Not only do the defectors regard these phenomenons as having been "rammed down workers'
throats" by the establishment, but they also want to discard the name "Communist" as "drawn
down to the dirt".
Almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö are resigning. Instead, they
plan establish a new workers' party that doesn't put as much emphasis on things like
multiculturalism, LGBT issues and climate alarmism, which have become the staples and rallying
calls of today's left.
Nils Littorin, one of the defectors,
explained to Lokaltidningen that today's left has become part of the elite and has
come to "dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic". Littorin suggested
that the left, as a movement, is going through a prolonged identity crisis and that his group,
instead, intends to stick to the original values, such as class warfare.
"They don't understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT
movement and Greta Thunberg are something fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s'
Germany and that workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been infected by some Nazi
sickness," he explained to Lokaltidningen.
The right-wingers' major gains from the working class are, according to Littorin, a token of
widespread dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to "low-wage competition"
and the "ghettoisation of communities", a development that "only benefits major companies".
According to Littorin, one of the underlying problems is a
"chaotic" immigration policy that has led to cultural clashes, segregation and exclusion
due to an uncontrolled influx from parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan
mentalities.
Littorin described multiculturalism, LGBT issues and the climate movement as state
ideologies that are "rammed down people's throats". According to him, phenomena like
LGBT-certification and the cult around 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg and "other
-isms" happen at the expense of the real issues, such as income equality.
"Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing with sexual orientation. We believe that
human dignity is primarily about having a job and having pension insurance that means that you
are not forced to live on crumbs when you are old," Littorin explained.
The goal, according to Littorin is to enter Malmö City Council by 2022. The name of the
party remains undetermined, but Littorin stressed that the word "Communist" will no longer be
present.
It's a word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In
communist parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain
avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests, instead of
asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never
been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in 100-year-old books. But
the principles that Marx formulated, they still apply to me," Littorin concluded.
Earlier this week, Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party expressed
similar
thoughts in an opinion piece called "Socialists don't belong to the left", accusing the
mainstream
left of completely abandoning
its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the
middle class".
Owing to its long-standing socialist traditions, Sweden currently has two active communist
parties , the Communist Party and the Swedish Communist Party, both dating back to the
1970s. Despite formally remaining loyal to Marxism-Leninism, the two are not on speaking terms.
Also, the Left Party, which unlike the two aforementioned ones has parliamentary
representation, was called the Communist Party for several decades.
"It is not pure idioticy that Biden pushes out such nonsense. From the view point of the
ruling class it makes sense to split the plebs along cultural ideological lines. As long as
they fight each other about access to bathrooms based on 'identity' they will be distracted
from recognizing that class discrimination and economic imbalances are the real problems
they should care to change."
While I completely agree that splitting the working class into warring factions is the
main purpose of liberalism (American liberalism of the last ~40 years, that is), I kinda
doubt that any of the proles care enough about the bathrooms.
The main liberal tools are 'anti-racism', multiculturalism, and 'anti-sexism'
('feminism').
All this homo and trans stuff is unnecessary overkill, imo. In fact, this is mostly a
way for liberals to eat their own.
"Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not
be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress
does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." LOL But you'd best know you'll be fired and
mistreated should you publicly express the opinion that people like Rachel Levine are
clearly disturbed and maybe shouldn't hold high office.
"When it comes to adults, outlawing discrimination on the basis of gender identity is
just as dangerous. There are good reasons why prisons, domestic violence refuges, certain
health services and even some beauty salons are exclusively for females. This is not to
discriminate irrationally against transgender people but to protect women who, in these
specific circumstances, are particularly vulnerable.
"Biden's executive order opens the door for men to access women's private spaces. It
makes it more difficult for medical professionals to direct advice about cervical smear
tests, contraception and abortion provision, or breast cancer checks, at the women they are
intended to help. It puts low-paid women who offer intimate beauty services at risk. And it
makes it far more difficult to measure accurately whether there are sex-based differences
in rates of pay or access to employment."
////
Stonebird @19--
The culprits in this case are hormone mimickers--chemicals that have the same appearance
as estrogen and testosterone, along with those hormones themselves which are put into the
ecosystem via the household toilet and industrial drains. What's more is the amounts
required to cause harm are far lower than the listed harmful levels--parts per billion
versus parts per million.
There actually was a case in British Columbia in 2019 in which a transgender woman
called Jessica Yaniv targeted beauty salons run by sole female owners, all of them
working-class and of Indian / Sikh backgrounds, and accused them of discriminating against
transgender individuals when they refused to wax Yaniv's genitals. The businesses clearly
advertised they served female clients only. One business was only a short walk away from a
larger salon that served male and female clients.
Initially when the court case became public, the Canadian general public was sympathetic
towards Yaniv until the lawyers for the women whose businesses had been targeted by Yaniv
took the unprecedented step, with their clients' consent, of revealing their identities.
Canadian public opinion then sided with the women. One of the women had had to close down
her business due to Yaniv's targeting.
At some point during the trial, information about Yaniv's Tweeting activities became
public, revealing this individual as racist and being obsessed with prepubescent girls.
I believe Yaniv lost in that case.
As can be seen even in this example, Identity Politics is being used to punish women,
and women from lower classes and disadvantaged backgrounds in particular.
Damn, I was born in the wrong era. Given this opportunity back in high school I
definitely would have "identified" as female and joined the girls' Greco-Roman
wrestling team.
According to this law hormone tests to determine eligibility will be unlawful.
"Identifying" as female is all it will take, and there are no tests to determine
identity. Identity is purely subjective. "Identity" is literally anything that the
individual wants it to be, and trying to assert otherwise is flaccid pseudoscience
nonsense.
Our host is correct. Girls' sports are now dead. It is just a matter of time before they
are overrun by XY "girls" . There are lots of incentives for boys to
"identify" as girls and no real disincentives, so why wouldn't they?
Contradictions stemming from western society's delusion metastasize.
US Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is calling out her party for pushing through a
new code of conduct that essentially denies women exist by requiring gender-neutral language in
Congressional rules.
"It's the height of hypocrisy for people who claim to be the champions of rights for
women to deny the very biological existence of women," Gabbard said on Monday night in an
interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
New guidelines introduced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday and passed Monday by
Congress in a party-line vote endeavor to "honor all gender identities" by making all
pronouns and references to familial relationships gender-neutral. For instance, "seamen"
has been changed to "seafarers," and House rules have been scrubbed of such words as
"father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister.""Aunt" and "uncle" will be
replaced by "parent's sibling." Lawmakers also must inculcate such words as
"parent-in-law,""stepsibling" and "sibling's child" to replace
"mother-in-law,""stepsister" and "niece.""He" or "she" references to House
members are instead "such member,""delegate" or "resident commissioner."
"It's mind-blowing because it shows just how out of touch with reality and the struggles
of everyday Americans people in Congress are," Gabbard said. "Also, their first act as
this new Congress could have been to make sure that elderly Americans are able to get the COVID
vaccine now , but instead of doing something that could actually help save people's lives,
they're choosing instead to say, 'Well, you can't say mother of father in any of this
congressional language.' It's astounding."
Congress also has made permanent its Office of Diversity and now requires all committees to
discuss in their oversight plans how they will address "inequities on the basis of race,
color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age or
national origin." Committees also must "survey the diversity of witness panels at
committee hearings to ensure we are hearing from diverse groups of experts as we craft
legislation."
Gabbard has run afoul of Democratic Party orthodoxy repeatedly in the past two years,
opposing the impeachment of President Donald Trump, speaking out against election fraud,
opposing regime-change wars and blasting the controversial Netflix movie 'Cuties' as "
child porn ." She
embarrassed party favorite Kamala Harris, now vice president-elect, in a Democrat presidential
debate in 2019, and the Iraq War veteran called former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the
" queen of warmongers
" after Clinton suggested that she's a Russian asset.
Gabbard, who didn't seek a new term in Congress, was attacked as a "transphobe" and
"bigot" after introducing a bill last month to limit participation in women's sports to
biological females. The movement to "deny the existence of biological women – it
defies common sense, it defies basic, established science, it just doesn't make any sense,"
she told Carlson on Monday.
"No wonder they called you a Russian spy," Carlson replied. "It's dangerous to
have you in the Democratic Party. I'm sorry you're leaving [Congress]."
Republicans praised Gabbard's latest contradiction of Democrat talking points. "Can we
please trade Mitt Romney for her?" one Twitter user asked. Brazilian entrepreneur Daniel
Gonzalez called her "the best Democrat since JFK."
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) was among the many Republicans who
opposed Pelosi's rules changes. "This is stupid," he said. "Signed, a father, son and
brother."
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.
Home / Articles / Culture
/ The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims CULTUREThe Transgender
Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims
Abigail Shrier's new book details the damage done to young girls. Lilly Curran (far right),
aged 11, is transgender and is part of a group of male to female trans kids living in the
Austin area. Photographed with trans friends Zuri Jones (2nd left), Fiana McKillop (2nd left),
and Ruby Ryan (not trans - 2nd right) on July 07, 2018, in Round Rock, Texas. (Adam Gray /
Barcroft Media via Getty Images / Barcroft Media via Getty Images)
In 2014, TIME magazine featured transgender actor Laverne Cox on the cover under the title
"The Transgender Tipping Point." A year later, in 2015, CNN announced the formal arrival of our
"transgender moment." In June of that year, Caitlyn Jenner's Vanity Fair cover made it
official. Trans was in, come hell or high water.
If 2015 was when the transgender moment began, Abigail Shrier's Irreversible
Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters , published last month by Regnery,
is a badly needed report card. Shrier's book reads like one we will look back at and point to
in the years to come for its prescience and prophetic warnings. Considering the vicious climate
surrounding the transgender debate, it took genuine courage for Shrier to write this book. She
is already being attacked as transphobic, and Amazon has refused to allow the book to be
advertised. Despite that, Irreversible Damage is no ideological screed. It is a measured
and relentless look at the damage the transgender movement has wrought in an unbelievably short
amount of time.
When Shrier uses the term "craze," she means it in the scientific sense. Rapid Onset Gender
Dysphoria (ROGD) is what Dr. Lisa Littman calls a "social contagion," and it primarily impacts
young girls. Just a short time ago, only .002% to .003% of girls in the U.S. identified as
transgender. Now, it is up to 2%, and Shrier told me that she believes the rate has spiked by
thousands of percentage points (in the UK, the number of girls identifying as trans has risen
by over 4000%). Most trans-identified youth used to be males -- that has reversed. In 2016, for
example, girls accounted for 46% of sex reassignment surgeries in the U.S. One year later, that
number had spiked to 70%.
In Littman's much-maligned 2018 study "Parent reports of adolescents and young adults
perceived to show signs of a rapid onset of gender dysphoria," she discovered that a full 70%
of trans teens belonged to a peer group in which one had already had already come out as trans,
and according to parents, a third of these had shown no sign of being dysphoric previously.
Despite the insistence of trans activists that this is simply "transphobia" on the part of the
parents, 85% of the parents surveyed were LGBT-supportive. But for asking questions, for
begging their daughters to delay puberty blockers and top surgeries, they are condemned by
trans activists as vicious bigots.
Shrier's interviews with the parents of trans children are heartbreaking. Many of the
parents pinpointed the Internet as the source of their child's interest in transgenderism --
Littman's study indicates that 65% of girls discovered transgenderism via social media -- and
wildly popular trans influencers are functioning as Pied Pipers calling on girls to "cut off"
parents who question their new identity. These parents, according to trans influencers, are
"toxic" and "unsafe" and will likely cause suicidal ideation. These parents, suggest the
transgender stars of YouTube, can be replaced by other trans folk -- "your glitter family."
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.398.1_en.html#goog_1073800747 00:51 / 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
Trans influencers are generally young and incredibly charismatic, producing how-to videos
and running vlogs that rack up hundreds of thousands of views. Shrier notes a consistent series
of mantras: If you think you might be trans, you are; binders (compression sleeves to flatten
the breasts to "pass" as male) are a great way to try it out; if your parents actually loved
you, they'd support you; if you don't get support, you'll probably kill yourself; and lying to
doctors is okay if it helps you transition. Trans influencers help girls purchase binders
online, explain what to say to doctors and therapists in order to get diagnosed as trans, and
lay out how to get testosterone, colloquially referred to as "T." There are over 6,000 videos
explaining how to inject "T," and all assure the viewer that it is amazing.
Although trans activists insist that puberty blockers are safe, the evidence Shrier cites
suggests otherwise. Puberty blockers have an impact on brain development, reduce the density of
bones, and stunt growth. They risk barring the user from reaching peak IQ, inhibit sexual
function, thicken the blood, raise risk of heart attack by up to five times, create a higher
risk of diabetes, blood clots, and cancer, and can result in vaginal atrophy. They also
transform the natural development of the genitals. After taking testosterone for awhile, young
girls may see their clitoris grow to the size of a baby carrot. After a few months, girls grow
body hair and beards, their voice will lower, and they'll get acne and sometimes male-pattern
baldness. The nose will generally round, the jaw will square, and muscles will become
pronounced. Sex becomes painful, if not impossible. Some of the changes are permanent: even if
girls stop taking testosterone, the body and facial hair will probably stay, as will the
enlarged clitoris.
