The identity politics juggernaut has a setback!

C’mon, in Canada, in Toronto even, where I grew up and from which I fled. Via Instapundit.

RESOLUTION REJECTED: “BE IT RESOLVED, WHAT YOU CALL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, I CALL PROGRESS”: Friday night’s Munk debate in Toronto shows that Canadians (in general not exactly a rough bunch) reject political correctness.

Even before Michael Eric Dyson & Michelle Goldberg (FOR THE RESOLUTION) squared off against Stephen Fry & Jordan Peterson (AGAINST THE RESOLUTION), the crowd was already strongly against the resolution (36% FOR vs. 64% AGAINST). But after the debate it was overwhelming (30% FOR vs. 70% AGAINST). The shift of 6% to AGAINST made Fry & Peterson the declared winners of the debate.

Ho hum, right?  It’s not like this is surprising.  Yet the identity politics juggernaut marches forward both in Canada and the USA, aided by a strong and effective ethic of political correctness, which makes open discussion of the issues more difficult than is should be.

The Trump Administration has had only the most marginal effect. There is a special look of terror that comes over the eyes of conservative political leaders when one brings to their attention the opportunity to say or do something that would help. Alas, I have witnessed that look too many times to count.

There are often endless dangers in saying what you think. The left is only looking to run around shouting and to make your life a misery over the slightest word that can be wilfully misinterpreted to others who are always happy and excited to take their side against you. A 70% result in an anonymous poll only shows what everyone should know, and PDT’s election made clear.

There but for the grace of God

A fascinating and terrifying story: Former NYC media player finds himself living in homeless shelter after life took ‘unfathomable’ downward spiral. The details are all too plausible and the outcome undoubtedly a nightmare. Life has no certainty and security is never guaranteed. Just a bit chosen almost at random:

He was at 30th Street for five weeks. His cell phone was stolen. On his 70th birthday, Sept. 15, Homeless Services staff told him he was moving to another smaller shelter in Brooklyn. They also told him he would have to get there by himself.

“I had two duffel bags,” he said. “I protested. They put me on a bus at 10 that night with three others. One was dropped at Wards Island. They dropped two guys in Queens. They dropped me off at 2 a.m.”

Jackson now found himself living in another dorm room within the 62-bed facility run by the non-profit group Camba. He says they promised he’d be out by Thanksgiving. He’s still there.

He is still sane and seems to have his senses together. Just every option seemed to close and no one could offer him a landing. The article is an attempt for him to find his way out, and there is a book in his experience that might even be more horrific than anyone would ever wish to read purely because there is no reason something like that could happen to everyone. The Count of Monte Cristo spend years in the Chateau D’If but Dumas has no story if he dies there. But in real life many do just that, if not actually most.

For Hegel I would not give a bagel!

Born 200 years ago today

Karl Marx 001.jpg

Karl Marx in 1875
Born 5 May 1818
TrierKingdom of Prussia
Died 14 March 1883 (aged 64)
Resting place Tomb of Karl MarxHighgate Cemetery, London, England, UK
Residence Germany, France, Belgium, UK
Nationality Stateless after 1845
Spouse(s) Jenny von Westphalen (m. 1843d. 1881)
Children 7, including JennyLaura, and Eleanor
Relatives Louise Juta (sister)
Jean Longuet (grandson)

Philosophy career

Alma mater University of Bonn
University of Berlin
University of Jena
Era 19th-century philosophy
Region Western philosophy
School Continental philosophy
Main interests
Politics, economics, philosophy, history
Notable ideas
Marxist terminologysurplus value, contributions to the labour theory of valueclass strugglealienation and exploitation of the worker, materialist conception of history
Karl Marx Signature.svg

Cannot think of a thing to say. So let me instead suggest you read Lewis Feuer’s brilliant and fun, The Case of the Revolutionist’s Daughter: Sherlock Holmes Meets Karl Marx. And then when you have read that, that you read anything else you can get your hands on written by Lewis Feuer. Feuer was the most outstanding anti-Marxist of my youth and I bring him up because I would rather that his name was remembered instead of Karl Marx’s. But like hurricanes, the only ones you remember are the ones that did the most damage.

