MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘racist’

Now even classical music is racist – spiked

Posted by M. C. on February 17, 2021

A scandal involving an obscure music journal confirms that the crusade against whiteness is out of control.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/16/now-even-classical-music-is-racist/

Frank Furedi

In a world where, sooner or later, everything is racialised, it was only a matter of time before classical music became a target of the crusade against whiteness. So I wasn’t particularly shocked when I read this headline in the New York Times: ‘Obscure Musicology Journal Sparks Battles over Race and Free Speech.’

The obscure musicology journal in question is the tiny Journal of Schenkerian Studies. The journal’s editor, Timothy Jackson, a music-theory professor at the University of North Texas, is under fire for his hard-hitting response to the claim that the interwar Austrian-Jewish composer and theorist Heinrich Schenker personified the white racist attitudes that dominate classical music. Jackson’s university has launched an investigation into his behaviour, barred him from editing the journal, and suspended funding for the Schenker Center, which he runs.

Jackson has been vilified by the Twittermob and ostracised by his colleagues. Graduates who have previously worked with him are now worried that their association with this fallen professor could harm their career prospects. How did this all happen?

The story of the demise of the Journal of Schenkerian Studies began in the autumn of 2019, when Philip Ewell, a black music-theory professor, gave a talk at the Society for Music Theory in Columbus, Ohio. Ewell takes the view that classical music is compromised by its whiteness.

For Ewell, white supremacy is evident in the teaching, playing and interpretation of classical music. From this perspective, where everything is seen to involve white racism, all the values celebrated in classical music are expressions of whiteness; they are all coded in a ‘white racial frame’, says Ewell. So, the reason Beethoven enjoys such high esteem among lovers of classical music is not because of his genius but because, as Ewell explains, he ‘has been propped up by whiteness and maleness for 200 years’.

Ewell’s obsession with the invisible power of whiteness is matched only by his philistinism – he describes Beethoven as an ‘above average composer’. Evidently, the academic members of the Society for Music Theory enjoy being guilt-tripped about their privilege because they responded to Ewell’s address with a standing ovation. The society – whose members are overwhelmingly white – loved what they heard. Later, its executive board declared that ‘we humbly acknowledge that we have much work to do to dismantle the whiteness and systemic racism that deeply shape our discipline’.

In his address, Ewell drew attention to virulent racist comments made by Schenker. Like many Germanophile artists and intellectuals of his time – the late 19th and early 20th centuries – Schenker regarded other people with contempt. He dismissed the ‘filthy’ French, English and Italians as ‘inferior races’, regarded Slavs as ‘half animals’, and claimed that Africans had a ‘cannibal spirit’.

If all that Ewell had said was that Schenker personified the cultural and racial hatreds of his society at the time he was alive, few would have disagreed. However, he went a step further and implied that Schenker’s musical theory was also infused with a racist tone. He claimed that Schenker carried his racist views into his work, as allegedly expressed in his belief in the ‘inequality of tones’. In other words, Ewell offered a racialised version of the argument that you cannot separate politics from art. Ewell’s attack on white art is the functional equivalent of previous denunciations of ‘bourgeois art’ or ‘decadent art’.

Jackson, who has devoted years of his academic life to the study of Schenker, reacted angrily to Ewell’s attack. He devoted an issue of his journal to addressing Ewell’s claim that Schenker’s racial views were connected to his musical theories. Five of the essays published in the issue defended Ewell, while 10 opposed him. Jackson’s response was hard-hitting and arguably intemperate. He accused Ewell of using Schenker as a proxy for Jews and suggested that his critique of Schenker may well have been an example of black anti-Semitism.

Jackson’s response was a passionate academic defence of Schenker’s reputation. He points out how ambiguous Schenker was in relation to his own Jewish identity, that he desired to be accepted into the fold of Germanic culture, and that he subsequently had a change of attitude, concluding later in life that ‘music is accessible to all races and creeds alike’.

Whether or not one agrees with Jackson’s reply to Ewell, or with his assessment of Schenker, there can be little doubt that the tone and content of his reply were consistent with the normal standards of academic debate. Nor can there be any doubt that the reaction of the University of North Texas, its sidelining of Jackson and his journal, plays into the hands of those who want to silence Jackson and defame his reputation.

In the eyes of his detractors, and no doubt in the eyes of the Society for Music Theory, Jackson’s real crime is that, unlike them, he refused to roll over, apologise and embrace the myth of whiteness that is being peddled by guilt-tripping moral entrepreneurs.

Moral entrepreneurs like Ewell have acquired a commanding influence over how racism is perceived and understood. Yet Ewell’s use of the concept of the ‘white racial frame’ to understand classical music has little to do with racism. He himself stated that he is not interested in ‘negative stereotypes of blacks’ and their application to classical music. ‘What I stress’, he said, ‘is not so much black stereotypes as positive white stereotypes’, which supposedly create a ‘pro-white subframe’. For Ewell, detaching positive connotations from whiteness, or spoiling whiteness by delegitimising the cultural authority of someone like Beethoven, is the precondition for turning classical music into an inclusive project. The aim is not to deracialise classical music, but to reframe it in a different colour.

No doubt Ewell would find it difficult to grasp the attitude towards classical music displayed by the radical black activist and writer, WEB Du Bois. Du Bois admired the music of Richard Wagner, the notorious racist and anti-Semitic composer. For Du Bois what mattered was Wagner’s music. He said: ‘The musical dramas of Wagner tell of human life as he lived it, and no human being, white or black, can afford not to know them, if he would know life.’

Advocates of the idea that white supremacy infects classical music would no doubt like to deprive millions of people of the joy of being exposed to the kind of music that helped Du Bois to better understand the human condition. Ewell and the Society for Music Theory should be ashamed of their newfound roles as the academic police of music and culture.

