Cancel culture discussion thread

by Judith Curry

A change of topic.

I’m running out of steam on COVID-19.  Still collecting articles, we’ll see if i do any more threads on that topic (of course I hope that Nic will have some new analyses for us.)

I’ve written a number of posts on the topic of freedom of speech [link].  6 years ago, I thought the biggest threat to free speech was Michael Mann’s frivolous ‘libel’ lawsuits.  Then circa 2016, we saw the craziness on campuses, with cancelling speakers and sanctioning faculty members who were doing ‘violence’ to the campus snowflakes by talking about uncomfortable issues.

From the perspective of 2020, all that seems positively ‘quaint.’ What we have been seeing for the past year in the U.S. (apart from China/ don’t seem to be seeing this elsewhere in the western world?) is mind boggling not to mention horrifying.

No time to write anything original on this topic, but here is a collection of articles that I’ve flagged recently, should provide fodder for some interesting discussion.

Bari Weiss’ resignation letter from the NYTimes [link]

Reason:  Bari Weiss’ resignation from the NYTimes [link]

Guardian:  Cancel culture doesn’t stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order [link]

Harper’s Magazine:  A letter on justice and open debate [link]

Lawrence Krauss:  The ideological corruption of science [link]

Quillette:  Yes there is such a thing as cancel culture [link]

Quillette:  Arguing in America [link]

In defense of reactionary liberalism [link]

The groupthink pandemic [link]

On critics and bullies [link]

James Flynn:My book defending free speech has been pulled [link]

Three ideas to end the rot on campus [link]

Jordan Peterson:  The activists are now stalking the hard scientists [link]

Today’s must-read: academic fired for research results showing, as so many other studies have done, police shootings in the US show few signs of racial bias. Global petition of 1700 ignored. infoproc.blogspot.com/2020/06/resign

If its not ‘cancel culture,’ what kind of a culture is it? [link]

Steven Pinker beats cancel culture attack [link]

Tribalism comes for pandemic science [link]

851 responses to “Cancel culture discussion thread

  1. It is hard to define the type of relationship that
    prevails between people in the East otherwise than
    as acting, with the exception that one does not perform on a theater stage but in the street, office, factory, meeting hall, or even the room one lives in.
    Such acting is a highly developed craft that places
    a premium upon mental alertness. Before it leaves
    the lips, every word must be evaluated as to its consequences. A smile that appears at the wrong moment, a glance that is not all it should be can occasion dangerous suspicions and accusations. Even one’s
    gestures, tone of voice, or preference for certain
    kinds of neckties are interpreted as signs of one’s
    political tendencies.
    A visitor from the Imperium is shocked on coming to the West. In his contacts with others, beginning with porters or taxi drivers, he encounters no
    resistance. The people he meets are completely relaxed. They lack that internal concentration which
    betrays itself in a lowered head or in restlessly moving eyes. They say whatever words come to their tongues; they laugh aloud. Is it possible that human
    relations can be so direct?

    My how things have changed. Fascinated book about the Soviet occupation of Poland and the mental schizophrenia that intellectuals put themselves through to adapt to the totalitarian state. Just like now in America.

    https://epdf.pub/the-captive-mind.html

    • Okay, let’s be fair and balanced.
      Milton Mayer – “They Thought They Were Free”
      First published in 1955, They Thought They Were Free is an eloquent and provocative examination of the development of fascism in Germany.

      You might also like: Robert O. Paxton – “The Anatomy of Fascism”
      “Robert O. Paxton answers this question for the first time by focusing on the concrete: what the fascists did, rather than what they said. From the first violent uniformed bands beating up “enemies of the state,” through Mussolini’s rise to power, to Germany’s fascist radicalization in World War II, Paxton shows clearly why fascists came to power in some countries and not others, and explores whether fascism could exist outside the early-twentieth-century European setting in which it emerged. ”

      Spoiler alert, Trump is not a fascist. Just a inept egotist with authoritarian tendencies.

      • Milosz lived through the German occupation. I think the German’s didn’t do the whole brainwashing thing, as if you weren’t German you were just subhuman and that was that, no need to convert you.
        But I’ll check these out.

      • I suppose if you were German, the process of assimilation was likely similar.

      • I agree. Classical fascism is ethnocentric nationalism modeled around socialism infrastructure, among other defining qualities not present the US current political system.

    • aporiac1960

      Even more insightful is Janice Fiamengo of the University of Ottawa’s discussion of the parallels between German academic institutional capitulation to Nazism in the 1930’s and the surrender to SJW orthodoxies in modern-day North American universities.

      See: https://youtu.be/HoXlTGrJHCU

      Her preceding video in the series (TFF Episode 48) is also very good.

    • David L Hagen

      “Cancel culture” is degrading the USA down to the depths of Stalin’s Soviet nightmare that exiled so many to the Gulag. We are regressing towards publishing by “Samizdat, (from Russian sam, “self,” and izdatelstvo, “publishing”), literature secretly written, copied, and circulated in the former Soviet Union and usually critical of practices of the Soviet government.
      Samizdat began appearing following Joseph Stalin’s death in 1953, largely as a revolt against official restrictions on the freedom of expression of major dissident Soviet authors. After the ouster of Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1964, samizdat publications expanded their focus beyond freedom of expression to a critique of many aspects of official Soviet policies and activities, including ideologies, culture, law, economic policy, historiography, and treatment of religions and ethnic minorities. Because of the government’s strict monopoly on presses, photocopiers, and other such devices, samizdat publications typically took the form of carbon copies of typewritten sheets and were passed by hand from reader to reader….” https://www.britannica.com/technology/samizdat

    • Yes, it has been said, most probably by Huey Long, that when fascism comes to America it will be called antj-fascism.

  2. Thanks for posting this. The deluge has been both massive as well as extremely disconcerting. Even within my own family i cannot say anything because i am told “do you know how racist that sounds?” whereupon the conversation ends. My brother in law dismisses several articles discussing the ramifications of the COVID lockdowns such as increased deaths from cancer and suicide, published in actual journals (disclosure- he is an extremely smart recently retired radiologist) with a detailed exposition as to how due to cognitive biases affect our perceptions so he can choose not to believe them. I am not sure how we get out of this tailspin, as even some of the Harper letter’s authors got cancelled. Now Bari Weiss resigns, with a statement that is all too familiar as being similar to Judith’s own commentary on why she left academic climate studies. The only way out may be the intense backlash that may result from this (nor may that end well- to whit Nazi Germany), otherwise we may just devolve into the American Cultural Revolution, and we saw how that turned out for the Chinese. (or for the French during their own crazy times). But rather than complain, given the number of smart people here, we need to start thinking about solutions rather than just whining and sitting in a corner rocking back and forth, and sucking our thumbs. (What i have been doing)

  3. “…..that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

    No truer words were ever written. But, apparently for Bari, she found out what goes around, comes around.

    We can’t cancel the cancel culture fast enough.

  4. David Appell

    This Vox article is about a study that finds:

    a) banned speeches are actually rare on campuses
    b) banned conservative speakers are the same small group of, basically, trolls (Ann Coulter, Milo Y, Ben Shapiro and the like, being purposely outrageous in order to sell books)
    c) more speech from the left is banned than speech from the right.

    “Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions – Does “political correctness” really crush conservative speech on campus? The data suggests no,” Zack Beauchamp, Vox 8/3/18.
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

    • Vox has a history of left wing misrepresentations. Since leftists comprise perhaps 75-80% of those on campus, they are much more likely to be disciplined than conservatives. And they are far more likely to advocate Marxist positions, participate in violence, or denounce the institution they work for.,

      Weiss seems vastly more trustworthy. But perhaps the hundreds who signed the Harpers letter are also all wrong.

    • a) banned speeches by conservatives on campus are about as rare as abortions
      b) banned conservative speakers are the same small group who have the guts to risk their noggins to attempt to speak on rabidly left loon antifa patrolled campuses
      c)more speech from the left is banned than speech from the right and there is a big sale on bridges in Brooklyn BOGO!

      Couldn’t you get anything from the huffpo left loon propaganda mill, davey?

    • “ . . . trolls (Ann Coulter, Milo Y, Ben Shapiro and the like, being purposely outrageous in order to sell books)”

      Presumption ( guess, conjecture ) of motives. Typical, and an exact characteristic of Cancel Culture.

      • Being purposely outrageous in the form of rioting, looting, arson, assault, shutting down commerce and freedom to travel streets and highways and all other imaginable forms of mayhem are OK, if it’s for the right cause: the destruction of Western Civilization.

    • Joe - Dallas

      DPY6629 was being polite when he stated vox has a history of left wing misrepresentations,
      Given vox’s well known history of bias, misrepresentations, etc, , anyone with any level basic analytical capacity should be embarrassed citing Vox

    • Given their naked political bias, would I trust anything Vox write? It’s not exactly the home of free speech. If David wants people to refute the study he should’ve linked directly to it. Instead he linked to Vox, who, in my experience, cherry-pick and spin.

    • JCalvertN(UK)

      a) “banned speeches are actually rare on campuses” – because most of the time campuses are just echo-chambers.
      b) [no comment required]
      c) “more speech from the left is banned than speech from the right” – so that makes it alright does it?

    • russellseitz

      In dismissing those who disagree with his view of the Georgetown study :

      ” Can you refute the study? It appears not. You didn’t even try.”

      David Appell neglects the study itself

      “Some disclaimers are warranted here: The selection of incidents documented on the Free Speech Tracker is by no means comprehensive and never will be. The results thus far are anecdotal, and despite efforts to avoid it, there could be a selection bias in the incidents chosen. And the classification of people whose expression is compromised as being on the “right” or the “left” may well be subjective and arbitrary.”

      • David Appell

        >> Georgetown study :
        >> Free Speech Tracker
        >> the classification of people whose expression is compromised
        >> may well be subjective and arbitrary.”

        Jesus Christ, what do you people do all day?

        Do you really sit around and read all these cultural studies and comments trying to score a point in cultural debates in forums deep within like this one read by only five people?

        Get a freaking life. I’m not going to debate you on the deep hoary levels that you live on here. I live in the light.

    • There is a delicious irony in quoting VOX on the matter of cancel culture and free speech, in that VOX is suffering an uproar over Matt Yglesias signing the Harper’s Letter.

      I also find it odd that VOX is cited, since Ezra Klein, it’s founder has recently opined about using the left’s power to restrict what polite society (read everyone who is them) finds acceptable to say.

      See America is changing, and so is the media

      It is also odd, given Ezra Klein’s history with JournoList which suggested collusion among leftwing journalists about what the public should hear and know.

      In short David, VOX may mean something to you – but it means something quite different to most everyone else.

    • Isaac gordon

      That article just gaslights conservatives. What’s happening is that the Overton window is moving so rapidly left so quickly, that what’s conservative has changed radically. What students think is conservative speech has nothing to do with what people want to actually speak. If they try to speak their mind, now they are “Nazis” not conservatives. Thats why students think they are actually incredibly allowing “free speech”, when the opposite is happening.
      As a simple example, in 2010 Obama said he believed a marriage is between a man and a woman. If you try to say that in campus now, you are advocating “hate speech”, not conservative talk. Do you think any of the students will allow “Mexicans are rapists” speech by Donald Trump. That to them is prolly “Nazi speech” and not conservative talk. That Vox data is completely useless, a vox writer Matthew Yglesias has to censor himself, thats how ridiculous this situation has become. Personally I am a free speech absolution ist, if someone wants to talk Nazi, let him , it’s the audience choice if they want to hear him. Without free speech, a democracy can’t work

  5. The Weiss letter is absolutely devastating and shows that Conservatives and Trump are right about the New York Times, a former newspaper. The Cultural Marxism narrative has gained control and its a nasty one. This has happened because Universities were the frontier for the cultural Marxists and they have gained control. My nieces picked up the virus at college. When challenged, they withdraw, because they have no facts and data or evidence. What is ironic is that the most woke are often white young women who have had a silver spoon in their mouths throughout their lives. They talk about white privilidge without realizing that they are the most privilidged. This is real dysfunction.

    I don’t know how this ends but the penetration into the hard sciences is the most disturbing. Science has enough problems already.

    I have also never seen the level of corruption in the corporate media we have had this year. In addition to Weiss’ complaints which are devastating by themselves, there is now no responsibility to even correct obvious lies. For example, there was a piece in the NYT claiming that New York had done an amazing job with the virus. Just a blatant lie by any measure, New York was an order of magnitude worse than most other states except New Jersey and Connecticut. And Cuomo is very popular despite tens of thousands of nursing home fatalities. That’s troubling as it shows that common people may be having trouble penetrating the phalanx of falsehoods.

    • David Appell

      What about the NY Times is even remotely Marxist? Quote it.

      • They support BLM who have openly stated that they are “trained Marxists.” The 1619 project is based on a lie that a group of prominent historians of all political leanings refuted. Yet the NYT continues to pay millions to promote it. Cultural Marxism is everywhere at the Times. It goes by various more innocuous sounding names such as white privilidge or white fragility or anti-racism. Are you really so ill-informed that you don’t realize this?

        Whether Times leadership are themselves Marxists, they are certainly willing to act as the enforcers for the cultural Marxists on their staff.

      • David Appell

        Blah blah blah — unsupported accusations. Cuomo is popular so the NYT is Marxist?? You’re way way out of line.

        *Quote* the Marxism in the NY Times.

      • What I said is all true. Cultural Marxism is not the old Marxism but an. Extension of it beyond class to race, gender, and any other category of people.

      • David Appell

        See you can’t quote the slightest thing written by the NYT that is in any way Marxist — all you have are ridiculous accusations like a gabby housewife with too much time on her hands. Get lost.

      • He sticks his tongue out nyah nyah nyah and blurts something about unsupported accusations. Everybody knows where the NYslimes is coming from. They don’t even pretend, anymore.

      • > They support BLM who have openly stated that they are “trained Marxists.”

        Yes. They support BLM, therefoe they are “cultural Marxists.”

        Lotsa “cultural Marxists” running around these days.

        –snip–
        The Black Lives Matter movement, which is back in the headlines amid the nationwide protests, receives wide support. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say they support the movement, with 38% saying they strongly support it. This sentiment is particularly strong among black Americans, although majorities of white (60%), Hispanic (77%) and Asian (75%) Americans express at least some support.
        –snip–

      • Folks support the slogan, not the rioting, looting, cop hating, arsonist, Marxist movement. You will see.

      • David Appell

        Joshua wrote:
        >> The Black Lives Matter movement, which is back in the headlines amid the nationwide protests, receives wide support. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say they support the movement, with 38% saying they strongly support it. This sentiment is particularly strong among black Americans, although majorities of white (60%), Hispanic (77%) and Asian (75%) Americans express at least some support. <<

        And implying that 2/3rds of Americans are Marxists is incredibly blinkered. I doubt if even a third of those know what Marxism is. I doubt if half the people on this comment forum know what it is, including dpy6. He thinks it's anybody he doesn't like.

      • DA

        “He thinks it’s anybody he doesn’t like.”

        Prove it.

      • Cultural Marxism is the racism of oppression.

        I’m not familiar with what Bari Weiss went through, but care to defend these?

        https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9782979/outrage-new-york-times-political-editor-racist-anti-semitic-tweets/

        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-spotlighted-after-nytim/

        https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

        Strangely, anti-fa turns out to be fascist.
        Strangely, anti-ra turns out to be racist.

        Do you really need to be reminded of how incredibly non-egalitarian, un-American, and dangerous race based politics are?

      • Don’t call them Marxists. They get apoplectic when you call them something they are pretending not to be:

      • Like this:

      • Don is right. People support the slogan Black lives matter. Very few have read the groups cultural Marxist manifesto. Citing these polls by Josh means nothing. They didn’t respond to anything else I said.

      • A white mom was just murdered for saying all lives matter. But it doesn’t seem to be particularly a rayciss opinion:

        https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/251667-poll-most-black-people-prefer-all-lives-matter

      • TE –

        I gather from the framing of your comment that you think that to remain logically consistent with something someone wrote they need to defend something referenced in those links. But beyond thst generic description I don’t get your point.

        What is it that someone said that needs to be reconciled, with what, from those links?

      • TE

        Cultural Marxism is the racism of oppression.

        I wasn’t familiar with “Cultural Marxism” – your sentence doesn’t help much.

        A little research shows it seems to be some sort of antisemetic conspiracy theory from what I can gather?

        The denizens here seem to use it as a catch all for “views to the left of my own”, it appears.

        I’m not sure it helps understanding in any way, perhaps more a badge of tribal fealty than anything else.

      • a little research perusing the huffpo propaganda library and he gathers blah blah blah

      • verytallguy

        Don,

        So, what is “cultural Marxism” Don?

        Don’t be shy now.

      • Don Monfort

        What makes you think I owe you an explanation? Just go with whatever huffpo says. We don’t want you to get confused.

      • VTG, It’s progress that you admit your ignorance. Try looking at the 1619 project, white priviledge, or white fragility. Cultural Marxism is not a conspiracy theory, its a very real and dangerous dogma that people’s fate is not determined by their own actions, but by their membership in various victim groups that are suffering systemic oppression. BTW, you will find that the media mostly stick to the big lie that BLM is about black lives.

        BTW, anti-semitism is one of the hallmarks of the new cultural Marxism because Jews are part of the white oppressor class.

      • It’s amazing how Joshua and David A. deflect with content free comments referencing a poll that means nothing. The poll was about a slogan, not the ideology behind the organization. It is really a new low. The NYT supports the ideological positions of the BLM movement, which are paradigms of cultural Marxism. That you seem to be totally ignorant of what that is is sadly not surprising to me.

      • verytallguy

        dpy,

        Very happy to admit ignorance, you are my role model in this as always.

        Can you supply a reputable link for your definition please?

        Because when I read around it sends to have originated as an antisemitism conspiracy theory and now seems to be a convenient label to demonstrate group identity, rather than having any real meaning.

        But I very much look forward to learning more – thanks!

      • VTG, I’m not going to do your research for you. Avoid Wikipaedia and the Guardian for starters. You could generally become a more sane individual by reading occassionally from conservative publications. Some of Judith’s links in the post would be a good starting point. But I guess that would mean you actually had to read something you instinctively dislike. Grown ups are able to do that.

      • https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism

        is good. It explains that many liberals try to deny that it exists or give your lie that its a conservative conspiracy theory. That’s par for the course these days when the media lie on a regular basis as Weiss’ letter confirms from an insider.

        Looking for white priviledge on bing is another way to find a treasure trove of information.

      • jungletrunks

        Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!

        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/karl-marx-at-200-influence.html

      • verytallguy

        dpy,

        You’re normally good, but this is comedy gold.

        You’re seriously putting forward conservapedia as a reputable source?

        I mean, it sure explains a lot about your predilection for preferring politics over science, but it does make me seriously wonder if you’re not a spoof account.

        The entry is funny too (though not anywhere near as amusing as the global warming entry*). It’s great to know that the NYT aims to

        soften up and prepare Western Civilization for economic Marxism

        Who knew?

        On a slightly more serious note, the existence of conservapedia, with its risible content, shows the intellectual crisis of the right in vibrant colours. Rather than face the reality of the world as it is, they have to create a safe space of their imagining to retreat into.

        *ok, not strictly on topic but too hilarious to miss. We learn at the top Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a liberal theory…

      • verytallguy

        Well, comment is in moderation.

        But conservapedia deserves much more air time.

        It’s hilarious!

        Here we learn that evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

        Wonderful stuff.

        https://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution

      • David Appell

        dpy6629 commented
        in response to David Appell:
        >> What about the NY Times is even remotely Marxist? Quote it. < https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism <

        Providing a link to a comical and idiotic web site doesn't explain anything, especially about the NY Times. Where are the examples?

        All you have are conspiracy theories, and you fall for each and every one of them. No evidence needed.

      • David Appell

        dpy5 wrote:
        >> The NYT supports the ideological positions of the BLM movement, which are paradigms of cultural Marxism. <<

        BLM is about eliminating police brutality eliminating systemic racism.

        That's urgent and far past time. It has nothing to do with establishing Marxism in the US. "Cultural Marxism" is a bunch of invented, anti-Semitic nonsense that gives the far right something else to whine about, which is their major occupation anymore and which they've gotten very good at.

      • DA bites again, hook, line and sinker.

        Thus, demonstrates why he falls for the hysteria AGW

        “The BLM movement opens a new powerful chapter. The previous radical black freedom movement always had powerful anti-capitalist, socialist, and internationalist currents. Today black and Latino youth are increasingly open to the ideas of socialism and Marxism”

      • This couldn’t be more a waste of time. VTG does not respond to anything in the article (perhaps it’s all true) but just snears. But that’s what we expect from an anonymous non scientist consensus enforcer Hacktivist who never says anything with real substance.

      • That’s why we call him verytrollguy.

      • David Appell’s very naive version of BLM is not what the founders have said. They have said its underlying ideology is Marxism.

        https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/

      • Here’s another source for the cultural Marxist origins of identity politics.

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/book-review-the-plot-to-change-america-intellectual-roots-identity-politics/

        You can read a good portion of it free on Amazon. If racism was the dominant elite ideology of the late 19th century and it certainly was with its pseudo-science support from social Darwinism, identity politics is the dominant elite ideology of the 21st Century. It’s not just conservatives who are critical of it either. A few brave liberals are speaking up such as Steven Pinker, who is also the victim of an attempted cancellation which failed in its first foray.

      • He’s not as naive as he looks. The left loons are trained in Soviet style narrative fixing. Glorify anything no matter how abhorrent that advances the cause and condemn anything that doesn’t. Remember how violent and racist the Tea Party folks were. And all the marauders in MAGA hats creating strife and destruction. Even accosting with bleach and a noose a poor black man on his way home from Subway at 2 in the AM with a salami sandwich. At least the sandwich wasn’t harmed.

      • Don, What is all too typical in these comments is that the New York Times has just been exposed as fake news and having a very hostile work environment and the response from commenters here like D. Appell is to deflect and nitpick without ever acknowledging the biggest story of perhaps the last 30 years, namely, the American corporate media have become thoroughly corrupt ideologues. It is indeed sad that these people perhaps still believe what they read in the Times. There are historical precedents, like Walter Durante covering up Stalin’s mass murder in the Times and being rewarded for his propaganda. There is an element of denial out there and it is illustrated here.

        Oh and no face masks for protesters and rioters because they have a “just” cause, but lockdown protestors are evil and endangering public health. We live in a sad time.

      • ‘Marxist’ is just a republican term for far left. Like ‘Nazi’ and ‘Fascist’ are Democrat terms for everyone who’s not them.

      • jungletrunks

        dpy6629, “There are historical precedents, like Walter Durante covering up Stalin’s mass murder in the Times and being rewarded for his propaganda”

        The NYT’s has had a long standing infatuation with fascism going back to the days of Mussolini, they did cartwheels away from fascism only when it was obvious war was looming, but during fascisms early years the NYT’s, et al, weren’t shy:

        New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote fawningly in the aftermath of Roosevelt’s inauguration that Washington, D.C., is “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan … America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.”

        The irony of all ironies, a little known fact during fascisms early years; believe it, FDR and his foremost cheerleaders at the time specifically espoused open support for the efficiency of Mussolini and Hitler, and welcomed fascism at home.

        Roosevelt himself once called Mussolini “admirable,” adding that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” Mussolini returned the compliment with adulatory praise, writing of Roosevelt’s many reforms, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices … Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.”

        FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious,” adding that, “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary … Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.” https://dailycaller.com/2016/12/13/fdr-praised-mussolini-and-loved-fascism/

      • Wow jungle trunks, I didn’t know that. Thanks.

      • russellseitz

        Holy Sokal, David.

        Are you really oblivious to Gramci, & Adorno fans ruling the roost at the PoMo Guardian and Times ?

      • David Appell

        If you think there is something Marxist in the NYT, quote and cite it.

      • David Appell

        >> Gramci, & Adorno fans

        I have no idea what this means.

      • In a New York Times tribute headlined, “Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!”

    • The New York Times’ bizarre campaign against Britain
      America’s most prestigious paper keeps producing laughably inaccurate pieces presenting the UK as a racist hellhole
      BY Douglas Murray
      https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/

    • David L. Hagen

      Pompeo exposing the NYT: ““The New York Times’ 1619 project, so named for the year the first slaves were transported to America, wants you to believe that our county was founded for human bondage, they want you to believe that America’s institutions continue to reflect the country’s acceptance of slavery at our founding, they want you to believe the Marxist ideology that America is only the oppressors and the oppressed,” he said.
      “The Chinese Communist Party must be gleeful when they see the New York Times spout this ideology,” he said.” https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pompeo-declares-american-way-of-life-is-under-attack-hits-nyts-marxist-1619-project

  6. Cancelled campus speeches are easy to research. But the consequences of a cancelled speech are minor compared to much bigger problems: journalists getting fired by, or bullied into self-censorship by newspapers, and professors being fired for publishing in scientific journals, etc. These are much harder to research.

    The study Vox quoted said near the end that it was only a preliminary study. Despite this disclaimer, I see room for a lot of subjectivity and sweeping generalization in any study attempting to identify and quantify whether the persons being cancelled are from the left or right. For example, if 80 of 100 campus speakers are from the left and 20% of these are cancelled that = 16 speakers. If of the 20 of speakers on the right 40% are cancelled that = 8 speakers. The conclusion is that more speakers from the left are cancelled than from the right, even though as a proportion that is wrong.

    It appears likely that colleges today would invite far more speakers from the left than the right. And the left may be cancelling speakers from the left for not being left enough rather than being too left.

    • Curious George

      I assume that you selected one of better articles for posting. I did not have enough stamina to wade further than halfway through.

      • Choose to inform yourself of the spectrum of views or not. Your choice.

        The irony is that much of the pushback is being done putatively in defense of “robust debate.”

      • Curious George

        It is quite possible that the author had a message. But (s)he buried it deep in a bad prose. Yes, my choice not to waste my time.

      • Try cognitive empathy. You might find it useful.

      • Don Monfort

        You might find self-awareness useful. Might save you from making a fool of yourself a little.

      • Not just bad prose, but intentionally contradictory and obscene. At one point the author laughs off critics of identity politics who claim that it’s adherents want special rights – no, no, “individualism” and “equality under the law” are what left wing identity politics practitioners want!
        A few paragraphs later… a defense of reparations, the quota demands of identity politics “woke” activists, etc etc.
        Finally it waddles back to some sort of promise of that standard in left-twaddle : identity politics is the path to a new, just economy (conveniently never detailed)! This, of course, is the most potent critique of identity politics from the left- you’ll never form a poor people’s movement by screaming “check your privilege!” at 60% of the poor people. But now they not only wish to do that, but tack on the new idea that the city needs to stop protecting you from criminals based on the “anti-racist” and “liberal” firm belief that “people of color” is synonymous with “criminals,” not victims of criminals- an idea so odious and dishonest that the only people who believe it other than woke activists and college professors are leaders in the KKK.

        Write this down, Joshua: making your racial and political identity one in the same is the most dangerous and destructive idea man has come up with.

    • From Josh’s link. I guess we have come to expect Josh to get more and more disconnected from reality.

      “It is the former group, the defenders of progressive identity politics, who in fact are protecting—indeed expanding—the bounds of liberalism. And it is the latter group, the reactionaries, who are most guilty of the illiberalism they claim has overtaken the American Left.”

      This is fully insane. “progressive identity politics” is code for cultural Marxism which Josh is completely ignorant of. The “reactionaries” are centrists like Weiss who just savaged the New Jerk Times as she walked out the door and pointed out that Trump is fully correct about the media.

    • This isn’t your blog, joshie.

      • I’m offering you material for open and robust debate, Don.

        Stop trying to cancel me.

        Or I might cry.

      • It’s just your usual attention seeking thread hijacking schtick. Pathetic.

      • Don –

        You’re entitled to read views from various perspectives or not.

        I know you’re a bit fragile, but as a friend I can honestly tell you it won’t hurt you.

        But it’s entirely up to you.

      • We don’t need a reading list from you, joshie. Nobody does that. What would the thread look like if the rest of us were immature attention seekers like yourself?

      • Entirely up to you, Don. Read them or don’t read them. My posing the links won’t harm you either.

        Don’t be such a snowflake.

      • putz

      • Joshua
        So I decided to read one of your posted links, to see what intelligently argued opinion piece might be offered, perhaps food for thought for an open mind.

        Instead what hits you in the face it this Talebanic inchoate howl of rage:

        Americans live in a society that warehouses more than 2 million people in penitentiaries rife with state-ordered torture and unpunished sexual abuse; a society that lives off the “essential” labor of workers who have no right to vote, and whom the state reserves the right to deport; a society that allows hundreds of thousands of its people to go homeless, millions of its children to go hungry, and dozens of its Fortune 500 companies to go untaxed; a society that condemned much of its Black population to enslavement for 246 years, Jim Crow rule for a century after that…

        This is not the language of debate or persuasion, but of violent power-grab.

        Don is quite right to ignore this violence-inciting polemic. You would do well to also.

      • Yes the problem here is that Joshua is suffering from Stockholm syndrome. He’s grown used to insane rhetoric and tends to excuse it or try to spread it on the internet. It’s sad really.

      • Joshua, The language used in Hatter’s except is itself prejudicial. Prisons don’t “warehouse” people, they take violent criminals off the streets so civilized society can exist.

        “Allowing hundreds of thousands to go homeless” seems to be mostly a problem in left wing states where governments spend huge sums of money providing essentials to allow the homeless to shoot up instead of forcing them back into productive activities. In most red states, there are very few homeless camping out on interstate highway shoulders.

        So its just a very silly rant that is obviously biased by a left wing perspective that the “system” is evil and needs to be taken down.
        The fact that you actually require this to be pointed out to you shows that you are really not observing and thinking clearly.

    • Hatter –

      What is the argument you would make to pursuade someone as to which part(s) of that except is better left ignored? I mean I realize that you think that the entire passage is better left ignored – but I was hoping for something a tad more detailed.

  7. David Appell

    I see cancel culture complaints as coming from people who are too used to having the high ground and don’t like hearing from the frosh below.

    Unless it’s against the law, the Internet means all speech is now fair, whether the elites at Harpers, the media, or academics like it or not. (That includes counterspeech.) Welcome (finally) to the age of truly free speech — free speech for all, everywhere, by everyone.

  8. I;ve been looking at the same issue with regarding to actors playing roles and the recent cases of Halle Berry and J.K. Rowling.

    “Today’s authoritarians share many things, especially their contempt for the truth, for freedom of expression, and for equality before the law, without which there can be no democracy. They congratulate each other on their purported efficiency in “telling it like it is,” and in “getting things done.” They seek to censor and to “guide” public opinion.”