Breast binders can cause back pain, shoulder pain, chest pain, shortness of breath, and
fractured ribs. It can also "permanently damage tissue, leaving breasts looking like deflated
balloons, flat and wrinkled." And if girls pursue top surgery -- a double mastectomy -- the
damage is permanent. Despite the fact that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of the Center for
Transyouth Health flippantly told an LA audience that "If you want breasts later in life, you
can go and get them," this is not quite the case. You can, it is true, get lumps of flesh that
resemble them sewed on, but the capacity for breastfeeding, the erogenous zones -- all of that
is gone. Up to 36% of biological females identifying as trans men get top surgery, and another
61% want it. Fortunately, relatively few girls are interested in pursing "bottom surgery," or
phalloplasty.
Teens can often get puberty blockers before they can drink, smoke, drive, or vote. Permanent
infertility and bodily mutilation are often the result.
The transgender craze has been assisted by the public schools, which teach gender ideology
as fact. For example, Shrier cites this gem from the California Board of Education's Who Are
You? The Kid's Guide to Gender Identity : "Babies can't talk, so grown-ups make a guess by
looking at their bodies. This is the sex assigned to you at birth, male or female." In short:
"You are who you say you are, because YOU know best." Father -- or Mother -- certainly does not
know best, and parents are not told if their children are identifying as trans or pursuing
transition as a matter of policy. As fifth grade teacher C. Scott Miller told Shrier bluntly:
"Parents come in and say, 'I don't want my kid called that.' That's nice, but their parental
rights ended when those children were enrolled in public school." The schools teach children
that they can be any gender they choose. Not incidentally, the only option that goes
uncelebrated is "cisgender."
The cost of all of this is already in evidence. Shrier interviews respected therapists,
scientists, and experts driven from their fields by vengeful trans activists who accuse them of
facilitating suicidal ideation in trans children (a trope she carefully debunks with evidence).
She speaks with "de-transitioners" who have realized that gender dysphoria did not actually
explain their discomfort in their own bodies (common for teen girls, as Shrier points out) or
their mental health struggles. This community is often ostracized and slandered by the trans
movement, who essentially claim that they do not exist. If you desist, they explain glibly, you
were never trans. Thus, no trans people desist. The reality is that many girls are suffering
through a heartbreaking scenario that Shrier lays out in chilling terms. One day, Shrier
writes, many girls wake up with no breasts and no uterus and wonder: I was just a teen. A
kid. Why didn't anyone stop me?
As devastating as her account is, Shrier leaves the reader with hope. There are many things
parents can do to protect their daughters, she writes, and she told me that it is essential
parents take this "transgender craze" seriously and do this that. She advises parents of trans
children to find a support group of other parents dealing with the same issue; to avoid giving
children a smartphone, and to push back against the gender ideology infusing their daughters'
education. Above all, she writes, parents should not relinquish their parental authority, and
should stop supporting these new fads unquestionably. Adults have a responsibility to children,
now more than ever. Dramatic steps may be necessary -- she cites parents who needed to
physically move to separate their daughters from poisonous peer groups and "affirming" schools.
And above all, she writes movingly, we must stop pathologizing girlhood. Girls are different,
and puberty is hard. It is not something to be cured. It is, she writes, wonderful to be a
girl, and an ideology based on the outdated sex stereotypes that the feminists once sought to
do away with should not be the path to drugs, mastectomies, and a longing to escape
girlhood.
Shrier is giving us an opportunity to rethink the transgender craze sweeping the Western
world. For the sake of our daughters, we should listen to her.
Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has
appeared in National Review, The European Conservative, the National Post, and elsewhere.
Jonathon is the author of The Culture War and Seeing Is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face
the Victims of Abortion as well as the co-author with Blaise Alleyne of A Guide to Discussing
Assisted Suicide.
The transgender craze reminds me a lot of the gluten sensitivy craze. For every genuine
sufferer there are ten who convince themselves they have it. As for parents pushing it into
their kids, look up "Munchaussen syndrome by proxy"
YEs. there are genuine sexual dysphoria cases. But I suspect that the majority have talked
themselves into it - and too many were pushed into it by rigid sex roles imposed on them. As
for kids, well, common sense indicates 1) Kids need some growing up to do before they achieve
their identity. 2) Giving hormones before bones are fully formed is criminal
Every single one of them has talked themselves into it. Every single one. Downvoted you
for making a BS claim that nature magically created "genuine" transsexualists. They are ALL
cult members, to a man!
If you knew anything about science, you'd learn no to use words like "always" or "never"
"all" or "none" Because there is always one example that jumps at you and turns your theories
to a house of cards. Assume that there will be exceptions to the rule, but that their number
is small enough not to make any idfference. If you say "all swans are white" then one black
swan will tear you theory to pieces, but if you say "Most swans are white" a black swan fits
nicely with the theory.
And we can approach this issue with sympathy, as well as a sense of reality.
I think it's pretty understandable that black swans wouldn't want to feel so alone, and
white swans would want to feel special. Not an excuse for allowing an Exxon Valdez, and
letting children play in it.
"too many were pushed into it by rigid sex roles imposed on them."
In my distant youth, a girl who was athletic, enjoyed pal-ing around with boys instead of
other girls, etc...was, in our "sexist" past, simply understood to be a normal healthy girl,
tomboyish perhaps!
Now after 5 decades of unhinged feminism, a tomboy isn't a type of normal girl: she's
considered a sick creature with "gender dysphoria", needing surgical mutilation.
How is that progressive?!
I find it a little ironic that the article features a photo of MtF transgender children
while discussing the danger of ROGD on young girls and teens. Other than that, this is a good
review of a book that takes a very critical view of gender ideology and its dangers. Thanks
for the article.
Actually, I'd personally compare it to the opposite situation - the effects of exogenous
testosterone on the developing female body are much more extreme and fast occurring than
those of exogenous estrogen are on the male body. The use of "puberty blockers" on either has
been massively underplayed, though. Absolutely terrible side effects on both boys and
girls...
Craze is correct. How people can be so messed up is scary. There's no such thing as
transgender. Sex is the role played in reproduction and has nothing to do with the clothes
one wears. A boy in a dress is still a boy in a dress.
you are being very presumptive about there being no such thing as transgender. Though I am
sure you are sincere in this belief, you can't possibly know this as fact. It is opinion
probably based on your own cisgender confidence and religious belief. The mind is a complex
and incredibly varied thing. Transgenderism is probably as real as homosexualtiy which I am
pretty sure you also feel is 'fake'.
Really? So there exists an infinite amount of "genders", of which there is ZERO biological
evidence, that somehow trumps genetics and fundamental biology as your "true" sexual
orientation? This is ludicrous and would be laughable were it not for the mutilation of
children.
These people literally have a grievance against reality and will remove your rights over your
children if you let them.
Both transsexualist cult members and homosexualist cult members are each in fake cults,
lying to themselves about "being born that way". They are perverts, freaks, deviant and
dupes. They should quit the cult and be normal people and marry the opposite sex and have
children and stop LARPing as women or engaging in unnatural degenerate sexual fetishes. The
whole thing is a complete fraud. You're a victim of lies. The LGBT cult is the enemy of
normal society, normal families and normal futures. It needs to be dismantled root and
branch. Homosexualism is a ridiculous ideology that has recruited millions into a life of
failure.
Any guy that in his mind believes that wearing a dress and pretending to be female will
magically make his life all better has mental issues, and there's nothing religious about
that. The suicide rate in that group is high for that very reason, when they finally come to
grips with the fact that it didn't solve their issues and haven't received the proper help
they needed in the first place. The mind is a complex thing but it is mostly learned
behaviors. Nobody is born that way any more than they are born racist or born with a favorite
color. They make a decision based on life events. If 'transgenderism' hadn't been brought
into the mainstream I guarantee there wouldn't be so many doing it (or being convinced that
is their problem).
I work at a college, and I have seen young men walking across campus wearing dresses (not
many). I think it looks stupid, but it is not my decision to make and I don't know what is
going on their lives that makes them feel comfortable in those clothes; and that is the
point. It is not my decision, and I would no more make a decision for them than to let them
make that decision for me.
You mention that the suicide rate is higher among that population. Someone I respect calls
this the 'bully' theory (no I am not calling YOU a bully). The argument goes that a bully is
asked why he is beating up on the small kid crying on the ground and the bully responds that
the kid is crying and he finds it annoying so he beats him up.
Perhaps the suicide rate is partly determined by people's reactions to the transgendered
individuals feelings and desires, not the feelings and desires themselves.
Just sayin.
If the 'trans' phenomenon were not at least partly created by social encouragement, you
would not expect it to respond so dramatically to such encouragement. Male and female
homosexuality, after all, existed for thousands of years in certain kinds of societies
without much social encouragement.
So too, did the 'trans' phenomenon, of course, but in far smaller numbers. Women have
periodically worn men's clothes for centuries in the Western world, but that's because men's
clothes were much less restrictive than their own and it was not safe to travel or move
around in public as a woman for much of our history. (In other parts of the world, the
dividing line between male and female clothing was often much less distinct, e.g. Chinese
peasants.) Men's wearing of women's clothes was much rarer and always considered a signal of
something strange about them unless done purely in a spirit of mockery, but men's desire to
try to *be* or pretend to be women was stronger and more persistent.
Thus while the 'trans' phenomenon may not be entirely the creation of a social moment, it
certainly seems to be so in part. Another thing to consider is that the expression of
homosexuality, while perceived in most parts of the world throughout history as undesirable,
did not involve inflicting injur on one's own body. Nor did it require that whole human
populations should adjust the meaning of the words 'man' and 'woman' to include people with
the genitals of one sex but who supposedly have the mind of the other sex. This makes
nonsense of the words and is leading to many dangerous attempts at restructuring the social
conventions around sports participation, locker and washroom use, and the use of 'safe
spaces' intended for abused women.
Perhaps it has not occurred to the anti-trans pearl-clutchers that the increase in
transgender identification is not because of "social contagion," but because there is less
social pressure to stay in the closet.
I was in my 50s before I finally got woke regarding gender dysphoria. I understood it as a
mental health disorder (I'm a psychologist), but it took genomics research before I
understood that there is very often a biological basis for dysphoria and seeking surgical
re-assignment. There are ample documented cases of partial hermaphroditism (under-developed
genitals, covert uterus, overly-large clitoris). Research more recently is showing that
brains can be influenced by abnormal hormone presence leading to gender identity dysphoria.
That Tomboy might actually be a boy mentally, and hormonally, but tests need to be done.
A complicating factor is that adolescence hits kids as young as 10 with what parents used
to call raging hormones. Every individual has to adjust to adult hormonal imbalance in their
teens and this can lead to sexual orientation confusion as well as gender identity dysphotia.
However, delaying reassignment surgery until age 21 might result in a return to brain-body
identity changes from trans back to CIS. That is one reason why researchers recommend waiting
on surgical reassignment until adulthood.
It surely is not helpful to anybody but perhaps parents who cannot cope with a child
suffering from gender dysphoria to start attributing the problem to a childhood fad. Even
kids know how the world treats "queers." It is not cool to be gay or trans in real life as
being out in school always results in bullying, social exclusion, discrimination in sports.
etc. I cringe when I hear parents say things like it is a fad or cool. They have zero basis
for such attributions - they are not kids today in grammar and high school today, and have no
experience with sexual orientation or identity confusion as a teen. Worst of all, such
remarks heard by one's offspring risks life-long alienation and resentment.
What part of "70 times more than chance" don't you understand? Shrier addresses this point
early on in her book. Of course you expect an increase in a behavior if it had been formerly
suppressed. But the amount of increase is 70 times more than chance and with all variables
controlled seems related to online interaction with a peer group.
Before you throw around a lot of judgment at parents you might want to review Littmann's
research in addition to the book, or spend some time online at 4thWaveNow where very
informed, compassionate, pro LGB parents discuss this. Considering that Littmann got rape and
death threats and had a consultancy taken from her for publishing her very rigorous study,
perhaps you could extend your knee-jerk compassion to the real heroes here instead of assume
they haven't approached this difficult issue with commendable courage and integrity.
" where very informed, compassionate, pro LGB parents discuss this."
There are few things more hilarious than parents who already cucked to the L, already
cucked to the G, already cucked to the B, quibbling merely with the T.
Imagine swallowing the LGB propaganda but having a problem with the T "because it goes too
far". LOL.
You're precisely nothing but a brainwashed cult member who swallowed a bunch of lies about
a fake identity cooked up by a psychotic group of leftist sexual revolutionary activists and
once you cross that rubicon you're no longer equal to me and you're just a threat to my
children by the bad example you set. I'd like to see you forcibly exiled from society so that
this cancer would stop going in society. Eastern Europe has the right idea in treating the
LGBT cult members as the radioactive social contagion that you are. You're nothing but a
human Chernobyl that needs a lid put on it.
In real life I am a retired NIH research program official and science officer. Everything
I said is science-based. Everything you said is at best religion-based and is more compatible
with the Muslim religion but I betcha you think your a Christian. Of course a real Christian
would not curse people for showing compassion and a real Muslim would just chop off my head.
What you gonna say to St. Peter when he asks you about this hateful screed?