Frank Furedi’s latest book Democracy Under Siege: Don’t let Them Lock It Down is published by Zer0 Books.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Last Time the D.C. Establishment Labeled Its Political Opposition as ‘Insurrectionists’ (and How It Taught Them About ‘National Unity’) – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 8, 2021

In words that are eerily reminiscent of what senile old Joe Biden has chosen as his post-campaign theme, Stokes quotes one U.S. Army officer as saying:  “In the year of 1865 this great rebellion would be crushed out, and peace and harmony & good will would be restored between the North & South.”  The man who points a carbine at your head demanding your jewelry, steals or destroys all of your furniture, and sets your house on fire, supposedly did it to save the union, “this glorious union,” says Stokes.  And yes, to restore peace, harmony, and good will.  Only a moron could believe such a thing, and only a moron could believe that the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer cabal is interested in “national unity” and not coerced conformity to their neo-Marxist agendas.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/thomas-dilorenzo/the-last-time-the-d-c-establishment-labeled-its-political-opposition-as-insurrectionists-and-how-it-taught-them-about-national-unity/

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The Washington establishment, led by a senile 78-year-old man who can barely speak in complete sentences and seems permanently fighting mad, is hell- bent on labeling virtually all Americans who voted for President Trump –Republicans, Independents, and Democrats — as “insurrectionists.”  They have invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 to justify placing thousands of heavily-armed National Guard (and other) troops in Washington, D.C., who appear to be stationed there indefinitely.  Comrade Pelosi, who turns 81 next month and also seems demented, always angry as hell, and extremely frustrated that she is not a dictator, has called for the placement of manned machine gun nests atop the Capitol building.  She is apparently worried that Trump voters might try to create their own version of one of those mass anti-Trump rallies in D.C. that she orchestrated in early 2017, way back when peaceful assembly and freedom of association were still legal and not acts of “insurrection.”  All of this is supposedly being done in the name of warm-and-fuzzy “national unity.”

This political spectacle reminds your author of how the D.C. establishment dealt with “insurrectionists” in the Southern states in the 1860s, particularly in South Carolina.  The “crime” that these “insurrectionists” were said to be guilty of was agreeing with the founding fathers that the American union was a voluntary union of the free and independent states and not a coerced union held together by violence — like the Soviet Union of the twentieth century.

Many Americans know a little something – very little — about General William Tecumseh Sherman’s “march to the sea” through Georgia, an orgy of rape, pillage, plunder, and murder of civilians and the bombing and burning of entire cities occupied only by old men, women, and children.  We are all taught to know as little as possible about it because as Sherman famously said, “war is hell.”  “Move along, nothing to see here” is the meaning of Sherman’s famous quip.  Of course such a nonchalant attitude made it more likely that there would be more orgies of rape, pillage, plunder and murder by the U.S. government, and there were, all over the world, over the past 150 years.

After his march through Georgia Sherman set his sights on South Carolina, something that few Americans seem to know much of anything about.  They have an opportunity to rectify their ignorance, however, by reading A Legion of Devils: Sherman in South Carolina (2017) by Karen Stokes.

Karen Stokes is an archivist at the South Carolina Historical Society and the author of numerous non-fiction and fiction books. A Legion of Devils is a compilation of first-hand, eye-witness accounts of how Sherman’s “bummers,” as they were called, exploded with hate and revenge against the “insurrectionists” of South Carolina, the first state to secede in December of 1860.

Sherman’s army was not noble, heroic, and on the moral side of history, as you were no doubt taught in public school (and in most private schools).  This is because in war, the victors always get to write the history, erect statues to themselves, whitewash their war crimes, and endlessly demonize their defeated enemies, all as a giant smokescreen for their own crimes.

For example, you probably never heard of a December 7, 1861 article in the New York Tribune, the Republican party’s paper of record, quoted by Stokes, about how “one enterprising and unscrupulous [U.S. Army] officer was caught in the act of assembling a cargo of Negroes for transportation and sale in Cuba.”  Or that “no colored woman was safe from the brutal lusts of the [U.S. Army] soldiers” who were “not punished for their offenses.”

Sherman himself was a notorious racist and white supremacist who would spend twenty-five years after the war orchestrating the mass murder of the Plains Indians to prevent America, in his words, from becoming “a nation of mongrels like Mexico” through inter-racial marriage between whites, blacks, and Indians.  His “soldiers” were mostly of the same mind.  “Sherman’s soldiers stole from [Southern black people], destroyed their property, and taunted them with racial slurs,” writes Stokes.  She quotes Union Army General Oliver O. Howard, Sherman’s second in command, as remarking how the “soldiers” were routinely “abusing [black] women,” something he apparently did not lift a finger to stop.

Sherman’s expedition through South Carolina was defined by “arson and pillage” and “also murder,” writes Stokes.  The worst war crimes were committed during the burning of Columbia, South Carolina.  Most of the city was destroyed by fire, with nothing left but the “smokeless chimney’s” from burned down houses; all private homes were plundered; women of both races were gang raped; all livestock was either stolen or killed; and slaves were tortured with hangman’s nooses to force them to reveal where the family had hidden any valuables, with many of them being murdered in that way.  As one eye witness account described what happened to a slave named Frank:  “Each of the three times that this man [a U.S. Army “soldier”] suspended poor Frank in the air he would let him down and try to make him confess.  Not knowing anything, of course he could not give the coveted information.  Frank’s neck remains twisted to this day.”  This Savior of the Southern Black People then said to the woman:  “Madame, if you do not tell me in five minutes where your silver is buried I will set fire to your home.”  No wonder Southerners no longer wanted to be in a union with people like that.

North Carolina was not spared, either.  Stokes quotes a North Carolina man as saying:  “When Sherman’s army passed through my place in North Carolina, some of his camp followers, in their greedy search for treasure, entered the graveyard, dug up my dead children, opened their coffins, and left their bodies exposed to birds and beast, lest vile than they.”  Stokes writes of how grave robbing seems to have been rampant among Lincoln’s “army of liberation” that was primarily concerned with liberating Southerners from their silverware.

The Library of Congress possesses a manuscript collection of first-hand accounts of Sherman’s “marches.”  One of them, known as the “McCarter Journal,” was written by James Jefferson McCarter, a native of Columbia.  In it he wrote that in the aftermath of the burning down of his city, “the bodies of several females were found in the morning of Saturday stripped naked & with only such marks of violence upon them as would indicate the most detestable of crimes . . . the town seemed abandoned to the unrestrained license of the half drunken soldiery to gratify their base passions on the unprotected females of both colors.”  As was his custom, Sherman blamed this on the residents of Columbia, lecturing them that “there was too much liquor in your town.”

Sherman surely knew of these gang rapes and murders by his bummers, and may even have explicitly condoned it, thinking that once word got out there would be more desertions of Confederate soldiers heading home to protect their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from Lincoln’s army of rapists and murderers.

Churches were not exempted from Sherman’s army of pyromaniacs.  “Sherman’s forces put the torch to the Episcopal church in Prince William Parish, commonly known as Sheldon Church.”  The entire town of Hardeeville in the low country was “demolished by Sherman’s soldiers” and “the town’s Baptist church [was] also dismantled.”