    Magnus Fiskesjö was commenting on the return of China’s show trials, but those words have a chilling resonance to the world we find ourselves in today where anyone who steps out of line with a different opinion, as J.K. Rowling did, suddenly finds not engagement, argument, discussion, but a determination to cow and silence them.

    https://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-twin-dilemma.html

  9. UK-Weather Lass

    “Consensus and sameness good, diversity and difference bad.”
    Confucius didn’t say.

    Have we all become obsessed by the wretched midpoint of every analysis of anomalies ever conducted …?

  10. Cambridge University’s very modern bigotry
    The institution promotes an academic tweeting racism, yet considers Jordan Peterson to be beyond the pale
    BY Douglas Murray
    https://unherd.com/2020/06/cambridge-universitys-very-modern-bigotry/

  11. Cancel culture is fundamentally about the intent to censor: get article pulled, professional disavowed or sacked, or paint individuals or ideas as beyond the pail.

    I’m sure people know they are doing this – I think they excuse this because they are on the side of the angels or that in a particular case its justified.

    To combat this we need people to keep saying its unacceptable until the idea sticks.

  12. How the establishment fell for eugenics
    A shocking number of influential Britons used to think it necessary to wipe out ‘inferior’ citizens

    What Ronald Aylmer Fisher was fellow and president of was Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (in whose dining hall the window was installed). He was one of the greatest mathematicians of the twentieth century. He more or less invented the modern discipline of statistics. As if that wasn’t enough, he also made a vital contribution to the ‘Modern Synthesis’ — which rescued Darwinism from the doldrums and turned biology into a fully-fledged science. Richard Dawkins named him the “greatest biologist since Darwin”: Fisher “provided researchers in biology and medicine with their most important research tools, as well as with the modern version of biology’s central theorem.”
    R. A. Fisher was, in other words, a foundational figure. Unfortunately, one of the things he founded was the University of Cambridge Eugenics Society. He was also a racist, telling a UNESCO enquiry that “available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development” (the opposite of what the enquiry concluded).
    Snip
    The real problem here is that Fisher was not some isolated crank. He was part of the much wider eugenics movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It can’t be edited out of our intellectual history, because for many decades, and to a shocking extent, it is our intellectual history.
    Snip
    For obvious reasons, we view eugenic ideology through the lens of the Second World War and the Holocaust. Yet there’s another story that must be told — of how eugenics in Britain and America exerted an influence over the intellectual mainstream that outright fascism never did. Eugenic ideas were deeply embedded within almost every facet of modernity — shaping the thinking of movements, organisations and individuals that are still venerated today as icons of science and progress.
    Taking Fisher as a starting point, one can, in the manner of a crazed conspiracy theorist, trace the links between many of the biggest names in science, literature, politics and social reform. Except that there’s no conspiracy — it’s all on record: a dense web of professional and personal relations that define the intellectual life of the era.
    Snip
    It may seem incredible to see such a combination of views, but before the Second World War it was unexceptional. Eugenic ideas were common among both Marxists and Fabians. The Left-wing eugenicists of the time included Sydney and Beatrice Webb, Harold Laski, George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Julian Huxley and J. B. S. Haldane. They didn’t just hold these beliefs in awkward juxtaposition, but saw eugenics as an essential part of socialist project. In Shaw’s infamous words, “the only fundamental and possible Socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of Man.”
    https://unherd.com/2020/07/how-the-establishment-fell-for-eugenics/

    • Was not just English elite that swallowed the eugenics nonsense. Included U.S. president Woodrow Wilson.

    • billbedford

      It’s interesting to note that eugenics was taken up by almost the same section of society, i.e the upper-middle classes, that today are most exercised by global warming, BLM, and cancel culture.

      • CAGW Godfather Crispin Tickell is the younger cousin of Aldous and Julian Huxley. It’s not out of place to consider if he followed in familial intellectual traditions.
        EG Julian was an unrepentant Eugenics advocate even after WWII. Julian advocated a Single World Culture (read Religion) of “scientific” or “evolutionary” Humanism

        Curb your enthusiasm
        High priests, holy writ and excommunications – how did Humanism end up acting like a religion?
        https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/#comment-864323

        I posted a lot of comments relevant to Tickell and Huxley on above post

      • Curious George

        Feynman coined a nice term for that section of society: Pompous Fools.

    • How do you think we get such big cows and chickens?
      The use of genetic prediction (EPD’s) is one of the most powerful tools in the hands of the industrial meat producer. It is dependent upon the producer’s ability to understand the use of EPD’s in selecting breeding stock with superior genetic merit to increase the proportion of genes having the desired effect on traits of economic importance.

      If it were not for eugenics our meat supply would shrink by up to 1/3.

    • Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
      R. A. Fisher: a faith fit for eugenics
      In discussions of ‘religion-and-science’, faith is usually emphasized more than works, scientists’ beliefs more than their deeds. By reversing the priority, a lingering puzzle in the life of Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1890–1962), statistician, eugenicist and founder of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, can be solved. Scholars have struggled to find coherence in Fisher’s simultaneous commitment to Darwinism, Anglican Christianity and eugenics. The problem is addressed by asking what practical mode of faith or faithful mode of practice lent unity to his life? Families, it is argued, with their myriad practical, emotional and intellectual challenges, rendered a mathematically-based eugenic Darwinian Christianity not just possible for Fisher, but vital.
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136984860600094X

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fisher

    • I agree. Most people don’t know how strong the ideologies of cultural Darwinism and racism were entrenched in the elites in the late 19th Century. Progressives were particularly suseptible to these evil ideologies.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Brent,
      The easy part of your exercise is to show that some good minds supported eugenics at that time in history.
      The hard part is to show that they were wrong. It is also hard to convince people with inquiring minds that they should study and write papers about eugenics today. There must be some good in eugenics theory, otherwise all those good minds would have rejected it and it would not have gone into the circulation of ideas.
      These days, you are labelled as “good” if you do the unscientific thing and reject eugenics out of hand. If you try to keep it under neutral study, you will attract any number of thought police, some from the groups who consider that eugenics made them victims of something.
      ……….
      So, does it boil down to the old saw “The peasants are revolting”?
      There is ample reading, some of it on this very thread, to show we are in the middle of an attempt to invert the pyramid, whereby those who earned their ways to the top are being invited, with threat, to occupy the base.
      Chairman Mao tried this inversion. What a lovely role model he is!
      Geoff S

      • Dawkins is still putting his foot in his mouth as below.

        Richard Dawkins Puts Foot in Mouth Again With Tweets About How Eugenics “Works”
        https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/02/16/richard-dawkins-puts-foot-in-mouth-again-with-tweets-about-how-eugenics-works/

      • Geoff,
        I’m not entirely sure how to proceed to unpack these issues. It’s not surprising that it wouldn’t be clear what I’m really thinking (not that anyone should care in the least) because I haven’t spelled it out.
        Most of my postings are snippets that I view as useful input data in forming my own opinion, not that I endorse per se.
        That being said, I have serious concerns about turning supposed “Science” into a “Source of Authority”, a “belief system”. (This is not my only concern but is one of the primary ones)

        Lindzen’s comments on the important distinction between science being a simply an investigative process, vs a “Source of Authority” are very useful.
        I don’t agree that the Eugenics agenda can be safely disposed of as a past error we have surmounted. Lindzen likens the environmental movement to the current counterpart of the Eugenics agenda. I would put it a slightly different way. In my view Bio-Ethics (foundational underpinning for the rabid environmentalists) is the “New Eugenics” in the following sense. The Eugenics agenda was used to demonize part of the Human Race. Bio-Ethics is IMO being used to demonize the “Human Race as a whole”. One might say that the anti-human environmental movement and Bio-Ethics trace their heritage to the Eugenics agenda, from which they “Evolved”.
        (The Earth Charter is based on Bio-Ethics)

        In video below Lindzen comments
        “The public inability to judge science inevitably leads to ascendency of politically correct mediocrities or incompetents (Lysenko, Laughlin, Mann, Jones….) unfortunately this also induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status)”

        Despite Lindzen’s comments about mediocrities, I don’t agree that good minds will necessarily reject bad ideas. As per above snippets. R.A. Fisher was indeed a ‘foundational figure” with spectacular valid achievements and ALSO some biased terrible ideas that he never repudiated.

        Not too long ago Sam Harris was smeared after interviewing Charles Murray. The race/IQ issue is a minefield. One can argue that it’s a valid field for inquiry. However what comes next. The people who fear another “Scientocracy” do have a valid basis for concern IMO.

        Destroying Science as in Lindzen’s words as a “Mode of inquiry” is a terrible idea. Resisting another Scientocracy as per “Scientific Marxism” or “Scientific National Socialism” is not.
        E. G. Here are some suggestions from elite Bio-Ethicists to solve purported identified problems. What could possibly go wrong/sarc

        Bioengineering Humans To Combat Climate Change
        http://wmbriggs.com/post/5392/

        A Pill To Eliminate Racism? What’ll Science Think Of Next!
        http://wmbriggs.com/post/5356/

        Genetic Engineering To Create New Super Moral Race: Savulescu Strikes Again
        http://wmbriggs.com/post/6047

        Study Finds 9-Month-Old Babies Are Racist
        http://wmbriggs.com/post/5595

        Dr Richard Lindzen
        Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.

        “By the way, I should mention. At the beginning of the 20th century, the counterpart of the environmental movement was Eugenics. All the best people displayed their virtue by supporting that”
        Snip
        “Science is always problematic as an institution. Where it is valuable is as a process”
        “The public square brings its own dynamic into the process. I’ll emphasize how this plays out in the climate issue.”
        “ There are two other areas where I’ll come back to it; the issue of Eugenics and immigration, and Lysenkoism in Agronomy. You had again Science in the Public Square.”
        There are lots of reasons why Scientists, for publicity and other things might want bring their field into the public square, but in the cases I’ll describe, these are cases where it was the political agendas that found it useful to employ science. And this immediately involves a distortion of science at a very basic level . Namely Science becomes a “Source of Authority’ rather than a “Mode of Inquiry”. And the real utility of Science stems from the latter. The Political utility stems from the former.”
        Snip
        “And it’s part of NSF’s big mobilization. They are spending quite a lot of money to find out why people aren’t buying the alarm. And this harkens back to my personal attitude. Ordinary people have sense; Academics don’t. “
        https://tinyurl.com/pkd7w7q

  13. Reblogged this on uwerolandgross.

  14. Cancel culture appears to be multi-factoral, but social media seems to be a big part:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/

    Factors stand out:
    * The instantaneous nature of twitter responses means brain activity is more fight-or-flight, friend-or-foe, and less thoughtful and reflective.

    * Social media knows that negative emotions drive clicks.

    * Communication without emotional feedback such as facial expression leads to dehumanization.

    * Availability bias of screens becomes more real than life so a young people are prone to the logical error of arguing from specific to general ( and virtual to real ).

    The decline of the established media is accelerating because of the interface with twitter. If ‘mainstream’ media is now just a Tweet echo, it’s worthless, but the public lacks trusted sources, exacerbating the tribes.

    There’s a complicity of CYA:
    https://assets.amuniversal.com/30ee0db09e9e01380f1e005056a9545d

    Douglas Murray lays out ‘St. George in retirement’:
    things have never been better, but activists can’t stand to quit.
    The problem is activists go beyond equality to the point of becoming the thing they ostensibly hate:
    https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OYL0GNQGPE77&dchild=1&keywords=madness+of+crowds&qid=1594814042&s=books&sprefix=madne%2Cstripbooks%2C231&sr=1-1

  15. The movement begins with the monopolized State education system. Much is known about the poor results delivered by this system but their dismal teaching of basic American civics helps the Marxists fill the void.

    https://woodrow.org/news/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/

  16. I would encourage people to consider one more thing: these twitter mobs would be completely powerless and even mocked into oblivion were it not for the fact that large corporations, the boards of corporations, the FBI (consider 15 agents to the fake nascar noose hoax, none to looting), the boards and presidents of universities and other powerful entities enforce the mobs edicts and provide the muscle to make the whole thing happen.
    This is not a mob revolution nor a grassroots uprising against forces of injustice-this is a top down war against normal people with reasonable ideals. As with all revolutions, follow the money. Divide and Conquer.

    • Yes, nickels, this is what really worries me the most. My hope is that all the virtue signaling coming from our elites and corporate offices is just posturing to avoid immediate economic consequences from boycotts, etc. I think that’s likely and a lot of this corporate cowardice will fade if cancel culture gets canceled by the vast majority of people. But it’s critical to stand up and say how damaging cultural Marxism really is.

  17. Over recent years I’ve noticed that university professors and administration as a group typically claim a balanced left/right attitude among themselves. I’ve also noticed a dismissal of news from sources to the right of their own right/left ‘balanced’ positions. Interestingly, there is little opportunity for people on the right to avoid news sources with primarily left leaning coverage, as is the case with main stream media.
    I often dismayed at the ignorance of my college professor relatives of what attitudes and interests are of people outside their academic community. They actually expected marching groups equivalent to German Brown Shirts in our Midwestern towns and cities, celebrating some sort of Nazi like victory. Of course, we can now understand why they might expect something of that sort since the left leaning folks seem to want to demonstrate and march in large groups over relatively small perceived transgression against them from the right. Need I mention BLM.

  18. Shut down STEM. Time commitment: 6 minutes. Goto 1:51:30:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGt733yw3g

    Black Intellectual Roundtable

    Shut down STEM is a demonstration of power. Sound familiar?
    There is nothing new under the Sun.

    • I like Bret Weinstein, but Unity2020 seems ill informed.

      These problems don’t seem to be from governance or rights and changing the constitution isn’t going to happen anyway.

      The video mentions Charles Murray’s ‘Coming Apart’ and points out the problems common to black/white/hispanic. This is a big one which I’m not sure government can change:
      https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FT_18.04.11_UnmarriedParents_race.png

      Regardless of race, fatherless children do, on average, much worse by just about every measure. Marriage, which is the lowest ever for all races, is important.

      • “…disruption of the “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.””

        We know where that comes from. What’s their point with this one? Are they against stability? Some would say we’ve all ready accomplished this goal.

        Unity2020 isn’t going to work. Take it from a libertarian. But his criticism of the duopoly is good. He gets it.

        The video has a who is who of participants in my book.

      • Marriage rates aren’t actually low for middle and upper income people. Some of the biggest social changes are that couples from middle income backgrounds are finishing college, marrying later in life (in their 30s), are marrying people with the same education levels as themselves, delaying childbirth (until late 30s) and forming families with dual, professional, incomes.
        It’s literally not possible for a single parent household to achieve “income equality” or “wealth equality” with a household run by two degreed professionals who, at the wedding, each had paid down debt and had assets.
        There is no government policy that could cover that gap. The only reason “income equality” is even in the newspaper is because that nice doctor married to the lawyer down the street is annoyed that the two 35-year-old computer engineers on the corner (no kids) have newer Audis.

  19. The extent and depth of the problem. https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/15/what-to-read-instead-of-white-fragility/
    They’re just getting started.

  20. It is speculative, but much of our common evolution probably took place in tribes, perhaps familial clans with perhaps some strangers that integrated.

    I believe this to have been the case, because being alone in the evolutionary past necessarily meant: no group defense ( there strength in numbers ), no group hunting, no group food gathering ( for the vegans ), no comfort or companionship, no communal child rearing, which would be preempted by no mating to begin with.

    So group membership was life.

    Therefore, we are strongly evolved to form groups. The strongest of these bonds were familial, but perhaps there were assimilated outsiders. But familial identification probably explains a tendency toward racism – paradoxically, because we all share so much evolution, all humans share this trait!

    Consider other groups beyond family or race. Even casual sports fans recognize the tribe of their team, which has distinguishing thread color a la skin. Neighboring states, even with the same cultural makeup, may divide as groups. Concert goers form a group of music. Wars of religion. And political parties have colors, mascots, and an insane identity level.

    Some of these are mostly benign, but the behavior is evidently in us all.

    But we must be very wary – genocides stem from this trait.

    The United States has a constitution. The painful sin of the three fifths compromise is evident. But, this nation also fought a bloody civil war to rectify this wrong, and amended the constitution. Similarly, women’s suffrage and codified civil rights now ensure equality under the law. This is the ideal. While the nation state is not necessarily the end all, this nation is not defined by religion, or race, or other groups, but by a coded, divided government with rights for all. Those seeking to define the nation by race or other groups are playing with fire and endangering this experiment.

    • TE –

      > But familial identification probably explains a tendency toward racism – paradoxically, because we all share so much evolution, all humans share this trait!

      Looks like you’ve been reading “White Fragility.”

      At any rate, you might want to check out new book by Rurger Bregman. He makes a case for another vector in evolution: “survival of the friendliest.”

      Here he is in discussion with an ev/psych guy:

      https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/humankind-a-hopeful-history-robert-wright-rutger-bregman/id505824847?i=1000483410572

      Also, here is same ev/psych guy fending off criticism of ev/psych (in a Buddhist framework)

      https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-i-am-not-a-buddhist-robert-wright-evan-thompson/id505824847?i=1000472970842

      You can find the pods through other players.

    • I think that tribalism and it’s less flattering forms are evolutionary. Not 100%, but significantly. It survived many 10s of thousands of years.

      What I find is that many attribute malintent as the cause of tribalism.

      Tribalism extends right down to our family connections. We see it in territorial animals such as wolves and chimps. We cannot attribute that to malintent. But those are ran experiments with results.

      You can say our brains are similar to chimp brains. With 100s of thousands of years of wiring built into them. Old existing systems that we still have. Put that against a book telling us we should not be tribal. Does our ancient brain win? A lot the time yes.

  21. Thanks Dr Curry and TE plus all who fight for the Bill of Rights.

    Strong pressure over long term will win in the end. In the meantime be brave and never, never give up.
    Scott

  22. jungletrunks

    I’ve been commenting about Fascist encroachment into the mainstream of western culture for years now. While some consider such talk as pure hyperbole, it’s much easier to see the evolution today; except for those caught in its cultish grip. It is now conceivable how Auschwitz came to be. Cultural distortion fields can evolve quickly. National Socialism, in the course of 20 years, evolved to include concentration camps to get rid of “deplorables”. It began with propagandizing of demographic hate, the promotion of radical ideology, including the genesis of the green movement; all accomplished through political reeducation in both schools and culture; much like today. Germany’s republic fell 13 years after the genesis of National Socialism.

    China is often affectionally referenced to by the Left, even by certain denizens who post on CE. These people turn a blind eye to China’s own concentration camps, “transplant tourism”, its draconian grip on free speech. The ideological allure of strong central authority allows for a blind eye to many things. Todays cultural lurch sets the stage for repeating history; it becomes ever easier as history is erased, rewritten, or taken out of context. It’s very concerning.

  23. Steven Pinker beats cancel culture attack

    that’s good news. I am surprised they have not attacked “The Better Angels of our Nature” and especially “Enlightenment Now” for “White Supremacy”. “They” including people like the Seattle School Board who attacked modern math as an instrument of White Supremacy and European Colonialism that [never did any good for people of color].

  24. JungleTrunks
    China point very powerful.

    China likely to be in a major conflict with USA over South China sea and possible hot conflict.

    I was in Navy 46 years ago and my son is an officer today. I follow developments closely and a miscalculation but either side could easily result in a hot clash. Air collision or ship collision by harassing forces escalates beyond any ones control swiftly.

    Major portions of the woke generation won’t be on USA side.

    Like Pearl Harbor only if attackers won the support of NY Times and progressives. Repeating history w different outcome.

    Defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
    Must fear for the Country.
    Scott

  25. Pertinent to this discussion are the views of Russian-American Izabella Tabarovsky writing at the Tablet, article entitled “American Soviet Mentality.”

    “All of us who came out of the Soviet system bear scars of the practice of unanimous condemnation, whether we ourselves had been targets or participants in it or not. It is partly why Soviet immigrants are often so averse to any expressions of collectivism: We have seen its ugliest expressions in our own lives and our friends’ and families’ lives. It is impossible to read the chastising remarks of Soviet writers, for whom Pasternak had been a friend and a mentor, without a sense of deep shame. Shame over the perfidy and lack of decency on display. Shame at the misrepresentations and perversions of truth. Shame at the virtue signaling and the closing of rank. Shame over the momentary and, we now know, fleeting triumph of mediocrity over talent.”
    Article is here: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/american-soviet-mentality
    My synopsis: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/06/27/american-soviet-mentality/

    https://sanity-14b55.kxcdn.com/images/z2aip6ei/production/2ac9d4bff0fc98d7a069f3d77e6f5a9dd4e3ad80-1441×2236.jpg?w=1250&q=70&auto=format&dpr=1

  26. Curious George

    I wonder if this is related –
    WUWT is being deplatformed – service interruptions the next few days
    Anthony Watts / 3 hours ago July 15, 2020

    We were suddenly faced with a big increase in hosting costs, and it wasn’t tenable. (Where’s big oil when you need them?) So they told us we had to move.

  27. The above article “In defence of reactive liberalism”

    https://quillette.com/2020/07/13/in-defense-of-reactionary-liberalism-a-reply-to-osita-nwanevu/

    Quotes from Osita Nwanevu who justifies the current cancel culture (the intolerant totalitarianism of the newly morally-energised left), in these terms:

    Nwanevu’s basic thesis is that progressives are actually the modern champions of the liberal tradition and that those who oppose and criticize them from the Left (Matt Taibbi and Jonathan Chait) or the Right (Andrew Sullivan) or both (the members of what was once known as the Intellectual Dark Web) are actually fighting a reactionary battle against an expansion of freedom. Therefore, Nwanevu argues, it is progressivism’s enemies who are illiberal.

    Everyone is labelled and debate is over. We are right. Either you are for us or against us. What Nwanevu has defined is another clearly defined type of progressivism that pops up and recurs throughout history. It is tribal progressivism. The essence of this is that “we are fundamentally right. So anyone opposing us is wrong and is the enemy.”

    As Cersei Lannister articulates it to her son Jeoffrey in Game of Thrones, “everyone who is not us is the enemy”.

    This simplifies the debate immensely. Truth and falsehood is immaterial. Valid or invalid argument or logic does not matter at all. Justice and fairness are irrelevant. All that matters is the simple matrix of tribal logic:

    – what’s good for our tribe is good
    – what’s bad for our tribe is bad
    – what’s good for their tribe is bad
    – what’s bad for their tribe is good

    All outbreaks of militant progressivism have exhibited this tribal logic. All decisions are made according to this matrix alone. This could include the original 1slamic armies, the Mongol armies, both sides in the Protestant/catholic wars, Oliver Cromwell’s new model army, the Na3is and the communists under Lenin and Mao. It means that the time for debate is over. The time has come to keep your head down and get the hell out of the way.

  28. So the 3rd. most cited author in psychology got canceled.

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/misconduct-allegations-push-psychology-hero-his-pedestal
    “When he died in 1997, Eysenck was the third most cited psychologist in the world—behind Sigmund Freud and Jean Piaget. By then, he was already controversial, not just because of the criticisms by Pelosi and others, but also for espousing racist views on the genetics of intelligence.”

    Looks like he canceled by telling the truth about eugenics and the purity of race.

  29. Maybe with conservatives looking to their own Twitter-like app, the snowflakes can stop whining incessantly about how they’re such victims?

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html

    • Don Monfort

      Unlike the left loons, who never whine about any of their crowd of pathetic underdogs being victimized.

    • Curious George

      Would you consider Twitter a Trump’s app? A progressive app?

    • What it shows is that Parler is really interested in diversity of ideas. Twitter is not. Maybe you should join he people who like freedom of speech and thought Josh before its too late.

    • It’s like a libertarian complaining about the duopoly. The libertarians have to do something about it within the existing system and realm of possibilities.

    • You do understand what trying to get someone sacked or ostracised actually means don’t you? And it’s not just an attack on that person, it’s also a threat to everyone else to not say those bad things. Do you understand that? And if so do you condone that?

      This isn’t about disagreement, we are not asking that people don’t disagree or even get offended, its the next part : the deliberate attempt to silence.

  30. From Weiss’ letter. It is hard to imagine a more devastating and well written letter. BTW, It also appears that Weiss has a strong case for damages for harrassment in the workplace.

    “But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

    Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

    • dougbadgero

      If Weiss does sue, few will hear about it. James Damore has a good case too. 1. His manifesto was largely accurate based on the science, as several scientists pointed out at the time. 2. More importantly, he was responding to diversity training he had received at Google. As such his actions were protected under federal labor laws as legitimate discourse of working conditions…he didn’t need to be right for his concerns to be protected actions.

      Some lawyers pointed this out at the time but that issue soon went silent.

    • I read at least one opinion of she had it coming. And that’s wrong. She’ll be with Dave Rubin, trust me. The power needed is with people such as Weiss. Toleration. Discussion.

  31. Scuttlebutt is, Redskins will change the team’s name to the… Washington Losers.

    • Don Monfort

      No, they did extensive focus group testing and decided on the Marxington Puppies. The slogan Puppies Lives Matter tested well everywhere, except China.

      • jungletrunks

        There’s hope for the reversal of Chinese puppy cancel culture though; word is that Chairman Xi’s coming to the rescue with his overtures to Beyond Meat. Either wet markets are becoming passé, or changing public opinion in China comes as easy as saying gulag. I’ll go with the latter, per my Hong Kong source.

    • Randomengineer de Leather

      In celebration to caving in to the mob, “The Washington Invertebrates” has a timely ring. The Fighting Jellyfish. The logo should feature rainbow colored jellies so as not to endorse gender conformity.

  32. The NY Times is in a dilemma– It must change its name or be forever branded as racist…

    ‘And what about the city’s very name, which it takes after the Duke of York, among the largest slavers. The duke was a principal of the Royal African Company, which shipped more slaves to America than any other entity. Indeed, to insure that human cargo could be properly identified, many slaves were branded with a “DY.”’ ~NY Post

    Change of name idea– ‘No, No, No, God Damn New York’

  33. From the first Quillette piece. I would just add that I think the thing that makes this new surge in cancel culture dangerous is that it is not limited to political speech, but is being applied to even scientific statements for example on gender vs. sex in biology. Of course our old friends the climate alarmists pioneered this trend. I am also troubled that it is being used with views about history too.

    “To sum up, there is such a thing as cancel culture, and the arguments put forward by the anti-anti-cancel culture petitioners are not very convincing. In his famous essay On Liberty, the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill warned against “the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them”. His words remain as true today as they were in 1859.”

    • I heard something recently. It is an execise of power. With gender versus sex issues we end up with an odd situation. Taking a fork that probably is not wise. This will probably be corrected in the future, but for now, they have the power. And somewhere a long the way we lost what we learned about reason and turned to power. The climate science argument is one of power. When we renewed our nuke power plants in MN, we got solar and wind mandates. Power. Doesn’t make it any sense. They have the power. When science is part of this, what does that mean? When a bar owner in MN tried to re-open his bar, our AG went after him. He was setting an example. Based on the science and the data.

  34. Judith, “don’t seem to be seeing this elsewhere in the western world?” It is well established in the UK and Australia, unfortunately.

  35. > 6 years ago, I thought the biggest threat to free speech was Michael Mann’s frivolous ‘libel’ lawsuits.

    The “leader of the free world” and “most powerful person in the world” constantly advocates for changing libel laws to make it esowr to silence critics, and leverages his governmental powers to silence critics and punish whistleblowers, and…

    Crickets.

  36. > 6 years ago, I thought the biggest threat to free speech was Michael Mann’s frivolous ‘libel’ lawsuits.

    Speaking of which. Remember all the hand-wringing about a “chilling effect?”

    Have “skeptic” voices been silenced?

  37. I’m going to assume that nearly all of you have never actually read Pravda from the seventies like I have. In those years, Pravda was the approved voice of Soviet ruling class propaganda machine (it’s still the approved propaganda voice of the Russian ruling class). So, that voice was pure Soviet-Marxist rants. Today’s antifa, progressive, socialist ramblings sound just like Pravda rants. I’m not saying that the Russians are behind the American socialist movements, but the socialist ideals promoted by all socialist movements have the same basic structure.

    All I can say is that the USSR failed, and the American socialist movements want to force the USA population to conform to their ideals, which are derived from Marxism. Full and total conformance to the directives is required by everyone. To enforce conformance, the first thing to go is your freedom of speech (political correctness is an example). If you fail to conform, then your right to defend yourself is attacked and denied. Continued nonconformance results in your ability to earn a living being attacked and denied. Then your freedom is taken away.

    To force conformance, the existing political structure must be devalued and destroyed. To accomplish this, they must polarize the population, the education system must be taken over, the press must be controlled and used to push the narrative, history must be distorted, truth and facts must be obstructed and denied, historical political icons must be delegitimized and destroyed, and law enforcement must be attacked, delegitimized, destroyed, and replaced with a political enforcement organization. The ends always justifies the means, no matter what those means are.

    Where has this happened in the past (clues: Russia, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and many more.)? Is this occurring presently in the US? Look around; be aware. The path we are currently headed toward only devolves into tragedy if we allow it to continue. Silence is conformance.

    • The only country who defeated the USA Inc. in war was communist.
      Socialist Republic of Vietnam is ranked the 5th. happiest country in the world.
      http://happyplanetindex.org/countries/vietnam

      • There are lots of adults who live in group homes who are happy as hell. What’s your point?

      • hilarious. Vietnam became “happy” by abandoning communism for capitalist economics starting in the late 1980s. They finally listening to what the United States was saying in the ’60s and ’70s. But,not before the world’s socialists talked them into two decades of nightmare.

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/how-vietnam-became-an-economic-miracle/

      • Jeff,
        Vietnam is a communist country. You link to a story that was paraphrased from a original study done by the left wing Brookings Institute.
        “First, it has embraced trade liberalization with gusto. Second, it has complemented external liberalization with domestic reforms through deregulation and lowering the cost of doing business. Finally, Viet Nam has invested heavily in human and physical capital, predominantly through public investments.”

        Who’s side are you on?
        Do you know that many of the US companies being strong armed to pull their manufacturing out of China are moving to communist Vietnam?
        From the NYT:
        “Your Next iPhone Might Be Made in Vietnam. Thank the Trade War.
        Samsung already assembles half of its handsets in the country, which got a big lift from U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. Now Apple is homing in.”

        Hey did you check out that video I posted below of the church the Russian government built? I’m impressed! If more people like you could just visit Russia I’m sure you would find a lot to like.

      • “Jeff,
        Vietnam is a communist country. ”

        Sure, as long as you redefine “communist” to mean “capitalist.” The link, as well as any competent review of recent history, notes that Vietnam was an unhappy economic and political basket case right up until the time that they abruptly adopted private ownership of property, invited private capital, and freed businesses to operate on a profit basis- ie removed every vestige of communism.

