RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/

Recently, I arrived at a moment of introspection about a curious aspect of my own behavior. When I disagree with a conservative friend or colleague on some political issue, I have no fear of speaking my mind. I talk, they listen, they respond, I talk some more, and at the end of it we get along just as we always have. But I’ve discovered that when a progressive friend says something with which I disagree or that I know to be incorrect, I’m hesitant to point it out. This hesitancy is a consequence of the different treatment one tends to receive from those on the Right and Left when expressing a difference of opinion. I am not, as it turns out, the only one who has noticed this.

“That’s a stupid fucking question,” answered a Socialist Alliance activist when I asked sincerely where they were getting what sounded like inflated poverty statistics. “If you don’t believe in gay marriage or gun control, unfriend me,” demand multiple Facebook statuses from those I know. “That’s gross and racist!” spluttered a red-faced Ben Affleck when the atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris criticized Islamic doctrines on Bill Maher’s Real Time. Nobody blinks an eye when Harris criticizes Christianity, least of all Affleck, who starred in Kevin Smith’s irreverent religious satire Dogma. But Christians are not held to be a sacrosanct and protected minority on the political Left. As Skeptic Magazine’s Michael Shermer tweeted recently:
Michael Shermer ✔ @michaelshermer

“When I debate Christians, Jews, Creationists, climate deniers etc. they are unfailingly polite, respectful, thoughtful, discerning, & listen to my arguments. Far Left SJWs do not. They simply look for fault & pounce. ”

Outbursts of emotional hostility from progressive activists – now described as Social Justice Warriors or SJWs – have come to be known as getting ‘triggered.’ This term originally applied to sufferers of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but activists have adopted it to describe the anxiety and discomfort they experience when they are exposed to views with which they disagree. “Fuck free speech!” one group of social justice advocates recently told Vice Media, as if this justified the growing belief among university students that conservatives should be prevented from speaking on college campuses. It’s no secret that, with the rise of the triggered progressive, university professors are increasingly intimidated by their own students. An illustrative example of this alarming trend was provided by the hoards of screaming students who surrounded the distinguished Yale sociologist Nicholas Christakis and demanded his head (which they duly received). Christakis had made the mistake of defending an email his wife had written gently criticizing Yale’s attempts to regulate students’ Halloween costumes. “Who the fuck hired you?!” screamed one irate student in response. “You should step down!”

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/10/jordan-peterson-matters/

The Canadian professor’s entire moral enterprise arose from his horror at the ease with which murderous ideologies came to possess ordinary people. Most of us look only briefly at that matter and others, unsettling as they are, but Peterson explores the very bases of such thought and being.

The cultural world changed after the UK Channel 4 interview which took place on January 16 this year, in which Cathy Newman “interviewed” the Canadian psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson.

The interview, or rather attempted harangue by Newman, became an instant phenomenon, mainly because Peterson’s demeanour, intelligence and patience with Newman’s rudeness, and real or assumed stupidity, were so impressive. The interview, contrary no doubt to the plan of Newman and Channel 4, greatly raised Peterson’s already high public profile, ensured best-seller status for his second book (12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos), and consigned Newman and Channel 4 to the ridicule of millions of viewers around the world. Whether either will recover is yet to be seen. (online editor: that video is embedded below)

While numerous profiles and interviews of Peterson have, over the last year, appeared in news and opinion outlets, most have been along the lines of: “Look at this wacky Canadian professor who seems to have millions of fans for some reason.” Few have attempted to come to grips with what are arguably his most important and original contributions to the ideas of the day. (A notable exception is the excellent hour-long interview by Dutch commentator Timon Dias, on the Geenstijl website and YouTube.) For me, writing as I have done for ten years about the importance of personal morality, in particular a return to a virtue framework, the most exciting thing about Peterson is that he is bringing talk about virtue and morality back to thousands of people in a West which has shunned and indeed ridiculed those ideas for fifty years.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/24/a-stark-raving