In words that are eerily reminiscent of what senile old Joe Biden has chosen as his post-campaign theme, Stokes quotes one U.S. Army officer as saying:  “In the year of 1865 this great rebellion would be crushed out, and peace and harmony & good will would be restored between the North & South.”  The man who points a carbine at your head demanding your jewelry, steals or destroys all of your furniture, and sets your house on fire, supposedly did it to save the union, “this glorious union,” says Stokes.  And yes, to restore peace, harmony, and good will.  Only a moron could believe such a thing, and only a moron could believe that the Biden/Pelosi/Schumer cabal is interested in “national unity” and not coerced conformity to their neo-Marxist agendas.

Readers who would like to learn more of Sherman and Lincoln’s destruction of South Carolina might consult Karen Stokes’s other book, South Carolina Civilians in Sherman’s Path; Cole Blease, Destruction of Property in Columbia, S.C. by Sherman’s Army; Tom Elmore, A Carnival of Destruction: Sherman’s Invasion of South Carolina; William Gilmore Simms, Sack and Destruction of the City of Columbia; and John Bennett Walters, Merchant of Terror: General  Sherman and Total War. 

On the alleged virtues of coerced “national unity” I recommend The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels; Hitler’s Mein Kampf; and The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His latest book is The Problem with Lincoln.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Myths Behind the “Capitalism Is Racist” Claim | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on January 23, 2021

Gary Becker pointed this out years ago in his frequently cited book The Economics of Discrimination. Becker posited that competition in the free market made it costly for companies to discriminate against individuals due to group identity. By refusing to hire qualified applicants because of race or sex, businesses would lose market share.

https://mises.org/wire/myths-behind-capitalism-racist-claim

Lipton Matthews

Though numerous studies prove the contrary, it is still widely assumed that capitalism perpetuates racism. Celebrities and academics incessantly broadcast the message that capitalism engenders racism. For example, recently on Twitter, superstar athlete Andre Iguodala informed his followers that capitalism cannot be divorced from racism: “Capitalism and racism go hand in hand. And you can’t have one without the other.” Equally scathing is the blistering declaration of sociologist Edna Bonacich in an academic review: “Capitalism and racism are closely connected….The huge wealth of America’s white-owned corporations rests on the backs of the hard labor of workers, many of whom are people of color.”

Despite the popularity of anticapitalist rhetoric, it is woefully mistaken. Some entrepreneurs will express racist tendencies, but if they are determined to succeed in business, they have no alternative but to jettison such beliefs. Gary Becker pointed this out years ago in his frequently cited book The Economics of Discrimination. Becker posited that competition in the free market made it costly for companies to discriminate against individuals due to group identity. By refusing to hire qualified applicants because of race or sex, businesses would lose market share. Racists may object to employing people outside of their race, however, the crux of the matter is that self-interest trumps the collectivism of racism. Although racists may abhor minorities, the urge to accumulate wealth is far more potent than the desire to discriminate.

Similarly, recent research corroborates Becker’s thesis that firms engaging in discrimination are less likely to remain competitive. Devah Pager in an innovative 2016 study testing the relationship between observed discrimination and firm longevity concludes that these firms show a greater propensity to fail:

This study builds on the findings of an experimental audit study of racial discrimination in employment conducted in New York City in 2004….We see that 17 percent of nondiscriminatory establishments had failed by 2010, relative to 36 percent of those that did discriminate. The likelihood of going out of business for an employer who discriminated thus appears more than twice that of its nondiscriminating counterpart.

Under capitalism the allure of profit serves as a deterrent to discrimination. For instance, the strident resistance of streetcar companies in the Jim Crow South to laws mandating them to segregate black customers poignantly demonstrates the market’s hostility to unjust discrimination. Economist Jennifer Roback in an article titled “Racism as Rent-Seeking” lucidly illustrates that these laws were a result of political entrepreneurship:

Race relations in the U.S. South were in a state of flux in the period immediately after the Civil War and remained so until the turn of the century, when the “Jim Crow” system of rigid segregation was put into place….Municipal streetcars were segregated by law in many Southern cities….Prior to legislation, streetcar passengers in many cities sat wherever they wished, and next to anyone they wished. There is little to indicate that segregation was introduced in response to the demands of passengers, and in some cases, passengers of both races were dissatisfied with the new rule. Moreover, some of the streetcar companies themselves actively resisted segregation, on the grounds that segregation would be too expensive….White passengers seemed to be indifferent about segregation; streetcar companies resisted segregation; certainly, black passengers resisted segregation. Who then wanted it badly enough to work for its introduction? The most likely candidates are politicians who believed that there existed latent sentiment in favor of segregation among whites. Political entrepreneurs could offer white voters something they valued enough to vote for, but not enough to bear the costs privately. Through collective action, the costs of segregation could be imposed on the (disenfranchised) black passengers and the (regulated) streetcar companies.

Roback refers to such tactics as “psychic rent seeking,’’ indicating that people leverage the force of government to acquire psychological benefits for themselves, despite incurring expenses for others.

Notwithstanding the propaganda of leftists, rhetoric is no substitute for facts. History reveals that discrimination is primarily inspired by the corrupt agenda of rent seekers in cahoots with the government. South African leading economist Thomas Hazlett notes that this is usually the case:

The South African gold rush made the natural synergy between white-owned capital and abundant black labor overpowering….White workers feared the large supply of African labor as the low-priced competition that it was. Hence, white tradesmen and government officials, including police, regularly harassed African workers to discourage them from traveling to the mines and competing for permanent positions. Beginning in the 1890s, the Chamber of Mines, a group of employers, complained regularly of this systematic discrimination and attempted to secure better treatment of black workers. Their gesture was not altruistic, nor founded on liberal beliefs….But here they had a clear economic incentive: labor costs were minimized where rules were color-blind. This self-interest was so powerful that it led the chamber to finance the first lawsuits and political campaigns against segregationist legislation.

Likewise, South Africa during Apartheid is an excellent case study of the power of the market to eviscerate racism. To protect whites from competition, blacks were prevented by law from taking white-collar jobs. This not only limited their productivity, but also reduced the number of black employees able to take industrial jobs, thus creating artificial manpower shortages. As such the South African Employers Consultative Committee on Labour Affairs in 1977 lobbied for the elimination of discrimination based on race or color from all aspects of employment practices. Therefore, motivated by the goal to gain wealth, even vile racists will eschew racist policies.

Certainly, some owners and entrepreneurs will find niches in which they can cater to racist clients. But for those who wish to attain high levels of growth and success, the data is clear that serving all customers and workers indiscriminately is the way to wealth. Essentially, the power of the free market is the best antidote to racism. Entrepreneurs seek to win in business, and engaging in discrimination hinged on race is the surest way to lose. Of note is also the fact that people who migrate from other countries irrespective of race become wealthier after relocating to America. Yet, ironically, many who lament the racist nature of American capitalism also insist that immigrants improve their lives by immigrating to the United States.