Blind worship of credentialism and careerism will not save you my friend. Even Michael
Jackson and Bill Cosby were good at their day jobs. There is absolutely nothing resembling an
objective scientific fact about "a few million duped men LARPing as women". I'm agnostic, as
in, I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know if there is a being that created the universe, I
just don't know. But I do know there is no such thing as a sex change and no such thing as
being born in the wrong body and no such thing as transsexualists being legitimate.
You survived in a workplace where it is nigh impossible to get fired. And you would likely
get thrown off a building and then your corpse stoned; that is how they kill women in Muslim
countries.You bring in the concept of Judgement Day; what are you gonna tell St. Pete about
the desecration of your body and the willful rotting of your tortured soul? Don't call out
Christians because you suffer the ultimate identity crisis and your brand of it is just a
bridge too far for functioning human beings. It's not normal and you know it. And you are
filled to the brim with self-loathing and conflict. Enjoy your scientifically validated
existence. Leave the rest of us alone.
The transactivist movement is based on junk science and trying to silence serious
scientists through rape and death threats (including of their children). Look at Blanchard
and Bailey who rigorously presented the argument that male transgenders are heterosexuals
with paraphilias (autogynephilia) and the way Lisa Littmann was forced out of a consultancy
and her employer Brown was harassed for simply publishing a robust study on rapid onset
gender dysphoria.
If you're truly scientific and open-minded, go to Transgender Trend for scientists who
unpack the serious methodological flaws in the few studies that are routinely quoted and
explain how transactivists silence the research (pre and post study) that questions their
faith-based ideology.
sir i consider myself center right paleocon and i always try to remain rational. i
personally would discourage transgenderism but, what you say is very evidence based and
honestly right
If you are a retired NIH research program official and science officer, that doesn't speak
well of the state of science in this country. Transgender ideology is simply incompatible
with basic biology and reproduction. It is the equivalent of "creation science" or
pseudo-scientific ideas that were once popular such as Phrenology, Eugenics or Lysenkoism. Of
course, there were scientists who were proponents of Phrenology, Eugenics and Lysenkoism, so
I suppose that we shouldn't be surprised that there are scientists today who have embraced
this transgender nonsense. Scientists, even those with respected credentials, are not immune
from idiotic, anti-scientific ideas.
Then why didn't my kid get a brain scan before being put on non-FDA-approved hormones by
the university -- at an age when buying an alcoholic drink would still be illegal? My kid was
part of a cluster of suddenly trans kids at the local high school, where being trans is
celebrated.
I have not been able to get a single scientific answer from any therapist, doctor, or
endocrinologist that I ever talked to -- and I'm part of a national coalition of hundreds of
parents who have experienced the same thing. You're no different. Please tell me why healthy
body self-acceptance is the healing strategy for anorexia and bulimia -- but if a kid at any
age says they're trans, the strategy is immediate social/legal/medical transition -- based on
no objective tests whatsoever.
I'm going to try not to get angry... but I completely disagree... and just by looking at
the rest of the comments people will give me shit but I dont care...
This article is basically saying that you should get rid of all your child's friends and make
sure they are called their old name and not allowed to transition at all... just because they
"might grow out of it". In reality very few people de transition... most people are happy
with their decision.. by not allowing your child to transition all you are doing is worsening
their dysphoria, which from my experience as a trans person is honestly very painful...
honestly you are probably leading your kids to suicide... an alarming number of trans kids
think about or attempt suicide... I think I would definitely have a child who changes their
body, or even "damages" it as you might say, then a dead child. Yes being a girl is lovely,
if you are a girl. If you're a boy then it sucks. If you do this to your trans child I
honestly think that you are doing a lot of unnecessary harm to them
Trans suicide rates are high because about half of trans individuals have clinically
diagnosible personality disorders, and people with personality disorders attempt suicide at
high rates.
I think that "buyers remorse" WRT serious and irreversible body modification plays a role
in the suicide rate, too. It is actually higher in the cohort who have had "gender affirming"
treatment and the studies which indicate this were conducted on adults. Allowing children and
adolescents to make lifelong, sterilising alterations to their body in a time of great
distress is simply unconscionable especially when the data shows that between 70-90% will
desist before the age of 18 if left alone. This is what psychologists and doctors refer to as
"watchful waiting".
Watchful waiting does not a lifelong medical patient make, however.
What percentage of transgender people suffer from partial hermaphroditism (under-developed
genitals, covert uterus, overly-large clitoris) vs. what percentage have no physical
deformity of their genitalia? (You claim that you have researched this, so I'm assuming that
you can answer.)
Also, in the case of a female that has no physical deformities of her genitalia but
perhaps has a hormonal imbalance that is causing Gender Identity Dysphoria, why would the
preferred treatment involve hormone treatments that reinforce and exacerbate that hormonal
imbalance, especially when that course of treatment will have to be maintained continuously
for the rest of their lives, will have negative physical side effects (increased risk of
heart attack, diabetes, blood clots, and cancer, etc.) and will require drastic surgeries to
simulate the opposite biological sex in order to complete their "transition"? If Gender
Identity Dysphoria is caused by hormonal imbalances, why would you not use hormone treatments
that would bring her hormones into balance with what would be normal for her physical
body?
Finally, as a psychologist, if a person came to you who was suffering from Body Integrity
Dysphoria and told you that they really feel, deep in their heart/psyche, that they are a
quad amputee, would you recommend that they actually get their limbs amputated in order to
bring their physical body into alignment with their mental image of themselves? (This is not
a rhetorical question. Since you claim to be a psychologist, I really want you to answer
this.)
"Shrier notes a consistent series of mantras: If you think you might be trans, you are",
where have I heard that before? Oh, with the "if you think might be gay, you are".
The ONLY difference between someone horrified by the homosexual lifestyle craze 50 years
ago and the transsexual craze now, is 50 years of propaganda.
Give it 50 years, and even TAC writers will believe the "born that way" trans propaganda
lines are axiomatic truths. After all, they all believe the gay propaganda of the last few
decades!
These books, these articles, don't matter. Face the facts, you live in a world where in 50
years flat the Western world went from being horrified by the sexual perversion and
degeneracy of the homosexual lifestyle, and wanting to protect their kids from its
propaganda, to a society where suburban moms cheer on homosexualists like Anderson Cooper
adopting some innocent baby and denying the baby his mother on purpose.
"... denying the baby his mother..."
Was the baby (literally, not rhetorically) kidnapped? Blame it on his mother and your
libertarian fellow travelers.
ALL it takes is a few decades of propaganda and your grandchildren when
they are adults, will be socially conditioned to believe every last shred of the
transsexualist cult's lies, "born that way", "your true self", "born in the wrong body",
"transwomen are women", "you're an evil bigot Hitler if you disagree", "bake the cake
bigot"...
FACE IT!, JK Rowling is NOT going to save you, a couple of books and commentators and
ex-trans testimonies are NOT going to stop the 'T' train, which is an out of control
psychotic propaganda locomotive speeding down the tracks to civilizational destruction, JUST
as nobody was ever able to stop the 'G' train, or the 'L' train, or the 'B' train.
The entire LGBT cult and all its psychotic
permutations, is going to be forcibly rammed down your kids and
grandkids' and their kids' throat, and there is NOTHING you can do about
it, because you live in the post-apocalyptic dead husk of the Western
world where obvious falsehoods become "reality" with enough propaganda.
It is merely the decades-long process that brainwashed society to "accept" millions of
young men being brainwashed by the LGBT cult and its propaganda to believe they were "born
gay" and "gay is who you are", repeating itself, this time with "trans". The LGBT sexual
"identity" cult is an insane cult with massive power over this doomed and dying society and
it will stop at nothing to produce a populace that spews lies and falsehoods such as the
discredited "born that way" theories of its sick and twisted "identities" and made up "sexual
minorities".
In 50 years the western world will be dead and gone, replaced with a new dark age,
totalitarian foreign control, or something of the sort.
It's gonna be a blast! Being post op transgender in a collapsed world is gonna be real fun
too, I'm sure.
Indeed. None of us will ever live, not even a newborn child will ever live, to see
anything as naive, the gold medal for naivete and gullibility in the last thousand years,
nobody will ever see anything as naive as the post-cold war order where Clinton and Bush 1
and think tanks and political scientists thought OK that's it cold war over. The nuke had
been planted decades ago, inside the West and even if Gorbachev or any of the other 1980s
leaders of the USSR wanted to stop it there is no way they could have. The radiation leaks
from that social demoaralization nuke continue to poison us.
They can play dress-up and the appropriate pronoun game all they want. This is a mental
condition. Allowing children to participate in this at this level is criminal. Evil. This
herd culls itself on an alarming scale despite the physical efforts to accommodate the head
full of snakes. It's not hip. It's not 'in'. It's sick, and Mr and Mrs America are tired of
pretending otherwise. Keep your clown show private.
As a libertarian, I used think how one chooses to live ones private life was their right.
Unfortunately it is never enough. They don't keep it to themselves and want to shove it up my
nose. There was a darn good reason for staying in the closet. The very life of our culture is
being drained away. The beauty of what it means to be human is next. The crazies can never
know happiness and they will take our entire world down with them. Insanity does that, ya
know.
I sympathize with those who genuinely suffer
from gender dysphoria. But for sickos like
Bruce Jenner who turn their problem into reality
shows, who instead of suffering in silence, use
their mental illness as the fast track to fortune
and fame, I got nothing. Those who insisted
they could stay above the fray are now being
made to care. Good catch!
At least Jenner won his medals fair and square as a man before he 'transitioned'. I'm
furious at the idea that men will get to play at being trans for a few years, compete for
(and win) prizes and scholarships meant for female athletes, and a few years later, shrug it
off saying 'You know, I used to be gender-confused but now I'm not...' Where there's real
money at stake, there are always people willing to do what they have to in order to obtain
access to it, especially if there's no amputation involved.
I know. Horrifying how "they" are trying to force you to become transgender. How dare they
to claim their freedoms. Especially if having to see "them" is such a tremendous infringement
of your freedoms. I completely agree, your libertarianism gives you the freedom to force
other people to live how you think they should.
Sorry, but their freedom definitely should not mean that the "dude-dressed-like-a-lady"
has some sort of human right to get naked next to my 9 year old niece in the local pool
changing room.
I know. There are hordes of transgender women congregating in changing rooms just waiting
to get naked next to 9-year olds. Happens all the times. They actually have a secret Facebook
page where they talk plan this.
One of the central platforms of the trans lobby is that anyone should be able to use
whichever changing room, shower room, bathroom, etc that they want based solely on self
declaration. If you don't think there are tons of men just drooling at such an opportunity,
you aren't living in the real world--the world where there are tens of thousands of porn
sites catering to fetishes like exhibitionism and/or voyeurism.
Look, I don't really care what other adults do as long as they don't impinge on the rights
of others either. Involve children or attempt to impose your delusions via legislation,
though, and you are impinging on the rights of others, particularly the most vulnerable.
Women and innocent children bear the brunt of this nasty ideology.
I have a niece who declared that she was a gay man about 2 years ago. Messed up the family
big time. So far, all she's done is take testosterone which lowered her voice dramatically,
and changed her name to something sounds male (but is actually a brand name). She is
incredibly unhappy, and sometimes wonders if she did the right thing. In the meantime, the
rest of us suffer.
This se xual chaos has destroyed an entire generation.
It is absolutely insane to make mental illness popular
and to promote it in our schools. POOR PARENTS!
In the UK, after studying at home for several months,
thosands of "transgendered" youth have realized they
were not the other se x after all. When removed from
the horrific peer pressure to become freaks, when
the leftist indoctrination from their teachers stopped,
they became normal again. This is a TRAGEDY!
Mutilating kids' bodies and shooting them full of
artificial hormones is abuse of the medical profession.
Those suffering from gender dysphoria need therapy
to adjust their delusions to reality, NOT be carved up
to adjust their bodies to their delusions. Lock up all
thoe involved in this child abuse.
Kids today are not rooted in the real world and taught real skills they can feel proud of.
Whether it is a girl learning to cook for the family when her mom is away or a boy learning
to change a tire or till a garden, These accomplishments help distract kids from the hormonal
changes they are going through. Today's kids spend too much time gaming and on social media.
They shouldn't be spending their time in fantasy worlds where the stripe on a NIKE is more
important than putting a meal on the table pr changing a diaper.
The teachers don't deserve the entire blame. Where are these kids parents? Teachers can't
help themselves because they've were indoctrinated long ago but what about the parents? Where
do they stand in this abomination?
This may be the most depressing thing I have ever read! For a long time my instincts have
led me to suspect peer and parental influence was. behind the trans trend that seemed to be
sweeping America and Europe. It may be an omen of the beginning of human failure. It is
perverse and abusive.
While its reality is shocking, the fact that the medical community and societal leaders
have been silent on the subject; and organized leaders of athletic conferences have persisted
in allowing transwomen to compete in athletics against cis-Women are the indicators that this
phenomenon has legs!
The WAR against America's children. The Bible would be a good source for those who do not
understand that GOD created man and woman...male and female...anything outside of the
biological male and female is ALL PRETEND...NOT REAL. Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness
which is being exploited by evil people who are unfortunately connected to children's
schools. Indoctrination and brainwashing is being conducted in public schools. Parents should
be outraged.
In WA State, evil, radical, far-left governor Inslee passed an inappropriate, salacious
s****e******$x bill to se*****$xualize students in WA State's public schools. This heinous
bill was written by WA State's evil Superintendent of Public Instruction.
