RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://victorhanson.com/the-dei-ruse-is-imploding-part-one/

Diversity

Has there ever been a sane nation in the world that preferred “diversity” to “unity”?

The former Yugoslavia was certainly “diverse,” and it finally stressed its diversity to the point of unending death and destruction. Ditto Rwanda and Iraq.

So what exactly was the advantage of ditching the melting pot for the tribalist salad bowl? What was the historical argument for making race essential rather than incidental to who we are—other than institutionalizing racial bias and prejudice to further the careers of mostly middle-class and upper-middle-class “marginalized people”?

And what sort of diversity did DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) promote? 

Religious?

Not at all, at least in the case of Christianity. Declaring oneself overtly Catholic or Protestant would certainly be unorthodox and “diverse” on campus, but not encouraged and more likely a cause for social or career ostracism.

Ideology? Was diversity designed to ensure a matter of all sorts of political views?

Again, no.

Most polls of faculty, especially on the supposed “elite” campuses—whether calibrated by party identification, donations to political causes and candidates, or by ideology—consistently show somewhere between 90–95 percent of academics identify as Democrats or parties to their left, or as “progressive,” or even further still to the left.

Did diversity imply or include class in its definition? Not at all.

Most academics are from the upper-middle or professional or aristocratic classes. Claudine Gay, for example, is from a rich Haitian immigrant family (family cement magnates)—a world away from East Palestine, Ohio.

https://victorhanson.com/the-dei-ruse-is-imploding-part-two/

Equity

Equity was rebranded as a word to redefine equality as a mandated equalness of result rather than an equality of opportunity.

This “spread the wealth” ideology is by design contrary to the Constitution’s devotion to liberty and freedom.

DEI’s “equity,” then, is the neo-socialist effort to use government power, reinforced by popular culture, to suppress the perceived wealthy, the more fortunate, and the better off, and then to redistribute their money, influence, and power—summed up as “privilege”—to those arbitrarily labeled less well-off and less fortunate.

And there is always the age-old Marxist qualifier that the revolutionaries who determine who is oppressed and who is oppressive are themselves never subject to the consequences of their own ideology. It is the John Kerry logic that only by flying in a carbon-spewing private jet can he hit all the climate conferences and reduce carbon spewing.

So our cultural Marxists demand teachers’ unions and hate vouchers and charter schools—as their kids go to prep schools. They defund the police—but usually have access to private security. They demand all-electric vehicles—while they fly on Citations and Gulfstreams. They are versions of the old revolutionaries that were all born rich or at least upper-middle-class—our era’s Trotskys, Lenins, Marxes, Ho Chi Minhs, Mao Zedongs, Castros, and Che Guevaras. The most dangerous Marxists always arise from the bored and guilty privileged and well-off.

DEI’s idea of “equity” shares the Marxist boilerplate of just two classes at war with each other.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-houthis-are-emboldened-by-bidens-weakness/

It’s starting to feel like an exercise in futility to continue to hector and cajole the commander in chief of the armed forces into doing his job. Joe Biden seems perfectly happy to absorb the consequences associated with the Iran-backed campaign of terrorism engulfing the Middle East. When the Pentagon does respond to attacks on U.S. service personnel and American interests — that is, when the Defense Department isn’t in “full cover-their-a** mode” — it does so in a calibrated way that conveys America’s desire to avoid escalation more than its interest in restoring deterrence. That message has been received loud and clear, and the Iran-sponsored Houthi rebels are making the most of their free hand.

“This is the largest attack on commercial shipping,” one unnamed national-security official told CNBC reporters yesterday. The observation followed reports that the terroristic outfit launched a large missile and drone attack on merchant vessels in defiance of the multinational naval operation, Prosperity Guardian, which is tasked with providing security for commercial traffic in the region. U.S. and British naval forces reportedly shot down “18 drones, two anti-ship cruise missiles and one anti-ship ballistic missile,” but the Houthis did not limit its targeting to commercial vessels.

British secretary of state for defense Grant “Shapps said that Royal Navy ship HMS Diamond, which repelled the attacks along with U.S. warships, may have been specifically targeted,” Reuters reported, “adding there was also ‘a generalized attack on all shipping.’” Shapps made note of the untenable nature of the status quo emerging amid months of unmolested Houthi attacks on military and commercial vessels in the Gulf of Aden. “This cannot continue and cannot be allowed to continue,” he said simply.

But the White House is unmoved. Neither the president nor his subordinates appear concerned that their facile warnings about the “consequences” the Houthis will bear for these provocations are being ignored. They don’t seem to care that this Iran-backed terror campaign has already had deleterious effects on the global maritime trade regime and the international supply chain. They are willing to look beyond direct attacks on U.S. warships and those of their allies — targeting of which the Houthis boast, despite the Pentagon’s claims that the group doesn’t really mean it — even if that increases the threat born by U.S. service personnel in hot spots all over the globe.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/hunter-biden-piles-contempt-upon-contempt/

The president’s troubled son, Hunter Biden, has treated the congressional inquiry into his conduct and the Justice Department’s curious response to it with disdain from Day One.

