot say anything about an individual on the basis of population level distributions.
So, noting that on average, men have 90% more upper body strength than women, would I not
be able to claim that any woman my height or less will not have my upper body strength?
@Peripatetic
commenter
Short answer, no. Though it arguably depends on where you fall in the male
range and the population size (which controls how much of an outlier one can expect to
occur). If you want to make this more concrete, here is a paper on strength differences which
seems to imply (though I don't see it stated) a Cohen's d of about 3 for upper body strength:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756754/
Plugging that into the visualizer here (3 is the maximum value supported) you see only 13%
overlap:
http://rpsychologist.com/d3/cohend/
Worth noting that these analyses don't account for size differences (so your equal height
condition skews things).
To answer your question a different way, try looking at world championship weightlifting
results. Can you lift more than the strongest woman there less than or equal to you in
height (or weight as a proxy)?
I don't do weight training but if I did, I think I could and I would assert that world
championship male weight lifters could.
The more we learn about nonhuman intelligence, however, the more we find that abilities
previously thought to be uniquely human are not. For example, it was thought until the
1960s that humans alone make tools. But then Jane Goodall (1963) found wild chimpanzees
making them. Later, several other species were found making tools too (Beck, 1980). Thus,
ideas about what marks the boundary between human and nonhuman intelligence have undergone
repeated
What is the use of making such statements? Chimps are not going to suddenly start making
screw drivers or knives or bows and arrows etc. Is it thought that all other tool making is
layered on top of the neural support Chimps use for making their very primitive tools?
I suspect that no one with enough intelligence to think clearly understands what all the
fuss is about. I have never been particularly successful at anything, despite my IQ of over
160 (according to Mensa). The only clearcut effect this has had, as far as I can make out, is
that most people find my conversation obscure and boring.
If an IQ 60% above average confers no apparent practical advantage, what is the point in
squabbling heatedly about hypothetical differences on the order of 1%? It is surely well
established, even if it weren't glaringly obvious to common sense, that while pure
intelligence is vital in some fields of work, its effects are usually swamped by those of
other characteristics such as persistence, enthusiasm, charisma and empathy.
Indeed, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the very most intelligent
people are disproportionately prone to mental disorders, existential horror, and despair.
There is a lot to hate and fear in the world, and most people seem to be spared the worst
consequences by the simplest of defence mechanisms – a sheer failure to notice.
@Peripatetic
commenter
"Is it thought that all other tool making is layered on top of the neural
support Chimps use for making their very primitive tools?"
Yes. Although of course we are not chimps, nor are we directly descended from chimps. The
human brain is immensely flexible and adaptable, and once the practice of solving problems by
making tools became established, a whole vast new world opened up. Note that people were
making stone tools for a very, very long time before the first metals were discovered. Note
also that many of the human race's greatest discoveries may have been made only once or twice
before spreading worldwide.
One serious weakness that most humans suffer from is an inability to visualize long
periods of time. Just as, to the average citizen, a million, a billion, and a trillion are
all more or less just "lots and lots", most of us really cannot conceive of a million years
or what might happen in such a time. At about three generations per century, a million years
represents about 30,000 generations. A mere 50 generations ago the Roman Empire was still
flourishing.
@res
Thanks for your
thoughtful and detailed comments.
On the speed issue, for all tasks, I was objecting to Hyde's implied distinction between
speed and ability, because ability is related to speed. I think that W.D.Furneaux was onto
this issue years ago, and progressed it well. From memory, I have classified his key insight
as saying that intellectual achievement depended on: speed, accuracy and persistence.
The first two are often a trade-off, though of course the brightest people are both speedy
and accurate. Persistence is often an ignored characteristic, though it is a key part of most
great intellectual achievements.
As regards g, at higher levels of ability it account for less variance.
1. Furneaux, W. D., Nature, 170, 37 (1952). | ISI |
2. Furneaux, W. D. "The Determinants of Success in Intelligence Tests" (paper read to Brit.
Assoc. Adv. Sci., 1955).
3. Furneaux, W. D., Manual of Nufferno Speed Tests (Nat. Found. Educ. Res., London,
1955).
4. Furneaux, W. D., in Intellectual Abilities and Problem Solving Behaviour in Handbook of
Abnormal Psychology (edit. by Eysenck, H. J.) (Pergamon Press, London, 1960)
@Peripatetic
commenter
I think you are right if we alter it from "any woman" to "almost any woman",
simply because the difference in body strength (in the paper Res references, and in the
others) is a d of 3.5 so I wouldn't bother with further calculations to correct for height.
What would make a difference is the small numbers of elite women athletes, as shown in the
paper Razib posted.
If one simplifies the whole issue to look at height, weight and body strength together, then
women are at risk in any physical encounter with men, even old ones. This has been noticed
before, resulting in kind societies paying extra respect to and showing more consideration
for women, and in less kind societies to their abuse.
I find the ferocity of some of the replies to Damore extreme. The vehemence of the
opposition is coruscating, and absolute. These issues should be matters of scholarly
debate, in which the findings matter, and different interpretations contend against each
other.
Or maybe it's not for ferocious attacks or scholarly debate. It's just a difference of opinion (remember "diversity") – not something to get so
excited about.
The problem is that PC is on the way to functioning like militant Islam with regard to
unbelievers and apostates.
@Tom Welsh
Dear
Tom,
An IQ of 160 is only found in 1 in 31,560 persons, being higher than 99.9976142490% of the
population. This is more than a 60% advantage over the average citizen. IQ points are not
percentages.
The work of Benbow and Lubinski shows that the higher the intelligence the greater the
achievement. While other personality factors may be involved, they have yet to be shown to be
as important.
Typically, high ability people are shown to be more balanced than average, with lower rates
of mental disorder.
@James Thompson
Not
to worry. We have Hollywood providing young women with all the confidence necessary that,
should she walk down a dark alley and be accosted by a man, she will likely strike him a few
times in the face and walk away unscathed.
/sarc off.
If women grasped even vaguely just how great is the gulf between them and the overwhelming
majority of men, I suspect we'd see a lot fewer women using their divorce attorney to torment
their soon-to-be (or already) ex-husband. I've watched women metaphorically poke the most
dangerous animal on Planet Earth, an adult male human, as he sits in a cage that lacks
bars.
The only time I've seen the "Entertainment Industry" show what can really happen in a
confrontation between a typical woman and a typical (in this case viciously predatory) man,
it was in a foreign-made film titled "Irreversible," available on Amazon Video. It was
without a doubt the most horrifying rape-beating ever put on film, and watching it would
scare the living daylights out of women. It ran rings around any horror film ever made.
"It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious
things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either
of them".
– Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar, Ch. XX
@Tom Welsh
Sam
Clemens was sui generis. And I love this one of his:
"There are only two important days in
the life of any person, the day that your are born and then day you find out why."
Well, I was looking for people-vs-things preference differences expressed in easily
calculable terms (i.e. something in terms of "men are rated as 10 on this trait, with SD 2,
while women as 8, with SD 1.8″) but I couldn't; Can anyone help?
The best I could found was the study which claimed that in people-vs-things rating, within
the top 25% of topc scorers – which would be, if I understood correctly, people who are
the most interested in things (as contrasted with "interested in people") ratio of women to
men is 0.287. That would mean there would be around 78% men, 22% women.
Now, the question is what is the cutoff for going to STEM, ie. what is average "things"
preference for people to decide to follow career in STEM (or, more specifically, in
engineering and computer science). Depending on value of this cutoff, the gap in CS and
engineering might be, indeed, completely explained away by difference in people-vs-things
interest, or even might imply men are discriminated against, HOWEVER, seeing as some of those
preferences are calculated, I wonder whether it is not a kind of circular argument, kind of
"there are more men into computer-related work, because more men are interested in
computers".
Also, it seems that i saw in one study taht this difference decreases with age, which is
strange. This would contradict the theory that the preference is driven by the social
expectations (because, then "sexist" expectations would cause is to go up with age) but this
could be explained by "it is caused by biology" theory; HOWEVER, the bad thing and the
weakness is that "it's caused by biology" could be used to justify BOTH increasing and
decreasing the gap – a realisation which leaves bad taste in my mouth.
Anyway I'd love to see
(1) studies quantifying the differences on a scale, not saying "the effect is large with
Cohen's d=1.23″
(2) studies looking at specifically computer science and comparing their preferences with
general population
(3) studies measuring the trait in very early age
This book (The Measurement of Intelligence, edited by Michael? Eysenck, copyright 1973, I
actually have a copy but am having trouble finding it, I think that chapter would be a good
starting point for me):
https://books.google.com/books?id=wjLpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236
gives a title for your first reference:
Some Speed, Error and Difficulty Relationships
within a Problem-solving Situation
From which I find:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v170/n4314/abs/170037a0.html
It is nice that Nature assigns DOIs to its old papers. That appears to be a two page letter.
Interesting, but I am having trouble drawing inferences from it.
I am not sure I communicated my agreement with your earlier speed, accuracy, and
persistence comments. I was trying to extend the idea to consider that slow speed might be an
indicator of the substitution of skills (other than persistence, though that is certainly
critical there) for the skill nominally being tested for. In my earlier example, g for
spatial ability. For another example, I took an online autism test a while ago (identifying
emotions from pictures). I scored above average (in a good way ; ), but found myself again
using a more "logical" (g based IMHO) process for the harder items. I doubt that is the way
most people approach that test (though I could be wrong) and my result might overstate my
ability on the skill
they are trying to test
.
The fundamental distinction I am trying to make is between solving a problem in the same
way (or sufficiently similar) just more slowly and solving the problem using a fundamentally
different approach (or skill/ability?!). The former could be viewed as changing the clock
speed on a computer and I think corresponds with the point you make about persistence. For
the latter envision a case where one person solves a problem using visual intuition and a
quick mathematical check while another person uses an extended mathematical derivation. I
think this kind of substitutabiltity could be a problem in subtests intended to measure a
specific skill (e.g. spatial!). And g is a very useful Swiss army knife ; ).
Perhaps this is a second order effect relative to the basic speed/persistence issue and
should (could?) not really be considered until that has been solved? I guess I am just
interested in anyone who has thought about this substitutability idea in the more general
form. Furneaux seems focused on the speed side. In particular, Furneaux limits his
consideration to the 10-85% range of difficulty while my personal experience is much more
about the hard end of the difficulty scale.
This seems like a fairly obvious idea to me so I presume it has been considered. Perhaps
some combination of "second order effect" and "hard to test" prevents something having been
done about it?
One other thought that occurs to me. Does Furneaux's deemphasis of higher D(ifficulty)
items say something about the difficulty of creating high ceiling tests? Is it possible that
the combination of substitutability and more idiosyncratic skill profiles at the high end are
part of that problem?
It's just a difference of opinion (remember "diversity") – not something to get so
excited about.
The supreme irony of l'affaire Damore is that was a primary point of Damore's memo and the
response was perhaps the best proof of the validity of that point possible. Hence my "inept
thinkers" comment.
@dc.sunsets
"No one
is insuring your foods are safe".
Actually, Western governments have for decades been going out of their way to recommend
actively unhealthy foods and drinks. In 1865, in 1910 and in 1939 it was clearly understood
everywhere that meat, fish, poultry, eggs, vegetables, and nuts, together with some dairy and
fruit, were the essential dietary items. Carbohydrates, sugars and grains in particular, were
clearly understood to be fattening and probably causative of many diseases.
Yet since the US government led the charge with its McGovern Committee Report in the
1970s, Western governments have been warning against meat, saturated fat, and other healthy
foods while urging consumption of more foods made from sugars and grains. We all require
about 20% of daily energy from protein, and the rest is a mixture of fats and carbs. Cut out
the fats, and that means 70-80% carbs, which leads inexorably to weight gain, metabolic
syndrome, and for many people eventual diabetes.
Did I mention that Senator McGovern represented a grain-producing state?
I would like, in
this context, to repeat my quotation of Alfred Korzybski's declaration.
"I have said what I have said. I have not said what I have not said".
Intelligent, let alone constructive, discourse will not be possible until everyone
understands that saying and takes care to make sure they understand what others mean.
@res
Good points.
Sorry about the references: I took the first ones to hand, and should have searched through
my own posts. Have done that now, and found this:
This will add some content, but I agree that I did not properly answer your question. I
think the question you raise would be considered a task solving strategy problem: "I have
tried shape, as I did on the easier items, but that doesn't work for this more difficult
problems, so I will try feature categorization". That is, you went from a modular solution to
a g-loaded general strategy when the module seemed to fail you.
My first point is that if we can find someone who solves even the difficulty problem easily,
we hire them because their module does the job for us!
Second, and more interestingly, most problem solving approaches fail when the problem is both
novel and very difficult. (I cannot say what makes a problem difficult, but it probably
relates to the number of items and the number of operations involved in solving it). At that
point in the act of creation, people try all manner of re-framings and re-descriptions, in
the hope that an analogy might open up a new line of attack. For example, I cannot assist
anyone with finding new elements. Despite that, out of ignorance I can make some suggestions.
For example, would anything be gained by taking the target close down to absolute zero? Would
it make it easier to hit something?
So, problem-solving strategies often become the real test. That also involves working out
what problems you don't have to solve. During the Manhattan project one group started
worrying that in focusing the charges they would get wear in the system which would throw out
their very crucial calculations about the critical mass required. After a while a team member
pointed out the obvious fact that the firing mechanism would only be used once.
You are right that a different approach is what we generally need for very difficult
problems.
Sorry that I cannot answer all your interesting questions.
@Tom Welsh
That is a
good quote. Perhaps I am being a bit dense, but I don't see the applicability to my comment
32. Especially given that I was not responding to you. Perhaps you could elaborate?
If anything the obligation to understand lies first with those criticizing Damore's
memo.
I don't mind
DS not existing. The question is IF they can go after DS, where does it end?
Look how Canadian 'hate speech laws' began with silencing 'Neo-Nazis' (fake ones, btw) and
then spread to going after those who don't use proper pronouns. Self-Righteous Addiction created all these Self-Righteous Junkies.
@Tom Welsh
What? 3
generations a century? That would mean people are having kids in their 30s . Which didn't
happen until this last century. Its more like 4-5, maybe even 6, generations a century.
I agree humans can't visualize large spans of time. Plus, a very large minority think the
world was created 2017 years ago, so that doesn't help.
I find the ferocity of some of the replies to Damore extreme. The vehemence of the
opposition is coruscating, and absolute. These issues should be matters of scholarly
debate, in which the findings matter, and different interpretations contend against each
other. Expressing different opinions should be a cue for debate, not outrage.
The whole argument "for equality" is fundamentally flawed – it is the wrong
goal. As individuals we humans want to be different – not equal. We want to bring
something different to the table of social interaction. People who are equal have nothing to
give to each other.
Our goal is to find a niche for ourselves – there is room for all different
capabilities in a rational society. There is only so much need for rocket scientists.
Proving that men and women are equal is fools work.
Smart people will endeavor to prove that all work is of value – and deserving of a
living compensation.
Peace -- Art
P.S. No matter our intellectual capabilities, for 99% of us – doing a good job of
raising our children – is the most lasting thing that we can ever do. They are our true
legacy – what we do on the job is all too soon lost in the evolution of business.
Cspan
had an excellent two hour or so interview of the guy on one of their weekend book shows a
decade or so ago.
Worth the search and a download of at least the audio.
@res
Thanks a lot for
a link to "interpretating cohen's d"! FInally I understood the concept
However, the problem with COhen's d is that it assumes – if I am not mistaken
– the equal standard deviations, while I think
it is quite likely that variation is
bigger in males, as usual with many other traits.
That would mean that using "d" would not
truly reflect the ratios of population over some cutoff, am i right?
@szopen
My
understanding is the official definition of Cohen's d uses the pooled SDs of the
subpopulations, but I am not sure how rigorously that subtlety is observed. For example, this
page gives them as alternate definitions:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cohen%27s_d
I am not sure how much of a difference that makes in practice. That might be a good thing
to investigate with some simulations.
"... Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent the same talking points memo. ..."
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
"... I vividly recall staying up past 1 AM on election night 2016, watching CNN, as it became clear that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States. News anchor Dana Bash was beside herself at the outcome, and at one point, in a fit of honesty, she exclaimed, "This means the end of identity politics." Well, yes, but a deep ideology like identity politics does not die a quiet and sober death. Last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw identity politics playing out--violently. Whether it was the white protesters who formed part of the original crowd, or the black and "antifa" protesters who formed part of the counter-demonstration, we witnessed a clash of identities. ..."
"... Watching the tirades on MSNBC and other news outlets over the past 48 hours, I can't help but lament how twisted our public discourse has become. Clearly some of the counter-demonstrators were part of the very same "antifa" apparatus that got very different news coverage when they torched and trashed Seattle a number of years back in protest at a WTO meeting. This time around, they were defended by the icons of media, who denounced any thought that there was "moral equivalence" between their violence and the violence of the hardcore white racists who made up part of the protesters on UVA campus. ..."
"... There is a difference between legitimate civil rights struggles, which at times led to violence, and the reverse racism that I see and hear far too often out of the Black Lives Matter people. ..."
"... Soros Money Matters too. He is not a benign figure but a promoter of division and discord. I sat in a room when he complained bitterly, with racist overtones, during a meeting of the Drug Policy Foundation years ago, that there were not black voices promoting the legalization of crack cocaine, part of his libertine agenda. Is he a friend of the black community? I don't think so. ..."
"... Identity politics is a disease. It divides people and makes them into the sum of their self-defined attributes. Far from bringing about the end of identity politics, the Trump election has hardened the fault lines, whether on Capitol Hill or on the streets of American cities. ..."
I vividly recall staying up past 1 AM on election night 2016, watching CNN, as it became clear
that Donald Trump had been elected the next President of the United States. News anchor Dana Bash
was beside herself at the outcome, and at one point, in a fit of honesty, she exclaimed, "This means
the end of identity politics." Well, yes, but a deep ideology like identity politics does not die
a quiet and sober death. Last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, we saw identity politics playing
out--violently. Whether it was the white protesters who formed part of the original crowd, or the
black and "antifa" protesters who formed part of the counter-demonstration, we witnessed a clash
of identities.
President Trump was not wrong when he said that there were violent protesters on both sides of
the clash, and that many of the protesters were not there to show their racism, but to protest the
tearing down of a statue of a figure in American history who cannot be airbrushed out of our nation's
story. Is the next step to burn down the campus of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia,
because it was co-named after Robert E. Lee after the Civil War?
Watching the tirades on MSNBC and other news outlets over the past 48 hours, I can't help
but lament how twisted our public discourse has become. Clearly some of the counter-demonstrators
were part of the very same "antifa" apparatus that got very different news coverage when they torched
and trashed Seattle a number of years back in protest at a WTO meeting. This time around, they were
defended by the icons of media, who denounced any thought that there was "moral equivalence" between
their violence and the violence of the hardcore white racists who made up part of the protesters
on UVA campus.
There is a difference between legitimate civil rights struggles, which at times led to violence,
and the reverse racism that I see and hear far too often out of the Black Lives Matter people.
And there is the matter of George Soros spending millions of dollars to help launch that movement
after Ferguson. Soros Money Matters too. He is not a benign figure but a promoter of division
and discord. I sat in a room when he complained bitterly, with racist overtones, during a meeting
of the Drug Policy Foundation years ago, that there were not black voices promoting the legalization
of crack cocaine, part of his libertine agenda. Is he a friend of the black community? I don't think
so.
Identity politics is a disease. It divides people and makes them into the sum of their self-defined
attributes. Far from bringing about the end of identity politics, the Trump election has hardened
the fault lines, whether on Capitol Hill or on the streets of American cities.
Brennan Gilmore, Tom Perrielo, Michael Signer, and other friends of Podesta arranged the Charlottesville
violence. This isn't just a bunch of college-age leftists getting excited about Derrida. The Charlottesville
violence was the result of a conspiracy by well-connected insiders.
I quote the "Signs of the Times" website linked below:
The STOP KONY 2012 psyop was all about using the Joseph Kony boogieman to justify letting Barack
Obama send Special Operations troops into Africa to run around and squash any and all resistance
to our new imperialism campaign. It was a fraud. A show. And Brennan was part of it.
He was also part of the campaign of Tom Perriello's in Virginia to become the next governor.
End quote.
"Signs of the Times" dot net has a story on this that I will link in the third field below.
I fear that we are approaching a season of disintegration. September 11 at Texas A&M and September
16 on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia will be indicators. pl
On June 6, 1944, a bunch of "protesters" attacked Nazis and did so violently. Was there a moral
equivalency then too? You have to reach rather low to accept Nazis, et al, and try to deflect
blame for what they stand for. What the defenders of the Confederacy has managed to do is to thoroughly
discredit their cause by associating with these despicable groups. It is again a lost cause and
again, they only have themselves to blame.
We may be watching the end of the Trump era come nearer. By association, he is rapidly losing
the moral stature of the office that he holds. A lot of people near him are losing their reputations
forever.
Of course Sweden did not fight the Nazis at all. Was there a moral equivalence there or was
it just self-interest? In fact there were many Swedish volunteers in the 5th SS Panzer Division.
What is the factual basis for saying that the people who would not have the statues moved are
Nazi-associated or supporting? Do you think the UDC and SCV (of whom I am not qualified to be
a member) are Nazi-associated? pl
In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of
Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore
took
down
four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors,
another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were
toppled or defiled
.
The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General
Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The
activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the
political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses
quoted
in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.
In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in
Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But
they were mere actors within
a U.S. propaganda show
.
Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under,
worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the
U.S. occupation.
The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate
government of Ukraine
pulled
down
hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the
Soviets in the second world war
took this
as
a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and
protected them
. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:
"It's not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,"
Mr. Gobert said. "These differences don't only go through geography, they go through
generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural."
Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group.
They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:
"One guy said he didn't really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the
village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time," Mr. Gobert said. "When
the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away."
Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic
figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people
under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues.
Should those also be taken down?
As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a
certain ideology or concept
in
mind
, the view on it will change over time:
[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee's great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May
1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In
the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied "the moral greatness of
the Old South", and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself
was remembered as a conflict between "interpretations of our Constitution" and between
"ideals of democracy."
The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done
so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was
a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all
for protesting against them.
But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and
messages. Lee was also the man who
wrote
:
What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest
joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead
of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in
Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into
Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between
it and the new park name.
Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They
are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of
reflection.
George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: "The most effective way to destroy people is to deny
and obliterate their own understanding of their history." People do not want to be destroyed.
They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide
consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the
impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for
those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike
statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even
more.
That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on
opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further
disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to
cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.
Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish
for.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
How about the fact that he was a traitor?
"George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: 'The most effective way to destroy people is to
deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.'"
The only reason statues of traitors like Lee exist is because the South likes to engage in
'Lost Cause' revisionism; to pretend these were noble people fighting for something other
than the right to own human beings as pets.
erasing history seems part of the goal.. i feel the usa has never really addressed
racism.. the issue hasn't gone away and remains a deep wound that has yet to heal.. events
like this probably don't help.
The statues of Lee and his ilk should come down because they are TRAITORS who deserve no
honor. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves but they were PATRIOTS. Its really that
simple.
I don't want to get derailed into the rights or wrongs of toppling statues. I wonder whose
brilliant idea it was to start this trend
right at this particular tinder box moment.
That said, the USA has never ever truly confronted either: 1) the systemic genocide of the
Native Americans earlier in our history; and b) what slavery really meant and was. NO
reconciliation has ever really been done about either of these barbarous acts. Rather, at
best/most, we're handed platitudes and lip service that purports that we've "moved on" from
said barbarity - well I guess WHITES (I'm one) have. But Native Americans - witness what
happened to them at Standing Rock recently - and minorities, especially African Americans,
are pretty much not permitted to move on. Witness the unending police murders of AA men
across the country, where, routinely, most of the cops get off scott-free.
To quote b:
The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The
fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of
political resistance to Trump's plans.
While I dislike to descend into the liturgy of Both Siderism, it's completely true that
both Rs and Ds enjoy and use pitting the rubes in the 99% against one another because it
means that the rapine, plunder & pillaging by the Oligarchs and their pet poodles in
Congress & the White House can continue apace with alacrity. And: That's Exactly What's
Happening.
The Oligarchs could give a flying fig about Heather Heyer's murder, nor could they give a
stuff about US citizens cracking each other's skulls in a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Gives an opening for increasing the Police State and cracking down on our freedumbs and
liberties, etc.
I heard or read somewhere that Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer are absolutely committed
to not impeaching Donald Trump because it means all the Ds have to do is Sweet Eff All and
just "represent" themselves as the Anti-Trump, while, yes, enjoying the "benefits" of the
programs/policies/legislation enacted by the Trump Admin. I have no link and certainly cannot
prove this assertion, but it sure seems likely. Just frickin' great.
Lee was not a racist; I'd say you are addressing your own overblown egos. The U.S. Civil War
was long in coming. During the 1830's during Andrew Jackson's presidency, and John Calhoun's
vice-presidency, at an annual state dinner, the custom of toasts was used to present
political views. Jackson toasted the Union of the states, saying "The Union, it must be
preserved." Calhoun's toast was next, "The Union, next to our liberty, most dear."
Calhoun was a proponent of the Doctrine of Nullification, wherein if a national law
inflicted harm on any state, the state could nullify the law, until such time as a
negotiation of a satisfactory outcome could come about. The absolute Unionists were outraged
by such an idea.
My memory tells me that the invention of the cotton gin made cotton a good crop, but that you
needed the slaves. Slaves represented the major money invested in this operation. Free the
slaves and make slave holders poor. Rich people didn't like that idea. I think maybe the
cotton was made into cloth in the factories up north. Just saying.
How would 'addressing the problem' actually work? Should all native Americans and people of
colour go to Washington to be presented with $1 million each by grovelling white men?
But, the memorials to GW, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison,
et al
, does
not honor them for owning slaves. Memorials of Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis,
et
al
, is because they took up arms against a legitimate government simply to support of a
vile system.
@6
The manufacturing states put export duties on the agricultural states, and tariffs on British
imported cloth. The English mills were undercutting the U.S. mills prices for a number of
reasons, not the least of which was they were more experienced in the industry.
The difference between a statue of Lee vs. a statue of Washington, Jefferson, LBJ, etc., is
that Washington, Jefferson, and LBJ did some good things to earn our respect even though they
did a lot of bad things, too. The Confederacy did no good things. It would be like erecting a
statue to honor Hitler's SS.
If there were statues honoring the SS, would anyone be surprised if Jews objected? Why
then does anyone fail to understand why blacks object to Confederate symbols?
I would, however, support statues that depict a Confederate surrendering. Perhaps the
statue of Lee on a horse could be replaced with a statue of Lee surrendering to Grant?
I am not a fan of the "counter-protests." Martin Luther King never "counter-protested" a
KKK rally. A counter-protest is a good way to start a fight, but a poor way to win hearts and
minds. It bothers me when the 99% fight among themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%.
George Washington "the father of our country" was a slave owner, a rapist and a murderer.
What do we expect from his descendants?
should we remove his face of the dollar bill and destroy his statues?
The civil war was due to economic reasons, free labor is good business.
Now cheap Mexican-labor ( the new type of slavery) is good business to the other side.
when will the new civil war in the US start?
@b
Many years ago, within the leadership of my student organization, I initiated to rename the
University I was attending, which was named after a communist ideological former state acting
figure, with very bloody hands, co-responsible for the death of tenths of thousands and
thousands of people. Today I still think, that educational and cultural institutions (and
many more) should be named either neutral, or by persons with cultural background and with
impeccable moral history, no many to be found. On the other side, I opposed the removal of
the very statue of the same person at a nearby public plaza - and there it stands today - as
a rather painful reminder of the past bloody history of my country, that went through a
conflict, that today seems so bizarre. Wherever I go, I look into black abyss, knowing, that
the very culture I belong to (the so called Christian Liberal Free Western World) has
inflicted so many horrors and crimes against other nations and ethnic groups, its even
difficult to count. Karlheinz Deschner wrote 10 books, titled "The Criminal History of
Christianity (Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums - on YT you can find videos him reading
from it). Yes, this is the very civilization, we Westerners originate from. It was deadly for
centuries - and its about time to change this. And keeping the memory of our so bloody
history, will help us to find the right and hopefully more peaceful solutions in the future.
Don`t tear down monuments or change street names, but give them the so often shameful
meaning, they had in history.
Then southern states have no business being part of United States of America since their
history and customs are not honored. That is good overall I think. Best for the world.
Southern states are very unlikely to attack any other sovereign state thousands of miles
away, but all united as unitary state, we can see how persistent in their aggression on the
rest of the world they are. 222 years out of its 239 years US has been aggressor:
https://www.infowars.com/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/
Time to break US lust for attacking, invading and raiding other countries.
what little of this history i know - which is to say very little - kgw reflects what i have
read.. the problem is way deeper.. if you want to address racism, you are going to have to
pull down most of the statues in the usa today of historical figures..
if - that is why way you think it will matter, lol.. forgot to add that.. otherwise, forget
pulling down statues and see if you can address the real issue - like @4 rukidding and some
others here are addressing..
A little false equivalency anyone? I'm sure Adolph Hitler had some reasonable remarks at some
point in his life, so, I guess we should tolerate a few statues of him also? States rights as
the cause for the U$A's civil war? baloney, it was about the murder and enslavement of
millions of humans.
Bob Dylan's "Only a Pawn in Their Game" still
spells out
unsurpassed the divide and
rule strategy, to my mind. Powers that be are rubbing their hands with satisfaction at this
point, one would think.
I like your observation, b, that statues don't necessarily represent what they did when
they were erected. It's an important point. It meant something at the time, but now it's a
part of today's heritage, and has often taken on some of your own meaning. To destroy your
own heritage is a self-limiting thing, and Orwell's point is well taken. Perhaps people
without history have nowhere in the present to stand.
Have to add, slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It was centralization, rights of the
states. Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners
didn't. Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents
in the US, Southerners were on their own. I personally think Southerners were much better
soldiers, more honorable and courageous, but we lacked industrial capacity and financial
funds. I could be biased having Southern blood, but my opinion anyway.
therevolutionwas@10 - Have to agree. The events leading up to the US Civil War and the war
itself were for reasons far more numerous and complex then slavery. Emancipation was a
fortunate and desirable outcome and slavery was an issue, but saying the entire war was about
ending slavery is the same as saying WW II was mostly about stopping Nazis from killing jews.
Dumbing down history serves nobody.
Still wondering how specifically the 'real issue' can be addressed. I don't think any amount
of money will compensate plains Indians .actually some are quite well off due to casinos. But
the days of buffalo hunting are gone and white people will not be going back where they came
from. As for blacks in urban ghettos you could build them nice houses in the suburbs but I
doubt if that will fix the drugs/gangs problem.
"That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down."
If the sole criteria for taking down any statues was that a man was a 'racist', meaning
that he hated people of color/hated black people, can we assume then that all those who owned
slaves were also racist?
Then all the statues in the whole country of Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Monroe and
perhaps all the Founding Daddies who owned slaves, should be removed. I am playing devil's
advocate here.
Fashions come and go.... and so the vices of yesterday are virtues today; and the virtues
of yesterday are vices today.
Bernard is correct at the end: "The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural
disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans." The Demos have
nothing, so they tend to fall back on their identity politics.
....In total, twelve presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives, eight of whom
owned slaves while serving as president. George Washington was the first president to own
slaves, including while he was president. Zachary Taylor was the last president to own slaves
during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at
some point in his life.
Pitting people against people by inciting and validating fringe groups is a tried and true
social manipulation ploy.....and it seems to be working as intended.
Focus is on this conflict gets folks riled up and myopic about who the real enemies of
society really are.....and then that riled up energy is transferred to bigger conflicts like
war between nations.....with gobs of "our side is more righteous" propaganda
Humanity has been played like this for centuries now and our extinction would probably be
a kinder future for the Cosmos since we don't seem to be evolving beyond power/control based
governance.
And yes, as Dan Lynch wrote just above: "It bothers me when the 99% fight among
themselves. Our real enemy is the 1%"
Robert E. Lee a racist? No, he was a man of his time. B, you blew it with this one. You have
confused what you don't know with what you think you know.
Now, if Lee was a racist, what about this guy?
From Lincoln's Speech, Sept. 18, 1858.
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I
was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people.
While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch
as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position
assigned to the white race."
All states who joined the confederation cited the "need" and "right" to uphold slavery in
their individual declarations. To say that the civil war was not about this point is strongly
misleading. Like all wars there were several named and unnamed reasons. Slavery was the most
cited point.
The argument of rather unlimited "state rights" is simply the demand of a minority to
argue for the right to ignore majority decisions. With universal state rights a union can
never be a union. There is no point to it. What is needed (and was done) is to segregate
certain fields wherein the union decides from other policy fields that fall solely within the
rights of member states. The conflict over which fields should belong where hardly ever
ends.
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's
presidents for perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered
millions around the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the
iron shackles, but the murder is still murder...
P. S.--If it were up to me, I'd tear down monuments to most of the U$A's presidents for
perpetuating and abetting the rise of an empire who has enslaved and murdered millions around
the globe, simply for profits for the few. Economic slavery has replaced the iron shackles,
but the murder is still murder...
Posted by: ben | Aug 16, 2017 2:45:29 PM |
28
/div
The Northern manufacturers were exploiting the South and wanted to continue doing so. They
didn't much care that the raw materials came from slave labor.
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation to encourage slave rebellion
(meaning
fewer white Southern men available for military service)
and to punish the South.
Yet, while slavery ended when the North won, we all know how that turned out. For nearly
100 years
(and some might say, even today)
, many black people were still virtual
slaves due to discrimination and poor education.
B@27: you're missing a couple of very basic points.
First, not all states that seceded issued declarations. Virginia, for example, of which
the 'racist' Robert E. Leehailed, only seceded after Lincoln made his move on fort sumter. In
fact, Virginia had voted against secession just prior but, as with 3 other southern states,
seceded when Lincoln called for them to supply troops for his war.
Speaking of declarations of causes, have a look at the cherokee declaration. Yes, united
indian tribes fought for the confederacy.
Finally, the causes for secession are not the causes for war. Secession is what the
southerners did. War is what Lincoln did. One should not have automatically led to the
other.
Well, just reading the comments here it is obvious that there are several versions of history
taught at different times in the last century. If not, then all of us would "know" the real
reason for the CW - there would be no need for discussion. What is also obvious is that this
delving back into a muddied history, the defacing of formerly meaningful objects, the
thrusting of certain "rights" into the face of anyone even questioning them - all of it is
working. It is working extremely well in distracting us from things like the numerous
economic bubbles, the deep state scratching at war or chaos everywhere, politicians who are
at best prevaricating prostitutes and at worst thieves enriching themselves at our expense as
we struggle to maintain in the face of their idiocy.
It simply doesn't MATTER what started the Civil War - it ought to be enough to look at the
death toll on BOTH sides and know we don't need to go there again.
Who stands to gain from this? Because it surely isn't the historically ignorant antifa
bunch, who are against everything that includes a moral boundary. It isn't the alt-right, who
get nothing but egg on their face and decimation of position by virtue of many being "white".
CUI BONO?
The single answer is threefold: media, the government and the military - who continue to
refuse to address any of our problems - and feed us a diet of revolting pablum and
double-speak.
Honestly, congress passed a law legalizing propaganda - did anyone notice? Did anyone
factor in that they allowed themselves freedom to lie to anyone and everyone? It wasn't done
for show - it was done to deny future accountability.
Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely...
Speaking of Lincoln's quotes, here is a good one to dispel the myth about slavery being the
cause of war.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do
so, and I have no inclination to do so."
I the civil war was for the most part connected with the federal reserve central bank
charter right which unionist Yankees frightful about possible restraints of bankers rights
were keen to give London banking families unrestricted rights to do whatever they please in
the US. Other reasons exclusively included expanding federal government powers. Adding
personal income tax would be unimaginable prior to CW. Creation of all those fed gov agencies
too. It was all made possible by London bankers' servants Yankees.
The civil war in the US was not really started because of slavery. Robert E. Lee did not
join the south and fight the north in order to preserve slavery, in his mind it was state's
rights. Lincoln did not start the civil war to free the slaves.
You're right. The Emancipation Act was an afterthought really because Europe had turned
against the idea of slavery before the Civil War broke out, in fact was repelled by it, and
Lincoln knew that it would hurt commerce.
The southern states felt they had a right to secede, using the tenth amendment as the legal
basis. It states simply " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.".
Furthermore, the union of states was referred to many times by the founders as a compact.
Under the theory of compacts, when one party doesn't honor said compact, it is rendered
null.
Slavery, regardless of how we may feel today, was a legal and federally protected
institution. With the rise of the republican party, a campaign of agitation towards the south
and slavery had begun. It is this agitation towards a legal institution that rankled
southerners.
The south saw this coming well before the election of Lincoln. William seward, the
favorite to win the election, gave a speech in l858 called "the irrepressible conflict". The
south well knew of this and saw the writing on the wall if a republican was elected
president.
When reading the declarations of causes, this background should be kept in mind if one
wants to understand the southern position. Or, one can just count how many times the word
'slavery' appears like a word cloud.
Probably the best articulated statement on the southern position was south Carolina's
"address to the slaveholding states".
I'm afraid if you go back in time, no US president can be saved from a well-deserved statue
toppling. Including Abraham Lincoln, the hypocrite who DID NOT, and I repeat, DID NOT abolish
slavery. The U.S "elite" has always been rotten through and through, so good luck with those
statues.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-clintons-had-slaves
You used Lincoln's inaugural address to show that the war was not over slavery. It's plain
enough coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Lincoln, in that same inaugural address, stated what the war would be fought over ......
and it was revenue.
Here's the quote:
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places
belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among
the people anywhere.
As a rare book dealer and history buff with thirty-odd years of experience reading and
studying original civil war era periodicals and documents, a fact stands out for me about
these now-controversial statues. None is from the civil war period. Many, like the Lee statue
in this article, date to the 1920's, which was the era of the second Ku Klux Klan. The
infamous movie "Birth of a Nation" inspired the nationwide revival of that faded terrorist
group. The year that statue was dedicated a hundred thousand Klansmen paraded in full regalia
in the streets of Washington.
The children and grandchildren of the men who had taken up arms against the United States
had by then completed a very flattering myth about 1861 - 1865. Consider too that
romanticized lost cause mythology was integral to the regional spirit long before the
rebellion. The Scots Irish who settled the American south carried with them the long memory
their forebears' defeats at the Boyne and Culloden, at the hands of the English – the
very ancestors of the hated Yankees living to the north of their new homeland.
Note also that many more CSA statues and memorials were built in the 1960s, as symbols of
defiance of the civil rights movement of that era. The War for the Union was fought at its
heart because the elite of the old south refused to accept the result of a fair and free
democratic election, but for those who came after, white supremacy became the comforting myth
that rationalized their ancestors' incredibly foolish treason.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
Would this have been written in his time? Would it be written today in other countries
(Africa included) where slavery (aka human trafficking) is big business today?
I'm disappointed that Moon of Alabama, usually so astute in its presentations, would print
this article.
That the many statutes of America's founding fathers should be re-evaluated is actually a
great idea. Many of these people were simply oligarchs who wanted to be the top of the
pyramid instead of the British. Many owned slaves and perpetuated slavery. Others, like
Andrew Jackson were legitimate psychopaths. Pretty much all of them cheered the genocide of
Native Americans. So maybe we *should* have different heros.