"Chris Reykdal: Obsessed with se******$X, bored with his job," By Todd Herman
The USA continues its WAR against children by closing schools using the phony, politicized
excuse of cv19. Parents need to VOICE their objection to the emotional and physical abuse
against their children by evil politicians, teachers.
The feminists are all closed mouthed about this tragedy. Because they don't want to upset
their place in the resistance they remain mute on the effects it has against real women and
girls. Feminists have always been a disgrace and this is evidence that they will continue
being a disgrace to all women.
Your comments are wrong. There is a large movement of gender critical feminists who have
been raising lots of concerns about this. The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) has been
partnering with Conservative Women for American to battle proposed legislation that would
remove protections for women and girls in prisons, sports, changing rooms, and other
sex-segregated spaces.
The gender critical feminist movement has been acquiring so many new members that Reddit
actually banned the Gender Critical Subreddit about month ago. It had 65,000 members from
around the world. It has reformed at Said.it
and will have its independent site soon. Meghan Murphy who runs Feminist Current has led the
charge in Canada against transactivist abuses and has been banned from Twitter for stating
that trans women are men.
Who cares what a pack of baby genociders have to say about post-born children (survivors
of the abortion holocaust) getting caught up in the trans cult. BY DEFINITION, feminazis hate
children, they are the biggest slaughterers of children in human history, having murdered
tens of millions of them in the US in the last 50 years alone. Hundreds of millions globally.
FCK feminists.
Some feminists manage to make some noise about how much they hate the men who LARP as
women, but who cares what the baby genociders known as "feminists" think about anything? I
don't. They all need to be sent to an island.
What I would love to know is WT actual F is going on with the parents. No self-respecting
person who gave their kids safety the slightest thought would ever condone or allow their
child to participate in this nonsense. It begs the question:
If children cannot consent to sex (a temporary act) because they are not informed or
mature enough to make a conscience choice, then why are children being given the complete
ability to make uninformed, immature and FOREVER LIFE-ALTERING choices they are
inherently incapable of making wisely?
Oh I get that...but still, they are kids....their kids, supposedly. Push comes to shove
every leftist I've ever met that ever espoused educational, social or fiscal standards for
everyone else balked into a full-on backtrack of those standards the moment they feared them
being applied to their kids and resulting in harm.
The kids tell their parents that they are at risk of committing suicide if their trans
identity is condoned. Seriously, trans activists and influencers talk CONSTANTLY about
suicide. So it becomes easy for the parents to think "if I don't accept this, I might lose my
child" and to play along with it.
So true. Both my teenage daughters must have stated that they wanted to die, their lives
were over, they hated XYZ, etc. hundreds of times and never meant any of it because they were
immature kids. Parents who allow this nonsense to be inflicted on their children are culpable
in the degeneracy they later spread and suffer from. That mother of Desmond Is Amazing? She's
going to hell, straight up no doubt.
By the time kids are teens, 95% of these moms are trying to parent with whatever little
energy they still have left when they get home from work at six o'clock. They're in way too
deep with mortgages in nice suburbs, etc., to contemplate a lifestyle change in favor of
intensive parenting. Which is the only thing that can save most of these kids - just being
present enough to get between them and the culture, all day every day (including switch to
home- or cyber-schooling). It wouldn't take long at all for these problems to evaporate if
the kid's daily context could just shift away from the source of social contagion. But the
parents won't do it. They're only willing to do as much as can be done without serious
lifestyle change. It's not even just materialism - lifestyle change to support intensive
parenting just seems too crazy, like going too far. They're hamstrung by an artificial,
unexamined limitation on how hard you're allowed to fight. What the point of the nice
dual-income lifestyle is even supposed to be once your kid starts violently mutilating
herself, I don't know, but they can't see past it.
Some of these parents literally have no choice but to go along with it. In some places,
the government/CPS will take their children away if the parents refuse to allow drugs or
surgeries.
Bruce Jenner has already confessed to sniffing and trying on his mother's underwear when
he was a boy. His erotic fetish of seeing himself as a woman dressed in women's underwear and
clothes started LONG before his Olympian years. A stone cold pervert who needs to be sent to
an island with all the other perverts there is nothing else to the entire LGBT cult, except a
generations-long story of them recruiting kids into their perversion and messing up their own
adult lives and the adult lives of the kids and youths they shill these false beliefs and
fetishes to. I include ALL homosexualists in this assessment.
Interesting. I know there has been a lot of controversy with "de-transitioners" among
others who a few years after making the decision still feel unsatisfied or no longer like the
change they made. It makes one wonder if we're too quick to appease (probably not the word
I'm looking for but can't think of a better one) the whims and wishes of those who want to
built the egalitarian and receptive society. Or at least, in doing so, blind themselves to
any other solution rather than allowing those with an obvious problem to do as they wish to
themselves. It very obviously isn't healthy and the stark increase in this trend would lead
one to believe that its something more than just social pressure being removed from the those
with gender dysphoria, the stat about those who are informed about it through social media
goes to further increase these suspicions. At the very least there should be some age
restrictions for these things if not an entire change in the way we deal with this issue.
Unlikely now that I think about it.
There's no evidence that ROGD exists. It's an invented panic, like the Satanic Ritual
abuse craze of the 1980's. It's more plausible than Qanon, but a book from a religious
publisher doesn't make it real.
I'm not sure what you mean when you claim there is no evidence ROGD exists. If there was a
rapid rise in visits to gender dysphoria clinics by pubertal and near-pubertal girls who had
not previously shown any signs of gender dysphoria (in contrast to the prior notion that
children with gender dysphoria usually make their discomfort known long before puberty), then
that is evidence that ROGD exists. Such a rise has been observed. Therefore ROGD exists. It
doesn't really matter whether the publisher that publishes the observation is religious or
not.
Nothing exists except brainwashed little kids. These are not "clinics" but the equivalent
of Scientology centers. These are the places where the cult engages in its rituals. The LGBT
cult needs to be excised like the cancer it is.
I know a girl. When she was 16 she decided she was really a boy. She was influenced in
this by her favorite manga comics characters, who were all boys. She had had a very difficult
life. Adopted from Asia. Raised by a white single mother who is unable or unwilling to
provide a structured life. Deeply depressed and anti-social. Her mother was also unwilling to
send her for therapy other than aromatherapy.
I'm willing to believe that there are boys and girls who will be better off if they can
change their identities to those of the opposite sex. They should have to be mature and
mentally stable enough to make that decision. No 13 year old meets that standard.
I am not a good judge of what is best for another mature, mentally sound person. I don't
know what's best for you. You are even less of an appropriate judge, given your bitter hatred
for others who are different from you. I don't remember ever reading a compasionate word from
you.
We need to protect children from decisions which could permanently damage their lives
until they are old enough and sound enough to decide for themselves. It's clear you have no
real concern for children.
Wanting to cut off parts of your body and pump yourselves full of artificial hormones to
look more like the opposite sex is itself a sign that you are not mentally sound. A sane
society would recognize that.
That's a perfect example of Catch 22. And that's not the way it's supposed to work. People
are supposed to be able to run their own lives. You know, the whole pursuit of happiness
thing. Remember - that unalienable right thing? Or is that only for pursuits you approve
of?
Assuming all this is true... that it's a "craze" and these kids are being
"influenced"...
What a hoot! 😂 I mean, can you imagine? Foolish and incompetent parents send their
crazy kids off the deep end. Good for them. I think it's a perfect illustration of how media
has wrecked civilization. Vloggers! 😂 Almost as bad a Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and
TAC.
what a nightmare - I have 2 sons and fortunately no gender confusion there - when they
were teens my big worries were pregnant girlfriends, drugs, booze, speeding, athletic
injuries, fights....if I were the father of a daughter who was being influenced by one of
these adult wackos, I would be....hard pressed.....ugh.
This is horrific, but my guess this fad is going to end in a few years. You know, with
child sex abuse, when it first came to public attention, there wild wild claims, like if a
person said they were not abused as a child, it proved they were. Many children were
interviewed by people who manipulated them into believing they had been abused. You had the
infamous McMartin nursery school case. Many people had their lives ruined by false
accusations.
But then as time when by responsible people in various positions figured out more rational
ways of handling the child sex abuse problem. Part of this was the research on false
memories.
I think something like that is going to happen here. In particular, I expect there will be
some lawsuits, like against doctors and school district counselors who are facilitating trans
madness. The accused parties will lose badly and pay out millions of dollars.
As a consequence boards of educations will get scared the same thing will happen to them,
and likewise medical clinics. And also insurance companies, like for education districts or
medical malpractice, will clamp down, and things will get straightened out.
There's no such thing as a trans man or woman. There's no known way to do it. A castrated
man is a eunuch and there's been thousands of years of experience of that. There were still
castrati sopranos being created to sing opera in Italy in the 19th century. Genital
mutilation isn't a modern invention.
Wishing doesn't make it so. Magic doesn't happen. More people wishing it was possible
changes nothing except for people who want to follow the latest fashion. Parents shouldn't
give up their parental duty to "woke" dreamers about genital mutilation "improving" their
children. If you know there are vicious teachers in your child's school, don't expose them to
danger in the first place. [email protected]
"... 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?
"... "Recently, I keep being locked out of my account and forced to delete tweets to get back in," the post reads. "The latest tactic by trans rights activists is to run a search for any time I've used the word 'groomer,' a phrase Twitter recently decided was Not Allowed." ..."
"... "The one good thing about my situation is that I'm in great company – Claire Graham, Meghan Murphy, Skylar Gwynn, Miranda Yardley, GNC Centric and many more, important feminist and critical voices who have been silenced for fighting a dangerous ideology that tells children it's possible to be born into the wrong body," the post said. ..."
"... Contrary to what his accusers claim, Linehan denies being transphobic and says he considers gender dysphoria a serious medical condition that needs proper treatment and support. But he believes radical activists are pushing to make gender transition available at a whim and to attack anyone objecting to this goal. He also branded the wider acceptance of giving hormone drugs to children, which he compared to Nazi human experiments. ..."
The outrage police have managed to get comedy writer Graham Linehan 'permanently' suspended from
Twitter for alleged hateful conduct. He is a vocal critic of a no-holds-barred approach to transgender
issues.
Linehan, famous for his work on sitcoms 'Father Ted' and 'The IT Crowd,' was kicked out by Twitter on
Saturday. The service said his
account
was
"permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform
manipulation."
The ban happened shortly after Linehan responded to a post by the Women's
Institute wishing a happy Pride to all its transgender members. Linehan reportedly said to it:
"Men aren't women tho,"
according
to the UK newspaper Metro.
Following the expulsion, a post
appeared
on the parenting website Mumsnet under Linehan's handle, which appears to explain his
understanding of the situation. He said it came after a protracted pressure campaign by radical
supporters of trans rights. His opponents apparently took on the task of digging up tweets from the
past that did not violate any rules at the time of posting, but have since been deemed unacceptable by
the service.
"Recently, I keep being locked out of my account and forced to delete tweets to get back in,"
the post reads.
"The latest tactic by trans rights activists is to run a search for any time I've
used the word 'groomer,' a phrase Twitter recently decided was Not Allowed."
The post says the same tactic was successfully used against other people, who, like himself, oppose
what Linehan calls
"gender ideology."
"The one good thing about my situation is that I'm in great company – Claire Graham, Meghan
Murphy, Skylar Gwynn, Miranda Yardley, GNC Centric and many more, important feminist and critical
voices who have been silenced for fighting a dangerous ideology that tells children it's possible to
be born into the wrong body,"
the post said.
Linehan has a history of online spats over transgender issues. In October 2018 the Irishman was
even issued a warning by the West Yorkshire police not to contact activist and trans woman Stephanie
Hayden, with whom he'd had a bitter conflict.
She accused the writer, among other people, of harassing her by using her original male name. The
practice is called "deadnaming" by transgender activists and has been considered a form of hateful
speech by Twitter since November 2018.
Meghan Murphy, one of the people mentioned by Linehan, was among the first people to be suspended
by Twitter after the new policy was introduced. The following year, the Canadian feminist writer
filed
a lawsuit against the tech giant seeking to be reinstated; it was dismissed.
Contrary to what his accusers claim, Linehan denies being transphobic and says he considers gender
dysphoria a serious medical condition that needs proper treatment and support. But he believes radical
activists are pushing to make gender transition available at a whim and to attack anyone objecting to
this goal. He also branded the wider acceptance of giving hormone drugs to children, which he compared
to Nazi human experiments.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The burgeoning
'cancel culture' has forced Amazon to ax an ad campaign for a book by a Wall Street Journal
author which is critical of liberal views on transgender identity, its publishing company has
said.
Far-left activists don't just want Americans to approve of transgender ideology and to call
people by preferred pronouns unmoored from biological sex - they also want to force taxpayers
to foot the bill for dangerous experimental surgeries that leave people infertile and scarred
for life.
On December
23 , Illinois joined 19 other states and the District
of Columbia to explicitly require Medicaid to pay for transgender surgeries. The Department of
Healthcare and Family Services, the state's primary Medicaid agency, published new
administrative rules mandating the coverage of certain "gender-affirming" services. Illinois
formerly excluded "transsexual surgery" from the taxpayer-funded program.
