RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2018/11/11/blacklisting-patrick

My days as an American historian may be numbered.

For the better part of 40 years, my extended family has featured American “living history” on our 760-acre apple farm in Oak Glen, California. When my wife and I built our Georgian inspired home on the farm in 1994, we originally hoped to offer 18th century dinner theater, but two mothers of fifth grade students approached us, asking for a field trip on the American Revolution.

I didn’t think it would work at first. As a child, our field trips were to museums and bakeries and theme parks. Allowing children to witness a mock battle? Allowing 11 year olds to pretend they were soldiers? I loved the idea of showing kids redcoats and minutemen, but I wondered if California elementary teachers would approve.

I could not have been more wrong. Within five years, we were seeing 50,000 students a year, and in the last 17 years, more than 1.2 million students, parents, and teachers visited programs on the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the California Gold Rush.

Our program has no contemporary agenda and for decades it has been loved by all sorts of Americans, who are left, right, and center on the political spectrum. I’ve had great conversations with parents who were federal judges, Hollywood producers, fashion designers, actors and other farmers like me. I once had a pleasant dinner conversation with Bradley Whitford, (“West Wing,” “Saving Mr. Banks”). I wonder, had he known my politics, if the conversation might have taken an arch turn, because I’m pro-life, a lifetime NRA member, and a property rights advocate, but Brad and I kept it very human and convivial. I think, over the years, quite a few of my guests may have known something about my politics, because I’ve always been willing to speak my mind online, but if they ever did have trouble with my views, it always felt like a very Henry Fonda/Jimmy Stewart relationship. I love my customers, and most of them love me, my family, and staff.

Enter ubiquitous social media and a crusading socialist “blue wave” activist—who took the trouble to urge several public schools to blacklist our programs. For my thinking that the Reverend Louis Farrakhan is a bit more dangerous than some mythological (and certainly minuscule) “White Nationalism,” I was called a “racist.” For thinking Stormy Daniels was wildly over the top assaulting an undercover police officer, I was called a “misogynist.” For being bewildered by a sudden multiplicity of gender identities, I was called a “homophobe.” Suddenly, in these polarized times, Riley’s Farm is no longer considered a “safe space” for children by timid, progressive school administrators.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/antifa-lonely-mobs-fight-fantasy-nazis/

Feel blue? Lack purpose? Life a little dull? Get a lift by fighting some fantasy Nazis.

Just before the election, an Andrew Gillum intern named Shelby Shoup was arrested and charged with battery after assaulting some college Republicans on the campus of Florida State University. It was rather less exciting than that sounds: She went on a rant about “Nazis” and “fascism” — Gillum’s Republican opponent, Ron DeSantis, finished up at Harvard Law and then joined the U.S. military and helped to fight actual Jew-hating totalitarian thugs in Iraq, in case anybody cares about the facts — before dousing the Republicans with chocolate milk.

There isn’t much of enduring interest in that story: Feckless and hysterical young Caitlyns have been going all rage-monkey from coast to coast for a good bit now, and one might get a feel for the level of maturity at play here by meditating on the fact that a grown-ass woman of legal voting age was walking around drinking chocolate milk. Caitlyns gotta Caitlyn, I suppose.

Of course Shoup should be convicted on a misdemeanor battery charge, this being a fairly open-and-shut case supported by video evidence. Her actions are also a serious violation of the university’s code of student conduct, which could entail punishment up to and including expulsion. Kicking her out of the university would be excessive, I think, and she’s obviously in need of further and better education. I’d suggest having her write a 40-page essay on the works of Russell Kirk or F. A. Hayek, or maybe Ludwig von Mises on the actual Nazis and totalitarianism.

Spilt milk, indeed.

This sort of behavior should be understood as being on a spectrum.

https://www.steynonline.com/8807/the-word-that-cant-be-questioned

EXCERPT

“The more diverse you get, the more stupid you get,” Steyn said. “The more authoritarian you get . . . the more you need people to police diversity and to police cultural sensitivities. And eventually you end up as a totally moronic society.

“Diversity”, as I’ve said for the entirety of this millennium, is morally neutral. You can have half-a-dozen nice middle-aged middle-class NPR-listening ladies, and they’re not in the least bit diverse. So you add Sudan’s leading clitoridectomist. Now you’re more diverse, but not necessarily the better for it.

Do that for long enough, and you wind up irredeemably stupid. A Mark Steyn Club commenter appended this response to yesterday’s Clubland Q&A on the anniversary of 9/11:

This, from Breitbart London and dated 9/11/18, pretty much sums up where the West is at since 9/11: ‘Austria has rejected the asylum claim of an Afghan national who claims to be fleeing persecution for being homosexual after not being able to find any gay pornography on his mobile phone.’ It sounds like the Babylon Bee, but isn’t.

Just so. When historians are poring through the rubble of our civilization, that one sentence will pretty much cover the entirety of the situation in 2018. In fact, denying asylum claims on the grounds of insufficient gay porn on applicants’ telephones may be the best shot Trump has at getting any meaningful immigration policy past the average District Court judge. Although maybe he should add trans porn, too.

