RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/trumps-total-culture-war/

Donald Trump is waging a nonstop, all-encompassing war against progressive culture, in magnitude analogous to what 19th-century Germans once called a Kulturkampf.

As a result, not even former President George W. Bush has incurred the degree of hatred from the left that is now directed at Trump. For most of his time in office, Trump, his family, his friends and his businesses have been investigated, probed, dissected and constantly attacked.

In 2016 and early 2017, Barack Obama appointees in the FBI, CIA and Department of Justice tried to subvert the Trump campaign, interfere with his transition and, ultimately, abort his presidency. Now, congressional Democrats promise impeachment before the 2020 election.

The usual reason for such hatred is said to be Trump’s unorthodox and combative take-no-prisoners style. Critics detest his crude and unfettered assertions, his lack of prior military or political experience, his attacks on the so-called bipartisan administrative state, and his intent to roll back the entire Obama-era effort of “fundamentally transforming” the country leftward.

Certainly, Trump’s agenda of closing the border, using tariffs to overturn a half-century of Chinese mercantilism, and pulling back from optional overseas military interventions variously offends both Democrats and establishment Republicans.

Trump periodically and mercurially fires his top officials. He apparently does not care whether the departed write damning memoirs or join his opposition. He will soon appoint his fourth national security adviser within just three years.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/09/16/in-the-land-of-no-consequence-bad-behavior-festers/

Another day, another whopper by the news media and their handlers in the Democratic Party.

Shortly after the New York Times published a “bombshell” article over the weekend that described more graphic, decades-old sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the paper was forced to post a significant correction to its original story.

“An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party,” the editors wrote. “The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.” The book, due for release this week, is authored by two Times reporters.

The correction was prompted not by the Times’ own fact-checking but after Mollie Hemingway, a senior editor at The Federalist and co-author of a book detailing the Kavanaugh debacle, identified the blatant error on Twitter early Sunday morning. (The Times has refused to review Hemingway’s book, which was released in July.)

But by the time “America’s newspaper of record” sheepishly admitted its (intentional) error, the damage had been done. Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment while celebrities and columnists wailed about the patriarchy, white privilege and, of course, the Bad Orange Man. Willfully ignorant zombies on the Left continue to regurgitate the falsehood.

Rewriting History

The timing of the Times’ latest fraud is notable for its coincidence: Three years ago and one year ago this month, Democrats, with full complicity from the media, unleashed two of the most divisive and fabricated campaigns against Trump World: The Trump-Russia collusion hoax and the Kavanaugh rape charges.

https://quillette.com/2019/09/16/understanding-americas-cultural-and-political-realignment/

EXCERPTS

Understanding American politics has become increasingly confusing as the old party labels have lost much of their meaning. A simplistic Left vs. Right worldview no longer captures the complexity of what’s going on. As the authors of the October 2017 “Pew Survey of American Political Typologies” write, “[I]n a political landscape increasingly fractured by partisanship, the divisions within the Republican and Democratic coalitions may be as important a factor in American politics as the divisions between them.”

Traditional Right: Country First

While the Devout and Diverse voters have almost no public profile in the media, the Traditional Right is perceived to be much larger than it is. Pew refers to them as “Country First” Republicans, who “fear America risks losing our identity as a nation.” They have largely negative views of scientists and artists, and are the most elderly of all typology groups. Primarily comprised of white men, they hold a generally favorable view of Trump and uniformly oppose same-sex marriage. They make up about six percent of all engaged voters.

While both Republicans and Democrats have socially conservative, anti-gay, anti-immigrant voters in roughly the same numbers, the social conservatives on the Right play a more prominent role in American politics, partly because they play a larger role in the GOP, and partly because the media like to highlight them to fit their own narrative. Based on their aging demographic, the traditional value level is unlikely to be as significant a force in future elections.

Modern Left: Opportunity Democrats

The Modern Left is best represented by Pew’s “Opportunity Democrats,” who are optimistic and pro-business. They believe “most people can get ahead if they are willing to work hard” to achieve the American Dream. Almost half of them say “most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit.” They are primarily white, financially well off, and describe themselves as moderate. They are socially inclusive, liberal on immigration, and supportive of gay rights. They are also less likely to believe that blacks and women face structural barriers to advancement. Until recently, this group defined what it meant to be a Democrat, but they have lost their center of power. Today, they make up around 13 percent of all engaged voters.