Using the logic b spells out above, one could argue that statues of Nazis should be
allowed too, after all they did come up with the Autobahn (modern highways), jet engines, and
viable rockets, all technology used all over the world. Some patriotic, well meaning Germans
fought in the Wehrmacht, don't they deserve statues, too? What about the Banderists and
Forest Brothers? The Imperial Japanese? Don't those well-meaning fascists deserve to
celebrate their heritage?
But simply saying that idea out loud is enough to realize what a crock that notion is.
Nazis and fascists don't deserve statues, neither do confederates. Neither do most Americans,
for that matter.
Trying to make some moral equivalence between NeoNazis and the leftists who oppose them is
about as silly as it gets. I don't support violence against these idiots, and they have the
same rights as anyone else in expressing their opinion. But to paint legit NeoNazis and the
leftists opposing them (admittedly in a very juvenile manner) in the same brush ("Both sides
came prepared for violence") is utter hogwash. We don't give Nazis a pass in Ukraine, don't
give them a pass in Palestine, and we sure as hell don't give them a pass in the US. It
doesn't matter what hypocritical liberal snowflake is on the other side of the barricade, the
Nazi is still a f*****g Nazi.
"Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery."
b, you have just displayed your ignorance of the character of Robert E. Lee, why he
fought, and what he fought for. To give you the short n sweet of it, General Lee was a
Christian gentleman respected by those in the North as well as the South. He fought the
Federal leviathan as it had chosen to make war on what he considered to be his home and
country--the State of Virginia. The issue at hand was not racism and slavery but Federal
tyranny. Lincoln himself said he had no quarrel with slavery and as long as the South paid
the Federal leviathan its taxes, the South was free to go. Make a visit to Paul Craig Roberts
site for his latest essay which explains the world of the 1860s American scene much more
eloquently than I can ...
b is completely wrong in thread. The USA has been a highly racist power system historically
where killing non-Whites has been a major historical policy. Lee is not merely a racist, he
epitomizes this policy and is a symbol of it. Attacking racist symbols is essential to
destroying racism.
Historicus@38: that 'fair and free democratic election' was replete with Lincoln supporters
printing counterfeit tickets to the convention in order to shut out seward supporters.
The gambit worked and the rest, as they say, is history.
james @2--You are 1000000000% correct. And given the current state-of-affairs, will
continue to fester for another century if not more thanks to historical ignorance and elite
Machiavellian maneuvering.
Southern Extremist self-proclaimed Fire Eaters were the ones that started the war as they
took the bait Lincoln cunningly offered them. If they'd been kept away from the coastal
artillery at Charlestown, the lanyard they pulled may have remained still and war avoided for
the moment. The advent of the US Civil War can be blamed totally on the Constitution and
those who wrote it, although they had no clue as to the fuse they lit.
Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western Hemisphere because the enslaved First
Peoples died off and the sugar plantations needed laborers. Rice, tobacco, indigo, "Naval
Stores," and other related cash crops were the next. Cotton only became part of the mix when
the cotton gin made greatly lessened the expense of its processing. But, cotton wore out the
thin Southern soils, so it cotton plantations slowly marched West thus making Mexican lands
attractive for conquest. But slaves were used for so much more--particularly the draining of
swamps and construction of port works. The capital base for modern capitalism was made
possible by slavery--a sentence you will NOT read in any history textbook. There are a great
many books written on the subject; I suggest starting with Marcus Rediker's
The Slave
Ship: A Human History
, followed by Eric Williams's classic
Capitalism and Slavery
, Edward Baptist's
The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American
Capitalism
, and John Clarke's
Christopher Columbus and the Afrikan Holocaust: Slavery
and the Rise of European Capitalism
.
There are even more books published about the war itself. But as many have pointed out,
it's learning about the reasons for the war that's most important. Vice President Henry
Wilson was the first to write a very detailed 3 volume history of those reasons,
Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power in America
beginning in 1872, and they are rare books indeed;
fortunately, they've been digitized and can be found here,
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Wilson%2C+Henry%2C+1812-1875%22
Perhaps the most complete is Allan Nevins 8 volume
Ordeal of the Union
, although for
me it begins too late in 1847,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordeal_of_the_Union
Finally, no study of the period's complete without examining the unraveling and utter
dysfunction of the political process that occurred between 1856 and 1860 that allowed Lincoln
to win the presidency, Roy Nichols's
The Disruption of American Democracy
illustrates
that best.
The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were multiple,
although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an historian,
I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical relevance,
although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong; better to
display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder what will
become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display of the
Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw US
Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity.
There's also the school of thought that holds that Honest Abe freed the slaves in order that
northern industrialists could acquire replacements for workers lost in the war.
@37
Aye Woogs. All about expanding fed gov powers, most of which was focused on permanent central
banking charter. Many forget that central banking charter had been in place before CW in the
US and that great statesman Andrew Jackson repelled it. The first central banking charter
caused terrible economic suffering, which is why it was repelled. People had more sense then.
Not so much now.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United
States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the
funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided
the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal I will rout you out!"
~Andrew Jackson
It saddens me that so many buy into the South fought for slavery. That story line was used in
the same manner that Weapons of Mass Destruction was used to war with Iraq. The difference is
the internet was able to get the truth out. Doesn't do much good to argue as most believe the
Confederate slavery propaganda. The US is done as a nation. A thousand different groups that
hate each other preaching no hate. Yes it will limp along for a while but it's done for.
many thanks for the history, and the books. I read Murray's essay and consider it a good
take....
".... As an historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of
historical relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as
wrong..."
I have to agree.
& there is at least one sane (african american) person in LA, as per below article
"....Los Angeles resident Monique Edwards says historical monuments, like the Confederate
statue removed from Hollywood Forever Cemetery, need to be preserved and used as teachable
moments...."
Yankees wanted strong central government with wide array of power, Southerners didn't.
Yankees were supported by London banking families and their banking allies or agents in the
US, Southerners were on their own.
I recall that it was the slavers that wanted the central government to enforce the
Fugitive Slave Act
even in states that outlawed slavery; it was the slavers that
insisted that slavery be legal in the new territories, regardless of the wishes of the
settlers.
Also, the London industrial and banking interest strongly supported the breakaway slavers
because:
(1) It was the slave produced cotton that fueled the textile industry in England.
(2) Imported British ¨prestige¨ items found a ready market with the nouveau riche
planters grown fat on stolen labor.
(3) A Balkanized NA would be more subject to pressure from the ¨Mother Country.¨
(4) Lincoln refused to borrow from the bankers and printed ¨greenbacks¨ to finance
the war; this infuriated the bankers.
Neo-Confederate revisionism creates mythical history, in a large part, by attempting to
deify vile human beings.
Ben@26: Lincoln stated that he would only use force to collect imposts and duties.
The first battle of the war (actually more a skirmish) was the battle of Phillipi in
western Virginia in early June, l86l.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no customs houses in western Virginia as it was
not a port of entry. This was simply an invasion by the union army at Lincoln's command that
revealed his true colors. The war was Lincoln's war, plain and simple.
@51
Joey, I would like yo offer you fairy dust to buy. Interested? Luckily we should part our
ways soon. Should have happened ages ago if you ask me. Your history is not our own. You were
aggressors fighting for foreign entity. Time for us to part I think. have your own history
and say whatever you want there. We will have ours.
In my view, b is comparing a modern sensibility on race relations with that of a mid 19th
century confederate leader and so with this bad thesis it is quite easy to dismiss this post
entirely. Was the north that much more enlightened on the treatent of blacks? I think not.
Was the emancipation proclamation largely a political gesture to incite ire and violence not
only among southerners but also slaves living in these states towards their owners?
Meanwhile, the effect of such a proclamation was exempt on states where said effect would not
"pinch" the south. The north, if anything, was even more racist using blacks as a means
towards the end to consolidate power even more centrally.
It honestly reads like most neutral apologetic drivel out of the "other" msm which is on
the ropes right now from an all-out wholly political assault. If you truly wanted to educate
people on their history you would stand up for fair and honest discourse. Make no mistake,
this is all about obscuration and historical-revisionism. Globalists gotta eat.
"Slavery as an institution, is a moral &political evil in any Country... I think it
however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race... The blacks are immeasurably
better off." Robert E. Lee
Sounds like a man with opinions, but without the burning fire to see that evil enshrined
in a state-policy towards blacks. Basically, one condemns him for sharing a popular view of
the day. CALL THE THOUGHT POLICE!
From a British point of view, Washington and Jefferson were traitors as well.
As for Lee, he was racist, but doesn't seem to have been more racist than the average Yankee.
No more racist than Sherman or Lincoln, and less racist than many of the Confederate top
guys, for instance.
Then, there's the nutjob idea that forcefully taking down other statues in the South will
make these guys "win". At least, the Lee statue had a more or less legal and democratic
process going on, which is the only way to go if you don't want to look like a Taliban.
Really, did these idiots not understand that bringing down Confederate statues without due
process will massively piss off most of the locals? Do they really want the local hardliners
to come armed and ready to use their guns, one of these days? Is this the plan all along, to
spark another civil war for asshat reasons?
(Like B, toppling Saddam and communist statues was the very first thing I thought of. As
if these poor fools had just been freed from a terrible dictatorship, instead of nothing
having changed or been won at all in the last months)
I agree with Woogs (25). How stoopid are we ? History has been re-written and manipulated
going back a long way. Most of the readers here know that our "masters" , and their versions
of history are not accurate. Yet here we are arguing and such ... " he was good...NO He was
bad...." acting as if we know truth from fiction. Back then, as now, it was all planned.
Divide and conquer. Slavery was the "excuse" for war. The Power Elite" were based in Europe
at that time and saw America as a real threat to their global rule. It was becoming too
strong and so needed to be divided. Thus the people of those times were played....just as we
are today. Manipulated into war. Of course America despite the Civil War , continued to grow
and prosper so the elite devised another plan. Plan "B" has worked better than they could
have ever imagined. They have infected the "soul" of America and the infection is spreading
rapidly.Everyone , please re-read oilman2 comments (31)
Thanks B, precisely my thinking. It has a smell of vendetta. And I believe this sort of old
testament thinking is very common in the u.s. of A. What's currently happening will further
alienate both sides and lead to even more urgent need to externalize an internal problem via
more wars.
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
the Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located,
as one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points
out, some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania,
four) and at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil
War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two
key periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil
rights movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept
of a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed
by the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of
the Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes
that 35 Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee
or Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do
with paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to
black disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension.
I don't know if b. realizes how many German monuments got destroyed because people did not
wish to recall this particular part of history, the bomb raids of the allies helped, of
course, but there are cemeteries of Marx, Engels and Lenin statues, and
only revisionists recall what was destroyed
after WWII
.
Young people need some space to breath. They don't need monuments of war heros.
b wrote "Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or
group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories..."
Symbols indeed, traits in cultural landscapes. This piece may add another dimension to the
importance of cultural landscape in the context of this conversation:
"To this day, the question remains: why would the Southerners remember and celebrate a losing
team, and how come the non-Southerners care about it so passionately? A convenient answer
revolves around the issue of slavery; i.e., a commemoration of the era of slavery for the
former, and, for the latter, the feeling that the landscape reminders of that era should be
entirely erased."
and
"In the past two decades, the American(s)' intervention has brought down the statues of
Hussein, Gaddafi, Davis, and Lee respectively. Internationally, the work seems to be
completed. Domestically, the next stage will be removing the names of highways, libraries,
parks, and schools of the men who have not done an illegal act. Eventually, all such traits
in the cultural landscape of Virginia may steadily disappear, because they are symbols of
Confederacy."
http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-war-between-the-states-of-mind-in-virginia-and-elsewhere/
It warms my heart that you are not a racist. But who really gives a fuck? And what makes you
think not favoring your own kind like every other racial and ethnic group does makes you a
better than those of your own racial group?? Something is wrong with you.
You are certainly entitled to your attitudes, hatreds, memories, affinities and such. You
are not entitled to your own history. History is what happened. Quit lying about it!
Lee is the past. Obama is the present. The 'Nobel Peace Prize' winner ran more concurrent
wars than any other president. He inaugurated the state execution of US citizens by drone
based on secret evidence presented in secret courts. He was in charge when ISIS was created
by the US Maw machine. What about removing his Nobel Peace Prize?
A long time ago Christians destroyed the old god's statues because they were pagan and didn't
comply with their religion (or is it ideology?). Muslims followed and did the same on what
was left. They even do that now when ISIS blows up ancient monuments.
What is next? Burning books? Lets burn the library of Alexandria once again...
Joeymac 69:
I didn't mean the Charlottesville mess was done without due process. I refer to the cases
that have happened these last few days - a trend that won't stop overnight.
Extremists from both sides aren't making friends on the other ones, and obviously are only
making matters worse.
Somebody 63:
"It is futile to discuss what the confederacy was then, when white supremacy groups consider
them their home today."
That's the whole fucking problem. By this logic, nobody should listen to Wagner or read
Nietzsche anymore. Screw that. Assholes and criminals from now should be judged according to
current values, laws and opinions, based on their very own crimes. People, groups, states,
religions from the past should be judged according to their very own actions as well, and not
based on what some idiot would fantasize they were 1.500 years later.
Looks like the Lee apologetics and claims that the war was about state's rights (go read the
CSA constitution, it tramples the rights of its own member states to *not* be slave holding)
or tariffs are alive and well in these comments. That's what these statues represent: the
utter perversion of the historical record. And as pointed out @38, none of these statues are
from anywhere near the Civil War or Reconstruction era.
I think anyone and everyone who instigates a successful campaign to destroy a memorial which
glorifies war should be awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace & Sanity and be memorialised in
bronze, nearby, as a permanent reminder that war WAS a racket, until Reason prevailed.
No offense intended.
Arch-propagandist Rove said "[Those] in what we call the reality-based community, [who]
believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not
the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality [e.g Russia hacked the election]. And while you're studying that
reality!judiciously, as you will!we'll act again, creating other new realities [e.g. Neo-Nazi
White Supremacism], which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
There is a coup underway to get rid of Trump [who's 'unpardonable crime' seems to be that
he isn't going along with the War Party]. The War Party will try anything, anything, if there
is a hope that it will work to get rid of him. When Trump launched the cruise missiles
against Syria, there was a moment's silence, totally spooky given all the bs that was flying
... Would he start a war with Russia? Would Trump go all the way with that, as Clinton
probably would have done? When the attack fizzled out, the chorus resumed their attacks as
though nothing had happened.
Their tactical attacks change as they are revealed to be fakes. The current attack,
probably using War Party provacateurs operating on both sides, is the next tactical phase -
out with 'Russian Hacking the Election', in with 'Trump White Supremacist Nazi'. If there is
the standard CIA regime change plan behind this (as outlined by John Perkins and seen in
Ukraine, Libya, Syria)] and the relatively passive actions don't work, they will ultimately
resort to hard violence. At that stage, they resort to using snipers to kill people on both
sides.
The anti-fas' are supposedly liberal, anti-gun, but there already have been stories of
them training with weapons, even working with the Kurds in Syria so the ground is laid for
their use of weapons. There are those on the Trump side who would relish the excuse for gun
violence irrespective on consequence so the whole thing could spiral out of control very
rapidly and very dangerously.
Disclosure - I do not support Trump [or any US politico for that matter]. The whole US
political system is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Those that rise [or more accurately
those that are allowed to rise] to the top reflect that corruption and bankruptcy. This could
get very very messy.
There's nothing wrong with being racist. Racism is simply preference for one's extended
family. 'b' calls the admittedly rather goony lot at C'ville 'white supremacists'. But do
they want to enslave blacks or rule over non-whites? No. In fact most of the alt-right lament
the slave trade and all its ills, including mixing two groups who, as Lincoln pointed out,
had no future together. What the left wants to do is reduce Confederate American heritage and
culture down to the slavery issue, despite the fact only a few Southerners owned slaves.
Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?
You lefties need to have a serious moral dialogue over your rejection of
ethno-nationalism! Time to get on the right side of history! Have you noticed the alt-right,
despite being comprised of 'hateful bigots', is favourably disposed toward Iran, Syria, and
Russia? That's because we consistently apply principles which can protect our racially,
culturally, religiously, and ethnically diverse planet, and mitigate conflict. But the woke
woke left (not a typo) meanwhile has to 'resist' imperialism by constantly vilifying America.
ITS NOT THAT I'M IN FAVOUR OF ASSAD OR PUTIN, ITS JUST THAT AMERICA IS SO NAUGHTY! OH, HOW
BASE ARE OUR MOTIVES. OH, WHAT A POX WE ARE. Weak tea. You have no theoretical arguments
against liberal interventionism or neoconservativism.
Newsflash folks. Hillary Clinton doesn't fundamentally differ from you in principle. She
merely differs on what methods should be employed to achieve Kojeve's universal homogeneous
state. Most of you just want to replace global capitalism with global socialism. Seen how
occupy wall street turned out? Didn't make a dent. See how your precious POCs voted for the
neoliberal war monger? Diversity increases the power of capital. The only force which can
beat globalization is primordial tribalism.
Lee actually thought the Civil War an awful tragedy. He was asked to choose between his
state and his country. That's not much different from being asked to choose between your
family and your clan.
Lee was a racist.
That might be true, depending on one's definition of a racist. But then, why should Abraham
Lincoln get a pass? It's well known that he did not start the Civil War to end slavery --
that idea only occurred to him halfway through the conflict. But there's also the fact that,
while he was never a great fan of slavery, he apparently did not believe in the natural
equality of the races, and
he
even once professed to have no intention of granting blacks equality under the law:
"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was
really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While
I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the
question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about
in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not
nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM
HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that
there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
It turns out that history's a complicated thing! To bad it wasn't all written by Hollywood
with a bunch of cartoon villains and heroes ...
One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved
"punishment" for those who voted wrongly - i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump
voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign
to take them down even more.
You nailed it, b. The way things are headed, I now wonder if I will someday be arrested
for owning Lynard Skynard albums (the covers of which usually had Confederate battle flags)
or for having watched Dukes of Hazard shows as a child. It's starting to get that crazy.
Anyway, thanks for running a sane blog in a mad world!
Good interview with a Black, female pastor in Charlottsville who was in church when the march
began Friday night. They caught a lot that wasn't on network news.
"Don't let this site get bogged down in history that is being constantly rewritten on
Wikipedia. Don't buy into the left/right division process. Don't let your self identify with
either group, as they are being led by provocateurs.
The lies we know of regarding Iraq, Syria, Libya - aren't they enough to force people to
disbelieve our media completely? The HUGE lies in our media about what is going on in
Venezuela should be quite enough (bastante suficiente) to make most people simply disbelieve.
But they cannot because they are only allowed to see and hear what our government approves -
and for our government, lying is quite legal now.
Let the emotions go - they are pushed via media to force you to think in white or black,
right or left, old vs young - any way that is divisive. Getting beaten for a statue would
likely make the guy who posed for it laugh his butt off most likely..."
Posted by: Oilman2 | Aug 16, 2017 3:09:32 PM | 31
Well said. Hope to see your thoughts in the future.
And as always, Karlof1 you have some insights I rarely get ever else (especially not in a
comment section)
______________________________
"The US Civil War can't be boiled down to having just one cause; it's causes were
multiple, although slavery--being an economic and social system--resides at its core. As an
historian, I can't really justify the removal of statues and other items of historical
relevance, although displaying the Confederate Flag on public buildings I see as wrong;
better to display the Spirit of '76 flag if stars and stripes are to be displayed. (I wonder
what will become of the UK's Union Jack if Scotland votes to leave the UK.) Personal display
of the Stars and Bars for me amounts to a political statement which people within the Outlaw
US Empire still have the right to express despite the animus it directs at myself and other
non-Anglo ethnicities. (I'm Germanic Visigoth with Spanish surname--people are surprised at
my color when they hear my name.)
The current deep dysfunction in the Outlaw US Empire's domestic politics mirrors that of
the latter 1850s somewhat but the reasons are entirely different yet solvable--IF--the
populous can gain a high degree of solidarity."
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 16, 2017 3:51:18 PM | 45
____________________________
Also, somebody @63, very poignant to mention. While I could care less whether about some
statues stand or fall (it helps living outside the empire), to deny that they are (generally)
symbols of racism, or were built with that in mind, is a little off base in my eyes. Going to
repost this quote because I think it had quite a bit of value in this discussion.
"In 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center estimated that there were over 1,500 "symbols of
thE Confederacy in public spaces" in the United States. The majority of them are located, as
one might expect, in the 11 states that seceded from the union, but as Vice aptly points out,
some can be found in Union states (New York, for example has three, Pennsylvania, four) and
at least 22 of them are located in states that didn't even exist during the Civil War.
How can that be possible? Because largely, Confederate monuments were built during two key
periods of American history: the beginnings of Jim Crow in the 1920s and the civil rights
movement in the early 1950s and 1960s.
To be sure, some sprung up in the years following the Confederacy's defeat (the concept of
a Confederate memorial day dates back to back to 1866 and was still officially observed by
the governments of Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as of the publication of the
Southern Poverty Law Center's report), and some continue to be built!USA Today notes that 35
Confederate monuments have been erected in North Carolina since 2000.
But when these statues!be they historical place markers, or myth-building icons of Lee or
Stonewall Jackson!were built seems to suggest these monuments have very little to do with
paying tribute to the Civil War dead and everything to do with erecting monuments to black
disenfranchisement, segregation, and 20th-century racial tension."
Racism means zero understanding or tolerance of other people/cultures, an attitude that
ones own culture or skin colour or group is far superior to those 'others'.
Hear, hear. Generally, a resurgence of American nationalism WILL take the form of populist
socialism because it will mark a turning away from the global police state which America is
leading currently and will replace it with nationalistic spending on socialist programs with
an emphasis on decreased military spending. This will continue ideally until a balance of low
taxation and government regulation form a true economy which begins at a local level from the
ground up.
In 1861, the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander H. Stephens, offered this
foundational explanation of the Confederate cause:
"Its corner-stone rests, upon the
great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to
the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
This, our new government, is the
first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth.
"
how much public space in the US should be dedicated to monuments honoring these people in
the coming century? and for the children and grandchildren of slaves walking by them every
day? what about their heritage? and the public monuments to the indigenous people of this
land who we genocided? oh right, as a country we have still not even officially recognized
that genocide. monuments should not be solely a reflection of the past, but of the future, of
who we want to be. who we choose to recognize in our public spaces says a lot about us.
It's pretty fair too say several of the "alt-right" leaders who planned this event agent are
provocateurs or Sheep Dipped assets running honeypot "white nationalist" operations.
You can see from the make-up of the phony "Nazis" in the groups and their continued use of
various propaganda that serves only to tie people and movements OPPOSED by the Deep State to
"Nazis" and racist ideology, you can see how on the ground level, this event has psyop
planners' fingerprints all over it.
It's also fair too say the complicit media's near universal take on the event signals a
uniform, ready-made reaction more than likely dictated to them from a single source.
Trump is attacked. The ACLU is attacked. Peace activists opposed to the CIA's regime
change operation in Syria are attacked. Tucker Carlson is attacked. Everyone attacked that
the CIA and various other aspects of the Deep State want attacked as if the MSM were all sent
the same talking points memo.
And keep in mind, this all comes right after the news was starting to pick up on the story
that the Deep State's bullshit narrative about a "Russian hack" was falling apart.
Also keep in mind it comes at a time when 600,000 Syrians returned home after the CIA's
terrorist regime change operation fell apart.
The statues were erected when the KKK was at its peak, to keep the blacks in their place.
They started getting torn down after the 2015 massacre of black churchgoers by a Nazi. For
once, don't blame Clinton.
My only argument with your post is "Chattel Slavery was introduced in the Western
Hemisphere"
Chattel = movable property as opposed to your house. In that day and long before women and
children were chattel.
Thinking about what might have been might help. If the south had won would we have had a
strong enough central government to create and give corporate charters and vast rights of way
to railroads which then cross our nation. Would states have created their own individual
banking systems negating the need for the all controlling Federal reserve? Would states have
their own military units willing to join other states to repel an attack instead of the MIC
which treats the rest of the world like expendable slaves?
Before our constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. Article 1,2+3.....
Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every
Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the
United States, in Congress assembled.
Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with
each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and
general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or
attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any
other pretense whatever.
This first set of laws in the new world was later undone in a secret convention with
Madison, input from Jefferson and others found on our money and other honorariums. 1868 gave
us the 14th amendment to the constitution that freed all who are born within this nation and
were given equal rights. (Not saying that this worked for all slaves. Within a few years this
was used to create corporate persons with access to the bill of rights.
I am thinking there were many reasons that people who lived in those times had to fight
for what they did. We today are not in a position to judge why individuals fought. Certainly
many poor white southerners who owned no slaves at all fought and died. Was it to keep slaves
they did not own enslaved or did they fight and die for issues around protection of local or
state rights, freedoms and way of life?
Histories are written and paid for by the winners who control that particular present time
for the glorification of those rulers. A vast removal of historical artifacts speaks of a
weak nation fading into the west's need to clean up some points from history of mean and
brutal behaviors which we as a nation support now in the present but try and make it about
others.
A paragragh here from lemur 77 comment...
"Now, within ethnic European countries, should whites be supreme? You're goddamn right they
should. Just as the Japanese should practice 'yellow supremacy', and so on and so forth. Most
of you lot here, being liberals, will be in favour of no fault divorce. You understand there
can be irreconcilable differences which in way suggest either person is objectively bad. The
same applies to disparate ethnicities. If white Slovaks and Czechs can't get one, why would
white and non-white groups?"
What is the United States of America? It is made up of British, French, Spanish and
Russian territories aquired or conquered, the original colonists in turn taking them from the
native inhabitants. The US has had a largley open imigration policy, people of all cultures,
languages and skin colours and religions.
Why should white Europeans be supreme in the US lemur?
The following is the guts of a posting from Raw Story that I see as quite related.
"
White House senior strategist Steve Bannon is rejoicing at the criticism President Donald
Trump is receiving for defending white nationalism.
Bannon phoned The American Prospect progressive writer and editor Robert Kuttner Tuesday,
according to his analysis of the interview.
In the interview, Bannon dismissed ethno-nationalists as irrelevant.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element," Bannon noted.
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon claimed to welcome the intense criticism Trump has received.
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
Kuttner described Bannon as being in "high spirits" during the call
"You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and
therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely
blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists," Kuttner explained. "But
Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of
taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his
rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury."
"They're wetting themselves," Bannon said of opponents he planned to oust at State and
Defense.
"
Curtis 6 isn't me. However, I somewhat agree with the point.
Joe 41
Very true. Lee saw himself as defending Virginia. Slavery was the chief issue used in the
states declarations of secession. But the end goal was a separate govt (that actually banned
the importation of new slaves).
Nemesis 57
Excellent. Racism was bad in the North, too.
Strange how the left are pulling down statues of democrats, and the right are fighting to
have them stand. The confederates were democrats, but nobody seem to remember that now
anymore.
Nothing strange about it. The Democrats dropped the southern racists and the Republicans
picked them up with the Southern Strategy. It's all pretty well documented. The current
Republicans are not heirs to Lincoln in any meaningful way.
...."The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I
want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we
go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.".....
Those who make silly talk about "Patriots and Traitors" (Swallows and Amazons?) are being
obtuse about their history. The whole system was racist through and through, depended upon it
and was built upon it, starting with the very first rapacious sorties inland from the swampy
coast.
Some excellent commentary here, including james's percipient notes, Grieved's point,
RUKidding's and karlof1's, perry's observations and speculations.
Aside, this "99% v.1%" discourse is disempowering and one has to ask whose interests such
talk and attendant disempowerment serve.
This is a meaningful post on a touchy subject. Global Brahmins are looting the developed
world. Color revolutions and ethnic rifts make great fire sales. In a sane world, old
monuments would molder away in obscurity. Instead a faux resistance to divide and conquer the
little people has commenced. But, it is careening out of control due to austerity and job
loss. Deplorable Bushwhackers are fighting for tribalism and supremacy. After the 27 year old
war in Iraq, subjected Sunnis turned to their ethnic myths and traditions to fight back;
obliterating two ancient cities and themselves. The Chaos is coming west.
The problem is that people focus on the effects of history, like slavery and the holocaust,
but if you go into the causes and context of these events, then you get accused of
rationalizing them. Yet being ignorant of the causes is when history gets repeated. By the
time another seriously bad effect rises, it's too late.
As for slavery, it's not as though peoples lives haven't been thoroughly commodified before
and continue to be. Yes, slavery in the early part of this country was horrendous and the
resulting racism arose from the more reptilian parts of people's minds, but that part still
exists and needs to be better understood, not dismissed.
It should also be noted that if it wasn't for slavery, the African American population would
otherwise only be about as large as the Arab American population. It is a bit like being the
offspring of a rape. It might the absolute worst aspect of your life, but you wouldn't be
here otherwise. It's the Native Americans who really got screwed in the deal, but there are
not nearly enough of them left, to get much notice.
PS,
For those who know their legal history, no, I'm not using a pseudonym. There is a lot of
family history in this country, from well before it was a country.
Google fires employee James Damore for "perpetuating gender stereotypes.
– You persecute your employees for having opinions and violate the rights of White
men, Centrists, and Conservatives.
– No, we don't. You're fired.
A conversation just like or similar to this one recently took place in the office of one of
modern information market monsters, the Google Corporation.
Illustration to the Google scandal. James Damore fired for "perpetuating gender
stereotypes". Source: Screenshot of Instragram user bluehelix.
Google knows almost everything about us, including the contents of our emails, our
addresses, our voice samples (
OK Google
), our favorite stuff, and, sometimes, our
sexual preferences. Google used to be on the verge of literally looking at the world with our
own eyes through Google Glass, but this prospect appears to have been postponed, probably
temporarily. However, the threat of manipulating public opinion through search engine
algorithms has been discussed in the West for a long while, even to the point of becoming a
central
House of Cards
plotline.
Conversely, we know next to nothing about Google. Now, thanks to an ideological scandal that
shook the company, we suddenly got a glimpse of corporate values and convictions that the
company uses a roadmap to influencing us in a major way, and American worldview even more so.
Suddenly, Google was revealed to be a system permeated by ideology, suffused with Leftist and
aggressively feminist values.
The story goes this way. In early August, an anonymous manifesto titled
Google's
Ideological Echo Chamber
was circulated through the local network of Google. The author
lambasted the company's ideological climate, especially its policy of so-called diversity. This
policy has been adopted by almost all of US companies, and Google has gone as far as to appoint
a "chief diversity officer". The goal of the polity is to reduce the number of white
cisgendered male employees, to employ as many minorities and women as possible and to give them
fast-track promotions – which, in reality, gives them an unfair, non-market based
advantage.
The author argues that Leftism and "diversity" policies lead to creating an "echo chamber"
within the company, where a person only talks to those who share their opinions, and, through
this conversation, is reinforced in the opinion that their beliefs are the only ones that
matter. This "echo chamber" narrows one's intellectual horizon and undermines work efficiency,
with following "the party line" taking precedence over real productivity.
In contrast to Google's buzzwords of "vision" and "innovation", the author claims that the
company has lost its sight behind its self-imposed ideological blindfold and is stuck in a
morass.
As Google employs intellectuals, argues the critic, and most modern Western intellectuals
are from the Left, this leads to creating a closed Leftist clique within the company. If the
Right rejects everything contrary to the God>human>nature hierarchy, the Left declares
all natural differences between humans to be nonexistent or created by social constructs.
The central Leftist idea is the class struggle, and, given that the proletariat vs.
bourgeoisie struggle is now irrelevant, the atmosphere of struggle has been transposed onto
gender and race relations. Oppressed Blacks are fighting against White oppressors, oppressed
women challenge oppressive males. And the corporate management (and, until recently, the US
presidency) is charged with bringing the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to life by imposing
the "diversity" policy.
The critic argues that the witch-hunt of Centrists and Conservatives, who are forced to
conceal their political alignment or resign from the job, is not the only effect of this
Leftist tyranny. Leftism also leads to inefficiency, as the coveted job goes not to the best
there is but to the "best woman of color". There are multiple educational or motivation
programs open only to women or minorities. This leads to plummeting efficiencies,
disincentivizes White men from putting effort into work, and creates a climate of nervousness,
if not sabotage. Instead of churning out new ground-breaking products, opines the critic,
Google wastes too much effort on fanning the flames of class struggle.
What is the proposed solution?
Stop diving people into "oppressors" and "the oppressed" and forcefully oppressing the
alleged oppressors. Stop branding every dissident as an immoral scoundrel, a racist, etc.
The diversity of opinion must apply to everyone. The company must stop alienating
Conservatives, who are, to call a spade a spade, a minority that needs their rights to be
protected. In addition, conservatively-inclined people have their own advantages, such as a
focused and methodical approach to work.
Fight all kinds of prejudice, not only those deemed worthy by the politically correct
America.
End diversity programs discriminatory towards White men and replace them with
non-discriminatory ones.
Have an unbiased assessment of the costs and efficiency of diversity programs, which are not
only expensive but also pit one part of the company's employees against the other.
Instead of gender and race differences, focus on psychological safety within the company.
Instead of calling to "feel the others' pain", discuss facts. Instead of cultivating
sensitivity and soft skins, analyze real issues.
Admit that not all racial or gender differences are social constructs or products of
oppression. Be open towards the study of human nature.
The last point proved to be the most vulnerable, as the author of the manifesto went on to
formulate his ideas on male vs. female differences that should be accepted as fact if Google is
to improve its performance.
The differences argued by the author are as follows:
Women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects.
Women are prone to cooperation, men to competition. All too often, women can't take the
methods of competition considered natural among men.
Women are looking for a balance between work and private life, men are obsessed with
status
Feminism played a major part in emancipating women from their gender roles, but men are
still strongly tied to theirs. If the society seeks to "feminize" men, this will only lead to
them leaving STEM for "girly" occupations (which will weaken society in the long run).
It was the think piece on the natural differences of men and women that provoked the
greatest ire. The author was immediately charged with propagating outdated sexist stereotypes,
and the Google management commenced a search for the dissent, with a clear purpose of giving
him the sack. On 8th August, the heretic was revealed to be James Damore, a programmer. He was
fired with immediate effect because, as claimed by Google CEO Sundar Pichai, "portions of the
memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in
our workplace". Damore announced that he was considering a lawsuit.
We live in a post-Trump day and age, that is why the Western press is far from having a
unanimous verdict on the Damore affair. Some call him "a typical sexist", for others he is a
"free speech martyr". By dismissing Damore from his job, Google implicitly confirmed that all
claims of an "echo chamber" and aggressive Leftist intolerance were precisely on point. Julian
Assange has already tweeted: "Censorship is for losers, WikiLeaks is offering a job to fired
Google engineer James Damore".
It is highly plausible that the Damore Memo may play the same breakthrough part in
discussing the politically correct insanity as WikiLeaks and Snowden files did in discussing
the dirty laundry of governments and secret services. If it comes to pass, Damore will make
history as a new Martin Luther challenging the Liberal "Popery".
However, his intellectual audacity notwithstanding, it should be noted that Damore's own
views are vulnerable to Conservative criticism. Unfortunately, like the bulk of Western
thought, they fall into the trap of Leftist "cultural constructivism" and Conservative
naturalism.
Allegedly, there are only two possible viewpoints. Either gender and race differences are
biologically preordained and therefore unremovable and therefore should always be taken into
account, or those differences are no more than social constructs and should be destroyed for
being arbitrary and unfair.
The ideological groundwork of the opposing viewpoints is immediately apparent. Both equate
"biological" with "natural" and therefore "true", and "social" with "artificial" and therefore
"arbitrary" and "false". Both sides reject "prejudice" in favor of "vision", but politically
correct Leftists reject only a fraction of prejudices while the critic calls for throwing all
of them away indiscriminately.
As a response, Damore gets slapped with an accusation of drawing upon misogynist prejudice
for his own ideas. Likewise, his view of Conservatives is quite superficial. The main
Conservative trait is not putting effort into routine work but drawing upon tradition for
creative inspiration. The Conservative principle is "innovation through tradition".
The key common mistake of both Google Leftists and their critic is their vision of
stereotypes as a negative distortion of some natural truth. If both sides went for an in-depth
reading of Edmund Burke, the "father of Conservatism", they would learn that the prejudice is a
colossal historical experience pressurized into a pre-logical form, a collective consciousness
that acts when individual reason fails or a scrupulous analysis is impossible. In such
circumstances, following the prejudice is a more sound strategy than contradicting it.
Prejudice is shorthand for common sense. Sometimes it oversimplifies things, but still works
most of the time. And, most importantly, all attempts to act "in spite of the prejudice" almost
invariably end in disaster.
Illustration to the Google scandal. A fox sits gazing at the Google's Ideological Echo
Chamber exposing the ideas of the fired engineer James Damore. Source: Screenshot of Instragram
user bluehelix.
However, the modern era allows us to diagnose our own prejudice and rationalize them so we
could control them better, as opposed to blind obedience or rejection. Moreover, if the issue
of "psychological training" ever becomes relevant in a country as conservative as Russia is,
that is the problem we should concentrate on: analyzing the roots of our prejudices and their
efficient use.
The same could be argued for gender relations. Damore opposes the Leftist "class struggle of
the genders" with a technocratic model of maximizing the profit from each gender's pros and
cons. This functionalism appears to be logical in its own way, but is indeed based on too broad
assumptions, claiming that all women are unfit for competition, that all of them like
relationships and housekeeping while all men are driven by objects and career. And, as Damore
claims biological grounds for his assumptions, all our options boil down to mostly agreeing
with him or branding him as a horrible sexist and male chauvinist.
However, the fact that gender roles historically developed based on biology but are, as a
whole, a construct of society and culture does not give an excuse to changing or tearing them
down, as clamored by Leftists. Quite the contrary: the social, cultural, and historical
determinism of these roles gives us a reason to keep them in generally the same form without
any coups or revolutions.
First, that tradition is an ever-growing accumulation of experience. Rejecting tradition is
tantamount to social default and requires very good reasons to justify. Second, no change of
tradition occurs as a result of a "gender revolution", only its parodic inversion. Putting men
into high heels, miniskirts, and bras, fighting against urinals in public WCs only reverses the
polarity without creating true equality. The public consciousness still sees the "male" as
"superior", and demoting "masculinity" to "femininity" as a deliberate degradation of the
"superior". No good can come of it, just as no good came out of humiliating wealth and nobility
during the Communist revolution in Russia. What's happening now is not equal rights for women
but the triumph of gender Bolshevism.
Damore's error, therefore, consists in abandoning the domain of the social and the
historical to the enemy while limiting the Conservative sphere of influence to the natural,
biological domain. However, the single most valuable trait in conservative worldview is
defending the achievements of history and not just biological determinism.
The final goal of a Conservative solution to the gender problem should not be limited to a
rationalist functionalization of society. It should lead to discovering a social cohesion where
adhering to traditional male and female ways and stereotypes (let's not call them roles –
the world is not a stage, and men and women not merely players) would not keep males and
females from expressing themselves in other domains, provided they have a genuine calling and
talent.
The art of war is not typical of a woman; however, women warriors such as Joan of Arc leave
a much greater impact in historical memory. The art of government is seen as mostly male, yet
it makes great female rulers, marked not by functional usefulness but true charisma, all the
more memorable. The family is the stereotypical domain of the woman, which leads to greater
reverence towards fathers that put their heart and soul into their families.