"Health care is a right, not a privilege, and I'm committed to ensuring our LGBTQ
community and all Illinoisans have access to that right," Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-Ill.) said in
a statement
in April.
" Expanding Medicaid to cover gender affirming surgeries is cost effective, helps avoid
long-term health consequences, and most importantly is the right thing to do. With continued
attacks coming from Washington, this administration will always stand with our transgender
community and their right to lead safe and healthy lives."
Almost everything in this statement was dead wrong. Health care should not be considered a
"right," because it involves the hard work of doctors and nurses, who deserved to be
compensated for their work. Perhaps most importantly, however, the idea that "gender-affirming"
surgeries help "avoid long-term health consquences" is false, as is the idea that covering
these surgeries is necessarily "the right thing to do."
Transgender activists have pushed this narrative based on the idea that the only way to curb
the high rate of suicide among people who identify themselves as transgender is to force
society to accept transgender identity. Te thinking goes like this: When transgender people
have surgery to "affirm" their identity as the opposite sex, they will be less likely to commit
suicide. Therefore, transgender surgery is essential to their health, and the government paying
for it actually saves money in the long run.
The evidence actually suggests the opposite. While there are few long-term studies on
transgender health available, the most
thorough follow-up study involving transgender people -- extending over 30 years and
conducted in Sweden, where there is a strong pro-transgender culture -- found that transgender
surgery does not paper over mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment,
the suicide rate of those who had undergone the surgery rose to 20 times that of their
peers!
Many of those who undergo the surgery experience deep and painful regret.
"Now that I'm all healed from the surgeries, I regret them," a 19-year-old man who had
himself surgically mutilated to affirm a female identity,
wrote in a letter . "The result of the bottom surgery looks like a Frankenstein hack job
at best, and that got me thinking critically about myself. I had turned myself into a
plastic-surgery facsimile of a woman, but I knew I still wasn't one. I became (and to an
extent, still feel) deeply depressed."
Transgender activist Jazz Jennings experienced complications during the surgery to remove
his male genitals,
leaving him with scars across the top of his legs.
"I am a real, live 22-year-old woman, with a scarred chest and a broken voice, and five
o'clock shadow because I couldn't face the idea of growing up to be a woman, that's my
reality," admitted Cari Stella.
The medical establishment has rushed to affirm transgender "health care" that often involves
giving healthy people a disease or urging genital mutilation on perfectly healthy men and
women.
After the case of the 6-year-old boy James Younger seized national attention, states across
the nation are expected to
pass laws protecting children from the damaging effects of transgender drugs.
Yet Illinois joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in going the opposite
direction -- forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for transgender surgery. California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and
Wisconsin also use Medicaid funds for transgender surgery.
Sixty-two percent of Americans said employers should be able to opt-out of covering
transgender surgeries, and 80 percent of them said doctors and medical professionals should be
able to opt-out of performing surgeries they think dangerous to their patients.
If businesses should be able to opt-out of footing the bill for dangerous and controversial
surgeries, why shouldn't taxpayers?
@ Tim #3: Totally. Already, 20% of immigrants voted for Trump. Even somewhere between 12 and
15% of African-American men voted for him. Not because they like him, but because they don't
identify with the rhetoric of the left. And I say this as a longstanding member of the left.
The highly exclusionary mottoes of the various identity-based groups that the Democrats
provide a home for are working against us -- "the future is female," "gender is not binary
and not fixed," "the problem of whiteness," the extreme insistence on equality of outcomes
over equality of opportunity -- these are all pushing parts of the natural Democratic
constituency away and into the arms of the Republicans (or into a stance of not voting at
all).
And the rhetoric around economic issues is not helping either. Voters are not stupid; they
realize that free college, college loan forgiveness, Medicare for all, and massive spending
on housing are not going to happen all at once given the makeup of congress. They are not
hearing enough from the Democratic primary candidates about policy changes that can
realistically happen in the next 4 years.
"Identity politics involves a demand not merely for tolerance but for acceptance."
For me this is the critical issue. When we 'demand' something from another, or another
group, we are making an explicit statement of our own intolerance, we refuse to accept the
values, attitudes, and/or behaviours of another. And the framing of this demand as a right,
rather than a request, or a suggestion, is a problem for many here.
The levels of bigotry, hatred, and intolerance expressed towards MAGA people in general,
and a few individuals in specific, over the last three years has been breathtaking. The
notion that respect, tolerance, and acceptance cut both ways is routinely explicitly
rejected. Indeed, so much so that both the NYT and the WAPO this weekend felt the need to
remind readers of the need to respect MAGA people. The same might be said of people of faith,
another much-maligned group, especially if these folks happen to be white and Christian.
I'm glad that JH posted the 'amateur' warning, because that's precisely what too much of
what CT has become. People may or may not be engaging in good faith arguments. Calling people
racists and fascists, as a matter of course, in no way contributes anything to any
discussion, and would seem to be a direct violation of the comments policy. Yet, in thread
after thread, that's what we continue read – racist, Christian, fascist, racist,white
fascist, racist, fascist until the terms have lost all meaning, lo these many years.
The ground is moving beneath our feet. If the last few months (years?) are any indication,
the CT community has very few ideas about what is happening in America, Europe, and other
nations, or what to do about it. Or, people are expressing their ideas elsewhere.
Buying into myths does the community no good: remember all the time wasted on Koch
Conspiracy Theories? Then, from 2016 up to the present, leading Democrats and 'progressive'
bubbleheads literally channelled Joe McCarthy 'I have secret evidence, which I cannot divulge
now, that leading members of this administration are in fact agents of a foreign power!' I
mean, you couldn't make that stuff up.
Night after night, day after day for the last three years – TRAITORS, RUSSIAN
AGENTS, and no matter how many times a few (Greenwald, Taibbi, Tracy) tried to point out that
the accusations had been crafted literally by the same intelligence agents that brought us
Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, these factual cautions fell on deaf ears.
Lost in all of this is reality: which is that the world is not twitter. All firsthand
reports I receive from family and friends in Canada, America, and Europe is that people of
different faiths and opinions work hard, if not harder now, to demonstrate respect and
compassion to one another and sincerely enjoy doing so. Huh?
JQ: To get back to the criticism of identity politics from the left, consider what would
happen if your original post was made in a less sedate, more idpol-friendly forum. Nobody
would be engaging with the arguments you've made, which at least some commenters on this
thread have been doing. Instead, they'd be focussing on you , working out which
classes of privilege you enjoy – particularly racial, gender-based and
(dis)ability-based privileges – so that they can attack you from those directions in
the knowledge that any response from you would be considered an expression of privilege, and
thus subject to further criticism.
Since this post is pretty unobjectionable you might get away with it, but I can see at
least a couple of angles of attack in the first line ("Warning: Amateur
sociological/political analysis ahead"): if you're an "amateur", why are you speaking
instead of listening to the people who have direct personal experience of [whatever
marginalised identity]? , and why does this analysis need to come from you when
you could be making space for someone less privileged to give their own, more valuable
analysis?
I read the sequence in the OP differently, I think, from most commenters (and, I think, from
JQ):
Tolerance: Women allowed the vote (19th Amendment, 1920);
Acceptance: Women admitted to all-male Ivy League universities (Yale, 1969)
Deference: Affirmative Action (EEOC, 1965)
Dominance: ? The election of Barack Obama (2008) ?
[Note: This is the interpretation given by those on the right – those currently in
power.]
Identity Politics has served to mask the real problem in the U.S. over the past 30-40
years: growing inequality. Yes yes, I know: intersectionality – but how successful has
that been, really? Examples, please. [Note: Idpol imho belongs to the so-called "private
sphere," not the "public sphere" – I have no interest in the private life of others;
their public life, however, is of considerable interest to me and other citizens.]
I don't think this was accidental. It is to the ruling class's benefit that
citizens/voters coalesce emotionally around issues which detract attention from growing
inequality.
The U.S. is governed by the rich, the 1%. But if this were broadly understood and
accepted, the 1% would be voted out of office at all levels (local, state, national).
Identity politics ensures that voters will be more or less equally distributed between Ds
and Rs, with Ds = pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion; Rs = anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-abortion (+
other issues).
I invite CT commenters to engage in a small thought-experiment: What would it be like in
the U.S. if its Gini score were half what it was in 2016 (so, 20 instead of 40+)?
On a related – though not, for some, alas, obviously so – note, I recommend an
about-to-be-published book by labor historian Toni Gilpin: "The Long Deep Grudge: A Story of
Big Capital, Radical Labor, and Class War in the American Heartland," which will come out
early in 2020. Gilpin analyzes the Farm Equipment Workers (FE) union and their strike in
Louisville, KY against IH (International Harvester), during which blacks and whites united
against IH for economic reasons, and won.
Full economic equality goes a fair way towards advancing tolerance and acceptance,
obviates the need for deference, and does away with the existence of dominance.
It seems to me that in this thread there is a lot of confusion about the idea of identity
and groups, and your comment doubles down with the idea that economic class is an
identity.
First from a old fart Marxist point of view, you are mixing up base (the economic
structure, the relationship with the means of production) with superstructure (blue collar
identity). These two are not the same thing, the same way sex (a biological fact) is not the
same as gender (a cultural thing). Only gender is a matter of identity, biological sex cannot
be, precisely because it is not a cultural thing. For similar reasons class proper is not the
same as identities based more or less on class.
Second, however you want to put it high education at best makes you upper middle class,
not ruling class (although many people of the ruling class also have high education, but they
aren't ruling class because of this). This again is the old (19th century) distinction by Max
Weber between classe and ceto, I use the Italian words because they both translate as "class"
in English damn you anglophones. I recently chatted with a friend who has a degree in
statistics who confirmed that this is still a taught as a bread and butter distinction in
statistics, at least in Italy.
Finally there is a big distinction between identities and the often (but not always)
different moral assumptions that go with that on the one hand, and on the other the way these
identities are used in terms of political marketing, that is something different and mostly
make sense in democracies, but not for example in an argument about colonialism where
identities still exist but the political situation is totally different.
Finally, the problem is that with each identity or set of identities comes a set of moral
values. Now if we see morals as coming from identities but identities as a natural thing, we
enter in a world of moral relativism where only the identity group who cries louder can
manage to force its values on others.
This is in fact the implicit idea in right wing populism, and the reason they sometimes seem
to think that political might makes right.
But in reality:
1) identities are not a natural thing at all, for example gender identities depend on forms
of the family that are obviously historical and linked to economic structures, so is the low
education blue collar identity;
2) many disequalities are objective and we can measure them, for example we know that
economic inequality increased in recent decades.
So on the whole I think it is possible to make a case about objectively more egalitarian
(and therefore better) sets of values and identity.
1. There is a missing category in the 4-stage paradigm, and it is "affirmation." People
can feel tolerated and then accepted, but not affirmed as much as the majority group feels
affirmed, and this is a significant. Although what, specifically, it feels like to be
affirmed, or to extend affirmation, can be murky. Is affirmation even a legitimate or
realistic thing to expect or demand from one's social environment? Why or why not? What
proportion of the social environment should extend affirmation in order for an individual
from a marginalized group feel that they are being treated equally?
2. In every society in which there are dominant identities (I can think of few where the
dominant group is singular and monolithic), there is history to contend with. The four (or
five) states of intergroup relations are not like a light switch that can be turned on or
off. What rate of changed attitudes and relationships of power are realistic to expect?
3. How do we feel about groups who are in some senses marginalized, but that within their
own community, express dominance in harmful ways against some members of their group or
against some members of other groups? What about feminists who look down on specific (or all)
religions, and within their group do not tolerate religious individuals? what about religious
minorities that persecute LGBTQ individuals? and so forth.
I invite CT commenters to engage in a small thought-experiment: What would it be like in
the U.S. if its Gini score were half what it was in 2016 (so, 20 instead of 40+)?
There's been considerable academic work on this subject. Just off the top of my head,
there's the seminal paper by Bland, Castile, Crawford, Garner, Martin, Rice et al. And
another important study of labor force effects by Argent, Arquette, Beckinsale, Garth, et al.
And no literature review would be complete without discussing the groundbreaking work by
Boyne, Carroll, Crooks, Harth, Holvey, Zervos et al.
An alternative take on what "identity politics" might mean:
A style of politics in which people are people are divided – for the purposes of
political organization – on the basis of a small number of characteristics, which
initially appear to be relative hard to change and easy to determine. Further, such groups
are treated as if they were homogeneous, with a shared political interest.
But:
a) Such characteristics are typically not mutually exclusive. A political group that is
"homongenous" wrt to one characteristic may well contain members that differ in some other
politically relevant characteristic, with consequent divergence of political objectives. eg.
"woman" contains both "white women" and "black women". cf. bell hooks
b) Who is a member of the group and who isn't often turns out to be more vexed than it
might initially appear. There exist people of mixed race, people with intersex conditions,
transgendered people, white momen who have grown up in a household with African-American
step-siblings (cf. Rachel Dolezau), etc. etc. A noted feature of "identity politics" is
people getting very, very upset about the existence of a small number of borderline cases
whose political group membership is being argued.
Black Lives Matter isn't just fighting for economic rights: they're fighting for the
right to not be executed in the street.
I think this gets to the heart of the matter: the very thin definition of the word
'economics' held by certain liberals, mostly referring to the precise timing of the next
stock market boom/bust cycle.
