RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/saying-ngo-antifa-bruce-bawer/

Reporting on the events of June 29, 2019, when the gutsy freelance reporter Andy Ngo was beaten half to death by Antifa goons during a disturbance in Portland, Oregon, journalist Katie Shepherd – then at the local rag Willamette Week, now at the Washington Post – described the demo as “mostly unremarkable.” Later, Jerry Nadler called Antifa “imaginary” and Post “fact-checkers” denied Antifa’s brutality. When, in August 2020, Ngo addressed a Senate hearing at the invitation of Ted Cruz, Hawaii’s Mamie Hirono dismissed his testimony out of hand, while other Democrats left the chamber. So it goes on both sides of the Atlantic: pols and pressmen alike repeatedly deny or defend even Antifa’s worst depredations (“Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence,” pronounced New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, notorious for rewriting American history in the 1619 Project) while celebrities like Steve Carell shell out sizable sums to bail out Antifa thugs.

Some of these supporters (such as, presumably, Carell) are fools who’ve drunk the Antifa Kool-Aid; the likes of Nadler and Mirono, meanwhile, crave power at any cost, and view Antifa as a handy tool. (The Nazis had the Gestapo and SS; the Democrats have Antifa and Black Lives Matter.) Some Democrats don’t love Antifa, but much of their base does; better, they reason, to let innocents be killed than to alienate voters.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/critical-quran-bill-warner/

Robert Spencer’s new book The Critical Qur’an is a one volume encyclopedia of the Qur’an. It is a superb reference book with a sound foundation, using multiple translations. It is detailed. All of the knotty problems are solved by direct scholarly references.

In The Critical Qur’an, Spencer clarifies the problems that cloud our understanding of the Qur’an, which lurches from one subject to the next. Ideas come out of nowhere with no context. Topics – like “hell” – repeat again and again and again.  The constant repetition is tiresome.

There is no recognition of time in the Qur’an. The chapters are laid out in order of their length, not in a time sequence.  It starts with the longest chapter and ends with the shortest. To add to the confusion, it uses many strange names and foreign terms. Basically, it is unintelligible, confusing, repetitive and filled with hate towards the Unbelievers.

The most problematic to most non-Muslim readers is that the Qur’an presents contradictory ideas. One verse will teach tolerance and the next will call for the death of the Unbelievers. Islamic ethics are contradictory or dualistic, with one set of rules for dealing with other Muslims and another set of rules for the Unbelievers.  

So no one can understand the Qur’an by simply reading it. There must be auxiliary commentators, exegetes, in order to find meaning in the words of Allah. Robert Spencer guides us through the mire of this contradictory and perplexing work using all the tools of exemplary scholarship.  

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/10/america-enraged-mark-tapson/

One thing Americans can presumably all agree on in our current cold civil war is that civility, mutual if grudging respect, and rational if testy debate in our political discourse have all been replaced by a hair-trigger performative outrage, the scorched-earth warfare of cancel culture, and even occasional violence. It’s difficult to remember that there was a time when even acerbic antagonists like William Buckley and Gore Vidal could trade barbs onstage without hurling chairs at each other and inciting nationwide rioting. What has happened to us? How did we come to this point? And is this state of rage destined to be a permanent feature of our cultural and political landscape?

Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars and author of the essential 1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, has addressed these questions incisively in a must-read, brand new book titled Wrath: America Enraged. He agreed to answer some questions about the book.

Mark Tapson: Mr. Wood, what is the “new anger,” and what is the difference between anger and wrath in a political context?

Peter Wood: “New anger” is show-off anger, the display of someone who expects to be admired for the performance or to boast about it afterwards: anger mixed with self-delight.  New anger contrasts to the older ethic of trying to master your anger and not to let it master you.  Through much of American history, giving free vent to anger was regarded as a sign of weakness and immaturity.  We admired the man or woman who, when provoked, found ways to handle the situation without descending into rage.  Of course, that kind of self-control often failed, at which point brawls erupted.  Those who brawled in public or in private, however, were not regarded as good people.  Those who turned to anger too quickly or too often were shamed.

“New anger” became a recognizable force in American life in the 1950s, though it was at first a trend confined to avant garde parts of society:  the beat generation, early adepts of Freudian psychoanalysis, and people reading French existentialist novels. From these seeds grew the counterculture of the sixties, and then the disillusioned anger of the Big Chill 1970s.  I am collapsing a lot of history into a few sentences.  The breakdown of the older ideals of emotional self-control and their replacement by a new ethic of emotional expressiveness didn’t happen overnight or all at once or equally in all sectors of society.  Fifteen years ago I spent a whole book (A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now) to describe the slow progression of new anger into the position it now has of cultural dominance.  I’m mindful that whole generations have grown up for whom there is nothing “new” about “new anger.”  It is all they have ever experienced unless they have been immersed in the world of Turner Classic Movies, where you can glimpse a world ruled by different emotional norms.

When Politicians Panicked tells the tragic story of how, in response to a spreading virus, global politicians mindlessly pursued economic desperation, starvation, and death as the cure.

The global economy was booming as 2020 dawned, but within a few short months wreckage, death, and desperation borne of economic contraction were the new normal. What happened? 

In When Politicians Panicked, economic commentator John Tamny tells the heart-wrenching story of a time when politicians were tragically relieved of basic common sense in their response to the new coronavirus. 

In March of 2020, the virus quickly became a major news item as political panic about it traveled around the world. Even though anecdotal and market-based evidence from the virus’s epicenter indicated very low lethality, politicians quickly imposed economy-crushing lockdowns on the rather specious assumption that unemployment, bankruptcy, and starvation would somehow halt the virus’s spread. 

Tamny methodically dismantles the political consensus by showing how economic growth has long been the first and last answer to death and disease. He then shows how politicians, having mindlessly crushed a growing economy, proceeded to double down on their mistakes by throwing taxpayer money at their shocking errors. 

Throughout When Politicians Panicked, Tamny makes a relentless case that free people don’t just produce the wealth that renders today’s killers yesterday’s news. They also produce crucial information about health threats that shine a light on that which threatens us. Lockdowns suffocate economic progress, but they also blind us to how we can progress—as Tamny makes plain in what will go down as an essential history for anyone seeking to understand the coronavirus panic of 2020.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/david-solway-2/2021/10/13/john-of-salisbury-the-statesmans-book-and-its-contemporary-relevance-n1523801

There are many theories purporting to explain the “march of history,” as, for example, the hoary notion of “scientific socialism” with its dialectical certainties, the “great man” hypothesis that focuses on towering figures like Napoleon or Winston Churchill who determine the course of events, or the “from below” perspective treating of the lives and social movements of the lowly, marginal, oppressed or otherwise unacknowledged peoples, most famously espoused in Howard Zinn’s politically skewed and tendentious A People’s History of the United States.

One theory that receives little exposure we may call the idea of the “virtuous leader” as the indispensable factor that allows for the establishment of a decent, well-governed, and “happy” state. The concept of the “virtuous leader” is a classical trope, going back to Epictetus (Enchiridion), Plato (Republic), Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics), and Cicero (On Obligations). The idea enjoys little traffic because there are so few such leaders and because virtue itself is a problematic concept. Indeed, whatever “virtue” might entail, we are all, as poet W.H. Auden wrote, “articled to error.” No human person, lay or elect, can be said to be unblemished, devoid of foibles, frailties, and defects of character, but so unfortunate a fact does not invalidate the approach to an elusive standard of virtue and exemplary leadership.

The subject was taken up by John of Salisbury, a 12th-century theologian, philosopher, and moralist who eventually became Bishop of Chartres and who is scarcely known today, but was an important figure in the late medieval Renaissance. An influential commenter on the affairs of the court of Louis VII, King of France (their dates are coterminous), with particular regard to Louis’ wife, the celebrated Eleanor of Aquitaine, he understood courts and royal goings-on and was intimately acquainted with the consequences of troubled statesmanship. The Policraticus, translated as The Stateman’s Book, is his most notable volume. As he writes, “This book concentrates in part on the frivolities of the courtiers…and busies itself with the footprints of philosophers”—a spectrum covering the terrain between foolishness and wisdom, the “yoke of vice” and the “rule of virtue.”

The themes he addresses are perennially relevant and particularly so in our current historical moment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-the-democrats-dark-campaign-master

THE DEMOCRATS’ DARK CAMPAIGN MASTER. Mollie Hemingway’s important new book, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections , goes on sale tomorrow. In it, she covers the ways Democratic activists took advantage of the Covid pandemic to push long-sought changes in the ways people vote. They were enormously successful in some key states and left Republicans desperately playing catch-up.