Both theory and the empirical research show that a truly competitive marketplace is incongruous with racism, but, clearly, saying otherwise confers leftists with the benefits of expressing the “luxury beliefs” of elites. Author:

Contact Lipton Matthews

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to mises.org, The Federalist, and the Jamaica Gleaner. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com or on Twitter (@matthewslipton).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

First Duty of the Press: Make it About Race – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on January 22, 2021

An unarmed Trump supporter crawling through a window at the Capitol was shot dead. Please name the black protester killed by the police throughout 2020’s incessant BLM riots, lootings and arsons. He’d already be on a postage stamp.

It must be awkward to have to work up a high dudgeon about the Capitol protest after spending half of 2020 saying “mostly peaceful” protests were OK, even if beyond the “mostly” there was a lot of arson and looting.

SOLUTION: A riot is not bad unless it can be denounced as “racist.”

https://www.takimag.com/article/first-duty-of-the-press-make-it-about-race/print

Ann Coulter

Why can’t liberals ever just let Trump hang himself? Isn’t what he’s actually done bad enough? No, the media always have to punch up the story, layering lie upon lie, until normal people are forced to say, I don’t want to defend the guy, but that didn’t happen.

This was the whole point of my book Resistance Is Futile, written at the outset of the Trump administration:

“[M]y advice to the Resistance is: Get Trump on the worst thing he’s actually done, and stop running off with Wouldn’t it be great if he raped and murdered a nun? You’re right: If Trump had done that, he would be finished, done, put a fork in him. Unfortunately, he hasn’t committed that particular crime.”

Even after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, the media felt the need to pile up the false accusations. “Liberals have got to learn that their neuroses are not proof of their opponents’ perfidy.”

Their first order of business was to turn it into a story about race.

The Trump riot has as little to do with race as any story in 21st-century America. COVID, immigration, tax cuts, the stimulus — I could come up with a racial angle for any of those.

Your assignment: Make the siege at the Capitol a story primarily about race relations.

You, a normal person, one week later: I’m stumped.

But to our media, the main point to be made about the riot was: Can you imagine what would have happened if black people had done that?

An unarmed Trump supporter crawling through a window at the Capitol was shot dead. Please name the black protester killed by the police throughout 2020’s incessant BLM riots, lootings and arsons. He’d already be on a postage stamp.

During the 2015 BLM riots in Baltimore after a heroin dealer, Freddie Gray, died in the back of a police van, the mayor announced that she was giving “those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”

If you look at a mob storming the Capitol to protest Biden’s certification as president and immediately think, This is a story about black people!, you’ve got racism on the brain.

— Renee Zellweger Wins Oscar for Best Actress

Oh like she would have gotten it if she were black. I don’t think so!

— Nobel Prize for Physics Awarded to Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez for “Discovery of a Supermassive Compact Object at the Center Of Our Galaxy”

Does anyone seriously believe that the prize would have been awarded if the discovery had been made by Black Lives Matter?

— Denver beat the Knicks 114-89

Can you imagine Denver intentionally running up the score like that on a white team?

I’m beginning to suspect that conservatives are the only people who were genuinely appalled by Trump supporters storming the Capitol. The left’s consistent reaction has been: OK, what do we have to do to make it look bad?

It must be awkward to have to work up a high dudgeon about the Capitol protest after spending half of 2020 saying “mostly peaceful” protests were OK, even if beyond the “mostly” there was a lot of arson and looting.

SOLUTION: A riot is not bad unless it can be denounced as “racist.”

Liberals were indignant with Sen. Tom Cotton for saying Trump should send in troops to restore order during the George Floyd riots. His New York Times op-ed making this point was slapped with a disclaimer from the editors that’s nearly as long as the original column.

Today, there are more troops on patrol in D.C. than in actual war zones.

But, this time, instead of calling the militarization of our nation’s capital “fascist” — as the Times‘ Michelle Goldberg dubbed Cotton’s proposal — the very presence of troops is cited as proof of how awful the Jan. 6 riot was.

Liberals have got to learn that their neuroses are not proof of their opponents’ perfidy. The hysterical deployment of more than 20,000 troops to Biden’s inauguration says something about them, not the rioters.

Similarly, cable news has been featuring Democrats giving long, emotional TV interviews describing their fears during the storming of the Capitol. I was afraid they’d kill us all! What if they’d started lynching senators? They could have taken hostages! I fully expected a mass shooting. I thought the building would collapse on top of us! What if they’d had a nuke?

Oh my gosh! What did they actually do?

They broke four windows, took selfies and threw papers on the ground.

How many people died?

Four — all Trump supporters.

The “Your Neurosis Proves My Malfeasance” argument is a specialty of the feminists. If I wasn’t sexually harassed, then please explain why I gained 30 pounds? You want proof that Trump is a monster? I can’t sleep at night! Do you want to see my psychiatrist’s bill?

No, no! We believe you! But it’s not evidence that anyone did something bad to you. Your mental anguish comes in during the penalty phase, not during the guilt-finding phase.

The winner of the “You want proof? My skin has broken out!” argument was this NBC headline last week: “Some Democrats in Congress are worried their colleagues might kill them.”

The raid was disgusting, appalling, sickening, but it’s not a license for concocting imaginary accusations. Trump is bad. The thugs who stormed the Capitol are bad. You don’t need to manufacture evidence against them, media.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey

Posted by M. C. on August 20, 2020

The English Language and Grammar are Racist! Get Rid of them!

While this agenda has not yet asserted its dominance over the literary canon or the accepted norms and style for serious writing and communication, it has in fact had tremendous success in modes of communication such as Twitter and Instagram, which increasingly control cultural expression. And one can argue that it is just a matter of time before the swirling linguistic revolution, with its already de facto acceptance and everyday normalcy, reaches the college classroom and the publishing houses, as well as the media. Indeed, the entertainment industry no longer resists it to any great extent.

http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,
In these revolutionary times it had to come sooner or later—any brief moment of serious reflection (rare these days, it seems) would reach this point inevitably. And it is not like it’s totally new, but this time it’s with us with a force that we should expect to grow inexorably and be picked up by the advance guard of the cultural fanatics as a magic talisman that will be foisted on our schools and on us.
 
If “white supremacy” and “racism” are purveyed and maintained by the use of the structures and historic foundations of “white” language and grammar, well then, that language and grammar must be undone, critically deconstructed, and “other” forms of written and verbal communication admitted as equal. Indeed, if our historic means of communication is so infected with traditional “whiteness,” is there not an extreme case for not only reducing its importance and influence, and recognizing, for instance, “black English,” but maybe even eradicating “white language”? After all, by the logic of this argument, language is and has been a “weapon” of historic cultural racism and control by “white oppressors.”
 