Social cohesion, an integral part of it being the harmony of men and women in the temple of
the family, is the ideal to be pursued by our Russian, Orthodox, Conservative society. It is
the collapse of the family that made gender relations into such an enormous issue in the West:
men and women are no longer joined in a nucleus of solidarity but pitted against one another as
members of antagonistic classes. And this struggle, as the Damore Memo has demonstrated, is
already stymieing the business of Western corporations. Well, given our current hostile
relations, it's probably for the better.
Simply because the immediate reaction to the Google Memo concentrated on
sex differences I gathered together some posts on sex differences, showing that
the sexes differ somewhat in their abilities: not very much, but enough to make
a difference at the extremes, and it is the extremes which make a difference
to technology based societies, and to a technology dependent world. I left out
any mention of the notion that a "diverse" workforce is better than better than
a workforce selected purely on ability to do the task in question. My mistake,
which I will try to repair now.
I wondered, some years ago, what evidence there was for the proposition that
diversity was a good thing. I would like to collect more proposals, because
the ones sent to me proved unconvincing. You may have heard a claim that having
women in the workforce boosts profits by 40%. This turns out to be a misunderstood
joke.
Now to the general claim that having women in a group boosts anything, or
that having a variety of intellectual levels in a group boosts anything. That
was taken apart in a set of experimental studies by Bates and Gupta.
So, if you want a problem solved, don't form a team. Find the brightest
person and let them work on it. Placing them in a team will, on average,
reduce their productivity. My advice would be: never form a team if there
is one person who can sort out the problem.
Perhaps Damore was a guy who could sort out problems, until the last problem,
that is.
I repeat my January 2015 request: if you have any good studies showing that
having a sexually or racially diverse workforce boosts profits over a workforce
selected on competence alone, please send me send them to me in a comment to
this item.
Some of the findings of our initial report are confirmed – greater diversity
in boards and management are empirically associated with higher returns
on equity, higher price/book valuations and superior stock price performance.
However, new findings emerge from this added management analysis – we find
no evidence that female led companies reflect greater financial conservatism
where leverage is concerned. Also, dividend payout ratios have been shown
to be higher. Female CEOs have proven to be less acquisitive than men when
assuming the leadership position. The analysis makes no claims to causality
though the results are striking.
Diversity and inclusion are buzzwords made up by Gramscian marxists to
rationalize group rights made up by the courts after not being satisfied
with equality under the law. Those buzzwords do nothing to resolve the existential
and morals issues raised by group rights. Whose diversity and inclusion
are the best anyways? What if I think I would be enriched by this rather
than that diversity and inclusion?
An Example: Talented Individuals vs. Mediocre Groups
In the late 1990s, I was in charge of a regional office of a high tech
company that had a problem. We had delivered a complex air defense system
but the command module could not communicate with the missile batteries.
This was serious stuff. The company put teams of software developers on
the problem back at the main campus. They worked for over a month without
result. The customer was getting antsy, which is a euphemism for nasty.
Then, the company deployed Burt (not his real name) to the customer location
to see what he could do. Burt sat at the conference table in my outer office
reading reams of code printed in large binders like a novel (I'm not kidding)
no notes, just reading and noticing. Burt didn't even bother with a computer
screen or debugging software.
Then, he exclaimed, "I've got it!" (I'll always remember that moment.)
Burt noticed that the date format for the commands being sent from the command
module was in a different format than the date format expected by the missile
batteries.
QED a technical problem that had been plaguing the company for months,
that had immobilized a major air defense system, and that had put the company's
product line at risk solved by an individual with a few hours of work. I
made sure that Burt got a big bonus.
The point: If you ran a startup hoping to bring "creative destruction"
to a sector in a high-tech society, would you want (1) a politically correct
software development team carefully tailored to meet affirmative action
quotas for males, females, Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, lesbians, and
the transgendered in spite of their IQs and personal qualities or,
as James Damore argues, would you want (2) a group of "Burt's" acting alone
or in concert because of their IQs and unique personal qualities?
The histories of Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and Google suggest the latter.
The former brings with it progressively higher social and financial "carrying
costs" that prejudice the success of any bleeding-edge high-tech endeavor.
When the "diversity" is strictly cosmetic and all points of view are
basically identical, what you have is not diversity, it's as Damore described
it, an "echo chamber." Google should be smart enough to know this. I would
guess that this kind of non-diverse diversity hinders productivity because
there are no new ideas, just regurgitations of the party line.
In a recent article disentangling what researchers have learned over
the past 50 years, Margaret A. Neale finds that diversity across dimensions,
such as functional expertise, education, or personality, can increase
performance by enhancing creativity or group problem-solving. In contrast,
more visible diversity, such as race, gender, or age, can have negative
effects on a group!at least initially.
Of course viewpoint diversity is never what is actually meant by "diversity."
We used to abhor meetings back in the days before the US military was
feminized and subject to collaborative group think. So much to do so little
time.
We called meetings and other collaborative exercises "circle jerks".
From Wikipedia:
A circle jerk is a sexual practice in which a group of men or boys
form a circle and masturbate themselves or each other. In the metaphorical
sense, the term is used to refer to self-congratulatory behavior or
discussion amongst a group of people, usually in reference to "boring
time-wasting meetings or other events".
I suspect that "circle jerks" will become more frequent as Google transitions
to a more female-friendly, collaborative organizational structure.
@Roast beef Thanks. Reading it now. Makes good points, but hard to find
appropriate comparison companies for longitudinal comparisons. As authors
say, it could be bigger companies doing the "female quota" thing while smaller
companies are less inclined or less able to do so. Still reading it, and
mostly thinking about the methods .
This is definitely an important question to tackle directly. My two bits
is that we should try to disentangle causality if possible. It's not enough
just to find correlations between high valuation and racial diversity. It
might be like finding correlations between high valuation and having Michelin-star
chefs in the company cafeteria. I bet the correlation exists, but it happens
because already-successful companies get money to blow on inessential nice
things. Diversity is a nice thing that already-successful companies can
buy when they have money to spare, but just because they end up with it
doesn't mean that it helped them succeed. I mean, it might – I don't know
the data – but mere correlations could mislead us. Correlations across time
would impress me more. If individual companies grow faster when more diverse
and slower after they lose diversity, then the findings would be harder
to dismiss.
I think the "50% of the population must have degrees" brigade are
to blame for this. It was always going to devalue the worth of an academic
degree by attempting to have half of the population wandering the job
centres armed with a useless (but very costly) scrap of parchment.
What on earth were successive governments thinking?
But even if the degrees are not as valuable as the salesman (who came
to your school and persuaded you, age 17, to sign up for a Ł60k loan with
hefty interest rates) told you, at least you've had three years of leftie
indoctrination (e.g. "no borders, no nations" or "Farage is a racist") which
will stand our elites in good stead over your lifetime. And you've paid
for it yourself!
Novels are written by one person – (as Steve Sailer mentions here
and there, novels, especialy the really good ones, are very complex things).
Great works of art or compositions, – mostly the same thing as in the novels-example.
Pop-music (Rock etc. too) might be an exception: Here, groups
yield very interesting results.
(On usually not that high intellectual levels – is that the reason
for this exception?)
@epochehusserl Diversity and inclusion are buzzwords made up by Gramscian
marxists to rationalize group rights made up by the courts after not being
satisfied with equality under the law. Those buzzwords do nothing to resolve
the existential and morals issues raised by group rights. Whose diversity
and inclusion are the best anyways? What if I think I would be enriched
by this rather than that diversity and inclusion? Diversity and Inclusion
are euphemisms when employed by leftist (i.e. Democrats and Neocons) .
The federal government recognizes Diversity as a number of protected
class groups that self-identify as being underprivileged, oppressed, disadvantaged,
underutilized, and underserved.
Protected class groups identify the Nazi and white supremacist as their
common oppressor.
The federal government recognizes Inclusion as federal entitlements for
protected class groups.
Here's an example of several federal protected class groups recognized
and entitled by the University of Nebraska:
The following five groups are considered "Protected Classes" under various
federal laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires
reporting employment information on the first two groups, females and minorities,
which are traditionally underutilized.
"... Neuroscientist Debra W. Soh, writing at Quillette, observes that ..."
"... It is well-established by Pinker and other scientists that women have higher IQs on average, while men preponderate the extremes of brilliance and dullness. ..."
...Damore has joined an increasing number of people from the worlds of business and academia
to be sacrificed at the altar of diversity. In an unsurprising public relations move, Google
has succeeded in saving some face by appeasing the partisans of political correctness and of
so-called equality. Meanwhile, those who don't subscribe to the progressive delusion may feel
more anxious at the prospect of failing to play the coward's game correctly. Can one sneeze
these days without offending the HR department?
Google CEO Sundar Pichai, in a memo laden with incoherence and hypocrisy, says that
we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in
that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with
it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing
harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users
that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that
make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to
our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects "each Googler to do their utmost to
create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful
discrimination."
The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged
based on their gender. Our co-workers shouldn't have to worry that each time they open their
mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states,
being "agreeable" rather than "assertive," showing a "lower stress tolerance," or being
"neurotic."
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express
their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel
under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be
clear again, many points raised in the memo!such as the portions criticizing Google's
trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs
for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all!are important topics. The
author had a right to express their views on those topics!we encourage an environment in
which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for
prompting these discussions.
What were those "harmful gender stereotypes," so "offensive" to the good team members at
Google? Let's take a look at the first paragraph of the memo that has so many people worried
about the white patriarchal obstacle that, now as ever, stands cruelly in the progressive
path.
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse
using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to
look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion
about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on
mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation
is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public
response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers
expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with
but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the
possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
Surely no
unbiased
reader can fail to find Damore's words eminently reasonable.
Though recently fired, the man is no enemy of diversity and inclusion, nor does he say sexism
is not a real problem. There is nothing here (or elsewhere in the memo) to suggest he is not
fair-minded. Indeed, if you read his memo, you will surely see!so long, again, as you are not
biased!that as people go, Damore is exceptionally fair in his perceptions and reasoning, though
it is well to remember Emerson's maxim: "To be great is to be misunderstood." Damore is
concerned to give some nuance to understanding the issues since, after all, it is not
prima
facie
evident that men and women are utterly the same; with the result that, where a
corporation's representation of gender does not wholly reflect the national population, sexism
is present by definition. The crucial phrase is "differences in distribution." Though
feminists, progressives and Leftists generally are keen to deny it, men and women are not mere
blank slates on which the "unequal" environment imprints its ink; we should not assume as a
matter of course that something is awry if the workplace reflects!
as it inevitably must
!those gender differences which we all seem to notice the moment we leave it.
Neuroscientist Debra W. Soh, writing at Quillette, observes that
within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men!when it comes to
brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational
preferences!are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies)
is strong. This is not information that's considered controversial or up for debate; if you
tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you'd be laughed at.
Sex researchers recognize that these differences are not inherently supportive of sexism
or stratifying opportunities based on sex. It is only because a group of individuals have
chosen to interpret them that way, and to subsequently deny the science around them, that we
have to have this conversation at a public level. Some of these ideas have been published in
neuroscientific journals!despite having faulty study methodology!because they've been deemed
socially pleasing and "progressive." As a result, there's so much misinformation out there
now that people genuinely don't know what to believe.
Also at
Quillette
, eminent evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller remarks that
"almost all of the Google memo's empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they
are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are
especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and
history."
Steven Pinker himself!he of the very solid liberal credentials!has published much rigorous
work on natural gender differences, in both intelligence and personality traits. Here he is on
YouTube, giving a talk which might be used to support James Damore's case:
Note, what is so revealing, that Pinker takes care to appease the dogmatic academic crowd
via the usual trite and simplistic reduction of human history to patriarchal oppression, lest,
like Ibsen's Dr. Stockmann, he be thought an enemy of the people. It can't be that man simply
found himself in a harsh world in which his superior brute strength was an immense advantage.
It can't be that a severe division of labor was for most of history inevitable for the sexes.
Like the Jews, man has always been behind the scenes, conspiring to oppress everyone. Well, at
least Pinker was prudent. After all, those aggressive, broad-shouldered feminists have been
known to body slam many an hysterically logical speaker.
Like Geoffrey Miller's, Pinker's work helps us to see better what ordinary people already
know well enough from everyday life (and which, thankfully for them, they feel no need to deny,
outside of the increasingly touchy workplace, anyway): that men and women are indeed different;
nor is it obvious, in a sane world, why that should be such a scandal. For these differences,
qua
differences, are value neutral. My working-class mother, who never finished high
school, is not obviously
inferior as a person
to Heather MacDonald, despite my own
admiration for that excellent and courageous scholar-journalist.
It is well-established by Pinker and other scientists that women have higher IQs on
average, while men preponderate the extremes of brilliance and dullness.
Many if not most
Google employees surely do have exceptionally high IQs. That men should so excel at the Google
corporation!as they do at so many other things at the highest level!reflects Nature itself and
is consistent with a massive amount of empirical findings. It is also consistent with many
traditional stereotypes, for the most part. The psychologist Lee Jusim, among others, has done
excellent work on the overwhelming accuracy (though typically, much suppressed) of stereotypes.
If you want to see a humorous example of the truth of stereotypes, see the exceedingly
emotional reactions by the female Google employees!who have made their disgust well-known on
Twitter!that Pichai describes in the second paragraph where I quote him above. It is reported
that many female Google employees stayed home from work on Monday, triggered into melancholy by
Damore's truthful words. Tragically, the feminist quilting bee soon degenerated into a wild
intersectional tizzy, the rotund blue and pink-haired ladies of various races and gender
identities squabbling over whose cat should first be allowed to peck at Damore's soon to be
flayed carcass. Looking at the photos and social media accounts of Google's Diversity-rabble,
one is struck by how stereotypical they are; virtually everyone looks fresh from a Judith
Butler conference at Bryn Mawr college: trans-this, queer-that, communist,
ad nauseam
. Defective specimens of divorce culture, therapy culture, and human folly and degeneration
generally. Persons who, hardly ever having been around traditional masculinity, cannot but
misunderstand it, and with the all-too-human fear and hatred of the unknown. Perusing pictures
of Google CEO Sundar Pichai, one perceives, quite palpably, a typical skinny, weak, effete
twenty-first century Last Man: born to take orders from nasty women and resentment-pipers
generally
Gender differences may be bad news for Feminist Dogma, yet as Pinker says in his talk, the
truth cannot be sexist, nor should it be "harmful"!to an adult mind, at least. Of course, like
Lawrence Summers, who was obliged to step down from the Harvard Presidency a while back for not
going along with Feminist Dogma, Pinker has caught fire from feminists!increasingly nasty
women, as it were. Sundar Pichai, like our feminists, says all the right things about diversity
and the like, but when it comes to the reality of one gender being better, on average, at, say,
engineering, he goes in for cant about "harmful gender stereotypes." If, though, anybody was to
say, what there is also much evidence to support, that women, on average, are better at
language skills than men, nobody would be troubled. Such hypocritical intolerance by the
partisans of tolerance should be expected to continue apace, unless we others make a principled
stand. Looking at the academy and at our intellectuals in general, we may wonder how so many
people can manage to walk upright without a spine. Alas, more vital work for the
deplorables.
The Diversity Idol is confused and inherently self-defeating. As Debra W. Soh puts it in the
The Globe and Mail
,
research has shown that cultures with greater gender equity have larger sex differences
when it comes to job preferences, because in these societies, people are free to choose their
occupations based on what they enjoy.
As the memo suggests, seeking to fulfill a 50-per-cent quota of women in STEM is
unrealistic. As gender equity continues to improve in developing societies, we should expect
to see this gender gap widen.
The Diversity Idol also reeks of hypocrisy. Where are all the calls for more women in
bricklaying and coal mining, fields in which there are hardly any women?
As for women's relative lack of leadership positions, at Google and elsewhere, much the best
explanation is that by Jordan Peterson. The issue is not so much lack of ability as (sensible)
lack of interest. Why, Peterson asks, should women want anything to do with what is commonly
called leadership, seeing as it is generally a quite mad and foolish affair (endless work and
stress, all for wealth that does not make happy)? Women's relative lack of interest in
so-called leadership!which ultimately, today as yesterday, amounts in the main to men vying to
outdo one another in order to win the favor of women in the sexual marketplace!signifies their
greater good sense, which certainly is of a piece with their greater psychological and
emotional discernment generally, and quite a long way from man's lunatic competitiveness and
zeal for mammon. It is well to reflect on just what women are really missing out on by not
exercising the power that men do, all in all. Is it a power worth having, most of the time? Do
we not find our highest good when we are free to pursue that which has
inherent
value?
Then too, there is the reality, hardly recognized in our time, that, as G.K. Chesterton put it,
"feminism is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers
but slaves when they help their husbands." For my own part, though an awful cook, I should
rather be a house husband at home tending to my children than live a professional death-in-life
at some touchy, humorless office.
In our status-obsessed society, there are constant gripes about how women are "excluded"
from exercising power in the workplace. Meanwhile nobody says anything about the enormous
psycho-biological power women possess simply by virtue of being women. This power, of course,
is essentially determined by a woman's attractiveness, which is closely associated with youth
and good health. No surprise, then, that women all over the world are forever trying to appear
as attractive as possible, to the cost of billions every year. Such power, though inevitably
prevalent in the workplace itself, far transcends it: it is a law of Nature itself, and indeed
one of the strongest. As noted above, the endless male struggle for status mostly comes down to
being able to obtain a desirable woman.
Today we see countless attractive young women spending vast amounts of time uploading photos
of themselves on social media. How many wish to be a star! Hence that increasingly common
phenomenon the duck face, which some might take for a kind of strange medical affliction:
"Pucker up," thinks the generic young beauty in her vanity; "everybody's watching!" Like women
on the many dating websites and apps, these social media darlings find that they can hardly
keep up with all the male attention!surely an intoxicating pleasure, although doubtless often
corrupting. No matter their intentions, and whether they are aware of it or not, such women are
extremely powerful. The notion that a woman like Emily Ratajkowski is "oppressed" because of
her "objectification" is absurd beyond description. Hers is a most willful objection; there is
massive power in it; and even if the stunner was not affluent through her modeling and other
endeavors, she would still not have to work: countess men would get in line to provide for her,
now as ever. On the other hand, take away Bill Gates' billions, and how many women would even
give that unattractive, uncharming fellow the time of day?
Google and other corporations, to maximize their profits, feel obliged to keep the diversity
crowd happy. Yet there is, ironically, nothing the diversity crowd opposes more than diversity
itself. To see this, consider that to effect "social justice," we must all become
thesame
, like a mad God who chooses to bungle His creation. For, so long as I differ
from you in some way or other, it will always be possible to make a value judgment!of
inferiority, of superiority, or of whatever!concerning that difference. And this would be true
even if everyone had the same amount of money, even if there were no private property, and so
on. For the most part, the social justice crowd is not motivated by benevolent justice, but by
wicked resentment: that is why it wants not universal economic sufficiency (which I strongly
support, insofar as it is achievable), but equality of outcome; with the result that
comparative value judgment will be impossible.
Now equality of outcome derives from human psychology, from the permanent truth that there's
nothing we children of pride detest more than the thought: "That person is
better
than
me." Seeing other people perceive that superiority induces the same burning, violent envy, like
a child who wants to destroy his parent's favored sibling. Indeed, from childhood on, man!the
esteeming animal!defines himself in terms of competition, of rank, of hierarchy. No artist or
athlete wants to be
equal
to another. Not every person, waxing indignant about
inequality, wants to make
the same
income as
every
neighbor; very few do, in
fact. Like suffering and death, this extreme competiveness is a law of Nature, from which we
merely issue. Try to get rid of it, and see what mediocrity, corruption and degeneration
follow. I say, look around you.
Biographical note: Christopher DeGroot is a writer and independent scholar in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
already argues that truth does not matter any more.
The field of Optometry is increasingly dominated by women. I have served on the admissions
committee for an optometry school, and we'd like a better balance between male and female,
but if most of the best applicants are female, well that's that and nobody whines. Many of
these applicants are quite up-front about choosing optometry because it offers a better
work-life balance than, say, ophthalmic surgery, and again, so what?
New enrollment in US medical schools is now 50/50 between men and women, and will likely
become majority female before too long. Where is the angst?
And I remind you that, on average, people with degrees in medicine and optometry have
significantly larger salaries than people with degrees in engineering, and significantly
longer careers. On balance, I'd not say that professional women are doing all that bad. It's
just that, for whatever reasons, the smart women tend to choose medicine over engineering. I
fail to see a problem here.
The Pope, Emerson an Chesterton quotes are great. Especially the Pope-quote.
Thanks for putting Pinker, Peterson and Soh at the right place in the big picture.
These lines are a little bit misleading, because siblings rivlary is nothing exclusively
boyish. There are women-athletes who want to win too, aren't there?
Seeing other people perceive that superiority induces the same burning, violent envy,
like a child who wants to destroy his parent's favored sibling. Indeed, from childhood on,
man!the esteeming animal!defines himself in terms of competition, of rank, of hierarchy. No
artist or athlete wants to be equal to another. Not every person, waxing indignant about
inequality, wants to make the same income as every neighbor; very few do, in fact.
How come noone is discussing the role that Pinchai is himself a product of affirmitive
action plays in this? Do people really believe an Indian immigrant would serve as CEO of
Google, as CEO of Microsoft if not for affirmitive action? Being CEO is not an engineering
position. There are plenty of native-born mainstream Americans that could do these jobs. Most
large American companies would never give the job of CEO to an immigrant from a 3rd-world
country. Some of the business men that founded large companies may be immigrants, but it's
different if they built the company. They're in control. Pinchai is just a hired hand, like
Damore was.
"Science is an odd sort of pursuit, way off the beaten track of human intellection There
were theologians and politicians long, long, long before there were scientists. In dark
moments I am inclined to think the former will still be with us long after the latter have
been eliminated, probably via mass lynching Scientists themselves tend to forget this because
they associate mainly with other scientists."
"It is well-established by Pinker and other scientists that women have higher IQs on
average, while men preponderate the extremes of brilliance and dullness."
First time I'm hearing that claim. I've heard about the flatter, wider Bell Curve for men
but the average IQ was either the same or even higher. That's also more logical since men
need higher IQs to both prove themselves as providers and charm the pants off their mates.
Women love intelligence + health in their mates while men look for beauty + health. A highly
stratified, unequal and un-meritocratic (old money, castes or arranged marriages) system can
distort the choices quite a bit but that's the baseline.
This is also interesting if true:
Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today's
human population is descended from twice as many women as men.
I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get
that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of
the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
@The
Alarmist
Damone is somebody's shill. Nobody with two functioning brain cells would
publish that memo in that environment without some expectation of losing his job; either he
is looking for fame and a payout, or he is simply insane.
Damone [sic] is somebody's shill.
.So exposing the reality of liberal-leftist bigotry, bullying and discrimination is proof
that you're "sombody's shill"? What kind of bullshit argument is that?
Nobody with two functioning brain cells would publish that memo in that environment
without some expectation of losing his job; either he is looking for fame and a payout, or
he is simply insane.
Which reveals what a scoundrel mentality you have. Exposing corruption, bigotry, and
manipulation of the public mind through the control of information is something you think a
sane person would do, only for fame or money.
The idea of blowing the whistle on a bunch of dirty manipulators, bigots, bullies and
scumbags who routinely misdirect the public for both political ends or to boost profits
because you no longer wish to work with them, or because you think the public should know
what such people are doing, or because you believe in propagating truth not using the most
powerful tools for the enlightenment of humanity for the purpose of pushing some grotesque
leftist agenda is, apparently, to a moral numbskull such as yourself, unintelligible.
What a sick society America has become, that it can produce individuals who not only think
as you do, but who think anyone who thinks otherwise is insane.
But the cherry on the cake is that Damore did not blow the whistle on anyone. He merely
circulated a memorandum among what Pichai, Google's idiot savant CEO, calls "Googlers". It
was Pichai, confirming his own idiocy, who blew the whistle on himself by firing Damore.
What delicious irony. The shit CEO of the dirty search engine company, dicked himself.
@jilles
dykstra
Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of
Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London
already argues that truth does not matter any more. Thanks for referencing this book. Read it
when it was first published. As such it served as my introduction to Lasch, who was a very
prescient thinker (read "The True and Only Heaven"). And here's what's disturbing: Lasch, as
I recall, pointed out that narcissism is in fact a mental disorder which is considered to be
so deep-seated as to be impossible to cure.
The most stupid thing to do was to fire this guy. The paper raises an important question
-- at what point affirmative action becomes discrimination. But the author does not
understand that gender bias is an important part of identity wedge -- a powerful tool under
neoliberalism to split and marginalized opposition to neoliberal fat cats adopted and polished by
Clintonized Democratic Party (DemoRats).
Notable quotes:
"... ( Editor's note: The following is a 10-page memo written by an anonymous senior software engineer at Google.) ..."
"... This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. ..."
"... [1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries. ..."
"... [2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations. ..."
"... [3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering. ..."
"... [4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. ..."
"... [5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. ..."
"... [6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. ..."
"... [7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy." ..."
"... [8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy. ..."
"... [9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. ..."
"... [10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak." ..."
"... [11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians. ..."
( Editor's note: The following is a 10-page memo written by an anonymous senior software
engineer at Google.)
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using
stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at
population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about
this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual
respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is
disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public
response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing
their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would
never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of
being fired. This needs to change.
TL:DR
Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety,
but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to
be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this
ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal
representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Background [1]
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us.
Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots
and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest
discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no
means the complete story, but it's a perspective that desperately needs to be told at
Google.
Google's biases
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we
rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral
preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences,
media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist
Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or,
in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly
hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will
constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests
(ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and
competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and
inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its
hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching
extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the
extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the
authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal
representation.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding
women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it's far from the whole
story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just
socially constructed because:
They're universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify
and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these
differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities
of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain
why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these
differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say
anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also
have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as
empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or
artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within
SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and
aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises,
speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there's overlap
between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women's issue. This leads to exclusory
programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher
levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress
jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that
"greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men's and women's
personality traits." Because as "society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate
dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that
exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider." We need to stop assuming that
gender gaps imply sexism.
Men's higher drive for status
We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we
see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not
be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher
paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead
men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and
dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of
work-related deaths.
N on-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women
that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's
representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making
strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more
collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and
Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of
our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be
doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. This doesn't mean that we should
remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable
traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done
in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less
stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and
benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status
on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men
may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our
culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men
are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more
"feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech
and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to
make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need
principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google!with
Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra
hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it
may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep
in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally
acknowledged.
The Harm of Google's biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.
However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several
discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same
scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually
increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is
both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled
left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.
Why we're blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our
internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God >
humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny
science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).
Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about
95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains
myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us
blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we're using to justify highly
politicized programs.
In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased
towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are
biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men.
We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms
to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's
labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is
interpreted as a form of women's oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences
are often a case of "grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google
money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which
constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use
violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists
protests that we're seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has
created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
Suggestions
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100%
fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same
experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas
and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict
people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as
individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and
benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains
to protect the "victims."
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things
differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need
to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different
ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because
conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the
drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google's biases.
I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the
non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity
programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and
biased as mandating increases for women's representation in the homeless, work-related and
violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There's currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs
which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of
discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal
discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should
(hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
De-emphasize empathy.
I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly
support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective
empathy!feeling another's pain!causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to
us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us
better reason about the facts.
Prioritize intention.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our
sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to
take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without
the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can
remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and
isn't backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is
necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven't been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has
the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the
political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples
shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are
much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I'm not
advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what's
said in the training).
[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View
campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.
[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In
terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value
individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide
more citations.
[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering.
[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and
women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google
funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase
representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups
(which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is
illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and
create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but
every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the
working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist
oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race
politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white,
straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."
[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant
helping the victims of the aristocracy.
[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of
reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend
more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more
hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men
needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on
their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due
to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues
(whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or
weak."
[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action
that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially
disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left
and a tool of authoritarians.
That reminds my witch hunt against Summers after his unfortunate speech (although there were other,
much more valid reasons to fire him from his position of the president of Harvard; his role in Harvard
mafia scandal (
Harvard
Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic rape of Russia ) is one ).
Notable quotes:
"... Google's Ideological Echo Chamber - How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion ..."
memo about " Google's Ideological Echo Chamber - How bias clouds our thinking about diversity
and inclusion ":
At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace
differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it's far from the whole story. On average,
men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed
because:
- ...
- ...
Google company policy is in favor of "equal representation" of both genders. As the existing representation
in tech jobs is unequal that policy has led to hiring preferences, priority status and special treatment
for the underrepresented category, in this case women.
The author says that this policy is based on ideology and not on rationality. It is the wrong
way to go, he says. Basic differences, not bias, are (to some extend) responsible for different representations
in tech jobs. If the (natural) different representation is "cured" by preferring the underrepresented,
the optimal configuration can not be achieved.
The author cites scientific studies which find that men and women (as categories, not as specific
persons) are - independent of cultural bias - unequal in several social perspectives. These might
be life planning, willingness to work more for a higher status, or social behavior. The differences
evolve from the natural biological differences between men and women. A gender preference for specific
occupations and positions is to be expected, Cultural bias alone can not explain it. It therefore
does not make sense to strive for equal group representation in all occupations.
From there he points to the implementation of Google's policy and concludes:
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Google
fired
the engineer. Its 'Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance' stated:
We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a
company. [..] Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which
those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions.
But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code
of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.
(Translation: "You are welcome to discuss your alternative policy views - unless we disagree with
them.")
The current public discussion of the case evolves around "conservative" versus "progressive",
"left" versus "right" categories. That misses the point the author makes: Google's policy is based
on unfounded ideology, not on sciences.
The (legal) "principle of equality" does not imply that everyone and everything must be handled
equally. It rather means that in proportion with its equality the same shall be treated equally,
and in proportion with its inequality the different shall be treated unequally.
The author asks: Are men and women different? Do these differences result in personal occupation
preferences? He quotes the relevant science and answers these questions with "yes" and "yes". From
that follows a third question: What is the purpose of compelled equal representation in occupations
when the inherent (natural gender) differences are not in line with such an outcome?
Several scientist in the relevant fields
have
stated that the author's scientific reasoning is largely correct. The biological differences
between men and women do result in observable social and psychological differences which are independent
of culture and its biases. It is to be expected that these difference lead to different preferences
of occupations.
Moreover: If men and women are inherently equal (in their tech job capabilities) why does Google
need to say that "diversity and inclusion are critical to our success"? Equality and diversity are
in this extend contradictory. (Why, by the way, is Google selling advertising-space with "male" and
"female" as targeting criteria?)
If women and men are not equal, we should, in line with the principle of equality, differentiate
accordingly. We then should not insist on or strive for equal gender representation in all occupations
but accept a certain "gender gap" as the expression of natural differences.
It is sad that Google and the general society avoid to discuss the questions that the author of
the memo has asked. That Google fires him only confirms his claim that Google's policy is not
based on science and rationality but on a non-discussible ideology.
Posted by b on August 8, 2017 at 01:41 PM |
Permalink
Thanks, b, for the change in academic realms from geopolitics to anthropology. You wrote:
"The biological differences between men and women do result in observable social and psychological
differences which are independent of culture and its biases."
I disagree. From an anthropological perspective, biological differences form the basis for
all cultures and thusly cannot be independent of culture since they form its core. Yes, Google's
policy is ideological, but what policy can claim to be ideologically neutral? IMO, the answer
is none. Here I invoke Simon de Beauvoir's maxim that females are "slaves to the species" that
she irrefutably proves in The Second Sex . Fortunately, some societies based upon matrilineal
cultures survived into the 20th century thus upending the male dominated mythos created to support
such culturally based polities.
Social engineering is what it is. Social engineering is what it does.
It's an elite corporate project to androgynise humanity, a la 1984.
Simply put, women will not achieve their full potential outside the family.
The corporate project will continually have to put in place special discriminatory measures
to pretend they're equal in the SMET areas when all the evidence shows they're not, other than
in very special cases.
It's a project that's doomed to failure in the end, but much misery will be caused to both
men and women as this elite project continues.
Thankfully, the rest of the world isn't as brainwashed as Westerners.
You can disagree with B's science, and you can disagree with James' science. James was fired for
expressing his opinions and beliefs. This is so little about sexism and so much about freedom
of speech and freedom to consider other ideas. Bias shut that down at Google. These comments are
in line with shutting down independent thinking. I'm a little surprised to see that sort of ideology
here. When people - like B, like James - put their own circumstances at risk for the sake of open
mindedness, they deserve as much support as culture and society can offer.
Ivan Illich wrote a very interesting and controversial book "Gender" on the difference between
Gender and Sex. I do recommend every one to read this book (and all of other Illich's writings).
thanks b... this is more politically correct material.. it is what canada and probably many western
countries have been doing for some time.. google is a piece of crap corporation as far as i am
concerned, so this is in keeping with their neo-liberal agenda..
@7 bruce... i agree it is about freedom of speech, something sorely missing in the politically
correct realm of western society at this point in time..
'non-discussible ideology'.....great phrase b. None of it much matters because in 10-20 everybody
will be bi-sexual or trans-gender anyway. Any hold outs will be required to attend re-education
courses.
he says men are better than women - women are "neurotic" and can't handle stress and don't do
as much hard work as men and spend more money and on and on and on....
his level of argument and citation is about that of a teenager. he makes a lot of statements
with no support, such as men are better coders than women because women like social interaction
more. and even if men really are more cutthroat than women, his assumption is that being cutthroat
in management makes better companies. (Microsoft made great money, not great products.)
furthermore, his definition of 'left' and 'right' are narrowed to probably his entire life
experience which appears to be just out of college?
"Simply put, women will not achieve their full potential outside the family.
The corporate project will continually have to put in place special discriminatory measures
to pretend they're equal in the SMET areas when all the evidence shows they're not, other than
in very special cases."
I really wonder how someone can go through life interacting with women every day, and most
likely having wives, daughters, nieces, etc, and still hold the opinion that "by the way, you're
inferior shit and stupid and only good for producing babies". I would think first of all that
actual interaction with women would reveal this not to be the case, but if nothing else I would
think not being a freaking sociopath with a bleak worldview would prevent someone from being ending
up as such a douchebag.
I also love stuff like this: "It's an elite corporate project to androgynise humanity, a la
1984."
Good god, masculinity is the most fragile thing in existence. Anything, absolutely anything,
that in any way threatens its privileged position brings forth the waves of hyperbolic whinging.
Talk about being triggered. How about you stop defining your manliness by subjugating women. Efforts
to correct inequalities do not mean men are being turned into women, or whatever gibberish you're
complaining about.
With respect to the commenter alias "karlof1", you seem to have drifted off-topic somewhat.
Please point out specifically where the author of the now infamous Google memo seeks to in
any way denigrate women to a position in any way resembling slavery.
You have signally failed to refute anything in the memo as you have resorted to the lazy straw
man of sexism.
You can doubtless try harder and probably do better -- 0/10, for now, and see me at the end...
And while you're at it, why is feminism preferable to chauvinism - do please explain clearly
and try to stay on point.
I was a pilot for Lufthansa and really had no problems with our
ladypilots. Of course they had and have the same salary as males. But what was interesting:only
a few chose to apply for the job, with LH this meant to pass a test then enter the pilotschool
and passt al checks, incl. licencing. But:the percentage of the few who reallly passed all this
was around 90 percent, I mean, a girl who wants this real tech job and is intelligent will get
it. Boys tend to overestimate their abilities and therefor fail. Only about 10 percent who try
the test actually pass it. That is pne typical gender difference. PS:I am male ;)
Completely agree with poster "Anti-Soros" -- "Merasmus" is twisting this obtusely beyond all recognition,
read the memo, "Merasmus", and make your own mind up, so as you don't come over so utterly lopsided
and brainwashed in your awareness of sexual politics. And, on that note, as to "Dafranzl", is
your comment not verging on real, like genuine, sexism in that you are expressing some kind of
shock horror that women can actually pass a couple of tests and fly a plane?
I'm pretty sure it should be up to the women to decide what they want to do with their lives.
Some may want to be housewives, others don't. It's about freedom of choice (you know, that thing
conservatives are always claim they care so much about). You really don't see any problem with
men telling women what women truly want in life, and ensuring that that one thing is the only
option available to them, do you? It's amazing how men will declare that the different sexes have
different natural spheres, and then put family in the women's column, and literally everything
else, and the freedom to choice from all those other things, in the men's column.
You seem to think that the family and children are some sort of lower form of achievement.
Where'd you get that idea?
As I said, female creativity is the closet thing to godliness any human can get.
Don't trade that for poor male efforts at creativity.
There only sadness and frustration lie.
So much so indeed that the elite project in creativity is currently engaged in attempting to
undermine God and Female creativity with its own version of androids, robots and all the rest
of the cheap Frankenstein tricks for which frustrated males and their ersatz creativity are famous.
When will a bridge or an app, a poem, a book, a piece of music, ever come close to creating
and nurturing life itself.
There is a big cultural problem that keep women out of technical fields. In the west, the striving
to a career leads to a sudden mid 30s realization that maybe they do want a family. My experience
with west Africans is that they marry younger, have their families and get on with careers. This
also has the benefit of them going into the work force when they are a bit more mature, and have
actual life responsibilities.
The Mismeasure of Man is a 1981 book by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.[1] The book
is both a history and critique of the statistical methods and cultural motivations underlying
biological determinism, the belief that "the social and economic differences between human groups!primarily
races, classes, and sexes!arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this
sense, is an accurate reflection of biology."[2]
The principal assumption underlying biological determinism is that, "worth can be assigned to
individuals and groups by measuring intelligence as a single quantity." This argument is analyzed
in discussions of craniometry and psychological testing, the two methods used to measure and establish
intelligence as a single quantity. According to Gould, the methods harbor "two deep fallacies."
The first fallacy is "reification", which is "our tendency to convert abstract concepts into entities"[3]
such as the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the general intelligence factor (g factor), which have
been the cornerstones of much research into human intelligence. The second fallacy is that of
"ranking", which is the "propensity for ordering complex variation as a gradual ascending scale."[3]
The revised and expanded second edition (1996) analyzes and challenges the methodological accuracy
of The Bell Curve (1994), by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Gould said the book re-presented
the arguments of what Gould terms biological determinism, which he defines as "the abstraction
of intelligence as a single entity, its location within the brain, its quantification as one number
for each individual, and the use of these numbers to rank people in a single series of worthiness,
invariably to find that oppressed and disadvantaged groups!races, classes, or sexes!are innately
inferior and deserve their status."[4]
For starters, good coding is not a male characteristic, because most of the gender is quite terrible.
So the question is: are "good coders" a more sizable minority among men or women? Both percentages
are culture related, and they probably have a gender component.
A weird thing is the gender ratio of women/men students of computer science seems quite even
in some Asian cultures, like Iranian, and very lopsided (1-9, 2-8) in American culture that has
a "feminity ideals" like "girls are not good at math". That is overlayed with relatively meager
rewards in American society for engineering fields, compared to law and medicine. I suspect that
the ratio of male jurists in Iran is very lopsided, so girls, for the want of good legal jobs,
go for engineering and math. (That is not a serious theory.)
