RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/the_power_of_terrible_ideas.html

While many have criticized the current enthusiasm for judging the past by the standards of the present (and condemning those past leaders who did not meet them), few have noted how many currently dominant beliefs are totally disconnected from reality and have a profoundly destructive impact.  I propose to discuss two of them here: ideas about the nature of mental illness which have produced what Charles Krauthammer called “an army of broken souls foraging and freezing in the streets” and the conviction that our planet is in existential danger from human-induced climate change. The latter has led to a wholly unwarranted, hugely expensive crusade to eliminate fossil fuels.  The chief effect has been to strengthen the leverage of those countries, many of them enemies of the West, that continue to produce these fuels, which remain essential to the functioning of industrial societies.

In the 1960s, a mad idea was born, the notion that there is no such thing as mental illness. Incredibly, it would become the foundation for public policy.  The idea sprang independently from two maverick psychiatrists at opposite ideological poles, on the right U.S. psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, an unsparing libertarian, and on the left the British Ronald Laing.  Szasz disposed of mental illness by verbal sleight of hand: “Mental illnesses do not exist; indeed they cannot exist because the mind is not a bodily part or bodily organ.”  (Never mind that the brain is the bodily organ that malfunctions in mental illness.) Psychiatry is “a form of quackery because it offers cures for which there are no diseases.”  Laing treated schizophrenia, the most disabling mental illness, as a “voyage of discovery”; “we find that a person who is labeled insane is often the sanest member of his or her family.”

https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/23/the-real-reset-is-coming/

Joe Biden believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a “new world order.” 

In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a “Great Reset.” 

Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten us on taxes, diversity, and green policies. 

When Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news. 

There is a common theme here. 

In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. 

Only in crises do they feel that the political Left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems. 

We saw that last year: fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws. 

These “new orders” and “resets” always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes. 

So we common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2022/03/yes-ketanji-brown-jackson-accused-america-war-daniel-greenfield/

Fact checks were an Orwellian farce before all this. Now they’re just editorials that try to tell you that black is white and white is black.

The media’s hysterical efforts to spin Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record has escalated into an insistence that she didn’t say the things she said.

Jackson had filed a petition on behalf of Gitmo terrorists (she claims that federal public defenders don’t pick their clients, but she continued to be involved in Gitmo cases on a pro bono basis even after moving on to a law firm) and in a petition on behalf of the terrorists, which named President Bush, Rumsfeld and others, accused the United States of America of acts that “constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity”.

There’s zero ambiguity in this regard. It’s there in black and white.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/03/24/a-big-no-on-ketanji-brown-jackson/

We’ve now listened to three days of a scheduled full week of testimony by Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. And to be honest, we’ve heard enough. Anyone who truly cares about the Constitution and the rule of law should reject Jackson.

Jackson has a winning smile and pleasant demeanor. Those are nice personal traits, but not ones that necessarily elevate you to the Supreme Court.

Still, she’s also a Harvard Law grad, clerked for Justice Steven Breyer, worked as a public defender, served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from 2013 to 2021, and was confirmed by the Senate to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just last year.

But do those credentials really matter? Maybe they should, but unfortunately they’re mostly political window dressing.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/freedom-for-freedoms-sake/

Do we have a goal in mind as we begin a new global war?

“In standing up to Russia and China, are we standing up for freedom of speech and equality before the law, or for “antiracism” and “equity”? Are we mobilizing the totality of our cultural and economic might in the name of traditional nationalism and traditional religion, or of globalism and woke identity politics?”

EXCERPTS

“….. I was in a graduate school class on revolutionary film in Cold War Latin America. Images of Che and Fidel were juxtaposed against those of black civil rights protesters being fire-hosed and Bull Connor’s shepherds snarling and taking down marchers. Much time had passed, but the feeling was the same.

Eventually the intuitions became thoughts; the raw emotions took the shape of ideas. The way I saw America wasn’t how others saw it. The ideas I thought represented America were not the same ones that others held.

In the Cold War, domestic and foreign dissent over America’s role as guarantor of the postwar order of liberal internationalism overlapped like concentric circles and amplified one another. In the nineties, both voices of contention were dissembled beneath the veneer of victory and history’s “end.”

The esprit de corps and bipartisan consensus around arming and defending Ukraine is eerily reminiscent—for many of us, I suspect—of the same “consensus,” composed mostly of the two political parties and mainstream talking-head media outlets, that enabled the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and before that, the war to liberate Kosovo from the Serbs and the Serbian identity, and, before that, the first Gulf War. The heady heights of liberal internationalism, however, can easily yield to the depths of self-doubt. As much as it pains me to acknowledge the incisiveness of beatniks and hippies, the question still looms, just as urgently—if not more so—a half-century later: What are we fighting for?