        What Vietnam is now, just as is China, is an autocracy with a capitalist economy. This is as opposed to communist countries: which are autocracies without economies. Or socialist countries, which are democracies without economies and, as such, have all been voted out of existence.
        I’m optimistic that political freedom will naturally follow economic freedom but the old marxists have quite a PR reason (and access to guns) to at least delay that.

      • Don Monfort

        You know jack—- about Red Thug China and Vietnam. The Red Thug China economy is a criminal enterprise run by and for the benefit of the CCP and their enforcers, the PLA. Vietnam is somewhat less corrupt and oppressive.

    • Curious George

      America has to change. Today people climb fences to get in. Why don’t they climb fences to get out?

      • A 30′ tall fence stops all migration and travel both ways for all land vertebrates. A US passport ain’t what it used to be either.
        https://medium.com/@indica/the-plague-states-of-america-53b20678a80e

        Just thinking that both socialism and capitalism can lead to dystopian outcomes depending on how homogeneous the populations are.
        There are 215 countries/domains on the covid-19 tracking site and not one of them have identical forms of government but there are diffidently winners and losers.

  38. Don Monfort

    When did they defeat the U.S in war? My recollection is that old tricky Dick bombed the bejesus out of them, after we wiped them out on the ground during and following the failed ’68 Tet Offensive, and they were forced to sign The Paris Peace Accords, a.k.a. the Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Viet Nam. Of course, the commies reneged and re-invaded the South, as soon as the U.S. Democrat controlled Congress gave them the go ahead.

    The folks there are happy because the local Viet commie thugs are not quite as repressive as the Chinese commie thugs to their North.

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Cure hypertension, reduce the amount of bad cholesterol in the body, change an unhealthy diet and Covid will not be so dangerous to you. Do not wait for a miracle cure, because it will be wonderful only for large pharmaceutical companies.

  40. verytallguy

    Well, comment is in moderation.

    But conservapedia deserves much more air time.

    It’s hilarious!

    Here we learn that evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Wonderful stuff.

    https://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      The virus shows that a large increase in cosmic rays at the Earth’s surface during very low solar activity can cause a rapid increase in nucleic acids mutations.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      (A) Geomagnetic dipole field strength relative to today (21). (B) Cosmic radiation based on the first principal component of several radionuclide records, 22-year averages, over the last 8,000 y. Time is given as year BP. The gray band represents the standard deviation of the individual radionuclide records without applying PCA (SI Appendix, Section S8). The black dashed line represents the average cosmic ray intensity for 1944–1988 AD. (C) Same as (B), but zoom-in of the past millennium. Capital letters mark grand solar minima: O: Oort, W: Wolf, S: Spörer, M: Maunder, D: Dalton, G: Gleissberg. (D) Same as (C), but zoom-in of the past 350 y. Time is given as year AD. Red circles and green curve are 22-year averages and yearly averages of cosmic ray intensity calculated with (3) using the solar modulation potential (38) obtained from neutron monitor and ionization chamber data (SI Appendix, Section S9). At the bottom the annual sunspot number is plotted (39).
      https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

      • Whatever you want to call it, the attempt to undermine and destroy Western Democratic Civilization and replace it with goofy idealized Marxist egalitarian BS stinks like doo doo.

    • Cultural Marxism – no one seemed to answer your question – is the transposing of marxist ideas of class struggle into “philosophical” and “critical” academic studies, in particular the idea that the working class are subdued by culture, but also relating to ideas of privilege and oppression.

      The term is used in academic circles to describe the ideas of the Frankfurt School that filtered into various academic fields.

      The term is also used by the alt-right and various conspiracy nuts to describe an attempt to infiltrate and overturn the culture of the west. This leads to the notion that Cultural Marxism is an anti-semitic trope – which I think is definitely overreaching.

      In terms of its use in this thread its probably a catchall for identity politics.

      • Gary,

        Thank you.

        “In terms of its use in this thread its probably a catchall for identity politics” seems to encapsulate it.

    • Gary –

      > In terms of its use in this thread its probably a catchall for identity politics.

      I’d say that the way it has been used in this thread it is definitely an expression of identity politics (i.e., an expression of antipathy towards a group of people who have been assigned an identity in order to justify said antipathy).

      • Rather like “denier” might be used. Not really informative in any meaningful way. Just a pejorative. Just dentity politics to express antipathy. In the elementary school playground it is known as name-calling.

  41. Disenculturation has become the order of the day, strangely orchestrated by those whose standing in the world has been most improved by Western Civilization.

  42. Leftism usually involves a desire for social equality. Few people of any political persuasion would find a problem with that. For some, however, it becomes more than a desire and more of an obsession. They become highly proactive and increasingly extreme. Intolerance of all who disagree becomes part of their behavior. Peer pressure, social media and targeted propaganda create a form of groupthink that energizes crowd momentum such as marches, protests, petitions, boycotts or even mass violence.

    No platforming, cancellation and the like are simply strategies for shutting down alternative views. It is censorship and is therefore undemocratic. Young people and students are well known for going through a phase of left leaning political activism and idealism as part of human development. Some claim that they leave such thoughts behind when they grow up, acquire responsibilities and start paying taxes. Increasingly, the exception to this rule seems to be celebrities and academics and at this point I should leave further explanation to those more qualified to comment.

  43. UK-Weather Lass

    I found the piece by Kevin Smith ‘The Groupthink Pandemic’ (Off-Guardian) very interesting since it echoes my experiences in both public and private sectors when it comes to diversity being suppressed, neutered or ostracised when it is feared it may disrupt ‘the group opinion’. This suggests that a preferred agenda is in place before the group even begins ‘to think’ .

    Whether inside or outside of a group there is usually one person with a good idea who starts the ball rolling. It is the freedom and ability of others to recognise the idea as having merit which prevents it from being lost in the noise. When an agenda already exists there may be absolutely no room for ‘good ideas’. We need to learn this lesson and fast.

  44. There is a fine balance between free and open debate and an ossified slanging match where two entrenched sides shout at each other, do not listen and both sides have closed minds. I have to say that in the latter situation, many of us simply tune out from various people whose opinions are ossified and we consider them to be wrong. We have tried to reason with them but they are beyond reason. So we stop arguing with them.

    The problem right now is that a whole generation has been emotionally infantalised to such a degree that they have not matured through an emotional adolescence whereby understanding that different people will reach different conclusions presented with the same facts, background and circumstances in many subjects simply seems to have failed to materialise.

    Childhood development experts traditionally characterised four groupings:

    1. Those that investigated, analysed and came to conclusions they were personally happy with.
    2. Those that made premature conclusions without fully examining the issues (commonly referred to as prejudiced people).
    3. Those in effect suffering from ‘paralysis by analysis’, namely an ability to fully engage with the subject but an inability to reach conclusions.
    4. Those who simply refused to engage in the first place.

    To me, what you have currently is a huge over-representation of group 2. An intolerant, ignorant, poorly educated group of radically opinionated youth and young people who have been brainwashed by education systems, media and political opportunists to hold beliefs about things they know insufficient about to make conclusions.

    • An intolerant, ignorant, poorly educated group of radically opinionated youth and young people who have been brainwashed by education systems, media and political opportunists to hold beliefs about things they know insufficient about to make conclusions.

      When you look at who holds power in 21st century societies, I think its really, really hard to draw the conclusion that “radically opinionated youth” is where our problems lie.

      I see no indication whatsoever that in China, US or Europe that this group holds much power at all, as political influence and wealth has become more entrenched in older generations that perhaps ever before.

      • “I see no indication whatsoever that in China, US or Europe that this group holds much power at all, as political influence and wealth has become more entrenched in older generations that perhaps ever before.”

        Ask yourself why. Every generation functions at some basic, instinctual level to transfer both control and wealth to the next generation. And.. .this one can’t.
        Businesses are holding training for managers to help them through the fact that young people have never been held accountable.
        And the Smithsonian Institution’s Museum of African American History is taking flack for a poster discussing institutional racism in which it is argued that “Objective, rational linear thinking” and “work before play” are outdated concepts rooted in the “assumptions of whiteness” – being rational is racist.
        Here’s an example of the accountability- my daughters are in High School and Middle School. If they bomb a test the impact on their grade is…. nothing. They can “re-take” it over and over again until they get a grade they’re comfortable seeing on the report card. Deadlines? Ha! Those haven’t been in schools in years.
        The basics for the functioning of a business (from hunter-gatherer communes to Fortune 500 Corporations) is an employee and management base that understands you need to actually do X, correctly and consistently, by Y time. Yet our young people are taught that the timeframe is irrelevant, successful completion of a task eventually would be nice but not necessary given that this whole idea of someone expecting successful performance of a task is oppressive.
        How does one transfer control and wealth? By teaching kids how to do things well.

      • Jeff –

        > Here’s an example of the accountability- my daughters are in High School and Middle School. If they bomb a test the impact on their grade is…. nothing. They can “re-take” it over and over again until they get a grade they’re comfortable seeing on the report card.

        Do you know what the rationale is for that policy?

      • Personally, I think that tracking an attribute such as accountability on a society-wide basis is a tad tricky. If we think that societal accountability has been diminished, how do we measure the change over time? How do we quantify the levels of accountability from when people were lynched or denied service at a lunch counter, and people were denied equal justice under the law, merely on the bassi of the color of their skin. Or people were denied basic human rights because of their sexual preference?
        Can we measure that so we can compare changes over time?

        But here’s a novel concept – if we are going to measure changes over time, how do we consider that “the most powerful man in the world” has an explicit policy and political strategy of denying any form of accountability in any way for anything at all – and the bulk of a political party has signed on to enabled him to do so? And more than that, where much of that party attacks the minority of members who have the temerity to suggest that said “most powerful man in the world” should be held accountable – such as Mitt Romney or George Conway or John McCain have done.

        How do we track that those members of that party who say that “the most powerful man in the world’ used to comprise the mainstream of that party? How do we measure what that trend over time signifies with respect to changes in accountability?

      • When you look at who holds power in 21st century societies, I think its really, really hard to draw the conclusion that “radically opinionated youth” is where our problems lie.

        The problem is they’ve grown up immersed in Twitter/Facebook/Instagram.
        They lack education about history and have addictions to outrage.
        Their reality is a five inch screen they take everywhere, all the time.
        No wonder they lose their minds when a horrific murder shows up on their screen.
        No wonder they fall for simplistic slogans.
        No wonder they are prey to very bad ideas such as basing value on race.
        Or class.
        Or gender.
        Or…

        They lack face to face real life experience.
        They lack the knowledge that there’s good and bad in everyone.
        They lack the understanding that the wealth, the equality under the law, the civility outside the law, are the best they’ve been in human history.
        They don’t seem to care what Martin Luther King had to say. Or Jung. Or Nietczhe.
        Dangerously, they don’t understand the value of society based on individual liberty and they don’t understand the real danger they are invoking.

      • should be:

        How do we track that those members of that party who say that “the most powerful man in the world’ SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE used to comprise the mainstream of that party?

      • And Josh verbosely returns to his favorite talking point recently, i.e., orange man bad. And Obama the immaculate godhead himself with brown skin who is “clean” in the words of his formerly sentient vice president. I think Josh is going for the propaganda approach: if you repeat a falsehood or narrative enough times, people start to accept it.

        I think Jeff has a point. The way blue mayors and governors have rolled over for a bunch of fascist street thugs is reminiscent of Weimar Republic days. Accountable is not in the left wing dictionary. Everything is due to some evil system or legitimate grievance that needs to be kneeled before. We have a pampered generation of 20 somethings whose parents have provided everything on a silver platter.

      • TE:
        There are two western ideologies at war with each other, the liberty of the individual vs. liberalism that formed the basis of capitalism. For over 250 years governments, business and the citizen have struggled to hold both concepts as a core belief. At various times the tension between them has strained and even broke the social contract.

        Reference: Patrick J. Deneen – Why Liberalism Failed
        “As Patrick Deneen argues in this provocative book, liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality; its legitimacy rests on consent, yet it discourages civic commitments in favor of privatism; and in its pursuit of individual autonomy, it has given rise to the most far-reaching, comprehensive state system in human history. Deneen offers an astringent warning that the centripetal forces now at work on our political culture are not superficial flaws but inherent features of a system whose success is generating its own failure.”

      • “liberalism is built on a foundation of contradictions: it trumpets equal rights while fostering incomparable material inequality;”

        I don’t find this a contradiction at all.
        Equal rights under the law did not and does not imply material equality.
        In fact, equal rights necessarily means material inequality:

        “Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

        ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

        That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems.

        I’m reading Murray’s Coming Apart.

        He describes homogamy, a controversial and troubling but demonstrably real phenomenon.

        Homogamy begins with the observation that couples tend to chose partners that are similar to themselves. This is not particularly controversial, but perhaps a big change historically from arranged marriages, to chosen but practical marriages, to chosen but limited choice marriages ( neighbors or church members ), to chosen from a wide pool ( college mixers ).

        A strong factor of choice is intelligence – people choose partners with similar IQ. IQ is strongly and increasingly associated with income in the information age. And the children of high IQ couples have high IQ themselves. Certainly, some of this may be nurture, but also nature?
        People tend to think of humans as being artificial, not natural, but to the extent that this occurs, it is natural selection at work.

        Murray was using white only statistics, specifically to avoid the distraction of race. Presumably, the same process is occurring within other sub-groups: wider distributions of intelligence and income.

        What do we do with this? We value intelligence, but processes which increase variance, while implying more geniuses, also make society less stable. Ideas of government intervention in these very personal decisions immediately become dystopian, but so too does this process continuing.

        So, liberty does have a dark side in this regard.

        Murray’s advice is cultural. The white underclass no longer marries. Children born outside of marriage suffer poor outcomes on just about every measure. There are many factors involved in this, but it may be the single most important aspect of human development. Were, somehow, the choice of underclass parents to defer having children until establishing income and getting married, they at least would provide the epigentic environment and stable development environment for their progeny.

      • TE:
        Thanks for the comment.
        About 2/3 into Deneen’s book he calls to establish state promoted religion to restore the nuclear family. Russia seems to be going in that direction with the integration of the Christian Orthodox religion with various state institutions.
        Check out the church the Russian military built!
        https://youtu.be/zYfdVnGHVEE

      • “Do you know what the rationale is for that policy?”

        Yes, and I disagree with it because it doesn’t have any relationship to the real world and because it makes my job as a parent harder to do. I’m lucky, my kids do well in school but there was one middle school math course for one of them. It was a nightmare. How do you tell a kid that a test is important and needs to be prepared for when the school says it isn’t?

        Now tell me how excited you are to have surgery, house repairs, anniversary dinner out from people who were taught that it doesn’t really matter if they do it right or even if they make their first, half-hearted, attempt when you expect them to. After all, they get unlimited second chances, can complete (or not) the job whenever they wish, and none of this has any impact on the grade (which, in this case, is the amount of money you pay them.)

      • Jeff –

        > Yes, and I disagree with it because it doesn’t have any relationship to the real world…

        I was hoping you could articulate what it is. I question whether you can. I think it could be an interesting discussion but it would be contingent if you actually being able to articulate what a ratio ale might be before you opine about the value of the policy. Otherwise it’s just another example of old man screaming at clouds.

        I’ll dip in just a bit and wait to see if you can pass the test: Schools have a lot to do. Teaching children accountability might be one part, but hopefully parents assume the bulk of the responsibility for that. Over the period of 12 years in school, there are plenty of opportunities to help students develop accountability across many contexts. There are many, many contexts in the real world where you keep persisting at a task until you get it right. You don’t look at the take as black and white, but as a process where you incorporate feedback about what you did and didn’t do successfully and use that information to further your goal of mastery.

        > because it makes my job as a parent harder to do.

        So in top of everything else the school is responsible for making the job of parents, who might all have different views on how they want or raise their child, easier?

        > How do you tell a kid that a test is important and needs to be prepared for when the school says it isn’t?

        It depends on the function of the test. If the function is as a learning tool, then you tell your kid that the failed test is useful as information on what they have yet to master. This is what healthy adults do – they try a task and then use their meta-cognitive executive function to looks at the feedback they got and then decide strategies for improving their performance. Doesn’t really seem cry complicated to me. If your goal is to use a test as a competitive assessment for norm-based comparison, then you might adopt a different approach. There is no inherent reason why a test can’t be used as a criterion-based measuring tool rather than a norm-based comparison tool.

        >Now tell me how excited you are to have surgery, house repairs, anniversary dinner out from people who were taught that it doesn’t really matter if they do it right or even if they make their first, half-hearted, attempt when you expect them to.

        That explanation shows that you have no ideas as to the rationale (hints above as to what it might be). If course you’re entitled to disagree with that rationale, and no doubt the extent to which that rationale is implemented can vary across different situations, but at least you should try to understand it before you blame schools for the difficulties you have in teaching your children the values you want them to learn.

        > After all, they get unlimited second chances, can complete (or not) the job whenever they wish, and none of this has any impact on the grade (which, in this case, is the amount of money you pay them.)

        Again, you approach is limited. Students can be graded on their perseverance, and in how well the work to reach mastery over initial attempts at a task that came up short. That’s actually a very valuable life skill. They can have a variety of tasks for a variety of reasons, which include tasks where expediency in reaching a particular goal is an explicit evaluation criterion, as well as tasks where perseverance in reaching mastery through incorporating feedback is an explicit evaluation criterion.

        Maybe if you don’t know why the teachers are using a particular approach you could ask them. Perhaps they’ll say – “Eh, we just want to show kids they can be lazy and it doesn’t matter.”. But I kind of doubt it.

      • Joshual “…I question whether you can. ”
        Once again, you sliced up my sentences so you could avoid the actual point or have a an actual discussion. I don’t know why I bother with you. One more time for anyone who cares: if the school tells kids accountability doesn’t exist, that there is no need to be prepared for the test – then it becomes more difficult for the parent to explain the truth to the child. The school is wrong- accountability does, in fact, exist – which is, as intelligent people will notice, contrary to the other important lesson parents teach children: pay attention in school.

        TE: inequality’s controllable factors are personal accountability- explaining patiently to your children to get an education or learn a skill (plenty of vocational skills pay very well), stay sober, get married and stay married, delay children until after marriage. List any progressive politician in the US or Europe and you can guarantee that this is what they teach (and insist on) with their own children. Then you look at any major city in the US, and culture warriors have wrecked the school system and taught the opposite of everything they tell their own kids.
        The greatest racial crime in the last 100 years was the conscious decision in US cities to turn their schools into dropout factories at the very moment the world economy was entering the information age. Entire generations of minority children were systematically excluded from an economic shift as big as the industrial revolution because a relatively small number of partisan activists insisted on having a dependent voter base. Meanwhile, white liberals moved to the suburbs or paid for private school to avoid the culture they celebrated in town, and therefore cemented their kids’ primacy in the economy.
        “Equality” is left saying they need to pay off, not with their money of course, the people they ruined before the pitchforks get too close.

      • Don Monfort

        He taught in one of those PS (number whatever) schools in AOC’s low graduation rate Congressional district. English for dummies who have no chance of graduating:How to Slice Up Sentences and Avoid Points

      • Don Monfort

        Los Angeles school teachers demand $250 million to return to classroom. Oh, and defund the police. Abolish charter schools and lot of other Cultural Marxism stuff. They are doing it for the kids:

        https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/l-a-teachers-union-give-us-250-million-or-keep-schools-closed/

      • “He taught in one of those PS (number whatever) schools in AOC’s low graduation rate Congressional district. ”

        Hi Don.
        Those schools were designed to destroy neighborhoods. They were so bad they drove the middle class (of all races) out of the community and walled off the wealthier residents in their private school enclaves. NYC was one of the better districts among US cities- they allowed people to test into academies so some middle class and wealthy families stuck around. The woke are dismantling those academies right now.
        And, of course, having prevented any transfer to the city’s children of knowledge or, God forbid, any skills or interest in making an effort, they discovered the businesses they needed to tax (and which they expected to serve them) were having trouble finding people. Which was an easy solution, import the workers and create “sanctuary cities.”

      • Don –

        I’m curious where you seem to have gotten some bizarre notion that I live in AOC’s district, taught school in NY, etc?

        I mean that’s even more wrong than your prediction thst 6,000 people would die from covid in the US – and it’s quite a feat to be even more wrong than that.

        Where do you get your information? Trump’s Twitter feed?

      • > if the school tells kids accountability doesn’t exist,

        That’s why I asked you what their rationale is. Yiibsisd you know, but you don’t. That isn’t what the schools tell kids. Educate yourself.

        > that there is no need to be prepared for the test – then it becomes more difficult for the parent to explain the truth to the child.

        You tell the child fjsf in some situations you show perseverance and grit until you attain mastery. You don’t look at learning to be judged in a binary fashiom by a teacher – but as something you take ownership yourself and you should hold yourself accountable for your learning.

        > accountability does, in fact, exist

        Of course it does. It’s unfortunate that you seem to be having some trouble teaching your children that and instead expect the schools to bail you out because of your difficulty.

        There is zero reason that your children should be having trouble understanding accountability because the schools expect them to attain mastery of subjects.

      • David Appell

        jeffnsails850 commented:
        >> The greatest racial crime in the last 100 years was the conscious decision in US cities to turn their schools into dropout factories <<

        Where is this decision documented?

      • Don Monfort

        Right, jeff. We know why one took taxpayers’ money to pretend to teach in one of those schools that destroyed neighborhoods and young lives, would be ashamed if he/she had any self-awareness.

      • Don Monfort

        Pretending to be naive, again: “Where is this decision documented?”

        It’s documented in the election results that put left loon Dems in charge of major cities and the subsequent plunge in graduation rates.

    • VTG I think is living under a rock. This group is very powerful throughout our elite institutions. Universities are totally controlled by this group as is the corporate media. The entertainment media caters to them too and echos their politics.

      • > This group is very powerful throughout our elite institutions.

        Good.

        > Universities are totally controlled by this group as is the corporate media.

        It must suck to feel so impotent, dpy. Here’s another Blue Pill.

        > The entertainment media caters to them too and echos their politics.

        God Bless Free Market Capitalism

  45. I’m optimistic. Bari Weiss. The Harper’s Letter, John McWhorter tackles the suddenly popular yet still ridiculous “White Fragility” in the Atlantic*. Andrew Sullivan quits New York magazine.
    Cancel culture really is Cultural Marxism- enforced adherence to a political orthodoxy. The flaw in modern, anti-intellectual liberalism which gives me hope is the human ability to nod in agreement and roll your eyes later with friends. “Defund the police” is something you must obviously not question in public, yet polls find almost no support for it at all.
    Climate Change is a great example. Everyone in Europe agrees that climate change is an existential threat, there is no “debate” about either the seriousness or the solution- every newspaper, television news outlet, political party, university, government has been in lockstep agreement for 20 years and more to immediately give up fossil fuels (and nuclear) in favor of the obvious choice wind and solar.
    None of them have actually done it or are even close, of course, but everyone in academia, government and science agrees it’s cheap, easy, ready. And stands prepared to attack anyone who says the emperor has no clothes. Final approval was just issued for NordStream2 – the multibillion natural gas project funded by the national governments of Germany and France for the purpose of replacing their nuclear energy with fossil fuels. From an autocratic Russian Federation. These are nations whose entire elite class in government, media and academia will tell you the gas project is entirely unnecessary and show you drawings of the man-made island they will build, someday, in the North Sea for windmills just as they’ve been saying for decades.
    A continent that has been nodding obsequiously to every pronouncement from its elite, just did the opposite because – quietly, politely, everyone admits the elite has gone nuts and, thankfully, wasn’t ever really in charge.

    The pushback on cancel culture is coming from the left. Being treated just like anyone else muttering incoherently to themselves on the sidewalk isn’t power and they want power. Bari Weiss wants the nuts out of the NYT because she wants it to be powerful.

    McWhorter’s takedown of “White Fragility” is delightful. Here’s a link.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

    • > I’m optimistic

      I am also. Transgender people supported by SCOTUS. Dreamers, too. Society embracing changes in norms regedinf sexual harassment and ssxual abuse. Police reform taking place throughout the country. Black Live Matter getting much more popular with a broadeningod public focus on racial disparitie. Who would have thought we’d see so much change in a relatively short period?

      Of course, there a lot of turmoil and uncertainty with the economy and with public health. A lot of partisanship and government gridlock. Tough times ahead, for sure (especially if Trump gets reelected).

      But like you, I’m optimistic about the current tend with respect to some social issues. Looks like overall the radical right is losing some of its power of influence. Very encouraging. Glad you are optimistic about that as well!

    • I’m not optimistic. What I see is chaos like the 1850’s with deep ideological division and true insanity on the left. Joshua seems to speak for that ideological insanity that he can’t articulate or really define, but he believes the New York Times, a former newspaper and probably thinks Weiss’ letter is wrong, because he is Josh the all knowing bias detector in every one else.

    • Josh is also a big believer in appearances over reality. People don’t support the ideology of BLM but they support the slogan, much like they support the slogan of Me Too. Then Biden is accused and they say they don’t care. He is confusing chaos for real change. BTW, Josh do you believe Reed and if so why should Biden not be banished?

      • https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/social_issues/30_say_black_lives_matter_more_than_all_lives

        Survey says:

        Sixty percent (60%) of whites and 61% of other minority voters put all lives first. Among blacks, 44% say black lives matter; 47% all lives matter.

        Fifty percent (50%) of all voters support a so-called Blue Lives Matter law in their state like the one in Louisiana that makes attacks on police and first responders a hate crime and increases the penalties for such attacks.

        Forty-six percent (46%) of blacks favor a Blue Lives Matter law in their home state, compared to 51% of both whites and other minority voters.

        Twenty-eight percent (28%) of blacks – and 22% of all Americans – consider most Americans racist.

        Sixty-nine percent (69%) of all voters continue to believe that most politicians raise racial issues just to get elected, not to solve real problems.

      • Defunding the po po and painting BLM murals in the streets of NYC doesn’t seem to be helping reduce the fatal drive by shootings of toddlers in strollers:

        https://abc7ny.com/shootings-nyc-black-lives-matter-police/6317066/

        Local community leaders say they need cops. Should we believe them?

  46. “Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

    – Weiss

    You want her on your side. An idea will fit many situations. Varying time and size scales. Behind climate science is a narrative. They deny it. But to sell is to tell a story. A hurricane is their example. As is a flood. History is framed to support a narrative, by both sides.

    Science does not do history. It does narratives. The failure of the NYT is the failure of science. This is my own narrative.

    • I guess the christian/jewish bible/torah are history books too but science has poked a lot of holes in their narrative.
      I’m fond of the the Epic of Gilgamesh and Homer’s Iliad. At least they had a consistent story arc.

      • What narrative has replaced the biblical ones? I agree objectivity gained against the bible. Weiss argues in my opinion, the narrative has replaced the objective. A newspaper and a science deal with such things.

        Take statue toppling. History the right says. But the fight is over a narrative. The right claims to be objective. I will say, there’s at least a bit of shading from their side going on.

        Narratives aren’t bad by definition. Myths have served us on average, well.

  47. The Guardian piece, “Cancel Culture doesn’t stifle debate…” was eye opening. After misinterpreting an Orwell quote, it seemed to announce that “ a new generation has risen that prioritises accountability over free speech.” Yep.
    Accountable to whom? The Mob
    Accountable for what? Offending, or just failing to support, the Mob orthodoxy; politics, sociology, epidemiology…climate science…
    Accountable how? Lose your job, lose your business, lose your home…lose your voice.
    The author confessed that Orwell is an “English writer that I most admire…” then submits that the quote (“which makes [him] cringe“) “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want hear,” is a “demand for license.” In other words the author believes Orwell is saying you have to ask for permission. In this case, the Mob. Cancel culture does not stifle debate? Pure folly on the part of the author. End with a couple Orwell quotes relevant to the Mob. “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history” and “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

    • The Guardian publishes a lot of drivel. What is different today is that those doing the canceling are advocating an insane ideology that denies science and reason.

  48. What’s upped the level of discourse lately?

  49. What the hell, if weed, alcohol, elation, depression, ignorance, bloody mindedness, compassion or any other emotion motivates me to click on this decision to cancel, support or otherwise show absolutely no interest then here it is.

    Click.

    Mass intervention is too easy today. You don’t even need to get out of bed to start a revolution.

  50. Alan Cannell

    “In response to this trend, a new generation has risen that prioritises accountability over free speech” Billy Bragg.
    We all know where this leads… Accountability to whom? And who are they accountable to? Quod custiodet ipsos custodes? .

    • Curious George

      A friend of mine signed the Charter 77 and lost his job. During one interrogation the policeman told him: We have a freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want, but then you have to bear consequences. To which my friend replied: Then we also have a freedom to murder.

  51. “..academic fired for research results showing, as so many other studies have done, police shootings in the US show few signs of racial bias.”

    There is a growing cancer in our academic community whereby preachings of white hate and anti-semitism are heard on campus and conservative figures are dis-invited, all as an appeasement to groups opposed to free speech. “The evil men do…”

    • Here’s the question: A State University receives Federal and State dollars. Are Republicans snowflakes for complaining about being cancelled from giving speeches there?

    • Well said

    • This is not a short video but well worth watching, Black intellectuals offering insights, don’t always agree with convenor Brett Weinstein but come up with measured responses to tribal politics.

      • I know most of these folks (I sometimes listen to the Glenn Show podcast) and while I disagree with most of them much of the time, I’m sure this pod will at least be more viable than that other video you posted – of those docs in Cali.

        That one was incredibly bad. Did you watch that other one before you linked it, Beth?

      • Just listened to John Wood Jr., at about 32 minutes in. I don’t exactly agree with all of it, but what an integrative and directly on-point analysis.

        Makes wading through the other nonsense worthwhile.

      • Specifically in terms of what I disagree with *the historical analysis is a bit thin. Much more w/r/t manufacturing other than it moving overseas is involved, much more with loss of integration to the agricultural sector than simply immigration is involved, major piece missing w/r/t institutional discrimination as seen in realigning is involved, and the distinction between pre- and post sixties civil rights movement is relevant but overstated (for example, homicide rates in black communities was more prevalent prior to the 69s although not by as wide a margin as now). But still, I applaud.

      • Oops. Redlining, not realigning.

      • I’ll be judge I’ll be jury,
        Says cunning ol’
        Joshua.

  52. The thing about cancel culture is what happens to authoritarian regimes. It chokes off their sources of information by restricting what can be said. We know where that leads.

  53. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/07/the_national_museum_of_african_american_history_promotes_racist_claptrap.html

    Yet another insanity from the woke. This is where cultural Marxism becomes blatantly racist.