To those with a less restrictive definition, people being executed in the street is,
absolutely and centrally, a matter of economics. Those who support or enable those executions
do so because they do not trust the government to effectively defend their private property
rights without such measures.
The radical economic solution to that is the abolition of private property; it is of
course perfectly understandable that those most affected are not keen on waiting for
that.
Nevertheless, the less radical solution is still economic in nature, mainly involving
raising taxes in order to spend the money on a police force adequate to the task of
maintaining public order without such executions. Most of Europe provides the existence proof
that such a thing is possible.
Measurable social issues require the commitment of non-symbolic amounts of societal
resources to solve them. In an ideal world, this would leave the phrase 'identity politics'
for those issues which could potentially be resolved by the right person tweeting the right
thing
There is a horror at finding myself – as a gender critical feminist – adjacent to
arguments like Likbez's @1 that I think puts the fear of God in me. So I feel compelled to
write a comment, though I usually just observe the conversation here.
Likbez @1 is, I think, similar to those people who would pop up in conversations about gay
rights in the 90's and say, "What about this man, who had sex with 300 strangers in one
week," as an example of "gay rights extremism." The difference I notice here is that there is
no longer any concern, on the conservative or progressive side of the argument, with prurient
interest. We glibly discuss the most private details of a child's life and body, and it's
incumbent on everyone involved to either hash out the details while condemning, or hash out
the details while celebrating.
I * do * think a child accessing sterilising medical and surgical treatments for the
purposes of gender affirmation is extreme (and to me it's no less extreme when that child has
a supportive family around them). Another useful parallel might be the conversations we had
about whether it was respectability politics to not include "bareback" subcultures in gay
pride. But again, even there, we had a stable liberal position which could acknowledge the
subculture / without / having to condemn or celebrate it.
I wonder if it isn't the gay marriage debate that has evacuated that liberal posture. Well
might a social conservative answer a question about the decriminalisation of sex between men
by saying, "You can engage in x, y, or z sexual practice, but don't expect me to like it,"
and it's not really remarkable – why would I expect or require a stranger to / like /
the sex I have?! But when it's said about marriage there is something mean about it –
marriages, or at least weddings, are by definition the communal celebration of a sexual
relationship.
Can we as a liberal society tolerate the miserliness of refusal to celebrate gay
marriages? And if we can't, what do we do with this blurring of public and private, this need
to endorse and celebrate what is done by strangers (even the compulsion to have a clear
formed opinion on all the private activities of strangers).
– I wonder if there isn't a further connection with the anxieties of young people, a
need for the approval of strangers.
***
"Instead of being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant
group becomes the object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident,
particularly in relation to the culture wars around religion."
I immediately thought John was talking about Catholics. For centuries, where Catholics
have lived as a minority in predominantly Protestant and Anglican societies, they have been
exposed to all the bigotry and mistreatment we associate with minority status. But this has
had no effect on the institution of the Catholic church, or its hegemony in Catholic
societies (and even Catholic communities in protestant / Anglican societies).
(On reflection, I'm not sure that's what JQ is referring to at all).
"Good questions. I'm not sure there is a necessity for a default identity and dominant
groups; I merely observe that in most if not all stable, long-lived societies there has been
such. If you can think of exceptions, they would be very interesting."
As I'm not an expert in the area, I'm probably not a good person to ask. If we assume the
observation is true, however, while it may be interesting I don't see that it is particularly
helpful.If the number of attempts were zero then that doesn't really tell you anything about
if it would work or not.
For example, from my understanding monarchies were the "default" organisational structure
in Europe for a long period of history. One can imagine someone who lived during those eras
saying – correctly – that most if not all stable, long-lived societies were
monarchies. I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't really tell us much about if Monarchies are
the only, or indeed even best way of organising a society?
In short, I think that while your observation may be true (I'm afraid I lack the evidence
to make any claims one way or another), I don't think it really gets us any closer to
understanding whether or not a default identity and/or dominant group are a) necessary, b)
useful, and c) beneficial.
As for the default identity including sexuality: I'm not sure it's necessary, just that
it mostly goes that way.
Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the male/female binary is a) not
necessarily biologically supported (from asking biologists) and b) may in fact not be the
default identity (I believe there are examples outside of western culture, in the
Philippines, Mexico, etc.). Of course, I am not an expert (I believe you've already said your
not either?) so perhaps it would be better to ask someone who is rather than us speculating
in ignorance?
I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude
bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two).
Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender? I don't see
that it is helpful or clarifying in any way – bestiality is about what you have sexual
intercourse with (and implies a problematic lack of consent), while being transgender is (as
the name helpfully implies!) about your personal gender identity (which is not about
preferences regarding sexual intercourse, and does not have the problematic inherent consent
issue), so these would seem to be very different categories.
[Moreover, and I mean this as a helpful future tip, perhaps if you want to avoid fully any
doubts people might have about whether or not you are equating these two things, but you feel
it is useful to include a form of sexual attraction, why not pick homosexuality, bisexuality,
etc. instead?]
Perhaps I am a bit odd in this respect, but if you ask me to imagine a "default" English
person, I don't think I could. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I would think of
the people I know who are English, and I don't think there is enough commonality for me to
make an assessment. I suspect (though I don't have evidence) that if there is such a thing as
a default identity, it is probably most similar to a stereotype. And, as far as I can tell,
stereotypes are a) generally not excessively helpful to accuracy and b) vary from area to
area and region to region.
Moreover, I would think that "dominant culture" is something that can change (as the OP
implies). For example, homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently (if I recall correctly
England and Wales: 1960s, Scotland and Ireland 1980s), but I think that now the number of
people who would support recriminalizing it is pretty small. The dominant culture which was
hostile to homosexuality is now – at the very least – indifferent, if not
actively absorbing it. While I certainly wouldn't suggest homophobia is a thing of the past,
perhaps in future eras (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out due to our incompetence at
handling looming crises) people objecting to homosexuality will be thought of as odd and
irrelevant – changing the dominant culture still further. Is it not possible, then,
that such a thing could happen with transgender identities?
In short, with respect, I'm not sure what you (or I) can imagine is particularly relevant.
Given that neither of us appear to have much expertise in this area, perhaps we should wait
for others with better evidence and understanding to way in?
[Blast, apologies to the OP, but could you accept this instead of my previous post, I made a
HTML tag error which makes it seem as though one of Stephen's statements is actually mine.]
Stephen @ 56
"Good questions. I'm not sure there is a necessity for a default identity and dominant
groups; I merely observe that in most if not all stable, long-lived societies there has been
such. If you can think of exceptions, they would be very interesting."
As I'm not an expert in the area, I'm probably not a good person to ask. If we assume the
observation is true, however, while it may be interesting I don't see that it is particularly
helpful.If the number of attempts were zero then that doesn't really tell you anything about
if it would work or not.
For example, from my understanding monarchies were the "default" organisational structure
for a long time – and one can imagine someone who lived during those eras saying
– correctly – that most if not all stable, long-lived societies were monarchies.
I hope you'd agree that that wouldn't really tell us much about if it is the only, or indeed
even best way of organising a society?
In short, I think that while your observation may or may not be true (I'm afraid I lack
the evidence to make any claims one way or another), I don't think it really gets us any
closer to understanding whether or not a default identity and/or dominant group are a)
necessary, b) useful, and c) beneficial.
As for the default identity including sexuality: I'm not sure it's necessary, just that
it mostly goes that way.
Again, I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the male/female binary is a) not
necessarily biologically supported (from asking biologists) and b) may in fact not be the
default identity (I believe there are examples outside of western culture, in the
Philippines, Mexico, etc.). Of course, I am not an expert (I believe you've already said your
not either?) so perhaps it would be better to ask someone who is?
I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not exclude
bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two).
Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being transgender? I don't see
that it is helpful or clarifying in any way – bestiality is about what you have sexual
intercourse with (and implies a problematic lack of consent), while being transgender is (as
the name helpfully implies!) about your personal gender identity (which is not about
preferences regarding sexual intercourse, and does not have the problematic consent issue),
so these would seem to be very different categories.
[Moreover, as a helpful future tip, perhaps if you want to avoid fully any doubts people
might have about whether or not you are equating these two things, but you feel it is useful
to include a form of sexual attraction, why not pick homosexuality, bisexuality, etc.
instead?]
Perhaps I am a bit odd in this respect, but if you ask me to imagine a "default" English
person, I don't think I could. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I would think of
the people I know who are English, and I don't think there is enough commonality for me to
make an assessment. I suspect (though I don't have evidence) that if there is such a thing as
a default identity, it is probably most similar to a stereotype. And, as far as I can tell,
stereotypes are a) generally not excessively helpful to accuracy and b) vary from area to
area and region to region.
Moreover, I would think that "dominant culture" is something that can change (as the OP
implies). For example, homosexuality was illegal until fairly recently (if I recall correctly
England and Wales: 1960s, Scotland and Ireland 1980s), but I think that now the number of
people who would support recriminalizing it is pretty small. The dominant culture which was
hostile to homosexuality is now – at the very least – indifferent, if not
actively absorbing it. While I certainly wouldn't suggest homophobia is a thing of the past,
perhaps in future eras (assuming we don't wipe ourselves out due to our incompetence at
handling looming crises) people objecting to homosexuality will be thought of as odd and
irrelevant – changing the dominant culture still further. Is it not possible, then,
that such a thing could happen with transgender identities?
In short, with respect, I'm not sure what you (or I) can imagine is particularly
relevant.
Seren Rose, likbez is a straight-up christian fascist. If you find your politics overlapping
with his in any way shape or form, it might be a good idea to assess whether the overlapping
part is something you want to keep. Here's a tip: if the overlapping part is based on
excluding a minority from public spaces, there's probably a reason it appeals to likbez.
Also as a gender critical feminist I'm guessing you are in favour of preventing trans
women from using female-only spaces. I recommend you
read this so that when natal women start being harassed and beaten up as a consequence of
your policies, you can't make the excuse that you weren't warned.
Well, I wasn't going to bring it up, but now we're here
Rightwing trolls or troll-like posters like likbez don't focus on transgender activism by
accident. It's the ne plus ultra of identity politics gone wrong: it seems
superficially reasonable, by association with LGB liberation movements, but its claims are
irreconcilable with long-standing goals of other movements usually found on the left
(particularly many kinds of feminism); it demands the use of language that makes it difficult
or impossible to express disagreement and harrasses, threatens and deplatforms people who
refuse to submit; it is relentlessly, viciously misogynistic. And when otherwise sympathetic
people get a glimpse into the nastier side of trans activism and who exactly it is protecting
(the Dana Rivers, the Karen Whites, the Jessica Yanivs, etc. etc.), and especially what its
goals mean for women and girls – the stuff that the activists try with all their might
to stop feminists drawing attention to – they tend to begin to regard it as completely
bonkers. Which is of course one reason why all dissent must be silenced before it can
spread.
I am trying very hard right now to give you the benefit of the doubt in your arguments.
You haven't addressed any of my criticisms or comments in my post at 36 (fair enough, you
don't owe me any answers). I would assume normally you have missed it, didn't think it was
worth replying to, or are formulating a response. However, your most recent comments at 60
are, to put it mildly, very problematic.
First, have you got around to making a working definition for transgender extremism yet? I
only ask, because if I think religious extremism I imagine beheadings, massacres, suicide
bombings; if I imagine political extremism, I imagine violence, bombings, terrorism; but as
far as I can tell your definition of transgender extremism is apparently daring to exist and
ask maybe if they could be treated as human beings rather than evil incarnate. One of those
does not seem like the others.
Here are my problems with your post at 60. I hope you will at least consider this, and
perhaps re-evaluate what you are saying and how you are saying it.
" With this quote I think we reached the point in this discussion when it might be
appropriate to discuss the appropriate scope of repression for deviant minority groups when
their demands conflict with the larger society or more powerful groups ethics and cultural
norms.
"deviant minority groups". OK, so Mormons? Or were they not the deviant minority group you
were thinking of? You see, that's one of the fundamental problems with your assertions
– you are unable or unwilling to offer any clear ideas as to how you come to decide the
term and who it applies to. You seem to operate on what you personally feel comfortable with
– which is not a particularly useful starting point.
The usual "woke" argumentation is very weak in issues outlined below and opposite
arguments have a real weight: I would repression of the minority groups start with pedophiles
and financial oligarchy especially vulture funds leadership such as Romney, Paul Singer, etc.
But this is just me.
Funnily enough, people pushing for transgender awareness are not pro-paedophile. I know
that you seem to struggle with understanding this (or, indeed, anything judging by your
inability to reason), but paedophilia = having sex with children; being transgender = taking
on a gender identity in-keeping with your internal model and different to that assigned at
birth. The key difference there, and bear with me as apparently you find this very complex,
is that one group are raping children, the other isn't. Try repeating this a few times in the
mirror – I am optimistic you will eventually get it.
"IMHO insatiable "demanding" and proselyting of transgender identity already brought us
very close to a strong corporate and community backlash against transgender rights and by
extension LGBT rights as a whole."
You know, people said the same thing about gay rights. And you know what was interesting?
It turns out the whole "line to far" was that they existed. Given you haven't really made any
attempt to explain why you think "personal medical decision" is functionally extremism, I am
not overly confident in your ability to determine what constitutes "too much" demanding.