Incidentally, for a Pushtun goatherd or whatever he is, the Afghan guy isn’t the least bit stupid: He’s smart enough to know that claiming to be LGBTQWERTY gets you into the express check-in, so why not give gay taqiyyah (tagayyah?) a whirl?

Yet there is also a tragic, suicidal and sacrificial quality to our diversity stupidity:

‘We took him in as if he were a son,’ the girl’s father said, according to the Bild tabloid newspaper. He has lost his only daughter. She was stabbed and killed by her former boyfriend, an unaccompanied refugee from Afghanistan.

http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/topic/politics/

Americans are living through a period of constant disgruntlement – political, social and historical. No matter what your ethnicity, there’s a statue or a painting of someone in your city or at your school that has to come down, perhaps because of slave-owning, or ancient harm to indigenous people, or womanizing or having too much money. Some people object to the plaque of David Koch on the side of the new fountain he installed in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art – never mind that he paid for everything, helping to keep that site the most visited by tourists to our city. Some want Columbus toppled from his perch atop the circle named for him – five centuries is apparently insufficient to forgive his misdeeds to the Indians And nobody wants the name Trump on their building for a million reasons that you surely know by now.

So how interesting it is that the Whitney Museum, in its current exhibition of Andy Warhol, has placed his oversized portrait of Mao in a position of maximum prominence (see NYT 11/9/18). Since we are so sensitive to tyrants past and present, here’s an excerpt from “Mao’s Great Famine” by Frank Dikotter:

“….Mao emerges as one of the greatest mass murderers in history, responsible for the deaths of at least 45 million people between 1958-1962. It is not merely the extent of the catastrophe that dwarfs earlier estimates, but also the manner in which many people died: between two and three million victims were tortured to death or summarily killed, often for the slightest infraction. When a boy stole a handful of grain in a Hunan village, local boss Xiong Dechang forced his father to bury him alive. The father died of grief a few days later. The case of Wang Ziyou was reported to the central leadership: one of his ears was chopped off, his legs were tied with iron wire, a ten kilogram stone was dropped on his back and then he was branded with a sizzling tool – punishment for digging up a potato.”

I don’t suppose the above appears as a wall text next to Warhol’s oeuvre. Where is the insistence that this mass murderer should not be given pride of place in an art museum where few people will have the slightest knowledge of his extreme cruelty. If Columbus is too dastardly to be held up for admiration, what can we say about Mao? Put differently, the problem is that Mao is not sufficiently recognized as the face of evil, but is trivialized as a benign subject of a pop-artist who also painted soup cans. The only thing worse than having him hang at the Whitney is that this man who was responsible for the death by starvation of tens of millions of people once had this Warhol portrait of him hanging in the MOMA restaurant. What twisted curator thought this was wink-worthy?

Last night I went to the Joyce Theater anticipating avant garde ballet starring two of my favorite dancers from the American Ballet Theater. We were warned that the so called ballet had nudity and drug use. I thought, oh well, I cannot be an old fuddy duddy and I greatly admire many modern choreographers.

In fact, although some, too little, of the dancing was admirable, the bare breasted nudity of both female dancers was gratuitous, and the half naked male dancer obviously masturbating was vulgar and tawdry and his full frontal nudity in a protracted scene of his trans dressing was appalling.

The superannuated hippies in the audience gave it a standing ovation. I ducked out and look forward to both performers in the forthcoming season of real ballet instead of pretentious kitsch.

https://americanmind.org/essays/our-house-divided-multiculturalism-vs-america/
Following Trump’s lead—and Lincoln’s.

Many conservatives did not see that Trump had framed the 2016 election as a choice between two mutually exclusive regimes: multiculturalism and America. What I call “multiculturalism” includes “identity politics” and “political correctness.” If multiculturalism continues to worm its way into the public mind, it will ultimately destroy America. Consequently, the election should have been seen as a contest between a woman who, perhaps without quite intending it, was leading a movement to destroy America and a man who wanted to save America. The same contest is being played out in the upcoming midterm elections.

I realize the term “multiculturalism” is somewhat dated, but I mean to freshen it up by using it in its most comprehensive sense: a political philosophy. Multiculturalism conceives of society as a collection of cultural identity groups, each with its own worldview, all oppressed by white males, collectively existing within permeable national boundaries. Multiculturalism replaces American citizens with so-called “global citizens.” It carves “tribes” out of a society whose most extraordinary success has been their assimilation into one people. It makes education a political exercise in the liberation of an increasing number of “others,” and makes American history a collection of stories of white oppression, thereby dismantling a unifying, self-affirming narrative without which no nation can long survive.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump exposed multiculturalism as the revolutionary movement it is. He showed us that multiculturalism, like slavery in the 1850’s, is an existential threat. Trump exposed this threat by standing up to it and its enforcement arm, political correctness. Indeed, he made it his business to kick political correctness in the groin on a regular basis. In countless variations of crassness, he said over and over exactly what political correctness prohibits one from saying: “America does not want cultural diversity; we have our culture, it’s exceptional, and we want to keep it that way.” He also said, implicitly but distinctly: the plight of various “oppressed groups” is not the fault of white males. This too violates a sacred tenet of multiculturalism. Trump said these things at a time when they were the most needful things to say, and he said them as only he could, with enough New York “attitude” to jolt the entire country. Then, to add spicy mustard to the pretzel, he identified the media as not just anti-truth, but anti-American.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/fashion-magazines-embrace-woke-politics/

Fashion magazines have gone woke.