Ah, benevolent sexism. Putting women on a pedestal and making it their prison.
"Women are not an inferior thing."
It would help in convincing others that you actually believe this if you hadn't literally opened
with (and then reiterated later) saying that women are generally too stupid to work in STEM fields.
"Who truly believes that women prefer coding all day long."
You could start by asking some women programmers. Though I really should point out the false
dichotomy you're engaging in here: women can be mothers or they can be something else, in your
mind they can never be both.
"So much so indeed that the elite project in creativity is currently engaged in attempting
to undermine God"
Because I'm sure the (supposed) creator of the entire universe can be undermined by a hairless
chimpanzee. "And I would have gotten away with it too, if hadn't been for you meddling humans!"
@T-Sixes
I don't particularly care about the memo or its asinine content. I'm responding to what people
have said in these comments.
As for the memo itself, neither side comes out looking particularly good. The engineer's memo
essentially boils down to "girlz r stoopid, and need to get out of my workplace" (he's not attempting
to engage in debate, which some of his defenders have claimed, as in 'he's just asking questions
and the PC police are too scared to engage him'), and Google's response was "you voiced an unacceptable
opinion so we're going to fire you" (they aren't interested in debate either, but he wasn't offering
one in the first place). It also has a lot of the inane 'both sides have good points, the best
answer is in the middle' centrist faux wisdom I've come to expect from the type of idiot who makes
up most of the Silicon Valley echo-chamber. Ah yes, the right is 'pragmatic'. They're pragmatically
destroying their economies by forever seeking tax cuts and the reduction of a national 'debt'
they don't even understand the nature of. Spare me.
Convenient that we just ignore the substantial body of research on gender bias in professional
fields, particularly tech.
Abstract
Biases against women in the workplace have been documented in a variety of studies. This paper
presents a large scale study on gender bias, where we compare acceptance rates of contributions
from men versus women in an open source software community. Surprisingly, our results show that
women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, for contributors who
are outsiders to a project and their gender is identifiable, men's acceptance rates are higher.
Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against
them exists nonetheless.
The explanation for Iran I've heard is that STEM fields simply aren't held in high esteem in
Iran, so at a minimum it's a dearth of male interest in the area that has created a lot of openings
for women. On top of that there may be cultural/social pressure for women to go into less prestigious
fields while all the 'more important' areas are dominated by men. It's certainly fun to think
about how projects like Iran's recent ballistic missile test are in large part facilitated by
female input. If Iran is to hold the US at bay (or punish it heavily should it actually attack),
it's going to be with weapons created by people working in fields that are apparently held in
low esteem.
one thing women can do that men can't? that's right.. some things are factual.. a lot of stuff
is culturally and socially imposed though... women working doing coding.. have at it.. forcing
equal numbers being hired sure seems like 'politically correct thinking' to me... give the job
based on the qualifications.. skip with the politically correct bullshit..
@okie farmer
Perhaps different types of intelligence exist, but if they do, they are highly correlated, hence
the emphasis on (the mathematically dubious) g .
FWIW, I advocate a modified lead/iodine deficiency model to explain most variation in IQ. Unlike
older studies, more recent studies have found a small IQ gap between men and women, and women
having a narrower IQ range (standard deviation) than men, i.e. fewer outliers high and low. If
you look at US blacks, they have a narrower standard deviation of IQ than whites as well as a
lower mean IQ. This may be understood quite readily:
Healthy pubertal brain development adds to the standard deviation e.g. 9 points standard deviation
in my proposed model---12^2+9^2=15^2, where 15 is the defined std deviation over population of
IQ. Poor environment e.g. poison or lacking nutrition cause mean to differ as well.
The environmental argument is usually attacked on the basis of twin studies, e.g. using the
Falconer equations. That is because the equations are not usually derived from first principles.
To wit, one has mean environmental effect, deviation from mean environmental effect correlated
with gene, and uncorrelated with genes, which might not even be environmental, but simple developmental
noise. Those arguing that twin studies show the environmental effect to be small, ignore that
means are subtracted in calculating the Pearson correlation.
For women, especially after bromide replaced iodine in preparing dough for bread, late 70s
or early 80s, the need for iodine will not be met sufficiently during puberty, as both breasts
and the brain require iodine for development, in large quantities, and with feminising endocrine
disruptors in greater quantities in the environment, breast sizes have risen on average (cup size
inflation). Note deviation from previous generations' size should matter for same genes, not deviation
from population mean, so if daughter is bigger than mother, e.g., then lower IQ expected, but
not because daughter is bigger than agemate, as the environmental mean is shared (but does not
enter Falconer equations' correlations, being subtracted)...
With US blacks, lead poisoning is still an issue, albeit much smaller than during the 90s.
Look at the NHANES III data---the histogram of blood lead is nearly inverse, which suggests sporadic
poisoning (lead paint, with dBLL/dt=R-BLL (ln 2)/\tau_{1/2} where R is the rate of intake (function
of time, zero most of the time under sporadic poisoning). Also, sub-Saharan Africa largely avoided
the Bronze Age, going straight to iron work---the Bantu used a bit of copper but not much evolutionary
pressure to develop resistance to lead uptake. If you read e.g. Unz review, I did previously argue
that blacks in US are more likely to live in lead painted housing, based on BLL, but US data show
whites as likely to live in such housing---blacks take up more lead for same environment.
I find it fascinating that the liberal snowflake SJWs claim to promote diversity except diverse
opinion. There's a reason that the neocons were liberals.
And the communist heroes of the left including Lenin & Mao are comparable to the fascists with
my way or the highway to death.
depends entirely on the type of jobs applied for. If one can pass the physical and mental tests
for the job applied for, gender or race shouldn't matter. That's assuming the employer's requirements
are reasonable.
According to Unesco, 29% of people in scientific research worldwide are women, compared with
41% in Russia. In the UK, about 4% of inventors are women, whereas the figure is 15% in Russia.
Is engineering destined to remain a male-dominated field? Not everywhere. In China, 40% of
engineers are women, and in the former USSR, women accounted for 58% of the engineering workforce.
Women get these jobs when they are needed, if not, they are expected to stay at home. It is
not about free speech, feminism, ability or choice.
This plateau is of concern to policy experts. For the last decade, the European Commission
has highlighted the risks related to the shortage of engineers and has called on member states
to draw more widely on the pool of female talent. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics warned
last year that the demand for computer engineers in the U.S. would see an increase of 36% by
the year 2012. It seems urgent in these conditions to train more women. So what are the obstacles?
Google needs those female engineers. As simple as that.
I didn't address the content of the memo, if you had read more carefully. I quoted a sentence
b wrote and went on from there. Seems your knee-jerk hit you I the head.
The same thing had been said in 2011 by a Norwegian documentary, "Brainwash" (highly recommended
viewing, it can be found on Youtube with English subtitles).
The Norwegian government cut its funding for "Gender studies" after its airing.
I am a woman, and its seems to me the politically correct comments here all have one thing
in common: they confuse two distinct notions, difference and inferiority.
I feel different from men, I know I am, but in no way do I feel inferior. I am not interested
in sports, cars or coding. I am interested in psychology, childhood and fashion. Sorry, it's not
cultural, since it's the same the world over. I will add it cannot be cultural, because
the sex roles are differentiated in the animal kingdom too. Take a male lion and a female - the
male naps, she hunts. All the other animals equally show different patterns of behaviour according
to their sex, save ants, amoebae, viruses and other microbes, bugs or non-mammals. So, pretending
that there are no differences between men and women, when all it takes is two minutes of observation
of nature (let alone a clothes shop during sales) is sheer gaslighting.
Men and woman are complementary, which is way more beautiful, diverse and life-enhancing than
that drab uniformity/sameness that, it seems to me, emanates from people who are so narcissistic
they are scared stiff of anything that is not their mirror image.
As for me, I love men, and I love the fact we are different. With men's abilities and women's,
there is nothing we can't accomplish together.
"I don't particularly care about the memo or its asinine content. I'm responding to what people
have said in these comments."
-- OK, so be a good girl and make yourself useful: you can start with the housework. Please
explain how can you comment so vitriolically upon specific matters you admit that know almost
nothing about?
"As for the memo itself, neither side comes out looking particularly good. The engineer's memo
essentially boils down to "girlz [sic] r stoopid [sic], and need to get out of my workplace""
-- You are mistaken, as usual: the points are societal, biological and anthropological in their
character and not AT ALL driven by chauvinism, which your bitter and ill-informed input, certainly,
is.
"(he's [sic] not attempting to engage in debate, which some of his defenders have claimed,
as in 'he's just asking questions and the PC police are too scared to engage him'), and Google's
response was "you voiced an unacceptable opinion so we're going to fire you" (they aren't interested
in debate either, but he wasn't offering one in the first place)."
-- Absolute nonsense, as usual: the guy's gripe seemed to be that there's no oxygen in which
to engage with certain subject matter. There's a stultifying, stifling, suffocating, oppressive
atmosphere perpetuated and sustained by people just like you, "Merasmus".
"It also has a lot of the inane 'both sides have good points, the best answer is in the middle'
centrist faux wisdom I've come to expect from the type of idiot who makes up most of the Silicon
Valley echo-chamber."
-- You mean, it's balanced and considered? Have you finally read it now, then?
"Ah yes, the right is 'pragmatic'. They're pragmatically destroying their economies by forever
seeking tax cuts and the reduction of a national 'debt' they don't even understand the nature
of. Spare me."
-- Are we drifting tediously away from the salient points, due to your total lack of knowledge
or awareness of what you are talking about?
@karlof1 - so, to be clear, you are commenting on an article regarding a memo you haven't read?
Do you not think it might be an advisable next step for you to take the time to read the memo,
in order to better inform yourself, so that you don't keep jerking and hitting yourself in the
head?
I worked under a lady CEO. It was so refreshing compared to life under men. There was open
dialogue, I felt I could voice ideas safely.
I think all CEO's would be females. It's like their social approaches to inclusion is unilaterally
better than (white) men.
Is that sexist?
Your experience says more about your boss as an individual and has little or nothing
to do with her gender. The worst boss I have had was a woman and so was the best boss I have worked
for.
The myth of the "kinder, gentler" female leader has been thoroughly debunked. Hillary Clinton
and Margaret Thatcher were both women. Thinking woman are morally and ethically "purer" than men
is ridiculous.
As for Google vs. the engineer...of course he was fired. Corporations are not democracies.
They are top-down dictatorships.
Sorry, but you miss a or perhaps 'the' crucial point here.
So let's say that men & women are indeed different, and this also influences their job preferences,
independently of societal influence. I have my doubts, but let's just assume it for now.
Now if an employer thinks that men and women have different qualifications and strengths, s/he
might come to the conclusion that they complement each other. It would thus make perfect sense
to build teams with a balanced gender mix, in order to optimize results for the company. Whether
or not each individual employee is the best possible hire is secondary - it's overall performance
that counts.
Actually the first commenter TSP pretty much confirms this thesis, albeit only anecdotally.
@40 lea. thanks.. i see it much the same way as you..
@45 smuks... as i mentioned - hire people, regardless of sex, race, and etc - based off merit
and qualifications.. skip with the politically correct bs.. yes, i agree with @1, however anecdotal
is it and i got a laugh from @4 too!
as for a lack of engineers and etc in the west.. i always think back to the joke about their
being 30 engineers for every 1 banker in japan, verses 30 banker types for 1 engineer in the usa..
it was something like that... i guess you could throw in real estate sales people instead of bankers
if you want... it paints a picture that probably has a good degree of relevance to the changing
fortunes of countries, or cultures that pursue a certain path, over other ones also available.
What awful discussion here. Says a lot that the most adult and mature commentators here are those
that I find myself somewhat in disagreement with.
Looking forward to your next piece though as always Bernard. Not that I don't like this either
per se - but I'd be lying if I didn't say I find your non-geopolitical work to result in the silliest
and most ideological of discussions and commentators. Though I still encourage you to keep doing
what fufils you regardless.
I agree with his ultimate conclusion:
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Forced equality is not the way to go. It winds up twisting society in bad ways. Is this the
number one problem facing the US and American businesses? Isn't group think bad whether from the
inside or the outside? Playing one group (sex, race, etc) off against the other does make a good
distraction.
I'm not a woman, you idiot. And I never said I hadn't read it, I said I wasn't addressing it,
only responding to things said in these comments.
>various [sics]
Good job! It's almost like I was mocking the memo-maker as a grown up version of the kind of
boy who puts 'No Girls Allowed' signs outside his treehouse. A kind of manchild, if you will.
"Absolute nonsense, as usual: the guy's gripe seemed to be that there's no oxygen in which
to engage with certain subject matter. There's a stultifying, stifling, suffocating, oppressive
atmosphere perpetuated and sustained by people just like you, "Merasmus"."
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
The part about centrism is in relation to the memo explicitly talking about Left and Right
politics, and how each side supposedly has valid points. This is precisely the type of centrism
that is a. destroying the US and the EU, and b. rapidly disintegrating, especially in America.
@Lea
One key difference would be that humans are (ostensibly) a higher lifeform that isn't driven
entirely by instinct. So appealing to how things work in the wider natural world is something
of a non-starter. Regardless, even if you were going to do that, there are creatures far more
closely related to us than lions we could draw comparisons to. For some *strange* reason people
appealing to nature never have much to say about the Bonobo...
"So, pretending that there are no differences between men and women, when all it takes is two
minutes of observation of nature"
Literally no one is making this claim though. I have literally never met a feminist who claimed
sexual dimorphism didn't exist in humans. What I seen is a whole lot of people who absolutely
refuse to differentiate between sex and gender, however.
"Men and woman are complementary [...] With men's abilities and women's, there is nothing we
can't accomplish together."
Nice sentiment. The problem is I have never met anyone who, while complaining about women in
the workplace and talking about how there's some natural division of labor, then suggested anything
like a 50/50 split. Or even 60/40, or 70/30. Instead, they do what Anti-Soros above does, and
relegate women to breeding and housekeeping, making the divide more like 90/10 or 95/5 or some
similar extremely lopsided value. They give to men by far the greater share of opportunity and
freedom, and claim this is a natural and fair division, while telling the women they shouldn't
even desire more, and should be content with a 'woman's unique happiness'.
Nailed it. And I believe the purpose of b's foray into gender and/or lgbtq discrimination is
that, currently, it is intrinsically tied to the empire's tactics of subversion and infiltration.
It upsets me to no end that fomenting discord between the yin and the yangs of the world is the
lockstep modus operandi of the bringers of chaos. "Linear" thinking a la "women can't do it" or
"women must do it" are really just distractions, and they are important architectural designs
of the true believers in the uniparty who are trying to crush the way to peace.
Any meddlesome actions taken by any entity, whether affirmative action or discrimination against
men due to preferencing female hires, is sure to end in disaster anyway. Look at the US and tell
me it is not a powder keg. Russia, in the wisdom of ages, saw the ngos in their country for what
they were. Eliminating these meddlesome devices is best by nipping them in the bud.
The female always overcomes the male anyway by weakness and stillness. Water over rock. When
women want to be rock (Hillary Clinton), you've got problems.
Lea @ 40: Very thoughtful and insightful comment, thanks..
Unfortunately, most men can't get by the second strongest drive in human existence, the drive
to pro-create, and it clouds our thinking. History gives credence to this theory.
I haven't seen the term patriarchy introduced to this discussion. I think patriarchy is a good
term for the historical attitudes that assert innate/generic/gender related qualitative differences
between female/male capabilities.
I posit that women are better at gestating children than men and any other comparison is mostly
self serving conjecture because of woefully inadequate science.
And I agree with NemesisCalling that ".....it is intrinsically tied to the empire's tactics
of subversion and infiltration. It upsets me to no end that fomenting discord between the yin
and the yangs of the world is the lockstep modus operandi of the bringers of chaos. "Linear" thinking
a la "women can't do it" or "women must do it" are really just distractions, and they are important
architectural designs of the true believers in the uniparty who are trying to crush the way to
peace."
...
..."Dafranzl", is your comment not verging on real, like genuine, sexism in that you are expressing
some kind of shock horror that women can actually pass a couple of tests and fly a plane?
Posted by: T-Sixes | Aug 8, 2017 3:42:57 PM | 21
There was nothing ambiguous about what Dafranzl wrote. He expressed genuine respect and explained
why he is NOT surprised by their success.
I read the memo. Compare the tone of the memo to the misogyny and sexism of the miners in the
movie North Country starring Charlize Theron - the racism of the segregated South of the 50s.
There were a number of statements he definitely should have left out even if he thinks they are
true. "Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees
sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around
power." or "Women are more prone to stress" (although I would agree with him if he had said -
women who are mothers worry more than men) "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower
number of women in high stress jobs." He could have left out his poor analysis of left-right.
It is true for me that suffocating and/or just silly political correctness is found more often
on the left liberal side. Of many conservatives it can be said, "The totally convinced and the
totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental." Robert Anton Wilson
He did show a bias when discussing the differences between men and women. Maybe because I'm an
older white man I didn't find them so much insulting as debatable.
There are many other statements that I found correct "men take undesirable and dangerous jobs
like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths."
"Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make
it appealing to equal portions of both men and women." It certainly is true that many of the problems
that diverse peoples or women have are equally true of many white men not in the upper crust.
"This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be
honestly discussed." (Have I found this to be true - revisionist Holocaust history for example)
I certainly think he shouldn't have been fired for bring up these issues. The differences between
men and women as they relate to employment should be considered and studied. His firing, in fact,
proves one of the points he was trying to make.
So this is what they call identity politics. And this is how it drives out issue-based discussion
- in this case freedom of expression within the corporation.
Got it, thanks.
ps.. @ 37 somebody - thanks for that slice of real life.
observable biological diffs (karlof1); womanless females (AntiSoros). google perks (thegenius);
thought blockouts (Ballai); neo-liberal agenda (james); non-discussible ideology (dh); a unique
corporate category-classified androgine (Merasmus); blinder-enhanced directed-answer response
(T-Sixes); amazing test results (Dafranzl); the (statistically) mature woman (Hohan Meyer); determinism
(okie farmer); absolutes (ab initio); train more women (somebody); different but not inferior;
even complimentary (Lea); top down dictators (Sane); flaws (Hoarsewhisperer); discriminatory (Curtis);
rocking women are problems (NemesisCalling);
please consider the following http://www.unz.com/jman/the-five-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/
@59 I actually referred to that piece obliquely, by calling variation not correlated with genes,
'noise,' in particular his last point, from Emil Kierkegaard. Btw if the latter is reading, Mr
Kierkegaard, in our last email exchange, in references to a paper by Debes, you interpreted his
beta (-2.2) times his proxy (blood lead level's base 10 logarithm) naively, to wit that the logarithm
of blood lead level predicts IQ. A simple problem, involving that same ODE---maternal leave, paid
or not---expectant mothers' exposure to lead during the pregnancy, under the frequent poisoning
regime (gasoline/petrol) will roughly stop upon taking maternal leave, and thus the (linear) dose
during the pregnancy will be linearly related to the logarithm of the cord (birth) blood lead
level. There is more to say, and I shall email a more detailed commentary shortly...
The memo actually said something similar about using the complementary traits of men and women
in teams. He mentioned how women's traits were good for the design of user interfaces and men's
traits were good for the back end. What made Steve Jobs so distinctive wasn't that he was a great
engineer or inventor (he wasn't). He thought about user experience like a woman. Apple was great
on the "female" side of software engineering while Microsoft was great on the "male" side. Microsoft
did, and still does, better on the back end but, as Jobs famously criticized them for about 25
years ago, their products lacked culture and taste.
IQ is not biological determinism. Saying that it is strictly hereditary is. There is a strong
correlation between IQ and ability to perform intellectual tasks, and with social performance
up to about IQ 120. The correlation drops away above that because the extremely profound thinking
at which higher IQ provides an advantage is less tied to social performance. I see no contradiction
between saying IQ is a valid measure of cognitive ability and saying that it is culturally influenced.
Some cultures do not foster the development of cognitive ability.
This is a good analysis. Given the author's not insignificant role in the surreptitious
imposition of the cultural Marxism under which we all live today in which the expression of
any ideas by those in public life which run counter to the cultural and economic consensus
are greeted with loud indignation, feigned offence and derision, frequently leading to social
ostracism, one wonders how the new ideas are to be even debated, let alone taken up.
Pikkety (?) is a good example of original thinking, with whom I don't personally agree,
but the way in which he has been derided in most MSM or, worse, completely ignored shows up
shallowness of modern political and philosophical discourse.
I have no idea what you mean by 'cultural Marxism', it seems you're way off beam. We have
lived through a period of hegemony dominated by neo liberal capitalism - as Martin describes
so well. Share
Facebook
Twitter
'Cultural Marxism' is usually a euphemism for political correctness and identity politics
which the right-wing commentariat see rooted in 1960s counter culture supposedly influenced
by French and Frankfurt School marxian philosophy.
Similarly Malcolm Turnbull, the ultimate symbol of the success of greed who promoted massive
tax cuts to the corporations as an election strategy, was stunned by his rejection at the
last election and by the rise of Pauline Hanson, an individual who represents an Australian
version of Donald Trump.
Meanwhile other neo-liberal reactionaries like the Premier of NSW, Mike Baird, continue to
sell public assets such as the electricity supply, dismantle and dismiss democratically
elected local councils, give business owners two votes in Sydney City council elections, tear
down functional buildings such as the Power House Museum and the Entertainment center in
order to hand the sites to property developers and approves coal mines on prime agricultural
land and in areas of great natural beauty yet imagines that he will get away with what he is
doing.
He may well discover that come the next election, even the ordinary members of his own party
will desert him as the revolt against his destructive and arrogant mis-government catches up
with him.
"... Among the sources of division are the various forms of identity politics that have swamped academia and popular culture, and which the alt-right sees as "inclusive" of everyone except white people many of whom are clearly "have nots." In this world, some, as George Orwell (1903 – 1950) predicted, are clearly more equal than others. ..."
Among the sources of division are the various forms of identity politics that have swamped academia
and popular culture, and which the alt-right sees as "inclusive" of everyone except white people
many of whom are clearly "have nots." In this world, some, as George Orwell (1903 – 1950) predicted,
are clearly more equal than others.
The Left, frustrated by Trump's rise and its inability to control the public conversation, has
reached the point where violence is acceptable (Richard Spencer has been physically sucker-punched
on video).
Its representatives in dominant media, including social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter,
are doing everything they can to censor the alt-right, including making it difficult for its most
visible leaders to function in public.
A few seasons back, South Park pointed out how easy it was for corporations
to co-opt social justice rhetoric. Since then, life has stubbornly insisted on
supporting that thesis.
Every now and then the un-system bites back as we just saw with the Pepsi
ad, although they did get a ton of free press, similar to United. That
approach worked for The Donald ..
Corporations love non-class based identity politics. They love arguing
that the real problems in society are not about economic inequality but
rather on identity based sensitivity. You can learn the fancy sensitivity
codes at your uppity college and look down your nose at the poor whites who
don't get the semiotic coaching. Business as Usual.
Make room, African-Americans, Latinos, the LGBTQ community, feminists. And while we are at it,
Catholics, Jews, evangelicals, too. There is a new identity group in American life. It's the white
working class.
This is the group whose members were largely ignored by the mainstream media - at least until
Donald Trump's campaign drew attention to them - and left behind by the new media. It is the group
that was mobilized by Franklin Roosevelt but felt unmoved by Hillary Clinton.
"This crisis of white working people has been going on for some time, but we are just noticing
it,'' said Robert D. Putnam, the Harvard scholar from industrial Port Clinton, Ohio, who has written
widely on this group. "The Mon Valley around Pittsburgh didn't just suddenly run into economic problems.
The jobs left Rust Belt Ohio a long time ago. The white working-class people who voted for Trump
did so not because of the issues, or because they thought he'd bring back the auto parts factory
in my hometown. The people living in a place that has been hopeless for 20 years were just angry
at the world, and their vote was an upturned middle finger.''
With Trump's inauguration fast approaching, the surge is on: to define this newly prominent group,
to explain their viewpoints, to win their allegiance - everything, perhaps, but to address their
grievances. The big question of the dawning Trump era is this: Can Trump, or anyone else, turn an
upturned middle finger into a program for governing?
When ethnic minorities and many other identity groups entered the political mainstream, their
agenda was self-evident: protections against discrimination, the ability to serve in positions of
political power, the ability to pursue the American dream. The white working class, in contrast,
is unorganized, increasingly suspicious of government programs, and accustomed to seeing itself as
Middle America - not as a special interest.
Meanwhile, the policies that seem to be emerging out of the Trump transition lean more toward
traditional conservatism than populism. This is unfolding as an administration that would be favored
more by the acolytes of William F. Buckley than by the fans of Willie Nelson.
In theory, November's revolt of the white working class will usher in what could be a momentous
transition, the most startling political example of "Changing Places"' since the New Deal social
engineers replaced the free-market mandarins of engineer-president Herbert Hoover, in 1933. Big switches,
to be sure, are a familiar aspect of American politics - the substitution of George W. Bush's movement
conservatives for Bill Clinton's boomer liberals, for example. But in tone and timbre, the transition
of 2017 is of a different order entirely - in part because, as Sarah Purcell, a Grinnell College
historian, put it, "the result was so unexpected, the divisions are so pronounced, and the passions
are so great."
Besides the Washington transition, there is the transition in the profile of the two major parties
and the transition between those who found succor and success in the Barack Obama years and those
who found insult and indignity in it. "The people who were despondent about the Obama administration
were lurking in the background, and now they are front and center,'' said Steffan W. Schmidt, an
Iowa State political scientist. "And the people who supported the Obama administration are upset
and frightened and worried about retribution.''
Indeed, the Great Switch of 2017 involves those who feel their voices will now be heard and those
who worry theirs no longer will be heard.
"Black and brown people feel right now that the forces who opposed our rights of full citizenship
are coming into power,'' said Elaine Jones, former president and director-counsel of the NAACP's
Legal Defense Fund. "We now see that the people who fought us will be in office."
The Obama administration, to be sure, resembled the Obama electoral coalition - eggheads, upscale
professionals, and environmentalists, as well as the representatives of a multicultural America.
Trump's new administration looks less like his working-class voters than like Dwight Eisenhower's
Cabinet, which was once described as "nine millionaires and a plumber.'' Except there's not even
a plumber in the Trump inner circle. And the profile of his Cabinet leans more toward billionaires
than millionaires.
Especially if the Trump administration ends up pursuing a corporate-friendly economic policy,
working-class Americans' anxieties aren't going away. Half of working-class whites, according to
a CNN poll, expect their children's lives will be worse than their own. Two-thirds of the white working
class, according to separate CNN polls, believe hard work will no longer get people ahead in the
United States.
"This part of America is not participating in the economy the way they once did,'' said John Dick,
the new-generation pollster who is the CEO of CivicScience, a consumer and market intelligence company
in Pittsburgh. "Now they have a voice - but that voice speaks in the simplest possible narrative
about their difficulties."
The challenge for politicians courting these voters is to identify a policy agenda built on something
more than nostalgia - or explicit appeals to racial identity. Half of the Trump voters among a group
of white working-class Americans surveyed by CNN think that the increasing diversity of the United
States threatens the country's culture. The GOP nominee explicitly bemoaned the country's changing
demographics and shifting cultural norms.
His victory raises an uncomfortable question: Is there a less racially charged way of appealing
to a group whose members used to feel a sense of power but now see they're losing ground? Richard
L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, believes that it is possible - and necessary. "Working people
in general are looking for someone to address their issues - issues they discuss every day around
the kitchen table: jobs, security, and health care,'' he said in a year-end interview. "Anyone who
comes out with that is going to get support from working people." Of course, Hillary Clinton made
just such an economic pitch but came up fatefully short in once-reliable Democratic counties.
The political shift that white working-class voters have now triggered could prove wrenching.
"This powerful reversal, where one group is now down and another is up, is a lot like the 1930s,''
says David Greenberg, a Rutgers historian. "Then you saw polarization not just between a liberal
party and a conservative party but also between different conceptions of what government is for.''
The Rust Belt needs a bailout.
A big one http://bv.ms/2fZvKEO
via @Bloomberg - Conor Sen - December 2
Trade and immigration restrictions won't bring back the Rust Belt. What might? Consider the
transformation of the Sun Belt.
The South used to be the nation's Rust Belt. The devastation of the Civil War rightly gets
the headlines, but the devastation didn't end when Sherman marched out of Atlanta. Industrial
agriculture had the same impact on the Southern economy that automation and outsourcing have had
on the manufacturing economy of the Midwest. In the late 19th century, much of the South consisted
of an increasingly uncompetitive agricultural economy and woefully inadequate infrastructure.
Those who could leave for other parts of the country, like factory jobs in what we now call the
Rust Belt, did.
The South used to be the nation's Rust Belt. The devastation of the Civil War rightly gets
the headlines, but the devastation didn't end when Sherman marched out of Atlanta. Industrial
agriculture had the same impact on the Southern economy that automation and outsourcing have had
on the manufacturing economy of the Midwest. In the late 19th century, much of the South consisted
of an increasingly uncompetitive agricultural economy and woefully inadequate infrastructure.
Those who could leave for other parts of the country, like factory jobs in what we now call the
Rust Belt, did.
Many parts of the South continue to struggle to this day, but those that are thriving embraced
two things -- infrastructure and recruitment. Much of the infrastructure was courtesy of the federal
government -- programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority during the Great Depression, military
bases during World War II and interstate highways later on. But the recruitment was an attitude
the New South adopted on its own. By seeking out talent and businesses from the rest of the country
and the world, the major metro areas of today's South generated some of the strongest economic
growth and most promising labor trends in the country.
The Rust Belt has two main challenges to address -- poor demographics and legacy obligations
in the form of pension costs and physical infrastructure that needs maintaining. The demographic
component is the part it most needs to solve on its own.
One type of institution has figured this out: the region's universities. Last week, in college
football, the University of Michigan played Ohio State University in their annual rivalry game.
But in some ways it wasn't a clash between Rust Belt foes. Michigan's coach, Jim Harbaugh, was
hired from the West Coast. Ohio State's coach, Urban Meyer, was hired from Florida. Both teams
have rosters full of increasing numbers of players from regions other than the Midwest. The reason
is simple. Youth populations are shrinking in the Midwest, and increasingly the best high school
football players are in other parts of the country like the South and the West that still have
growing populations. Both universities hired coaches from elsewhere, and both coaches are using
the prestige of their universities to recruit the best players in the country, no matter where
they're from.
This recruitment isn't just happening on the football field. To address enrollment shortfalls
due to dwindling numbers of home-grown students, Midwest universities are recruiting students
from all over the world. Two of the eight universities in the U.S. with more than 10,000 international
students are in the Midwest -- Purdue University and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
As a recruitment pitch, the Midwest needs to figure out its message and sell it to the world.
As Midwest urbanist and blogger Pete Saunders noted in a tweetstorm this week, the resurgence
of coastal cities began with assets that the cities had all along. Wall Street and media for New
York, higher educational institutions for Boston, the federal government for Washington, a unique
topography and culture in San Francisco. Similarly, the Midwest has great educational and medical
institutions, an incredibly affordable lifestyle that becomes more compelling as housing costs
rise on the coasts and in the Sun Belt, plentiful water that could become a competitive advantage
because of climate change, and a sense of "rootedness" that many find compelling.
The most influential policy change the federal government could employ to "save" the Midwest
is one that would have been unthinkable when Congressional Republicans were battling President
Obama -- a huge bailout of the Rust Belt's legacy obligations. Pension costs are eating a higher
and higher share of tax revenue in cities like Chicago and states like Illinois. That leaves municipalities
less money to spend on ongoing operations and maintenance, let alone infrastructure improvements.
Eroding public services not only keep people from moving to the area, but also encourage young
people to leave for places with better public services. If President-Elect Donald Trump could
persuade Congress to bail out the region, that could the fiscal slate clean and give the Midwest
the breathing room to invest in its future.
It took a Nixon to go to China, perhaps it takes a Trump to save the Rust Belt.
Reasonable people can disagree. Then again - my views on these issues have dovetailed DeLong's
for over a decade. In fact he gave me credit for the "Natural Rate of the Employment to Population
Ratio" back in 2005. I should have patented the concept.
Donald Trump barreled into the White House with a "terrific" plan for infrastructure, and Washington
is abuzz with a seemingly "bipartisan" job-creation initiative. Though the GOP-dominated Congress
has for years thwarted similar infrastructure-based stimulus proposals, fiscal conservatives in
Washington and market profiteers nationwide are now fully confident in Trump's vision for shovel-ready
business partnerships.
After all, the one competency Trump has demonstrated so far seems to be making money off of
building stuff, from casinos and golf courses to his promised Mexican border wall.
But the public project of fixing America's crumbling bridges and highways is a different animal
than Trump's private real-estate empire of gleaming glass towers, at least for now.
Trump wants private investors to basically direct $1 trillion in infrastructure projects nationwide
through a "revenue neutral" financing plan, which banks on financing from private investors, allegedly
to control deficit spending (which the GOP generally deems wasteful, while promoting tax breaks
as a wiser redistribution of public funds into corporate coffers). To draw some $167 billion to
jumpstart the $1 trillion, 10-year infrastructure plan, Washington would grant a giant tax break
"equal to 82 percent of the equity amount." The goal isn't fixing bridges so much as fixing the
corporate tax codes to promote privatization and unregulated construction with virtually no public
input. Moreover, whereas effective stimulus plans aim to fill infrastructure gaps that big business
has ignored, Mike Konzcal observes in The Washington Post, that the developers Trump is courting
would follow the money and "back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical
grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway."
Dave Dayen calls the program a "privatization fire sale" that ensured that private, not common,
interests determine where funding is focused.
Trump is further sweetening the pot by promising drastic deregulation that would "provide maximum
flexibility to the states" and "streamline permitting and approvals."
Activists now fear that Trump's job plan will yield relatively substandard jobs by mowing down
longstanding regulatory protections, including environmental review process (a critical tool activists
use to challenge developments that involve public-health threats) and prevailing wage regulations.
While private business partnerships on federal construction projects are routine, Trump's camp
is distinctly poised to launder corporate money through federal coffers at workers' and taxpayers'
expense.
The details of Trump's infrastructure vision are fairly sparse, summarized in a cheerleading
10-page pre-election analysis. But the author byline is telling: right-wing business professor
Peter Navarro and private equity mogul Wilbur Ross (Trump's pick for commerce secretary, with
historic links to the Sago mine accident scandal). And Trump's own investment track record speaks
volumes: The president-elect is facing allegations of major wage violations involving his latest
project site, which is sited on federal property, an antique Post Office to be transformed, in
Trump's words, into "truly one of the great hotels of the world."
It hasn't been so great for the non-union subcontracted construction workers who have complained
of getting paid below the wage standard that should apply under the federal Davis Bacon Act. Vice
President–elect Mike Pence, meanwhile, has actively pushed to repeal his state's similar prevailing
wage laws for publicly contracted workers.
Trump may have previewed his approach to publicly funded construction with his glamorous Bronx
golf course on a 192-acre landfill site, using public money to reclaim a wasteland for the benefit
of wealthy golfers, charging the highest fees of any other city golf grounds. Not only did it
colonize a tract of a borough starved for community recreational spaces and affordable housing,
it also produced a mere 100 local jobs and, according to community advocates, little additional
economic activity in the surrounding neighborhood.
Trump's real-estate portfolio embodies the long-term danger that watchdog groups see in so-called
"public-private partnerships" for infrastructure development.
In the Public Interest (ITPI) observed in a recent report on abuses of private contractors:
To maximize profit, companies have often cut corners by reducing the quality and accessibility
of services, reducing staffing levels, lowering worker wages, and sidestepping protections for
the public and the environment.
The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.
"[T]he bottom line is that they will strip away standards, provide hefty subsidies and guaranteed
profits and hand over control over large scale projects for decades," according to ITPI executive
director Donald Cohen.
The overarching drive to privatize resources and services, meanwhile, might not only fail to
solve infrastructure problems but might also disrupt the structure of democracy; the process of,
for example, privatizing a highway or contracting out a public utility, in the long-term, effectively
outsources governance. "With control comes hidden information," Cohen adds. Institutionalizing
opacity in government-funded ventures could give corporations free reign to decide unilaterally
on electricity rates or easements on tribal lands.
There is no doubt that infrastructure investment is still crucial. However, a more progressive
approach would aim to bring more social equity into the private sector, not more profit motives
into government budgets.
An alternative, progressive infrastructure proposal, penned by Senator Bernie Sanders, would
operate on a similar scale as Trump's, with $1 trillion over five years. But instead of handing
a blank check to contractors, the budget would prioritize the critical infrastructure needs identified
by engineering authorities, and support stimulus through workers' wages rather than corporate
financing.
Such a plan could also be used to direct investment toward green energy development, expanding
public Wi-Fi networks, or increasing wage standards. While legislation to mandate these types
of projects and standards was continually stonewalled in the GOP-controlled congress, Obama did
manage, through a series of precedent-setting executive actions, to raise the minimum wage for
subcontracted federal workers, expand anti-discrimination protections, and to penalize subcontractors
who have failed to comply with regulations. Those initiatives may disappear as the new administration
takes over in January. Given that Trump has previously blown off crucial policy priorities like
the Paris Climate Change Treaty, there's no reason why his infrastructure plan should reflect
pro-worker interests.
If Trump is serious about rebuilding the country, his infrastructure program will both expose
his underlying kleptocratic motives and offer community and labor organizations an opportunity
to hold his administration accountable for spending responsibly.
Trump has big plans to make taxpayers and workers pay for his big gamble; the public has a
lot on the line, but also a chance to reclaim the public trust.
"An alternative, progressive infrastructure proposal, penned by Senator Bernie Sanders, would
operate on a similar scale as Trump's, with $1 trillion over five years. But instead of handing
a blank check to contractors, the budget would prioritize the critical infrastructure needs identified
by engineering authorities, and support stimulus through workers' wages rather than corporate
financing."
And the deplorables will do their best to make sure this is the last time.
"f you're in the area of 500 5th St in DC at 11:00AM on January 11, you might want to stop.
You could see something you may never see again
Valuing Climate Damages:
Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (Phase 2 report)
This new report from the Board on Environmental Change and Society of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examines potential approaches for a comprehensive update
to the current methodology for estimating the social cost of carbon dioxide (SC-CO2) for U.S.
regulatory analysis. The SC-CO2 is an estimate, in dollars, of the net damages incurred by society
from a 1 metric ton increase in carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. As required by executive
orders and a court ruling, government agencies use the SC-CO2 when analyzing the impacts of various
regulations.
The report also recommends near- and longer-term research priorities. The study was requested
by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, which is co-chaired by
the Council of Economic Advisors and the Office of Management and Budget."
A few more comments on the Republicans' Corporate Tax Plan
by Jared Bernstein
January 3rd, 2017 at 11:18 am
I didn't want to jam too much into my piece last week on the interesting Border Adjustment
Tax-come on peeps, you know that BAT is a much better acronym than DBCFT (destination-based-cash-flow
tax)-that House R's want to use to replace the current corporate tax. Like I said, it's a complicated
bit of work about which we know little, particularly regarding its impact on consumer prices (and
thus, its distributional impact) and on exchange rates.