  54. Cancel culture is akin to re-education camps

  55. Bill Fabrizio

    Has anyone seen this: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/economists-on-the-run?utm_source=pocket-newtab
    Amazing how he just let this slip in, as though it was just a bump in the road. The industries, the companies … the lives … destroyed. His supercilious mea culpa is only prelude for what’s to come. Can’t wait to hear it.

  56. It’s here in the UK too. The BBC are in full support of it.

  57. Another one bites the dust. Andrew Sullivan is out at New York Magazine. His description of the “orthodoxy” in the media.

    “What has happened, I think, is relatively simple: A critical mass of the staff and management at New York Magazine and Vox Media no longer want to associate with me, and, in a time of ever tightening budgets, I’m a luxury item they don’t want to afford,” Sullivan wrote.

    “And that’s entirely their prerogative. They seem to believe, and this is increasingly the orthodoxy in mainstream media, that any writer not actively committed to critical theory in questions of race, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity is actively, physically harming co-workers merely by existing in the same virtual space. Actually attacking, and even mocking, critical theory’s ideas and methods, as I have done continually in this space, is therefore out of sync with the values of Vox Media.”

    • David Appell

      dpy6629 commented:
      >> Andrew Sullivan is out at New York Magazine. His description of the “orthodoxy” in the media. <<

      You mean a writer was let go by a magazine? I believe that's the first time that's ever happened, if I'm not mistaken. Please, use this opportunity to generalize to the Nth degree to confirm every conspiracy theory you've ever uttered. This is your time.

    • Appell, You should read his letter as you appear intent on whitewashing the deep ideological uniformity of the media. Did you read Weiss’ letter? Or are you just another ignorant narrative believer? So far you have said essentially nothing and contributed nothing here.

  58. Cancel-culture logic demands that “Democrat” go into the dustbin of history

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/cancel-culture-democrat-belongs-in-dustbin-history/

    Bunch of frauds.

    “Paradoxically, Democrats’ obsession over identity politics has brought their party back to where it started, with a vision of American society irredeemably divided by race: In the cities they govern, Democrats’ efforts at expanding educational opportunities and reducing poverty for minority communities have produced disappointing results at best. All too predictably, race-based identity politics have stoked division and resentment while turning on its head Martin Luther King’s call to judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.”

    The mobs will stop short of this because…
    I think the Democrats are running out of allies. And wondering if they are the mob’s next target. Good plan there. Jump while you still have your dignity.

  59. Interesting that with all the *concern* about the putative authoritarian implications of “cancel culture,” no comments here about reports that unidentifiable law enforcement are rounding up protestors in Portland and putting them in unmarked vehicles and detaining them with no clear or transparent criterion for attest or law enforcement protocols.

    No one here *concerned*about the potential civil liberties implications of that activity? No one here *concerned* about the potential for big government, deep state overreach? Really? The firing of a socialist editor at the NYT is more *concerning*? Really?

    • RIP John Lewis.

      Glad he got to stand at Black Lives Matter Plaza before he died.

    • It’s just stop and frisk, a policy that worked very well in NYC for decades and dramatically reduced crime. It’s not a civil rights violation in my book. Those who are victims of crime also have their civil rights violated. Lots of people have been injured or killed in these riots or a direct consequence of police withdrawing from effective law enforcement as a result of the riots and incompetant mayors.

      • Don Monfort

        The left loons are being arrested on federal charges. DOJ and FBI have been watching videos intercepting communications. These are targeted arrests. Hysterical left loons will show up in court soon. Then prison.

    • There’s the order side of the question. We can see it’s breaking down with the increase in crimes.

      And there’s the big boy side of the question. What do stake do these people have in the game? Apparently until now, not much. They can get away with much with not much in the way of consequences.

      How close to you want to go to the tipping point? People are buying more guns. Who would you rather fill the vacuum?

      Trump will step into this and you can hold him responsible. Not your typical major city mayor though who is cowering in fear half the time.

      People are going to leave the big cities. And businesses are. Those that haven’t all ready left.

      • What an interesting reaction from a self-described “libertarian.”

      • “Unrest Destroys Minneapolis’ Landmark Street Of Diversity, Lake Street”
        I drove down it about 2 months before it burned. It was great. Those people have a lot in common with libertarians.
        There is crime. One of the most practical answers is to have the government handle that.
        The Mayor of Minneapolis failed. Our Governor most likely failed. How much failure can we take?
        And the ones we spent the last 40 years pretending we cared about, how much of our failures can they take?

  60. I have a comment: It’s about time somebody did something about those rioting left loon anarchists.

    • So if the reports are true, it doesn’t matter that there is no transparency, they they are wearing generic uniforms, using unmarked vehicles, detaining people without charges or presenting evidence?

      Because some % or protestors have been violent, anything goes?

      And you’re concerned about the civil liberties implications of the “cancel culture?”

      • Oh, lest I forget – thanks for reading, Don.

        How’s the public health outcomes prediction business going?

    • Don Monfort

      Skimming, joshie. If you keep your tedious BS to two short paragraphs, we are more likely to peruse, for our amusement.

      Who said they are detaining people without charges? That’s just hysterical left loon BS. Federal charges. Get out there in the streets with your rioting comrades and you might experience it yourself.

  61. This captures the rationalizations quite well:

    https://twitter.com/stan_okl/status/1283808296315445249?s=20

    • Don Monfort

      Poli sci Phd, LOL! This is just left loon BS propaganda. They are federal law enforcement officers enforcing federal laws and protecting federal facilities from left loon mindless rioters, arsonists, vandals, clowns. The local cops are happy to have their help, as the Portland PD have been neutered by the left loon politicians.

      • Right Don –

        So you think it would be a problem if they detain people without charges? That’s progress.

        They say their uniforms clearly indicate who they are….

        Here, have a look. Help me out. What does their identifying insignia or lettering look like?

        https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-07-13/mayor-us-marshals-probing-protesters-shooting-at-protest

      • What I see from the other side ot the Atlantic is a maraunding crowd camouflaged as “Police” because they don’t drive police cars. It makes me wonder that there is no protest against this violating of civil rights in one of the homelands of the democracy. However, I’m in hope that this nightmare ends in november.

      • What’s up with the camo in downtown Portland?

      • There is no civil right to destroy property and throw bottles of frozen water and other hard dangerous objects at law enforcement people. They are people, frank. And wearing camo, or civilian clothes, or whatever is not a violation of any malicious left loons civil rights. They are enforcing the law. Period.

      • You have not seen this watching your CNN BS over there, frank. It has been going on every night, as the local cops have been neutered by the local left loon pols:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7vlKbR3Gcs

        You really don’t have a clue.

      • Do you think it’s a mystery to the left loon “protesters” who the folks in camo uniforms are, frank? They are protecting the Federal Courthouse and other property from vandals and arsonists.

      • Frank –

        > It makes me wonder that there is no protest against this violating of civil rights in one of the homelands of the democracy.

        There is pushback against it on the left. And thee will be from civil libertarians of all political stripes.

        But read Don’s and Ragnaar’s comments – and wonder no more why there’s no pushback on the right.

      • What civil right is violated, when rioters are arrested by law enforcement officers?

      • Don, I only saw some original videos, not delivered by any broadcasting company. And to be honest: Those pictures hurt me. There is no judge involved, they hunt whoever they want. This is beyond the scope I could imagine how deep the society could fell. And there will be questions all over the world and also in the US if the pick up is still sanely. No excuse for this. There will be comparisons with the 30s and 40s in Germany.

      • You are not very bright, frank. I just showed you a video of “protesters” attacking the federal courthouse and hitting law enforcement officer with a big hammer. Do you think they went out hunting for that pinhead, frank? You are talking nonsense. Riots have been ongoing in Portland for almost two months. Nobody needs to go out and hunt for rioters.

        And what tf do you mean there is no judge involved? You are really ignorant.

      • Look at these poor cops sent out by the left loon pols in Chicago to deal with rioters and they are not allowed to protect themselves with riot gear. That militarized stuff might inflame the rioters Did the rioters take pity on the defenseless cops?

        https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1284293044414676992

      • Flyover Land.

        What you don’t get about Trump is he punches back. A Republican will cower as will 90% of others.

        That is to cede the question because one is afraid. Whomever is doing these things are not afraid.

        It’s time to have order and discussion. These posers are trampling on Floyd’s body to bring up whatever lame ideas they are pushing. They are hurting minorities.

        That the Democrats praise them is their loss and failure. That they defend them is their loss and failure.

        It’s time to stand up to the bullies. What rational person relies on them to make their points?

      • Frank, scores of people have died at the riots and thousands have been injured. Most police officers are afraid of being hurt or wrongly prosecuted for doing their. The result is a giant surge in violent crime.

        For many blue city mayors these lives don’t seem to matter. Don ids right that the media is lying about the scope of violence and harm.

      • Don Monfort

        And brainwashed dim wits by the tens of millions are going to vote for more of this left loon mayhem in November.

      • Don Monfort

        The left loon fools are trying to convince us that federal law enforcement officers are roaming the streets of Portland look for hapless “protesters” to arrest.

        https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref/status/1284399791225671680

      • Don

        I heard about the original protests of course but haven’t seen much recently. Portland seems pretty scarred by all this judging by those video links you posted

        This item in the daily mail is the first mainstream account I have seen recently and it also mentions the federal agents

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8536443/Protester-grabbed-federal-agents-without-identification-forced-unmarked-minivan.html

        Tonyb

      • Yes Tony, the media have a false narrative as Weiss said in her letter. Protests against rrrrracism mostly peaceful and saintly. The mass violence, death, and damage must be whitewashed. Covid19 pandemic is Trump’s fault, therefore scare people with meaningless ‘surges’ in cases in red states, but ignore California. Best rule of thumb, when in doubt assume the media are lying or shading the truth.

      • —————————————————
        But acing DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, who visited Portland on Thursday, defended his officers actions. He claimed that his officers had been assaulted with frozen water bottles ‘from violent criminals.’

        ‘Let’s get this right. “Protestors” imply they were peacefully exercising their 1st amendment rights,’ wrote Wolf.

        ‘Instead, DHS officers were assaulted with lasers and frozen water bottles from violent criminals attempting to tear down federal property. 2 officers were injured. Facts matter.’

        In a 1,700-word statement, Wolf also said troops were sent in to ‘restore order’ from ‘lawless anarchists’ who’ve become ’emboldened the violent mob as it escalates violence day after day.’

        ‘The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days. Each night the violent anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it,’ he said.
        ——————————

        Have a stake in the game. Quit being posers. They need to police their own. They are dupes of the violent minority and complaining now. When Trump punches back, they don’t like it. They taunt, but when Trump does it, it’s unfair. We should destroy stuff and not be accountable. What a bunch of children.

        The ACLU ought to be helping the minority business owners on Lake Street. Bunch of frauds. We can discuss things. We can even litigate them. But we need order, and not feckless leadership from a bunch of cowards.

        Can Trump resolve this? I think so. So many people blinded by their hate.

      • Don Monfort

        Yeah tony, that account sticks to the left loon fake media narrative. Mysterious masked men apprehend random strolling “protester” and won’t tell dim witted yammering left loon bystanders/”protesters” why he is being taken in. But there is no mystery. They are federal law enforcement officers, actually enforcing the law. It seems obvious that they didn’t grab that doofus up randomly. They were pursuing him and he knew why he was in trouble.

        The people of Portland have elected left loon officials that will not enforce laws that protect the rights of the law abiding citizens of the city and public and private property. The smart ones will move out.

      • Yah. Daily mail = “left loon.”

        What keen insight you have, Don.

      • This looting doesn’t fit the usual liberal rationale. It’s looting with panache. Not really the old fashioned criminal activity where you feed the kids.

        https://t.co/O9OL3LfEG0?ssr=true

      • Don Monfort

        I didn’t say Daily mail = “left loon.”, doofus.

        I said “that account sticks to the left loon fake media narrative”,which is exactly what that account does.

        Almost all media is infected with left lunacy, even if a few outlets have not fully succumbed to the disease.

        Shouldn’t you be out with your comrades defacing something?

      • Fairy tails?

        You mean like 6,000 deaths from covid?

        Or anyone who wants a test can get a test?

      • And fairy tales

  62. So, what is “cultural Marxism”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5zkjRlfw70

    When I first heard of these ideas, it was in the context of antifa.

    I thought – people can’t really have read these obscure philosophers and be motivated by any complete understanding of this.

    But Peterson said no movement has complete understanding.
    If every member of a popular movement has only 5% of the ideas,
    not necessarily the same ones, then a movement may still occur.

    One can see right away, that if one of those ideas is “I don’t have to actually have character content to be judged good, then that’s appealing. How completely antithetical to Martin Luther King!

    And even more so if that moral value is based on wrongs done to some ancestor and claimed to be inherited and can never be revoked – that’s a lot easier than sacrificing for others and adhering to moral conduct.

    It’s repeated how contradictory and unscientific all of the ideas are, but the post-modernists have an out – science and reason don’t matter – because there’s no objective truth, and even if there were, the enlightenment was a product of white men, ( not completely, of course, and perhaps inspired by the Golden Age of Islam, before that civilization too was overrun by insane zealots ). Of course, to rational people, it doesn’t matter to whom good ideas first occur, if the ideas have merit and stand up to scrutiny, they persist.

    I really hope this is not as significant as it seems, but a lot of very smart people are worried, many of them academics who saw this nonsense in the universities from whence over-emotional, ill-educated students have spilled out into society.

    • This explains why Jordan Peterson is so hated by the mob. They know he is dangerous because he makes persuasive points with evidence.

    • jungletrunks

      TE: “When I first heard of these ideas, it was in the context of antifa.
      I thought – people can’t really have read these obscure philosophers and be motivated by any complete understanding of this. … no movement has complete understanding.”

      The hard left lurch demonstrated by various groups actually comes with the intent of providing “no complete understanding”. Fueling emotion is the primary goal, through the use of disinformation and propaganda. Yet there is “complete understanding” held by those few who understand the tactical devices they wield. There are certainly individuals with great financial means behind the political fomenting of society today. The smaller specific issue groups that materialize seemingly out of nowhere are not spontaneous phenomena, they’re creations used to seed culture with narratives. The powerful use the media, and education as a societal propagandistic buttress to amplify strife in preparation for a future harvest; when critical mass of their collectivist mission aligns with opportunity.

      Antifa is a great example of “no complete understanding”. The late Huey Long, a left of FDR U.S. Senator from LA, once stated that fascism is coming to the United States, he stated: “Of course we’ll have it. We’ll have it under the guise of anti-fascism.” Antifa was created under this auspice. Antifa is quite an irony, intentionally built, but with no complete understanding by its rank and file followers, fascists who don’t know they are; I have no doubt the originator of the movement knew exactly what they were doing.

      Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” is about all that’s needed to orchestrate creative forces of societal destruction while protecting the nature of the desired political outcome. Fomenting discontent is a beginning stage; any tactical device that facilitates societal division is welcome as long as it undermines individualism and promotes power to the state; collectivism is their goal, complete understanding isn’t their goal, rational thinking isn’t the Lefts goal. This is the same internal struggle that Adolph Hitler negotiated in developing strategies for his rise to power; Alinsky source material I might add. Hitler blazed trails in community organization using “big lie” philosophy. Harnessing the predisposition innate in humans to trust power that promises to satisfy myriad personal wants, more than can possibly be delivered; is a powerful tool. It’s known that people will generally turn over their freedoms to this end; and ignore rational thinking during assimilation.

      It’s well understood that Hitler hated communism, this is where the Left found their path to rewrite history. Hitler’s hate of communism served as the tangent for the Left to recast fascist history, it allowed them to disassociate and distance themselves from their prior allure towards fascism. All they needed to do post WWII is not write about their past, and not teach it; but to instead redirect the meaning of fascism. Nowhere other than scholarship will one learn that Hitler was actually a well read, avid fan of Marx. What Hitler hated about communism was what the Soviets had done to its population when creating its communist state; he intended to avoid civil war and strife, and to take National Socialism to new heights. The late Cambridge scholar, George Watson, historian, linguist, translator, did a great deal of research on Hitler; in particular from new materials that were made available late in the 20th century. These materials revealed some of the inner nature of Hilter’s political vision. You can read one of Watson’s essays here: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

      Western societies are currently at the meat tenderizing stage, the elimination of tendons and all gristle; removing all vestiges that grew out of Whiggism during the enlightenment era. Those ideas that championed individual liberty, freedom, capitalism; ideals that grew out of classical liberalism (which is essentially conservatism in the U.S., but interestingly, not Germany). All the ideals culminating in the founding of the U.S. and democracy around the world. The tendons of history must be pounded out first, to the point where the meat is palatable enough to be braised in corrective juices, to taste, using all the correct spices in preparation to be cooked to perfection by a master chef. The goal of the globalist movement is the elimination of myriad levels of separation of powers, including nation states (in particular the U.S.), thus (naively unbeknownst by rank and file Leftists) allowing for a clear path by a talented political orator to gain, and manage the reigns of power; much like Hitler did. Humanity would end at this point, with no path for a dictator to be driven out; every nook and cranny around the globe becomes layered with sycophants who serve to insulate leaderships power. I’ve never seen anyone on the Left articulate a reasonable argument how their want of global government can be protected by, not only a tyrant, but from the network of sycophants that would arise to drain the lifeblood out of humanity. The Lefts biggest nightmare would be them getting what they want. There’s two dishes to choose from, collectivism, or individualism.

  63. “Guilty either way: In critical theory, the concept of racism operates in much the same way that original sin operates in biblical Christianity—people are guilty by virtue of birth. The only correct response is the acceptance of sin, repentance, and conversion. Other responses, such as disagreement, critiquing, or rejecting culpability, are taken as proof of guilt. If someone protests that they don’t need Jesus, that is proof that they do. Regardless of setting, double-binds of this sort often elicit confessional tears or defense and withdrawal rather than self-examination and reflection.”

    https://quillette.com/2020/03/05/a-closer-look-at-white-fragility-theory/

    Sin: We have sinned against the climate, the birds and the plants.
    Repentance: You have not repented. But this is the way to salvation.
    Conversion: We are to witness the climate crisis. To get in your face. It is our mission.

    We are guilty by birth. We were fortunate to be born here, into an energy consuming nation. The less fortunate seem not to care as much as you do, but you will send missionaries to them and raise money to protect them from sin, such having coal power plants, ending up like us, debating climate change and wasting time on Facebook.

  64. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/on-white-fragility

    Another take from someone who is left of center. It’s pretty brutal.

  65. “Guilty…”

    Interesting… Feeling guilty for what?

    There is not any measurable greenhouse warming effect from carbon dioxide (CO2) traces gas in Earth’s atmosphere.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) content in Earth’s air is very small.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  66. More from Andrew Sullivan on “intersectionality” and its link to Marxism. I’ve now posted 6 references VTG many from left of center. You have zero but you always have zero.

    “Intersectionality” is the latest academic craze sweeping the American academy. On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power. At least, that’s my best attempt to define it briefly. But watching that video helps show how an otherwise challenging social theory can often operate in practice.

    It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a “smelly little orthodoxy,” and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion. It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. Its version of original sin is the power of some identity groups over others. To overcome this sin, you need first to confess, i.e., “check your privilege,” and subsequently live your life and order your thoughts in a way that keeps this sin at bay. The sin goes so deep into your psyche, especially if you are white or male or straight, that a profound conversion is required.

    • The oppression olympics. Eric W had some advice. His people decided not to play that game. One of the most oppressed and blamed people of history.

      Cultural Marxism is the oppressors and the oppressed. White males cannot be forgiven. They have been damned for all time.

      Self loathing is the tip off. Don’t do it.

    • Yes Ragnar, the self-loathing is the most inexplicable part to me. I think what is going on here is religious in nature. The dogma demands that you acknowledge your sins of oppression and grovel and kneel before the Cultural Marxism golden calf. At that point you are absolved and can make zero changes in your life.

      • Don Monfort

        But there is no absolution. After the confession, comes the retribution. The inmates running the asylum.

  67. As everyone debates about BLM and white supremacy and the need to eradicate the vestiges of the past, perhaps they should read these words:

    “It would be unfair to judge a 19th Century man by 21st Century principles.

    Assessing the people of Africa’s past by today’s standards would compel us to cast the majority of our heroes as villains, denying us the right to fully celebrate anyone who was not influenced by Western ideology.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53444752

    If that applies to Africa, it applies everywhere.

    • There were plenty of abolitionists back in the day.

      • J

        Just curious if you have read anything by or about Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell or Shelby Steele. If so, what do you think of their work. At one time I would say they were fellow travelers of yours, more or less. They subsequently saw the light.
        I’ve listened to them off and on for the last 40 years. What a joy. Their interviews and appearances were every bit as enjoyable as watching David McCollough, Shelby Foote and William F Buckley, for different reasons.

        I could get into some binge watching those six.

      • I’ve read some of what Sowell has to say. He’s clearly a formidable intellect, but I’m not familiar wnufhbwirhbhik that him that I could characterize his ideological frame. Same with Shelby Steele. Obviously, most of what I read from them I disagree with, but (like Glenn Loury or John McWhorter – whom I suspect grew up in the same neighborhood as I) it’s not like I think their arguments are incoherent or always illogical. Sometimes differences in opinions arise simply from different assumptions (especially starting assumptions), not because the arguments have different levels of logical conherence.

        It’s not unlike Buckley in that sense (I remember as a kid, my dad would watch Firing Line although he strongly disagrees with him). I’ve often wondered what would Buckley think of today’s rightwing – given his views on the John Birch Society.

      • I brought up the group because I saw a tweet recently by Sowell that, paraphrasing somewhat, he spent the first half of his life refusing to let whites define him and the second half of his life refusing to let blacks define him. I’ve seen a lot of evidence that blacks are now taking what would have been called a silent majority view in the 1960s in regards the protests/looting/criminal activity. A surprisingly high number are turning their back on Democrats because, as they say, they want to get off the liberal plantation, and view Democratic policies as counterproductive to desired economic gains for blacks. The 3 mentioned above have held this view for decades, but it seems to be a much more prevalent view than what I would have expected.

        An interesting statistic I read a few months ago was that in 2019 Black females ages 55-64 had an unemployment rate of 2.7%, below that of some ages of white men. For much of the last 70 years that would have been considered below “full employment”. I would say at least for that age group it would be an argument against systemic racism, at least in the employment arena. It also seems to beg the question that if black females ages 55-64 live in the same communities as black male youths, why would unemployment rates be in the 20% range for the latter while only 2.7% for the former.

        Just like so many issues, it’s a lot more complicated than can be captured by a two word slogan.

      • Brandon, Your evidence free rant is noted.

        1. There is no evidence of biased police enforcement when the stark racial differences in criminality are taken into account.
        2. Affirmative action has been in place for 40 years to help blacks advance. The problem is they often drop out of college.
        3. Culture matters most here. Ben Carson is right on this and he is hated by the hustlers for telling the truth.
        4. You are repeating a narrative that is mostly false. Perhaps you are in denial about the often dishonest media coverage of the issue. The 1619 project is based on a lie.

      • > 1. There is no evidence of biased police enforcement when the stark racial differences in criminality are taken into account.

        I must be stupid because for the life of me I can’t figure out how that would have any bearing on the vast majority of law-abiding African Americans who understandably, justifiably, and rightfully call for the removal the symbols of their past and present oppression.

        Why are you so keen to celebrate slave-owners when there are so many other better candidates from the same era?

        Thin white skin is so very transparent, dpy. Hopefully more Trump supporters than not come to their senses in November, but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Joshua as usual is lying. Slavery was a universal human institution until the West banned it. The British crown first declared slave trading to be piracy and with terrible colonialist power virtually eliminated it. However slavery has persisted in the Arab world up until the 20th Century. But I forgot, Arabs are oppressed and non-white, right. Or maybe they are white because all that oil wealth and their oppression of women makes them oppressors. Josh will have to explain to me the irrational world of cultural Marxism.

      Bruce is also right. All competant historians recognize that people should be judged against the standards of their time.

      • Don Monfort

        We do have to give the little fella credit for being reliable.

      • Not to mention some 10 million slaves.

      • How many on your short list of abolitionists were in Africa, Asia, Moslem countries, any countries outside Britain and the U.S.? Do you think that list proves that “There were plenty of abolitionists back in the day.” It doesn’t. More like it shows there were damn few.

      • My point was that judging slave-owners in the US, you should consider that there were plenty o’ abolitionists in the US. Further, unless you consider US slaves-sub human and not worthy consideration, obviously there were millions of people in the US who were opposed to the US slave-based economy. Funny how some people might want to leave their opinions out of the picture.

        Even John Adams, while not an abolitionist per se, was against slavery. Judge Americans of thst time in thst context. Many people recognized the broken morality of slavery.

        Or stick your head in the sand because you’re a snowflake and you’re afraid of the implications of judging slavery.

        At any rate, thanks for reading, Don. As always, I can’t tell you how much it means to me. I’m wondering when you’ll next promise to not read any more of my comments? I’d like to mark it in my calendar.

      • KGB defector interview in 1984:

        “Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism.”

      • Quakers originated the anti-slavery movement in the North American colonies.[37]

        Rodger Williams and Chief Justice Samuel Sewall, who wrote The Selling of Joseph (1700) were the first colonists to oppose slavery.[38]

        In 1827, there were approximately 130 anti-slavery societies in the United States: 106 were in the slave South.[39]

        In 1835, there were 225 abolitionist and anti-slavery societies in the United States.[40]

        In 1837, there were 1,006 abolitionist groups in the United States.[41]

        In 1838, there were an estimated 1,406 abolitionist and anti-slavery organizations in the United States, with approximately 115,000 members.[42]

        By the beginning of the Civil War, it is estimated that there were 255,000 individuals, both Black and White, involved in the anti-slavery and abolitionist movement in the United States.

        America was the second to the last country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery. Brazil was the last country, ending slavery in 1888.

      • refers to video link posted by Barnes Moore
        https://youtu.be/A0TcyXhvJXE

      • Your point is vague and silly as usual. I don’t judge slave owners or abolitionists from back in the day. I have no ownership of their guilt, or their virtue. They are irrelevant to present day events and they have met their judgement long ago. You are still amusing. Floundering around forcing yourself to post drivel for attention. Once again, your effort has have achieved a dubious success.

      • Don –

        > Your point is vague and silly as usual. I don’t judge slave owners or abolitionists from back in the day. I have no ownership of their guilt, or their virtue. They are irrelevant to present day events and they have met their judgement long ago.

        I’ll clarify. If you want to judge the slave-owning of American heroes, and want to judge them in the context of their time, remember that there were plenty o’ abolitionists.

        BTW –

        –snip–
        TRUMP: Kayleigh’s right here. I heard we have one of the lowest, maybe the lowest mortality rate anywhere in the world.

        TRUMP: Do you have the numbers, please? Because I heard we had the best mortality rate.

        TRUMP: Number, number one low mortality rate.
        –snip–

      • The US Army says: We will rename Fort Bragg and other military bases named for Confederate heroes.”

        The US Navy and US Marines say:” We will prohibit the display of the Confederate flag, even as bumper stickers on private cars on base.”

        Don says: “I’m a snowflake and I’m scared of the implications of judging slave-supporters in the context of the time of slavery. Waaah. I’m going to stop reading your comments now.”

      • Joshua

        I note your comment about the US and slavery. You cite the western hemisphere for some reason.

        Here is a list of abolition dates
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom

        Mauritania abolished it as recently as 1995 . Unfortunately it is said there are some 120 million people per year still being trafficked, of which some forty million are Africans, mostly being trafficked by their own countrymen.

        Did you ever read ‘white gold’ which gives an interesting summary of the white slave trade practised by African and Arabic traders and which flourished from tye 1500’s until the mid 1850’s when the British bombarded Algiers..?

        mind you they were amateurs compared to the Egyptians, Romans and the Vikings, the latter of whom had the largest slave market in Europe situated in Dublin. Mind you, collectively the Arabic traders outshone them all having beng involved in the trade for some 5000 years.

        I would like to see far more attention paid to modern day slavery and trafficking rather than pointlessly harp on about who did what hundreds of years ago. I joined an anti slavery organisation some years ago but unfortunately they are making little headway at present due to this fixation about historic actions rather than modern day ones,

        Tonyb

      • YesTony, but to focus on modern human trafficing doesn’t suit the narrative that America was uniquely evil and that black Americans still suffer systemic racism. Both of these are at best half truths like virtually every thing in the media today. Josh gets his daily narrative bias straight from the pages old the New York Times, a former newspaper. You will note that there is no acknowledgement here of the devastating letters from Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan showing that much of the media is narrative based and not fact based.

      • Hi Tony –

        Yes, modern-day slavery is a huge problem.

        No, I haven’t read “white gold” but I would have no problem evaluating white slavery in the context of the time, just as I would have no trouble evaluating Atilla the Hun in the context of the time or Hitler in the context of the time.

        We assess historical events all the time through a variety of lenses. To some extent we use current context as a frame of reference, and in some respects we use the contemporary context as a frame of reference as well.

        Jesus supposedly said “Forgive them father, for they know not what they’re doing. ” I can certainly respect that attitude. But he didn’t say, “Ignore what they’re doing, father, for they know not what they’re doing.”. And I think it’s complicated to just say that someone who whipped slaves, or raped them, or removed slave children from their slave parents, or sold slaves, or generally treated them as sub-human, knew not what they were doing. I suppose many of them knew what they were going but didn’t care.

        Should we just excuse Jim Crow by saying that whites knew not what they were doing as well? When white cops beat John Lewis and many others when they were peacefully protesting, should we just offer the excuse that the white cops knew not what they were doing? When anarchists set fires and destroy property, should we just excuse their behavior by saying they know not what they are doing?

        But some snowflakes are afraid of doing both – selectively, usually, if course – if it creates a cognitive dissonance with respect to their preferred collection of beliefs.

        At any rate, there is no zero sum relationship between looking at American slavery in context, referencing it through modern context, and addressing modern day slavery, of course.

      • Apparently some people think we should just excuse Trump’s dissembling about covid by saying that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

        Yah, thst doesn’t work for me either. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing.

        His comments about the mortality rate, or about the availability of testing, are perhaps just an indication thst he’s ignorant. It’s interesting that when he was called on his inaccurate statements that we have the lowest fatality rate, he responded by saying that’s what “I heard.” And then he actually called for a chart to prove that he was correct. Well, maybe he really did believe that. It’s possible. I tend to think that he deliberately lies, often. But I wouldn’t excuse his ignorance even if he really does believe that we have the lowest mortality rate because he’s obliged to know better. So there are clearly circumstances where saying that someone doesn’t know what he’s doing doesn’t excuse their behavior.