Modern Right: Core Conservatives and New Era Enterprisers

Two different groups in Pew’s study represent Modern values among Republican voters. The larger and older of the two are called “Core Conservatives,” while the younger, smaller group Pew calls “New Era Enterprisers.” Both groups share modern values evidenced by their belief in the power of capitalism and democracy. Both believe in the power of the free market and the importance of America’s global leadership. Both remain optimistic about the possibilities afforded by the American Dream. They make up the 66 percent of Republicans who support the “Dreamers.” Their pro-immigration position is also confirmed in a Gallup report, which states that “… significantly more Republicans favor a path to citizenship than support building a border wall or deporting illegal immigrants.”

Core Conservatives are the largest Republican voter group. Made up of mostly white men, they enjoy the highest rates of home ownership of any voter group, and a majority believe that they’ve achieved the American Dream. They are the best educated of any Republican group, yet have the most negative attitudes toward the impact colleges have on our country. They are most likely to invest in the stock market and their most important issue is the economy. “Sixty-eight percent express a positive view of US involvement in the global economy ‘because it provides the US with new markets and opportunities for growth.’” In addition to their largely pro-free market and pro-immigration views, they have the most favorable view of Donald Trump among all voting groups. They represent 20 percent of all engaged voters.

New Era Enterprisers, meanwhile, are young, urban, and much more ethnically diverse. Pew points out that they are “strongly pro-business and generally think that immigrants strengthen, rather than burden, the country.” Innovation and entrepreneurship are most important to them. They are pro-immigration and pro-gay rights with the highest opinion of a role for government among any Republican group. Only a quarter of them self-identify as strong Republicans. They are the least supportive of Donald Trump among Republican groups, and the least likely to express negative attitudes toward the Democratic Party. They make up nine percent of all engaged voters.

Together these two modern Republican groups total 29 percent of engaged voters, and represent the center of power within the GOP.

Postmodern Left: Solid Liberals and Disaffected Democrats

The two Pew voting groups which make up the Postmodern Left are “Solid Liberals” and “Disaffected Democrats.” Both groups have negative views of capitalism and are concerned about America’s treatment of minority groups.

Solid Liberals is a bit of a misnomer as they tend to reject liberalism in its classical form. They are progressives who hold strongly negative views of businesses, question or reject the concept of the American Dream, and see the world through the lens of identity politics. They are mostly white, well-off, and well-educated, and they are the most secular voters found across voting groups. Ninety-seven percent strongly disapprove of Trump’s job performance. They are unlikely to have friends outside their political circle, and over half of this group would say “that a friendship would be strained if someone voted for Trump,” much higher than any other Democratic group. It isn’t just Trump they dislike. They are highly partisan in general and the least tolerant of Republicans among all Democrat groups. They are the largest engaged Democratic voting group and the largest of all voting groups in Pews voter typologies. They make up 25 percent of engaged voters.

Pew characterizes Disaffected Democrats as a “financially stressed, majority-minority group [that] supports activist government and the social safety net…” They are unhappy with America and their “disaffection stems from their cynicism about politics, government and the way things are going in the country. Disaffected Democrats would be the most likely to see the world through the lens of identity politics.”

A large majority of Disaffected Democrats say their side has been losing in politics, while fewer than half believe that voting gives them a say in how the government runs things, highlighting another hallmark of their beliefs: they have very little faith in the system.” They believe government has failed them and that, “poor people have hard lives because government benefits do not go far enough to help them live decently.” Unlike the white elite Postmodern Democrats, they often have lived in the same neighborhood their entire lives. They make up 11 percent of all engaged voters.

Together these two diverse progressive groups make up 36 percent of all engaged Democratic voters, which makes them the largest of any groups on the Left or Right. When pundits refer to the Democratic Party moving “leftwards” there are trying to capture this movement toward the postmodern level—the new center of gravity of cultural power on the American Left.

Postmodern Right: Market Skeptic Republicans

The group that is least understood in American politics is the Postmodern Right. While postmodernism on the Left focuses on the failure of modernity to address social justice in term of identity politics, the Postmodern Right questions the fundamental economic worldview of the Modern Right. In Pew’s survey, they show up as a new category named “Market Skeptic Republicans.”

Like those on the Postmodern Left, they share a strong skepticism of America exceptionalism, an overriding pessimism about the country, and they are critical of both political parties. They are the first ever “Republican-leaning group that is deeply skeptical of business and the fundamental fairness of the nation’s economic system.” They do not believe in lower taxes, which until recently defined the modern GOP, and they have an unfavorable view of banks and other financial institutions. Unlike other Republicans, Market Skeptic Republicans believe American capitalism is unfair, “an overwhelming share (94 percent) say the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests.”