That said, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which a tax that clearly favors net exports would
not lead to some degree of dollar appreciation. Ed Kleinbard, a guy who thinks deeply about such
things, makes the intuitive point that a multi-trillion-dollar side effect of the dollar appreciation
is a transfer of wealth from US investors with foreign holdings to foreign investors holding US
assets. He explains here using Freedonia to symbolize not-the-US:
It also follows from this that the transition to a destination based profits tax, and with
it the appreciation in the U.S. dollar, will work a one-time very large wealth transfer from U.S.
investors to foreign investors. Foreign investments held by U.S. investors overnight will be worth
less in dollar terms, and U.S. investments held by Freedonian investors overnight will be worth
more in Freedonian pfennig terms. Carroll and Viard have estimated that at the end of 2010 the
wealth transfer attributable to the introduction of border adjustments without any transition
relief would have amounted to a $7.88 trillion loss to American investors and an $8.85 trillion
pickup in wealth for foreign investors. As of the time of this writing, I am reasonably confident
that policymakers have not weighed the implications of this.
Those are many more trillions than I would have guessed, but note that the analysts Ed's citing
are strong proponents of the tax, so I don't think their thumb would be on the scale.
I'm not saying this is or should be a deal killer-any transition to a better corporate tax
system will create winners and losers. But I share Ed's "reasonable confidence" that policy makers
haven't thought much about this, and you can add US investors holding foreign assets to the retailers
and other producers that depend on imported inputs to the list of those who will fight hard against
the BAT.
One more point on this dollar appreciation business. I enjoyed this useful oped in today's
NYT about how Trump will probably have to go through Congress if he wants to increase tariffs
(I've seen some counter-arguments, but the NYT piece made more sense to me). But this part seemed
off (my italics):
A border adjustment tax is a far better option than tariffs. It would eliminate incentives
in the current tax system to manufacture abroad, and to shift income abroad. Unlike a tariff,
it aims to be trade neutral, with any changes in consumer pricing of imports and exports being
offset by a rise in the dollar. And with strong support in the House, it could be enacted in full
compliance with the Origination Clause, lending it legitimacy that a unilateral tariff would lack.
If the dollar fully adjusts, then the trade balance, which is measured in dollars, not quantities,
is unaffected. Tariffs, of course, are designed to improve the trade balance. I'm not sure they
would, and, in fact, I suspect our trading partners would retaliate against either tariffs or
a tax scheme that subsidized exports, so the impact on the trade balance of either of these interventions
is not clear. But a selling point by BAT proponents is that the balance of trade would be unaffected,
which is a very different selling point than the one offered by proponents of tariffs.
AS much as I appreciate what Jared is saying, he is pulling his punches. I have hinted at why
I hate the transfer pricing angles but I too have pulled my punches. Working on something (after
I clear this snow) for Econospeak that goes after what Auerbach ducks. Think Disney as I shovel.
Interesting, thought-provoking post from Tim Johnson in today's links. There's a video with
the Bank of England's chief economist Andy Haldane who also discusses Brexit.
Should-Read: Manufacturing-centric industrial policy works (or worked) best when the hegemon
of the world economy plays the role of the Importer of Last Resort. And only worked when there
was a highly competent government--which raises the possibility that pretty much any other non-nonsensical
development strategy would have worked as well...
Pseudoerasmus: The Bairoch Conjecture on Tariffs and Growth:* "There is a vast empirical literature
which finds a positive correlation between economic growth and various measures of openness to
international trade in the post-1945 period...
...This huge body of research does have a few very compelling critics, the most prominent being
Rodríguez & Rodrik (2000). That widely cited paper argues - amongst many other things - that there
is no necessary relationship between trade and growth, either way. It depends on the global context
as well as domestic economic conditions. I think that's correct. There is also a smaller literature
on 19th century trade and growth associated with the historian Paul Bairoch. He argued informally
that European countries with higher tariffs grew faster in the late 19th century. This rough eyeball
correlation was confirmed econometrically by O'Rourke (2000)... [and] Clemens & Williamson (2001,
2004), but was disputed by Irwin (2002).... Lehmann & O'Rourke (2008, 2011) then countered by
disaggregating tariffs of those 10 rich countries into revenue, agricultural, and industrial components,
reporting that duties specifically protecting the manufacturing sector were indeed correlated
with growth....
The positive growth-tariff relationship for the rich countries is large; much smaller for the
non-European periphery, and negative for the European periphery (e.g., Spain, Russia, etc.) So
obviously even with the same global conditions there's a lot of heterogeneity. According to Clemens
& Williamson (2001, 2004) the reason there was an overall positive correlation in the 19th century,
is that most countries with high tariffs exported to countries with lower tariffs. In other words,
Great Britain et al. acted as free-trade sinks (my phrase, not theirs) for exporting countries
such as post-Bismarckian Germany which protected their steel and other industries.... Jacks (2006)
- using the Frankel-Romer gravity model approach - both replicates O'Rourke (2000) and supports
the free-trade-sink view of Clemens & Williamson (2001, 2004).... Tena-Junguito (2010) focuses
on industrial tariffs and supports the other aspect of the Clemens & Williamson finding: the tariff-growth
correlation applies only to the "rich country club"...
It would be interesting to look at how possibly hegemonic Great Britain (or Cold War America)
acted as a free-trade sink/Importer of Last Resort in order to further its aims of diplomacy and
empire.
Manufacturing-centric industrial policy works (or worked) best when the hegemon of the world economy
plays the role of the Importer of Last Resort. And only worked when there was a highly competent
government--which raises the possibility that pretty much any other non-nonsensical development
strategy would have worked as well...
The Republican Party in 2018: I'm from the current administration of the US government and I am
here to take away your health insurance. And oh by the way, vote for us.
EMichael : , -1
"The election of 2016 may well have been stolen-or to use Donald Trump's oft-repeated phrase-"rigged,"
and nobody in the media seems willing to discuss it.
The rigging was a pretty simple process, in fact: in 27 Republican-controlled states (including
critical swing states) hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people showed up to vote,
but were mysteriously blocked from voting for allegedly being registered with the intent to vote
in multiple states.
Greg Palast, an award-winning investigative journalist, writes a stinging piece in the highly
respected Rolling Stone magazine (August 2016 edition), predicting that the November 8, 2016 presidential
election had already been decided: "The GOP's Stealth War Against Voters." He also wrote and produced
a brilliant documentary on this exact subject that was released well before the election, titled
The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
He said a program called the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck had been quietly put
together in Kansas and was being used by Republican secretaries of state in 27 states to suppress
and purge African American, Asian and Hispanic votes in what would almost certainly be the swing
states of the 2016 election.
Crosscheck was started by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach back in 2007 under the guise
of combating so-called voter fraud. In the ultimate thumb in the eye to the American voter, the
state where Crosscheck started was the only state to refuse to participate in a New York Times
review of voter fraud in the 2016 election, which found that, basically, there wasn't any fraud
at the level of individual voters. Turns out, according to Palast, that a total of 7 million voters-including
up to 344,000 in Pennsylvania, 589,000 in North Carolina and up to 449,000 in Michigan (based
on available Crosscheck data from 2014)-may have been denied the right to have their votes counted
under this little known but enormously potent Crosscheck program."
"... "Identity Politics" is now thrown about as an insult at many progressive activists. Critics
say that Identity Politics make everything about gender, everything about sexuality, and everything
about race. And to this I say: yes, yes, and hell yes. ..."
"The other day on Twitter, a man posted a picture of my coloring book he'd given his daughter
for Christmas. He was excited to give her a coloring book full of badass intersectional feminists.
He wanted to thank me for creating it.
"I don't know," chimed in a random stranger (because Twitter), "Sounds like identity politics
to me."
Hell yeah it does.
"Identity Politics" is now thrown about as an insult at many progressive activists. Critics
say that Identity Politics make everything about gender, everything about sexuality, and everything
about race. And to this I say: yes, yes, and hell yes.
Call it what you want. I don't care. Complain that we're making shit about race - you know
what? We are. Complain that we're keeping the left from focusing only on class - yup, and proudly
so. Complain all you want because I am not and will never be ashamed of focusing on the politics
of identity. I will not feel a moment's guilt for slowing this whole train down to make sure that
everyone can get on and we're on the right track. I will proudly own up to making shit hard for
you.
Apologies are highly over-rated. People apologize and then go right back to doing the same shit
all over again. Late in his brief life Martin Luther King refocused his civil rights movement
into the Poor People's Campaign and union activism because he wanted to win and new that social
division could keep him for winning. King did not suddenly turn towards advocating for only white
dudes. King got smart, so smart he became dangerous enough that a white dude killed him.
Most of the beneficiaries of King's Poor People's Campaign and his union activism would be
black people, but it would go further faster with less resistance from his natural allies, poor
white people maybe - but fair and decent white people more so, by being more inclusive rather
than inviting white backlash. Martin Luther King wanted to fulfill his dream for his people. It
is a lot easier to be just a self-absorbed and self-righteous loser than it is to be a winner.
The identity politics campaign that survived after Martin Luther King was murdered has done a
great job of winning, for Republicans.
"The identity politics campaign that survived after Martin Luther King was murdered has done a
great job of winning, for Republicans."
This is of course, correct. But I do not think it means what you think it means.
The GOP has done a great job of convincing white racists that the Dems have destroyed, or are
destroying, their lives. They have used identity politics for over 50 years. Now it is time(past
time) to turn that around and give them their own medicine.
In terms of King, he already had "fair and decent white people" with him, and the Dems do also.
Can't alienate, or worry about alienating, white racists. That white backlash has given the GOP
the majority of their votes the last 50 years. That number is not going to get better regardless
of Dem policy.
From your background working with lower income people I would think that you would not paint it
all so black and white as you do. There is a lot of gray area between racists and secular humanists
of activist conscience including a lot of church people and blue collar whites. A lot of these
are disaffected voters, nothing in it for them to vote. These were the people that King wanted
to include. If King's movement were just for black people then what reason would they have to
vote for liberals supporting his cause, that of blacks rather than lower income working people?
Martin Luther King's Economic Dream: A Guaranteed Income for All Americans
Jordan Weissmann Aug 28, 2013
One of the more under-appreciated aspects of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s legacy is that by
the end of his career, he had fashioned himself into a crusader against poverty, not just among
blacks, but all Americans.
In the weeks leading to his assassination, the civil rights leader had been hard at work organizing
a new march on Washington known as the "Poor People's Campaign." The goal was to erect a tent
city on the National Mall, that, as Mark Engler described it for The Nation in 2010, would "dramatize
the reality of joblessness and deprivation by bringing those excluded from the economy to the
doorstep of the nation's leaders." He was killed before he could see the effort through.
So what, exactly, was King's economic dream? In short, he wanted the government to eradicate
poverty by providing every American a guaranteed, middle-class income-an idea that, while light-years
beyond the realm of mainstream political conversation today, had actually come into vogue by the
late 1960s.
To be crystal clear, a guaranteed income-or a universal basic income, as it's sometimes called
today-is not the same as a higher minimum wage. Instead, it's a policy designed to make sure each
American has a certain concrete sum of money to spend each year. One modern version of the policy
would give every adult a tax credit that would essentially become a cash payment for families
that don't pay much tax. Conservative thinker Charles Murray has advocated replacing the whole
welfare state by handing every grown American a full $10,000.
King had an even more expansive vision. He laid out the case for the guaranteed income in his
final book, 1967's Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Washington's previous efforts
to fight poverty, he concluded, had been "piecemeal and pygmy." The government believed it could
lift up the poor by attacking the root causes of their impoverishment one by one-by providing
better housing, better education, and better support for families. But these efforts had been
too small and too disorganized. Moreover, he wrote, "the programs of the past all have another
common failing-they are indirect. Each seeks to solve poverty by first solving something else."
It was time, he believed, for a more straightforward approach: the government needed to make
sure every American had a reasonable income.
In part, King's thinking seemed to stem from a sense that no matter how strongly the economy might
grow, it would never eliminate poverty entirely, or provide jobs for all. As he put it:
"We have come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation
of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy
and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or
frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed from our conscience
today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically
the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty.
[...]
The problem indicates that our emphasis must be two-fold. We must create full employment or we
must create incomes. People must be made consumers by one method or the other. Once they are placed
in this position, we need to be concerned that the potential of the individual is not wasted.
New forms of work that enhance the social good will have to be devised for those for whom traditional
jobs are not available."
Note, King did not appear to be arguing that Washington should simply pay people not to work.
Rather, he seemed to believe it was the government's responsibility to create jobs for those left
behind by the economy (from his language here, it's not hard to imagine he might even have supported
a work requirement, in some circumstances), but above all else, to ensure a basic standard of
living.
More than basic, actually. King argued that the guaranteed income should be "pegged to the
median of society," and rise automatically along with the U.S. standard of living. "To guarantee
an income at the floor would simply perpetuate welfare standards and freeze into the society poverty
conditions," he wrote. Was it feasible? Maybe. He noted an estimate by John Kenneth Galbraith
that the government could create a generous guaranteed income with $20 billion, which, as the
economist put it, was "not much more than we will spend the next fiscal year to rescue freedom
and democracy and religious liberty as these are defined by 'experts' in Vietnam."
As practical economics, ensuring every single American a middle class living through government
redistribution and work programs seems a bit fanciful. The closest such an idea ever really came
to fruition, meanwhile, was President Nixon's proposed Family Assistance Plan, which would have
ended welfare and instead guaranteed families of four $1,600 a year, at a time when the median
household income was about $7,400.
But as a statement of values, King's notion remains powerful. So with that in mind, I'll leave
you with man's own words:
"The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has
vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes
until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to
adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading
human life by clinging to archaic thinking.
The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as
the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they
had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them.
The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of
poverty."
Good point about MLK and support for the Memphis Santiation workers strike.
I agree with your take. You can alieniate people on the fence. You can ween sons and daughters
from the racism of their parents, if you have an economy with shared prosperity and opportunity
like in the 1950s and 1960s. Their parents' scapegoating will fall on deaf ears if they have good
jobs and lives. Stupid racist grandparent.
What have been possible to elect a black president back then before decades of economic progress?
No.
Economic stagnation is fertile ground for scapegoating and xenophobia.
Yep. More than alienation, King needed inclusion to gain effective political solidarity. We don't
have that much of a democracy, but minority rule only works here for the rich.
In the recent HBO series on LBJ and his passage of the Civil Rights legislation, the screenwriters
had the unions - specifically the autoworkers - funding MLK's civil rights campaign.
MLK was unhappy with LBJ's compromises on the first act in 1964, but then Walter Reuther told
him to back off and wait for LBJ to get the rest of what they wanted the second time around, which
LBJ did to some degree in 1965. MLK listened in part b/c the unions were funding his campaign.
According to the screenwriters. I don't know how true it is.
"In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula
as unconstitutional, reasoning that it was no longer responsive to current conditions.[11] The
Court did not strike down Section 5, but without a coverage formula, Section 5 is unenforceable.[12]"
The progressive neoliberals suggest that it's not worth to try to appeal to the white working
class or to try to change their minds.
I would suggest it doesn't work to try to move to the center on economics and appeal to upper
middle class or upper class voters. Suburban Republican women voted for Trump even though he was
obnoxious.
One needs to get the poor and working class politically active and involved in fighting for
their fair share as MLK was doing instead of relying on the noblesse oblige of wealthier classes.
The progressive neoliberals want to be Republican lite with their talk about opportunity and
entrepreneurship. That helps with wealthy donors but isn't a good long term strategy as it alienates
your working class base.
"
Socialists, [neo]liberals insist, are just as bad as
fascists.
[they claim that] Now is not the time to
criticize the Democrats. [neo]Liberalism is working.
Women and people of color who criticize identity politics are
rendered white men or called self-hating. Glenn Greenwald is
a Russian agent.
Leftists are accused of believing that only class
matters...
"... Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given for the last 40 years, losing this election. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place. ..."
So that's the story, or one story. But stories have morals. What moral does identity politics
offer?
Adolph Reed on identity politics[2]:
[I]t is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression
and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are
treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the
critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized
categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially
are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that
moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be
just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever
the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that
expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates
for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
So, if we ask an identitarian[3] whether shipping the Rust Belt's jobs off to China was fair -
the moral of the story - the answer we get is: "That depends. If the private equity firms that did
it were 12% black, 12% Latino, and half women, then yes." And that really is the answer that the
Clintonites give. And, to this day, they believe it's a winning one[4].
Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another
country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country
was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given
for the last 40 years, losing this election.
That's funny. Okay, I was soooo naive. I woke up finally in 2004 to the realization that the
"awful " people were the 01% including good friends. The Rest are trying to survive with dignity.
They are not awful.
The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the
1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the
subsequent cover-up of the crimes.
"My editor was dubious. I had been explaining that 50 years ago, in the spring and summer of
1933, Ukraine, the country of my forebears, had suffered a horrendous catastrophe. In a fertile,
populous country famed as the granary of Europe, a great famine had mowed down a sixth, a fifth
and in some regions even a fourth of the inhabitants. Natural forces – drought, flood, blight
– have been at least contributory causes of most famines. This one had been entirely man-made,
entirely the result of a dictator's genocidal policies. Its consequences, I said, are still being
felt.
Erudite, polyglot, herself a refugee from tyranny, the editor remained skeptical. "But isn't
all this ," she leaned back in her chair and smiled brightly, "isn't all this a bit recondite?"
My face must have flushed. Recondite? Suddenly I knew the impotent anger Jews and Armenians
have felt. Millions of my countrymen had been murdered, and their deaths were being dismissed
as obscure and little known.
Later I realized that the editor had said more than she had intended. The famine of 1933 was
rationalized and concealed when it was taking its toll, and it is still hidden away and trivialized
today. George Orwell need not have limited his observation to British intellectuals when he remarked
that "huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people,
have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles."_1_
Still later, after I had set about uncovering the whole story by delving into newspaper files
and archives and talking to people who had witnessed the events of 1933, I came to understand
how Walter Duranty and The New York Times helped Stalin make the famine recondite.
Walter Duranty worked for The New York Times for 21 years "
" The combination of ambiguous policy signals and the cult of secrecy could produce absurd
results , as when certain categories of officials could not be informed of relevant instructions
because the instructions were secret. In one blatant example, the theater censorship and the Ministry
of Enlightenment, headed by A. V. Lunacharsky, spent weeks arguing at cross purposes about Mikhail
Bulgakov's controversial play Days of the Turbins, despite the fact that the Politburo had instructed
the Ministry that the play could be staged, because "this decree was secret, known to only key
officials in the administration of art, and Lunacharsky was not at liberty to divulge it." [42]
A few years later, after Stalin had expressed strong views on cultural policy in a private
letter that had circulated widely, if unofficially, on the grapevine, Lunacharsky begged him to
allow publication of the letter so that people would know what the party line on art actually
was.
Some of Stalin's cultural signals were even more minimalist, involving telephone calls to writers
or other cultural figures whose content was then instantly broadcast on the Moscow and Leningrad
intelligentsia grapevine. A case in point was his unexpected telephone call to Bulgakov in 1930
in response to Bulgakov's letter complaining of mistreatment by theater and censorship officials.
The overt message of the call was one of encouragement to Bulgakov. By extension, the "signal"
to the non-Communist intelligentsia was that it was not Stalin who harrassed them but only lower-level
officials and militants who did not understand Stalin's policy.
This case is particularly interesting because the security police (GPU, at this date) monitored
the effectiveness of the signal. In his report on the impact of Stalin's call, a GPU agent noted
that the literary and artistic intelligentsia had been enormously impressed. "It's as if a dam
had burst and everyone around saw the true face of comrade Stalin. "People speak of Stalin's simplicity
and accessibility. They "talk of him warmly and with love, retelling in various versions the legendary
history with Bulgakov's letter." They say that Stalin is not to blame for the bad things that
happen: He follows the right line, but around him are scoundrels. These scoundrels persecuted
Bulgakov, one of the most talented Soviet writers. Various literary rascals were making a career
out of persecution of Bulgakov, and now Stalin has given them a slap in the face. [44]
The signals with Stalin's personal signature usually pointed in the direction of greater relaxation
and tolerance, not increased repression. This was surely not because Stalin inclined to the "soft
line," but rather because he preferred to avoid too close an association with hard-line policies
that were likely to be
unpopular with domestic and foreign opinion. His signals often involved a "good Tsar" message:
"the Tsar is benevolent; it is the wicked boyars (a member of the old aristocracy) who are responsible
for all the injustice." Sometimes this ploy seems to have worked, but in other cases the message
evoked popular skepticism.
When Stalin deplored the excesses of local officials during collectivization in a letter, "Dizzy
with success," published in Pravda in 1930, the initial response in the villages was often favorable.
After the famine, however, Stalin's "good Tsar" ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and
was even mocked by its intended audience
People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil
who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat
who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points.
Don't blame me. I voted Sanders. Hindsight is 2020.
Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance?
As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy
among a wider and wider circle of people.
The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics
is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy),
while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind.
But note that this is only because we insist on operating under the zero sum economics of monetarism.
Once this restriction is removed; once we acknowledge the power of the sovereign fiat, the zero
sum is left behind, and the either-or choices forced upon us by identity politics are no longer
necessary.
Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being
blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due
to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must
be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes
doing his thing.
An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars.
The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by
any measure, a "stretch."
Yes, well. We must all do our bid to perpetuate the State - even those of us who are too weak-kneed
to serve as cannon fodder (no disrespect intended, of course - just observing). After all, it's
only
thanks to liberal "democracy" that our betters were able to create this best/least-worst of
all possible worlds in the first place. Being bothered by those few remaining necessary egg-shells
just goes to show I'm in the right place.
Oh, good sir, those "necessary egg shells" are needed to settle the grounds of the strong coffee
required to energize the masses to continue the work designed to bring on the Dawn of the Neoliberal
dispensation!
You are in the "right place."
As for States; some years ago, Louisiana had a motto on their automobile license plates that read;
"Louisiana: A Dream State." Truth in advertising. That motto didn't last long.
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing
the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."
They believe their own fake news. Now they can't believe their lying eyes.
Difficult for me to believe the NYT originates "The Narrative" any more than Pravda or Izvestia
did so in the USSR. I am more receptive to the idea that its senior editors coordinate with upstream
sources to assure news coverage and opinion pieces are consistent with policies favored by the
administration and other senior government officials, as well as other selected constituencies.
Also of interest to me is what is occurring at the Washington Post in this regard.
There may well be truth to that idea. I recall
reading a blog post by a Swedish journalist who
did an article on the NY Times. He writes that they
have a building that none of their journalists are allowed
to enter as it is sometimes visited by important dignitaries
who negotiate how they will be covered. He gave
Gaddafi of Libya as an example. I suppose this is possible if
you fixing the narrative.
The Michael Cieply story reminds me of this (from 9/14/2016):
This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial
board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when
he successfully negotiated to be removed from "The Axis of Evil" list after 9/11. At that point
in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the
world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations.
Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable
coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor
and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors.
In retrospect, whatever "deal" that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating
article penned by Judith Miller didn't save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might
of the US air force.
Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times
was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller
spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered
by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor
was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed
to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller
also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in
daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would
personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election
coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would
make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public
eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).
Just an FYI, the reason that hardly any Americans featured in the Panama Papers was that Panama
was not a favored destination for US tax evaders. So the Times had nothing to protect.
I still think the story is evolutionary. In the sense that just as the central nervous system
of society, government, started as a privatized function and eventually evolved into a public
utility, for basic reasons of efficiency and scale, the financial system, as the medium and circulation
system of society, is going through a similar evolutionary process. The premise of vast notional
wealth, which is necessarily backed by debt, is insupportable, at its current levels, simply because
the debt is unsustainable. So collapse is inevitable and the only question is how well and quickly
we develop a viable alternative.
From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala:
"The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked
of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a
topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ," in the words of Hanson Baldwin, one of Dulles's
trusted friends at The New York Times . Nonetheless, reported Baldwin, the operation
had "global importance." This is precisely how Dulles liked his overseas exploits to be chronicled
– as entertaining espionage capers, with serious consequences for the Cold War struggle. New
York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was extremely accommodating to Dulles throughout
the covert operation, agreeing to keep foreign correspondent Sydney Gruson, whom Dulles considered
insufficiently compliant, out of Guatemala and even assuring the CIA director that Gruson's future
articles would be screened "with a great deal more care than usual."
The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and
poor. Those in between have no place.
The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor
as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only
a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place
in their governance.
For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth
News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone
hacking conspiracy, is authoritative.
The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important
context for understanding the current attempts to centralise control of the internet news narrative.
"... Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all ..."
"... When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed. ..."
"... With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. ..."
"... But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!? ..."
"... Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. ..."
"... This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. ..."
"... It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections. ..."
"... One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on. ..."
"... That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology. ..."
"... Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective. ..."
"... I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well. ..."
"... On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least. ..."
"... Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about. ..."
"... Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy . ..."
"... Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP]. ..."
"... Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility. ..."
"... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state. ..."
"... Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking. ..."
"... "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket." ..."
"... But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda? ..."
"... Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. ..."
"... Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion. ..."
"... Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs. ..."
"... There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism). ..."
"... This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way. ..."
"... But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation. ..."
"... Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore. ..."
"... The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is. ..."
"... Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate. ..."
"... PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. ..."
"... In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people. ..."
"... What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him. ..."
"... "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss." ..."
"... "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change" ..."
"... Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines? ..."
"... It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it. ..."
"... You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy. ..."
"... The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. ..."
"... Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes. ..."
"... Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left. ..."
"... On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population" ..."
"... The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality. ..."
"... You can see why liberals love identity politics. ..."
"... labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance. ..."
"... But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion. ..."
"... A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London. ..."
"... The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity). ..."
"... But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world. ..."
"... A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is. ..."
"... Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied. ..."
"... So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning. ..."
"... powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify ..."
"... Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican. ..."
"... When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster. ..."
"... So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties. ..."
"... I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well. ..."
"... But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer. ..."
Yves here. This piece gives a useful, real-world perspective on the issues discussed in
a seminal Adolph Reed article . Key section:
race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics
of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order
and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral
element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced
by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort
us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have
argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1%
of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of
the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were
LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously
the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least
significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
My take on this issue is that the neoliberal use of identity politics continue and extends the
cultural inculcation of individuals seeing themselves engaging with other in one-to-one transactions
(commerce, struggles over power and status) and has the effect of diverting their focus and energy
on seeing themselves as members of groups with common interests and operating that way, and in particular,
of seeing the role of money and property, which are social constructs, in power dynamics.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat
magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Originally posted at
MacroBusiness
Let's begin this little tale with a personal anecdote. Back in 1990 I met and fell in love with
a bisexual, African American ballerina. She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College
at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved
in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year.
I was fortunate to arrive at Smith during a period of intellectual tumult. It was the early years
of the US political correctness revolution when the academy was writhing through a post-structuralist
shift. Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around
truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy
was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements
that spawned gender and racial studies.
Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all
power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it,
and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed
to the objective existence of any truth at all .
... ... ...
The post-structural revolution transpired before and during the end of the Cold War just as the
collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice
impulse didn't die, it turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within
capitalism, empowered by control over the language that defined who they were.
Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded
every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new
emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead
to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned
into a cultural supermarket.
As the Left turned inwards, capitalism turned outwards and went truly, madly global, lifting previously
isolated nations into a single planet-wide market, pretty much all of it revolving around Americana
replete with its identity-branded products.
But, of course, this came at a cost. When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That
meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in
the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and
withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and
so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out,
and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed.
Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers
in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So
satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it
turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those
losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital
and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist".
This great confluence of forces reached its apogee in the Global Financial Crisis when a ribaldly
treasonous Wall St destroyed the American financial system just as America's first ever African American
President, Barack Obama, was elected . One might have expected this convergence to result in a revival
of some class politics. Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change" very much cultured in the vein
of seventies art and inherited a global capitalism that had just openly ravaged its most celebrated
host nation.
But alas, it was just a bit of "retro". With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned
to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A gobalisation like the one promised in the brochures, that benefited the majority via competition
and productivity gains, driven by trade and meritocracy, with counter-balanced private risk and public
equity.
But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the
bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of
the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines
to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime
be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!?
Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street
economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but,
let's face it, he had other priorities. And so the US working and middle classes, as well as
those worldwide, were sold another pup. Now more than ever, if they said say so they were quickly
shut down as "racist", "xenophobic", or "sexist".
Thus it came to pass that the global Left somehow did a complete back-flip and positioned itself
directly behind the same unreconstructed global capitalism that was still sucking the life from the
lower classes that it always had. Only now it was doing so with explicit public backing and with
an abandon it had not enjoyed since the roaring twenties.
Which brings us back to today. And we wonder how it is that an abuse-spouting guy like Donald
Trump can succeed Barack Obama. Trump is a member of the very same "trickle down" capitalist class
that ripped the income from US households. But he is smart enough, smarter than the Left at least,
to know that the decades long rage of the middle and working classes is a formidable political force
and has tapped it spectacularly to rise to power.
And, he has done more. He has also recognised that the Left's obsession with post-structural identity
politics has totally paralysed it. It is so traumatised and pre-occupied by his mis-use of the language
of power – the "racist", "sexist" and "xenophobic" comments – that it is further wedging itself from
its natural constituents every day.
Don't get me wrong, I am very doubtful that Trump will succeed with his proposed policies but
he has at least mentioned the elephant in the room, making the American worker visible again.
Returning to that innocent Aussie boy and his wild romp at Smith College, I might ask what he
would have made of all of this. None of the above should be taken as a repudiation of the experience
of racism or sexism. Indeed, the one thing I took away from Smith College over my lifetime was an
understanding at just how scarred by slavery are the generations of African Americans that lived
it and today inherit its memory (as well as other persecuted). I felt terribly inadequate before
that pain then and I remain so today.
But, if the global Left is to have any meaning in the future of the world, and I would argue that
the global Right will destroy us all if it doesn't, then it must get beyond post-structural paralysis
and go back to the future of fighting not just for social justice issues but for equity based upon
class. Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what
role government plays between them.
This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called
"Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics.
Essentially, the comment vividly displays the exact methodology the author lambasts in the
piece - it hijacks the discussion about an economic issue, attempts to turn it into a mere distraction
about semantics, and in the end contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the "discourse".
It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant
and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic
Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back
in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections.
One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration
and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few
people really understand what is going on.
Explained in more detail here if anyone interested in some truly 'out of the box' perspectives
– It's not 'the left' trying to take over the world and shut down free speech and all that other
bad stuff – it's 'the right'!! http://tinyurl.com/h4h2kay
.
Although I haven't yet read the article you posted, my "feeling" as I read this was that the
author inferred that the right was in the mix somehow, but it was primarily the fault of the left.
That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political
correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage
of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to
keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and
physical ecology.
Exactly. My guess is that this plays out somewhat like this:
Dems: This group _____ should be free to have _____ civil right.
Reps: NO. We are a society built on _____ tradition, no need to change that because it upends
our patriarchal, Christian, Caucasian power structure.
Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social
order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting
the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.
I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle
the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well.
Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which
is why it is so effective.
On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise
the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least.
When have they ever done any such thing? Vote for Hillary because she's a woman isn't even
any kind of politics it's more like marketing branding. It's the real thing. Taste great, less
filling. I'm loving it.
Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left'
or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes
and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling
the Liberal power politics which they are really about.
They exploit the happy historical accident of the coincidence of names. The Liberal ideology
was so called because it was slightly less right-wing than the Feudalism it displaced. In today's
terms however, it is not very liberal, and Neoliberalism is even less so.
If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate
the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they
indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call.
I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at
any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony
Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch. If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this
piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no
one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just
pursue identity politics. Amazing. I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then
make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on
their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every
established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion
of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.
Sigh . the left was marginalized and relentlessly hunted down by the right [grab bag of corporatists,
free marketers, neocons, evangelicals, and a whole cornucopia of wing nut ideologists (file under
creative class gig writers)].
Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and
an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private
ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain
dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian
crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy .
Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged]
the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation
via the Casino or RE [home and IP].
Yes, it's interesting that the academic "left" (aka liberals), who so prize language to accurately,
and to the finest degree distinguish 'this' from 'that', have avoided addressing the difference
between 'left' and 'liberal' and are content to leave the two terms interchangable.
The reason for that is that when academic leftists attempted a more in depth critique, of one
sort or another, of the actually existing historical liberal welfare state, the liberals threw
the "New Deal-under-siege" attack at them and attempted to shut them down.
There is very little left perspective in public. All this whining about identity politics is
not left either. It is reactionary. I can think of plenty of old labor left academics who have
done a much better job of wrapping their minds around why sex, gender, and race matter with respect
to all matters economic than this incessant childish whine. The "let me make you feel more comfortable"
denialism of Uncle Tom Reed.
Right now, I would say that these reactionaries don't want to hear from the academic left any
more than New Deal liberals did. Not going to stop them from blaming them for all their problems
though.
Maybe people should shoulder their own failures for a change. As for the Trumpertantrums, I
am totally not having them.
Since the writer led off talking about an academic setting, it would be useful to flesh out
a bit more how trends in academic theoretical discussion in the 70s and 80s reflected and reinforced
what was going on politically. He refers to postructuralism, which was certainly involved, but
doesn't give enough emphasis to how deliberately poststructuralists - and here I'm lumping together
writers like Lyotard, Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari - were all reacting to the failure of
French Maoism and Trotskyism to, as far as they were concerned, provide a satisfactory alternative
to Soviet Marxism.
As groups espousing those position flailed about in the 70s, the drive to maintain
hope in revolutionary prospects in the midst of macroeconomic stabilization and union reconciliation
to capitalism frequently brought out the worst sectarian tendencies. While writers like Andre Gorz bid adieu to the proletariat as an agent of change and tried to tread water as social democratic
reformists, the poststructuralists disjoined the critique of power from class analysis.
Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It
was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty
despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant
identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of
"grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people
joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow
them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility.
When imported to US academia, traditionally much more disengaged from organized politics than
their European counterparts, these tendencies flourished. Aside from being socially cut off from
increasingly anodyne political organizations, poststructuralists in the US often had backgrounds
with little orientation to history or social science research addressing class relations. To them
the experience of a much more immediate and palpable form of oppression through the use of language
offered an immediate critical target. This dovetailed perfectly with the legalistic use of state
power to end discrimination against various groups, A European disillusionment with class politics
helped to fortify an American evasion or ignorance of it.
There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats
– a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial
countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality.
The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending
the goal was to get to that state.
The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society
but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of
and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.
Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to
them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate
about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that
many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order
to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so
many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.
Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate
view of reality.
"Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and
rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself
back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated
itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference
that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket."
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went
further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing
it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed
the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against
the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic"
and "sexist". "
That is not it at all. The real reason is the right wing played white identity politics starting
with the southern strategy, and those running into the waiting arms of Trump today, took the poisoned
bait. Enter Bill Clinton.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming the academics
and the leftists and the wimmins and the N-ers.
But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are
smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why
then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda?
Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. I doubt more than half of them could define neoliberalism
much less describe how it has destroyed the country. They are mostly motivated by the identity
politics aspects.
Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus
national security and religion.
Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time
the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism
is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within
a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee
ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs.
There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?)
– it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then
patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority
claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism).
We live in a society where no one gets what they want. The Left sees the standard of living
fall and is powerless to stop it. The Right see the culture war lost 25 years ago and can't even
offer a public protest, let alone move things in a conservative direction. Instead we get the
agenda of the political Left to sell out at every opportunity. Plus we get the agenda of the political
Right of endless war and endless security state. Eventually the political Left and Right merge
and support the exact same things. Now when will the real Left and Right recognize their true
enemy and join forces against it? This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If
the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and
rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way.
But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and
are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act
of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps
the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation.
After all, the Left won the culture war and continues to push its agenda to extremes(even though
such extremes will guarantee a back lash that will send people running back to their closets to
hide). The Left still has the MSM media on its side when it comes to cultural issues. Thus the
Left is satisfied with the status quo, with gorging themselves on the crumbs which fall from the
1% table. Consequently, you not only have a political Left that has sold out, you also have the
rest of the Left content to accept that sell out so long as they get their symbolic victories
over their ancient enemy – the Right.
Until the Left recognize its true enemy, the fight will only come from the Right. During that
process more people will filter from the Left to the Right as the latter will offer the only hope
for change.
I think left and right as political shorthand is too limited. Perhaps the NC commentariat could
define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start
to take control of the framing. Hence we would have up-left, down-left, up-right, and down-right.
I would suggest that up and down could relate to environmental viewpoints.
Just a thought that I haven't given much thought, but it would be funny (to me at least) to
be able to quantify one's political stance in terms of radians.
Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site.
Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left"
in any meaningful way anymore.
This seems to assume that change is an intrinsic good, so that change produced by the right
will necessarily be improvement. Unfortunately, change for the worse is probably more likely than
change for the better under this regime. Equally unfortunately, we may have reached the point
where that is the only thing that will make people reconsider what constitutes a just society
and how to achieve it. In any case, this is where we are now.
The economic left sees its standard of living fall. The social right sees its
cultural verities fall.
The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the
left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's
a point here, if I can figure out what it is.
"He [Trump] was the only option for change and the Right took it."
You forget Bernie. The Left tried, and Bernie bowed out, not wanting to be another "Nader"
spoiler. Now, for 2020, the Left thinks it's the "their turn."
The problem is, the Left tends to blow it too (e.g. McGovern in 1972), in part because their
"language" also exudes power and tends to alienate other, more moderate, parts of the coalition
with arcane (and rather elitist) arguments from Derrida et. al.
Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting
for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on
racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate.
Trump is starting out with some rallies in the near-future. The Republicans in Congress think
they are going to play patty-cake on policy to push the Koch Brothers agenda. We are going to
see a populist who promised jobs duke it out publicly with small government austerity deficit
cutters. It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls out Republican Congressmen standing
in the way of his agenda by name.
PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. I n the 60's the Black churches
and the labor unions fought Jim Crow laws and explicit institutional discrimination. In the 70's
the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions
fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles,
real problems, real people.
[Tinfoil hat on)]
At the same time the reformist subset was losing themselves in style points, being 'nice',
and passive aggressive intimidation, the corporate community was promoting the anti-government
screech for the masses. That is, at the same time the people lost sight of government as their
counterweight to capital, the left elite was becoming the vile joke Limbaugh and the other talk
radio blowhards said they were. This may be coincidental timing, or their may be someone behind
the French connection and Hamilton Fish touring college campuses in the 80's promoting subjectivism.
It's true the question of 'how they feel' seems to loom large in discussions where social justice
used to be.
[Tinfoil hat off]
There are many words but no communication between the laboring masses and the specialist readers.
Fainting couch feminists have nothing to say to wives and mothers, the slippery redefinitions
out of non-white studies turn off people who work for a living, and the promotion of smaller and
more neurotic minorities are just more friction in a society growing steeper uphill.
"She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may
recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty
and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year."
I hate to be overly pedantic, but Smith College is one of the historically female colleges
known as the Seven Sisters: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe
College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. While Barnard is connected to Columbia,
and Radcliffe to Harvard, none of the other Sisters has ever been considered any part of the Ancient
Eight (Ivy League) schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton,
and Yale.
