RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2023/04/history-as-progress-history-as-horror/

Looking recently at a picture of a demonstration against the celebration of Australia Day, I could not help but notice a person of Aboriginal descent dressed in that traditional item of costume, the T-shirt, employing that equally traditional instrument, the megaphone.

The megaphone is the perfect instrument for the expression of one of the most reliable and gratifying of all emotions, self-righteousness. The megaphone is versatile: it is also the perfect instrument for the demagogue. It couldn’t be better for making dialogue impossible, for drowning out dissension and for the propagation of half-truths.

Historiography is now the favoured subject of the self-righteous demagogue. As a science (I use the word in its loose, continental European sense), historiography’s influence on mass psychology is much underestimated. With the rise in the number of educated persons—by which I mean persons who have spent at least a fifth of their lives in supposedly educational establishments—it has become ever more salient, ever more influential.

The protests against the celebration of Australia Day were an illustration of the effect of changing historiography. A day intended to celebrate the founding of a successful, free and prosperous country was turned by demonstrators into its very opposite, a day of lamentation for that very founding. Thus, the same event more than two centuries ago, the arrival of the First Fleet, gave rise to diametrically opposite assessments of its moral and political significance.

All historiographies are incomplete, of course, for they cannot encompass all that happened in history, and therefore are open to attack by those who object to what they omit. I began to think about this matter when I took an interest in medical history. The first book I read on the subject was Singer and Underwood’s A Short History of Medicine (not so short, I thought it), which was in essence an account of the progress of medicine to its state of enlightenment as of 1962, when the book was published. It consisted of brief descriptions of the work of men who had contributed the new and improved ideas that contributed to the science’s upward march, each contributing his mite, with a few, such as Harvey, Pasteur, Lister, Koch and Ehrlich, contributing much more than a mere mite.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/04/vivek_ramaswamy_is_willing_to_stand_behind_strong_conservative_principles.html

I realized why I like Vivek Ramaswamy when I heard Sen. Tim Scott announce that he’s created an exploratory committee to decide whether he should run for president. Scott speaks like a politician; Vivek speaks like a conservative. The former says what his consultants tell him to say; Vivek offers unfiltered insights into his thinking and is willing to say what politicians have been trained not to say. That’s clear from Vivek’s 25 goals as president and his honesty about so-called “transgenderism.”

Briefly, regarding Tim Scott, I admire him as a person: He’s a highly intelligent man who overcame a difficult childhood to become a successful businessman and politician, and he’s mostly conservative. However, Scott has been marinated in D.C. politics and, to my ear, he’s lost his authenticity. His video about his exploratory committee sounds like it went through two focus groups and three consultants before it finally came out of his mouth:

The same was true of Nikki Haley’s announcement that she was throwing her hat into the ring. In both cases, they as if you could open a 1970s-style catalog called “Politicians,” leaf through its pages for the “generic conservative” line, and find their pictures. (I may learn to think they’ve got what it takes but, for now, I’m reserving judgment.)

Trump wasn’t and isn’t like that. He is a complete original, an iconoclast who loves his country, makes great deals, and is unfettered by any leftist or Uniparty ideas—something that’s true despite his having been a Democrat. Heck, I was once a Democrat, too.

https://goudsmit.pundicity.com/26901/in-a-world-obsessed-with-feelings-whose-feelings

lindagoudsmit.com goudsmit.pundicity.com 

In a society that eliminates meritocracy by shifting its metrics from achievement to feelings, whose feelings actually matter? Let’s find out.

Competence is the mother of self-esteem. We know this is true by simply observing the delight of young children as they learn to dress themselves, feed themselves, or sound out their first words and realize they can read! Each achievement increases the child’s competence and enhances his developing sense of self. Achievement makes little Johnny feel proud of himself and good about himself. Let’s consider what incentivizes competence and achievement, and what doesn’t. Let’s also consider the motivations for incentivizing competence and the motivations for discouraging it.

If you want to know the motive, look at the result. What made America great was its cultural roots in meritocracy. Our society awarded achievement with upward mobility. It was called the American Dream, and America was the land where dreams came true. In every sector of society, little Johnny was encouraged to become an independent, autonomous, rational adult, capable of living a life of ordered liberty in our constitutional republic. In other words, little Johnny was encouraged to grow up and perpetuate the American dream. Not anymore.

In the past, each of little Johnny’s achievements were rewarded with praise when he was a little boy. As he grew older he earned grades in school that marked his achievement. Then he competed in sports with friends, and games with family. His grades were awarded certificates of achievement or advanced placement. His sports achievements were awarded with trophies, and wins in family games were rewarded with more praise.

The competitions all served to incentivize achievement. As Johnny got older he competed for jobs and for advancement. Winning and losing were part of everyone’s private and public life. Meritocracy was society’s infrastructure, rooted in achievement. Those who lost were encourage to try harder, work harder, study more, and try again. In the 1970s, ABC’s Wide World of Sports announcer Jim McKay, immortalized the words, “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.”