Late last year, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena seeking testimony from the younger Biden, compelling him to answer the committee’s questions behind closed doors. His attorneys disregarded this courtesy, treating it as an opportunity to enter into public negotiations with the committee over the terms to which their client might graciously submit to Congress’s demand.

Hunter Biden wanted to testify in public and before the cameras — a request the Republican-led committee denied. Rather than observe Congress’s authority, Hunter Biden made a theatrical show of appearing in Washington on the day he was supposed to comply with the subpoena, but only to issue a fiery condemnation of House Republicans.

“I’m here to testify at a public hearing today to answer any of the committee’s legitimate questions,” the president’s son exclaimed. “What are they afraid of? I’m here. I’m ready.” But the subject of a congressional inquiry doesn’t get to make the rules — Congress does. So, in response to Hunter’s display of contempt, Congress elected to formalize that status. “Hunter Biden today defied lawful subpoenas, and we will now initiate contempt of Congress proceedings,” House Republicans declared in mid December.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/01/10/the-inherently-destructive-uniparty-agenda/

It’s easy enough to blame Democrats for everything, but as a rapidly increasing percentage of American voters have realized, Republicans share the blame. These politicians are controlled by their donors, and in America today, the big donors are in agreement regardless of which party or which candidate gets their money.

This, then, is what has become dubbed America’s uniparty. And while wealthy elites have always exercised disproportionate influence in American politics, and, for that matter, the politics of virtually every nation that has ever existed, what is happening in 21st century America is unique.

To begin with, for most of American history, elites have competed for political power and influence, with the differing agenda and interests preventing one faction from acquiring absolute power. But today, on the issues that will have the most profound impact on our future, America’s elites are perfectly aligned. Also today and without precedent in American history, the goals of America’s elites are in conflict with the interests of the American people.

There are two broad, interrelated areas where the uniparty consensus currently aims to break the American people, destroying our coherence as a nation along with our prosperity and individual freedom. They both relate to how we are handling immigration. America’s de facto immigration policy is to invite millions of people per year to enter the United States. Because this policy also effectively excludes immigrants who have the means and the integrity to attempt legal entry, the millions who cross our borders each year are the most desperate people from the most failed nations.

America’s immigration policy, in practice, admits people whose life experience is to barely survive in nations ruled by thugs and fanatics. They are accustomed to endemic corruption and extreme poverty. As for the small fraction of immigrants who enter the United States legally, the criteria for their admission is more of a lottery than a merit-based criteria that might arguably be in the national interest.

But immigration—even the uncontrolled, meritless, flagrantly illegal, massive wave that Americans are now experiencing—would probably not be enough to break our unity and our freedom. It would be a challenge, but absent two other nihilistic factors, both driven by America’s elites, we might eventually assimilate the new arrivals and continue to thrive as a nation.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20296/lawyers-defending-become-accused

Ensuring the integrity of elections is… a fundamental requirement to support the legitimacy of the American democratic republic.

We do not have to speculate about the motives of The 65 Project. The head of the group has admitted that their goal is “to deter right-wing talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts” to challenge elections, not only by bringing bar complaints but to “shame them and make them toxic in their communities and their firms.”

The 65 Project’s straight-faced motto, incidentally, is, “Defending Democracy and the Rule of Law.” If only!

We are witnessing a shift in the legal system from lawyers representing and defending clients to lawyers becoming the accused, and, as a form of pseudo-juridical destruction, being charged with unfounded claims.

One of the many great provisions in the American Constitution provides that everyone is entitled to a defense. The “right to counsel” is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and the “due process” clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

What, however, are the implications when the lawyers who provide that defense are threatened with disbarment proceedings, crushing legal costs to defend their licenses, exclusion from participation in the broader legal and academic communities, and having their reputations smeared, all because they represented clients who were deemed unpopular or took on cases fraught with controversy?

Lawyers throughout America are being subjected to these very ordeals due to their participation in cases related to the 2020 presidential election. One of the principal groups pursuing this strategy operates under the name “The 65 Project.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/destruction-and-obstruction-how-pro-palestinian-protesters-are-defending-hamass-massacre/

Masses of anti-Israel protesters have descended on cities to call for a cease-fire in Gaza in the months following Hamas’s October 7 terror attack. Here are some of the most extreme examples of protesters who have blocked major roadways, vandalized property, and broadcast antisemitic statements:

Washington, D.C.: More than 500 pro-Palestinian protesters staged a sit-in at the United States Capitol in October. The anti-Zionist movement Jewish Voice for Peace led the demonstration, in which protesters demanded a “cease-fire now.”

The protesters first gathered on the National Mall where Cori Bush (D., Mo.) and Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) spoke to the crowd. Tlaib repeated the lie during her remarks that the Israeli military bombed a Gaza hospital (American and Israeli intelligence confirmed that a misfired Palestinian rocket caused the blast).