O ne Saturday morning years ago, back when certain sectors of our culture were at least a teensy bit less preachy and tiresome and insufferable than they are now, I sat at my kitchen table, idling through a fashion magazine. As a salty veteran of years of fashion-magazine consumption, I knew exactly what to expect: pages upon pages of uber-thin women towering on impossibly reedy legs, imperiously clutching things like massive diamonds and random cheetahs while posing in weird giant moon boots against carefully composed, super-serious artistic backdrops.

Behold, fashion-magazine readers, and do not turn away: There’s a busy New York street corner, complete with a bodega and a hot-dog stand and maybe even a pizza rat, paired with an ostrich purse that costs more than your car! There’s a repressed suburban grocery store, its blank-eyed and chiseled patrons pushing around puzzlingly empty carts, accessorized by hair curlers and Tom Ford and despair! There’s the zombie-strewn aftermath of a nuclear war, with the lone androgynous stilettoed survivor brought to you by someone like Helmut Lang!

On that morning, however, fresher, less jaded eyes could perceive a deeper truth. “Ooh, look, Mommy,” my then-three-year-old hollered in delight, peering over my shoulder at the scary-eyed women looking strangely disappointed in their eight-thousand-dollar coats. “Witches! Ooh! Witches!”

I laughed back then, but those were more innocent times. In hindsight, this was a mistake. This is not just because we live in an increasingly humorless age; it is also because my son was eerily prophetic. As I write, the front page of the website of W magazine — which I used to consider the “serious” fashion magazine, the one that did not mess around with a lot of non-fashion-y things — has an actual story instructing readers on how to become a witch.

“Witchcraft and covens have also proven to be a source of solace and solidarity for some in the #MeToo era,” W informs us, “following an increasing association between witches and feminism.” Along with its helpful guide on how to climb on board with “paganism” and “all things occult,” W also offers instructions on “How to Throw a Séance at Home.” In case you decide you want to dabble with the dead in your living room, here’s one particularly helpful tip: “In a lot of cultures, you never do anything without covering your head, which prevents you from getting possessed or getting messed up.”

Wow. Possessed! That would be messed up. It’s kind of like the state of fashion magazines today! Not so long ago, readers like me could hope that the year would bring just a few stray and annoying puff pieces profiling random Planned Parenthood executives or Hillary “I Shall Never Leave” Clinton. In 2018, however — like so much else in American culture — fashion magazines have morphed into a relentless and insufferable leftist acquaintance you’d quite frankly rather avoid.

https://quillette.com/2018/10/18/trans-activists
In a recent article for Forbes, “The Vaccination Debacle,” I discussed the frightening rise in the number of European measles cases. The reason for the spike is simple: Fed a daily online diet of nonsense and ideologically motivated activism, many people have come to reject mainstream medical science—including the science behind vaccinations. You’d think that “get vaccinated” would be a relatively straightforward message. But in the days following the article’s publication, I received a good dozen emails from doctors thanking me for writing the piece, and describing how difficult it has become to convince some patients that their local paediatrician isn’t part of an international conspiracy.

But at least the effort to push back against anti-vaccination conspiracy theories is seen as a respectable form of discourse. In other spheres, it’s not so easy to speak common sense.

Consider, for instance, last year’s saga involving Rebecca Tuvel—who was hounded by trans activists and scholars after applying a theoretical application of transgender ideology to the idea of “trans-racialism.” Scandalously, the article in question was edited post facto so as to remove the name “Bruce Jenner”—in response to the claim that these two words served to “dead-name” the person now known as Caitlyn Jenner (despite the fact that Caitlyn Jenner herself repeatedly refers to “Bruce” in interviews). To cite the historically verifiable fact that someone named Bruce Jenner once existed is now seen as a sort of religious heresy. And like all heresies, it must be ritualistically expunged—not because it is factually wrong, but because it is seen as morally wrong.

In August, Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island was criticized for removing a news release about a peer-reviewed study published in PLoS One by one of its academics—Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher at Brown’s School of Public Health. Littman’s article, titled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports,“ discusses the phenomenon by which social media and peer pressure seem to have fuelled the recently observed trend by which young teenagers (typically girls) suddenly declare themselves transgender. The paper infuriated transgender activists, who claim that the entire notion of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a transphobic invention. Both Brown and PLoS One also were attacked as Brown’s enablers.