      • It’s really interesting how some people seem compelled to cancel history:

        –snip–

        . In 1776, Quakers were prohibited from owning slaves, and 14 years later they petitioned the U.S. Congress for the abolition of slavery.

        As a primary Quaker belief is that all human beings are equal and worthy of respect, the fight for human rights has also extended to many other areas of society.

        –snip–

        https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/quaker-activism/#:~:text=In%201776%2C%20Quakers%20were%20prohibited,many%20other%20areas%20of%20society.

      • Brandon Gates

        tonyb,

        > I would like to see far more attention paid to modern day slavery and trafficking rather than pointlessly harp on about who did what hundreds of years ago.

        I would say that it’s fortunate that you don’t get to decide what folks consider pointful … except that you do where it really counts: at the voting booth.

        You have far more power here at home to help your fellow citizens than you do in Mauritania. You need not even spend a dime to condemn *modern* racism within your own demographic, nor to desist from undermining the worthy efforts of *modern* civil rights activists to ameliorate the still-persistent *generational* effects of slavery in the United States with overt tu quoque arguments alleging bigotry within the ranks of underprivileged domestic minority groups, or covert tu quoque arguments about past and present non-white foreign majorities enslaving both white and non-white minorities.

        In short, why not primarily focus at least your time on where it will have the most visible net effect; right here at home.

      • > I would like to see far more attention paid to modern day slavery and trafficking rather than pointlessly harp on about who did what hundreds of years ago.

        I would say that it’s fortunate that you don’t get to decide what folks consider pointful, except that you do where it really counts: at the voting booth.

        You have far more power here at home to help your fellow citizens than you do in Mauritania. You need not even spend a dime to condemn *modern* racism within your own demographic, nor to desist from undermining the worthy efforts of *modern* civil rights activists to ameliorate the still-persistent *generational* effects of slavery in the United States with overt tu quoque arguments alleging bigotry within the ranks of underprivileged domestic minority groups, or covert tu quoque arguments about past and present non-white foreign majorities enslaving both white and non-white minorities.

        In short, why not primarily focus at least your time on where it will have the most visible net effect; right here at home.

      • “Should we just excuse Jim Crow by saying that whites knew not what they were doing as well?”

        Yes. When you hate someone, they have won.

        One should let things go. And live a happier life.

      • Ragnaar –

        > Yes. When you hate someone, they have won.

        >> One should let things go. And live a happier life.

        My judgment about the moral failings of people who discriminated so starkly against blacks has no direct bearing on my level of happiness.

        Besides, I try to focus more on awareness and acceptance than on happiness – for sure than a happiness constructed upon a frameless view of behavior.

      • Brandon

        I am British. We abolished the slave trade in 1807 and many thousands of our naval men werre killed and many millions of pounds spent in order to ensure The slave trade was not carried out anywhere we sailed.

        There is nothing I can do about the past but there is something that can be done about the far greater numbers now being enslaved and trafficked. Why tear down a two hundred year old statue and shout slogans when tens of millions of your fellow human beings need help now to escape their non European slave masters.

        Tonyb

      • Don Monfort

        Oh no, the pompous putz from AOC’s stinky Congressional district says I am scared. Now we know what it looks like when a left loon pompous putz jumps the shark.

      • Tony –

        > Why tear down a two hundred year old statue and shout slogans when tens of millions of your fellow human beings need help now to escape their non European slave masters.

        You present a false dilemma. The one has no direct bearing on the other.

        As for “Why tear down a 200 year old statue…”

        I would imagine some people want to because said statues (1) likely weren’t close to 200 years old, (2) were elected by the ancestors of some of their neighbors but without the input of their ancestors or the ancestors of others of their neighbors, and in fact when their ancestors didn’t even have civil rights, but yet they have to live with those statues on their communities, and (3) many of those statues were actually constructed for the specific purpose of memorializing people who tortured and enslaved their neighbors by virtue of their race.

      • Don Monfort

        We assume that left loon putzes like joshua have convinced themselves that if they were born back in the day, they would not have been slave owners. They would have known better.

        https://nypost.com/2020/07/18/the-family-that-owns-the-new-york-times-were-slaveholders-goodwin/

      • Cancel the cancel culture and cancel the instigators of the cancel culture in one fell swoop by canceling the NEW YORK TIMES. I guess everybody’s got a few skeletons.

      • Don Monfort

        Why didn’t the Obama-sleepy joe regime tear down all those offensive statues and rename sports teams, forts, pancake mixes, deodorants etc., when they had the absolute power of the Presidency, House and Senate?

      • Tonyb:

        > I am British.

        Yes I recall now, apologies. However, I believe my comments are still salient in domestic context: at first blush marginalized African Americans would seem less effective warriors against the contemporary slave-trade than empowered Caucasian Europeans.

        Besides, we can walk and still chew gum.

        > We abolished the slave trade in 1807

        1863 for us, which should set alight the not-so-evil-for-their times arguments in defense of our slave-owning predecessors. As well, something I think deserves even more emphasis is the generations of Dred Scott decisions and Jim Crow laws which persisted until two years past 1963.

        I have much to say about the century of Pax Britannica which followed, but I’ll limit it for now to pointing out that contemporary Africa is so effed-up in large part to the legacy of Imperial divide-and-conquer mercantilism.

        > There is nothing I can do about the past

        You can unequivocally condemn it for starters. Words matter, and in the age of social media they cost even less than physically toppling a symbol of oppression in effigy.

        > Why tear down a two hundred year old statue

        Because actions are more costly than words, and usually have an effect directly commensurate with that greater expenditure. I can see why that might upset those folks who are all-too-comfortable with the status quo.

      • Brandon

        There are over fifty countries in the commonwealth, nineteen of them in Africa. It is an entirely voluntary organisation. It has its own international games, various scholarship opportunities , regular exchange of students, numerous trading relationships.

        If we had so comprehensively trashed Africa it seems astonishing that so many of our former colonies willingly engage with us on a daily basis.

        The commonwealth is considered so worthwhile that two of portugals former colonies joined.

        Of course I Condemn slavery but we can do far more to eradicate the horrors of modern slavery than we do, and instead of concentrating our efforts on historic actions surely far better to engage with the here and now?

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb,

        > There are over fifty countries in the commonwealth, nineteen of them in Africa.

        I’m sure the next unarmed African American to get shot by trigger-happy cops will appreciate these factoids for their relevance to the formerly-British Caucasian Americans who enslaved their ancestors, lost a war for the right to enslave their ancestors, and who to this day play every dirty trick in the book to keep brown folks in their place: poor, disenfranchised and desperately crime-ridden.

        I can think of few clearer examples of a self-serving self-fulfilling prophesy.

        > If we had so comprehensively trashed Africa it seems astonishing that so many of our former colonies willingly engage with us on a daily basis.

        It may help your understanding to recall that the departing Imperials asked their African collaborators whether they wanted their assistance restore the borders to traditional tribal boundaries, and that the newly empowered warlords elected to keep the British maps. After all divide and conquer is effective no matter who is doing the conquering … and even more so when someone else already did the dividing.

        From here it should be easy to figure out why modern-day African despots remain keen to stay in the fold as it were. Heck, even the Pythons used to get it:

      • “My judgment about the moral failings of people who discriminated so starkly against blacks has no direct bearing on my level of happiness.”

        Fixating on it without accomplishing anything positive falls under some psychological list of problems. I am not saying you’re doing that. Some are.

        We have a nuanced past. Canceling long dead people is counter productive. White racists from 60 years ago should die in peace unless we can still convict them of something egregious.

        We can agree we have a binary split. To accomplish what? An uptick in gun sales. Things are getting better all the time.

      • Ragnaar —

        > Fixating on it without accomplishing anything positive falls under some psychological list of problems. I am not saying you’re doing that.

        Good because I’m not. I suggest you make sure you have good quality data before determining that any particular other person is as well.

        > We have a nuanced past. Canceling long dead people is counter productive.

        It depends on what you mean by “canceling.”. Taking down statues will have no long term negative impact thst I can tell. And it will likely have the benefit of making people whose ancestors weren’t consulted in their construction, and who are insulted by the statues’ existence, gain a sense of agency.

        > White racists from 60 years ago should die in peace unless we can still convict them of something egregious.

        ?? They’re already dead.

        > We can agree we have a binary split. To accomplish what? An uptick in gun sales. Things are getting better all the time.

        I’d say that removal of the statues is in a direct line of what is getting better. People denied agency are gaining agency, more people have more influence over society. Some people may temporarily see that as zero sum. I think they’ll get over it, just as most people who wanted the right to use the n-word with impunity, for example, have moved on. Some dead-endsrs may hang on. But in the end society advances.

    • Bruce

      Good quote

      Let us not forget a line from the go between by lp Hartley

      ‘The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.’

      Life was often short, unhealthy, brutal and very hard. Many people lived as slaves, serfs or indentured people. We can not judge our ancestors by today’s standards, morals and different ways of doing things, largely brought about by the vast improvement in health, wealth and longevity by the widespread use of fossil fuel, which was ramping up at the time of the American civil war.

      It would take one machine to do the work of dozens of slaves, so I do wonder how much the industrial revolution changed that aspect of human life?

      Tonyb

      • Tony –

        > We can not judge our ancestors by today’s standards, morals and different ways of doing things, largely brought about by the vast improvement in health, wealth and longevity by the widespread use of fossil fuel, which was ramping up at the time of the American civil war.

        Should we not judge Stalin, or Mao by today’s standards?

        Is there some amount of years that fiems a dividing line in who we should judge and who we shouldn’t judge?

        If so, how many years must pass to draw thst line of distinction?

        Is there some dividing line between who should be judged and who shouldn’t be judged by the number of people who had similar beliefs as those were thinking of judging?

        Keep in mind what while Stalin and Mao had power, there were obviously millions during their time who opposed their policies and disagreed with their beliefs.

        Should we discount anyone’s actions now, becsuee we know that someone in the future will say that our actions shouldn’t be judged by those future standards?

        Personally, I don’t think there is some binary frame of reference – either the standards of their time (which is only vaguely ascertainable anyway – afterall, history is written by the winners) – *or* the standards of today. I think that all the time, we judges things through a mixture of those standards – even if sometimes people who don’t like the implications of doing so create for themselves a self-sealing binary construct and say that we can’t use today’s standards to avoid inconvenient implications.

      • Stalin, Moa, and Hitler were evil by the standards of the 20th Century. Only a confused person would say otherwise. You have to go back to the Middle Ages to find comparable mass murder.

        I have no idea what point Josh is making.

      • dpy:

        > Stalin, Moa, and Hitler were evil by the standards of the 20th Century.

        This is the 21st Century.

        > I have no idea what point Josh is making.

        That Lincoln was less evil than Jefferson, even in the 19th Century. Double-entendre intended.

      • Joshua

        Those people were uniquely evil by the standards of any age, so not sure I understand your point.

        Were the slave owners or those who interacted with slaves uniquely evil according to the general standards of the time? No, their society was often very violent and how you were treated turned on the good humour or otherwise of your king or lord or master.

        Have you ever read any of the shardlake novels by English novelist c j Sampson? They are set in the 1500’s around the time of the reformation. They are in effect detective stories so if you like that genre and enjoy history I think you would like them.

        They are packed full of the daily doings of those living violent, short , unhealthy and impoversided lives of the society of that time and slaves were treated little differently to serfs, or those who were indentured or those who did not have patronage.

        Would you have done whatever your peers were doing? Of course you would, as that was how you survived. I don’t believe for a moment you would have bleated that it was all wrong and people must behave better because you would have had an eye put out, or deliberately crippled or sent to work in the depths of Newgate prison.

        Life was horrible for the most part.

        We are fortunate to be living at the pinnacle of human civilisation and have a quality of life even kings could not have aspired to. So don’t believe you would have been all upright and moral, because as a peasant you were the lowest of the low and the vast majority of people at that time were peasants at the beck and call of those who effectively ‘owned’ them

        Tonyb

      • Tony –

        > Would you have done whatever your peers were doing? Of course you would, as that was how you survived.

        First, the answer would obviously depend on my peer group. If it were Quakers during slavery times, then I would likely have considered slavery an abomination. By coincidence, I grew up in Philly were there were a lot of Quakers, I once lived on an old Quaker estate, and I had friends who were Quakers and I have attended Quaker meetings and Quaker weddings. So perhaps my peer group back in the day would have supported me if I felt that slavery was a moral abomination – just as did those Quakers who were in my peer group did when I was growing up.

        > I don’t believe for a moment you would have bleated that it was all wrong and people must behave better

        Yah, well, I don’t consider Quaker opposition to slavery as in the 18rh century as “bleating,” but to each his own. But regardless, people can recognize such moral dilemmas, and still might act in ways that they recognize as immoral, but still recognize their immorality nonetheless. It happens all the time. I’ll bet you’ve even done it Tony.

        Just because some Americans profited from slavery doesn’t mean that those same Americans didn’t recognize that slavery was an affront to their moral standards. People are complicated and do stuff like that.

        The Constitution says that all men were created equal. It means that they directly recognized the moral complications of the life that they lived. Slavery was debated in the deliberations that founded our nation. Clearly, there was recognition of the moral implications.

        –snip–
        Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery.
        –snip–

        https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

        Your determination of what the standards of the day were seems highly selective. As just one example of your selectivity, apparently you think that the views of millions of slaves doesn’t even register for evaluating what the standards of the day were. That seems odd to me.

        > We are fortunate to be living at the pinnacle of human civilisation and have a quality of life even kings could not have aspired to.

        That seems irrelevant to me. There were plenty o’ people who asserted the immorality of slavery back in the day and even more who recognized that morality even if they didn’t act in accordance with their moral convictions. The standard of living has no direct bearing on that. The founding fathers aren’t perfect and weren’t perfectly moral. It’s silly to act as if they were, as if unlike everyone else, they didn’t have human foibles or weren’t hypocritical or selective at times. I see no problem with judging them as being fallable humans. We don’t need to cover them with some cloak of immunity, as if they should be excused from the same complicated behaviors as everyone else.

        > So don’t believe you would have been all upright and moral, because as a peasant you were the lowest of the low and the vast majority of people at that time were peasants at the beck and call of those who effectively ‘owned’ them

        Perhaps you haven’t read anything I wrote?

        At any rate Tony, as near as I can tell you didn’t answer any of my questions directed at getting you to specify the standards by which you make these judgments. Until you do, I don’t see much point in going further with the discussion. Reading you just repeat your arguments, without interrogating them together with me in a collaborative process, seems rather pointless. I will simply say again that I think these are complicated questions – which was my point in linking that article presenting the views of historians. I don’t think it is black and white as you suggest. But you’re entitled.

      • Joshua

        ‘Quakers during slavery times’

        Slavery has been around since the earliest cities of Mesopotamia. You have selected one small group in one very defined period, whilst ignoring the broad sweep of thousands of years of history

        The vast majority of people did not have the luxury of picking and choosing the age they lived in, nor the peer group they were part of. That was just the hand you were dealt by fate

        I am asking that if you were a peasant in rough tough 16th century England -typical of much of the world at the time- living hand to mouth , with likely children died through some illness or other, renting some hovel off an avaricious landlord, constantly hunting for food and clean water and looking for casual jobs, would you have had the time or inclination to protest about the treatment of someone who, to your eyes, probably seemed little worse off than you were?

        Tonyb

      • Joshua

        Just for your info, that BBC link didn’t load so I am unaware of its contents. I am writing on an ancient iPad and it doesn’t handle large graphic sites. I will look at it tomorrow

        Tonyb

      • Don Monfort

        How are we going to punish our ancestors for all the bad things they did?

      • Tony –

        > I am asking…

        I’ll simply note that you ask me questions after having written multiple comments to me without answering a single one of my questions.

        > Slavery has been around since the earliest cities of Mesopotamia. You have selected one small group in one very defined period, whilst ignoring the broad sweep of thousands of years of history.

        I’m speaking to the context in which I’m interested – specifically with reference to the US and the current issue regarding the existence of statues honoring slave-owners, people who fought for the confideracy, etc., in communities where slaves’ ancestors live.

        > The vast majority of people did not have the luxury of picking and choosing the age they lived in, nor the peer group they were part of. That was just the hand you were dealt by fate.

        None of this is relevant to the issue I’m most interested in. But I will note that you ignore part of what I wrote to you thst is relevant to that description – that the existence of such conditions does not dictate what the moral frameworks were for evaluating those conditions at the time, or what moral frameworks it is reasonable for us to use today. As a modern example, the fact that castes exist in India doesn’t mean that many Indians don’t have a variety of views about the morality of a caste system – including the millions of people who are in the lower castes – or that we shouldn’t stake out a right to judge the existence of castes. It’s interesting that your stance isn’t entirely unlike the (mostly false) characterization of “the left” saying that extremist Muslim sects shouldn’t be judged for the morality of how they treat women because that is the moral norm in thise societies.

        > I am asking that if you were a peasant in rough tough 16th century England -typical of much of the world at the time- living hand to mouth , with likely children died through some illness or other, renting some hovel off an avaricious landlord, constantly hunting for food and clean water and looking for casual jobs, would you have had the time or inclination to protest about the treatment of someone who, to your eyes, probably seemed little worse off than you were?

        Protest? I have no idea. But thst doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t be of the opinion that the inequities were immoral. The fact that norms have changed is, in fact, proof that people of those times considered such conditions immoral. Thst is why slavery chanfged as well. Are we to beleive that the views of the morality of slavery changed diametrically from the decades before emancipation at the point of emancipation? Obviously, thst is not the case. And the statues were erected well after the south lost the Civil War. Obviously, they were elected during a period where the larger norm wa thst slavery was immoral – even if a relsicd minority in certain communities wanted to send a message that ehy still honored the principles of slavery and white supremacy.

        Tonyb

      • Don Monfort

        Were you all hot and bothered and bleating like this when Obama was in charge, josh-u-a?

      • Don

        This was widely reported when a racial slur by a father 30 years ago was visited on hs son who wasn’t even born when the sour was made

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6098139/NASCAR-driver-Conor-Daly-loses-sponsorship-fathers-racial-slur.html

        Inter generational justice at its finest

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb, ur not srsly suggesting that a corporation exercising its freedom of expression to unload a guy who earns millions to turn left at 200 mph is a greater societal ill than racist cops disproportionately harassing and killing poor ethnic minorities … are you. No of course not, think of all the slaves in Europe.

      • > How are we going to punish our ancestors for all the bad things they did?

        This isn’t that difficult, Don M. For the sake of a better FUTURE we don’t want, and should not want, to continue glorifying past oppressors, especially not when there has been a deliberate resurgence of the thoughts and attitudes which formed a basis for not-so-evil-for-their-times bigots to justify exploitative behaviors.

      • Brandon, I think you are a little fact challenged. America abolished the slave trade long before the Civil War and I think in the 1830’s. Your 1863 date shows ignorance. Why should I credit anything you say given this profound ignorance? Most of what you say is just emotional appeals for other people to make sacrifices. That usually doesn’t work.

        You are committing a classic error of bias. We can continue to glorify Socrates despite the imperialism of Athens. There is nothing wrong with glorifying Washington for his accomplishments. You are the beneficiary of those and should show some adult gratitude.

      • Brandon

        What? I said nothing of the kind. Nor imploed anything of the sort. What an odd remark. I think it’s a silly sport but to withdraw sponsorship because of something his father said 30 years ago before the son was even born you will surely agree is unfair?

        Tonyb

      • dpy,

        > America abolished the slave trade long before the Civil War and I think in the 1830’s.

        I think you’re relevance-challenged. Surely you don’t think that domestic slave markets vanished simply because offshore imports stopped arriving. And even aeronautical engineers should be able to figure out that the slave trade is just the beginning of problem.

      • Don Monfort

        Why didn’t Saint Barak and old sleepy Joe stop the glorification of past oppressors, blandon? Why the sudden flood of hysterical anger and ferocious urgency to tear it down, or burn it up? What do you think would be left if we toppled all the statues and institutions that could somehow be connected by you left loons to some form of alleged oppression of somebody? Since it is highly unlikely that you will give an honest answer, I will help you:

        What we would have is a void that you hysterical clowns want to fill with some form of quasi-Marxist semi-anarchist tyrannical utopia. A mishmash of foolish ideologies that won’t work out the way you jokers imagine it will.

      • Trump is good for something besides making my IRA balances so healthy. He motivated these people to topple statues. They were wracked with guilt for decades because they were unable to work up the courage to do so. And they had let Aunt Jemima stare at them from the shelf, scolding them for their lack of social justice initiative. But they liberated her like the brave Patriots they are.

      • “…to continue glorifying past oppressors…”

        Any Pyramid you can think of. Are you going to tear those down? Argue against that. A number of structures in South America having to do with human sacrifice. Castles of Europe. A Foundation materially started with oil money or questionable financial products or tactics.

      • –snip–

        HOMEPOLITICS, LAW & GOVERNMENTPOLITICS & POLITICAL SYSTEMS
        The Founding Fathers and Slavery
        WRITTEN BY
        Anthony Iaccarino
        Assistant Professor of History and Humanities, Reed College.
        See Article History
        Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation.

        Slaveholders among prominent Founding Fathers
        1Held slaves at some point in time.
        slaveholders1 non-slaveholders
        Founding Father state Founding Father state
        Charles Carroll Maryland John Adams Massachusetts
        Samuel Chase Maryland Samuel Adams Massachusetts
        Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut
        Button Gwinnett Georgia Alexander Hamilton New York
        John Hancock Massachusetts Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts
        Patrick Henry Virginia Thomas Paine Pennsylvania
        John Jay New York Roger Sherman Connecticut
        Thomas Jefferson Virginia
        Richard Henry Lee Virginia
        James Madison Virginia
        Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina
        Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania
        Edward Rutledge South Carolina
        George Washington Virginia
        In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

        Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest.
        –snip–

      • jungletrunks

        There is no culture that wasn’t built on the back of some sort of atrocity.

        Slavery in the colonies was endorsed by the crown, providing income for the monarchy. Post founding of the U.S., after 1776, slavery lasted another 100 years as a vestige of intertwined cultural belief systems. Loyalists weren’t all killed off during the Revolutionary War, and neither did they all pack up and go home after the nations founding. Yes, slavery was difficult to root out, yet rooted out it was. It was the Constitution itself that championed freedom and liberty for all. It took a civil war to align culture behind the model of the Constitution.

        The sanctimony of the Left is cringe worthy considering that all their ancestors at one time or other were willing participants in some cultures atrocity; willing participants of the status quo in their day. Should we bulldoze Romes colosseum? The Egyptian pyramids; or Aztec? The idea that because there was slavery post revolution means that the U.S. therefore is uniquely tainted and its history expunged is a laughable exercise in selective outrage.

        The Left needs to get over their self righteous naive sanctimony, they have blood all over their own hands from their aspirational symbols. The U.S. is the most culturally diversified on the planet, that’s the bottom line.

      • jungletrunks

        Ragnaar, our thinking was obviously concurrently aligned!

      • Tonyb,

        > I said nothing of the kind.

        Then what remedy do you suggest on behalf of poor millionaires who have been shunned by other millionaires. And more to the point, why is that the more important issue upon which to be spilling ink.

        > […] to withdraw sponsorship because of something his father said 30 years ago before the son was even born you will surely agree is unfair?

        Sure why not. And for the second time, here’s the world’s smallest viola playing its heart out for unfairly-treated individual millionaires everywhere.

        But I warm to the structure of this argument. If it’s not fair to condemn the present generation for the sins of their fathers, how in bloody blue blazes can it also be fair for them to inherit the out sized benefits of their successes? Why do the poor and oppressed deserve to be born into their circumstances?

      • Ragnaar,

        > Any Pyramid you can think of. Are you going to tear those down

        I leave that for the Egyptians to decide. For my purposes, it would be much more topically pertinent and economically feasible for Trump implode the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument. Imagine the votes he’d get for such a symbolic gesture.

        ***

        jungletrunks,

        > There is no culture that wasn’t built on the back of some sort of atrocity.

        Recognition of that is the first step. The next step that slave-owner fans have trouble taking is that we in the present are positioned to make a better FUTURE, and that griping about condemnation of their heroes has the effect thwarting reduction of atrocity, if not actually encouraging it.

      • Wow, I guess we need to add Brandon Gates to our short list of complete wastes of time, joining Joshua and VeryTrollGuy.

        Brandon, your statements are examples of selective outrage. The Holocaust, Stalin’s tens of millions of victims, Pol Pot were all worse outrages than slavery. I would suggest you set us an example and move to Africa and actually try to help people who need it. Posturing on the internet is a form of virtue signaling.

      • Don M.:

        > Why didn’t Saint Barak and old sleepy Joe stop the glorification of past oppressors

        You do realize that B. Hussein Obummer is not the sitting President, right? This is speculation of course, but I imagine that the relative lack of vociferous support at the time precluded B&J from making much an issue of it.

        > Why the sudden flood of hysterical anger and ferocious urgency to tear it down, or burn it up?

        This is less speculative: because Trump is an overt bigot and his Administration has inspired simultaneous uptick of racially-motivated speech and violence.

        For further insight into reality, try reading a newspaper.

      • Don Monfort

        A lot of dumb assertions. I got cooking to do. Somebosy else will put you in your proper place.

      • > The Holocaust, Stalin’s tens of millions of victims, Pol Pot were all worse outrages than slavery.

        Even engineers should be able to figure out the difference between a statue of Jefferson Davis in downtown Memphis and one of Josef Stalin in Red Square, dpy.

        > I would suggest you set us an example and move to Africa

        Why not do it together and enjoy some harmony for once. Together we might even end the energy poverty there that denizens here didn’t care about until someone had the temerity to suggest replacing their coal with an infinite supply of wind and sunlight.

        The bastion of moral bankruptcy is to demand others to improve the world on their lonesome when they can’t even bring themselves to do the bare minimum of speaking in support of changing it.

      • brandonrgates: The next step that slave-owner fans have trouble taking is that we in the present are positioned to make a better FUTURE, and that griping about condemnation of their heroes has the effect thwarting reduction of atrocity, if not actually encouraging it.

        Washington, Jefferson, and Madison left behind an independent, republican nation with the most civil liberties in the world (supported by the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. Well, that was the dedication, not the reality. Those men are honored for their dedication to Betterment. It took the US until 1865 to eliminate slavery, till 1954 to eliminate (nominally) de jure segregation, till 1965 to enact the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act that enable so many of today’s African-American descendants of slavery to achieve so much greater representation in all parts of society: government, arts and sports, military, and even STEM professions. Washington, Jefferson and Madison are honored because they laid the foundation for a modern society that made those advances possible, despite their ownership of slaves.

        I don’t see how we can build a better future without recognizing and honoring the good works of flawed and hypocritical men. Without the contributions of hypocrites, probably nothing good would ever have been accomplished.

        In the toppling of statues and changing of place names, I think we should distinguish between those who laid the foundations of our relatively good governance and those who, like Lee and Jackson, worked and fought to expand the realm of slavery.

        As to comparisons with the original lands of the ancestors of African-Americans, those nations have little opportunity for their Black populations, considerable ethnic prejudice, little in the way of civil liberties and few, if any, functioning Republics. Reportedly, some places such as Libya and Sudan still have open slave markets. The total number of slaves exceeds the total ever held at one time in the New World.

      • It’s clear that many of the founding fathers recognized the moral bankruptcy of slavery and yet chose to keep slaves for the sake of economic gain, and write slavery into the Constition for the sake of political expediency.

        We can judge that by the standards of this time or any other time. They chose to act in a way that wasn’t consistent with their own moral judgements, and in opposition to the moral views of many of their contemporaries.

        That doesn’t make them monsters – in fact the opposite, it makes them humans.

        What’s curious is why some people seem to have such difficulty accepting their basic humanity.

      • Matthew –

        > In the toppling of statues and changing of place names, I think we should distinguish between those who laid the foundations of our relatively good governance and those who, like Lee and Jackson, worked and fought to expand the realm of slavery.

        What do you think about those who laid down the lines of our relatively good governance, and knew that slavery was in violation of the principles of the constitution, yet nonetheless chose to own slaves for economic gain and to codify slavery into the Constition for political expediency?

        On which side of your line of distinction would you put them, and why?

      • > Of course I Condemn slavery

        Arguing to preserve the statues of slavers is an odd way of doing so, Tonyb, and thus it is far from obvious that you do. The not-so-bad-for-their-time argument does little further to convince.

        > we can do far more to eradicate the horrors of modern slavery than we do

        Surely. And just as surely one might wonder why it is that we don’t. (Hint: the people tearing down statues probably aren’t the problem. Call me crazy, but I’d look first at the folks complaining about them being torn down.)

        > and instead of concentrating our efforts on historic actions surely far better to engage with the here and now?

        I said before that we can still walk and chew gum. I don’t know how else to get across the point that removing statues of slave-owners from places where the ancestors of slaves lives isn’t the *only* ongoing effort to combat persistent bigotry and overly-developed senses of entitlement and superiority.

        Cancelling slave-owners is however one of the more poignant and cost-effective means of getting the message out, so I can see why the reigning powers-that-be would prefer poor African Americans to instead donate their foodstamps in the name of halting human trafficking in your neck of the woods.

      • Brandon –

        > This is less speculative: because Trump is an overt bigot and his Administration has inspired simultaneous uptick of racially-motivated speech and violence.

        When Trump was elected, some people I know worried that it would encourage white supremacists to be bolder and freer to declare their racism. I thought the opposite. I thought that with his election they would feel a sense of satisfaction, and thus trend towards complacency.

        Over the years I Bergan to think that I was wrong. And yet, at the same time some three years ago I never thought I’d see, in some three years’ time, NASCAR taking a stand against the Confederate flag, or the military do so, or corporate America explicitly embrace BLM, or legislatures across the country tale a serous look at reforming policing in black communities, or the former Republican Party presidential nominee say that black lives matter.

        So never let it be said thst Trump hasn’t accomplished anything of value.

      • matthewrmarler,

        > Washington, Jefferson, and Madison left behind an independent, republican nation

        As did John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere and Thomas Paine. They were also notorious seditionists who thuggishly destroyed the property of some British merchants who had been enjoying rather advantageous tax considerations over Yankee tea traders importing to the same domestic market.

        > It took the US until 1865 to eliminate slavery, till 1954 to eliminate (nominally) de jure segregation, till 1965 to enact the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act

        Mmmhmm, nearly 200 years since we Declared our Independence. I’m not sure why you think this strengthens your argument since Jim Crow and Dred Scott were not accidents of history, but methodical and deliberate as the marginalization that Trump and his cowardly supporters continue to tacitly support when protestors rightfully remove the blight of their heroes from public spaces.