While this agenda has not yet asserted its dominance over the literary canon or the accepted norms and style for serious writing and communication, it has in fact had tremendous success in modes of communication such as Twitter and Instagram, which increasingly control cultural expression. And one can argue that it is just a matter of time before the swirling linguistic revolution, with its already de facto acceptance and everyday normalcy, reaches the college classroom and the publishing houses, as well as the media. Indeed, the entertainment industry no longer resists it to any great extent.
 
As a sign of the future, just recently I ran across the statement of the chairman of the English Department at Rutgers University (June 19). The open letter of chairman Rebecca Walkowitz will, no doubt, be the precursor of additional actions, some stated, others just implemented, to follow.
Here is how the Reuters News Service characterized Walkowitz’s intentions:
The letter expresses the Department’s plans to respond to the calls of BLM to “create and promote an anti-racist environment in our workplace, our classes, our department, our university, and our communities; and to contribute to the eradication of the violence and systemic inequities facing black, indigenous, and people of color members of our community.”
Within the letter Walkowitz outlines a series of concrete steps to promote departmental changes, including expanding the availability of seminars engaging with discussions of social justice and improving graduate student life.
 
This same section also includes Walkowitz talk[ing] about incorporating “critical grammar” into the university’s pedagogy. This approach, according to Walkowitz, is meant to “challeng[e] the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard “academic” English backgrounds at a disadvantage.
 
“Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on ‘written’ accents,” the letter noted.
 
If you can read through the fashionable pseudo-intellectual framework that surrounds what Ms. Walkowitz is essentially saying, it is this: “we’re going to eliminate standards in grammar and writing, and let students who don’t speak or write ‘traditional English’ express themselves accordingly.”
And more ominously, there is the assertion that traditional modes of communication are inherently biased and oppressive. Is not the next step in this process a radical deconstruction in grammar? Already great works of our literary heritage have undergone this deconstructive process to reflect critically the goalposts of “woke” anti-racism and feminism, standards that now regulate how we read and interpret them.
Grammatical expression is next.
 
The logic, as I say, is inexorable. For the cultural revolution to succeed it must transform or suppress the language of the oppressors.
 
My friend Dr. Clyde Wilson’s solution to our academic problems grows more attractive by the day: “Napalm our universities,” he once wrote me. Although written mostly (I suspect) in a jocular vein, there is much truth to what Professor Wilson wrote and observed. Until we get control of higher education—and until our Republican-dominated legislatures stop buying into the dangerous practice of trying to outdo their Democratic cohorts in throwing millions of dollars at those financially-bloated sinecures of lunatic leftist plutocracy and revolution—there is simply no way we can even think about saving our culture, much less restoring it.
 
Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Now the Savages Are Trying To Take Down One of Our Own – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 23, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-woods/now-the-savages-are-trying-to-take-down-one-of-our-own/

By

From the Tom Woods Letter:

How about this:

By far the most prolific living libertarian is Walter Block, who has written countless books and close to 600 scholarly articles — an accomplishment I am uncertain if any academic in any discipline could match today, or ever.

Walter has also co-authored over 100 scholarly articles with students. That’s unheard of. What an extraordinary advantage that gives Walter’s students over their peers — how many students of other professors can say they published an article in an academic journal while they were undergraduates?

Loyola University, New Orleans, where Walter teaches, must be beaming with pride, right?

Well, a group of students are currently circulating a petition to get Walter fired on the grounds that — you’ll never guess — he is a “racist” and a “sexist.”

(In response, a counter-petition has been started, demanding that Walter be given a raise.)

This is because, like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, Walter Block does not believe that “discrimination” is the universal, no-analysis-necessary explanation for the various disparities between blacks and whites, or men and women. And of course he is quite correct to take that position, since the “discrimination” view is ridiculous on its face to anyone familiar with the data. (Sowell’s overlooked book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? dismantles the “discrimination” school.)

They are also unhappy about what they mistakenly believe Walter told the New York Times about slavery. They think he said slavery “wasn’t so bad.” What he actually said was: the problem with slavery was its coercive nature; it doesn’t matter what the slaves’ caloric intake or per-capita living space was if they were coerced into being there.

Simple enough for a normal person to grasp, which means the New York Times pretended to misunderstand Walter, or at least make his views seem suspect and opaque.

So ridiculous was the Times‘ portrayal, in fact, that Walter sued them for libel. The Times settled out of court, so although we can’t know the terms of the settlement, it’s rather curious that columns by Walter — of all people — suddenly began appearing in its pages.

I’m taking that as being as close to an admission of guilt as most people are likely to get from the Times.

Let’s add to all this that Walter has repeatedly made clear that he believes that the descendants of slaves do have a right to reparations, though not indiscriminately from all Americans (he explained his position in an interview with me).

It seems virtually certain that the savages are unaware of this, particularly since knowing it would require them to read scholarly journals, which we may legitimately doubt they tend to do.

In light of all this, I think you’ll take mischievous delight in the letter I wrote to Loyola’s president in 2014, when the initial attack on Walter occurred:

Dear Dr. Wildes:

No doubt you have received quite a bit of correspondence by now about Walter Block. I won’t rehash the main points. You are familiar with them already.

I will say that I find it impossible to believe that you, an intelligent man, believe your own interpretation of Walter’s remarks to the New York Times. You note that Walter’s comment about slavery seems to run counter to libertarian principles. You don’t say! Might that be an indication that the Times, which despises what Walter stands for, has distorted his views?

A university president ought to support his faculty in a case like this, in which he knows full well that a professor has been grotesquely mischaracterized. If this were an accurate rendering of Walter’s views, why was he considering a libel suit?

Had Walter been a left-wing professor accused of Stalinism, would you have been so quick to denounce him? The question answers itself.

This is why it is impossible to believe that any of this has to do with Walter’s remarks. You are not a fool. You know Walter, and you know where he stands. He has never kept his views a secret. You owed him better, and you failed him.

Now it’s true, you did communicate to the university community that your views are the conventional and respectable ones, and that you are not to be confused with Walter Block. We got that.

Some of your faculty, whom you should have rebuked rather than implicitly congratulated, treated Walter with a similar lack of charity.

Since the substance of your (and their) claims have been dealt with elsewhere, let me raise some relevant considerations:

(1) How many professors at Loyola University can say students have enrolled for the express purpose of studying with them?

(2) How many professors at Loyola University can say they have co-authored scholarly articles with their students – not once or twice, but dozens of times?

(3) How many professors at Loyola University have a big enough audience that it would even matter if they urged students to attend Loyola, as Walter constantly does?