New York City: Pro-Palestinian protesters blocked the Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and Manhattan Bridges and the Holland Tunnel during rush hour on the morning of January 8. Protesters calling for a “cease-fire now” refused to let commuters into the city. The protest was part of a wider campaign to “Shut It Down for Palestine,” organized by the Palestinian Youth Movement, National Students for Justice in Palestine, Answer Coalition, the People’s Forum, International Peoples’ Assembly, Al-Awda in New York, and the Palestinian American Community Center in New Jersey.

Police arrested 325 protesters, the NYPD reported, and the roads were cleared by 11:15 a.m. that morning. Many of the 325 will face misdemeanor charges with a desk appearance ticket, according to NYPD chief of patrol John Chell.

“NYPD, KKK, IDF they’re all the same,” protesters chanted.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/the_fabricated_memory_of_january_6th.html

We in America have a collective memory of what slavery was like in the 19th century. And when I say we have a collective memory, I mean we share a fabricated collective memory. Slavery was real, but no one today has a real memory of it.

Our collective memory comes from television shows like Roots and movies like Speilberg’s Amistad and The Color Purple. It comes from every movie you’ve ever seen about slavery in the United States. And so, as a collective culture, we think that because we’ve seen these films, we have an authentic memory of what slavery was like when we are only remembering someone else’s portrayal — someone else’s idea of what they think happened. Whether it’s Alex Haley or Quentin Tarantino, we have someone else’s presentation.

The same thing is now happening with the Democrats when they’re recalling January 6th. The Democrat Party has created a fake and fabricated memory of January 6th. They did it with the help of ABC News, with the editors, camera crews, and the post-production people to create a memory that would be played over and over in the media to create a collective memory of an insurrection.

We know the then-House Speaker invited her niece (a professional photographer) to come down to the Capitol and photograph the historic event. We also know that ABC producers were employed to produce the televised hearings of the January 6 Commission for several weeks, and had a hand in editing actual J6 footage. This was designed to create an altered, fabricated memory of what happened the day thousands of people came to Washington because they were concerned the election of 2020 had unanswered questions. Not necessarily unanswered by a non-asking media, but unanswered, nevertheless.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/01/a-presidency-on-autopilot/

The Biden administration is plagued by lethargy and indifference. Does it expect voters not to notice?

The chances are that most voters do not know where Joe Biden’s secretary of defense is at any given moment. The public is likely to assume that the president, his subordinates, their staffs, and the watchdogs in media whose job it is to chronicle government officials’ activities are on top of it, if only because that was a reasonably safe assumption up until this week. What is likely to bite Biden — if Lloyd Austin’s reckless vanishing act bites the president at all — is the epiphany dawning on voters that no one in the administration was on top of it. And when those voters begin to think about it a little more, they might conclude that Biden hasn’t been on top of very much.

Biden’s presidency is buffeted by events, flitting directionless from one crisis to the next without having much of an impact on the trajectory of any one of them. Austin’s disappearance occurred amid an ongoing national humiliation abroad. No one, administration officials included, denies that Iran is behind the many dozens of attacks on U.S. service personnel in Iraq and Syria. Nor do they quibble about who is pulling the strings in Yemen, where a ragtag rebel group has partially closed crucial Red Sea shipping lanes to commercial traffic.

Presumably at someone’s direction, the Pentagon has retaliated against some of Iran’s proxy forces — with the notable exception of Yemen’s Houthi militia — but in a calibrated fashion that has failed to restore deterrence. Joe Biden and his officials appear content to allow Iran to dictate the tempo of events in the region. At the very least, the nation’s foremost defense official doesn’t see these ongoing assaults on America’s men and women in uniform and the U.S.-led geopolitical order they maintain as an obstacle to taking an unannounced sabbatical. Nor, apparently, does the president believe that Austin’s dereliction merits any sort of reproach.

https://thespectator.com/topic/lloyd-austin-mistake-career-ending/

When the secretary of defense goes AWOL, the clear chain of command is severed.

The disappearance of defense secretary Lloyd Austin for a few days without notifying the White House, or even the second in command at the Pentagon, is more than a one- or two-day story. 

It’s a much larger problem. It’s a problem politically for the White House, an opportunity for Republicans, a dilemma for congressional Democrats and a problem for the most powerful military in the world. And, of course, it’s a major problem for Secretary Austin’s future in the position.

Let’s start with the problem for the military. It is absolutely essential that the military have a clear chain of command that is clearly specified and operational at all times. Within the military, that chain of command goes up to the senior-most officer in each service branch. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is above them in the military hierarchy. 

Because the US military operates in a democracy, where political control is essential for major decisions, the top military officials are beneath a civilian secretary for each branch. All of them, plus the chairman of the joint chiefs, are beneath the civilian secretary of defense, who is appointed by the president, subject to Senate approval, and is supervised by the president himself. The civilian secretaries of each branch are also nominees that must be approved by the Senate. That, then, is a clear chain of command under civilian control.

When the secretary of defense goes AWOL, that chain of command is severed. The severance appeared to be even more severe because the second in command to Secretary Austin was herself on vacation and not informed of his being out of the chain because he was in the intensive care unit.