It’s bad enough that our politics have now become so polarized that there seems to be no way to escape either a split or an apocalypse. Left and Right no longer huddle near a squishy but relatively amicable middle, the nation’s rudder tilted slightly to the left and the ship of state steadily drifting to port. The postwar consensus, which by and large accepted the Roosevelt-Truman domestic agenda in the interest of winning the war, is now breaking up as a result of the conservative reaction (1980-present) against it. Even the brief interregnum of Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton/Barack Obama only served to heighten the distinctions between the two sides, while the Trump counterrevolution has effectively ended all thoughts of a reversion to the mean.

For his part, President Trump took the high road Wednesday. “Those engaged in the political arena must stop treating political opponents as being morally defective,” he said. “The language of moral condemnation . . . these are arguments and disagreements that have to stop. No one should carelessly compare political opponents to historical villains. It’s got to stop. We should not mob people in public spaces or destroy public property.”

“There is one way to settle our disagreements: It’s called peacefully, at the ballot box,” he said.

That’s quite right. Conflicts need be neither violent nor bloody. The Cold War was fought between the Soviets and the Americans without a clash of armies or an exchange of nuclear weapons. Similarly, the Cold Civil War (as I termed the current struggle back in 2010) has been largely nonviolent, however heated. But with the reports Wednesday of explosive devices and suspicious packages mailed to prominent figures on the Left—coming on top of some startling attacks against the Right (Steve Scalise and Rand Paul), we find ourselves moving into terra incognita, politically speaking.

It’s true that America has seen domestic violence before—the wave of anarchism and labor unrest around the turn of the century, the Mad Bomber in New York, the “Days of Rage” in the late 1960s—some of it politically motivated. But not since the Civil War—which was essentially a conflict between the Southern Democrats and the Northern Republicans (if you don’t believe me, read Grant’s Memoirs)—have the two main parties edged this close to direct action against each other.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_unstate.html

For the rationale of this newfound nation, order of some kind was present despite the diversity of backgrounds. Old-country habits had to adjust to new-world conditions.

For most of American history, a consensus was established that allowed for flexibility, despite highs and lows in orderliness. As I see it, the Brett Kavanaugh deliberations converted America to a new stance. Out of the Burkean world that sought stability and civility, there emerged a wholesale business in tearing the state, or, in this case, the nation, apart.

From relative calm, an UnState erupted. The space between rage and order disappeared, leaving in its wake a breakdown of constitutional principle. For many, American rage is the answer with Hillary Clinton’s comment about her inability to get along with Republicans and Michelle Obama’s belief that when they go low, we go high. This is reminiscent of Sartre’s yearning for and commitment to some vague and unattainable goal. This is the era beyond partisanship; it is all-out war. The stage is set for civil war. The innocent girl in denims is to become a recruit in all-out UnState battle, where Joan of Arc knows no limits. When rationality has retreated before commitment, it is conceivable for blood to flood the streets even for the new Robespierres. This is surely not the America I embrace, but she is here. Perhaps there is no way at this stage to avoid her, but we have to hope the principles for which this nation stands can be restored.

It would seem the UnState supports the radicals, whether they know it or not. For what has led to a country divided with many that believing the ends – namely, the defeat of Trump – justifies the means? We are a different land today, but not a better land. The remarkable founders of America are turning over in their graves, all wondering whether this nation can recover.

Twenty twenty is over the horizon, and Trump looms as the party who must be defeated. These harridans are out to get Donald.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/412683-president-democrats-should-seal-a-deal-trade-the-wall-for-merrick-garland

Donald Trump has won big with Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. He also is leaving his imprint on the lower courts. These results are paying real-world political dividends, as Republicans appear poised to keep control of the Senate. This is the moment for President Trump to win big with “The Wall” along our southern border.

Yet, with Democrats about to take control of the House, the wall will likely be as real as Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court, without some Democratic support.