"Of course transgender folk is just minor, expendable pawn in a bigger game of Dem
Party identity politics, but still."
Yes, because the Democratic party of America basically rules Europe. That was sarcasm, by
the way. I did point out before that making US based judgements and assessments without
considering how it fits into the global phenomena makes you look ignorant. Apparently you
don't think that that was a point worth considering.
Again, when discussing transgender people, you start bringing in sexual abuse with
children. Yet no-where in the article is any reference to transgender people. I am now a lot
less optimistic in your ability to understand the difference. It is also worth considering
that the Catholic Church – which arguably has a little more power and privilege than
the LGBT – has been complicit in covering up a horrific amount of child-rape.
Interestingly, you don't seem to be railing against them.
To summarise
You don't seem interested in researching anything or gaining any facts. You don't appear
to consider other arguments. You repeatedly conflate transgender people with paedophiles. You
don't support your arguments, don't define your terms, and don't seem to care whether or not
anything you say is rooted in evidence.
This is why I am having a very hard job considering you someone who is arguing in good
faith right now.
Finally, as a few comments I hope you will consider.
1) Paedophilia and transgender people
The reason I object to paedophiles is not because they are a small number of people who
are different to me. I object to paedophiles because they are causing harm. They are causing
harm, because they are committing an action (sex) with someone who cannot give consent (a
child).
Transgender people are committing an act (adopting a different gender identity) which
affects only themselves (who give consent because they are undertaking it).
If you do not make a case to link transgender people and child rape, I would appreciate if
you stopped conflating the two. Even if I assume the absolute best case – that you
don't think the two are the same but are trying to incoherently make a point – it makes
for a completely incoherent argument to include here.
2) Transgender people in society
If you want to argue that transgender people should be denied privileges available to
other people, that is your prerogative. But you should probably actually make a case, and try
to support it with evidence. For example, if you could prove that people being allowed to
determine their own gender is objectively bad in some way, that would be a good starting
point. You don't though – and, though I try to avoid ascribing motivations to other
people, I suspect it is because you don't actually have an argument that it is harmful
– merely that you don't like it. And apparently, for you, "I don't like this" is a good
reason to deny rights to one group of people you extend to others. It might be worth
reflecting on what that says about you as a person.
3) likbez
When someone repeatedly refuses to make their case after adopting the burden of proof, it
is very difficult to take them seriously on that topic. It also impacts how you precieve them
on other topics.
You don't owe me anything, and if you wish to continue making unsupported statements,
falacious arguments, and equivication falacies, by all means do continue. I won't however,
consider you as someone who should be considered worth listening to – which I hope
you'd agree is my prerogative.
Undiscovering America. It's too late for that, I think. The muddying of the waters, i.e.
post-historical tribalism, can't obscure the fact that the underlying conflict is between our
individual and our collective identity(ies). It doesn't really matter whether the collective
is family, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sports team. If we aren't, as individuals,
the ultimate arbiters of our own allegiances, and if the collective(s) we belong to, either
by accident, affinity, or choice, are unwilling to give up on the project of defining us
without asking us what we prefer, then our present conflicts will continue, and in all
likelihood get nastier as the stakes in our-post hierarchical, post-literate universe rise
ever higher.
I should probably add that China's much-touted ignoble experiment in Gleichschaltung
is going to introduce modes of historical failure which the world hasn't seen since Roman
times. Xi Jinping has absolutely no effing idea of the doom he's trifling with. Compared to
Donald Rumsfeld, I suppose you could call him a visionary, but only if you love the smell of
apocalypse in the morning.
I've no wish to tell you "this is how you should think", and am open to having a dialogue
with anyone who is interested in doing so (it helps me refine my position or, when I am
wrong, to re-evaluate my premises). I hope, therefore, you'll be will to indulge me a little
when I make the following comments – I would, if you are interested, value your
thoughts (though I don't wish to make demands on your time).
I don't particularly enjoy discussing anyone's private details – I generally prefer
it if private lives can remain private – and certainly would hope I don't do so glibly.
Unfortunately, when there is a discussion about whether or not a person should be permitted
to make a private decision, sometimes it is necessary to discuss the facts surrounding the
case. I would state, however, that to me it is important that as much anonymity as possible
is afforded the individual, and as little of the details are discussed as necessary. Do you
think that that is unreasonable?
My first comments were regarding Likbez's first link. To me, it is not only the first
mentioned, but also the most clear cut. Someone who is 17 wishes to transition, their mother
(who they have alleged was abusive, whom they left 2 years ago) objects. Given that the
individual seems to have made well-reasoned comments, their mother does not seem to be
well-placed to make any evaluations (or indeed make any decisions regarding their child), and
I have no reason to think they are unable to make an assessment regarding their own gender, I
don't see any reason to object. Do you think there is?
Hopefully you'll agree that I have managed to avoid discussing them or their body too
much. If not, I'd certainly appreciate it if you pointed out where I've erred – this is
not sarcasm, I genuinely want to do better.
You appear to have considerable concerns regarding Likbez's second link. You know what
– so do I. It isn't quite as portrayed – further reading indicates that what was
proposed was a reversible treatment with no surgery, which allays some of the concerns
– but I agree that "what age can someone make a reasonable decision regarding their
gender" is a good discussion to have. As is, "what is the best way to handle this", and "how
do we ensure that people are afforded freedom proporitionate with their maturity and
responsibility". However, I would want such a discussion to involve evidence (not specific
details of people, but anonymised scientific evidence), logical arguments, and conclusions
which come as close as possible to achieving the best decision. I hope you would agree that
that is a good approach?
Now, I am not an expert. However, as far as I can tell, the people who study this for a
living seem to say that biology and gender are far more complex that traditional models allow
for. That being the case, it does not seem unreasonable to change these models. After all, if
you are worried about the effects of peer-pressure on children, I would think that being
forced into an identity which causes you incredible discomfort (or even feelings of
dissonance) is probably not good for their long term health. For example, trying to force
people who are homosexual to be heterosexual does not seem to have been good for them, or for
society. I imagine, as a gender critical feminist, you can think of similar examples of the
harm resulting from women being forced into roles far better than I.
In short, my position is that people should be afforded the maximum reasonable ability to
make their personal decisions. In cases where there are concerns regarding their ability to
do so, I am fine with society coming to an evidence based conclusion about where to draw the
line. This will, as always, lead to some inherent unfairness (our systems are
"one-size-fits-all" and this will inherently lead to some people being let down), but
hopefully we can make our society as fair as possible. And, continue to refine.
If you think I am being unreasonable, unnecessarily prurient, or am on a path which is
detrimental, I would certainly appreciate your pointing it out to me – I am always keen
to do better.
Here's a tip: if the overlapping part is based on excluding a minority from public
spaces, there's probably a reason it appeals to likbez.
Imbecilization of discussion of controversial issues like in case of your comment is a
normal development typical for the periods of intellectual declines which naturally follows
the economic decline of a given empire.
There's growing evidence the West is going through the same process as the USSR.
the history is pretty clear: the class-based movements cane first, and they failed to
make any progress toward (or even care about) the rights of these oppressed groups. [ ]
Also, many of these movements explicitly recognize the importance of intersectionality --
why else would you see feminists and gay rights groups so heavily involved in immigrant
rights?
Well, since you're all about fairness and avoiding double standards let's compare
contemporaneous movements. How much did abolitionists help alleviate the oppression of women?
How much did suffragettes fight segregation? Did the LGBTQ rights movement include BTQ for
most of its history? Did any of these historical movements fight against ablism? How much did
they achieve WRT immigrant rights, indigenous rights, and the rights of minority religions?
Or are you comparing very, VERY recent developments in these movements with historical class
identity movements? I'd point out, BTW, that it's very disputable whether gender/racial right
movements came after class identity movements – both are far older than their recent
(to say nothing of modern) forms. And throughout the history of all of these, there
have been not just unhelpful but actively repressive elements in all of them. Yet you're only
comparing contemporary intersectional essentialist identity politics to historical class
identity politics why is that? Especially when modern class identity politics are also
influenced by intersectional thinking and ally themselves with more than than just
class-based movements even if they prioritize class. Yet
here we have you telling us that socioeconomic status is not an identity – that the
idea of identity becomes meaningless if we consider it as such. That has a very particular
and somewhat suspicious look.
To pull this back more closely to the subject of OP, your pile of unexamined privilege
looks an awful lot like you're uncritically accepting the highly-educated/rich/socially &
professionally networked/managerial-professional-executive workers' (i.e., upper class)
"default" cultural perspective, and are insisting that failure to see it is deviant and
immoral (no more and no less than a cis het white Xian man insisting that a mythical 1950s
represents the objective reality of Americanism). The rich minority is dominate in that
epistomology, and the managerial-professional minority is deferred to. Among lower-class
conservative adherents, this translates to education being suspect, but wealth & social
status is taken as proof that these classes are reliably jus'folks who haven't been corrupted
by too much learning; among lower-class liberal adherents, wealth is suspect but the
education & social status proves our elites are woke egalitarians who haven't been
corrupted by greed and power but in both cases, the rich are dominant and the
managerial-professionals are deferred to. 100 years ago this would have been a harder sell,
as our culture was more disparate in terms of class identity, but mass media driven by
consumption (and advertising) homogenized our worldview and humanized the rich to a great
degree, with the result of aggressively encouraging the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire"
mindset and belief in the myth of meritocracy.
The point of everything you TL;DR'd in order to lecture me about How Things REALLY Are
again was not that you're a hypocrite – it's instead how very telling it is that you
don't simply want to de-prioritize the idea of economically-oriented reform, but
de-legitimize the very idea of it. It's appalling to see you invoke intersectionality in this
context; are you so come-lately to it that you don't know its history before it was
housebroken? A common early criticism of intersectionality was that it placed too much focus
on just three intersecting identities: gender, race, and, yes, class. The subsequent trend to
view intersectionality as a thing distinct from class identity is a development that looks an
awful lot like institutional co-opting as former outsiders addressing an insurgent critique
of distorted elite analysis made peace with the academic hierarchy, got tenure, and
mysteriously lost their impetus to challenge privilege based on wealth, education,
profession, or social status. What you've done here has unintentionally been extremely
instructive in terms of what OP discusses; you're providing a case study of a privileged
minority arguing against perspectives that do not conform to the dominant default culture in
order to protect the deference you feel due, and the dominance of the hierarchy which
entitles you to that deference.
Seren Rose @ 67:
You write about a lot of things, and some of them I don't feel qualified to comment upon. But
at least this, seems pretty obvious:
Can we as a liberal society tolerate the miserliness of refusal to celebrate gay
marriages? And if we can't, what do we do with this blurring of public and private
The record here is pretty clear: gay marriage advocates fought for gay marriage not for
the private celebration, but because in ways big and small, myriad public and publicly
regulated institutions and organizations confer advantages upon the married. From family
health insurance policies to "who gets to visit you as you lie dying," to "who gets to pick
up your kids at school."
I think this is a good example of the way that demands by identity groups can get
misinterpreted, either inadvertently or intentionally. Nobody asked for Evangelical pastors
to be compelled to perform gay marriages. What they -did- ask, was that in any public
accommodation or regulated business of any sort, that prefers advantages to married couples,
this advantage be extended to gay couples who are married. And this is no different from the
"full faith and credit" clause that makes marriages in one state valid in another.
(One thing I'd add to tie the idea of class identity politics to the discussion here is that
contemporary upper class resistance to it vs. comparative upper class acceptance of
essentialist identity politics fits well into the zero-sum vs. positive-sum distinction made
by
Peter Dorman . Class identity movements seek to flatten the socio-economic hierarchy via
wealth redistribution, progessive taxation, increased democratization of political processes,
etc. Essentialist identity movements do not directly threaten the hierarchy that entrenches
the rich as dominant and professionals as deferred to – it changes the pool of
available candidates within the heirarchy, which may lead to individuals or sub-groups
resisting if they feel unable or unwilling to compete with individuals previously below them
on other hierarchies, but more diversity in the C-suites is not an existential threat
to the upper class.)
notGoodEnough @ 68:
Stephen: "I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not
exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two)."
notGoodEnough: "Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being
transgender?"
I have to laugh. We both know why he included that reference, don't we? It's the same
reason "Box Turtle Ben (Domenech)" included it in that speech that Texas Senator John Cornyn
was to deliver ("It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box
turtle. But that does not mean it is right Now you must raise your children up in a world
where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife"). It's
the same reason likbez pretends that pedophiles are an identity group like gay people.
Decent people must feel that bestiality and pedophilia are beyond the pale. By juxtaposing
them with LGBT, the goal is to subtly induce decent people to associate their feelings of
disgust toward (e.g.) sex with box turtles, and gay people and oh-so-icky ways.
It's a tell that Stephen hasn't got a tolerant bone in his body.
TBH, likbez seems to be regurgitating typical transphobic arguments. Linking to homophobic
hate groups does not enhance his position.
He/she clearly does not think that trans people have any rights that he is obligated to
honor.
On the other hand, seems to expect that we are obligated to respect his bigotry.
likbez, you've derailed the thread, and your comments are trolling at best. Nothing further
from you on this thread, please. Also, if I write further on identity politics, please
refrain from commenting.