(4) How many professors at Loyola University have over 400 peer-reviewed articles?

(5) How many professors at Loyola University would anyone anywhere in the country lift a single finger for?

(6) Oh, and how many professors at Loyola University, who preposterously accused Walter of “sexism” for denying that “discrimination” could explain the male-female wage gap, dared to face Walter in open debate? (Their decision not to try to debate Walter is a fleeting sign of intelligence among them.)

Yes, yes, I got the message: your faculty is against slavery. What courage they must have had to summon in 2014 to unbosom to the world their opposition to slavery!

But I wonder: would people who ostentatiously announce their opposition to slavery in 2014 have had the courage to oppose it when it counted – say, in 1850? I have my doubts that people so desperate to assure the world of their conventional opinions and how appalled and offended they are by heretics, would have been the sort of people to buck conventional opinion at a time when two percent of the American electorate supported an abolitionist political party.

What I know for a fact is that Walter Block would have opposed it, lock, stock, and barrel.

That you simply repeated the New York Times’ characterization of Walter Block, without even conceding, as the Times did, that Walter believed slavery was wrong because it was involuntary – so your behavior was worse than that of the Times, which is no mean feat – is bewildering and appalling in a university president, or indeed in a human being.

Long after every name on that list of Walter’s faculty critics is gone and forgotten, the work of Walter Block will continue to educate new generations in the principles of liberty. No one will recall the pygmies who attacked him out of spite or envy.

Sincerely,
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., PhD

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Delingpole: ‘Churchill Was Racist’, Say BLM. Wait Till They Hear About the Guy He Beat…

Posted by M. C. on June 9, 2020

It amazes me that even intelligent people – including one or two politicians and commentators on the right who really should know better – are taking these disgusting Black Lives Matter/Antifa protests at face value, by applauding the demonstrators’ motives or even daringly admitting that they too feel sufficiently strongly about the evils of slavery to agree that the Colston statue should have been pulled down.

This violence has nothing to do with George Floyd; everything to do with the hard left’s relentless war on Western Civilisation. And thanks to the naivety, weakness and cowardice of the Establishment, the hard left is currently winning.

 

One this one we are ahead of the Brits for a change.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/06/09/the-real-reason-for-blms-attack-on-racist-churchill/

James Delingpole

Winston Churchill was a ‘racist’. Or so the Black Lives Matter graffiti says on the plinth of his statue in London’s Parliament Square which is bound to be pulled down by hard-left activists sooner or later because the police don’t seem to have that much of an appetite to save it.

Part of the problem is that the police — or at least their right-on superiors with their crappy sociology degrees from second rate universities and their Common Purpose leadership training certificates — no longer see it as their job to combat actual crime.

They now prefer to think of themselves more like glorified social workers, there to heal the wounds of a broken society by showing off their skateboarding skills at Extinction Rebellion protests and putting on makeup and rainbow lanyards to prance embarrassingly at Gay Pride festivals.

Typical of this new breed was the senior policeman we saw in Bristol, explaining why he hadn’t intervened when a bronze statue of Edward Colston, a slave trader but also one of the city’s main historic benefactors, was pulled down in broad daylight by a masked thugs.

“We made a decision. The right thing to do was to allow it to happen – because what we did not want is tension.”

But what could be more tense than a mob tearing down part of a city’s historical fabric with total impunity?

How is it a recipe for reducing tension if Bristol police are now signalling to the city’s law-abiding population that they now think it’s ‘the right thing to do’ not to intervene when criminal acts take place right under their noses?

Intervening to stop violent crime in flagrante always and inevitably involves ‘tension.’ So what the police officer — Superintendent Andy Bennett — appears to be saying here is that he no longer it considers it his job to do what most of us would consider actual policing.

Here is Superintendent Bennett caught in happier times:

And here is an unconfirmed report — from a retired Metropolitan Police officer — that rank-and-file police in Bristol wanted to intervene but were overruled by their woke superiors.

Another part of the problem is that the police have been brainwashed into imagining that the main threat to law and order and stability comes from the (largely mythical) far right — when it fact, for years, the far more significant threat comes from the hard left.

This is not, of course, a delusion unique to the police. It’s rife in academe, in the entertainment industry and across much of the mainstream media – especially in the shamelessly leftist broadcasters the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News. This, in turn, is the result of decades of infiltration — Gramsci’s ‘Long March through the Institutions’ — by the radical left which has relentlessly pushed the propaganda message that Britain is ‘inward-looking, xenophobic and nostalgic for empire’. The left’s purpose is to ‘defame the nation and demoralise its citizens’.

Anyone who wants to understand the real motivation behind the rights should read this NaN by the irascible but occasionally on-point Pete North.

He writes:

A country that no longer believes in its founding values and has no sense of self-worth will cave into virtually any passing political fad. If the nation is attacked politically or militarily, you then have a public that will stand aside and allow it.

This is the oldest trick in the book. The Soviets knew it, the modern left knows it too. The communists played on the imperialism schtick then and now, while the modern left has long sought to associate nationalism of any kind with fascism and racism.

Anti-racism, then, is a veneer for leftists who oppose the very idea of the nation state.

North is rightly scathing about the Establishment’s complete failure to address the growing problem of this enemy within.

Successive centrist administrations have failed to stand up to an increasingly feral activist media and a worryingly censorious academic establishment. Safe spaces, trigger warnings, de-platforming etc is nothing to do with progressive values and everything to do with delegitimising even moderate voices of disagreement. That’s the truly terrifying authoritarianism in the West. It goes against the fundamental values it was built on… freedom of speech and association, and equality under the law.

Everything in the progressive agenda is aimed at dismantling nationhood, hence the creation of strains of victimhood according to gender and ethnicity.

Nor — again correctly — does he have much time for the gullible white middle-class kids willingly conspiring in their civilisation’s destruction.

The useful idiot white liberal youth who see themselves as righteous crusaders for the downtrodden minorities are doing the dirty work of communist agitators in what has become the largest global brainwashing operation of the 21st century.

Once you’ve grasped these points, the true significance of those hard-left activists’ assault on those statues becomes clear. By destroying — or trying to destroy — those statues, what they are really trying to destroy is Britain’s sense of history and, by extension, its cohesive national identity.

Sure, Winston Churchill said things about Islam and foreign races which probably wouldn’t pass muster at a contemporary Islington dinner party. But he did do one or two impressive things too, including helping to defeat Hitler.

Sure, Edward Colston profited from the slave trade but he also — as many rich men do to compensate for their guilt — donated lavishly to the port city of Bristol and helped lay the foundations for its prosperity and (at least till recently) its claim to greatness.