I find it highly doubtful that someone, unaware of this elementary fact, actually lived off
a beautiful bisexual black ballerina's (wonderful alliteration!) "old man's purse," for a full
year in Northampton, MA. He may well have dated briefly someone like this, but it strains credulity
that– after a full year in this environment– he would never have learned of the distinction between
the Seven Sisters and the Ivy League.
The truth of the matter is not so important. The black ballerina riff had two functions. First
it helped push an ethos for the author of openness and acceptance of various races and sexual
orientations. This is a highly charged subject and so accusations of racism, etc, are never far
away for someone pushing class over identity.
Second it served as a nice hook to get dawgs like me to read through the whole thing; which
was a very good article. Kind of like the opening paragraph of a Penthouse Forum entry, I was
hoping that the author would eventually elaborate on what happened when she pirouetted over him
What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set
his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen
to him.
I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either
Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, over several decades of knowing quite well many alumnae from Wellesley,
Smith, etc. I have never once heard them speak of their colleges as "Ivy League."
I do get your point, however. Perhaps Mr. Llewellyn-Smith was deliberately writing for a non-U.S.
audience, and chose to use "Ivy League" as synonymous with "prestigious." I have seen graduates
of Stanford, for example, described as "Ivy Leaguers" in the foreign press.
I think the gradual process whereby the left, or more specifically, the middle class left,
have been consumed by an intellectually vacant went hand in hand with what I found the bizarre
abandonment of interest by the left in economics and in public intellectualism. The manner in
which the left simply surrendered the intellectual arguments over issues like taxes and privatisation
and trade still puzzles me. I suspect it was related to a cleavage between middle class left wingers
and working class activists. They simple stopped talking the same language, so there was nobody
to shout 'stop' when the right simply colonised the most important areas of public policy and
shut down all discussion.*
A related issue is I think a strong authoritarianist strain which runs through some identity
politics. Its common to have liberals discuss how intolerant the religious or right wingers are
of intellectual discussion, but even try to question some of of the shibboleths of gender/race
discussions and you can immediately find yourself labelled a misogynist/homophobe/racist. Just
see some of the things you can get banned from the Guardian CIF for saying.
This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss. Democrat-bashing
is the new pastime.
Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change:
Caps on executive gains in terms of multiples in both public and private companies of a big
enough size. For example, the CEO at most can make 50 times the average salary. Something to that
effect. And any net income gains at the end of the year that are going to be dispersed as dividends,
must proportionally reach the internal laborers as well. Presto, a robust economy.
All employees must share in gains. You don't like it? Tough. The owner will still be rich.
Historically, executives topped out at 20-30 times average salary. Now it's normal for the
number to reach 500-2,000. It's absurd. As if a CEO is manufacturing products, marketing, and
selling them all by himself/herself. As if Tim Cook assembles iPhones and iMacs by hand and sells
them. As if Leslie Moonves writes, directs, acts in, and markets each show.
Put the redistributive mechanism in the private sphere as well as in government. Then America
will be great again.
Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of
the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders
banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some
basic guidelines?
It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together
with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything
remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here
I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it.
You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch
of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the
dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy.
As someone who grew up in and participated in those discussions:
1) It was "women's studies" back then. "Gender studies" is actually a major improvement in
how the issues are examined.
2) We'd already long since lost by then, and we were looking to make our own lives better.
Creating a space where we could have good sex and a minimum of violence was better. Reagan's election,
and his re-election, destroyed the Left.
I feel like this piece could use the yellow waders as well. Instead of simply repeating myself
every time these things come up, I proffer an annotation of a important paragraph, to give a sense
of what bothers me here.
The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the
Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison
detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, [a certain, largely liberal tendency in the
North American academy] turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities
within capitalism[, which, if you paid close attention to what was being called for, implied
and sometimes even outright demanded clear restraints be placed upon the power of capital in
order to meet those goals], empowered by control over the [images, public statements, and widespread
ideologies–i.e. discourse {which is about more than just language}] that defined who they were.
The post-structural turn was just as much about Derrida at Johns Hopkins as it was about Foucault
trying to demonstrate the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of power in the explicit context of
the May '68 events in France. The economy ground to a halt, and at one point de Gaulle was so
afraid of a violent revolution that he briefly left the country, leaving the government helpless
to do much of anything, until de Gaulle returned shortly thereafter.
Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to
articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism.
To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power
in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes.
A claim is being made here regarding the "global left" that clearly comes from a parochial,
North American perspective. Indian academics, for one, never abandoned political economy for identity
politics, especially since in India identity politics, religion, regionalism, castes, etc. were
always a concern and remain so. It seems rather odd to me that the other major current in academia
from the '90s on, namely postcolonialism, is entirely left out of this story, especially when
critiques of militarism and political economy were at the heart of it.
The saddest point of the events of '68 is that looking back society has never been so equal
as at that point in time. That was more or less the time of peak working class living standard
relative to the wealthy classes. It is no accident, at least in my book, that these mostly bourgeois
student activists have a tard at the end of their name in French: soixante-huitards.
In the Sixites the "Left" had control of the economic levers or power - and by Left I mean
those interested in smaller differences between the classes. There is no doubt the Cold War helped
the working classes as the wealthy knew it was in their interest to make capitalism a showcase
of rough egalitarianism. But during the 60's the RIght held cultural sway. It was Berkeley pushing
Free Speech and Lenny Bruce trying to break boundaries while the right tried to keep the Overton
Window as tight and squeaky clean as possible.
But now the "Right" in the sense of those who want to increase the difference between rich
and poor hold economic power while the Left police culture and speech. The provocateurs come from
the right nowadays as they run roughshod over the PC police and try to smash open the racial,
gender. and sexual orientation speech restrictions put in place as the left now control the Overton
Window.
The Left and Liberal are two different things entirely.
In the UK we have three parties:
Labour – the left
Liberal – middle/ liberal
Conservative – the right
Mapping this across to the US:
Labour – X
Liberal – Democrat
Conservative – Republican
The US has been conned from the start and has never had a real party of the Left.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century US ideas changed and the view of those
at the top was that it would be dangerous for the masses to get any real power, a liberal Democratic
party would suffice to listen to the wants of the masses and interpret them in a sensible way
in accordance with the interests of the wealthy.
We don't want the masses to vote for a clean slate redistribution of land and wealth for heaven's
sake.
In the UK the Liberals were descendents of the Whigs, an elitist Left (like the US Democrats).
Once everyone got the vote, a real Left Labour party appeared and the Whigs/Liberals faded
into insignificance.
It is much easier to see today's trends when you see liberals as an elitist Left.
They have just got so elitist they have lost touch with the working class.
The working class used to be their pet project, now it is other minorities like LGBT and immigration.
Liberals need a pet project to feel self-righteous and good about themselves but they come
from the elite and don't want any real distribution of wealth and privilege as they and their
children benefit from it themselves.
Liberals are the more caring side of the elite, but they care mainly about themselves rather
than wanting a really fair society.
They call themselves progressive, but they like progressing very slowly and never want to reach
their destination where there is real equality.
The US needs its version of the UK Labour party – a real Left – people who like Bernie Sanders
way of thinking should start one up, Bernie might even join up.
In the UK our three parties all went neo-liberal, we had three liberal parties!
No one really likes liberals and they take to hiding in the other two parties, you need to
be careful.
Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour party back where it belongs slowly.
Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on.
This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left.
On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world"
2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"
Doing the maths and assuming a straight line .
5.4 years until one person is as wealthy as poorest half of the world.
This is what the traditional left normally concentrate on, but as they have switched to identity
politics this inequality has gone through the roof. They were over-run by liberals.
Some more attention to the y-axis please.
The neoliberal view L
As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this
is equality.
left – traditional left – y-axis inequality
liberal – elitist left – x -axis inequality (this doesn't affect my background of wealth and privilege)
labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with
Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing
for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance.
Identity politics does make democrats lose. The message needs to be economic. It can have the
caveat that various sub groups will be paid special attention to, but if identity is the only
thing talked about then get used to right wing governments.
Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't
and what role government plays between them.
Empowerment is very much about capital, but the Left has never had the cajones to
stare down and take apart the Right's view of 'capital' as some kind of magical elixir that mysteriously
produces 'wealth'.
I ponder my own experiences, which many here probably share:
First: slogging through college(s), showing up to do a defined list of tasks (a 'job', if you
will) to be remunerated with some kind of payment/salary. That was actual 'work' in order to get
my hands on very small amounts of 'capital' (i.e., 'money').
Second: a few times, I just read up on science or looked at the stock pages and did a little
research, and then wrote checks that purchased stock shares in companies that seemed to be exploring
some intriguing technologies. In my case, I got lucky a few times, and presto! That simple act
of writing a few checks made me look like a smarty. Also, paid a few bills. But the simple
act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental
exertion.
Third: I have also had the experience of working (start ups) in situations where - literally!!!
- I made less in a day in salary than I'd have made if I'd simply taken a couple thousand dollars
and bought stock in the place I was working.
To summarize:
- I've had capital that I worked long and hard to obtain.
- I've had capital that took me a little research, about one minute to write a check, and brought
me a handsome amount of 'capital'. (Magic!)
- I've worked in situations in which I created MORE capital for others than I created for myself.
And the value of that capital expanded exponentially.
If the Left had a spine and some guts, it would offer a better analysis about what 'capital'
is, the myriad forms it can take, and why any of this matters.
Currently, the Left cannot explain to a whole lot of people why their hard work ended up in
other people's bank accounts. If they had to actually explain that process by which people's hard
work turned into fortunes for others, they'd have a few epiphanies about how wealth is actually
created, and whether some forms of wealth creation are more sustainable than other forms.
IMVHO, I never saw Hillary Clinton as able to address this elemental question of the nature
of wealth creation. The Left has not traditionally given a shrewd analysis of this core problem,
so the Right has been able to control this issue. Which is tragic, because the Right is trapped
in the hedge fund mentality, in the tight grip of realtors and mortgage brokers; they obsess on
assets, and asset classes, and resource extraction. When your mind is trapped by that kind of
thinking, you obsess on the tax code, and on how to use it to generate wealth for yourself. Enter
Trump.
One small correction: Smith is not an Ivy League school, it is one of the "Seven Sisters:
Ivy League:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale
Seven Sisters:
Barnard
Bryn Mawr
Mount Holyoke
Radcliffe
Smith
Vassar
Wellesley
A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and
the US is
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/
"Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division
of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London.
And let's not forget that identity politics arose in the first place because of genuine discrimination,
which still exists today. In forsaking identity politics in favor of one of class, we should not
forget the original reasons for the rise of the phenomena, however poorly employed by some of
its practitioners, and however mined by capitalism to give the semblance of tolerance and equality
while obscuring the reality of intolerance and inequality.
Trivially, I would think the last thing to do is adopt the "alt-" moniker, thereby cementing
the impression in the mind of the public that the two are in some sense similar.
The blogger Lord Keynes at Social Democracy for the 21st Century at blogspot suggests Realist
Left instead of alt-left. I think how people are using the term "identity politics" at the moment
isn't "actual anti-racism in policy and recruitment" but "pandering to various demographics to
get their loyalty and votes so that the party machine doesn't have to try and gain votes by doing
economic stuff that frightens donors, lobbyists and the media". Clinton improved the female vote
for Democratic president by 1 percentage point, and the black and Latino shares of the Republican
were unchanged from Romney in 2012. Thus, identity politics is not working when the economy needs
attention, even against the most offensive opponent.
So to repress class conflicts, the kleptocracy splintered them into opposition between racists
and POC, bigots and LGBTQ, patriarchal oppressors and women, etc., etc. The US state-authorized
parties used it for divide and rule. The left fell for it and neutered itself. Good. Fuck the
left.
Outside the Western bloc the left got supplanted with a more sensible opposition: between humans
and the overreaching state. That alternative view subsumes US-style identity politics in antidiscrimination
and cultural rights. It subsumes traditional class struggle in labor, migrant, and economic rights.
It reforms and improves discredited US constitutional rights, and integrates it all into the concepts
of peace and development. It's up and running with binding
law and authoritative
institutions
.
So good riddance to the old left and the new left.
Human rights have already replaced
them in the 80-plus per cent of the world represented by UNCTAD and the G-77. That's why the USA
fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach.
To All Commenters: thanks for the discussion. Many good, thoughtful ideas/perspectives.
Mine? Living in California (a minority white populace, broad economic engine, high living expenses
(and huge homeless population) and a leader in alternative energy: Trump is what happens when
you don't allow the "people" to vote for their preferred candidates (Bernie) and don't listen
to a select few voters in key electoral states (WI,MI,PA).
The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything").
If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely
wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity).
Hold this same election with different (multiple) candidates and the outcome is likely different.
In the end, we all need to work and demand a more fair and Just society. (Or California is likely
to secede.)
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence."
I can only imagine the glee of the wealthy feminists at Smith while they witnessed the white,
lunch pailed, working class American male thrown out of work and into the gutter of irrelevance
and despair. The perfect comeuppance for a demographic believed to be the arch-nemesis of women
and minorities. Nothing seems quite so fashionable at the moment as hating white male Republicans
that live outside of proper-thinking coastal enclaves of prosperity. Unfortunately I fail to see
how this attitude helps the country. Seems like more divide and conquer from our overlords on
high.
just more whining from the Weekly Standard. While men may have been disproportionately displaced
in jobs that require physical strength, many women (nurses?) likely lost their homes during the
Great Financial Scam and its fallout.
The enemy is a rigged political, financial, and judicial system.
Identity Politics gestated for a while before the 90s. Beginning with a backlash against Affirmative
Action in the 70s, the Left began to turn Liberal. East Coast intellectuals who were anxious they
would be precluded from entering the best schools may have been the catalyst (article from Jacobin
I think).
But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that
point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life
to the world.
A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!)
and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest.
Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally
started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition
bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which
seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something
is.
"Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political
philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing."
Well, I'll have a first go, since I was around at the time.
Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth,
and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically
the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense
that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment,
little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential
political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where
the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied.
Three things happened that made the Left completely unprepared for the counter-attack in the 1970s.
First, simple complacency. When Thatcher appeared, most people thought she'd escaped from a Monty
Python sketch. The idea that she might actually take power and use it was incredible.
Secondly, the endless factionalism and struggles for power within the Left, usually over arcane
points of ideology, mixed with vicious personal rivalries. The Left loves defeats, and picks over
them obsessively, looking for someone else to blame.
Third, the influence of 1968 and the turning away from the real world, towards LSD and the New
Age, and the search for dark and hidden truths and structures of power in the world. Fueled by
careless and superficial readings of bad translations of Foucault and Derrida, leftists discovered
an entire new intellectual continent into which they could extend their wars and feuds, which
was much more congenial, since it involved eviscerating each other, rather than seriously taking
on the forces of capitalism and the state.
And that's the very short version. We've been living with the consequences ever since. The
Left has been essentially powerless, and powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone
weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force,
with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify continuing, or it would have
no reason to exist.
So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I
respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning.
" powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is
why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest
in the problems it has chosen to identify "
Yes. As long as the doyens of identity politics don't have any real fear of being homeless
they can happily indulge in internecine warfare. It's a lot more fun than working to get $20/hour
for a bunch of snaggle-toothed guys who kind of don't like you.
I read: "Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based
around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the
US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil
rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies."
Of course, I have been a college professor since the late 1970s. On the other hand, I am a
physicist. The notion that truth is discourse is, in my opinion, daft, and says much about the
nature of the modern liberal arts, at least as understood by many undergraduates. I have actually
heard of the folks referenced in the above, and to my knowledge their influence in science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics–the academic fields that are in this century actually central*–is
negligible.
*Yes, I am in favor of a small number of students becoming professional historians, dramatists,
and composers, but the number of these is limited.
Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to
have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South,
where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican.
When that spreads to the rest
of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new
major disaster.
Second, some Democratic commentators appear to have assumed that if your forebearers
spoke Spanish, you can not be white. This belief is properly grouped with the belief that if your
forebearers spoke Gaelic or Italian, you were from one of the colored races of Europe (a phrase
that has faded into antiquity, but some of my friends specialize in American history of the relevant
period), and were therefore not White.
Identity politics is a losing strategy, as will it appears
be noticed by the losers only after it is too late.
An extremely important point, but overblown in a way that may reflect the author's background
and is certainly rhetorical.
So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation,
etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left
with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties.
That doesn't invalidate his point. If you want to see it in full-blown, unadorned action, try
Democrat sites like Salon and Raw Story. A factor he doesn't do justice to is the extreme self-righteousness
that accompanies it, supported, I suppose, by the very real injustices perpetrated against minorities
– and women, not a minority.
The whole thing is essentially a category error, so it would be nice to see a followup that
doesn't perpetuate the error. But it's valuable for stating the problem, which can be hard to
present, especially in the face of gales of self-righteousness.
Well said. An excellent attack on 'identity politics.'
I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well.
George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't
do very well.
But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer.
'Identity politics' is both more accurate, and more useful, a term than any alternative such as
racism, fascism, ethnonationalism, etc. It's just the identity in question is that of the majority.
Voters voted for Trump, or Brexit, because they identified with him, or it. In doing so, they
found that whatever they wanted is what that represents.
But the action always comes before the consequences; you can't get upset about Trump supporters
being called racists unless you already identify with them. The action is the choice of identity,
the consequence is the adoption of opinion.
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do?
Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman
Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?
The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade
voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or
as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This
strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...
This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of
Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his
financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of
economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer
work."
Does Finance care about bigotry?
Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable.
Home values could drop if too many blacks moved to a neighborhood so finance created red-lining
to protect their investments while promoting bigotry.
Finance is all in favor of tearing down minority neighborhoods or funding polluters in those neighborhoods
to protect investments in gated communities and white sundown towns.
Finance is often part of the problem, not the solution.
All of what you say is true but I have some contrarian/devil's advocate thoughts.
Some finance people are smart and have an enlightened self-interest. Think of Robert Rubin,
George Soros or Warren Buffet. They often back Democrats. Think of Chuck Schumer. Think of Hillary
Clinton's speeches to the banks.
Finance often knocks down walls and will back whatever makes a profit. Often though as you
say it conforms to prejudice and past practices, like red-lining.
I think of the lines from the Communist Manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal,
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his
"natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest,
than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour,
of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.
It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible
chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word,
for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless,
direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to
with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of
science, into its paid wage labourers."
But the cash nexus isn't enough spiritually or emotionally and when living standards stagnate
or decline, anxious people retreat into tribalism.
When I first glances at your question I immediately answered your query like you everyone here
did, 'no, finance does not care about bigotry except to the degree finance can profit from it.'
Then I realized there are too many assumptions contained in your question for me to respond
b/c I was thinking inside the box and not taking in all that impacts Finance and bigotry.
Your question assumes "Finance" is Private and for profit. But that is not true is it, since
there is Public, NGO, Charity, Socialistic, Communistic, et. al., Finance.
And, then there is the problem with the word "bigotry."
Your post makes clear to me that you are referring to American bigotry in housing, but that
means you ignore that "bigotry" exists largely from ones individual perspective, which we know
depends upon from where one sees it.
What I mean by that is Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc., all see and proclaim bigotry
in the USA but deny bigotry in their own countries.
If your point is simply that America Finance discriminates against people of color in Housing
or that such discrimination perpetuates bigotry then no one can disagree with you, imo, however,
your implication that that is done to perpetuate bigotry and racism is probably false since Finance
is amoral, looking to secure profit, and not out to discriminate against a particular group such
as people of color as long as they can profit.
"... "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people." ..."
"... And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him. ..."
"... I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election. ..."
"... And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%. ..."
"... You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about? ..."
"... Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together." ..."
"... I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here. ..."
"... I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama) ..."
The idea that people who are against capitalism (or neoliberalism, if you want) are also not
generally against patriarchy and racist colonialism ( as a system ) is obviously false.
On the contrary it's people who are 'into' identity politics who generally are not against
these things (again, as a system). People who are into identity politics are against racism and
sexism, sure, but seem to have little if any idea as to why these ideas came into being and what
social purposes they serve: they seem to think they are just arbitrary lifestyle choices, like
not liking people with red hair, or preferring The Beatles to the Rolling Stones or something.
And if this is true, all we have to do is 'persuade' people not to 'be racist' or 'be sexist'
and then the problem goes away. Hence dehistoricised (and, let's face it, depoliticised) 'political
correctness'. which seems to insist that as long as you don't, personally , call any African-American
the N word and don't use the C word when talking about women, all problems of racism and sexism
will be solved.
The inability to look at History, and social structures, and the history of social structures,
and the purpose of these structures as a pattern of domination, inevitably leads to Clintonism
(or, in the UK, Blairism), which, essentially, equals 'neoliberalism plus don't use the N word'.
I'm not going to argue directly with people because some people are obviously a bit angry about
this but the question is not whether or not sexism or homophobia are good things (they obviously
aren't): the question is whether or not fighting against these things are necessarily left-wing,
and the answer is: depends on how you do it. For example, in both cases we have seen right-wing
feminism ('spice girls feminism') and right wing gay rights (cf Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos)
which sees 'breaking the glass ceiling' for women and gays as being the key point of the struggle.
I know Americans got terribly excised about having the first American female President and that's
understandable for its symbolic value, but here in the UK we now have our second female Prime
Minister.
So what? Who gives a shit? What's changed (not least, what's changed for women?)?. Nothing.
Eventually you are going to get your first female President. You will probably even someday
get your first gay President. Both of them may be Republicans. Think about that.
What's wrong with -(from the NYT):
'Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face
a profound decision after last week's stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr.
Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them
– while always reminding the people that F face von Clownstick actually is a Fascistic Racist
Birther.
and at the same time (from E. Warren):
"He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American
people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need
to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the
high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure
and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that
their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy
for working people."
Straw man much, hidari? Just to pick a random example of someone who thinks these things are important,
Ursula le guin Sure she's never made any state,nets about systematic oppression, and economic
systems? The problem you have when you try to claim that these ideas "cameo to being" through
social and structural factors is that you're wrong.
Everyone knows rape is as old as sex, the idea it's a product of a distorted economic system
is a fiction produced by Beardy white dudes to shut the girls up until after the revolution.
Which is exactly what you "reformers" of liberalism, who think it has lost its way in the maze
of identity politics, want to do. Look at the response of people like rich puchalsky to BLM –
trying to pretend it's equivalent to the system of police violence directed against occupy, as
if violence against white people for protesting is the same as e murder of black people simply
for being in public.
It's facile, it's shallow and it's a desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced
to respond to issues outside the concerns of white rust belt men – it's no coincidence that this
uprising g of shallow complaints against identity politics from the hard left occurs at the same
time we see a rust belt reaction against the new left. And the reaction from the hard left will
be as destructive for the dems as the rust belt reaction is for the country.
nastywoman 11.17.16 at 8:04 am
– and what a 'feast' for historians this whole 'deal' must be?
– as there are all kind of fascinating thought experiment around this man who orders so loudly and
in fureign language a Pizza on you-tube.
And wasn't it time that our fellow Americans find out that Adolf Hitler not only ordered Pizza
or complained about his I-Phone – NO! – that he also is very upset that Trump also won the erection?
And there are endless possibilities for histerical conferences about who is the 'Cuter Fascist
– or what Neo Nazis in germany sometimes like to discuss: What if Hitler only would have done 'good'
fascistic things?
Wouldn't he be the role model for all of US?
Or – as there are so many other funny hypotheticals
1) And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social
justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him.
2) I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least
the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered
by her campaign and possible election.
And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide,
and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans
delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered
somewhere around 60-70%.
American feminism has catastrophically, an understatement, failed over the last couple
generations, and class had very much to do with it, upper middle class advanced degreed liberal
women largely followed Clinton's model, leaned in, and went for the bucks rather than reaching
ou to their non-college sisters in the Midwest. Kinda like Mao staying in Shanghai, or Lenin in
Zurich and expecting the Feminist Revolution to happen in the countryside while they profit.
Feminism, also playing to its base of upper middle class women, has also shifted its focus
from economic and labor force issues, to a range of social and sexuality issues that are of
less concern to most women. Personally, I feel betrayed. The male-female wage gap has not narrow
appreciably since the 1990s, glass ceilings are still in place and, for me most importantly,
horizontal sex segregation in the market for jobs that don't require a college degree, where
roughly 2/3 of American women compete, is unabated. I looked at the most recent BLS stats for
occupations by gender recently. Of the two aggregated categories of occupations that would
be characterized as 'blue collar' work, women represent a little over 2 and 3 percent respectively.
For specific occupations under those categories more than half (eyeballing) don't even include
a sufficient number of women to report.
Again, it isn't hard to see why. Upper middle class women can easily imagine themselves, or
their daughters, needing abortions. The possibility that that option would not be available is
a real fear. They do not worry that they or their daughters would be stuck for most of their adult
lives cashiering at Walmart, working in a call center, or doing any of the other boring, dead-end
pink-collar work which are the only options most women have. And they don't even think of blue-collar
work.
Which Marxists always have expected and why we strongly prefer that the UMC and bourgeois be
kept out of the Party. It's called opportunism and is connected to reformism, IOW, wanting to
keep the system, just replace the old bosses with your owm.
You backed the war-mongering plutocrat and handed the world to fascism. Can you show responsibility
and humility for even a week?
You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted
a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination,
but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general.
Who exactly are these people you are talking about?
reason 11.17.16 at 8:43 am
Of course Hidari might have had a point if he was making an argument
about campaign strategy and emphasis, but he seems to be saying more that that, or are I wrong?
Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the
Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not
sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years,
and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together."
basil 11.17.16 at 9:09 am
I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity
politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial
struggles – by capital and the state.
engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here.
CT's really weird on identity. Whose work are we thinking through? 'Gender'and 'Race' are political
constructions that are most explicitly economic in nature. There were no black people before racism
made certain bodies available for the inhumanity of enslavement, and thus the enrichment of the slaver
class. Commentators oughtn't, I don't think, write as if there are actually existing black and white
people. As Dorothy Roberts – Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race
in the 21st Century (and Paul Gilroy – Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color
Line, and Karen and Barbara Fields – Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, etc put
it, it is racism that creates and naturalises race. Of course liberalism's logics of governance,
the necessity of making bodies available for control and exploitation constantly reproduce and entrench
race (and gender).
I offered that racialised people, particularly those gendered as women/queer, the ones who have
been refused whiteness, are also super suspicious of these deployments of identity politics, especially
by non-subjugated persons who've a political project for which they are weaponising subordinated
identities. It really is abusive and exploitative.
We must listen better. As the racialised and gendered are pointing out, it is incredible that
it has taken the threat of Trump, and now their ascension for liberals to tune in to the violence
waged against racialised, gendered, queer lives and bodies by White Supremacy. History will remember
that #BLM (like the record deportations, the Clintons' actual-existing-but-to-liberals invisible
border wall, the Obamacare farce in the OP, de Blasio's undocumented persons list, Rahm in Chicago,
the employment of David Brock, Melania's nudes, the crushing poverty of racialised women, the exploitation
of those violated by Trump, the re-invasion and desecration of Native American territory) happened
under a liberal presidency. That liberal presidency responded to BLM with a Blue Lives Matter law.
This is evidence of liberalism's inherently violent attitude towards those it pretends to care about.
All this preceded Trump.
If you are for gender emancipation or anti-race/racism, be against these all the time, not just
to tar your temporary electoral foes. Be feminist when dancing Yemenis gendered as women – some of
the poorest, most vulnerable humans – are droned at weddings. Be feminist when Mexico's farmers gendered
as women are dying at NAFTA's hand. Be feminist when poor racialised queer teens are dying in the
streets as you celebrate the right of wealthy gays to marry. Be feminist and reject people who've
got multiple sexual violence accusations against them and those who help them cover these up and
shame the victims. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject people who glory in making war on poor
defenceless people. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject white nationalists gendered female who
call racialised groups 'super-predators' to court racists. Reject people who say of public welfare
improvements – it will never, ever happen, this is not Denmark. The people who need those services
the most are vulnerable humans, racialised and gendered as women. Never say that politicians who
put poor migrants in cages on isolated islands are nice people. They absolutely aren't. Some of this
is really easy.
These puerile rhetorical gestures reveal the people for whom 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday was simply
a glass ceiling left unbroken by a woman who launched a massive Yemeni bombing campaign. Perhaps
as a mechanic of coping, it has become incredibly sexy for a certain class of liberals to dodge
any responsibility for the lives they, too, have compromised. They aren't the same ones who have
to worry about who will be the first person to call them a terrorist faggot ..For the rest of
us, the victory of this fascist is a confirmation of the biases we have known all along, no matter
public liberal consciousness's inabilities to wrangle them into submission."
– and just a suggestion I have learned from touring the rust belt – waaay before it was as 'fashionable'
as it is right now.
While we in some hotel room in Scranton fought our Ideological fights -(we had a French Camera
Assistant who insisted that America one day will elect 'a Fascist like Hitler') –
the mechanic we had scheduled to interview about his Camaro SS for the next day – had exchanged
all the spark plucks of his car.
bob mcmanus above, I really think social justice and economic justice are bound together, and that Universal Healthcare,
for example, as a fundamental right is a basic feminist and anti-racist goal. Most particularly because
the vulnerability of these groups, their economic hardship, their very capacity to live, to survive
is at stake in a marketised health care system.
Racialised outcomes for ACA.
Similarly with marketised higher education and skills training. How cynical that HRC used HBCUs
to argue that racialised people would suffer from free public tertiary education!
Dorothy Roberts' work for example has interesting perspectives on how race is created in part
through the differentiated access to healthcare. They discuss how this plays out for both maternal
and child mortality, and for breast cancer survival. 'Oh, the evidence shows that racialised women
are more vulnerable to x condition'. Exactly, because a racist and marketised system denies them
necessary healthcare.
A funny thing about the new comment moderation regime is that you can get two people posting in
rapid succession saying pretty much opposite things like me then Hidari. It seems as if (although
again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something
like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though: patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism.
In fairness though, I think I understand what Hidari and engels are getting at. I know lots
of young people, women and people of colour, who probably fit their description in a way. They
are young, smart, probably a bit naive, and at least some of them probably from privileged backgrounds.
They appear driven by desire to succeed in a hierarchical academic system that still tends to
be dominated by white men at the upper levels, and they don't seem to question the system much,
at least not openly.
But can I just mention, some of our hosts here are actually fairly high up in that system.
Why aren't they being attacked as liberals or proponents of "identity politics"? Why is it only
when women or people of colour try to succeed in that very same academic system that it becomes
so wrong?
Another Nick, yes I can comment on that. I think it's fascinating that the old beardy leftists
and berniebros are fixated on Lena Dunham. Who else is fixated on Lena Dunham? The right bloggers,
who are inflamed with rage at everything she does. Who else is fixated on identity politics? The
right bloggers, who present it as everything wrong with the modern left, PC gone mad, censorship
etc. You guys should get together and have a party – you're made for each other.
Also, the Democrats don't have a "celebrity campaign mascot." So what are you actually talking
about?
basil @ 64
basil what in any conceivable world makes you think that feminists on CT don't know about the
issues you're talking about? I work in a school of public health and my entire work consists of
trying to address those sorts of issues, plus ecological sustainability.
Seriously this has all gone beyond straw-wo/manning. Some people here are talking to others
who exist only in their minds or something. The world's gone mad.
engels 11.17.16 at 12:06 pm
Umm Val and FaustusNoted, which part of-
identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're
all needed now more than ever.
-was unclear to you?
I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a
world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight,
female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that
has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism.
it often gets thrown around as a kind of all-encompassing epithet
Point taken-but there's really nothing I can do to stop other people misusing terms (until
the Dictatorship of the Prolerariat anyway :) )
Cranky Observer 11.17.16 at 12:27 pm
= = = faustnotes @ 4:14 am The reason these conservative Dems come from those states is
that those states don't support radical welfare provisions – they don't want other people getting
a free lunch, and value personal responsibility over welfarism. = = =
As long as you don't count enormous agricultural, highway, postal service, and military base subsidies
as any form of "welfare", sure. And that's not even counting the colossal expenditures on military
force and bribes in the Middle East to keep the diesel-fuel-to-corn unroofed chemical factory (i.e.
farming) industry running profitably. Apparently the Republicans who hate the US Postal Service with
a vengeance, for example, are unaware that in 40% of the land area of the United States FedEx, UPS,
etc turn over the 'last hundred mile' delivery to the USPS.
Ps I'm kind of surprised this thread has been allowed to go on so long but I'm going to bow out
now-feel free to continue trying to smear me behind my back
bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 12:35 pm
Would a real leftist let her daughter marry a hedge-fund trader?
I suppose they are a step above serial killers and child molesters, but c'mon. Quotes from Wiki,
rearranged in chronological order.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky used a wide variety of 419 scams. According to a federal
prosecutor, Mezvinsky conned using "just about every different kind of African-based scam we've ever
seen."[11] The scams promise that the victim will receive large profits, but first a small down payment
is required. To raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he
was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of former political contacts, dropping the name of
the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.[12]
In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank
fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud
"In July 2010, Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton in an interfaith ceremony in Rhinebeck, New York.[12]
The senior Clintons and Mezvinskys were friends in the 1990s ; their children met on a Renaissance
Weekend retreat in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina."
Subsequent to his graduations, he worked for eight years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs
before leaving to join a private equity firm, but later quit. In 2011, he co-founded a Manhattan-based
hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, with two longtime partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.[1][8]
In May 2016, The New York Times reported that the Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity Fund is said to
have lost nearly 90 percent of its value, [which equated to a 90% loss to investors] and sources
say it will be shutting down.[9][10] Emails discovered as part of Wikileaks' release of the "Podesta
emails" seemed to indicate that Mezvinsky had used his ties to the Clinton family to obtain investors
for his hedge fund through Clinton Foundation events.
Marcotte, Sady Doyle, Valenti, the Clinton operatives knew this stuff.
Prioritizing women's liberation over economic populism, just a little bit, doesn't quite cover
it. Buying fully into the most rapacious aspects of predatory capitalism is more lie it.
If Clinton is your champion, and I am still seeing sads at Jezebel, you have zero credilibity
on economic issues. She's one of the worst crooks to ever run for President. And we will see how
Obama fares on his immediate switch from President to his ambition to be a venture capitalist for
Silicon Valley. I'll bet Obama gets very very lucky!
Val @49 &
"they (at some confused and probably not fully conscious level) do seem to assume that violence
and oppression of women and people of colour never used to happen when white men (including white
working class men) had 'good jobs' .. patriarchy and racism predate neoliberalism by centuries."
"patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."
I think this framing is misleading, because you're historically comparing forms of oppression
with economic systems, rather than varieties of one or the other.
Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be something like: patriarchy and sexism are coeval with
classism and economic inequality?
What concretely are racism and sexism, after all, but ideologies dependent upon power inequalities,
and what are those but inequalities of social position (man, father) and wealth and ownership
that make possible that power difference? How could sexism or racism have existed without class
or inequality?
novakant 11.17.16 at 1:32 pm
I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all
candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama)
Strawman (I have heard a lot of times before):
nobody criticizes Clinton for being imperfect, people criticize her for being a terrible, terrible
candidate and the DNC establishment for supporting this terrible, terrible candidate: she lost
against TRUMP for goodness' sake.
bob mcmanus: "In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony
charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud "
Well, either I'm shocked to discover that Clinton was involved in her daughter's husband's
father's crimes some 20 years ago, or you've demonstrated that Clinton's daughter married a man
whose father was a crook. I'm guessing the latter, though I'm left wondering WTF that has to do
with Clinton's character.
engels 11.17.16 at 2:03 pm
One more:
"we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white men and a majority of white women,
across class lines, voted for a platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny,
xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth, militarism, torture, and policies
that blatantly maintain income inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against
Trump, with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton of any other demographic
(93 percent). It is an astounding number when we consider that her husband's administration oversaw
the virtual destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare, cutting food
stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving benefits, and denying former drug felons
and users access to public housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention
centers, and the fence on Mexico's border; a crime bill that escalated the war on drugs and accelerated
mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA and legislation deregulating financial institutions.
"Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been defeated, we still would
have had ample reason to worry about our future.
"I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump's victory. Nor am I dismissing
the white working class's very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus
racism or sexism versus fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies
operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would say, intersectionally."
https://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back
Bob, a real feminist would not tell her daughter who to marry.
You claim to be an intersectional feminist but you say things like this, and you blamed feminists
for white dudes voting for trump. Are you a parody account?
Michael Sullivan 11.17.16 at 2:41 pm
Mclaren @ 25 "As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes
were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented
those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive."
There may be ways in which the home ownership statistic is deceptive or fuzzy, but it's hard
for me to imagine this being one of them.
The definition you seem to imply for home ownership (somebody somewhere owns the home) would
result in by definition 100% home ownership every year.
I'm pretty sure that the measure is designed to look at whether one of the people who live
in a home actually owns it. Ok, let's stuff the pretty sure, etc. and use our friend google. So
turns out that the rate in question is the percentage of households where one of the people in
the household owns the apartment/house. If some banker or landlord buys a foreclosure and then
rents the house out, that will be captured in the homeownership rate.
Where that rate may understate issues is that it doesn't consider how many people are in a
household. So if lots of people are moving into their parent's basements, or renting rooms to/from
unrelated people in their houses, those people won't be counted as renters or homeowners, since
the rate tracks households, not people. Where that will be captured is in something called the
headship rate, and represents the ratio of households to adults. That number dropped by about
1.5% between the housing bust and the recession, and appears to be recovering or at worst near
bottom (mixed data from two different surveys) as of 2013. So, yes, the drop in home ownership
rate is probably understated (hence the headline of my source article below) somewhat, but not
enormously as you imply, and the difference is NOT foreclosures - unless they are purchased by
another owner occupier, they DO show up in the home ownership rate. The difference is larger average
households: more adults living with other adults.
engels @70, "I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want
to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black,
white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which
is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism."
So many prominent people and such a large majority of voters have be so completely wrong, so
many times, on everything, for a year that I really am not confident about making any strong political
claims anymore. However, it has opened me to possibilities I wouldn't have previously considered.
One is this: I'm beginning to wonder (not believe, wonder), if a lot of working class and lower-to-middle
middle class Americans, including a lot of the ones who didn't vote or who switched from Obama
to Trump (not including those who were always on the right) would already be on board, or in the
long run be able of getting on board, with the picture Engels paints at 70.
That possibility seems outrageous because we assume this general group are motivated *primarily*
by resentment against women and people of color. But the more I read news stories that directly
interview them–not the rally goers, but the others–the more it seems that they will side with
*almost anyone* who they think is on their side, and *against anyone* who they think has contempt
or indifference for them. Put another way: they are driven by equal opportunity resentment to
whatever prejudices serve their resentment, rather than by a deeply engrained, fixed, rigid, kind
of prejudice. (I have in mind a number of recent articles, but one thing that struck me is interviews
with racially diverse factory workers, with Latinos and women, who voted for Trump.)
I also begin to wonder if there is as much, if not more, resistance to wide solidarity among
the left than among this group of voters who aren't really committed to either party. I begin
to think that many on the left are strongly, deeply, viscerally opposed to the middle range working
class, period, and not *just* to the racism and sexism that are all too often found there. I worry
the Democrats' class contempt, their conservative disgust for their social, educational, professional,
and economic inferiors is growing–partly based in reasonable disgust at the horrendous excesses
of the right, but partly class-based, pathological, and subterranean, independent of that reasonable
side.
I say this not to justify Trump voters or non-voters or to vilify Democrats, but actually with
a bit of optimism. For a very long time even many on the far left has looked at the old Marxist
model of wide solidarity among the proletariat with skepticism. But I'm wondering if that skepticism
is still justified. I wonder if what stands in the way of a truly diverse working class movement
is not the right but the left. If they're ready, and we've not been paying attention.
Are we really faced with a working class that rejects diversity? Are we really opposing to
them a professional class that truly accepts diversity? Isn't there a kind of popular solidarity
appearing, in awkward and sometimes ugly ways, that is destroying the presumptions of that opposition?
engels 11.17.16 at 3:32 pm Cornel West:
In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and
escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten
to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. What is to be done? First we must try
to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals
lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed
with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling
in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous
exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build
multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global
warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties .
Val: "It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created
sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though, patriarchy
and sexism predate capitalism."
If Hidari is coming from a more-or-less mainline contemporary Marxist position, this is a misunderstanding
of their argument, which is no more a claim that capitalism "created sexism and racism" than it
would be a claim that capitalism created class antagonism. What's instead being suggested is that
just as capitalism has systematized a specific form of class antagonism (wage laborer vs.
capitalist) as a perceived default whose hegemony and expansion shapes our perception of all other
potential antagonisms as anachronistic exceptions, so it has done the same with specific forms
of sexism and racism, the forms we might call "patriarchy" and "white supremacy". In fact the
argument is typically that antagonisms like white vs. POC and man vs. woman function as normalized
exceptions to the normalized general antagonism of wage laborer vs. capitalist, a space where
the process known since Marx as "primitive accumulation" can take place through the dispossession
of women and POC (up to and including the dispossession of their very bodies) in what might otherwise
be considered flagrant violation of liberal norms.
As theorists like
Rosa Luxemburg and
Silvia Federici
have elaborated, this process of accumulation is absolutely essential to the continued functioning
of capitalism - the implication being that as much as capitalism and its ideologists pretend to
oppose oppressions like racism and sexism, it can never actually destroy these oppressions without
destroying its own social basis in the process. Hence neoliberal "identity politics", in which
changing the composition of the ruling elite (now the politician shaking hands with Netanyahu
on the latest multibillion-dollar arms deal can be a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name! now
the CEO of a company that employs teenaged girls to stitch T-shirts for 12 hours a day can be
a woman!) is ideologically akin to wholesale liberation, functions not as a way to destroy racism
and sexism but as a compromise gambit to preserve them.
Another Nick 11.17.16 at 4:01 pm f
austusnotes, I asked if you could comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice
of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot. ie. their strategy. What they were planning and
thinking? And how you think it played out for them?
Not a list of your favourite boogeymen.
"So what are you actually talking about?"
I was attempting to discuss the role of identity politics in the Clinton campaign. I asked
about Dunham because she was the most prominent of the celebrities employed by the Clinton campaign
to deploy identity politics. ie. she appeared most frequently in the media on their behalf.
Not seeing much discussion about actual policies there, economic or otherwise. It's really
just an entire interview based on identity politics. With bonus meta-commentary on identity politics.
Lena blames "white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look
past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves," for the election loss.
Why didn't the majority of white women vote for Hillary? Because they "hate themselves".
"... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
"... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
"... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
"... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued
for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple,
just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened
a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they
bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept
known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom
from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims,
who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology
Center
The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening.
When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger
for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if
she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"
The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it;
Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally
retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in
a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta
in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which
force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick
up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.
Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since
winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was
based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of
life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're
coming from:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully
unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind
of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd
barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and
doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy
about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally
important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through
the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"
On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always
one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black
people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they
passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city,
winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned
alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city,
and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities,
but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has
utterly collapsed."
^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical
degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts
aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to
that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the
job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of
mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks.
There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.
I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite
will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone
has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!"
Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away
white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit,
at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."
And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight
racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism
and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part
of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.
"... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
"... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
"... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
"... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
"... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
"... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
"... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
"... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
"... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
"... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
"... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
"... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
"... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
"... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
"... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
"... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
"... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
"... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
"... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
"... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
"... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
"... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
"... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
"... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
"... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming
too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election
fraud.
It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters
may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually
educating me. What you do is a valuable service.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine,
multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of
today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class,
and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.
And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud
mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie
Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.
"Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it
mean?
This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't
matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody
else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part
of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter
was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement,
or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have
done something about all the police killings in the first place.
Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable,
as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed
in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.
Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster;
see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time,
too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity
(and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).
I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other
identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future
feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement
offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is
going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.
In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers
argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast
majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding
of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald
Trump.
I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the
million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her
efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing
to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.
If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one
and all.
For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting
focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore
political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such
stratification.
Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence
of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice
be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.
I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender
etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.
"Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports
have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty
Law Center did not amount to hate crime.
All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS
whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our
masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining
our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to
me the fundamental strategic scene:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war,
and we're winning."
Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have
a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies
and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the
right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other
big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people
are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices,
pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all
right.
The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after
9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing
a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had
never seen his assailant before.
Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize
other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.
In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger"
public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign,
the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official.
Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876,
the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who
ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and
scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation
owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name
of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?
The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The
same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.
Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman
from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of
"tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.
Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is
actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy
that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into
elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real
common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.
If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush
II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy
crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.
When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.
Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources
out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact
that they're killing the host does not bother them.
Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not
corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental
basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound
by the Law).
The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the
tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of
their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money
system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational"
institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.
Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate
CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who
grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords
are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.
Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things
in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they
now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country.
How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is
under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more
successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak
differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.
It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can
go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.
Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as
a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.
Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders
No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind
of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of
color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood
dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.
I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected
to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life
is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've
given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.
Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide
us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated
the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy
which dare not speak its name.
yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election
because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because
they seem like another form of racism.
However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity
and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large
tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?
Perhaps
its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets
out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo
list.
For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and
then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any
possible non-racist motivations for his words.
Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely
different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness
do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think
he would have to be human first.
… whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump
was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon
in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.
Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from
time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed
to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.
"…what divides people rather than what unites people…"
Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity
remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the
American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political
force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since
the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.
Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will
continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed,
if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing
candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local
institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the
tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address
- or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic
nationalism.
It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to
electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist
sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the
concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the
Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand
of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive
to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism
to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the
thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together
women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important
if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment
nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing
that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds
between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.
And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent
President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people
to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and
"Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis
as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that
effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many
were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).
====================================================================
For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement
of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed
honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting
the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID,
OR WILL DO…
I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different
parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…
Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and
the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.
One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to
overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other
aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various
systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived
good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers,
infrastructure and support networks.
To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist
ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects,
where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest
for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist
or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm,
downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those
perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.
Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in
the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?).
In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and
reality shows and such gets strained.
Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance
became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That
led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced
our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would
be counter-intuitive by some in our media.
"... The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well. ..."
NYTimes still blames race on Trump's winning over Obama supporters in Iowa:
Trump clearly sensed the fragility of the coalition that Obama put
together - that the president's support in heavily white areas was built not
on racial egalitarianism but on a feeling of self-interest. Many white
Americans were no longer feeling that belonging to this coalition benefited
them.
Racial egalitarianism wasn't the reason for white support for Obama in 2008
and 2012 in Iowa. It reflected racial egalitarianism, but that support had to
do with perceived economic self-interest, just as the switch to Trump in 2016
did.
And what on earth is wrong with self-interest as a reason for voting?
Right. These corporatists use identity politics as a stalking horse to
rob the public blind, and then they spew invectives about racism and
mysogony wherever the public stops buying the bullcrap.
The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own
farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened
progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first
clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They
are not taking it well.
"... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
"... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
"... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
"... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
"... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
"... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
"... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
"... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
"... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
"... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
"... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
"... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
"... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
"... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
"... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
"... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
"... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
"... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
"... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
"... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
"... working class white women ..."
"... Obama is personally likeable ..."
"... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
"... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The
only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.
Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not
get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton
save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people
needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders
in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.
Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean
house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the
2004 elections.
I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or
Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.
"Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question
is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a
question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.
What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought
about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to
the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation,
either.
What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years
running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common
with working class people anywhere?
The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in
Congress.
Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?
What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They
already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not
underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.
The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political
power – because with power come blame.
I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point
to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and
made it happen (such as TPP).
We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's
understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously
there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump
out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist
whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to
stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist
siren call?
Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt
tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.
And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown
PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist.
(Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was
like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no
friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.
I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that
the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.
Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under
the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g.
Privateers at SSA.
My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over
the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees
a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more
parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.
She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to
do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their
butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad
places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her
class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they
don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of
which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of
the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids
end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.
Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary
kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.
On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick
the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So
the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told
we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?
The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and
in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know,
hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.
The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich
a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips,
a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part
of the 1%).
The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.
I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply
rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.
I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number
of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.
It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,
Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes
in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian
YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm
labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations
associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being
subservient to the planter capitalists locally.
Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed
independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina
and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and
the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class
system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic
groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".
One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure
in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers
or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of
classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that
of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th
century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and
often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict
the relationship to boss and worker.
Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people
without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes
it open season on a certain class of victims.
It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce
the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.
So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest
the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes
(true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights
of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of
wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and
interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike,
people do still care for each other.
This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both
black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts
because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized
by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile
mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure
in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's
politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.
It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that
hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of
the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that
19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid,
Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.
You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and
it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race
can be transcended in action.
Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems
is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important
segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal
and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens
and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National
Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting
what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they
would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.
Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history.
Link . The
unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was
for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle,
in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by,
Pablo O'Higgins , to
celebrate the accomplishment.
Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published
by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white
people here is a choice excerpt:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my
own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and
alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with
all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't
Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from
Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine
or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very
little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor
white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to
life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the
factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.
Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap
theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory
towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your
goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American
underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used
heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.
Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can
be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a
position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically
courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article,
and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that
will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is:
what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by
such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward
those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities
"stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt
whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white
America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial
chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.
[In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working
classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE
LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]
Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could
the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The
fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.
[So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of
crony capitalist enablers,]
I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get
away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for
rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across
as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.
If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers),
create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians
spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get
votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple
of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would
be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to
be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed.
It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature
of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).
The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA,
a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.
[[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve
more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity
politics]
Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity
politics? Privatized identity politics?
I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of
successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate
that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.
If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict
that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not
rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members
from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist
candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something
like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which
fails to address the power imbalance.
[This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic
system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]
For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to
today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in
America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original
Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England
and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own
resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.
Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and
later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites.
The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming,
all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always
someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction,
the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class
whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority"
would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote,
etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous
and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let
me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:
White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very
existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American
society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They
are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history,
whether we like it or not".
Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must
start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts.
The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive,
negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing
oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is
the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same
time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises
in pandering.
Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and
anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage
to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life
is getting shorter.
To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:
"To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists
"
IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT
won. And I concur.
This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016
was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
(Source:
US Election Atlas )
Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this
time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens
in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just
race.
Class played in several ways:
Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his
Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his
outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white
women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint
to offer.
Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.
If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim
that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply
cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.
The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the
crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all
over again.
Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working
class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media
mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black
'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the
one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.
Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.
Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class
blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set
the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the
Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.
that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree
that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example.
the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites,
too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators";
that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black
people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights
movement in the 60's.
I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that
we share class status.
That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.
Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the
UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.
It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?
I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.
Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics
as it is about to disappear.
I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the
UK working class with no political outlet.
Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools
but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.
How is this left?
Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower
down the scale.
It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class,
but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.
Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has
there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be
bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.
Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your
wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.
Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.
So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right),
but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.
Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into
hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative
of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.
Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is
still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.
Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming
the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History
tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the
activist class there are identity purity battles going on.
Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend
to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement
policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why
we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and
no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.
Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here
in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there.
I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be
free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.
Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I
may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.
"... when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on." ..."
"... Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums. ..."
"... I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism. ..."
"... There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure. ..."
"... Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts ..."
"... This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes. ..."
"... In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen. ..."
"... And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these. ..."
"... Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC. ..."
"... Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one. ..."
when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause
it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around
the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a
word about money.
That's why Hillary was so irrelevant and boring. If class
itself (money) becomes a topic of discussion, the free-market orgy will be
seen as a last ditch effort to keep the elite in a class by themselves by
"trading" stuff that can just as easily be made domestically, and just not
worth the effort anymore.
Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides
into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their
class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.
"The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class
division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough
to take them on."
I believe there is another aspect to the shift we are seeing, and it
is demographics.
Specifically deplorable demographics.
It should be noted that the deplorable generation, gen x, are very much a mixed racial cohort.
They have not participated in politics much because they have been under attack since they were
children. They have been ignored up to now.
Deplorable means wretched, poor.
This non participation is what has begun to change, and will accelerate for the next 20 years
and beyond.
Demographically speaking, with analysis of the numbers right now are approximately…
GEN GI and Silent Gen – 22,265,021
Baby Boomers 50,854,027
Gen X 90,010,283
Millenials 62,649,947 18 Years to 34
25,630,521 (12-17 Years old)
Total 88,280,468
Artist Gen 48,820,896 and growing…
* Using the Fourth Turning Cultural Demographic Measurement vs. the politically convenient,
MSM supported, propaganda demographics. They would NEVER do such a thing right? Sure.
Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties.
That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and
art museums.
Hi Yves – great post!
I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail
of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version
of feudalism.
I suspect that the working-class Trump voters in the Rust Belt will eventually disappointed in their
standard bearer, Transition Team staffing is any indication: e.g. Privateers back at SSA.
In the post-Reconstruction South poor whites and blacks alike were the victims
of political and legal institutions designed to create a divided and disenfranchised
work force for the benefit of landlords, capitalists and corporations. Poor whites
as well as poor blacks were ensnared in a system of sharecropping and debt peonage.
Poll taxes, literacy tests and other voter restrictions disenfranchised blacks
and almost all poor whites creating an electorate dominated by a white southern
gentry class.
Martin Luther King, Jr. clarified this at the end of his address at the conclusion of the Selma March
on March 25, 1965.
…You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in
the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied
with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro
slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.
Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known
as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the
former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not
only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive
the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.
To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated
society…. If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro
Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and
gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for
the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him
that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate
Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could
not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in
the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological
oblivion.
Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike resulted
in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they
segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity;
they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything.
That's what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great
society: a society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty
where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the
dignity and worth of human personality.
There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted
by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology
adopted by a society determines its class structure.
So much of todays discussion revolves around justifying the inappropriate use of
technology, it seems inevitable that only a major breakdown of essential technological
systems will afford the necessary space to address growing social problems.
E.F. Schumacher addressed all this in the 70's with his work on appropriate technologies. Revisiting
the ideas of human scale systems offers a way to actively and effectively deal with todays needs while
simultaneously trying to change larger perspectives and understanding of the citizenry. While Schumacher's
work was directed at developing countries, the impoverishment of the working class makes it relevant
in the US today.
Addressing our technology question honestly will lead to more productive changes in class structure
than taking on the class issue directly. Direct class confrontation is violent. Adopting human scale
technology is peaceful. In the end what stands for a good life will win out. I'm working for human scale.
Thought experiment: If you opposed Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin does that
make you a racist and a sexist?
Or, is it only when someone votes against a supposed liberal? And when Hillary
supported Cuomo over Teachout for NY Governor, none of her supporters labeled her
a Cuomobros.
Hillary received millions fewer votes than Obama because she was a seriously flawed candidate who
could not muster any excitement. The only reason she received 60 million is because she was running
against Trump. The play on identity politics was pure desperation.
"So this gave force to the idea that
the government was nothing but a viper's nest full
of crony capitalist enablers
, which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the
Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this
gave us Trump.
Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts
, which could have got
us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all."
I voted for Hillary, but it was not easy.
I agree that identity politics of the DNC variety have passed their pull date. Good riddance.
Here's another thought experiment: were voters who chose Obama over Hillary
in the 2008 primary sexists? Were Hillary's voters racists?
I don't think you give the Democratic establishment enough credit for obtuseness by characterizing
their identity politics play as "desperation". I have several sisters who were sucked in by Hillary's
"woman" card, and it made them less than receptive to hearing about her record of pay-for-play, proxy
warmongering, and baseless Russia-bashing.
And it turned people like me – who would choose a woman over a man, other things being equal –
into sexists for not backing Hillary (I voted for Stein).
Yes. If Hillary had been elected I felt like we would have been played by someone
who is corrupt and with no real interest in the working/middle class. We would
have slogged through another 4 years with someone who arrogantly had both a private
and public position and had no real interest in climate change (she was very pro
fracking), financial change (giving hour long $250,000 speeches to banks) or health
care (she laughed at the idea of single payer although that's what most people
want).
Sanders had opposite views on these 3 issues and would have been an advocate of real change which
is why he was so actively opposed by the establishment and very popular with the people as evidenced
by his huge rallies.
Trump was seen by many as the only real hope for some change. As mentioned previously we've already
seen 2 very beneficial outcomes of his being elected by things calming down with Syria and Russia and
with TPP apparently being dead in the water.
Another positive could be a change in the DOJ to go after white collar criminals of which we have
a lot.
Climate change is I think an important blind spot but he has shown the capacity to be flexible and
not as much of an ideologue as some. It's possible that as he sees some of his golf courses go under
water he could change his mind. It can be helpful if someone in power changes his mind on an important
issue as this can relate better to other doubters to come to the same conclusion.
Getting back to class I watched the 2003 movie Seabiscuit a few days ago. This film was set in the
depression period and had clips of FDR putting people back to work. It emphasized the dignity that this
restored to them. It's a tall order but I think that's what much of Trump's base is looking for.
Whilst I agree with the points made, there is a BIG miss for me.
Unless I missed it – where are the comments on corruption? This is not a partisan point of view,
but to make the issue entirely focussed on class misses the point that the game is rigged.
Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and
prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed
so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous.
The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt
at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it.
The vote for Trump was a vote against corrupt insiders. Maybe he will turn out to be the same.
To your point; dumbfounded that a country that proposes to be waging a "War on Drugs" pardons
home grown banking entities that laundered money for drug dealers.
If you or I attempted such foolishness – we'd be incarcerate in a heartbeat.
Monty Python (big fan), at it's most silly and sophomoric – could not write this stuff…
Yep – para 7. A bit of a passing reference to the embedded corruption
and payola for congress and the writing of laws by lobbyists.
And yes, war on drugs is pretty much a diversionary tactic to give the impression that the
rule of law is still in force. It is for you an me……. for the connected, corrupt, not so much!
This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure
construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case
do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and
bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition
to their corrupt regimes.
In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems
to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional
nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing
military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created
ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers.
This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream
media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed
Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the
pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential
campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did
not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.
What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated
by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground.
Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence
she has manipulated and inspired.
It seems to be clear the Democratic Party needs to purge itself of the Clinton – Obama influence.
Is Sanders' suggestion for the DNC head a good start or do we need to look elsewhere?
What are are getting now are attempts by the Dems (and let me state here I am not fan of the
Repubs – the distinction is a false one) to point to anything other than the problem that is right
in front of them.
What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen.
And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is
none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these.
There has been a coup I believe. The cooperation and melding of corporate and political power,
and the interchange of power players between the two has left the ordinary person nowhere to go.
This is not a left vs right, Dem vs Repub argument. Those are distinctions are there to keep us
busy and to provide the illusion.
Chris Hedges likend politics to American Pro Wrestling – that is what we are watching!
The idea that a guy who ran casinos in New Jersey, and whose background was
too murky to get a casino license in Nevada, will be the one to clean up corruption
in DC is a level of gullibility beyond my comprehension.
a lot of people out there need 10 baggers. I sure do.
Why work? I mean really. It sucks but what's your choice? The free market solution is to kill yourself
- that's what slaves could have done. If you don't like slavery, then just kill yourself! Why complain?
You're your own boss of "You Incorporated" and you can choose who to work for! Even nobody.
the 10-bagger should be just for billionaires. Even a millionaire has a hard time because there's
only so much you can lose before you're not a millionaire. Then you might have to work!
If most jobs didn't suck work wouldn't be so bad. That's the main thing, make jobs that don't suck
so you don't drown yourself in tattoos and drugs. It's amazing how many people have tattoos. Drugs are
less "deplorable" haha. Some are good - like alcohol, Xanax, Tylenol, red wine, beer, caffeine, sugar,
donuts, cake, cookies, chocolate. Some are bad, like the shlt stringy haired meth freaks take. If they
had good jobs it might give them something better to do,
How do you get good jobs and not shlt jobs? That's not entirely self evident. In the meantime, the
10 bagger at least gets you some breathing room so you can think about it. Even if you think for free,
it's OK since you don't have to work. Working gets in the way of a lot of stuff that you'd rather be
doing. Like nothing,
The amazing thing is this: no matter how much we whinge, whine, bitch moan, complain, rant, rail,
fulminate, gripe, huarrange (that mght be speled wrong), incite, joculate, kriticize, lambaste, malign,
naysay, prevaricate, query, ridicule, syllogize, temporize, ululate (even Baudelaire did that I red
on the internet), yell and (what can "Z" be? I don't want to have to look something up I'm too lazy,
how about "zenophobiasize" hahahahahahahah,
The amazing thing is: million of fkkkers want to come here and - get this! - THEY WON'T COMPLAIN
ABOUT ANY OF THE SHT WE DO!
""By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by
being a worker, than with the boss by being white."
Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking
his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic
woes caused in New York and DC.
Actually, too many white workers are racist, sexist, and think everyone is
a rabid Christian just like them. I ought to know because I live in red rural
Pennsylvania. I'm not mocking you folks, but I am greatly pissed off that you
just don't mind your own damn business and stop trying to force your beliefs
on others. And I don't want to hear that liberals are forcing their beliefs
on others; we're just asking you follow our laws and our Constitution when it
comes to liberty and justice for all.
And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant
list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended. One example is
the classic "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley. "Challenged in an Advanced Placement language composition
class at Cape Henlopen High School in Lewes, Del. (2014). Two school board members contend that while
the book has long been a staple in high school classrooms, students can now grasp the sexual and
drug-related references through a quick Internet search." Source: Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom,
May 2014, p. 80.
Quick internet search, my ass. Too many conservatives won't even use the internet to find real
facts because that would counter the right-wing meme.
And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies,"
I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles
because some parent is offended.
And for every liberal/progressive politician, I can give a you basket of shitty policies, such
as charter schools, shipping jobs overseas, cutting social security, austerity, the grand bargain,
Obamacare, drones, etc.
Great. So the library has a copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies." Or not. Who cares? The United
Colors of Benetton worldview doesn't matter a fig when I'm trying to pay for rising health care,
rent, College education, retirement costs, etc.
Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies
you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism
seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector
with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points
of either one.
It seems to me that you're referencing a certain historical model
of "liberal" that doesn't, nay, cannot exist anymore. A No-True-Scotsman
fallacy, as I see it.
We can only deal with what we have in play, not some pure historical
abstraction.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that a distinction can be made between neoliberal
and "real" liberalism. Both entities, however you want to differentiate/describe them, serve
as managers to capital. In other words, they just want to manage things, to fiddle with
the levers at the margin.
We need a transfer of power, not a new set of smart managers.
The right has spent a generation supporting rabidly bigoted media like Rush
Limbaugh and Fox News making sure the white working class blame all their ills
on immigrants, minorities, feminists and stirring up a Foaming Outrage of the
Week at what some sociology professor said at a tiny college somewhere.
Kiss up, kick down authoritarianism. It's never the fault of the people with all the money and
all the power who control their economic lives.
"... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
"... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
"... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
"... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
"... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
"... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
"... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
"... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
"... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
"... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
"... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
"... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
"... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
"... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
"... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
"... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going
to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton
loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter,
entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially
egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.
How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states
Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states
[Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.
Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins
into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and
win them;
the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when
it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both
the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin
means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society;
therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.
Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because
the following talking points prevent a
(vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is
then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!
Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism
The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist
yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.
First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats
.
Carl
Beijer :
From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring.
Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4
points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in
any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.
Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total
population numbers from the US Census):
Beijer interprets:
White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that
apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less.
Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more,
by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was
driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats
with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support
among people of color.
Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated
voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these
groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they
did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.
Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to
believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.
Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 .
The Washington Post :
These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House,
a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump
.
The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many
of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped
states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total,
but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)
Here's the chart:
And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the
black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me,
I suppose, to sexism.
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism
Here's an article showing the talking point from
Newsweek :
This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.
(The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist
yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim
might seem true :
On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent
to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the
surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.
There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what
they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:
In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with
white women without college degrees going for [Trump]
two to one .
So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim
to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum,
and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist.
Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of
the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor
Tina Brown is worth repeating:
Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played
in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate,
when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments
with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.
These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an
occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's
unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer
who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.
Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign
data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came
home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white
working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum.
They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers,
who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is
everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same
since his job at the factory went away" .
Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did
better than Obama in 2012). From
the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...
So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased
the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move
in opposite directions?
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity
Here's an example of this talking point from
Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:
Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally
And the lead:
OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated,
low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton
was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the
election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election,
college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw
something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected
a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.
The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid,
and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.
First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with
education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care
system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented
the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial
heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair
- college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the
political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.
Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories. From
The Week :
Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college
degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama
votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites.
Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.
So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they
voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to
believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they
are worth paying attention to.
By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns
in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the
horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left
priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism
against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush
I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC
coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to
debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the
general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire
high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that
repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.
Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed
like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.
* * *
All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is.
I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election
this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase
class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over
and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity
politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite
numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.
NOTES
[1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.
NOTE
You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More
myths are coming.
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
"No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be
important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear.
*snark
'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:
1) Blacks
for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't
tell me what to think.'
2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture,
pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella
I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted.
So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of
body and self.
My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going
to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian
says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share
of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family
incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states,
the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20
points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).
The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points.
Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012
by 2 points.
The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the
Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited
from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by
11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased
from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.
Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans
(3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class,
with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).
Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance
of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle
class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses
of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade
unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the
working class, regardless of race or gender.
"... my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language. ..."
"... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
"... But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree. ..."
"... The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp ..."
I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric
1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that
the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because
it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.
Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street
+ Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words
on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than
the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological.
Capital is Language.
2) Consider the above an intro to
Lauren
Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase
cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical
It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described
in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.
People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all
their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing
social relations
( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved.
We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)
"Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness.
Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word
salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message
increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful,
somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."
(Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase
the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem
I have with CT's new policy)
"You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says,
and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "
(If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two
year old and teenage guitarist understands)
"But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a
sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the
law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in
there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed,
or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means
"I feel unfree."
The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal
noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp
Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.
What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional
or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into
neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than,
say, just behaving well towards all of them.
And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed
ruthlessly.
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate
left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth
and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different
style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist
and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
"... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
"... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
"... European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying. ..."
"... A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class ..."
"... The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class. ..."
I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie
Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."
Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the
Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.
Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group
distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question,
for some, is what percentage?
The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for
globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"
Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency
as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or
undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.
These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards
successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of
a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west
coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans.
The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within
the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious
lines as it does elsewhere.
Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma
it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically
meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as
long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed,
the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other
such title.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the
causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups,
and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes
of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to
encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
Here's my take on this. The question
to ask is why has this happened? European workers have done much better in the new global
economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation
and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying.
A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which
has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class form a
reliable cadre of highly visible and highly vocal deplorables which even though slightly less
than half the population of those who bother to vote have virtually shut down democratic safeguards
which could have mitigated what has happened due to globalization. The combination of these
reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political
engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire
class.
... ... ...
Alesis 10.30.16 at 12:13 pm
A strategy that doesn't work inside the tent is DOA outside it. As it stands many liberals (largely
white and this is an important distinction) share with the right a deep discomfort with acknowledging
the centrality of racism to American politics.
Race is the foundational organizing principle
of American life and it represents a considerable strain to keep it in focus. Donald Trump will
win the majority of white voters as the racial resentment coalition has since the 1930s. An effective
strategy for the long term is focused on breaking that near century long hold.
I'd suggest the direct approach. Call racism what it is and ask white voters directly what
good it has done for them lately. Did railing against Mexican rapists brings any jobs back?
Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA.
That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case
that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character.
Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people
about whom they probably know almost nothing.
One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding.
This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view
of the electorate would be inconvenient.
Identity politics provides cover for, and diversion from, class rule and from the deeper structures
of class, race, gender, empire, and eco-cide that haunt American and global life today – structures
that place children of liberal white North Side Chicago professionals in posh 40 th -story
apartments overlooking scenic Lake Michigan while consigning children of felony-branded Black custodians
and fast food workers to cramped apartments in crime-ridden South Side neighborhoods where nearly
half the kids are growing up at less than half the federal government's notoriously inadequate poverty
level. Most of the Black kids in deeply impoverished and hyper-segregated neighborhoods like Woodlawn
and Englewood (South Side) or North Lawndale and Garfield Park (West Side) can forget not only about
going to a World Series game but even about watching one on television. Their parents don't have
cable and the Fox Sports 1 channel. There's few if any local restaurants and taverns with big-screen
televisions in safe walking distance from their homes. Major League Baseball ticket prices being
what they are, few of the South Side kids have even seen the White Sox – Chicago's South Side American
League team, whose ballpark lacks the affluent white and gentrified surroundings of Wrigley Field.
(Thanks in no small part to the urban social geography of race and class in Chicago, the White Sox
winning the World Series in 2005 – thei
... ... ...
There is, yes, I know, the problem of Democrats in the White House functioning to stifle social movements
and especially peace activism (the antiwar movement has still yet to recover from the Obama experience).
But there's more good news here about a Hillary presidency. Not all Democratic presidents are equally
good at shutting progressive activism down. As the likely Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein (for whom I took five minutes to early vote in a "contested state" three weeks ago) noted in
an interview with me last April (when the White Sox still held first place in their division), Hillary
Clinton will have considerably less capacity to deceive and bamboozle progressive and young workers
and citizens than Barack Obama enjoyed in 2007-08 . "Obama," Stein noted, was fairly new on the
scene. Hillary," by contrast, "has been a warmonger who never found a war she didn't love forever!"
Hillary's corporatist track record – ably documented in Doug Henwood's book
My
Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (her imperial track record receives equally
impressive treatment in Diana Johnstone's volume
Queen of Chaos:
The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ) – is also long and transparently bad. All that and
Mrs. Clinton's remarkable lacks of charisma and trustworthiness could be useful for left activism
and politics in coming years.
For what it's worth, the first and most urgent place to restore such activism and politics
is in the area where Barack Obama has been most deadening: foreign policy, also known (when conducted
by the U.S.) as imperialism. When it comes to prospects for World War III, it is by no means clear
that the saber-rattling, regime-changing, NATO-expanding, and Russia-baiting Hillary Clinton is the
"lesser evil" compared to the preposterous Trump. That's no small matter. During a friend's birthday
party the night the Cubs clinched the National League pennant, I asked fellow celebrants and inebriates
if they were prepared for the fundamental realignment of the space-time continuum that was coming
when the North Siders won the league championship. That was a joke, of course, but there's nothing
funny about the heightened chances of a real downward existential adjustment resulting from war between
nuclear superpowers when the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton gets into office and insists
on recklessly imposing a so-called no-fly zone over Russia-allied Syria.
"... In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy. ..."
Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question
is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this." Which suggests that he doesn't think the answer
is that simple. Perhaps he thinks "all lives matter," or that "blue lives matter," the phrasing
used by those who defend the status quo of policing and criminal justice. Either way, this puts
him in direct conflict with the black people he's befriended. As viewers, we know that "Black
Lives Matter" is a movement against police violence, for the essential safety and security of
black Americans. It's a demand for fair and equal treatment as citizens, as opposed to a pervasive
assumption of criminality.
Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the
fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers, then that's the end of the game.
Tucked into this six-minute sketch is a subtle and sophisticated analysis of American politics.
It's not that working blacks and working whites are unable to see the things they have in common;
it's that the material interests of the former-freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention,
and unjust killings-are in direct tension with the identity politics of the latter (as represented
in the sketch by the Trump hat). And in fact, if Hanks' character is a Trump supporter, then all
the personal goodwill in the world doesn't change the fact that his political preferences are
a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of his new friends, a fact they recognize.
What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who
espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times,
their lives (
hello, Brian Ogle! ).
Consider this insanity from Michigan State University, pointed out by a reader this morning. It's
the Facebook page of Which Side
Are You On? , radical student organization whose stated purpose is:
Michigan State University has chosen to remain silent on the issue of racial injustice and
police brutality. We demand that the administration release a statement in support of the Movement
for Black Lives; and, in doing so, affirms the value of the lives of its students, alumni, and
future Spartans of color while recognizing the alienation and oppression that they face on campus.
In the absence of open support, MSU is taking the side of the oppressor.
Got that? Either 100 percent agree with them, or you are a racist oppressor. It's fanatical, and
it's an example of bullying. But as we have seen over the past year, year and a half, Black Lives
Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated
with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality. If they were, this wouldn't be a hard call.
No decent person of any race supports police brutality. To use Bouie's terms, the material interests
of non-progressive white people are often in direct tension with the identity politics of many blacks
and their progressive non-black allies. This is true beyond racial identity politics. It's true of
LGBT identity politics also. But progressives can't see that, because to them, what they do is not
identity politics; it's just politics.
You cannot practice and extol identity politics for groups favored by progressives without
implicitly legitimizing identity politics for groups disfavored by progressives.
Some of my best friends are supporters of police brutality.
In all seriousness, if one's identity preference is for dominance by your group, then obviously,
a member of your group dominating the other group isn't going to bother you. Nor, on the other
side, will you be troubled if your group shoots perceived agents of the other side. But note,
the justification for racial primacy or racial supremacy is always rhetorically made by asserting
claims or the threat of racial primacy or racial supremacy by the Other. Further, racial tensions
are always caused by the behavior of the Other, and your groups actions are always "self defense".
Of course, your actions are always portrayed as "aggression" by the Other, and lead to ratcheting
up of anti-social behavior, but hey.
I sort of assume that is not how most whites feel, but the reality is whether it is or not,
if you turn the political question from legal equality for blacks to legal primacy or dominance,
then you will push whites into taking the adversary position.
In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate
the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics,
political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other
party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs
fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake.
Its a good way to destroy a democracy.
I love "Black Lives Matter" as a slogan, because it is ambiguous enough to be either a claim
for dominance or primacy. Obviously, whether a BLM will support the assertion "All Lives Matter"
is a litmus test for whether they are asserting racial supremacy or racial primacy. But plausible
deniability is baked in.
I don't mind identity politics, by which I assume you mean people appealing to voters to vote
for their pet interest because it will help people with a particular set of characteristics or
"identity". This is just people looking out for and lobbying the voting public on their interests,
which is what democracy is all about.
What I don't like is the stunning illogic and flawed reasoning behind some of the appeals,
such as the "you're either with BLM or against black people" arguments, the policing of miniscule
variations in speech (eg pronouns) as signs of haaaaaaaate, and the labeling of all white people
as "white supremacists" unless they self-flagellate and take personal blame for all the police
shootings. And, I think these people know that the reasoning is flawed. It's just that they also
know that if you repeat it long and loud enough and have enough leaders behind you willing to
fire or otherwise silence anyone who points out the flaws in your arguments, then you can convince
everyone that it all makes sense.
I think what is being lost is really the underlying logic of morality itself. Kids are being
taught that it doesn't matter what your intention is, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is,
it doesn't even matter whether an outcome is predictable from your action. What matters is how
the people in identity groups feel about your action. It's consequentialism run amok.
It's as if someone took Catholic reasoning on morality (grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate
consent, don't do wrong things in order to achieve good ends, principle of double effect), reversed
it, and then decided that this upside-down reasoning will be our new publicly mandated morality.
It's fascinating to watch but I feel a bit frightened for my children, because they will have
to deal with this new and deeply flawed public morality.
"Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock.
Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought
and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some
sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards
equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy."
For the most part, probably a fair observation. And it only took a couple of hundred years
(or more, depending on where you chose to say "white identity politics" started and when (or if)
you chose to say it ended).
Low long have black identity politics had any influence?
How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling
with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?
Will black identity politics be around longer than that? And when will white identity politics
end? Not to mention all of the other identity politics in society. But, identity politics always
takes at least two sides. You can never have identity politics without "the other." Black identity
politics wouldn't last without white identity politics, and vice versa. So too for feminism identity
politics, religious identity politics…and…so…on… Each has its counterpart on the other side.
In a perfect world, identity politics would not exist, but in the real world, they have existed
for as long as politics.
Not that I don't see some hope. By and large, the younger generation gives me every hope that,
some day, we might get over this, but probably not until a few score more generational replacements
happen. But that too, might be a source of reassurance. A few score generations isn't really that
long a time, after all.
How in the blue blazes do you possibly do you go from folks having confidence in the police
to them ALSO NOT being bothered by police brutality? How are those two things linked in your mind?
Can you not possibly fathom that another human being could have confidence in an institution (or
a group) while ALSO condemning the bad actors in that institution (or group)? Or in your mind
do a few bad actors condemn an entire group?
Here is your "logic" re-written in another way. Does it help you see my point?
61% of non-white people have either "very little" or a "no" of confidence in the police. I'm not
saying all 61% of those people are OK with attacking or murdering the police, but they seem not
to be that bothered by it.
Now possibly I am the only who finds your thought process disturbing and wonders how many other
folks make the same leap of absurdity.
In reply the religious liberty comments, I think almost everyone who supports BLM would say that
it is about giving African Americans basic human rights in the United States. You might not agree
with that, but that's how things stand from their point of view. To many liberals, religious liberty
seems like special pleading, even though to you it seems like the advancement of a universal principal.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing
another." Karl Marx
"All that is not race in this world is trash… All historical events… are only the expression
of the race's instinct of self-preservation." Adolf Hitler
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx
I do not think that all politics is "identity" politics.
The Populists going after the gold standard, or the New Dealers attempting to deal with the
problems of labor and capital, where not primarily about identity politics.
Certainly, there was lots of identity politics on the state level, whether in the South, or
in states like NY, in the battle between upstate WASPs and ethnic political machines in NYC.
Today we are increasingly nationalizing identity politics. Moreover, we are mainstreaming a
slogan based on racial primacy /supremacy, e.g. "Black Lives Matter". You are seeing increasing
attacks on traditional American symbols and calls for their replacement with "diverse" symbols.
This is not just identity politics, it is ethnopolitics.
The reality is that the political symbol is in the heart of the people a promise that they'll
be treated preferentially. I think that is part of the racial tension post-Obama. We elected an
African-American, who appointed a lot of African-Americans, but on the street, he hasn't done
$#!+ to help Blacks.