Well, I wasn't going to bring it up, but now we're here
Rightwing trolls or troll-like posters like likbez don't focus on transgender activism by
accident. It's the ne plus ultra of identity politics gone wrong: it seems
superficially reasonable, by association with LGB liberation movements, but its claims are
irreconcilable with long-standing goals of other movements usually found on the left
(particularly many kinds of feminism); it demands the use of language that makes it difficult
or impossible to express disagreement and harrasses, threatens and deplatforms people who
refuse to submit; it is relentlessly, viciously misogynistic.
And when otherwise sympathetic people get a glimpse into the nastier side of trans
activism and who exactly it is protecting (the Dana Rivers, the Karen Whites, the Jessica
Yanivs, etc. etc.), and especially what its goals mean for women and girls – the stuff
that the activists try with all their might to stop feminists drawing attention to –
they tend to begin to regard it as completely bonkers.
Which is of course one reason why all dissent must be silenced before it can spread.
Here are my problems with your post at 60. I hope you will at least consider this, and
perhaps re-evaluate what you are saying and how you are saying it.
" With this quote I think we reached the point in this discussion when it might be
appropriate to discuss the appropriate scope of repression for deviant minority groups when
their demands conflict with the larger society or more powerful groups ethics and cultural
norms.
"deviant minority groups". OK, so Mormons? Or were they not the deviant minority group you
were thinking of? You see, that's one of the fundamental problems with your assertions
– you are unable or unwilling to offer any clear ideas as to how you come to decide the
term and who it applies to. You seem to operate on what you personally feel comfortable with
– which is not a particularly useful starting point.
The usual "woke" argumentation is very weak in issues outlined below and opposite
arguments have a real weight: I would ]suggest that the ]repression of the minority groups
starts with pedophiles and financial oligarchy especially vulture funds leadership such as
Romney, Paul Singer, etc. But this is just me.
(One thing I'd add to tie the idea of class identity politics to the discussion here is that
contemporary upper class resistance to it vs. comparative upper class acceptance of
essentialist identity politics fits well into the zero-sum vs. positive-sum distinction made
by
Peter Dorman .
Class identity movements seek to flatten the socio-economic hierarchy via wealth
redistribution, progessive taxation, increased democratization of political processes,
etc.
Essentialist identity movements do not directly threaten the hierarchy that
entrenches the rich as dominant and professionals as deferred to – it changes the
pool of available candidates within the heirarchy, which may lead to individuals or
sub-groups resisting if they feel unable or unwilling to compete with individuals
previously below them on other hierarchies, but more diversity in the C-suites is
not an existential threat to the upper class.)
notGoodEnough @ 68:
Stephen: "I have trouble in imagining a society in which the default identity does not
exclude bestiality or trandgenderism (not that I'm equating the two)."
notGoodEnough: "Out of interest, why did you include bestiality alongside being
transgender?"
I have to laugh. We both know why he included that reference, don't we? It's the same
reason "Box Turtle Ben (Domenech)" included it in that speech that Texas Senator John Cornyn
was to deliver ("It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box
turtle. But that does not mean it is right Now you must raise your children up in a world
where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife"). It's
the same reason likbez pretends that pedophiles are an identity group like gay people.
Decent people must feel that bestiality and pedophilia are beyond the pale. By juxtaposing
them with LGBT, the goal is to subtly induce decent people to associate their feelings of
disgust toward (e.g.) sex with box turtles, and gay people and oh-so-icky ways.
It's a tell that Stephen hasn't got a tolerant bone in his body.
Oy, it looks like you've made my point for me. Let me recap:
(1) Aubergine pointed out that some of these identity groups tend to absolutely privilege
pursuit of their group's goals over the pursuit of a broader class-based agenda
(2) I agreed that this was the case, and that it was only natural, because (a)
historically broad class-based movements have done zilch for oppressed minorities and
interest groups, and (b) indeed, to a great extent, for many of the kinds of physical
oppression faced by minorities, women, and LGBT folks, the oppressors are well-represented in
the proletariat also.
In short, the only way any of these groups got their very real concerns about the
conditions of their labor and life addressed, was by speaking up for themselves.
(3) To this your argument was first that these groups don't work toward a class-based
agenda, and now that there's no evidence in history that they have worked to support each
other, either. [As if the latter matters; I never argued that class-based movements -should-
support (e.g.) gay rights: I noted that they DID NOT, and hence it made sense that gay rights
groups FOCUSED on gay rights. Notwithstanding, in recent years these interest groups DO
support each other.]
(4) Throughout, you've focused on the economic issues, and denigrated the issues that
drove these groups into being:
To pull this back more closely to the subject of OP, your pile of unexamined privilege
looks an awful lot like you're uncritically accepting the highly-educated/rich/socially
& professionally networked/managerial-professional-executive workers' (i.e., upper
class) "default" cultural perspective, and are insisting that failure to see it is deviant
and immoral
What can I say? You're making my point for me. If you can't see that the goals #MeToo,
Black Lives Matter, ACT-UP and others are important, even though they're not economic, well,
is it any surprise they refuse to subordinate them to your goals?
... ... ...
And one last thing: again, it seems like you think that the right of a well-educated woman
or black man to have a good job on the same terms as a white man, is less important than
lifting up all the poor people. It is as if you're saying
Do you remember what LBJ said?
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he
won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll
empty his pockets for you."
Do you see the similarity with your rhetoric? You're arguing that the effect of these
interest groups is to aid entry of members of these minorities into the rich class, and per
se this is bad.
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?
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.
"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.
"... Trans ideology initially surfaced in mainstream culture as a pre-formed idea, with activists claiming that even to question it was hate speech. These ideologues successfully manipulated public compassion to convince people that the view that biological sex is mutable and gender is innate in the brain is correct, even if that doesn't make any biological or logical sense. ..."
"... Now the existence of trans adults is mandating the creation of trans children. The idea that grownups who were born male were actually always female only works if there are trans youth. The court system is allowing this delusion to be perpetrated simply so that the dogma of trans adults can make sense. If a child came forward and said he needed one leg removed, or an eyeball sewn onto his hand, or a nose job, the courts would undoubtedly say no. The fact that they say otherwise to drastic body modifications when trans is involved shows how powerful this perspective has become. ..."
"... Whether or not James believes he is female -- which is seriously in doubt -- there should be no medical professional who is willing to give a child life-altering drugs designed to deny his biological sex and development. If a parent speaks out against this, the court should do everything in its power to open the door to preventing the child from undergoing medical harm. Additionally, if this seven-year-old's idea that he is female turns out to be untrue, he'll need an adult in his life to whom he can turn, to whom he will not feel responsible to stay trans in order to earn their approval. The court is denying that the child will ever need a way out, yet detransitioners exist and are making their voices heard. ..."
When a Court Forces Your Boy to Become a Girl It's happening in Texas, showing just how far coercive trans ideology
has wormed into our culture.
The latest case to have every rational person in a state of horror is that of a Texas dad who has been forced by court order to
allow his seven-year-old son to undergo a medical gender transition at the hands of the child's mother. It's a massive judicial overreach
that destroys the bond between parent and child, and it exemplifies everything that opponents of trans ideology have been warning
about.
Dr. Anne Georgulas and Jeffrey Younger, parents to twin boys, are in stark disagreement as to the best treatment for their son.
Unable to come to an adequate solution, the dispute landed them in court. On one side was Georgulas, who believes that her seven-year-old,
James, wishes to live as a girl called Luna. Her answer to this delusion (which may, in fact, be her own, and not her son's) is to
drug the child with puberty blockers and estrogen. Younger, the boys' father, who until this point has had joint custody with Georgulas,
does not believe his healthy son should be altered in this way.
Judge and jury have now
found in Georgulas' favor. Under mother's care, James will be chemically castrated, put on drugs that will render him infertile,
and only allowed to interact with those who call him Luna, reinforcing the falsehood that he is a girl. While what's happening to
James is tragic, the most dangerous part of all is how this case could set a precedent for further social indoctrination and maltreatment.
Younger is being compelled by a court of law to lie to his own son.
Trans ideology initially surfaced in mainstream culture as a pre-formed idea, with activists claiming that even to question
it was hate speech. These ideologues successfully manipulated public compassion to convince people that the view that biological
sex is mutable and gender is innate in the brain is correct, even if that doesn't make any biological or logical sense.
Now the existence of trans adults is mandating the creation of trans children. The idea that grownups who were born male were
actually always female only works if there are trans youth. The court system is allowing this delusion to be perpetrated simply so
that the dogma of trans adults can make sense. If a child came forward and said he needed one leg removed, or an eyeball sewn onto
his hand, or a nose job, the courts would undoubtedly say no. The fact that they say otherwise to drastic body modifications when
trans is involved shows how powerful this perspective has become.
The idea of trans is that gender dysphoric youth need to be affirmed in their delusions because otherwise they will commit suicide.
But this is the only area where risk of self-harm has led to the upholding of a sick person's self-deception. Similar reinforcement
is never attempted with anorexia, depression, or any other mental condition. What makes trans so special is the advocates behind
it, who are
pushing at every level for recognition, even if it means depriving a parent of his rights.
This court case makes clear that if parents do not go along with trans ideology, their rights to properly raise their children
will be taken from them. Custody disputes are always a mess. But there should never be be a case in which a parent is removed from
joint custody because he or she objects to a healthy child undergoing unnecessary, experimental medical treatment.
Whether or not James believes he is female -- which is seriously in
doubt
-- there should be no medical professional who is willing to give a child life-altering drugs designed to deny his biological sex
and development. If a parent speaks out against this, the court should do everything in its power to open the door to preventing
the child from undergoing medical harm. Additionally, if this seven-year-old's idea that he is female turns out to be untrue, he'll
need an adult in his life to whom he can turn, to whom he will not feel responsible to stay trans in order to earn their approval.
The court is denying that the child will ever need a way out, yet detransitioners exist and are making their voices heard.
When we are seven, we believe what we are told, not only about the world around us but about our own bodies. It's easy to convince
children that lies are truth, because they have nothing to base their understanding on. This is why it's so essential to give kids
accurate information. Just as it would be cruel to tell a child that red is blue, or cats are dogs, it is similarly horrible to tell
them that boys can become girls. They will believe it, and it is a lie.
Fortunately, some in the medical establishment are starting to
sound the alarm about the dangers of puberty blockers and cross sex hormones being administered to young children. The risks
of these drugs include bone loss, brain dysfunction, and permanent sterility. There may be other side effects, too, but since these
drugs are not tested, no one knows what those might be. Yet trans advocates insist that affirming their ideology is more important
than watchful waiting.
The practice of affirmation is actually confirmation. Compelling those around the child to use a new language and new name, to
support the delusion instead of insisting that the child's body is fine as it was made, reinforces that the child is trans. No parent
should be compelled by a court of law to lie in this way, and that it's happened shows how insidious trans ideology has wormed into
our culture.
Libby Emmons is a playwright living in Brooklyn, New York. She has written for The Federalist, Quillette, and Arc Digital,
among other publications. You can follow her on Twitter @li88yinc .
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.
"... I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden hand ..."
"... It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized ..."
"... Back then Allyssa Milano and others were telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the allegation ..."
I've always wondered if the whole MeToo movement was orchestrated by a hidden
hand – same for those horrible pussy hats they came out with after Trump was elected.
It seemed like the MeToo was weaponized and ready to go when Kavanaugh was nominated (and
I'm not a fan–he's connected to Bush and the Patriot Act). They brought out Dr. Chrissy
Fraud and Julie Swetnick (who seemed quite mentally unstable with her accusations that
Kavanaugh was connected to gang rape parties).
Back then Allyssa Milano and others were
telling us that we must believe all women (so now guilty until proven innocent), but those
same women have been completely silent when one of Epstein's accusers said she was forced to
have sex with Bill Richardson (D) and George Mitchell (D), both of whom denied the
allegations.
And, of course, such accusations were barely mentioned in the MSM.
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:
12º 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.
13º That the general laws include everyone, without exception of privileged bodies; and that these are only in the use of the
ministry..
14º 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.
16º 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.
17º That each one be kept his property, and respect in his House as in a sacred asylum, pointing out penalties to the offenders.
18º That the new legislation does not admit torture.
19º 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.
20º 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.
21º 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.
22º 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 Mª Morelos.
23º 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.
"... 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.
... 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'...
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.
As commented elsewhere, all her screeching about double standards for women are utter BS. She
broke the rules while playing against another woman and not a man. The men's tennis league is
utterly irrelevant since she may as well have compared her league to men's football. She
failed by the standards of her league and not those of another. It was clear that she was
breaking the rules of her league and she was the one that escalated the conflict. It has
nothing to do with women's rights.
The PC drones are rather mentally deficient. They respond to trigger phrases and not to
concepts or principles.
Australian cartoonist Mark Knight is in trouble with J K Rowling and other self-styled
guardians of who may portray Serena Williams in meltdown and who may not. The offending
drawing below:
"... 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 Nº 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.""
"... 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.
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 make a contribution, supporting development
of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info
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 author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with.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.
Softpanorama
As a Former Dean of Harvard Medical School, I Question Brown's Failure to Defend Lisa Littman - Quillette This week's controversy surrounding an academic paper on gender dysphoria published by Brown University assistant professor Lisa Littman -- brought on by the post-publication questioning of Dr Littman's
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