But the radical left doesn’t want you to know that history is nuanced and complex; all they want is to use it as an excuse for promoting guilt, division, self-hatred.

One of the reasons I have vowed never again to have any truck with the BBC is its relentless promotion of this left-wing propaganda message. I’ll never forget the episode of BBC Sunday Morning Live, a few years ago, when I had to go on to defend British history against an Islamist, a woke female historian and, of course, the presenter who shared their left-wing politics.

The only bit of British history that the Islamist seemed to know was an event called the Bengal famine. That’s because the Bengal famine is one of the radical left’s favourite historical talking points: apparently — so all good leftists and Islamists are taught — it shows Winston Churchill to have been an uncaring racist who, in 1943-44, deliberately allowed 1.5 million Bengalis to starve in an act of ‘genocide’.

This misreading of history involves an awful lot of cherry-picking. In fact, Churchill did his best to help the victims of what was initially a natural disaster (caused by a cyclone which destroyed the rice crop) exacerbated by local administrative incompetence, but there was a war on and it wasn’t easy: the Japanese occupied all the neighbouring countries which, hitherto, would have made up the shortfall; cargo shipping was in short supply and Japanese submarines made its journeys more perilous and uncertain.

Afterwards, I felt tainted by having participated in this charade. Britain has one of the world’s most extraordinary histories, which include some of Western civilisation’s greatest achievements. Yet here was the BBC promoting a chippy Islamist nobody who was perfectly frank about hating the country, and enabling his toxic views to be backed up by one of its battery of woke female historians who knew perfectly well that her job was to witter on about how important it was that British children should be taught about the more shameful episodes in their country’s past.

It amazes me that even intelligent people – including one or two politicians and commentators on the right who really should know better – are taking these disgusting Black Lives Matter/Antifa protests at face value, by applauding the demonstrators’ motives or even daringly admitting that they too feel sufficiently strongly about the evils of slavery to agree that the Colston statue should have been pulled down.

This violence has nothing to do with George Floyd; everything to do with the hard left’s relentless war on Western Civilisation. And thanks to the naivety, weakness and cowardice of the Establishment, the hard left is currently winning.

 

Be seeing you

 

antifa

The ISIS head chopper look. Cultural appropriation!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Guess What — It’s a Hustle – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on June 6, 2020

No, this is a hustle, all right, perhaps the most obvious hustle in US history. It’s the Democratic Party’s last stratagem to get the monster of its own creation, Donald Trump, out of the White House.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/guess-what-its-a-hustle/

James Howard Kinstler

Of course, George Floyd didn’t deserve to die with a cop’s knee on his neck and his face mashed into the pavement, but after yesterday’s first of what will be several funerals for the now revered former armed robber and convict, you’d think he was the second coming (and going) of George Washington. Uh, check that… Washington was a slave-owner and, by definition, a racist. Make that Julius Caesar — based on the way that the Rev. Al Sharpton was bellowing at funeral No.1 Thursday in Minneapolis. Say, what? Julius Caesar owned slaves too? How about Abe Lincoln then? Naw, just another white man? And a secret racist (so they say).

Racist, racist racist! America is racist! Racism is systemic! Racism flows in the hallowed blood of the American system, going back all the way to 1619! All white people are racist. Get down on your bellies and crawl like a snake and beg forgiveness for your natural-born, inalienable racism! Anyway, that’s reality according to The New York Times, America’s premier journal of racism studies.

To prove that America is hopelessly racist, the nation has been treated to, what — ? — seven, or is it now eight nights of looting and burning by young black people acting out every racist stereotype from the Ku Klux Klan official manual of racism. The rest of the news media bent over backwards to avoid deploring the mayhem in the streets, rather, to invert the very looting, burning, and rioting as proof positive that America is racist to the bone. Look what you made us do! Steal sneakers and Rolex watches! Shoot cops, including an old retired black cop (uh, my bad) and run over several more cops with cars! Destroy businesses large and small that have been shut down for three months by corona virus to make sure they won’t ever dare to resume their racist trade in things that white people like!

Has anyone detected a hustle in the past week’s dire proceedings? Well, how would you define a hustle? How about: an attempt to gain advantage by deceitful means. What! Are you saying there was something dishonest about the reaction from sea to shining sea to George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis? I am. For example, the massive protest marches. Who exactly was disputing that the death of George Floyd was a miscarriage of justice? Nobody. Did the cops get away with it? No, they’re all getting indicted for murder or being accessories to a murder by standing around watching it and doing nothing to stop it.

No, this is a hustle, all right, perhaps the most obvious hustle in US history. It’s the Democratic Party’s last stratagem to get the monster of its own creation, Donald Trump, out of the White House. RussiaGate didn’t do it (in fact, it’s backfiring rather horribly now), ImpeachmentGate was a dud. Welcome to GeorgeFloydGate! I know it’s hard to imagine at this moment of maximum televised sanctimony, but this gambit is going to flop, too. A lot of voters have probably noticed that the wholesale looting and burning of US cities is not in the national interest. And that the people who do it don’t deserve special favors.

Of course, this is also a moment of maximum collective acute psychosis in America. The nation is pretty badly shook-up after three months of corona virus lockdown.  Millions watched their careers, incomes, businesses, and futures wash down the drain. Upsetting as the killing of George Floyd was, these losses are monumental in comparison. 99 percent of the people in America are scared shitless about where all this economic damage is taking the nation — even as they watch the stock markets go up and up and up. By the way, the past week of looting, burning, and rioting was especially fruitful for Wall Street. D’ya think that might eventually tick off a few taxpayers who understand that the stock-pumping is being accomplished by the Federal Reserve brokering more national debt in their name?

Joe Biden’s campaign has announced that he will headline the next funeral in George Floyd’s hometown of Houston, the place where Mr. Floyd accomplished the home invasion and aggravated robbery of a woman in 2009 that sent him to state prison for five years. (He was turning his life around in Minneapolis where, ten days ago, he suffered a lapse of judgment while high on fentanyl and passed a counterfeit $20 bill in a corner store, leading to his arrest and unjust death.) I’m counting on Joe Biden to raise America’s awareness about systemic racism at that event — if he can remember where he is and what’s going on.