Now, if I thought that whites would just lay down and not resist racial subjugation and discrimination,
I wouldn't be concerned. But I doubt whites are seriously going to go gracefully into that good
night as the bottom rung of a racial caste system.
"Virtue signaling" is very different from "virtue"–you can't tell a white nationalist from
a white liberal based on their housing or dating preferences.
If whites collectively grow to FEAR other groups politically, say due to demographic displacement
and claims by minorities for primacy/supremacy, they will change teams overnight. All this anti-racism
rhetoric presupposes white noblese oblige and security.
Any serious movement from equality to some claim of primacy or supremacy is likely to trigger
a counter-movement toward a claim of primacy or supremacy by the other group. Moreover, once you
polarize racially, the political process encourages extremism, not moderation.
One reason not to worship the U.S. Constitution is the limited understanding of factionalism
by Madison, who accounted for interest group factions (which can break up or wax and wane) but
failed to consider identity group factions based on immutable characteristics. It is these identity-based
factions which frequently destroy attempts to create liberal democracy the world over.
The reality is that representative democracy is only an effective system in ethnically homogeneous
societies with a strong ethic of individualism (rooted in Protestant ancestors). While Korea and
Japan get along politically, their political systems are "different" from a Western perspective,
mostly due to lower levels of individualism.
China is probably a better model for most countries than liberal democracy, because multiethnic
societies generally degenerate into authoritarianism anyway.
This is why, given multiculturalism and secularism, the likelihood of a serious institutional
transformation in America seems increasingly a certain bet.
Here's the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.
We did it with 400 years of brutal policies, physical violence, economic apartheid and ill
conceived do gooder nonsense that could not even begin to counter the former impacts.
In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing
Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result
of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community
has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars.
We are incredibly lucky to JUST have Black Lives Matter. It's a miracle that the black community
hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with
automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.
It's a testament to their fortitude, generosity and patience as a people. That they have formed
this group is inevitable.
To lump BLM in with the white coddled SJW ignores their unique history and context. BLM has
no obligation whatsoever to be rational, or contrite, or forgiving, or magnanimous.
What has that ever gotten them in this country? Here's a hint, f%$k all. That's what it's gotten
them.
[NFR: Well, BLM can behave however it wants to, but don't be surprised if being irrational
and bullying gets you nowhere, except on campus run by noodle-spined administrators. - RD]
On the other hand, the notion of color-blind standards is a joke.
If you belong to a group that has an average IQ of 100 in economic competition with a group
that has an average IQ of 85, and you believe that hiring/firing be based on merit, you are promoting
a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.
Likewise, if you are from the second group, you are arguing for proportional representation
in the work force (and especially the elite), and you are promoting a standard that benefits your
group over the other guys.
If you look at Anglo-Saxons v. Blacks, Anglo-Saxons always want meritocracy.
However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were
competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. They also
generated a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming their failures on Jewish nepotism,
rather than say Jews just being smarter.
The problem for America is someone will decide on a standard, and that decision will privilege
one group over another. Always.
The more groups, the more divisive and polarizing each decision becomes, until democracy stops
being capable of functioning, e.g. making decisions, even bad ones.
You can have "racial equality", but not "racial equality" in accordance with a definition that
all groups will ever agree upon. Further, many persons in all groups will secretly desire supremacy
no matter the rhetoric, so will work to undermine and limit nominal "equality" every political
chance they get.
" A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy"
And what has it done? American social capital has been destroyed, our society is slowly turning
into an atomized hell, and our politics will increasingly resemble tribal warfare. The fiction
that we could make race irrelevant needs to die, group differences are real and ethnic tribalism
is hardwired into humans by our DNA. Our founders chose to limit citizenship to whites of good
character for a reason, just as Japan seeks to remain Japanese for a reason. Diversity + close
proximity = war
All politics is not identity politics. America has a rich tradition in positions of relative privilege
taking on the political cause of disenfranchised groups.
Given how many well off white people, including men, are Democrats, I really don't see why
progressives would even make that argument.
This article showed me how many people in the US live a completely different life than I do. Not
only did it change my understanding of race relations and prompt a great deal more study but it
made me more aware, generally, of how little I know of how the other 99.9% live.
Lots of hypocrites in this comment thread commenting that "identity politics is just politics,
period." Okay, white nationalism it is, then! Time to bring David Duke back out from whatever
rock he's been under and put him at the top of the ticket. Maybe Louis Farrakhan can run for something,
too. After all, why would anti-semitism ever go out of fashion, anyway! Isnt' that just identity
politics which is just regular politics, like marginal tax cuts and subsidies for electric cars?
-I don't think it's that difficult to understand the anger, stridency, and even vitriol coming
from SJW/BLM supporters. With BLM, it's a mostly righteous indignation over a long history of
abusive police tactics and laws, exploded by multiple recent captured instances of police abuse.
As for LGBTQ-issues, I think many advocates–especially those in the vanguard–view themselves
as participants in the Second Civil Rights Movement–that the laws and cultural attitudes they
are fighting against are analogous to Jim Crow and racism. There is some degree of truth to this.
The danger comes with the disturbingly common–or at least effective–practice of refusing to
grant their opponents *any* goodwill. Like racists, opponents of full legal and cultural inclusion–if
not acceptance–are deemed to be totally devoid of any redeeming features, and thus ought to be
opposed relentlessly and by any means necessary. The same goes for those who aren't indulgent
or repentant enough. We can partly thank the poisonous legacy of Marcuse's "tolerance" for this.
We can also thank old-fashioned lust for power–especially to take down "the elite" or to take
revenge–and the intoxicating feeling of being on the cutting edge of righteousness.
How do you deal with this? As KD suggested above, if one group sees itself as against others
and acts accordingly, then those others will fall into the "tribal struggle" mindset as well.
If extremist social justice advocates (SJAs) define themselves in opposition to other attitudes,
values, etc–and more importantly, if they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and are not
willing to compromise–then those who endorse those attitudes, values, etc will inevitably see
themselves as being defined through opposition to SJAs. Thus the poison of identity politics–it
exacerbates, rather than seeks to contain Us vs Them antagonism.
The only ways I see out of it are direct, full-throated defenses of SJA's targets–such as last
year's "Coddling of the American Mind" and U Chicago's defense of free expression and respectful
challenging debate. Ignoring it–as many seem wont to do by dismissals of "oh, they're just stupid
college kids, they'll grow out of it"–isn't viable because though many will, some will pursue
positions of power and influence. Besides, the less challenged, the more the extreme views will
be seen as respectable if not correct.
-The debate over which groups are or are not practicing identity politics: In (academic) political
theory, "identity politics" narrowly refers to a style of politics based on the self-organization
of *oppressed* groups and pursuit of policy changes to their advantage. Identity comes to the
forefront of members of oppressed groups' consciousness because it is that defining characteristic
that puts them in an inferior position.
The way some have described it here suggests it's more like practicing politics in a way meant
to provide benefits for oneself–but that's just self-interest. A better broad view of identity
politics would focus on the deliberate and open advocacy of benefits for a particular group one
is a member of, when that group is defined by a specific and fundamental trait relevant to one's
sense of self. In other words, if the phrase "As a (adjective) (personal-characteristic noun),
I believe/support/oppose X" is central to your approach to politics, you're practicing identity
politics.
JWJ, you are missing the entire point of identity politics.
The morality inheres in the identity, not in the behavior.
If brutality occurs, it is not a behavior, it is an identity ("Police"). If you are confident
in "Police" you are thus confident in "brutality" because the behavior is not separable from the
identity. And for similar reasons, your confidence in brutes means that you, too are a brute (of
course this goes double if you are white, since all whites are brutes, for similar reasons).
Identity politics is the refusal to separate identity from acts. Whiteness *is* slaveowning,
blackness *is* victimhood, and so on, regardless of whether one has ever owned or been a slave;
these things are irrelevant; they inhere in the identity.
How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling
with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?
But here's the problem. It's not like the whites who are supporting Trump got fat, rich and
happy during their period of "white identity." Whatever privilege attaches to whiteness it hasn't
exactly trickled down (even in a Trumped-up fashion) to Trump voters. No doubt Mr. Bonner is either
upper middle class or high status (academic, journalist or government employee). But low status
whites see the world a bit differently. This is the real tragedy (or, if you're a fat cat, the
beauty) of the situation. The lower classes will always fight among themselves for scraps, the
high status (but often low pay) elites would scold the various parties for their various thoughtcrimes
and the fat cats will high five and do the truffle shuffle, bouncing their greased bellies against
each other. Thanks for doing your part.
"Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment
from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the
anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side."
No, when correcting for crime rates, there is no racial discrepancy in police killings. In
fact, blacks are underrepresented and whites overrepresent, given the underlying proportion of
criminality in the communities.
"Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because
of the color of their skin is regress,
Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment.
"
Uh, Hilary "whites must listen" Clinton. And lots more.
"However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing
against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. "
Why shouldn't the people who, you know, built the universities remain in charge of them? No
one asks Brandeis to become a WASP bastion.
"In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority–
both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining
polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover
from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars"
LOL, someone's been drinking the TNC Kool-aid (purple, I imagine). It causes people to reverse
causality.
The neighborhoods were redlined because they were poor risk. They were poor risk because of
their demographic composition.
"It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this
country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure."
There's not one word in the BLM guiding principles page about the police. Not one word. If you
go to their home pager and click on "what we believe" this is what you get.
If we would look into how much blacks have been killed by the police last year, the figure will
be about few hundred at maximum. If we would look into the same category for whites, the result
will be few thouthands, minimum. If we look into the statistics abut the main cause of death for
the same period, it will be black on black homicide for blacks and car accident for whites. Also,
blacks are about 13% of the American population or so, but make at least as much homicides as
whites do. And most homicides are comitted within offenders race group.
If anything, whites become targets of poluce brutality much more often. And yet, BLM are out
there preching, as if police is hunting them for no reason. That's everything you need to know
about BLM and their so called care about black lives.
That's the main problems with such groups. They don't really want to improve the lot of the
groups they are supposedly fighting for. They are just exaggerating the problem and imitating
fighting for something important, because they'll get money and recognition for it. Without real
risk to boot.
The BLM radical movement is built on a lie. Blacks are 12% of the population yet commit 53% of
murders and 70% of gun crime. In this era of cell phones, know the number of black people who
have dubious interactions with police, thanks to the scandalous behavior of the news media. We
can be sure police brutality is not an epidemic because the examples offered as evidence are,at
best , dubious. Each example given, eg Ferguson Missouri or Trayvon Martin, are at best arguably
due to the bad behavior by the black person. The real epidemic is black crime, black fatherlessness,
and too many people indulging this "I'm a victim" culture. Shame on you Mr. Dreher for delineation
this into a black and white cipher in this article. The entire country suffers from this epidemic
of black crime and the false narrative that black people are mistreated by society. This is just
another example of the madness on the political left the radical extreme hateful positions that
are exposed on that side it seems solely.
"What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who
espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at
times, their lives (hello, Brian Ogle!)."
OK, livelihoods and interests I can understand even if there's the fact that if you're an average
white dude, an international student, a student with a soccer scholarship, an out of state student,
or a a legacy admission is just as likely to knock you out of your preferred school as a non-white
student is.
However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter
celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?
Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts,
etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth.
But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust
white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white
people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer
was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.
A moderate, peaceful, and democratic form of white identity politics that was widely representative
of the white population would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. The problem is that white
nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews, denying the holocaust, trying to justify
the Confederacy, attacking the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, and admiring various obscure
mid-20th century fascist/pseudo-fascist far right intellectuals. In that sense, white nationalists
are the equivalent of the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, as opposed to the NAACP
or BLM. That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites,
but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, antisemitism, or ethnic cleansing of whites.
Just watched the SNL skit. Best thing they have done all election season. It's important we understand
the motivations behind Trump's rise instead of pushing them under the surface where they fester.
I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even
liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their
own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity
politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating
to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
I agree that certain groups, especially at the university level, take into a totalitarian direction,
but casting some activism as "identity politics" while excluding other forms of special pleading
makes no sense to me.
I agree that *all* identity politics are a moral poison, white, black, Christian, Muslim, or anything
else. It is a sad fact of human nature that we are tribal and care more for people like ourselves.
This reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we are to follow the parable, then
we are to treat others of different religions and different countries exactly as if they our neighbors,
meaning as if they are in our tribe. This is quite the opposite of identity politics.
"freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings" for blacks…. are a
direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites.
I've moved things around a bit but in essence this is correct.
If I've got this wrong Rod, kindly let me know how.
Huh.
I didn't realize that oppressing blacks was such a huge industry for white people.
It seems somehow relevant in the context of this discussion.
I'm amazed. Truly and utterly amazed. The demand of blacks to be treated like citizens deserving
the respect and protection of the law and agents of the law like everyone else is "a direct threat
to the livelihoods and interests of many whites."
I mean, I know that white supremacy is a thing in the U.S., but is it really that ingrained
and tenacious? Really?
form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population
That's an oxymoron. No form of "white identity" politics would be or could be "widely representative
of the white population."
A lot of the black rhetoric we're getting lately is belated recognition that "black people"
don't really have enduring common interests that bind them all, and the defensive necessity to
provide safety for each other in the face of vicious and pervasive persecution just isn't really
strong enough to maintain a tenuous identity or unity much longer. As Jesse B. Semple remarked
when his "white boss" asked "What does The Negro want now?" … there are fifty eleven different
kinds of Negroes in the USA. That's even more true of "whites," always has been, and the hue an
cry that a bit of affirmative action is tantamount to creating a massive common race interest
is just nonsense.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
Because religion is a search for truth, and religious liberty affirms that there are lots of
different searches going on, which are neither binding upon nonbelievers, nor to be suppressed
by the skeptical or powerful?
It is nice to see America can laugh about things this year!
While we can be complain about SJWs and BLMs, doesn't the conservative movement need the same
exact lecture here? What was the speech that made Trump popular with Republicans? It was "Mexicans
are rapist" speech that originally made 35 – 40% of the party support him the summer of 2015.
(And Donald's speeches to African-Americans is not the way to win their votes either!)
I almost think the best thing for the Republican Party this year is for Trump to lose Texas
so the Party learns to better respect Hispanic-Americans. (Unlikely to happen though and Texas
is not turning blue long term.)
Jesse: "However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular
Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?
Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts,
etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth….
But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust
white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white
people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer
was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps."
+1,000.
I'd add that there are commentators, politicians, writers, etc. who seem to think that police
brutality is justified because of crime rates, as though the Constitution, not to mention just
basic fairness and protection against needless violence, applies only to the law-abiding.
"That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they
do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, "
If they did, they'd be working for the interests of whites.
[NFR: You longtime readers know that I reject M_Young's white identity politics. I want
to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual
identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his. - RD]
There is a literature on the collective behavior of groups in cooperation/competition models.
Groups (even artificial ones created by randomly assigning college undergraduates) will compete
to maximize their relative power against other groups, even if it leads to collectively a lower
standard of living (in other words, they would rather be relatively richer in a poorer world than
than relatively poorer in a richer world).
In interest group politics, say labor v. capital, you have groups which, while fighting each
other for power, are permeable. People move from one group or the other, and even if they don't,
it is possible to move.
Identity groups are based on putatively immutable characteristics. In identity politics, identity
groups struggle against each other for dominance. Claims can be of three varieties: equality ("All
Lives Matter"), primacy ("Black Lives Matter"), and dominance ("Only Black Lives Matter").
When political parties are defined on identity grounds, elections become censuses rather than
"free" elections. You vote for the party that represents your group, because you are afraid of
dominance by the other group. Further, you justify claims for primacy or dominance based on fears
about the relative power of the other group.
Political systems that polarize on identity end up in a census election where the winning coalition
of groups dominates the other groups, and the group in the electoral minority has no possibility
of exercising power. Because elections are censuses, and you don't have the numbers. What typically
happens is that minorities turn to violence, and often racial unrest results in military rule.
It is pretty clear that multiculturalism is precipitating the resurgence of identity politics,
and if we believe the polls, that trend is about to accelerate. Further, ethnic polarization of
one political party always triggers ethnic polarization in other parties, even over elite objections,
as it becomes necessary to appeal to voters.
This is why some version the Alt-Right represents the future of Conservative politics, even
if the Conservative Establishment doesn't like the Alt-Right. It is structural, and you see the
same type of political dynamic in Nigeria, Sri Lanka, post-Independence India, as well as places
like the Ottoman Empire or Germany.
What is fueling the Alt-Right is the policies around immigration and non-assimilation/multiculturalism,
combined with demands for racial primacy and racial dominance by minorities (e.g. safe spaces
where others are forcibly excluded).
It could be halted today, but instead we are doubling down on the root causes of ethnic anxieties.
Further, I don't know what would be "Left-Wing" about pushing whites into a white ethnic voting
block intended to subordinate opponents, given their majority status for a few decades, and even
as a plurality, they would have the largest plurality.
Much as many people desire "racial equality", when one group argues for "primacy", politically,
you are never going to get "equality" unless a rival group claims primacy for itself. This is
basic bargaining theory. Hence, the inevitability of white with egalitarian preferences going
over toward white nationalism. Unfortunately, the most probable result will be greater polarization,
not compromise.
P.S. Yes, I understand "racial primacy" for certain racial groups means "racial equality",
just as "war is peace".
"I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people,
even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting
their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity
politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating
to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?"
Exactly.
The phrase "identity politics" is meant to render illegitimate the concerns of the person who
is accused of practicing them. Thus, people don't have to grapple with the actual issue and see
whether or not there's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Rod spends a lot of time
here complaining about the failings of Black Lives Matter, and very little acknowledging that
they have a very legitimate issue that they are pushing to solve.
Religious liberty is not strictly identity politics, because religious affiliations in American
society are voluntary. However, religious preferences are pretty inelastic, so you have approximate
features of identity politics.
However, LGBT ideology claims "sexual orientation" is an immutable characteristic. So LGBT
is identity politics.
In some Islamic societies, apostacy is punished by death, so Islam is pretty immutable. So
in a strict Muslim society seeking to crack down on alcohol sales, the crack down would be an
exercise in identity politics, even if alcohol vendors weren't an identity group.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
Religious liberty is a universal freedom and it applies to all, including atheists and agnostics.
(and, contrary to the narrative, being itself a civic right, it doesn't impinge on other "civil
rights")
Identity politics, on the other hand, is the fostering of tribalism. It's a degrading thing: it
considers humans as dogs that have to bite at each other to get a greater share of the kibble
bowl.
If you look at politics post-independence in Trinidad and Guyana, or Sri Lanka, you see the emergence
of ethnic identity politics converting Communist and Socialist parties, and their leaders, from
universalist political programs to ethnic-based programs, depending on what ethnic groups they
derived more political support from.
Although, I suppose some people think that because America is majority white, the same kind
of political trends won't play out here. I think human nature is human nature, and identity politics
is identity politics, and the result is never good for someone.
"No decent person of any race supports police brutality"
I've known FAR too many "decent" middle and upper-middle class burb-dwellers who are perfectly
comfortable with police brutality. They believe that citizens get the policing they deserve. Rodney
King? "If you saw the entire tape, not just the excerpt on the evening news, you'd understand
why the officers acted that way". Black Lives Matter? "All they have to do is follow the law and
not disrespect the police". Unarmed, non-threatening, law-abiding minority killed by police? "There
must be more to the story".
moral blindness? all politics is identity politics. the fact that white, Christian, property-owning,
heterosexual, males looked out for their interests for the first 200+ years of the plutocracy
was identity politics in spades. the push-back from BLM, NOW, the LGBT community, and even Trump
supporters are as well. I had a very good History professor in the 80's. he taught politics is
merely a group or individual looking out for its vested, economic interests. the Karl Marx vs.
Adam Smith stuff (ideology) is merely a demographic extension of this. what you call identity
politics is more about the relationship between wealth and power, than left or right.
It is certainly a peculiar advance that in a country founded on identity color politics those
who have benefited and manipulated color politics to their advantage in every way --
are finding logical flaws in the very system they have created for themselves.
On its face - should raise serious doubts about the veracity of the complaint.
"No decent person of any race supports police brutality." Explain what you mean by "decent" person.
This is a term similar to the term "elites" be bandied about in this election without anyone saying
who they include in that group. All I get in response to my inquiries are quotations from dictionaries.
So, please explain what is meant by "decent person."
[NFR: If you believe it's okay for the police to brutalize people because of their race,
or to brutalize anyone, you are not a decent person, in my view. - RD]
This bit is much better than everything else SNL has commented on the 2016 election. I still think
SNL caters way too much to African American chauvinism though.
How much traction would BLM have if it were not funded by George Soros?, or any other identity
group if they had not been funded by billionaires with an interest in destabilizing the American
polity??
BTW, although it is not necessarily identity politics, the political principle that groups maximize
their relative power over say the welfare of the totality also explains the problem of elites.
All elites want to maximize their relative power over other groups, and so it is really competition
(e.g. fear of revolution or being conquered) that keeps them "honest", otherwise they will grind
the common man down to subsidence if they have the chance.
All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics.
Stop pretending otherwise. What else explains racialized chattel slavery and Jim crow and redlining
and so forth?
[NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come
as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of
people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats
blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that
progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]
…to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.
You're either ignorant of the context of that situation, or you're deliberately taking it out
of context. Roof was arrested by a tiny police department and held until the FBI showed up. He
was arrested after 10pm and had not eaten for a while. The police department didn't even have
the facilities to prepare a meal. Instead of automatically being suspicious, maybe you should
consider that the police were making sure to not do something that could harm the prosecution
in such an important case.
But that's how it's done, huh? Exaggerate things to the extreme, and then wonder why white
people don't understand.
"Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is
not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality."
Yep. It's also about Israeli "genocide" of Palestinians, if you haven't heard:
http://bit.ly/2eJeXDZ
I remember libertarians complaining in the aughts that it was almost impossible to partake
in antiwar demonstrations with the left because it was never about MERELY war. Environmental degradation,
environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen
as a mandatory part of what naive libertarians thought was the goal of simply extracting the US
military from the Middle East.
Ideology is a helluva thing. It's an all-encompassing worldview that looks bizarre to people
who aren't already steeped in one.
[NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as
a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people
fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks
as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress
towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]
Let me explain something to you too! I'd ask you to sit down, but you're probably already in
your fainting couch!
We have, sort of, in some parts of the country, in some ways moved away from white identity
politics! Just because white identity politics doesn't look like lynching doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.
All politics is identity politics! Why wouldn't it be? We create visions of the good and we
view it through our prism of identity. The fact that in our nation the axis about race doesn't
change that it does exist.
And no one is asking for 'blacks' to be treated as some chosen people – at even the most exaggerated,
most 'blacks' are asking for some acknowledgement that racial damage was done and it's going to
take racially conscious solutions (and some people like reparations!).
But also, here's the reality – the damage to large groups of people in this country was explicitly
because of who they were. Why would the solutions necessarily be universal?
If we both could have had 5, but then I was allowed to unfairly steal 4 from you, it wouldn't
then be fair if my solution to the problem was to give both of us 5 again.
Quote: Taken all in all, though, I am proud to call myself a philosemite, and even at low
points like the Spectator affair still, at the very least, an anti-antisemite. I recall the numberless
kindnesses I have received at the hands of Jews, friendships I treasure and lessons I have learnt.
I cherish those recollections.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."
The word 'steadily' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting here. It seems the distance from
full on Jim Crow to 'young bucks eating T bone steaks' is vanishingly small in historical time.
If we could quantify and graph the prevalence of white identity politics, would that graph be
pointing up or down?
The comment made above is entirely correct: identity politics is just ordinary politics. Anyone
who tells you differently is selling something.
"Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact
that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers,"
There's the BS right there. Doug might well admit that and accept it and still think that BLM
is full of crap. That's my position. Bouie doesn't get to own the conversation like that and neither
does BLM.
Just like the NRA doesn't get to claim that anyone who fails to bow to its agenda and policies
hates safety.
Just because I disagree with the Sierra Clubs position on zero-cut goals on public land do
they get to say I hate the earth?
"So the desire to be treated fairly is framed as identity politics?"
So black people want to be killed more often by police?
There's at least one famous study famously made famous in the NYT, by a really great black
economist from Harvard, indicating that black people are killed LESS often in interactions with
cops.
Yep. That data is limited and incomplete. But so is the data you prefer.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died
to end white supremacy… RD"
In fact, the idea of a biologically-based white supremacy never held the political or social
field to itself during the last two centuries in either Europe or America.
This was because it was contested by important currents of both Christian and liberal thought
on human equality. These ideas of Christian and liberal equality were powerful enough to sustain
the successful 60 year international campaign of the world's leading 19th century Empire. the
British, to abolish slavery and were as well a significant factor behind the U.S. civil war.
Any serious reading of the history of the late 19th and early 20th century reveals how ethnic
and "racial" conflicts were created and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians of that time and
how these "identities" contributed to the radical destabilization and destruction of domestic
and international peace.
The 20th century Nazis represented the apogee of "white" supremacy and their European and American
opponents in World War II repudiated with extreme force their odious race "science."
Contemporary identity politics seeks to reassert and re-legitimize a supposed biological basis
for political conflict. The historical evidence is clear that this is not a story that can in
any way end well.
Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people..
Chosen people that are still more likely to be the victims of police brutality. I'm pretty
sure they'd rather pass on being chosen and get on with being treated like everyone else.
You act as if "identity politics" only happens on the left. Small-o "orthodox Christians" are
a tribe who practice "identity politics." All politics is local, Tip O'Neill taught us. A corollary
of that is "all politics are tribal."
I (and other liberals) get dismissed as being nonsensical for wanting to be respected on the
basis of our identity, but the minute a Christian baker has to do business equally with a gay
person, it's tyranny.
What is the Benedict Option, if not Christian identity politics put into maximum effect?
The thing that infuriates me (and people like me) is the assumption that we are the "other"
and the view expressed here is the "default." As I see it, it's our tribe against yours. Your
right to lead is no more evident than mine. We fight for the right to lead. Someone wins, and
someone loses.
I realize this a conservative blog, but try approaching the other side as moral equals, instead
of with an a priori assumption that the left is tribal, and the right has the voice of G-d Himself
as their trumpeter of all that is good and true.
In any given society, the dominant majority defines the norm – in every area of life and culture
– by using themselves as the yardstick. They are normal, everybody different (and their different
stuff) is abnormal.
This is all perfectly natural. It's why there's pretty much no such thing as "white music"
or "white food" in America – whatever was traditional to whites was just called music and food.
If it comes from white culture, it doesn't get a special name, and it doesn't get widely recognized
as something specific to white people. It's just the norm.
This is why white identity politics isn't usually called white identity politics, yet any politics
arising out of a nonwhite experience is defined as abnormal and gets a special name.
Seen from any perspective other than the traditionally dominant one, it's rather clear that
the driving force on the American right has long been white identity politics. The Republican
Party didn't get over 90% white by accident. Some people may have the privilege of calling their
own politics the norm and assigning a name to the rest, but it's all identity politics whether
they want to see it or not.
Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question
is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this."
The beautiful thing about the skit is that it left all this hanging… it didn't try to write
the final outcome, but left a range of variables and a variety of possible outcomes to the viewer's
imagination.
The problem with over-analysis is that it erases this well done ending, by trying to pin down
exactly what the outcome is or was or would have been or should have been. Of course, each analysis
erases many possibilities, which is a form of vandalism.
In a small way, this reminds me of when I heard a woman state during Bible study that she likes
the New International Version because it makes everything clear. This cemented my late in life
preference for the King James Version, because by trying to make "everything clear," many nuances
and layers of meaning are erased. The KJV is sufficiently poetic, and sufficiently archaic, that
sometimes there may be five or ten or twenty layers of meaning there, and perhaps that is exactly
what God intended.
(Dain, the term "identity politics" was "coined" as much by Nigel Farage, who openly espouses
it, as it was by "the campus left.")
Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of
other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part…
This is a mislocation coined by the campus left… more precisely, by 1970s would-be Marxists,
who latched onto the fuzzy notion that Marxism explains everything and that culture is all a "superstructure"
resting on an economic "base." They then promulgated, spontaneously, not with much thought, that
whatever your pet issue is, Marxism will deliver the desired result. And the Maoist slogan "unite
the many to defeat the few" was best served by including everyone's favorite issue in one big
happy family of agendas. There was even a short-lived "Lavender and Red League." It doesn't work,
Marx and Mao may both be turning in their graves over such petty horse manure, Lenin would certainly
call it an infantile disorder, but nobody every accused the post-1970 would-be leftists of professionalism,
or profound strategic thinking, or even ability to articulate a coherent working class demand.
Joe the Plutocrat: "moral blindness? all politics is identity politics."
No, it can and should be a contest of universal principles and ideas. The Marxian idea that
such is just "false consciousness" is bunk and commits the genetic fallacy.
I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial
and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his.
Yeppers. Because if "people of color" can have their "safe spaces," off limits to white people,
then white people are utterly and completely justified in seeking "white spaces," off limits to
people of color.
The assertion is that since people of color have historically been oppressed, they now have
additional rights to request accommodations that would never be granted to their historic oppressors.
Nope. Don't work that way. What's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander – no matter
how many "microagressions' the geese detect.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."
Right… because both political parties in America are just so diverse. Oh wait, one's the white
people party and one is everyone else. In short, the everyone else party isn't the divisive one…
[NFR: It is in the nature of progressive protest movements that they portray all things
as having gotten no better, because if things *have* improved, it's harder for them to hold on
to power and raise money. That's what's happening here. Anybody who doesn't think white supremacy
and the identity politics that supported it is vastly weaker today than it was in 1960 is either
a fool, or willfully blind. - RD]
The original sin of conservatism is not giving "the other" equal rights and privileges. Whether
it is blacks getting shot by police, the war on drugs (that disproportionately affects the poor),
jim crow like immigration laws, not letting gays marry, not giving equal funding to poor school
districts or any of the other many inequalities conservatives want to perpetuate.
Nobody is "the chosen people" just because they gain some kind of right or privilege white
middle class straight people already have.
Thanks for the clarification. I had just assumed that the Narrative - the cops being buddy
buddy with Roof and getting him some BK in the middle of the day on the way back to Charleston
- was correct. I should have known better.
As an interesting comparison, look at the treatment of one Trenton Trenton (I kid you not)
Lovell, killer of LA Sheriff Deputy Steve Owen. Shot himself, he was patched up by paramedics,
sent to the hospital where he was treated at taxpayer expense, and when fit enough for trial,
arraigned.
Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's
right in front of their eyes.
This special pleading, I do not think it means what you think it does. BLM is not asking to
that African Americans be treated in a different fashion than anyone else. Rather, their argument
is that they are disproportionately burdened by the manner in which police interact with them
and that they are asking that they be just be treated the same as the majority of the country.
A basic argument for fairness and equality, in other words.
Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment
from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the
anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side.
Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because
of the color of their skin is regress,
Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment.
I'm sorry, but I appear to have missed the mainstreaming of black nationalism.
That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all
criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by
race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously
the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge.
The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War
had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from
the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to
screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core
of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten
her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer
points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.
"... Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country. ..."
"... Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things. ..."
"... As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one. ..."
Have you heard that Hillary Clinton is the "first woman" ever to be nominated for president by a
major political party? Of course you have. The media have repeated the line so often it is broken
news.
Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said
she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion
about the real issues facing the country.
To quote Clinton in another context, "what difference does it make" that she is a woman? A liberal
is a liberal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.
Must we go through an entire list of "firsts" before we get to someone who can solve our collective
problems, instead of making them worse? Many of those cheering this supposed progress in American
culture, which follows the historic election of the "first African-American president," are insincere,
if not disingenuous. Otherwise, they would have applauded the advancement of African-Americans like
Gen. Colin Powell, Justice Clarence Thomas, former one-term Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Sen. Tim Scott
(R-SC) and conservative women like Sarah Palin, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), former presidential
candidate Carly Fiorina, Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) and many others.
Immigrants who entered the country legally and became citizens are virtually ignored by the media.
They champion instead illegal immigrants and the liberals who support them.
The reason for this disparity in attitude and coverage is that conservative blacks, women and
Hispanics hold positions anathema to the left. Conservative African-Americans have been called all
kinds of derogatory names in an effort to get them to convert to liberal orthodoxy, and they're ostracized
if they don't convert. If conservative, a female is likely to be labeled a traitor to her gender,
or worse.
Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest
that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues
appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more
women who favor such things.
When it comes to accomplished conservative female leaders, one of the greatest and smartest of
our time was the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's consequential U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. As Jay Nordlinger wrote in his review of Peter Collier's book "Political Woman" for National
Review, "In a saner world, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have been lionized by feminists. She had risen
from the oil patch to the commanding heights of U.S. foreign policy. But her views were 'wrong.'"
Collier writes that Kirkpatrick, who was a Democrat most of her life, recalled feminist icon Gloria
Steinem once referring to her as "a female impersonator." Author Naomi Wolf called her "a woman without
a uterus" and claimed that she had been "unaffected by the experiences of the female body." Kirkpatrick
responded, "I have three kids, while she, when she made this comment had none."
The left gets away with these kinds of smears because they largely control the media and the message.
No Republican could escape shunning, or worse, if such language were employed against a female Democrat.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, born in Philadelphia to Philippine citizens, has written
about some of the printable things she's been called -- "race traitor," "white man's puppet," "Tokyo
Rose," "Aunt Tomasina."
As the cliche goes, if liberals didn't have a double standard, they would have no standards at
all.
There's an old joke about a woman with five children who was asked if she had it to do over again
would she have five kids. "Yes," she replied, "just not these five."
As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and
granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just
not this one.
"... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
"... And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected. ..."
"... Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just. ..."
"... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
"... When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone. ..."
PlutoniumKun is 100% on-target. Moreover, non-universal benefits have tremendous overhead cost
in terms of paperwork, qualifications, etc., while a universal benefit can be minimally bureaucratic.
I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but
universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the
U.S. racial situation.
On the baby bonds, it's foolish to have a "$50 endowment for a child of Bill Gates". Instead
it would be better to just provide $50,000 to ALL babies including Bill Gates' child, and tax
Bill Gates more.
As the saying goes, "programs for the poor are poor programs." Bill Gates' child should be
allowed to use the same public libraries, go to the same (free) public universities, etc. etc.
I doubt Bill Gates' child will need to take up the guaranteed job, but if he needs or wants to
(perhaps because of a quarrel with his parent) he should be able to.
And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal,
drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected.
Universality removes many of the privileges the rich enjoy - $50K for all babies including
Bill Gates child - and as privileges are dismantled in this way the remaining privileges of the
rich will stand all the more glaring for their unfairness - to all. Privileges like the selection
of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political
donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges
described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of
the just.
I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment,
but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving
the U.S. racial situation.
I've been thinking about this bit a lot. When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations,
he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone.
I don't recall any elaboration on his part, but I wondered at the time, how would they be allocated?
Full black, one-half black, one quarter, quadroon, octoroon, mulatto, 'yaller'? That's wholly
back to Jim Crow, or worse. I refer, of course to the
artificial division
of Huttus and Tutsis which, you may recall,
did not work out so well
. Barack Obama, would he qualify? None of his ancestors were slaves.
I am looking forward to the book by Darity and Muller, but they would have to do a lot of persuading
to get me to get comfy with reparations.
The country that gives every expecting mother a new baby package is Finland. They started the
practice in the 1930's when their infant mortality rate was at ten percent. Now they have one
of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.
"... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
"... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
"... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
"... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
"... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because
people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people
are voting for her.
That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work
hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.
Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler
Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more
unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.
Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists
argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety
- that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.
The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists,
but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in
the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman
and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.
On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't
been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.
A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things
as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many
voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism
and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class
front.
Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some
liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead,
not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent
Medium piece.
If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing
gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist
politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial
reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.
But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage
because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new
Pope has been talking about.
Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth
had to say about Trump.
urban legend said...
It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is
clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing
to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any
question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the
special protections of the state-created corporation.
It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by
natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and
corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the
creator of the corporations is the state.)
"... The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy. ..."
The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their
wealth and power.
Ours is an
Age of Fracture (the 2011 book by Daniel Rodgers) in which "earlier notions of history and society
that stressed solidity, collective institutions, and social circumstances gave way to a more individualized
human nature that emphasized choice, agency, performance, and desire."
A society that is fragmenting into cultural groups that are themselves fracturing into smaller
units of temporary and highly contingent solidarity is ideal for Elites bent on maintaining political
and financial control.
A society that has fragmented into a media-fed cultural war of hot-button identity-gender-religious
politics is a society that is incapable of resisting concentrations of power and wealth in the hands
of the few at the expense of the many.
If we set aside the authentic desire of individuals for equal rights and cultural liberation and
examine the political and financial ramifications of social fragmentation, we come face to face with
Christopher Lasch's insightful analysis on
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1996 book).
"The new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn
and apprehension.... Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly
shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends,
addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television.
They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing."
Extreme concentrations of wealth and power are incompatible with democracy, as Elites buy political
influence and promote cultural narratives that distract the citizenry with emotionally charged issues.
A focus on individual liberation from all constraints precludes an awareness of common economic-political
interests beyond the narrow boundaries of fragmenting culturally defined identities.
In a society stripped of broad-based social contracts and narratives that focus on the structural
forces dismantling democracy and social mobility, the Elites have a free hand to consolidate their
own personal wealth and power and use those tools to further fragment any potential political resistance
to their dominance.
The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their
wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way
left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate
our society and economy.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Michael McCaffrey
'Guardians of the Galaxy' (2014) Dir: James Gunn © Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 42 Follow RT on
The movie star has kept silent about his political beliefs, but the two-bit thought police Thanoses of Twitter think they can read his mind and believe he is an evil Trump supporter.
Monty Python's classic 'The Life of Brian' relentlessly mocked Christianity. Now we must do the same thing to the Church of Woke
Anti-Trump demonstrators march to Black Lives Matter plaza while joining a counter protest against "Million MAGA March" in Washington, DC © Getty Images / Probal Rashid/LightRocket 27 Follow RT on
In the left's victim culture, Eva Longoria's accused of 'anti-blackness' for calling Latinas the 'real heroines' in beating Trump
People of Vinnytsia searching for relatives among the exhumed victims of the Vinnytsia massacre , 1943
.svg/70px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1923%E2%80%931936).svg.png)
.svg/70px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1946-1956).svg.png)
Soviet Union portal
Video
Reagan ditched the Fairness Doctrine. Now his youth complain they're shunned by the politically-correct media. Clinton's Telecommunications Act let mergers trample the free press. Now it pains his wing that we read rants and conspiracy, instead of news.
Body Language - Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Accuser Dr Christine Blasey Ford
The out-of-nowhere sexual abuse claim concerning the Supreme Court nominee contains every alarming aspect of the #MeToo movement – and should make those on either side of the political divide shudder. Here's why. One caveat before we break it down: unlike many of the others weighing in, we do not pretend to know the truth of what happened (or did not) between Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. New facts may come to light and settle the case, but the damage described below happened before any of them were known. No evidence necessary
Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings. / Reuters
Ronan Farrow / Reuters
Christine Blasey Ford in her school yearbook.
Brett Kavanaugh, on the right, in his high school yearbook.
What Dianne Feinstein really cares about here is #MeToo / Reuters
Pure motivations: Asia Argento / Reuters
.svg)
.svg)