The media often lumps them in as traditional conservatives because of their opposition to immigration. But that’s a mistake. They favor legal abortions in higher numbers than the Traditional Left Democrats, and they are the most secular of all Republican groups. They are also most interested in a white identity politics, mirroring those on the Left.

They are also the least loyal to the GOP. As Pew notes, “They stand out for their criticism of both political parties when it comes to caring about the middle class.” They hold a more favorable view of Donald Trump than most other Republican groups. Though not well known and ignored by the media, they are a larger voting group than the religious Right in the Republican Party, making up 10 percent of all engaged GOP voters.

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

Anarchy, war and despotism are the natural states of man, not freedom, democracy and classical liberalism. (I use the term “classical liberalism,” which speaks to the advocacy of civil liberties under the rule of law, with an emphasis on individual economic freedom, to differentiate from today’s use of “liberalism,” which is defined as a compassionate but intrusive, all-powerful state. Thomas Sowell was more direct when he declared “liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.”

Anarchy is at one end of the spectrum, with totalitarianism at the other. In his 1927 book, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, a book in which he uses the word “liberalism” as I do “classical liberalism,” Ludwig von Mises wrote: “Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.” It is to provide justice, not social justice.

Totalitarianism represents the other extreme. In harsh, dictatorial nations blemishes are obvious. But in a state where, over time, one is seduced by offerings of free services, like food stamps, help with housing, health and college, life can be comfortable. All that is asked in return is allegiance to a political party. Beware apathy, warned Baron de Montesquieu: “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”  Like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, despots build their power bases slowly, deliberately, much like the lobster dropped into tepid water, with the heat gradually increased, so that when the water boils the lobster has already succumbed. The best antidote to tyranny is education, which is why citizens should be concerned by the attack on meritocratic public schools in big cities like New York. The slogan for Sy Syms’ one-time company was “an educated consumer is our best customer.” Classical liberalisms’ best defense is an educated citizen.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/transgender_surgery_is_the_lobotomy_of_the_21st_century.html

Psychology is a “science” that studies human behavior but is itself morally bankrupt.  That is, psychology is unable to scientifically define normality.  It can’t.  “Normal” depends on what the society (through “norms”) or the patient views as morally correct.

This limitation of psychological study is apparent when addressing transgenderism, until recently labeled a mental illness (“gender dysphoria”) by psychology.  Modern textbooks on transgender (and other paraphilic) disorders observe that they arise from “adverse childhood experiences” (ACEs): “Any event sufficiently stressful to threaten a fragile ego” (Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing, 8th edition, Mary C. Townsend, 2015, p. 615).  But here we face a conundrum: the textbook relates that such people are “unable to use coping mechanisms effectively” and become either “adaptive” (“urges are suppressed and not acted upon”) or “maladaptive” (“urges or behaviors cause significant distress or interfere with social, occupational or other important areas of functioning”).  But if society alters its mores such that a person is rewarded for his paraphilic condition in self, occupation, or even a run for public office, then this textbook is reversed, and what was viewed as adaptive becomes toxic, and what was termed maladaptive is healthy.

Drug addiction also is linked directly to ACEs.  Is the “cure” for the disease of addiction found in affirmation or in “correction”?  In encouraging more heroin abuse or in helping people into recovery?  We must ask this question of transgenderism with the utmost compassion and introspection.  If the behavior is “normal,” there is no “condition” to address.  America’s Left has imposed the conclusion of normalcy, without critically considering the effect on the patient or others.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/290884/north-korean-israeli-shadow-war

The North Korean-Israeli Shadow War

Whenever nuclear weapons technology appears in the hands of Israel’s enemies, Pyongyang is usually involved

By Jay Solomon

Jay Solomon is an adjunct fellow at The Washington Institute. A veteran journalist whose career has included postings in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, in addition to Washington, he is the former chief foreign affairs correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and author of The Iran Wars (Random House, 2016).

It was largely by chance that Israel scored one of its greatest ever intelligence coups in 2007.

At the time, Mossad was running surveillance on the director general of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission, a pudgy, bespectacled bureaucrat named Ibrahim Othman. Othman was visiting Vienna that winter to attend meetings of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Mossad sought to learn more about his secretive activities. The Israelis hacked the Syrian’s personal computer after he left his hotel for meetings in the Austrian capital.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/can_mainstream_conservatism_survive_in_the_21st_century.html

Is it authoritarianism to ban Drag Queen Story Hour in public libraries, with the explicit threat of violent prosecution?