Also on Thursday this week, the Rev. Al Sharpton announced plans for a march on Washington in August, perhaps just before the Democratic convention in Milwaukee for maximum effect. You may be aware that Joe Biden has obliged himself (sort of) to put a woman-of-color on the ticket for vice-president. Though Stacey Abrams, the real governor of Georgia, seems like the inevitable choice, I have a better idea. Wouldn’t it be perfect to bring back Tawana Brawley for this historic role? She figured so decisively in establishing the Rev. Mr. Sharpton’s cred as leader in the long quest for social justice. She’s all growed-up now and ready to rock! Tawana Brawley, America turns its lonely eyes to you! #Tawana Brawley for veep! Spread the news far and wide!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Have we brewed a whirlwind? – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on March 5, 2020

Now assaulting a fragmenting Western World comes a pandemic whose consequences cannot be known.  Is there enough leadership to overcome the long-inflicted damages and to pull the people together and to reestablish community?  With the Democrats politically weaponizing the coronavirus against President Trump, it does not seem so.

The public sees inaction, disbelieves the feeble reasons given, and takes action to exhaust supplies of protective gear, storable foods, and everything else that disappears in a panic.

Take solice in the fact that government doing nothing is usually a good thing.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/03/04/have-we-brewed-a-whirlwind/

Paul Craig Roberts

Dear friends, it is March and time for my quarterly call for your donations.  I am here for you as long as you want me.  PCR

In the United States and throughout the Western World there is public distrust of public authorities and distrust among the public of one another.  Public authorities who do not like “conspiracy theories” do a lot to generate them.

We can see the public’s distrust of public authorities in the negligent response to the coronavirus.  The refusal of public authorities to stop incoming flights from infected countries has brought the dangerous virus into the Western World where inaction has so far prevailed.

Many virologists and other experts have criticized the inaction for seriously endangering the public.  I recently posted some of the expert statements made to public health authorities.  See:

Belgium:  https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/03/02/virologist-advises-belgium-health-minister-country-is-unprepared/

Germany:  https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/03/03/coronavirus-people-are-left-alone-in-the-face-of-a-rapidly-growing-virus-pandemic-some-thoughts-out-of-germany/ .

The refusals of public officials to take protective steps partly reside in ideological positions.  In Europe it is the European Union’s commitment to open borders and one Europe.  Closing the borders goes against the ideology that nationalism is the problem.

In other instances, Canada for example, the Prime Minister apparently considers it “racist” to protect Canadians from incoming flights from Iran.  See: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/03/02/we-cannot-protect-ourselves-because-travel-bans-are-racist/ .

The public sees inaction, disbelieves the feeble reasons given, and takes action to exhaust supplies of protective gear, storable foods, and everything else that disappears in a panic.

As the inaction of public authorities is not understandable, all sorts of explanations arise.  For example: The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institute for Health (NIH) want the virus to spread, because the result will be bigger budgets;  the pharmaceutical companies (Big-Pharma) want the virus to spread, because it will bring them profits in mandatory vaccination whether it prevents or aids the spread of the virus;  governments want the virus to spread, because it allows them to impose martial law and abolish civil liberties;  elites are using the virus to reduce the world population;  governments are using the virus to reduce the strain of the elderly on health care systems and save money.  You can add to this list on your own.

One consequence of distrust of public authorities is lack of public cooperation in whatever response effort public authorities eventually mount.  Another consequence is that this lack of public cooperation justifies more coercion by government in order to deal with the threat.  Remember all of the violations of Constitutional protections made by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes in responst to 9/11 and the “terrorist threat.”  A big difference is that then there was no pandemic.

Distrust among the public of one another has been fomented by decades of feminist attacks on men and by decades of attacks on white people as “racists.”  These attacks have been institutionalized in the educational system.  They have been useful to feminist and “racial minorities” for advancement.  But they have atomized the population.  Where there was once community, no matter how unequal, there is the lack of community.

The “sexist” and “racist” offences are more taught than felt and are reaching the point of absurdity.  Every day someone finds a slur in a word that has been part of the language for centuries before the presence in the population of racial minorities. These manufactured “offences” are used to excoriate men and to fire them from jobs and deny them professional careers.

Guillaume Durocher points out that community is also being destroyed by the decline in national community. The core entities that produced national communities or countries are being flooded out by incoming multitudes of immigrants from different cultures and value systems. Many on the left show open contempt for nationhood and national solidarity.  Durocher explains the collapse of national community here:  https://www.unz.com/gdurocher/towards-expat-nationalism/ 

Now assaulting a fragmenting Western World comes a pandemic whose consequences cannot be known.  Is there enough leadership to overcome the long-inflicted damages and to pull the people together and to reestablish community?  With the Democrats politically weaponizing the coronavirus against President Trump, it does not seem so.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Wisconsin School District Abandons ‘A-F’ Grading Scale to Prevent Stress

Posted by M. C. on February 13, 2020

…a guest speaker at American University told faculty members that it was racist to judge the quality of a student’s writing when grading a paper. The guest speaker, a professor in the University of Washington system, argued that traditional grading practices perpetuate “white supremacy.

Instead, students are graded on their ability to work in groups and tell stories.

 

Like the CIA, the government school system should be broken into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds.

Where are the parents?

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/12/wisconsin-school-district-abandons-a-f-grading-scale-to-prevent-stress/

by Tom Ciccotta

A school district in Madison, Wisconsin, has made the controversial decision to abandon the common “A to F” grading system based in favor of a system that is “kinder” to students. Now, top students will be graded as “exceeding” while failing students will be “emerging.”

According to a report by the College Fix, the Madison Metropolitan School District has announced that they are doing away with the traditional “A-F” grading system in favor of a new system that is gentle on students.

The report, which was written by Christian Schneider, a parent in the school district, claims that the district has introduced four new categories to replace the traditional grading scale. Schneider noticed that his second-grade daughter’s report card featured words like “exceeding” and “emerging” instead of letter grades.

“Exceeding” – Student consistently exceeds grade-level expectations for the end of the year.

“Meeting” – Student consistently meets grade-level expectations for the end of the year.

“Developing” – Student is developing understanding and is approaching grade-level expectations for the end of the year.

“Emerging” – Student begins to show initial understanding of grade-level expectations for the end of the year.

Schneider points out that the new grading system doesn’t apply directly to a student’s performance in each subject. Instead, students are graded on their ability to work in groups and tell stories.

The two scales don’t match up largely because the new grades assigned don’t address a specific class or subject – they deal mostly with behavior. The “Exceeding-Emerging” scale applies to 40 different classifications. Instead of being graded on “math” or “science,” my daughter is being graded on “Tells a story or describes an experience,” “cooperates with partners and in groups,” and “understands and identifies stages in the life cycle of insects.”

Breitbart News reported in January 2019 that a guest speaker at American University told faculty members that it was racist to judge the quality of a student’s writing when grading a paper. The guest speaker, a professor in the University of Washington system, argued that traditional grading practices perpetuate “white supremacy.”

Be seeing you

facebook_1574076533302.jpg

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »