The reactions that followed were marked by legitimate indignation. Unfortunately, the attack was also used to launch a campaign both dangerous and treacherous.
Tarrant, in his manifesto, defined himself as an “eco-fascist” and wrote that he admires British Nazi Oswald Mosley and China’s communist regime, and that he rejects conservatism. Even though US President Donald J. Trump condemned the murders, the killer’s remarks were used to attack him.
Possibly because Tarrant opposed Muslim immigration to Western countries (mostly, he wrote, because it leads to overpopulation), many of those who expressed concerns about Muslim immigration to the West, or criticized Islamic violence or anti-Semitism, were immediately accused as having been partly or fully responsible for the massacre — even US President Bill Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton.
By contrast, many Muslims, when extremist violence in the name of Islam takes place, state that they cannot be held “collectively responsible” for the actions of their co-religionists, and that to try to do so is unjust and “Islamophobic.” Often, however, it seems as if members of other religions are not held to the same presumption of innocence.
I finally got to listen to PDT’s whole speech and it was spellbinding. Mark Steyn and Tucker Carlson both watched it and both have had the same reaction. Who else today can give a speech that lasts an hour and a half and leave you sorry it has come to an end?
I will also draw your attention to the last quarter hour, from around one hour and ten minutes in, where the President kind of summarises the themes of the 2020 campaign to come.
It could all have been so different from how it is. Like the market economy, which effortlessly produces the goods, almost making it seem as if there is nothing to it, in the same way you think that things just go right, when they go right, because they always will. For myself, I am too too aware how we are in a moment of reprieve from a deluge, that if it happens, will wipe our civilisation away until there is nothing left.
When I was growing up, feminism ran with the line that males and females were in all respects identical so that different outcomes were proof of sexism. And so far as I could see, unless men and women were identical in all important respects, then differential outcomes could not be sheeted home to bias but might just be how things are. And then there was Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus which basically said that men and women were different which, to my amazement, no one objected to, but which seemed to ruin the narrative. And now just today, this: Proof that girls and boys are born to be different: Controversial study finds that brain differences between the sexes begin in the womb.
In a scientific first, researchers claim to have found that differences between men’s and women’s brains start in the womb.
The conclusion is likely to be controversial, with some experts claiming social influences are more important.
But scientists who did brain scans of 118 foetuses in the second half of pregnancy to analyse the links between gender and the connectivity of a developing brain believe the differences are biological.
Well, how unexpected is that! Not the conclusion, of course, but that it was ever published.
For decades neuroscience, like most research areas, overwhelmingly studied only males, assuming that everything fundamental to know about females would be learned by studying males. I know — I did this myself early in my career. Most neuroscientists assumed that differences between males and females, if they exist at all, are not fundamental, that is, not essential for understanding brain structure or function. Instead, we assumed that sex differences result from undulating sex hormones (typically viewed as a sort of pesky feature of the female), and/or from different life experiences (“culture”). In either case, they were dismissable in our search for the fundamental. In truth, it was always a strange assumption, but so it was.
Gradually however, and inexorably, we neuroscientists are seeing just how profoundly wrong — and in fact disproportionately harmful to women — that assumption was, especially in the context of understanding and treating brain disorders. Any reader wishing to confirm what I am writing can easily start by perusing online the January/February 2017 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience Research, the first ever of any neuroscience journal devoted to the topic of sex differences in its entirety. All 70 papers, spanning the neuroscience spectrum, are open access to the public.
I can also now see how all of this has ended up being published since not recognising that these differences exist is “in fact disproportionately harmful to women”. Without that, there is no way these conclusions could have seen the light of day, as the author notes himself.
But the remarkable and unprecedented growth in research demonstrating biologically-based sex influences on brain function triggered 5-alarm fire bells in those who believe that such biological influences cannot exist.
Since Simone de Beauvoir in the early 1950s famously asserted that “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,” and John Money at Johns Hopkins shortly thereafter introduced the term “gender” (borrowed from linguistics) to avoid the biological implications of the word “sex,” a belief that no meaningful differences exist in the brains of women and men has dominated U.S. culture. And God help you if you suggest otherwise! Gloria Steinem once called sex differences research “anti-American crazy thinking.” Senior colleagues warned me as an untenured professor around the year 2000 that studying sex differences would be career suicide. This new book by Rippon marks the latest salvo by a very small but vocal group of anti-sex difference individuals determined to perpetuate this cultural myth.
So, it is now clear that if you want to promote some idea, you have to show it conforms to some major cultural myth of the left. How’s this: “free markets are the most important ingredient in a socialist economy”.
I don’t know why the Divinity school has rescinded my visiting fellowship to Cambridge because (and this is particularly appalling) it has not formally notified me of the decision
And this puts it all into perspective:
Since their posting, beginning in May of 2017, these lectures have received about 10 million hits (as well as an equal or greater number of downloads). The first lecture alone — on the first sentence of Genesis — has garnered 3.7 million views just on YouTube, which makes it the most well-received of all the talks I have ever posted online. I have received correspondence in great volume from religious people all over the world, Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Muslims alike — and an equally large number from atheists — all telling me that my psychological take on the Genesis material resonated very strongly with their faith, or that it helped them understand for the first time the value of these stories. You can see this for yourself by reading the comments on the YouTube channel, which are remarkably civilized and positive, by social media standards.
Peterson is clearly insulted by his treatment, and says just what is the case, that it is Cambridge that is diminished by its decision.
This is the line up for the fiftieth anniversary concert and I do not know a single person or group performing over the entire three days (except for Santana and Country Joe MacDonald, of course, if it’s the same Santana and the same Country Joe).
This, however, I can relate to: 33 Pictures That Show How Insanely Cool The Original Woodstock Was. And I have to say that this still seems to be how people dress and aim to look like (if you are still in your early twenties, that is). A mad time was had by all. I only wish our culture had grown out of it. Instead, things have only gotten worse.
An amazing interview, that starts slowly but truly builds. The PM has the better of the argument and represented Australia just as it is. Meanwhile Waleed is trying to be as divisive as he possibly can, challenging the PM’s good faith. The PM defended both himself, his Party and our country extremely well. He is exasperated by the stupidity and ill-will of the interviewer who spends oceans of time over the utterly irrelevant issues, such as whether there will be a preference deal with One Nation at the next election.
I now really like Scott Morrison. He took the creepy trouble-making Waleed head on, completely routing him on every point he raised.
And don’t forget this bit of background as you watch the interview.
Having been a visiting scholar there myself, I can attest that the finest thing about the place are its buildings. As for its scholars and scholarship, just bear in mind that I was there to do research in the Keynes Archive at King’s where he had written The General Theory. But it is, after all, a university, you know, a place where scholars can meet and discuss issues of all kinds in a calm and reflective manner. Here, then, is a fine modern example of what universities have now become: University of Cambridge Cancels Jordan Peterson’s Visiting Fellowship Because He Is Not ‘Inclusive’. That is, he does not conform to the lock-step far-left views of its academics and students.
Jordan Peterson, the University of Toronto psychologist known for criticizing political correctness, announced Monday that he would be a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge’s divinity school.
But on Wednesday, Cambridge’s administration announced that they had rescinded the invitation following a public outcry from students and professors.
“[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles,” a Cambridge spokesperson told The Guardian. “There is no place here for anyone who cannot.”
Philby, Burgess, Blunt and Maclean, all no doubt in high esteem among staff and students today, but Peterson, among the greatest scholars of our generation, is not even welcome to spend time on campus where others might seek out his views, debate what he says, and deepen their own understanding.
Australia is by a long chalk the least racist country on the planet. People from everywhere just live here and rub on together. Maybe some tall-poppy syndrome problems, but basically our ethos is “have a go”. No one’s ethnic or racial background is a handicap to getting on in life. Always plenty of luck required, and of course talent, intelligence and the will to succeed. But no one is prevented from having a go. So I was endlessly irritated to find this story at Andrew Bolt: Turkey’s president threats to kill Australians over the Christchurch massacre. And from the Oz:
Mr Erdogan had alleged Australian Brenton Tarrant was targeting Turkey during his attack on two Christchurch mosques, and warned anti-Muslim Australians that if they visit his country they will return home in coffins like their grandfathers did after Gallipoli.
Repulsive and racist. But weird as well. And here is a reply that I find on the mark:
Labor leader Bill Shorten said Mr Erdogan’s “foolish and offensive” remarks stoked disunity and hatred. “Intemperate and regrettable remarks like this only play into the hands of those who seek to divide. They do not protect the peace and security of any nation,” Mr Shorten said.
“Many thousands of Australians and New Zealanders will shortly be heading to Turkey to commemorate the shared sacrifice of our two nations at Gallipoli, and 100 years of friendship since. It is up to all leaders of all countries to stand against hate, to demonstrate that unity makes us stronger, that hope can triumph over fear, and that love is greater than hate.”
Mr Shorten urged Turkey’s leaders to heed to words of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, inscribed at Anzac Cove: “You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears… After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.”
One-twenty millionth of the Australian population carried out a vile attack on a Mosque. It was neither public policy nor supported by anyone anywhere. This is identity politics at its most absurd. It is always absurd, but this has taken the concept to its farthest and most extreme stupidity.
White Australians may not be strictly answerable for Tarrant’s crime, but we have some big questions to ask ourselves. If you’re an Australian and reading this makes you feel defensive, you should ask them now.”
The only question I have asked myself after reading her hideous rant is how did she get to be such an absolute fool?
And you can find more of the same deep analysis from Rachel Withers, for that is her name, right here.
Linked to by Rafe, but I have a more positive take. Watch it for yourself. Liked all the comments, but this one from Antipostmodernism was more complete.
Jordan Peterson would say something like this. We should focus more on our own personal development and worry less about out tribal affiliations which can represent the road to hell. Excessive tribalism is like an arms race where we fall into the trap of letting envy and resentment overwhelm our agency to shape our lives, and on a larger scale civilisation is doomed if we can’t accommodate each others needs and wants to a reasonable degree. Individualism is selfish but that’s more good than bad because it means that we have a more depoliticised environment which means less conflict. We become wise enough to blame ourselves or nature for our failures and are energised to learn and be productive. Liberal democracy and capitalism are objectively the best preconditions for us to thrive and the identity politics that has taken hold in the West is childish decadence that abandons enlightenment rationality and casts us back onto a pathway to hell as both individuals and collective humanity.
Liked this comment as well.
The White Man’s Burden is being laid down, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the end of Western Civilisation.
Custody of its values simply being handed over to Asians. Tiger mums understand well the value of Western Civilisation, and are installing its values in their children. In response, the enemies of Western Civilisation are already attacking them, e.g. “Asian privilege”. But I doubt these attacks will get very far, and that gives me hope.
Law of Markets 