That’s the question at the heart of the recent debate between author Sohrab Ahmari and National Review’s David French.  Moderated by columnist Ross Douthat at Catholic University, the disputation was the first public confrontation of fusion conservatism and a burgeoning but inchoate mix of nationalism and integralism.

The contest of ideas, sad to say, wasn’t an even-sided scrimmage.  The mainstream conservative side, represented by the hail-fellow-well-met writer David French, was dominant, aided by French’s attorney background and jujitsu-style argumentation.  Ahmari ping-ponged between decrying proceduralism’s fecklessness and offering his own thin-soupy proceduralist solutions.

For example, when pressed on how he’d combat crossdressers reading children stories in taxpayer-funded libraries, flaunting their sexual depravities, Ahmari could only recommend a congressional hearing and proscription via local ordinance.  Not exactly the Battle of Lepanto.

Ahmari lost the verbal battle, but the war over a proper right-wing philosophy in tune with the greater good continues.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14879/self-esteem-public-service

“Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” — Socrates, “On Personal Service,” 469-399 BCE.

“With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do.” — William James, “The Strangest Lightness.”

Those in public service have a daily opportunity either to welcome that challenge of advancing our nation or to retreat into mediocrity…. [I[t becomes evident that securing self-esteem is the true benefit from such a career and one that every public servant should aspire to.

“You will learn that those with ideas and enthusiasm to work hard and improve services may be ostracized by the status quo elements…. Set goals, dream big, and ask ‘why not.’ Maintain an exemplary standard of ethics. Begin with the end in your sights. And, above all, maintain your sense of humor!” — Larry J. Gordon, Gordon Visiting Professor, UNM School of Public Administration, 1994 Commencement Address.

That most precious of resources, time, gives us the means to think, ponder, reflect and acquire that most coveted of treasures: wisdom. The thought-provoking writings of three eminent scholars — Socrates, William James and Larry J. Gordon — bridge the centuries to provide us with the means better to understand ourselves and our era. Take the time to read their essays.

When it came to the role of teachers in our society, Socrates knew exactly what their role was. He observed, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” He reminded all of us that the educator’s real goal is to excite a student with the love of learning — perhaps one of the most crucial responsibilities in any society. More than any paycheck, pension or summer recess, creating a legacy that ensures a new generation will welcome that “flame” of wisdom elevates our teachers far beyond measure, a fact too often lost amidst the debate over benefits and course curriculum.

One can make that argument for all those who are in public service, whose responsibilities are meant to advance our nation, protect our future and better the lives of our fellow citizens. These careers offer a benefit that is far beyond measure — self-esteem — and the knowledge that they have the means to “kindle a flame” that shines a bright and lasting light on democracy.

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/opinion/pseudo-science-the-bible-and-human-freedom/

Scientists are confused about every foundational problem in physics and biology. The more confused they get, the more prevalent the notion becomes that the human brain is just another machine and human consciousness is a byproduct of electromagnetic effluvia. Never mind that we don’t know what an electron is, let alone an atom, not to mention a molecule, and we don’t know why such things interact with each other.

The trouble is that people want to believe that their thoughts and impulses are determined by something other than their own judgment. The popularity of scientific determinism has jumped while the explanatory power of science has bumped up against its own limitations, whether acknowledged or not. The irony is that our longing for determinism has nothing to do with science as such. On the contrary, the popularity of scientific determinism has grown along with obviously pre-scientific kinds of determinism, notably astrology, which is enjoying a revival among millennials. These considerations came to mind reading Scott Shay’s book In Good Faith, which contrasts the claims of biblical religion to the old idolatry of the pagan world and its contemporary avatars.

Shay observes, “The Bible assumes human beings have the ability to make moral choices. But today, many scientists, particularly neuroscientists, have begun to question the idea that man possesses any such things as ‘free will.’ The Bible takes for granted that man knows the difference between good and evil, even if we are tempted to deceive ourselves. Scientists, in contrast, are not so certain. In the book Free Will, Sam Harris takes the position that free will is illusory. At the same time, he recognizes, as do other neuroscientists, that as humans we can consciously deliberate and make choices. So what is the current debate on free will all about?” The full-credit answer requires reading his book. Below are a few pointers.