From his NYT obit:

His interest in matters philosophical was matched by a fascination with Sherlock Holmes. He condensed it in a historical whimsy of a novel, ”The Case of the Revolutionist’s Daughter: Sherlock Holmes meets Karl Marx” (Prometheus, 1983), which remains in print. In it, Holmes is hired by Marx to investigate the disappearance of his daughter, Eleanor, who actually committed suicide in 1898.

After his own break with Marx, the philosopher, Dr. Feuer, according to his family, adopted a personal mantra, ”For Hegel I would not give a bagel!”

“Someone or other must be to blame for my feeling”

I don’t normally find Nietzsche worth quoting, but on the desire for revenge among those suffering ressentiment – which encompasses a depressingly large proportion of the left – he seems to be quite on the money. These madmen in Florida and Toronto, and not just there, appear to use murder as a form of self-therapy. They were described by Nietzsche in Book III – Section 15 of his Genealogy of Morals:

All those who suffer instinctively seek a cause for their suffering; more exactly, an agent; still more specifically, a guilty agent who is susceptible to suffering – in short, some living thing upon which they can, on some pretext or other, vent their emotions, actually or in effigy: for the venting of their emotions represents the greatest attempt on the part of the suffering to win relief, anaesthesia – the narcotic they cannot help desiring to deaden pain of any kind. This alone, I surmise, constitutes the actual physiological cause of ressentiment, vengefulness, and the like: the desire to deaden pain through the discharge of emotion.

The desire is to deaden, by means of a more violent emotion of any kind, a tormenting secret pain that is becoming unendurable, and to drive it out of consciousness at least for the moment: for this purpose one needs an emotion, as savage an emotion as possible, and, in order to excite that emotion, any pretext at all will do. “Someone or other must be to blame for my feeling” – this kind of reasoning is common to all the sick, and is indeed held the more firmly the more the real cause of their feeling remains hidden. . . .

All sufferers, one and all, are dreadfully eager and inventive in devising excuses for painful emotions; they revel in their suspicions, dwelling on imaginary slights; they scour the entrails of their past and present for obscure and questionable occurrences that offer them the opportunity to revel in tormenting suspicions; they intoxicate themselves with the poison of their own malice: they tear open their oldest wounds, they bleed from scars long since healed; they make evildoers out of their friends, wives, children, and whoever else stands closest to them. “I suffer: someone is to blame.”

I would also think no little part of the murderous activities among migrant communities comes from their inability to achieve positions of status within the communities in which they or their parents have come. The cause is their inability to adapt and join in on the productive side of our very open economies, but are unable to understand why. Their desire for revenge burns deep.

The denizens of Gaza, who look into the productive and generally prosperous state of Israel, have that same resentment, fuelled in no small part by their massive envy of the Israelis in company with an absolute rejection of any recognition that the Israelis are merely superior in their organisational and perhaps more general cultural abilities.

In defence of Western Civilisation from our modern vandals

And half of those vandals are internal. Here is a twelve step program from Jordan Peterson. It is hard to believe that such common sense still exists and can be said in public, but here it is.

View image on Twitter

And if you are interested in the full text, here is the entire two hours.

This is Peterson’s own background briefing to the presentation:

Conservatism has all-too-often found itself unable to articulate a coherent positive doctrine. By this I mean specifically that the laudable conservative tendency to preserve the best of past has too-often manifested itself in a series of “thou shalt not” statements, instead of laying out a manifesto of fundamental values that might serve to unite people around a set of common ambitions. I am attempting to rectify this problem with this statement of principles, some of which I believe might have the additional virtue of being attractive to young people, looking for mature and forthright purpose and responsibility.

I am not making the claim that the statement is perfect, comprehensive or final.

I will just add that it’s not perfect or final, not least because it is mostly pragmatic but lacks the moral grounding that is essential. The left is filled with people who are evil to their very core but believe they are only doing good. Without a proper moral basis for action, there is no foundation for anything. Socialism is great on paper, and when we have perfected humanity we can bring it on. In the meantime, every such experiment is inevitably disastrous for everyone other than those who are at the very top of the pyramid. We have found a way to bring peace and prosperity which are through the principles laid out, but there is a deeper understanding required which only an Edmund Burke and an Adam Smith can supply.

What seven year old doesn’t need to know this?

View image on Twitter


Now, you might be asking yourself why a seven-year-old girl needs to learn about sexual desire at all, let alone homosexual sexual desire; you might be asking yourself why a seven-year-old should be indoctrinated about children being “assigned male or female at birth” when such language is the language of anti-scientific nonsense.

But according to Valenti, you would be the degraded one. After all, school teachers should certainly inform pre-pubescent children about matters of moral and scientific controversy. But, you might answer, young children don’t have the critical thinking skills necessary to ask important questions about this framework.

That, of course, is entirely the point. Children are supposed to be indoctrinated with left-wing views regarding gender and sex — they’re supposed to be told that sex and gender are utterly disconnected, that every sexual activity is equally valid. Children are supposed to be confused about matters of deep philosophical and lifestyle importance, so that later, they feel free to follow whatever feelings they have. We can’t teach children nothing — then their parents might teach them the wrong things. They might teach their children that men were men and women were women, for example, which could create preconceived notions about sex. And if parents were to teach children about the societal value of heterosexual lifestyles, or about the mere biological advantages of heterosexual activity, that could lead to discrimination.

Let me therefore mention a book I have come across by accident that could not be published today but is in print and shows it is still possible to access sanity even in the world the left is creating at every turn: William Kilpatrick’s Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong, for which the link will get you to a pdf copy you can download for yourself.

Also available through the net but with certainty will not be found on the shelf in any bookshop anywhere in the world. I wonder if you can find it in a public library.

It was originally published in 1992 where he was warning us about the kind of world that was forming at the time. Only publishable even then because he no doubt looked like an extremest way out on a limb. In fact, the most prescient book I have ever come across. He describes everything you see today, explaining what is wrong, but was then only describing what was to come.

I cannot recommend a book more highly. Probably too late anyway, but worth having a deeper grasp of the horrors surrounding us now with no doubt worse to come in a world now completely out of control.

What does one need to know to be an expert in human rights?

What expertise does someone appointed to the Human Rights Commission need to have? What is an expert in “human rights” and what do such people know that the rest of us might not? They pay these people a third of a million dollars a year, but what are they other than friends of those who make the appointments? Do they know the difference between good and evil? Can they even explain the difference between right and wrong? What exactly are we allowed to do and not allowed to do? Is the law merely made up of their own personal judgement? Are they given the right to plague other people because of their own personal opinions? Who are they and what do they know about anything?

Let us start with this story from Janet Albrechtsen:

Consider the poor barber at the Hunters Hill Barber Shop. Late last year Sam Rahim turned away a woman who wanted him to cut her daughter’s hair. Sam the barber told her he was qualified only to cut boys’ hair, politely directing her to a salon up the road. She took to social media and ran to the Australian Human Rights Commission claiming he breached anti-discrimination laws. He offered an apology. And now he has been served with court papers for a claim that he breached the Sex Discrimination Act.

Sam and his wife, Ronda, have set up a GoFundMe page because, as he told the media, “The legal costs are more than we have ever anticipated.”

Seriously, in what possible way is this a human rights issue? Do these people even have the foggiest idea what human rights are? Because of their oceanic ignorance, they are in the process of discrediting one of the most important concepts at the heart of Western civilisation.

Let me continue with Tim Blair in a post he titles, Finest intro ever written:

Daily Telegraph colleague Miranda Devine makes several strong points in her latest terrific column. Let’s take a detailed look, starting from the top:

Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane’s term expires in August …

Actually, although there are no doubt many strong points, I wasn’t able to read anything beyond that opening line due to tequila shots.

So following from Tim and Miranda, let me take you to Frank Chung: For $340,000 a year, we deserve better than Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane which has as its subhead:

AUSTRALIA’S race discrimination commissioner has lamented the “dismal” fact that there are too many white people in top positions.