For some Democrats, the effort was the culmination of a drive to bring down Donald Trump that began well before he took office. And for no Democrat was that more true than Washington lawyer Marc Elias.

What is really extraordinary, as Hemingway points out, is that one man, Elias, was responsible for both the Steele dossier, which was the covert Democratic disinformation operation designed to bring down Trump during the 2016 campaign, and those wide-ranging changes in state election procedures, designed to make sure he did not win reelection in 2020.

The dossier was one of the most successful dirty tricks ever. Elias, working on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, paid the oppo/attack firm Fusion GPS to enlist former British spy Christopher Steele to compile a list of false and slanderous allegations about then-candidate Trump.

There was the Michael-Cohen-in-Prague allegation. The Carter-Page-in-Moscow allegation. The “pee tape.” The Manafort fiction. The dossier was done in what looked like official intelligence-report style, relying on Steele’s credibility as a former British agent and FBI informant. Elias hit a home run when the FBI picked up Steele’s false reporting. Then the whole world found out about it when insiders leaked to CNN that then-FBI Director James Comey had briefed President-elect Trump about it. It was an extraordinarily damaging moment for the new president — all choreographed by Elias.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/victor-davis-hanson/2021/10/07/america-and-the-dying-citizen-n1522290

The present article summarizes arguments in Victor Davis Hanson’s new book “The Dying Citizen” that appears this week from Basic Books.

Only a little more than half of the current world’s 7 billion people are citizens of fully consensual governments.

That lucky 50 percent alone enjoys constitutionally protected freedoms. Most are also Western. Or at least they reside in nations that have become “Westernized.”

Migrants, regardless of their race, religion or gender, almost always head for a Western nation. And most often their destination remains the United States. The more it is now fashionable for Americans to take for granted or even to ridicule the idea of their own country, the more the non-American global poor risk their lives to crash America’s borders.

Constitutional systems easily perish because they ask a lot of their citizens — to vote, to be informed about civic and political issues, and to hold elected officials accountable. That responsibility is perhaps why, of the world’s true republics and democracies, only about 22 have been in existence for a half-century or more. We are seldom told, then, that America is a rare, precious and perhaps even fragile idea, both in the past and in the present.

American citizens are clearly also not the custom of the past. Unlike history’s more common peasants, citizens are not under the control of the rich who, in turn, seek undue influence in government through controlling them.

Instead, viable citizenship has always hinged on a broad, autonomous middle class. Those Americans in between lack both the dependence of the poor and the insider influences of the elite. Suffocate the middle and we know that a binary feudalism will soon replace it. We are seeing just that medievalization in contemporary California.

Nor are American citizens mere migratory residents who drift across nonexistent borders in expectation of receiving more rights than meeting responsibilities. Forfeit a sacred national space, a place where common customs, language, and traditions can shelter and thrive, and a unique America disappears into a pre-civilizational migratory void like the fluid vastness of late imperial Rome.

Americans are quite different from tribal peoples, whose first loyalties are determined by mere appearance or innate blood ties. Take this nation back to pre-civilizational tribalism, and our future as the next Yugoslavia, Rwanda or Iraq is assured.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/debunking_the_1619_project.html

Debunking the 1619 Project

by Mary Grabar

Mary Grabar has authored a serious, mature book that should be in every American household and classroom.  Its message is so critical to understand that it might usefully serve as required reading in a test and qualification for American citizenship. There were a couple sections I found demandingly granular, but they stem from her determination to get the story re-assembled factually, as much historical detail was falsified or ignored by the 1619 project members.

Ms. Grabar “debunks,” either directly or by implication, at least four primary objects:

the asserted significance of the date 1619;
the asserted unique culpability of Jefferson and other Founders in American slave-labor perpetuation;
the assertion of unique colonial and early Republic promotion of slave markets and slave trading and;
the asserted educational value of such historical revisionism that also rests on a modern policy narrative of unresolved racial discrimination and harm in legal and financial dimensions. 

Ms. Grabar doesn’t merely “debunk” the 1619 Project, she devastates it, by a relentless, professional marshalling of facts and data, and with thoughtful argumentation, choice sourcing and careful footnotes.  For its depth in historical research, the book reads very smoothly. I found it a “page-turner” as the case she makes unfolds with surprise, pleasure and wisdom, concerning not only the facts of colonial slavery, but its larger context in American history, and indeed in a larger context still, of world history.