President Trump should start thinking about making a deal, and the next Supreme Court seat vacated by a liberal justice may be just the pressure point. How about offering assurances to Senate Democrats that Judge Garland, the stalled Supreme Court nominee of the Obama administration, would fill the next seat vacated by a liberal justice, in return for full funding of a “big and beautiful wall”?

The last time the wall was part of a possible deal, the price was DACA, and ultimately the GOP and White House balked. But offering to trade the wall for Merrick Garland, with a Supreme Court firmly in conservative control, leaves the Trump political base with little to lose.

In fact, the House Republicans’ Freedom Caucus would have plenty to cheer about. Rank-and-file Republicans could sleep easier at night knowing that the southern border was safer. Like the president, Senate Republicans have some room to give, and the president could smile because he didn’t have to give anything on immigration to get the wall.

As for the 2020 re-election, such a trade would highlight Trump’s political deal-making prowess, and show him to be capable of compromise. For Independents, that could ease doubts about the president’s capacity to govern effectively. It could increase Trump’s chances of getting their votes and, in so doing, of maybe winning the popular vote.

To be sure, the Federalist Society may oppose this proposal. But the Federalists would still get to name every other appointment to the federal bench while Trump remains as president. And, lest anyone forget, Trump’s brand is on the ballot, not theirs.

So, how might congressional Democrats react?

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/10/exorcising-marx-economics/

Regard Marxism as the economic equivalent of a dead language and it makes some sort of sense — worthy of study for its place in the pantheon of human knowledge and doleful impact when implemented, but otherwise having no contemporary utility

How do you tell a communist? Someone who has read Marx and Lenin. How do you tell a non-communist? Someone who has understood Marx and Lenin.
—President Reagan
______________

“There is a great deal of ruin in a nation,” wrote Adam Smith philosophically in the late eighteenth century. He no doubt thought it would be ever thus. He was oblivious, of course, to the claimed curative powers of Marxism as practically expressed in communism. However, as a man of practical affairs, Smith today would not be impressed. After all, Marxism in practice has always produced the most dreadful results imaginable. What kind of people would downplay this overwhelming evidence and hold to the faith? In a word, idealists, the same kind of people who subscribed to Robert Owen’s utopian socialism before Marx and Engels came on the scene. They are a legion to this day.

This is what the renowned historian of economic thought Mark Blaug wrote in 1968, in Economic Theory in Retrospect: “Marx is alive and well today. He has been reassessed, revised, refuted, and buried a thousand times; but he refuses to be relegated to intellectual history.” Fifty years on, Blaug would not need to change a word.

As old Marxists fade away new ones replace them. Marx’s resilient spirit stalks the corridors of humanities departments in most Western universities, ready to possess those amenable to believing in the promise of nirvana in the here and now. Saul Alinsky (in Rules for Radicals) has a nice take on this promise:

to seize power and give it to the people; to realise the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life.

I saw this movie last night with a very enthusiastic audience. It is a tad too long and makes a rather extravagant claim that Trump destroyed Isis. Not so fast- Isis is killing and kidnapping throughout Africa and Asia and establishing camps in South America.

However, it presents a compelling case for Trump and his success in the economy, foreign policy, taxes and trade. The scenes of Trump’s antagonists on violent and destructive rampages are harrowing.

Directed by Bannon and produced by Dan Fleuette, Trump @War is a retelling of the most significant election campaign in modern U.S. history and a look forward to the high-stakes midterm election in November 2018, which will cement President Trump’s legacy.

You can view it on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TODyyR5GRqw&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTODyyR5GRqw&has_verified=1

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/white-privilege-debate-elizabeth-warren/

It’s not a coincidence that many of the loudest critics decrying white privilege are . . . privileged whites.

“I’m a white woman. . . . And my job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt. My job is to shut other white people down when they want to say, ‘Oh no I’m not prejudiced, I’m a Democrat, I’m accepting.’”
— Sally Boynton Brown, erstwhile candidate to head the Democratic National Committee

“These white men, old by the way, are not protecting women. They’re protecting a man who is probably guilty.”
— Joy Behar, cohost, The View

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins? . . . Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
— Sarah Jeong, newly appointed editorial board member, the New York Times

Why are current monotonous slogans like “white privilege” and “old white men” finally losing their currency?

Who exactly is “white” in a multiracial, intermarried, and integrated society? How do we determine who is a purported victim of racial bias — relative degrees of nonwhite skin color, DNA badges, an ethnicized last name, or nomenclature with two or three accent marks?

The reason that Arab-, Greek-, or Italian-Americans are more likely to be branded or to self-identify as “white” than Brazilian-, Argentinian, Spanish-, or Mexican-Americans doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with appearance or their DNA or their ancestors’ or their own historical experience in America. It has everything to do with the perversities of the devolving diversity industry in which claims to victimization bring greater careerist advantage or at least psychological satisfaction.

The recent farce involving Elizabeth Warren’s “ancestry” has not only probably aborted her presidential aspirations, but — along with the Asian-American lawsuit against Harvard’s admission practices — also reminded us of the growing corruption of race-based set-asides. Warren’s desperate gambit was simply a response to the new reality that minority status often has little relation with appearance. (Many Latinos — a term never adequately defined — look “whiter” than Italian Americans or Greek Americans who have been absorbed as “white” long ago.)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/23/political-correctness-college-campuses-democrats-voters-midterms-progressive-activists-column/1726496002/
Democrats push for political correctness, Republicans mock them for it, and most Americans are uncomfortable with it. No one wins with PC culture.

Democrats are hoping to administer a tough midterm-election blow to the Republicans — akin to the “shellacking” President Barack Obama got from the Tea Party in 2010 — as a means of shutting down President Donald Trump. But it’s looking iffy now, post-Kavanaugh, and if they fail, they’ll have the politically correct culture that has moved from college campuses into the Democratic Party to blame.

As I wrote in these pages back before the 2016 election, opposition to PC culture was a major source of Trump’s appeal to voters. While most politicians, even Republican politicians, were afraid to challenge it head-on, Trump was unafraid, mocking the PC social justice warriors even on their own ground.

Since Trump’s election, the response among Democrats has been to double down. After all, if Trump’s against politically correct culture, then they have to be for it. But that puts them right where Trump wants them to be, because PC culture is highly unpopular.
Most Americans don’t want to be ‘woke’

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s what a recent article in The Atlantic, with the title “Americans strongly dislike PC culture” says:

“Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that ‘political correctness is a problem in our country.’ Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24. On this particular issue, the woke are in a clear minority across all ages. Youth isn’t a good proxy for support of political correctness — and it turns out race isn’t, either. Whites are ever so slightly less likely than average to believe that political correctness is a problem in the country: 79 percent of them share this sentiment. Instead, it is Asians (82 percent), Hispanics (87 percent) and American Indians (88 percent) who are most likely to oppose political correctness.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/trump-administration-isnt-dehumanizing-transgender-americans/

The administration is proposing to conform the law to the truth.

Today I learned something truly new. I’d lived my life on this earth almost 49 years before I understood that federal anti-discrimination law defines human existence. Changing that law can thus literally “negate the humanity of people.”

At least that’s what I’m learning in response to the news that the Trump administration is considering rolling back the Obama administration’s lawless expansion of Title IX, the federal civil-rights statute banning sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. At issue is the definition of the word “sex.”

In April 2014, the Obama administration quietly expanded the definition — without an act of Congress or even a regulatory rulemaking process. In a document called “Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence” it stated that “Title IX’s sex discrimination prohibition extends to claims of discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.”

Empowered by this new definition, the Obama administration issued extraordinarily aggressive mandates to schools across the nation, requiring that schools use a transgender student’s chosen pronouns and that they open bathrooms, locker rooms, overnight accommodations, and even some sports teams to students based not on their biological sex but their chosen gender identity.