        Why are you NOT cheering at such displays of self-empowerment.

        > I don’t see how we can build a better future without recognizing and honoring the good works of flawed and hypocritical men.

        Not being intentionally hypocritical is probably a good place to start. Studying Washington, Jefferson and Madison’s non-slave-owning contemporaries is a good second step. The hindsight of history really ought to make it clear who is less worthy of modern monumentalization.

      • Don Monfort

        I wonder if our resident left loons and infrequent unwanted left loon guests, who are now hysterical glorifiers of mindless statue toppling can show us where they made these passionate but bogus arguments, prior to recent events. And which statues are fair game? Frederick Douglas? Jesus? Ghandi? Babe Ruth?

      • Joshua,

        > I thought that with his election they would feel a sense of satisfaction, and thus trend towards complacency.

        I recall remarking somewhere in these very pages that Trump voters are the sorest bunch election winners in recent memory. But demagogues rousing the rabble is a tactic at least as old as Athens.

        > I never thought I’d see, in some three years’ time, NASCAR taking a stand against the Confederate flag, or the military do so, or corporate America explicitly embrace BLM, or legislatures across the country tale a serous look at reforming policing in black communities, or the former Republican Party presidential nominee say that black lives matter.

        And I’ve been similarly — and pleasantly — blindsided by the same. It’s an incredible accomplishment, a testament to the power of mass protest. But as ever, it’s only just another beginning of this generation’s fight for less-lopsided opportunity and good treatment. As for my part, until we run Trump out of town on a rail and his merry band of collaborators in the ex-Party of Lincoln make an even more decided return to their progressive roots, I will resist too much celebration. :)

      • Since many of the founders and signatories to the founding documents of our shameful Republic were slave holders or condoned slavery, shouldn’t all those public office holders who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States be toppled? Does the sin of slavery render everything in our past, present and future illegitimate? Or will a half dozen or so rounds or reparations stop this fanatical nonsense? Maybe if we transfer all or most of the wealth from the privileged citizens to the underclass we can start again.

      • What to make of the current American slave labor population?
        It’s perfectly legal to force 10’s of thousands of prisoners to work for private industry and the state. Can’t beat the economics. 12hr days for as little as $1.50 a day plus they get it all back by charging the inmates 300% mark up on basic necessities like soap, toothpaste, phone calls.

        “The system incarcerates more people than any other country in the world, currently, there are over 2 million people in prisons, jails, and detention centers. This number represents 25% of all inmates in the world even though the US population makes up only 5% of the global population.”
        Any of you modern day abolitionist think this is moral and righteous?

      • brandonrgates: Why are you NOT cheering at such displays of self-empowerment.

        It depends which statues. I do cheer taking down the statues of the Confederate generals.

      • Joshua: What do you think about those who laid down the lines of our relatively good governance, and knew that slavery was in violation of the principles of the constitution, yet nonetheless chose to own slaves for economic gain and to codify slavery into the Constition for political expediency?

        The way I think about an ulcer or a protection racket. There wasn’t a better constitution at the time. France, which produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man also produced the ruinous Reign of Terror and the 20 year military dictatorship of Napoleon. But it is galling to read biographies of Jefferson.

      • What you should do jacks—, is to add up the number of crimes committed in the U.S. and tell us if 2 million perps in prison is way out of line.

        The more serious problem might be the number of crimes that go unpunished. Check the homicide clearance rates for major U.S cities, especially when the victims are black.

        Look at the number of victims and what they have suffered. Then they have to pay taxes to house, feed and provide sox change operations for their tormentors.

        If you jokers can get the police defunded, we won’t have a need for prisons.

      • Almost all the violent criminals are kept segregated and are rarely allowed to participate in off site work programs. For a corporation it’s too risky from a public relations stand point if somebody gets hurt or killed while making their products.
        The American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization that advocates against mass incarceration and other social justice issues has a in depth analysis.
        https://investigate.afsc.org/tags/prison-labor

      • matthewrmarler,

        > I do cheer taking down the statues of the Confederate generals.

        Noted.

      • Don M.,

        > Since many of the founders and signatories to the founding documents of our shameful Republic were slave holders or condoned slavery, shouldn’t all those public office holders who have sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States be toppled?

        In a word, no. Question you should be asking is how much better the document would have been without so many of the racist hypocrites you revere infesting the Convention whence it was penned.

        > Does the sin of slavery render everything in our past, present and future illegitimate?

        It’s your defense of *slave owners* that sullies your own legitimacy. Intelligent people with a spine get it that purging *slave owners* from our collective adulation brings us closer to the written ideals of the DoI and Constitution, both of which I consider eminently defensible documents. Satan or Michael Mann (but i repeat myself) could have written the thing and its virtues would still shine.

        I shouldn’t be surprised that someone who regularly trades in ad hominem over substance would trip over this simple concept, but I still am.

        > Maybe if we transfer all or most of the wealth from the privileged citizens to the underclass we can start again.

        If you don’t deserve condemnation for the sins of your forefathers, why is it that you feel entitled to their inherited wealth. What did innocent black children do to deserve being born into abject poverty. Why should they continue to suffer because you think their parents are more thuggish than the folks whose idols they seek to remove.

      • “then what remedy do you suggest on behalf of poor millionaires who have been shunned by other millionaires. And more to the point, why is that the more important issue upon which to be spilling ink.’

        What??!?

        Tonyb

      • Because it’s Egypt you withdraw and withhold judgment. Because it’s China, you withhold judgment perhaps.

        Because I don’t live in the South I withhold judgment. Because I didn’t live then, I withhold judgment.

        I am a fan of the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence. But, slaveholders had a material input to both of those. France didn’t surrender and helped us then. You realize they helped slaveholders. And Great Britain too by buying our rum.

        “European influence greatly changed slavery used by Native Americans. As they raided other tribes to capture slaves for sales to Europeans, they fell into destructive wars among themselves, and against Europeans.”

        “The Five Civilized Tribes allied with the Confederates during the American Civil War, in part because they resented the US government’s having forced them out of the Southeast.”

        Cancel them?

      • “…that purging *slave owners* from our collective adulation brings us closer to the written ideals of the DoI and Constitution…”

        No. It was a synthesis of evil and good. You can’t leave out the evil part. It’s like denying your ancestors, evolution and nature’s path. To purge them is to tell a fairy tale. A denial of history.

        The DoI and Constitution were an improvement but not the end. They were a step to where we are now which is pretty good.

        I think I see from others a lack of empathy. And the ability to put things in context. The Constitution was a compromise. That accomplished a more important goal. A more important goal. If we had freed the slaves at that time, world history would be on a different trajectory now that we would not recognize. It is our past, and I am not ashamed of it. I will not be dragged into a dark place where I see few benefits.

      • IraNdon

        YOur coents are convoluted ajdrush around all over the place, however you appear toe accusing me ofcsupporting slaver. Of course I don’t nd it would be nice if you apologised for even iferring this.

        The pt is the past, in this case over 200 years ago. Do we condemn the egyptiajs romans Greeks and ask they tear down their monument. Do we condemn the African chiefs who were exoloctly responsible for exporting the people until paid not to do so by the British. Apparently not. Instead we seem to focus on the west as we now know it who you seem to believe arege source of all evils in the world.

      • Tony –

        I will note again, I asked you multiple questions. You didn’t answer any of them. You asked me a question, I answered.

      • “That Lincoln was less evil than Jefferson, even in the 19th Century. ”

        Pure moonbattery, but I’ll play along for fun: “And Jefferson in the 18th century was less evil than Che was in the 20th century even by 21st century standards, but I bet you have the Che T-shirt.”

      • “I leave that for the Egyptians to decide.”

        I leave it to Islamic countries as to how they treat women. There, you can do something positive. Be a Citizen of the World.

      • Brandon

        my Last unfinished comment escaped into the community without my being aware of anything other than it suddenly disappeared. Apologies.

        You seem to be accusing me of supporting slave owning. You know and I know that is a ridiculous thing to say or imply.

        Practically every notable person in history would not stand modern scrutiny whether for reasons of slave owning, racist, homophobic, anti Semitism, islamophobia, war mongering, eugenics etc

        They live on in statues, buildings, institutions, publishing houses, works of art, music, books, great trading houses. Should they all be cancelled if they fall into one of the cancelled categories above? Do you refuse to listen to Mahler, or ignore the works of Arrhenius, or ignore books written by some dodgy characters, do you refuse to link to articles in The Guardian due to their money coming from slaves?

        The long history of slavery predates the western world and exceeds it’s boundaries. should the pyramids be torn down, or greater Zimbabwe or the great wall of china or indeed roman and Grecian buildings?

        A serious question. Here are fifteen iconic buildings in the US built by slaves.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/american-landmarks-that-were-built-by-slaves-2019-9?r=US&IR=..com.T

        Should they all be torn down? If not, why not?

        Should your capital city be renamed? If not why not?

        Should the 20 towns, 57 schools and 1000 streets named after Washington be renamed? If not, why not.

        What abut the eight other presidents who kept slaves. Should they and their works be cancelled, if not why not?

        We are on a very slippery slope in attempting to cancel western culture whilst apparently looking the other way at other cultures who were every bit as bad.

        You seem to be highly selective in your targets, giving the African chiefs who organised the slavery of their own people a free ride, do the African and Arabic traders who enslaved some 1.6 million white Europeans for over 400 years escape your censure?

        Virtually no race could escape historic scrutiny if viewed through the narrow prism of modern sensibilities. Why do you focus on white people?

        Tonyb

      • Joshua

        Rather than asking me multiple questions, it seemed to me you were making numerous statements.

        If you would like to ask me a simple question that is not actually a statement I will of course answer it but please keep it simple

        Tonyb

      • blandon, blandon
        You are either not very bright, or you are very disingenuous. Both is more likely. I haven’t defended any slave owners. Do you suggest we dig up every decomposed historical figure and put them on trial for whatever they might have done? Should we destroy our system of government, our economy, our society, because some of our founders were slave owners?

        This slavery hysteria is not productive. If you think toppling statues and blaming Trump and Trump supporters for slavery is a winner, I think you are going to be disappointed.

      • What is mass incarceration, jacks—? Sounds like what the Red China thugs are doing. Rounding up willy nilly folks they don’t like, herding them onto trains and shipping them off to be incarcerated in camps. We haven’t done anything like that since your hero FDR did it to our Japanese citizens.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijkvNiYcwFA

        But I understand that if you are a left loon, mass incarceration seems like a good slogan to use in your efforts to dismantle our system of justice.

      • Ragnaar,

        > To purge them is to tell a fairy tale. A denial of history.

        You’re confused. Honoring slave owners with statues is the denial of history. We absolutely should leave them in the *books*, compare them to their contemporary betters, and pillory them until the heat death of the universe.

        > The DoI and Constitution were an improvement but not the end. They were a step to where we are now which is pretty good.

        Agreed. At a loss to see how that challenges my arguments.

        > I think I see from others a lack of empathy.

        I think my irony meter just s’ploded.

        > I will not be dragged into a dark place where I see few benefits.

        *empathy*

      • Matthew R Marler

        brandonrgates: As did John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere and Thomas Paine.

        They are honored for their contributions, which are different from the contributions of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

        Despite being slave owners, Washington, Jefferson and Madison were among the bright lights of their time, and lighted the way for others to form a more perfect union. It is a cognitive dissonance that isn’t going to disappear by our dishonoring their achievements.

      • Tonyb,

        > my Last unfinished comment escaped into the community without my being aware of anything other than it suddenly disappeared. Apologies.

        It happens, no worries.

        > You seem to be accusing me of supporting slave owning. You know and I know that is a ridiculous thing to say or imply.

        You’ll note that I didn’t say it, hence the word “seem”. We ought to expunge that one from the lexicon while we’re at it.

        > Practically every notable person in history would not stand modern scrutiny whether for reasons of slave owning, racist, homophobic, anti Semitism, islamophobia, war mongering, eugenics etc

        Good. Do that enough and maybe the bigots will finally get the message. (More than likely they’ll simply die out. To paraphrase Planck, society advances one funeral at a time.)

        > Should they all be cancelled if they fall into one of the cancelled categories above?

        Yes, or any other category someone objects to in the future.

        > Do you refuse to listen to Mahler, or ignore the works of Arrhenius, or ignore books written by some dodgy characters

        Perhaps you missed my speech to Don M. about ad hominem arguments.

        > do you refuse to link to articles in The Guardian due to their money coming from slaves?

        citation required

        > The long history of slavery predates the western world and exceeds it’s boundaries.

        Not a reason to glorify slavers with statues.

        > should the pyramids be torn down, or greater Zimbabwe or the great wall of china or indeed roman and Grecian buildings?

        I leave those decisions to the citizens of those respective countries. In *my* country, where I have some nominal influence on events here, I unequivocally support removing slavers from their platforms of honor.

        > A serious question.

        Finally.

        > Here are fifteen iconic buildings in the US built by slaves.

        Oh FFS. Do you not understand that it’s the slave *owners*, not the slaves themselves, who deserve condemnation.

        > Should your capital city be renamed?

        Yes. And more importantly it should be elevated to statehood (along with Puerto Rico and other US territories lacking congressional representation). See the DoI to realize the consistency of my position on this point.

        > Should the 20 towns, 57 schools and 1000 streets named after Washington be renamed?

        Yes.

        > What abut the eight other presidents who kept slaves. Should they and their works be cancelled, if not why not?

        This is a recorded message: Their. Statues. Should. Be. Torn. Down. Period, full stop, end of recording.

        > We are on a very slippery slope

        At least you name the fallacy. But in a way I agree with you: the slope *is* slippery, making it ever that much harder to continue to claw ourselves *up* this mountain. Electing Trump was a huge backslide.

        > whilst apparently looking the other way at other cultures who were every bit as bad.

        I covered British Imperialism already. I can extend that in bulk to the rest of the Anglo-sphere and Europe if that makes you happy, but somehow I think it will just make you even more butthurt and grouchy.

        > You seem to be highly selective in your targets, giving the African chiefs who organised the slavery of their own people a free ride,

        There’s that word “seem” again. You really ought to cancel it. Hopefully that will improve your hearing.

        > do the African and Arabic traders who enslaved some 1.6 million white Europeans for over 400 years escape your censure?

        Absolutely not.

        > Virtually no race could escape historic scrutiny if viewed through the narrow prism of modern sensibilities. Why do you focus on white people?

        Because I can read, and have done.

        ***

        Look. Calling out *racist* white folks who do make an issue out of skin color is NOT racism on my part. You need to disabuse yourself of this notion *yesterday* and get with the program. Otherwise your precious conception of Western “Culture” is nothing to be respected, and should be cancelled with all the rest.

      • “…and pillory them until the heat death of the universe.”

        I think you could be more productive. There are bigger problems to solve. You might think there are demons in your past. They’re not real. But if you feel a need to go through a ritual to exorcise them, I understand.

        Sometimes I identify as a witch. I might be able to help.

      • Don M.,

        > I haven’t defended any slave owners.

        Strange condemnation to argue that they should enjoy the honor of a public statue.

        > Do you suggest we dig up every decomposed historical figure and put them on trial for whatever they might have done?

        Yes. That’s one of the essential functions of documenting history. This is 3rd grade civics you’re flunking here.

        > Should we destroy our system of government, our economy, our society, because some of our founders were slave owners?

        No. As with any other issue from our past which haunts the present we should root it out to insure the *preservation* and *improvement* of those things.

        I’m not sure you could be any more absurd, backward and just plain wrong if you tried.

        > This slavery hysteria is not productive.

        I get it that you don’t like it.

        > If you think toppling statues and blaming Trump and Trump supporters for slavery is a winner, I think you are going to be disappointed.

        If you think toppling the statues of *slave owners* will wreck the economy, I think you’re going to be disappointed. Unfortunately your particular brand of idiocy has been gerrymandered into a Republican advantage. Combined with the general intransigence of your cohort I unfortunately do expect to be disappointed.

      • Matthew R Marler,

        > They are honored for their contributions, which are different from the contributions of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

        Yeah, which is why the latter should be cancelled from public display.

        > Despite being slave owners, Washington, Jefferson and Madison were among the bright lights of their time, and lighted the way for others to form a more perfect union.

        See my lecture to Don M. about ad hominem arguments.

        > It is a cognitive dissonance that isn’t going to disappear by our dishonoring their achievements.

        You have a hearing problem, mister. The dishonor is specific to their *slave ownership*, and in particular the egregiously destructive hypocrisy that introduced to our fledgling nation, and has remained a stain on our record in no small part due to fossils like you who insist that *slave owners* deserve a place of honor in public spaces.

      • Ragnaar,

        > I think you could be more productive. There are bigger problems to solve.

        Sure, like cancelling living racists entirely. Starting with you, your disgusting excuse for a President, and every other of his unrepentant supporters.

        > You might think there are demons in your past.

        What was your first clue.

        > They’re not real.

        You are getting sleepy. Verrrry verrrrry sleeeeeeeeepeeeee ….

        > But if you feel a need to go through a ritual to exorcise them, I understand.

        In other parts of the world, cancelling slavery and racism is considered progress. Maybe you should try getting out more.

      • Ragnaar,
        Really struggling to defend your ‘centuries’ claim. Wood powered steam engines?? At first I thought you cryptic disjointed writing style might be because you might be using a smart phone but now I suspect you don’t know how to write complete sentences.
        Every tax return you have ever touched should be audited.

      • > It was a synthesis of evil and good.

        Why would you want to synthesize evil.

        > You can’t leave out the evil part. It’s like denying your ancestors, evolution and nature’s path. To purge them is to tell a fairy tale. A denial of history.

        I’m going to say this one more time you illiterate moron: cancelling the statues of *slave owners* IS recognizing history, excoriating it — and despite your best efforts here to the contrary — purging it from our FUTURE.

        Wake up and join the 21st Century.

      • Ragnaar,

        Reposting because I was censored for using words which might tend to upset thin-skinned Freedom Fighters. You’ll have to fill in the blanks, if able.

        > It was a synthesis of evil and good.

        Why would you want to synthesize evil.

        > You can’t leave out the evil part. It’s like denying your ancestors, evolution and nature’s path. To purge them is to tell a fairy tale. A denial of history.

        I’m going to say this one more time you i________e m___n: cancelling the statues of *slave owners* IS recognizing history, excoriating it — and despite your best efforts here to the contrary — purging it from our FUTURE.

        Wake up and join the 21st Century.

      • brandonrgates: The dishonor is specific to their *slave ownership* … .

        Agreed. That is part of the cognitive dissonance of which I wrote. In their day, slave owning was more common than not, in Africa, Asia, the lands of Islam (not a distinct region). In their day, even African-Americans owned slaves. It’s worthwhile to note that they Washington, Jefferson and Madison pre-eminent among the slave holders.

      • Tonyb,

        > What??!?

        I can’t explain the color blue to a blind man, especially not one who got that way by supergluing their eyelids shut.

        Good luck.

      • Tony –

        Feel free to answer some, all, or none. Thus far you’ve chosen one. I have to say it’s a repeat of a pattern that doesn’t exactly reinforce good faith exchange.

        > Should we not judge Stalin, or Mao by today’s standards?

        Is there some amount of years that forms a dividing line in who we should judge and who we shouldn’t judge?

        If so, how many years must pass to draw thst line of distinction?

        Is there some dividing line between who should be judged and who shouldn’t be judged by the number of people (at that time) who had similar beliefs as those we’re thinking of judging?

        Keep in mind what while Stalin and Mao had power, there were obviously millions during their time who opposed their policies and disagreed with their beliefs [as well as agreed with their policies and their beliefs].

        Should we discount anyone’s actions now, because we know that someone in the future will say that our actions shouldn’t be judged by those future standards?

        I’ll add a question:

        > It’s interesting that your stance isn’t entirely unlike the (mostly false) characterization of “the left” saying that extremist Muslim sects shouldn’t be judged for the morality of how they treat women because that is the moral norm in thise societies. Can you describe a line between such a view and the view that you hold w/r/t judging the American founders – who knew that their slave-holding, and political capitulation to slave-holders, violated basic principles of the government they were establishing?

      • Brandon

        Yours at 1.20

        What?.. Do you think that answer makes any sort of sense. You seem to have made a longer one elsewhere so will respond to that

        Tonyb

      • matthewrmarler,

        brandonrgates: The dishonor is specific to their *slave ownership* … .

        > That is part of the cognitive dissonance of which I wrote.

        The dissonance is yours. Review ad hominem arguments. Again.

        > In their day, slave owning was more common than not, in Africa, Asia, the lands of Islam (not a distinct region).

        I fear for your health should jumping off bridges become more common than not.

        > In their day, even African-Americans owned slaves.

        I’m all for tearing down those statues too. Just because you couldn’t find a consitent argument with six hands and a searchlight doesn’t mean I suffer the same malady.

        > It’s worthwhile to note that they Washington, Jefferson and Madison pre-eminent among the slave holders.

        Abolitionists (already named herein) existed from the start. Why do you not see that there are more deserving candidates for preservation in bronze.

        Or perhaps less undeserving as the case may be. After all, most of the founding fathers were aspiring landed gentry, a demographic not exactly known for dealing in good faith despite their sometimes lofty oratory to the contrary. More damning, they placed their wealth-accumulating concerns well ahead of the far grosser violation of human rights at the hands of their slave-owning compatriots.

        As Tonyb already pointed out, the allegedly tyrannical British abolished slavery by the fist decade of the 19th Century and went on to form a glorious voluntary Commonwealth. If only the Thugs Sons of Liberty had taken modern bigots’ advice to not rock the boat too much we might have avoided both costly wars of Independence and Emancipation and lived happily ever after.

        No, on third thought, Britain didn’t send us their best. Some of ’em are good people I’m sure.

      • brandonrgates: I fear for your health should jumping off bridges become more common than not.

        Now you have given up trying to make sense.

      • Don Monfort

        blandon, blandon

        “Strange condemnation to argue that they should enjoy the honor of a public statue.”

        You have a stupid and bad habit of propagating strawmen, or should I say strawpersons. I haven’t argued that BS. You made it up. Dead people don’t enjoy honors. They are dead, dummy. Somebody put those statues up for whatever reason. I don’t care about the statues. If whoever owns the freaking things want to dispose of them, I don’t give a flying —-. But to allow and even encourage mobs to destroy other people’s property is stupid. Which you will realize, when they get around to your property.

        That’s as far as I read. I assume the rest is just as stupid.

      • matthewrmarler,

        > Now you have given up trying to make sense.

        Perhaps your mum never told you that “everyone else is doing it” isn’t a valid reason for engaging in self- and other-destructive activities. You know, fighting other kids (YABBUT HE STARTED IT!!!), drinking and smoking at recess, voting incompetent bigots into the highest office of these not-so-United States, taking the Lord’s Name in vain … generally flunking social studies … stuff kids do ya’ know. Boys will be boys, we just can’t help grabbing ’em by the nethers.

        Where your moral bankruptcy is most evident is that you support the racist *present* administration when that behavior is anything but congruent the modern day Western “Civilization”.

        You And Your Ilk ™ have no more ethical authority on this issue than Putin, Erdogan, Xi, Kim and or other authoritarian dictator that Dear Leader has sucked up to (I’m beginning to lose track).

        Wake up, tear down the statues of *slave owners*, vote Trump and every one of his feckless enablers out of office, and then maybe — just maybe — I’ll allow myself a more nuanced and constructive discussion with you about how to improve everyone’s lot in our deeply flawed but still great and ever improving nation.

        Until then, expect no quarter asked or given. I take this local low point of our checkered history that seriously.

      • Don Monfort

        That is some vein popping hatred you got there, blandon. How will you be able to survive another four years of the Ilk ™?

      • Don M.,

        > You have a stupid and bad habit of propagating strawmen, or should I say strawpersons.

        Have I. Oh well, when in Rome.

        > Dead people don’t enjoy honors.

        Indeed. This is about their living admirers.

        > Somebody put those statues up for whatever reason.

        This is what happens when folks limit their history lernins to looking at the purty pitchers.

        > I don’t care about the statues.

        That’s a minority opinion in this forum, but whatever.

        > But to allow and even encourage mobs to destroy other people’s property is stupid.

        Typical neo-Tea Partier.

        On that note, you may be encouraged to hear that civic leaders are increasingly removing slave owners and their symbols from public places in a safe, organized and perfectly legal manner.

        But Thugs.

        > Which you will realize, when they get around to your property.

        I’m not a bedwetting racist, Don. Save the fearmongering and diapers for yourself, plsthxkbye.

      • Don Monfort

        OK, blandon is hopping mad and the little hothead has played the rayciss card. Me, my heroes have always been negroes. Detroit born and raised in the projects by a struggling single mom. If I wanted a good meal, I went to a black friend’s house. Have been married for a long time to a Jamaican-Jewish Princess. I love black folks and I want them to be prosperous, peaceful and happy. I haven’t seen one of you self-righteous preachy left loons express any concern about the black children living with terror perpetrated by black men in Democrat run cities. No, it’s the Ilk’s ™ fault. You are just making pathetic fools of yourselves.

      • jacksmith4tx

        Wood powered steam engines??

        There are trains that you can put wood into the fire box. And the fire creates steam. The wood you are putting into it is centuries of growth. Using solar. The idea is those trees are centuries worth of sunlight. A problem of density.

        It’s not that it takes centuries to turn into oil. But that it takes a lot of solar falling on the forest to get the trees that made the oil. Oil is concentrated sunlight stored.

        A solar panel is not concentrated and requires storage by something else.

        In the contest of what has the most stuff, in last place we solar panels.
        Runner up: Wood
        First place: Oil
        King of the World: Uranium

        You need stuff.

        A barge load of coal is sufficient stuff. This attribute of being sufficient stuff is why we find it in service all over the world. Engineers kept pointing to it and saying, Yep. That will work.

      • It was a synthesis of evil and good.
        Why would you want to synthesize evil.

        The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

        In the world, we work with evil. It’s compromising. Seeing what happens in the future to see if things improve. And sometimes we accept it as we can’t do anything about it.

        The slavery proposition of about 1789 was dealt with. The situation evolved with struggles and with an exclamation point being the Civil War.

        An alternative could have been a civil war with each other while fighting Britain. Some things take time.

      • The good that Thomas Jefferson did outweighed the bad he did by owning slaves. And he deserves many statutes. This started about police brutality. Jefferson was against that. You should look to the Minneapolis City Council and feckless Mayor if you want people not to have statues in their honor.

        Going after Jefferson is emboldening Trump and his base. Maybe you want bigger clashes. Maybe you want to let it rest for a year. And have Congress do it.

        “He grew up on a plantation with enslaved workers, and owned nearly 200 slaves as an adult. Jefferson’s life and words reflect the moral contradictions and practical concerns facing the architects of the new democracy that extolled freedom and equality.”

        A Nation is Born in War. We’ve done well. We have evolved. But what do you expect from a Revolution? Name some successful ones please. He was the one to do the job.

      • This whole long winded and repetitious thread is based on a lie about history, namely, that America is uniquely guilty for slavery. Slavery in the 17th Century was practiced virtually everywhere. Serfdom was still also common. Basically most common people belonged to someone else.

        In fact, America and the British crown are uniquely praiseworthy. The British abolished the slave trade and enforced it by their overwhelming naval power (this has been turned into the big lie about the evil of British colonialism, when in fact the British brought much progress). The founders many of them felt that slavery was wrong, but felt having a united Republic was more important. The movement to abolish slavery made gradual progress in America until the Civil War finalized it. That war cost the lives of 600000 brave men out of a population of roughly 30 million, a massive casualty rate.

        More uniquely guilty is the Muslim world which lagged far behind the West in abolishing slavery. But Brandon and Joshua won’t say a word because speaking against Islam might be risky.

        Only a sickly distorted and ideologically blind version of history can contradict these facts. But the left is based on a lie about history, viz. Marxism.

      • Yes Don, the virtue signaling has become the signature rant of the politically correct. It’s very convenient as it absolves those doing the signaling from actually helping any real human beings. It’s ethically repulsive and childish. It’s always the “system” that is at fault and never their responsibility to do anything themselves to help the poor or disadvantaged. They in fact attack those who actually do help people, like Samaritan’s Purse.

      • Dpy, I would bet large that most of these vicarious SJW white left loons have had little to no meaningful interaction with descendants of slaves. They keep a safe distance.

        I would be happy to introduce them to the real problems faced by black folks. Take a walk with me in my old neighborhood in Detroit. Prefer the Left Coast, I’ll take you to East Oakland. Just let me do all the talking.

      • Don –

        > , I would bet large that most of these vicarious SJW white left loons have had little to no meaningful interaction with descendants of slaves. They keep a safe distance.

        I hope you have the stones to put your money where your mouth is. I would like to take you up on that bet. $10,000 would be a good number but I’d be quite willing to go higher. I grew up in and have lived decades of my life in heavily–to predominantly-black neighborhoods. Growing up, at least through middle school, my closest friends were black.

        I’m sure we can find a way to structure a bet over whether what I just wrote is true. We’ll find some kind of attorney to hold the money we both put up and ascertain the winner, and the attorney’s fee can come out of the stakes. Are you game?

      • Joshua,

        I suggest a more plausible fiscally attainable field trip for Don. Once he’s done showing off his rapport with the wait staff at Fenton’s, drive him to *West* Oakland. Then while you’re letting him do all the talking, hold up some representative copies of his true views on things.

        You know on second thought that’s a terrible idea.

      • Brandon –

        > Then while you’re letting him do all the talking, hold up some representative copies of his true views on things.

        If I’m not mistaken, Don was in these threads around four years ago predicting something like 95% support for Trump in the black community for the 2020 election campaign. You know, based on his “inside knowledge” of that “the blacks” think.

        I’d say that prediction isn’t quite as inaccurate as his prediction of 6,000 deaths in the US from the Covid pandemic. I’ll let someone smart work out that math, but his 95% prediction (if I remember correctly) prolly is closer than being off by nearly 2,500% like with his deaths prediction.

      • Don –

        (speaking of a form of insult as old as Usenet)…

        Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I wanted to voice some concern for you in the spirit of online friendship. I know that you’ve always participated in these threads primarily from the yucks you get from insults and name-calling – but lately I think I’ve noticed something of a change in the nature of your insults and name-calling. You used to be more creative, I believe. At this point, you pretty much have nothing other than “left loons” in your repertoire (you’ve used it 40 times in this thread alone) after having been stuck on “TDS” for ages until you seeming ran that one into the ground.

        Now of course maybe that change over time is merely because you’re less invested in name-calling and insulting than you used to be – but given those features are so core to your character I tend to think not…

        So I”m wondering if you’ve checked into whether a loss of mental acuity is a by-product of HCQ? If so, you might want to consider cutting back a bit to see if it has a good effect. We wouldn’t want your loss of mental acuity to become permanent, now would we?

      • brandonrgates: As did John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Paul Revere and Thomas Paine. They were also notorious seditionists who thuggishly destroyed the property of some British merchants who had been enjoying rather advantageous tax considerations over Yankee tea traders importing to the same domestic market.

        I see. You stopped short of accusing them of driving Tories to Canada. That was done by others of their allies.

      • Don Monfort

        Oh, looks like I struck a nerve with the vicarious Wonder Bread SJWs. Suddenly they got their melanin pumping. Fakes. Just let me know when you clowns are going to arrive at DTW, or OAK. I will send some nice chaps to take your silly snowflake butts to your motel.

      • brandonrgates: See my lecture to Don M. about ad hominem arguments.

        No lecture, just a slight side-swipe.

      • > No lecture, just a slight side-swipe.

        Ok fine. Here’s the lecture.

        Ad hominem does not mean insult, matt. It means an argument must be wrong because of some irrelevant aspect of the person making it.

        In this specific case, the cognitive dissonance you are so quick to project onto me was long ago resolved by me noting that All Men Are Created Equal is the right argument despite Jefferson’s plainly evident and egregiously hypocritical failing to live up to his own stated ideals.

        3/5ths of person is gross enough. Bequeathing those votes to to the “owners” of those partial individuals is beyond the pale, and calling Jefferson a pig for self-servingly supporting it it isn’t dehumanizing enough in my book. I’ll quote Mein Kampf directly when it comes to untermenschen, and *Hitler* will be right about him.

        Memory-holing Jefferson’s et al. likenesses from public places of adulation requires neither expunging any of their good words or bad actions from the history *books*. As many here have already needlessly reminded me, it is absolutely essential that both are preserved so that future generations learn from both the successes and mistakes.

        It’s really quite pathetic that you have to manufacture disagreement with me on everything when we actually agree more with each other on this than not.

        Time for you to grow up. Well past time. Bring your pals with you, and go pull down a statue. I promise you’ll feel better.

      • Hmmm. Why weren’t these preachy Wonder Bread left loon pinheads apoplectic about rayciss statues, when Saint Barak and old sleepy Joe were in charge of the nation’s conscience for eight years?

  68. Barnes Moore

    An interesting video. https://youtu.be/A0TcyXhvJXE

  69. Ulric Lyons

    Climate science has already corrupted itself with the academic consensus of ‘internal variability’. Even sceptics engage in the cancelling of those who question the dogma. My own experience is of this is people like Roy Spencer and Willis Eschenbach mocking my observations of the majority of the most major heatwaves and cold-waves in history occurring at t-squares of the gas giants.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/

  70. What’s happening? What’s going to happen?
    Some things I’ve read recently.

    Ray Dalio: Long term debt cycles foster income inequality which leads to populism, political instability, and the downfall of nations.

    Peter Zeihan: Geo-politcal factors, importantly geography, determine much of the course of nations, and uniquely favor the US.

    George Friedman: In the US, economic and governance ‘cycles’ are resonating in the 2020s, resulting in upheavals, change to governance, but not the foundation of the republic, before relative stability.

    Douglass Murray: equality under the law has never be greater in human history, but ‘St. George in Retirement’ means activists, inflamed by universities and social media, still seek to slay imaginary dragons. The acceleration of group identities is headed to a dangerous, in-egalitarian society.

    Sebastian Junger”>Sebastian Junger: humans are evolved for tribal life which conveys a greater cohesion and mental health than modern society allows for, but only in small tribes, and only with the accompanying tribal warfare and genocide.

    Bret Weinstein: The same faulty and dangerous ideas that permeated academia and led to ugly, dangerous, and destructive mobs, is predictably now in the the larger society. The group identification of this movement inflames the genocidal motivations that individual liberties and equality under the law are intended to prevent. The cycle of resentments and revenge will lead to protection seeking and anti-fascism leads to fascism and anti-racism leads to racism.

    Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks: Many of the bad and often illogical ideas in society are rooted in ‘post-modernism’ which is contrary to the enlightenment, liberal society, reason, science, and individual liberty.

    Charles Murray: Income inequality is just part of a more complete description of separation of classes. Much of this separation is perhaps natural ( homagmy ), but it is also a function marriage, religiosity, industry, and honesty. Murray examined statistics of white[sic] individuals only, but presumably, these same factors are at work within other sub-groups and society as a whole. Murray cites words of the the founders indicating their belief that self-governance would only be possible in a society in which the four values persisted. In light of the trends, Murray expresses concern about the future of the republic.

    Nietzsche (analysis from Southgate, 2011) :
    “god is dead” meant replacement by new gods.
    “Among these new gods are socialism, liberalism, utopianism, humanism, nationalism, democracy, pseudo-scientific racism of the kind represented by thinkers such as H.S. Chamberlain12 and the anti-Semitism of his former friend Richard Wagner.”

    “Nietzsche predicted that it would be well into the 21st century before Western thought fully confronted the crisis of nihilism. It would thus far appear that he was correct. Western thought since the Enlightenment has attempted to compensate for the loss of the old faith by replacing the discredited Christian worldview with new faiths and new pieties. As these have become increasingly difficult to justify within a framework of rationality and a belief in inevitable “progress,” Western intellectuals have increasingly retreated into the irrational. This is illustrated by the curious phenomena of the present efforts by Western intellectual elites to embrace postmodernism, with its accompanying moral and cultural relativism, while simultaneously embracing the egalitarian-universalist-humanist moralistic zealotry popularly labeled “political correctness” and espousing with great piousness such liberal crusades as “human rights,” “anti-racism,” “gay liberation,” feminism, environmentalism and the like. “

    My tendency is to want to engage people and preserve the republic based on individual liberty. But the larger theme of these writers anyway, appears to be the evolutionary tendency toward groups. If the problem is that we have genetic tendency toward group identity, we developed that tendency in small, similar clans. In vastly larger populations, with ever more isolating technology being the norm, our very natural craving for such groups can be destructive.

    There is a very strong case to be made for society and government based on individual liberty which very much excludes our tendency toward group identity. It is this observation: there is good and bad in everyone.

    “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains … an unuprooted small corner of evil.

    Since then I have come to understand the truth of all the religions of the world: They struggle with the evil inside a human being (inside every human being). It is impossible to expel evil from the world in its entirety, but it is possible to constrict it within each person.”
    ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

  71. Thank you for linking to the Reason article. They have an interesting weekly roundtable podcast:

    “One main fault-line, illustrated most starkly in the opposing open letters published last week about free speech and cancel culture (the first of which, in Harper’s Magazine, was signed by Weiss and 152 others, including 15 Reason contributors), is the divide between those journalists and academics who feel like they are defending the very foundations of liberalism, and those who feel like they are chipping away at the institutions of systemic prejudice. To witness the two sides talking angrily past one another, open up your Twitter feed.”

    One thing I developed over the years in trying to explain libertarianism is ranked goals as illustrated by my highest goal: Don’t use force (self defense allowed). This is my own of many interpretations.

    The problem of racism by some overrides the foundations of liberalism. Free speech I suppose. Reason will rank free speech higher than solving the existing racism problem on the average day. But if their point is to compare cancel culture to racism remedies, I don’t know where they are on that one.

    So do you cancel someone if they get in your way as you supposedly move towards your goal? Yes. That’s a part of our history. But what it takes to get canceled has been shrinking. But you end up canceling more of the weak and less of the strong. Which may be a problem depending on your point of view.

  72. “…academic fired for research results showing, as so many other studies have done, police shootings in the US show few signs of racial bias.”

    A demonstration of power. Power of who? Not MSU and their admins. They live in fear too.

    Everyone caves except Trump. We are a nation of cavers. Good luck.

  73. Kmele Foster: Black Lives Matter ‘Is Hostile Towards Free Markets and Capitalism’

    https://reason.com/podcast/kmele-foster-black-lives-matter-is-hostile-towards-free-markets-and-capitalism/

    The Fifth Column podcaster on racial identity, cancel culture, libertarianism, and Trump vs. Biden

    I am going to say, the libertarians are cowering less than the Republicans. Winning isn’t everything. There’s dignity.

    Foster in my opinion takes apart a few pillars of the cancel culture. He talks about there being no such thing as race. Which is an interesting starting point.

    Who thinks there is such a thing as race?

  74. Geoff Sherrington

    Joshua,
    Why do you not review your current habit of thread bombing and spend your hours doing something productive, like manufacturing real goods that can be sold for income? Your words make me ask if you have ever held down a job that contributed materially to society, as opposed to being a drain on society. Geoff S

    • Geoff –

      > Your words make me ask if you have ever held down a job that contributed materially to society, as opposed to being a drain on society. Geoff S

      No Geoff. I’ve never had a job or done anything productive for society. Your powers of deduction are incredible.

      I hope you put those powers of deduction to work helping humanity with dealing with climate change.

      Just think what you could do if you decided to spend your time solving the covid pandemic!!!

      Oh, and BTW – your name always appears at the top of a comment – no need to sign with Geoff S. How jncredible that your incredible powers of deduction missed that

      • Also, Geoff. Thanks for reading my comments. I can’t tell you how much that means to me.

    • He’s too snowflakey to get out in the streets with his snarling comrades and topple statues.

    • Don Monfort

      The little fella doesn’t provide honest answers, Geoff. He was a public school teacher. PS (whatever number). So the answer to your question is NO!

  75. What is missed by the self-righteous Left is the comparison between the American Founders and the world at large at the time the US was founded. The Founders, though substantially flawed, were way ahead of the rest of the world with respect to individual rights and democracy. They should continue to be honored for their advanced thinking at the time and at the same time criticized for their mistakes. The good they did for the times far exceeded any damage that could be reasonably attributed to them, considering what was accepted and the norm for the times they lived in.

    For comparison purposes of what was going on in other places, in Dahomey in 1858, 800 slaves were victims of human sacrifice and this practice was celebrated as the Grand Custom. https://bahamianology.com/800-slaves-sacrificed-in-tribute-on-the-death-of-gezo-the-great-slave-king-of-dahomey-1858/

    Slavery continued in most of Africa until at least the 1890s and in some places in was still legal in the 1950s.

    • jdohio –

      > between the American Founders and the world at large at the time the US was founded.

      What is missed by you, apparently (I won’t make broad mischaracterizations of “the right” simply because you do so with “the left’). is that accurately critiquing the American Founders doesn’t imply anything in particular about the American Founders relative to the rest of the world.

      Please point out anywhere in this thread where anyone on “the left” has inaccurately portrayed the American Founders relative to anyone else.

      Or was that comment simply directed at people that you’re fantasizing about?

      At any rate, thanks for explaining what “the self-righteous left” misses. Thank goodness you’d never be self-righteous like they.

      • “…accurately critiquing the American Founders doesn’t imply anything in particular about the American Founders relative to the rest of the world….”

        And that, kids, is why Joshua cares deeply when Al Capone wishes to discuss the evils of double-parking.

      • I still haven’t seen any of these left loon clowns attempt to explain why statues were not toppled during the regime of Saint Barak and old sleepy Joe. They could have toppled a lot of statues in eight years. We wouldn’t be going through this nonsense, now. Same story with the rest of the complaints of the left loons. Why wasn’t all this s@#& taken care of by Saint Barak and old sleepy Joe.

      • My reference to the self-righteous Left was not limited to the commenters here and in fact, I made no effort to closely read the comments. I believe the Left is a much bigger world than the commenters here.

        For instance, Nikole Hannah Jones, the author of the intentionally dishonest lead 1619 NYTs essay that won the Pulitzer prize has stated: “The white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world” and that the colonists primarily sought to disengage from Great Britain to protect slavery. Leftists tear down statutes of Washington and Ulysses S. Grant because they have no perspective of history and how brutal the world was everywhere 2 or 3 hundred years ago. As I stated historical figures should be evaluated based on how advanced (or not) they were in the world they lived in.

        I am more than happy to see historical comparisons of George Washington to African leaders who ruled African countries/empires in the late eighteenth century. So far I have seen none. The governance of Dahomey in the 1850s gives me a fair amount of confidence that Washington would look good compared to his African contemporaries.

      • My reference to the self-righteous Left was not limited to the commenters here and in fact, I made no effort to closely read the comments. I believe the Left is a much bigger world than the commenters here.

        For instance, Nikole Hannah Jones, the author of the intentionally dishonest lead 1619 NYTs essay that won the Pulitzer prize has made extremely racist statements about whites (See https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/15/nyts-nikole-hannah-jones-confirms-she-called-europeans-barbaric-devils-linked-africa-to-aztec-temples/) and apparently is oblivious to the brutality of the world in the past and even the recent past brutality of black people to black people, in, for instance, Rwanda.

        Of course, leftists tear down statutes of Washington and Ulysses S. Grant because they have no perspective of history and how brutal the world was everywhere 2 or 3 hundred years ago. As I stated historical figures should be evaluated based on how advanced (or not) they were in the world they lived in.

        I am more than happy to see historical comparisons of George Washington to African leaders who ruled African countries/empires in the late eighteenth century. So far I have seen none. The governance of Dahomey in the 1850s gives me a fair amount of confidence that Washington would look good compared to his African contemporaries.

  76. Tout ca change… Cancel culture is as old as the earliest concepts of free speech in society, and interestingly, it has never produced a good outcome, on normal measures of societal health.

    As a race, we are naturally and unreasonably intolerant of views which conflict with our own. We are also tribal animals with an evolved tendency to associate ourselves strongly with groups of one form or another. Together, these two things provide a permanent danger to healthy and robust debate. As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the chief threat to free speech in a democracy is the social tyranny of one’s fellow citizens. Above all else, we should recognize that none of us has the right “not to be offended”. Such right has never existed in a free society, and quite simply cannot co-exist with freedom of speech. Since democracy cannot flourish without freedom of speech, it follows that we should resist any argument that suggests that there should exist a right “not to be offended”.

    The earliest society we know about which tried to legislate rights to free speech was the Athenian democracy, about 2500 years ago. Isegoria gave citizens equal rights to speak; Parrhesia called on citizens to speak honestly and openly without fear of offending people. Parrhesia could only exist with a broad social contract involving the majority. Athenian democracy started to fail when this social contract failed, and the local version of “de-platforming” came into vogue. Fellow citizens would shout down an unpopular speaker or literally drag him off the platform – often with fatal consequences. Political decisions were eventually no longer based on reason and necessity. They were driven by minority interests, coherently harnessed by demagogues. Politicians became populist or suffered the consequences. De facto, Parrhesia ceased to exist. The society, seriously weakened, fell easy prey to the Macedonians, and then the Romans. End of the first experiment in democracy, and the death of Parrhesia.

    The concept of Parrhesia was not resurrected until the Renaissance period in Europe, but it reappeared in a slightly modified form: “be not afraid to speak truth to power” – appropriate given the feudal system which was still dominant in most of Europe. It was probably the single most important idea which brought about the deconstruction of the feudal system and the centuries-long, hard-fought battle to establish democratic freedoms in Europe. It remains the single most powerful defence against authoritarianism. Any society which willingly gives up the right to speak honestly without fear of offending is on its way to authoritarianism or is already there – Russia, Cambodia, Venezuela, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc, etc. And when a boot is on your face, you don’t ask whether it is a left boot or a right boot.

    So celebrate the fact that your intellectual antagonists have the right to voice their stupid opinions, and celebrate even more that there are some among them who celebrate the fact that you can voice your own stupid opinions. The alternative is far more unpleasant than hurt feelings.

    • > The earliest society we know about which tried to legislate rights to free speech was the Athenian democracy, about 2500 years ago. Isegoria gave citizens equal rights to speak; Parrhesia called on citizens to speak honestly and openly without fear of offending people.

      That’s all well and good when political equals meet in the crucible of public discourse.

      Statues of Johnny Reb Jefferson don’t meet that ideal. They are clear and obvious symbols of intimidation which say, “we’re still in charge here, and you’d better tow the line before we show you what inequality really means.”

      The case against Yankee Jefferson may be less clear cut, but only opaque to those who choose to not see.

      > As John Stuart Mill pointed out, the chief threat to free speech in a democracy is the social tyranny of one’s fellow citizens.

      He also pointed out that there is no better example of greed-motivated tyranny than American slavery, and that reparations to emancipated slaves should *begin* with the very land they had already been tilling under yoke and whip.

      This was *before* the shot heard ’round the world. Not even Lincoln’s Memorial is as safe from the ‘dozer blade as one might naively believe.

      > Since democracy cannot flourish without freedom of speech, it follows that we should resist any argument that suggests that there should exist a right “not to be offended”.

      How do you square that with long-running cries from these very same quarters for “civil” discourse.

      As for me I do claim a right to not be offended because without that I don’t have any moral basis to ask for any aspect of an unmolested pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

      I give everyone a chance to not punch me in the nose a second time. After that all bets are down and let the games begin.

      > Any society which willingly gives up the right to speak honestly without fear of offending is on its way to authoritarianism or is already there – Russia, Cambodia, Venezuela, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc, etc.

      Every time I’ve been held at gunpoint, I willingly and eagerly clammed right the heck up. Results were mixed.

      What actually happened in all those countries is that the authoritarians rolled tanks and mooted the entire discussion before it got started. That was no more the fault of overly polite peasants than it was my fault for having a rifle barrel jammed into my sternum.

      I got off easy and I know it, kribaez. You may require a little more perspective. We shall see.

      • Brandon,
        I cannot decide whether you are being willfully disingenuous or you seriously do not understand the difference between the right to speak honestly without fear and the fictional existence of a right to hurl abuse (or lies). I suspect the former, but you like to play rhetorical word games.

        “What actually happened in all those countries is that the authoritarians rolled tanks and mooted the entire discussion before it got started.”
        Well, no, they did not. That comes later when the regime is solidly in place. You may be thinking of the USSR response to the counter-revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. What happened in each of the countries I listed was that the nascent regime uses (or makes) a crisis to (a) take over control of information flow to establish official truth (b) dismantle any protections in the constitution or trample on them as appropriate and (c) make it a crime to criticise the government. (Definition of a surviving Russian historian:- Someone who can correctly predict history.) The step of establishing official truth does not normally require tanks. It does often require squads of roving thugs to help people see the light and keep them on the straight and narrow in terms of their beliefs, voting preferences, etc.

        Look up Reichstag Fire for an object lesson in how to do it right. Note that the first thing done was to suspend freedom of the press, as embodied in the Weimar Constitution.

        There again, in these modern more enlightened times, we can perhaps dispense with the roving thugs and use twitter storms and social media shame campaigns to force institutions to sack people who hold unfashionable views on genetics, AGW, sex, immigration, civil disorder, polar bears, statues, whatever. It seems to work almost as well as the roving thugs in restricting honest comment to hushed whispers in corners. The problem with all this is that historically the early cheerleaders of efforts to suppress heretical views find that the regime eventually comes for them.

        Try counting today the number of Robespierre lookalikes in Venezuela – or buried beneath it. You will need a lot of paper.

      • > Look up Reichstag Fire for an object lesson in how to do it right. Note that the first thing done was to suspend freedom of the press, as embodied in the Weimar Constitution.

        Hitler was a putz. The way to burn the Reichstag is with a free and open press intact. Then the rubes can’t connect the dots as you just did.

        Our intelligence agencies are very good. Very very very good. Distrust them at your own peril.

    • PS:

      > And when a boot is on your face, you don’t ask whether it is a left boot or a right boot.

      Oh that is very good. On this point at least we are in exact agreement.

  77. Bret and Heather
    31st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: The Danger of Invoking Terrorism

    He is in Portland. There are vans. He calls them riots and not protests. I’ll take his word on that. I think he give a fair reading on the situation. The Mayor of Portland has failed. Now what?

    • https://youtu.be/xojSWHrar9A

      When ISIS was around in Iraq, they had support of the Sunni.
      It was not because the Sunni agreed with ISIS, but because they wanted protection from the Shia and ISIS was the only choice.

      Weinstein makes the case that anti-fascism may ironically lead to actual fascism, because people want protection from the anti-fascists.

      One hundred days til the election.
      Biden as a ‘corpse candidate’.
      And Biden as appeaser to the harmful, dangerous ideas is not hopeful.

      • The S & P 500 index is looking good. I don’t think that’s betting on Biden.

        You captured Trump voters. They’ll vote for him because of the Democrats. In any care, we’ll be all right. The less fortunate, not so much.

  78. In the shorter term, the recent riots and unrest are explainable by the pandemic:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2020/03/21/historyand-psychologypredict-riots-and-protests-amid-pandemic-lockdowns/#590e85a814a6

    But in the longer term, the preponderance of these bad ideas is probably part of the bloody search for replacement religion that Nietzsche predicted.

    You are not a group, you are you.

    Your virtue starts at zero and you have to act appropriately to raise it.

    But be careful about that:

    http://img.picturequotes.com/3/1016/1015775/to-do-evil-a-human-being-must-first-of-all-believe-that-what-hes-doing-is-good-quote-1.jpg

  79. Joshua

    Hopefully you will find this at the foot of the thread as it is getting too tiresome to scroll through the comments and hope the reply is sent from the right place.

    Is this a response to my post asking that you give me one question to answer, as you are otherwise just peppering me with what apear to be statements?

    If so, you ask about stalin and Mao and a dividing line.its a good question.

    Yes, some people are uniquely evil and will always have a special place in our condemnation, but even then they will fade into history . Some of the Moorish and roman emperors ordered the most horrific of massacres and these were taken up through the ages by others and yet in time just become a part of the historical background.

    Stalin and Mao are odd ones. They apparently killed more people than hitler did, yet it is the latter who continues to receive the most condemnation even though Mao was very much part of my younger life so I remember him well.

    Hitler of course deserves to be utterly vilified but why the others escape and are merely historical figures is an interesting conundrum.

    So yes, there is both a dividing line of Years, which relates to the dates and extent of the atrocity and also how they subsequently become viewed in history.

    There is certainly no one at all from the 19th century that I view as anything other than a historical figure of interest and wouldn’t condemn them, and the further back in time you go, the less I would attempt to judge them, their morals or their motives, as times were so utterly different and we are kidding ourselves if we believe we would undobtedly have nobly done things entirely differently to our ancestors .

    If we bring a modern sense of outrage to history as you wish to do, I would be seeking reparations from the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans and any others whose successors could be traced, including the Moorish raiders who snatched my fellow devonians from the local towns and sold them into slavery as recently as the early 19th century and had been doing the same for hundreds of years previously.

    However, I don’t harbour any grudges against their ancestors and don’t demand we pull down any statues, demolish mosques or in any other way try to punish them for the sins of their fathers.

    I hope that is a full and fair answer?

    Tonyb

    • Tony –

      > Hopefully you will find this at the foot of the thread as it is getting too tiresome to scroll through the comments and hope the reply is sent from the right place.

      Yes, I found your comment:

      > Is this a response to my post asking that you give me one question to answer, as you are otherwise just peppering me with what apear to be statements?

      Not sure why they appear to be statements, Tony. They’re questions with some background explanation for why I have the questions. Hopefully if you read it again you’ll see that. It would be a nice indication of good faith on your part. No obligation, of course, But again, I have found this type of thing to be a pattern in your engagement with me. I attempt to engage in good faith and you characterize what I’m doing in some other fashion. I wasn’t “peppering” you with questions – I was trying to establish the groundwork that underlies the opinions you’ve expressed because, imo, they largely lacked important contet.

      > If so, you ask about stalin and Mao and a dividing line.its a good question.

      > Yes, some people are uniquely evil and will always have a special place in our condemnation, but even then they will fade into history . Some of the Moorish and roman emperors ordered the most horrific of massacres and these were taken up through the ages by others and yet in time just become a part of the historical background.

      This doesn’t answer my question. My question was whether we should judge Mao and Stalin by today’s standards. And if so, since that means that we’re reaching back into the past and applying today’s standards to another time, then what is the basis on which it’s ok to do that in one context but not ok, in your opinion, to do that in another? So most of that paragraph are not relevant to my question, as far as I can tell

      > Stalin and Mao are odd ones. They apparently killed more people than hitler did, yet it is the latter who continues to receive the most condemnation even though Mao was very much part of my younger life so I remember him well.

      Nor that. It seems, rather, that you want to use my question to press some rhetorical point. Which, of course, is entirely your right. But it isn’t useful, IMO, of meaningful engagement. If I ask you a question so as to better interrogate and thus understand your position, for you to respond by pressing some rhetorical point doesn’t serve to help me to better understand.

      > So yes, there is both a dividing line of Years, which relates to the dates and extent of the atrocity and also how they subsequently become viewed in history.

      So then what is that dividing line of years? Why does it apply to Mao or Stalin and not the American founders? On what basis do you determine where to draw that line?

      > There is certainly no one at all from the 19th century that I view as anything other than a historical figure of interest and wouldn’t condemn them, and the further back in time you go, the less I would attempt to judge them, their morals or their motives, as times were so utterly different and we are kidding ourselves if we believe we would undobtedly have nobly done things entirely differently to our ancestors .

      I’m not interested in whether you would condemn them, but why you think that we shouldn’t use standards of today – and instead to impute some theoretical and as far as I can tell highly arbitrary standard of the time – to assess what they did and didn’t do and what the associated morality was.

      Here’s an example. For the people who had the biggest guns at the time, the native Americans were ‘savages.” That was their standard of the time, and that therefore served as a rationale for the slaughter of those “savages.” Should we not assess the morality of such a set of events? Obviously, by the standards of the day among the native Americans, it wasn’t they that were the “savages,” but those who slaughtered them. As far as I’m concerned, we don’t need to “condemn” the perpetrators of that mass slaughter, but we can examine the relative morality of that, based on our own standards of today. We can understand that no person is defined by the least moral thing that they do, but that doesn’t mean that we need to abdicate a judgement of the morality of actions of people from the past, based on some as of yet undefined criterion for drawing the line at some as of yet unspecified passage of years

      We in this country like to take pride in the American founders. We like to take ownership over the wonderful things that they achieved. And we do that through a lens of current day standards. Yet we don’t like to apply that kind of ownership, or to apply other standards of the day, to the American founders if it makes us feel bad. For me, the point is often mistakenly seen as wanting people to assume guilt for the actions of Americans in the past. Not at all for me. For me the point is to (1) recognize and acknowledge the actions of the past and judge their morality using standards of today – because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to learn that we don’t want to repeat those same kinds of actions. it is precisely because we’re applying standards of today that we know that we don’t want to repeat those kinds of actions, and (2) take ownership over those actions in precisely the same way that we want to take ownership over the things that we view more positively. With taking ownership, and showing accountability, we can take a big step towards moving on. No “guilt” for actions I didn’t commit need apply – but it is important for those who have experienced the legacy of those past actions in ways that I haven’t, for accountability, as a culture and as a nation, to be established.

      It isn’t only slavery that was the problem. If you want to draw the line there then it doesn’t add up, IMO After emancipation, as a country we continued a collective injustice on a mass scale – allowing some 80% of African Americans to register to vote and then taking enfranchisement away from them, and lynching them in the thousands, and treating them as sub-human in a variety of ways. Indeed, the continued deprivation that has a direct line back to slavery continued in the most obvious of forms until the middle of the 20th century. And just as I have no problem using the standards of today to judge Mao or Stalin, I have no problem judging the actions of the “establishment” in this country in the treatment of Black Americans into the 1960s, and I don’t see any non-arbitrary to draw a line between the white supremacy of the 1950s, or the 1890s, from the 1850s, or the 1770s. And that’s why I have asked you to explain on what basis you would draw such a line.

      > If we bring a modern sense of outrage to history as you wish to do, I would be seeking reparations from the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans and any others whose successors could be traced, including the Moorish raiders who snatched my fellow devonians from the local towns and sold them into slavery as recently as the early 19th century and had been doing the same for hundreds of years previously.

      That is an ad absurdum form of argument. I am asking you to explain what the underlying criteria you use to create your lines of distinction, and in response you create an ad absurdum straw man argument. That isn’t discussing in good faith, Tony.

      > I hope that is a full and fair answer?

      I appreciate the engagement. But honestly, it didn’t seem like either. That isn’t to say that I think it wasn’t intended as a full and fair answer. I really can’t know if that was the case. I can only say that actually, it didn’t seem like much of an answer at all – to the question that I asked.

      • dougbadgero

        Not sure I see any need to judge Stalin, Mao, or Hitler. The only need is the need to avoid the circumstances that brought them to power. See F. A. Hayek to start.

      • doug –

        > Not sure I see any need to judge Stalin, Mao, or Hitler. The only need is the need to avoid the circumstances that brought them to power.

        Part of my point is that if you don’t judge them, then you can’t avoid doing what they did. The same would go for the Founding Fathers – in both a good sense and in a bad sense. If you don’t just what they did you can’t avoid the bad stuff they did and can’t emulate the good stuff they did.

      • Your talents are wasted on this lot, Joshua. But not on me. Keep it up.

      • Left loon bromance tandem shark jumping is the new sport of the virtue signalling SJW crowd. Not as popular as rioting and statue toppling, but its safe for the keyboard warrior snowflakes.

      • Wow! I guess I will have to skim harder. Missed this gem:

        Shark jumper #1 says about Stalin, Mao:

        “Part of my point is that if you don’t judge them, then you can’t avoid doing what they did.”

        This is just plain inexcusably and incredibly stupid. Funny too.

      • Thanks Brandon.

        I appreciate your comments as well.

        I like to think that something slips in the back door while they’re actively barricading the front door.

        Don’s constant protestations, where he responds to my comments to tell me that he doesn’t read my comments, may be a signal.

      • At last count it was 85 comments from Joshua to your 60, Don. That leaves a 15-point spread between his thread bombing attention seeking and your erudite rebuttals.

        The “you have too much time on your hands” flame is at least as old as Usenet, and still endearing whenever I see it deployed against forum regulars by forum regulars. God bless you for being you.

  80. > However, I don’t harbour any grudges against their ancestors and don’t demand we pull down any statues, demolish mosques or in any other way try to punish them for the sins of their fathers.

    Flash news: Boris Johnson is not a Moor. Film at 10.

  81. Even Flashier news

    I voted for boris. His great grandfather was a Turkish Muslim politican killed by a mob

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/whodoyouthinkyouare/past-stories/boris-how-we-did-it_1.shtml

    Tonyb

    • Don Monfort

      They are trying to talk you to death, tony. A couple of serial shark jumpers with a foolish left loon agenda and a lot of time on their hands.

      • Don

        We have some delicious irony here. You have a Jamaican wife. I voted for someone whose ancestor was a Turkish Muslim.

        On the other hand I strongly suspect that at the last presidential election Brandon voted for a highly privileged white woman and in the next he will vote for a highly privileged white man. He needs to embrace diversity more

        Tonyb

      • > On the other hand I strongly suspect that at the last presidential election Brandon voted for a highly privileged white woman and in the next he will vote for a highly privileged white man.

        Donald’s silver spoon was much much larger.

        And as usual everyone wants to forget the misegenated Kenyan Muslim I voted for, to say nothing of his mongrel children from that trophy gorilla he married. Except for when another of Dear Leader’s face plants needs blamed on a guy whose been out of office for almost four years.

        I don’t know who you clowns think you’re fooling, but I’m pretty sure it’s only yourselves.

      • You forgot shot in the head for his troubles, kid. But it’s encouraging to see modern bigots getting on board with at least one law-breaking Thug long after the fact. Keep fighting the good fight brother!

        Stop me when this begins to sound familiar.

        We the undersigned clergymen are among those who in January, issued “An Appeal for Law and Order and Common Sense,” in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed. Since that time there had been some evidence of increased forbearance and a willingness to face facts. Responsible citizens have undertaken to work on various problems which caused racial friction and unrest. In Birmingham, recent public events have given indication that we all have opportunity for a new constructive and realistic approach to racial problems. However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely. We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experience of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment. Just as we formerly pointed out that “hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political tradition.” We also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.

    • Tonyb
      I always look for your name.

      I hope all is well as can be expected. Science of raising sea levels and temperatures seems to be superseded by Covid but hopefully it will come back.

      Best wishes from your ally in CA.
      Scott

      • Scott

        Good to hear from you. Our local city Plymouth had big celebrations planned to commemorate the sailing of the Mayflower. Unfortunately of course events have completely overtaken it.

        Perhaps that is fortunate as judging by the highly charged and inflamed comments by some on this board it might have sparked riots over the pond as the debate raged about the morality of the colonisation
        Tonyb

    • > Even Flashier news I voted for boris.

      I never would have guessed.

      > His great grandfather was a Turkish Muslim politican killed by a mob

      Nothing to fret about, that kind of thing was more common than not back then.

  82. Imagine the following scenario

    Germany wins WWII, and in the aftermath builds statues of Hitler all over London, like in Trafalgar Square. Obviously, the British public is not consulted in the decision to build the statues.

    At a later time, some 50 years later, a British resistance defeats the government Hitler left behind when he died, and the British once again control Britain.

    And some British want to tear down the statures of Hitler in their communities. They don’t want statues of people who tortured and killed and raped and treated their ancestors as sub-humans, in their communities.

    And in response, other Brits say – no, we should leave those statues in place, because otherwise how will we remember what happened. And besides, anyway, we shouldn’t judge Hitler because he was a man of his time and we shouldn’t be applying our standards of today to judge him. And tearing those statues down would be so divisive – and what we really all want is to just get along nicely.

    • Just a short drive from where I live is Oradour-sur-Glane. It was the scene of a barbaric atrocity committed by an SS panzer division – Das Reich – trying to make their way north to support the German troops defending against the D-day landings.
      The full story would take much too long to tell. It is enough to know that the entire village of over 1000 people were massacred. Women and children were herded into the church, machine-gunned through the windows and finished off with grenades. The village is preserved.

      If you visit Germany, you should take a happy day out to visit Dachau – one of the death camps.

      If you get to Paris, you will inevitably see the Arc de Triomphe, one of France’s most famous monuments. It was commissioned in 1806 by Napoleon Bonaparte to celebrate the victories of his Grande Armee; Bonaparte was the most ambitious warmonger of his day, responsible for millions of deaths and the destruction and impoverishment of large swathes of Europe for a decade.

      Do these monuments celebrate, commemorate or denigrate? Should we destroy them all, since they are associated with bad people?

      The answer to your hypothetical question about Hitler is simple. You do not destroy monuments which mark history or have great artistic merit; it just makes it more difficult for future generations to learn from history. This is why authoritarian governments engaged in historical revisionism actively destroy symbols of previous regimes. Better to just add a plaque. “Here is a statue of Adolf Hitler, a psychopathic dictator of the 20th Century, responsible for an estimated 30 million deaths. Never again.”

      • Kribaez

        Excellent comment. Yes, those nasty British together with their allies disposed of yet another mass murderer. As I mentioned to Joshua, after time some peoples actions just get side-lined and accepted. Hitler is righty vilified but his contemporaries such as Stalin and Mao don’t get the same bad press.

        Many people to this day still admire napoleon despite his swathe of death and destruction. He was brought as a prisoner in a royal navy ship to the bay I see everyday in my walk. Sightseers paid boatmen a penny each to be rowed out to get a closer look. He was seen as a heroic figure

        So why is napoleon still lionised by many, yet minor figures of the same era are the centre point of hate and a cancel culture?

        Is anyone in France trying to topple any of his statues?

        Tonyb

      • > This is why authoritarian governments engaged in historical revisionism actively destroy symbols of previous regimes.

        They also burn the books. Not that the ones most in need of reading them ever would or could. We might start with historical revisionism not meaning what you want it to mean.

        > Better to just add a plaque. “Here is a statue of Adolf Hitler, a psychopathic dictator of the 20th Century, responsible for an estimated 30 million deaths. Never again.”

        Melt down the statue an make a thousand plaques. Much harder to burn, I doubt even the ovens of Dachau are up to the task.

        The mental contortions closeted neo-Nazis go through to (c)overtly preserve their idols is frightening. The sooner their representatives are escorted out of the halls of government forever the better.

      • verytallguy

        “So why is napoleon still lionised by many, yet minor figures of the same era are the centre point of hate and a cancel culture?”

        Why do you think Tony?

        And where are these statues of Napoleon in your country?

      • VTG,
        There are some statues of Napoleon in the UK. Ironically, one of the most famous is in Apsley House – the home of the Duke of Wellington.

      • krbaez –

        A problem with hypothetical scenarios such as the one I offered, like a problem often with analogies, is that they obviously don’t mirror reality prefectly.

        In my scenario, I had to create a somewhat convoluted sequence where a statue of Hitler could be constructed in London, so I had to create a circumstance where Germany had control temporarily. But perhaps a scenario closer to what we have in the US would be where there was no temporary period of German control and instead, after having won the war against Germany, people of German descent in Britain erected statues of Hitler to memorialize the greatness of the man. But I didn’t offer that scenario precisely because it would be so completely implausible it seemed of less value.

        > Just a short drive from where I live is Oradour-sur-Glane. It was the scene of a barbaric atrocity committed by an SS panzer division – Das Reich – trying to make their way north to support the German troops defending against the D-day landings.
        The full story would take much too long to tell. It is enough to know that the entire village of over 1000 people were massacred. Women and children were herded into the church, machine-gunned through the windows and finished off with grenades. The village is preserved.

        >> If you visit Germany, you should take a happy day out to visit Dachau – one of the death camps.

        I don’t know about Oradour-sur-Glane, but I do know that places like Dachau are preserved in a very specific manner. They were not something like a statue constructed after the end of the war which some of these statues were – sometimes considerably after and during an extended period of time where after those seeking to preserve slavery lost the war but still codified in law and in practice, mass discrimination of the sort that slavery represented – by the descendants of those who lost the war, for the specific purpose of honoring those people who slaughtered people in concentration camps. A Jewish child on a visit to a German concentration camp is something entirely different than young black girl walking a city street in her neighborhood in the US and coming across an auction block where her ancestors were sold in slavery. With no marker talking about the significance of that marker. It isn’t like a pregnant black woman coming across a statue of J. Marion Sims in her neighborhood, the “father of gynecology,” who conducted research on enslaved black women *without anesthesia* so that he could develop medical procedures to improve the health of white women

        Can you imagine statues in Germany, built after the war, to *honor* Hitler, because in a sense he was the greatest leader in a long German history? I’d rather think not.

        > If you get to Paris, you will inevitably see the Arc de Triomphe, one of France’s most famous monuments. It was commissioned in 1806 by Napoleon Bonaparte to celebrate the victories of his Grande Armee; Bonaparte was the most ambitious warmonger of his day, responsible for millions of deaths and the destruction and impoverishment of large swathes of Europe for a decade.

        This comment elides an important distinction. Some of these statues were not elected by the winners of a conflict to honor glorious military victories, but by the losers of a military conflict to honor those losers – within a context of oppression that had a direct lineage to the racism of those being honored by the statues.

        Now I’m not arguing that their aren’t important gradients to consider along a continuum. Tearing down a statue of George Washington would be at one place along a continuum with tearing down a statue of Jefferson Davis. And I’m not particularly going to defend the “tearing down” aspect. But what I’m arguing against in this thread is the notion that somehow there is some principle in play whereby it is unreasonable to insist that it is somehow not sustainable to argue that statues such as one *honoring* Jefferson Davis should be removed from the public square – and perhaps put into a history museum somewhere more appropriate.

        > Do these monuments celebrate, commemorate or denigrate? Should we destroy them all, since they are associated with bad people?

        I haven’t said that the statues should go because they are associated with bad people (and therefore support your assignment of a straw man argument to me that *any* statue of *any* “bad” person should be torn down. Constructing ad absurdum arguments to engage someone doesn’t promote good faith exchange. I am saying that specific statues, that represent a specific set of historical circumstances, are inappropriate within a particular context. Statues erected to *honor* people who used military force to slaughter and enslave and rape black people over a period of hundreds of years, and constructed in a context of a continuance of massive discrimination against those same people once they were freed or their direct ancestors, is not appropriate in the public square where a young black girl will have to look up and see those memorials as she goes to visit her grandmother.

        It might be different, if as in Germany, there was a careful and deep process of reconciliation in this country for the institution of slavery and the long period of mass discrimination that followed. But no such process has taken place in this country, as it has in Germany. That is precisely part of the point.

        > The answer to your hypothetical question about Hitler is simple.

        It’s interesting that you give me a “simple” answer to my question by Hitler by responding on a point that doesn’t even reference any statues of Hitler.

        > You do not destroy monuments

        Ah. The royal “you.”

        “Destroy” makes it a little more complicated. I’m not exactly advocating that statues be “destroyed.” I’m arguing against the belief that such statues are appropriate in the public square. I’d like to stick to that if you further engage. But I fear that even if we go with “destroyed” the logic of your argument is still suspect to me, because…

        > which mark history or have great artistic merit;

        Obviously, we can reference and study and understand and reflect upon and teach about the historical existence of individual perpetrators of treatment of humans as sub-humans, or the societal practice of institutional treatment of people as sub-human, without having statues built to *honor* them in the public square. You offer a false choice. And obviously, “great artistic merit” is a subjective evaluation. It is interesting that you seem to deem yourself qualified to determine what should be the artistic merit of a statue of J. Marion Sims to a pregnant block woman who looks up to see said statue as she walks to visit her grandmother.

      • krbaez –

        When I work with non-native speakers of English, I do an exercise where I read them a passage and then ask them to repeat back to me exactly what I said, including such aspects as pronunciation tone, tempo, pacing, etc. The point is that when they make “errors” in their reproduction, it manifests the existing structures that they have in their own heads (say, the grammatical structures of their native language) rather than what took place outside their heads. And so, I ask them to reflect upon why those mistakes were manifest and how to correct for them – as it is through that process they can rebuild the structures in their heads to more accurately produce a native-live English.

        My point here is that you seem to be mistaken that I think that statues of someone like Sims or Jefferson should be removed because they were “bad people.” That is a construction in your head, not mine. I think they should be removed because of the specific iconography, within a specific set of contexts. Yes, their “badness'” is a related aspect, but you are wholly mistaken to think that I think the statues should be removed because they were of “bad people.”

        I have said as much numerous times on this thread. The worst (or best) actions of any person does not define who they are. It doesn’t define their character. But the simple fact that certain people have had statues erected to honor them, when they became notable *specifically* because they advanced the cause of rape, slaughter, enslavement, exploitation, and a level of cruelty that is hard for us to now even imagine, and then placed in the very communities were people experience effects that are the direct legacy of those honorees actions, is the relevant point.

      • Don Monfort

        Not even skimmable.

      • Sure Don.

        Lol!

      • Don Monfort

        That’s better. Keep it up. You can make a fool of yourself and save everybody a lot of time.

      • Joshua,
        Someone must be paying you by the word.
        Your hypothetical pregnant black girl will not get a chance to look up to see the statue of J Marion Sims in Central Park because the statue was disappeared/canceled/converted into an ex-statue two years ago.
        I note from newspaper reports that there were some black community leaders in New York who did argue at the time that it would be better to leave the statue and include a full and well-displayed description of what he had done, but they lost the debate to iconoclasts. It would not surprise me if the iconoclasts were supported by racist interests in the municipality, since faced with those two alternatives, any god-fearing racist would surely prefer to disappear the statue. Pity. This was a missed opportunity. In 10 years time, hardly anyone will remember his name, and yet it is a story which should be known to everyone.

      • kribaez –

        > Your hypothetical pregnant black girl will not get a chance to look up to see the statue of J Marion Sims in Central Park because the statue was disappeared/canceled/converted into an ex-statue two years ago.

        Precisely. My point being that there was good reason to remove the statue.

        > I note from newspaper reports that there were some black community leaders in New York who did argue at the time that it would be better to leave the statue and include a full and well-displayed description of what he had done,

        Ah. So now you think that rhe community members should have a voice, and not go by what the royals have determined what “you” should do? I agree with that.

        > but they lost the debate to iconoclasts.

        LOL. No. They lost the debate to other members of the community. They royals lost out. What a shame.

        > It would not surprise me if the iconoclasts were supported by racist interests in the municipality,

        Odd problem there is that white supremacists clearly fall out on the the side of keeping statues in place.

        > since faced with those two alternatives, any god-fearing racist would surely prefer to disappear the statue.

        Easily proven false. Whybwoukdnyou present an argument so easily proven false?

        And again, you lay out an odd mishmash of in the one hand saying that rhe people of the community involved should decide snd then saying that you should decide.
        Communities are removing statues because through representative government, non-racists want them removed because of their racist symbolism.

        > shouldn’t hey not agree with you. Pity. This was a missed opportunity. In 10 years time, hardly anyone will remember his name, and yet it is a story which should be known to everyone.

        Such a shame that people won’t remember his name. What a loss! If they don’t remember his name, why no one will realize the horrors of what took place during slavery!

        Indeed, without his statue infhe public square, no black children will even know that their ancestors where raped and murdered and treated as sub-himans. How will they know with no statue in the public square honoring that murderer?

      • Yes Kribaez, its an excellent comment.

        Perhaps the bottom line is that the current momument removal craze is not based on logical thinking or historical knowledge, but on slogans and anger. That’s why the selection of those to be “disappeared” seems so wierd.

      • Joshua,
        You may find this post hurtful, but it is not intended to be vicious. It is intended to make you think a bit more about how you contribute.

        You make it almost impossible for anyone to continue a dialogue with you. You have a track record on these threads of writing long obscurantist screeds, complete with numerous false trails and rhetorical elisions of vital questions. You also managed above to include an excellent example of Ciceronian praeteritio, except that instead of using it to powerful rhetorical effect, as Cicero might have done, you spend two long paragraphs trashing the hypothetical question which you introduced in the first place, and arguing that the alternative is implausible. You then complain that people are avoiding addressing your questions! If it is your intention to obscure and confuse then you are doing an excellent job. If it is not, then I would strongly recommend that you try to organise your thoughts and communicate them more succinctly.

        You accused me of being mistaken in my understanding of your position. Undoubtedly true. Here was one of your statement to clarify your position:-
        “But what I’m arguing against in this thread is the notion that somehow there is some principle in play whereby it is unreasonable to insist that it is somehow not sustainable to argue that statues such as one *honoring* Jefferson Davis should be removed from the public square – and perhaps put into a history museum somewhere more appropriate.”
        I invite you to scan the number of negatives in that sentence for the benefit of the non-English speaker to whom you introduced us (as part of a wordy and somewhat patronising digression in your follow-up comment). I speak three languages fluently and can order beers in several more, but I still cannot untangle what that sentence says about your position.

        However, you did clarify your criteria for whether statues should be taken down or not. Here it is:-
        “My point here is that you seem to be mistaken that I think that statues of someone like Sims or Jefferson should be removed because they were “bad people.” That is a construction in your head, not mine. I think they should be removed because of the specific iconography, within a specific set of contexts. “
        Well, that makes everything clear for the readers. You’re into art criticism and symbology, and to understand your position, we need to know about not just the context, but the multidimensional intersection of a whole set of contexts, which are specific but not actually specified. OK, based on this precise instruction set, I can now go out with my hammer. I know exactly what you mean.

        However, the worst aspect of your writing is that you very quickly descend into petulant, biting personal comments, which question the honesty, integrity, motivation or background of anyone who holds an opinion different from your own. You do this without provocation. I have resisted the temptation to respond to your snide comments, since this normally signals the end of any hope of intelligent exchange (eg the sarcastic reference to the royal “you”, my arrogance as an art critic, the supremacy of my opinion over a local community view, etc) . If you are unaware that this is your modus operandi, then I would strongly suggest that you re-read some of your comments above and reflect carefully on your intent. There is some irony in that this MO of yours is very related to cancel culture. You hold your own views to be unquestionably true and beyond argument. It follows therefore that anyone who does not share your view has bad or hidden motives, and hence merits personal attack. Think about this carefully.

        I have lived and worked in three countries with authoritarian regimes. In two of them, I had a ringside view of the dismantling of constitutional protections of individual rights, and of the appalling injustices which followed. Our opinions are all uniquely formed by our history. In my own case, I am a passionate believer in individual human rights within a democratic framework, more so than you, I think, given your expressed willingness to limit free speech. I support Parrhesia – the right to speak honestly without fear of offending – whether there is a creepingly oppressive right-wing government or a creepingly oppressive left-wing government. From your comments, you are perfectly happy to limit free speech providing it is done by the left, since it is done for good reasons.

        Oh, and my wife is non-white, and my extended family is non-white, and I have many friends ranging in colour from jet black to honey-coloured, musicians and artists for the most part, and even some white folk . I see zero point in responding to implications that I am a closet anti-democrat or racist, or a supremacist of any description, just because I disagree with your own peculiarly concretised views and expectations.

        And, despite your eloquence and abuse, I still think it was a lost opportunity not to reframe the J Marion Sims statue as a long-term testament to true history, in the same way that Oradour and Dachau are used as memorials to learn from the past. I now read that the local community has a very large angel on its way to replace the statue. No doubt, you think this was a better outcome?.

      • > You may find this post hurtful, but it is not intended to be vicious. It is intended to make you think a bit more about how you contribute.

        Deal with Joshua’s arguments or cancel yourself from this discussion. Because the second you comment on style everyone in the room knows you’re out of arguments.

      • krbaez –

        No offense taken.

        > I see zero point in responding to implications that I am a closet anti-democrat or racist, or a supremacist of any description, just because I disagree with your own peculiarly concretised views and expectations.

        Totally in your head. I have implied no such thing.

        Any time I’m unclear, ask for clarification and I’ll clarify.

        It might help if you excerpt the things that I write that you’re confused about.

        Bottom line. It is illogical to argue that removing statues – built to honor people because they advanced the institution of slavery – will result in people not understanding the impact of the institution of slavery.

        So my question is why, someone who speaks three languages (fluently, I might add) and traveled the world and has honey-colored people in his/her family (musicians and artists at that!), would make such an illogical argument?

        As for the (admittedly convoluted) excerpt you did provide, and making an assumption that you actually want clarification rather than want to focus on my less than concise wording (my guess is that you could probably have figured out what I was doing going for, given your fluency in three languages, but nonetheless) :

        > Now I’m not arguing that their aren’t important gradients to consider along a continuum. Tearing down a statue of George Washington would be at one place along a continuum with tearing down a statue of Jefferson Davis. And I’m not particularly going to defend the “tearing down” aspect. But what I’m arguing against in this thread is the notion that somehow there is some principle in play whereby it is unreasonable to insist that it is somehow not sustainable to argue that statues such as one *honoring* Jefferson Davis should be removed from the public square – and perhaps put into a history museum somewhere more appropriate.

        People gathering together to tear down a statue is an act somewhat separate from the underlying issue of the removing the statues from the public square.

        As for the underlying issues… I don’t think there’s any logical coherence to the argument that removing statutes of heroes of slavery from the public square, and placing them perhaps in museums or even where no one will see them, has a material impact on our understanding or knowledge of history.

        We don’t need statues of Hitler in the public square to know the impact of N*zi Germany. In particular, we don’t need statues of Hitler, erected after the end of WW II by his supporters to honor him for slaughtering millions of innocent people, in order to understand Hitler’s role in history.

        I think it’s illogical to argue that we need statutes of Hitler in the square, erected to honor his role in the slaughter of millions of innocent people, to understand Hitler’s role in history, or to know about the slaughter of millions of innocent people in N*zi Germany.

        There are no statues of Mao or Stalin erected in the public square in America to honor their accomplishments. That doesn’t materially diminish our understanding of their role in history.

        I’ll add that I suspect, that when citizens of Iraq tore down statues of Saddam Hussein, you didn’t wring your hands over the plight of those poor future children of Iraq who would remain ignorant of Sadam Hussein’s impact on history. I’d also be willing to bet that you also didn’t somehow illogically tie the tearing down of statues of Saddam Hussein, to a loss of free speech.

        I hope that makes my argument clear to you. If not, please ask for clarification.

      • Don –

        As always, thanks is for reading. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.

      • Don

        You are arguing with a crafty and pitiless many headed hydra here. You will need to sharpen three swords to deal with it before it devours you and your society

        Firstly you need to re acquaint yourself with the language of the hydra which is fluent in ‘critical race theory’, a Marxist ideology which basically blames every societal ill on white people

        Secondly you nee to recognise that the hydra sees Orwell’s 1984 as a manual for living, not a work of fiction. The chapter on ‘wrong think’ will be especially well thumbed.

        Your third sword is to be familiar with Mao’s cultural revolution which the cancel culture has many parallels with, whereby comrades were encouraged to denounce those thinking wrong thoughts and inform on them. In the modern world that will be on twitter

        This is a formidable enemy and most people just look away from the fray as they want a quiet life. That isn’t you of course but the majority tends to go along with those who shout loudest, especially when they are playing a long game with the lefts march through the institutions

        If you had the time or inclination you might like to brush up on Gibbons ‘decline and fall of the roman empire’ as this current situation has a distinct whiff of history about it and the decline of the west is likely to result in decades of mayhem as others seize the crown.

        It wasn’t until around the sixteenth century that global gdp returned to where it been 1000 years earlier when Rome disintegrated

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb,
        If the Chinese succeed in their master plan of dominating in the 3-4 critical technologies that will determine the future of civilization it will be up to them to determine what social framework looks like in 20 or 30 years.
        They have publicly stated what those technologies are. Are you familiar with each one and how they interlock? Do a quick search going back to 2017 and consider the wisdom of their choices.

        PS: Why does everybody seem to think the Roman empire stopped in 476 AD? Maybe because the after split between the christian Orthodox and Catholicism our view of history was mostly shaped by western clergy and a few scholars? The eastern Roman empire carried on till 1453 until the fall of Constantinople to Islam. As it turned out it was the Islamic empire that preserved the writings of the ancient Greeks that provided the spark for the Enlightenment.

      • > You are arguing with a crafty and pitiless many headed hydra here.

        Not speaking for any of the other heads of this beast, we admire your craft just as much, I’m sure.

        > ‘critical race theory’, a Marxist ideology which basically blames every societal ill on white people

        Heavy is the head which wears the crown, Tonyb. Goes a long way toward explaining why you still believe that Colonialism did more net good than bad in Africa.

        > Orwell’s 1984 as a manual for living, not a work of fiction. The chapter on ‘wrong think’ will be especially well thumbed.

        You would know best.

        > Mao’s cultural revolution which the cancel culture has many parallels

        Except all the key ones: Mao is dead, Trump is president and the protestors are very openly burning the Reichstag.

        Speaking of false false flags, you do realize that Jews did 911 was King Hussein Osama’s last laff, right?

        > In the modern world that will be on twitter

        Oh dear, a level playing field. God save the Queen.

        > This is a formidable enemy and most people just look away from the fray as they want a quiet life.

        Mein Kampf you’re right.

        Gaslight should be against the Geneva Convention.

    • Joshua

      That scenario has been done by the excellent cj Sampson in ‘dominion’ . Yes, the author i recommended a few days ago as someone able to give you a rounded view of the terrible living conditions for ordinary people in past ages, who were often little better than a type of slave themselves

      Now, are you really comparing the US govt since independence with an imaginary occupying German army responsible for 20 million deaths worldwide and the extermination of six million Jews?

      Do you really see a moral equivalence between the two, as by using the emotive words of killed, tortured, raped, that is what it sounds like.

      I will assume you just got carried away by your rhetoric.

      Now, I generally access this site using a ten inch tablet which is difficult to read anyway.. Every time I want to make a comment I have to sign in. I would then estimate one in three posts just disappear into the ether or get moderated. Then one spends minutes looking upwards to see the correct reply slot in the thread, so it can get very tedious

      Add In that your last reply to me took up some 140 lines of often densely argued points with numerous asides, plus break lines, and reading some of your posts becomes akin to settling down for the evening with a long and difficult to read book, think Thomas hardy and ‘Jude the obscure’

      . So it is not a matter of not willing to engage with you but that doing so is quite an effort and replies often don’t appear.

      So please keep them short and if you think I didn’t respond maybe i didn’t ( i do have lots of other things to do) but I probably did but it is hiding in that whirling cloud of lost words clogging up the internet

      Tonyb

    • David Appell

      dpy66 wrote:
      >> Perhaps the bottom line is that the current momument removal craze is not based on logical thinking or historical knowledge, but on slogans and anger. <<

      It's based on the logical response of anger that rotten slave owners who thought they could own human beings were cowards who weren't worth anything then and were cowards who don't deserve accolades in these times and now.

      Why should we honor slaveowners anymore than we should honor historical rapists?

      • Don Monfort

        Show us how outraged you were about this issue, when Saint Barak and old sleepy Joe were in charge of slave owner honoring statues, for 8 years and did exactly nothing.

  83. We are the greatest nation in history. As we became that, good people worked at making us that. We continue to work at becoming better. We listen to our critics sometimes. When you indict people like Washington and Jefferson, you are indicting everyone at that time he didn’t do anything to any thing to fix the problem you’re highlighting.

    There’s a narrative that our nation was built on slavery that is crap. It was built on the kind of things that eventually freed our slaves. All men are created equal was used many time to argue against slavery. We are still trying to obtain that.

    We got to 1935 with the ability to contribute ½ to WWII and win it with the other ½ being kicked in by the rest of the Allies. You don’t do that with slavery. Or having slavery 70 years prior. Or with cotton and mansions. You do it with industry and natural resources. Which doesn’t have a lot to do with slavery except it helps replace that.

    You’re not happy. Fine. Many of us are and grateful we were fortunate enough to be born here. Try not to ruin it. You can find problems that are in greater need of fixing. You can bring joy to others. You can improve their lives I think.

    Think of this as your Constitutional Convention. Be a hero. Work with others. Compromise.

    • Ragnaar,

      > We are the greatest nation in history.

      By what measure.

      > We listen to our critics sometimes.

      Especially when they say things we agree with.

      > When you indict people like Washington and Jefferson, you are indicting everyone at that time he didn’t do anything to any thing to fix the problem you’re highlighting.

      On the contrary the OG abolitionists did heroic work to get as much as they did. Which is exactly why I have consistently and repeatedly called for them to be elevated above their contemporary slave owners. If throwing Jefferson’s statue into the gutter where it always belonged isn’t enough for you to get that message, I don’t know what will.

      > There’s a narrative that our nation was built on slavery that is crap.

      It IS absolutely is crap. It’s also true.

      > It was built on the kind of things that eventually freed our slaves.

      A bit like fusion power in that respect. Coming along nicely but always the next generation away.

      > All men are created equal was used many time to argue against slavery.

      Including from the beginning. How well did that work out.

      > We are still trying to obtain that.

      Some of “we” are. Others not so much.

      > We got to 1935 with the ability to contribute ½ to WWII and win it with the other ½ being kicked in by the rest of the Allies. You don’t do that with slavery.

      It worked for the Egyptians, Romans … same list you clowns have been using to normalize and thus trivialize the unspeakably horrific treatment your heroes visited upon their fellow humans. Like I said, disgusting.

      > You’re not happy.

      Say it isn’t so.

      > Many of us are and grateful we were fortunate enough to be born here.

      Ditto.

      > Try not to ruin it.

      The only good minimum is a bare one.

      > You can find problems that are in greater need of fixing.

      I’ll get back cancelling CAGW soon enough, Raagnar. Believe.

      > You can bring joy to others.

      Tearing down statues of slave owners makes people ecstatic. You should try it sometime. With the permission of your local civic leaders of course … you’d never survive county lockup.

      > You can improve their lives I think.

      Being a resident of California, my ability do do that is somewhat hobbled by the Electoral Good Old Boys Gerrymandering Rubber Stamp Club College. As a liberal I take it all in stride; even the privileged white patriarchy needs a little affirmative action from time to time.

      > Think of this as your Constitutional Convention. Be a hero. Work with others. Compromise.

      No quarter asked or given to racists, their collaborators, enablers or apologists. Ever.

      • The beginning of Great. Post Civil War. And the real breakout out was WWII. We were too busy discriminating pre WWII to be great. You can’t be great with slavery. That doesn’t make any sense. The South was poor and couldn’t win the Civil War because they had slavery. How not to win a war: Enslave people. I don’t see how one can say that we were built on slavery. It has a lot to do with technology.

        And one loses again arguing it was built on slavery by taking the negatives of the past and worshiping them. Making it their creed. And forming organizations of like minded people. For what good thing? Vengeance. Good job.

      • Ragnaar,

        > The beginning of Great. Post Civil War.

        Yes, cancel Reconstruction. Why? Because all it did was remantle the same power structure under old Yankee management instead of new Johnny Reb.

        The “Reconstructionists” occupied AFRICAN soil, not American. It was AFRICANS, proud worthy capable strong ones, who tilled that earth fertilized by the blood sweat tears and flesh of their AFRICAN ancestors. There was no need to “send them back to where they came from” as some dim bulbs had (and have) suggested, they were already there:

        Reparations should have been the immediate transfer of all property titles into a trust for all AFRICANS, loan guarantees so that AFRICAN entrepreneurs could create, manage and enjoy the full profit potential of their own sweat equity for once.

        Can you imagine any greater country in the world than the African State of America? I cannot, but I know that the Native A