These are Frank’s last two paras:

There may be many reasons for the lack of one-to-one population representation at the very highest levels of business and politics — but for the Race Discrimination Commissioner, when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

For someone who is paid $340,000 a year to come up with this dross, it’s not surprising the concept of meritocracy is a foreign one. Or is that being racist?

Forget about good and evil or right and wrong, of which these people appear to have no clear idea at all. How about just something as simple as profit and loss, something else they have no clear idea about at all. If they really think it is a human rights issue for a men’s barber not to cut women’s hair, they need to be sent to a re-education camp as soon as possible and for as long as it takes. And just in case they don’t get it, which is likely, this is just meant as a joke.

A society based upon the opinion of civilians

This is from Winston Churchill, found as the opening words of Daniel Hannan’s wonderful How We Invented Freedom & Why It Matters:

“There are few words which are used more loosely than the word “Civilization.” What does it mean? It means a society based upon the opinion of civilians. It means that violence, the rule of warriors and despotic chiefs, the conditions of camps and warfare, of riot and tyranny, give place to parliaments where laws are made, and independent courts of justice in which over long periods those laws are maintained. That is Civilization—and in its soil grow continually freedom, comfort, and culture. When Civilization reigns, in any country, a wider and less harassed life is afforded to the masses of the people. The traditions of the past are cherished, and the inheritance bequeathed to us by former wise or valiant men becomes a rich estate to be enjoyed and used by all.”

There is no culture like our Western civilisation and if it disappears it will not come back for a thousand years. None of the alternatives looking to be the replacement for our way of life will be anything other than tyranny and slavery for the vast bulk of the population. And if you don’t think our way of life is at risk, you are either completely clueless or think the past is a guarantor of the future. The totalitarian enemy is there at every turn, both outside the citadel and within. Let me just take this from (Lizzie) Beare from a previous thread, because it really is depressing how politically naive so many supposedly intelligent people are.

The ‘right’ circumstances for another ‘purge’ are upon us now; from the left. It is starting under the ‘Antifa’ thugs when ordinary people going about their business are called fascist/and or are subject to physical violence for simply attending a talk by a reputable clinical psychologist or a very clever gay young man making jokes. You see it when a prominent TV conservative is physically attacked on his way into a venue. You see it when the recently deposed Australian Prime Minister is punched in the face by a gay activist. You also see it when a man of J3wish-Yemini background tries to collect signatures at a rally supposedly in support of refugee immigration into Australia and a big loon not just yells but roars ‘Fascist’ at him three times virtually spitting in his face; simply because that J3wish man wearing a J#wish skull-cap is collecting signatures for a petition to recognize that white South African farmers facing a violent racist slow extinction are worthy of consideration as refugees. You see it when people are ‘reported’ and ‘punished’ for disagreement with current thought-police mandated thinking and you see it when the media and other cultural outlets self-censor. It is bred in our schools and our universities, this new fascism, and should be roundly called out for what it is, along with all of the other mind and thought control that political correctness is putting up for our little left Stalins of the day to play lawfare with against those who resist.

Yes, there is ‘scale’ required to see how distant some history may be to the current generation. But that’s why it’s called history. All high school children should study the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Nazi Holocaust, and Revolution of Mao in China with its later abysmal Cultural Revolution, plus the French-influenced Communism in Vietnam that ‘flowered’ in the Year Zero of Pol Pot’s Cambodia. A simple week on each would do it if necessary. And if schools are not doing it, then do it around the dinner table with your children. The lesson of history is that communist and other totalitarian societies always end with economic misery, gulags, secret police, a population turned upon itself, and eventually, piles of bodies.

What on earth is in the history curriculum today now that Marxists control it and teach the teachers?

Socialists are totalitarians. The leaders of socialist movements want what is best for the leaders of socialist movements, and the rest of you be damned. Fools every one.

And for good measure, go see The Death of Stalin, a tragic story told in a lighthearted way. Being miseducated for the most part, most won’t know who Beria was, but the movie gets the politics right. You also need to know something about the doctors’ plot to get some of the jokes. An exceptionally good movie about life in a totalitarian state, which our socialist friends continue to shield their eyes and ears from all knowledge of.