When doesn’t the left go too far?

Jordan Peterson: When the left goes too far — the dangerous doctrine of equity

The mantra of Diversity, Inclusivity and Equity (DIE) perhaps constitutes the primary identifying factor of the tiny minority of radical collectivist ideologues that nonetheless have come to dominate the humanities and social sciences in Western universities (and, increasingly, the HR departments of corporations). Of these three, equity is the most egregious, self-righteous, historically-ignorant and dangerous. “Equity” is a term designed to signal “equality,” in some manner, and is a term designed to appeal to the natural human tendency toward fairness, but it does not mean the classic equality of the West, which is equality before the law and equality of opportunity.

Equality before the law means that each citizen will be treated fairly by the criminal justice and judicial systems regardless of their status — and that the state recognizes that each individual has an intrinsic value which serves as a limit to state power, and which the polity must respect. There is likely no more fundamental presumption grounding our culture.

Equality of opportunity is a doctrine of openness predicated on the fact that talent is widely distributed although comparatively rare. This should come as no surprise to anyone, given that some people are much better at doing a given task than others and, because of that, it is in everyone’s selfish interest to allow such talent to come to the fore so that we can all benefit. This means that no one should be arbitrarily denied the possibility of their contribution for reasons unrelated to the task at hand. This is also a fundamental principle of Western culture, particularly in its free-market guise.

Equity is a whole different ballgame. It is based on the idea that the only certain measure of “equality” is outcome—educational, social, and occupational. The equity-pushers axiomatically assume that if all positions at every level of hierarchy in every organization are not occupied by a proportion of the population that is precisely equivalent to that proportion in the general population that systematic prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) must be at play. This assumption has as its corollary the idea that there are perpetrators (the “privileged,” for current or historical reasons) who are unfair beneficiaries of the system or outright perpetrators of prejudice and who must be identified, limited and punished.

There is simply no excuse for this doctrine.

Whether you read the rest is up to you, but you should.

Trump and his tax returns

Losing money in business is part of the risk of entrepreneurship. For the left in America to raise tax losses as an example of anything only shows their ignorance, and the ignorance of the people who follow them.

This is Rush Limbaugh: Trump Discussed His Business Losses on The Apprentice!. In fact, he wrote them up in one of his books where he discussed the importance of luck in getting things to turn out right. The left are repulsive in so many ways, with this just one more. The video, by the way, is a treat.

RUSH: I have here a show open from Donald Trump on The Apprentice. I want you to listen to how Trump introduced himself as The Apprentice debuted on the NBC network.

TRUMP: My name is Donald Trump, and I’m the largest real estate developer in New York. I own buildings all over the place, model agencies, the Miss Universe pageant, jetliners, golf courses, casinos, and private resorts like Mar-a-Lago, one of the most spectacular estates anywhere in the world. But it wasn’t always so easy. About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt. But I fought back, and I won, big league. I used my brain. I used my negotiating skills, and I worked it all out. Now my company’s bigger than it ever was and stronger than it ever was, and I’m having more fun than I ever had.

RUSH: So the New York Times is breaking these news stories three years ago and then yesterday that Trump lost a billion dollars, that Trump didn’t pay any taxes, that Trump’s a lousy businessman. Trump admitted it all! He admitted it all when doing his intro to the TV show The Apprentice. Trump has never hidden this, by the way.

And yet the New York Times twice now has acted like they have uncovered and discovered the biggest secret Donald Trump wants no one to know, when in fact Donald Trump has bragged about it, talked about it, written books about it. The New York Times has hailed him as the comeback kid. I’ll tell you, folks, the desperation on the part of the left is getting tough to watch here.

RUSH: By the way, that Trump sound bite we just played from The Apprentice in 2004, like 15 years ago. People are making fools of themselves and don’t know it yet, so they’re gonna keep doing it. And we’ll keep monitoring and pointing it out to you.

There is also a discussion of this same idiocy at Ace of Spades: New York Times Bombshell Nothingburger: During the Period When Four of Trump’s Businesses Notoriously Declared Bankruptcy, Trump Himself Suffered Losses and Paid Little Income Tax on the Money He Was Not Actually Making (Due to the Bankruptcies). This comes at the end:

If memory serves, when Twitter and FaceBook-approved Conspiracy Theorist Rachel Maddow announced her BLOCKBUSTER! (nothingburger) Trump tax leak, it turned out that much of the losses in some years was just carried-forward losses from earlier YUGE years of losses.

The idea of this is simple: Let’s say in one year you are absolutely wiped out. You lose one hundred million, and pay no tax.

The next year you earn $100 million.

How should you be taxed? You weren’t taxed that one year you lost $100 million. But should you pay normal tax rates for the next year — say, $50 million in federal taxes.

Or would a rational tax code look at these two years together and say that really, for both years combined, you actually made about zero dollars cumulatively?

Legislators have decided taxing half your money that second year wouldn’t be a fair representation of your actual multiyear-term income, and so they let you take the losses from that one year and carry them over to reduce your income in later years.

But you know, we’re in the End Times now, the Time of Chaos, and Democrats and their media masters (yeah, it’s the media calling the shots now, especially social media tech monsters) will decide that following the law is now against the law.

One more example of how vile the left is for our political institutions

The person being escorted from the venue in AlburyPHOTO: The protester cracked a smile while being escorted from the venue. (ABC News: Adam Kennedy)

They are smugly confident about their own virtue but are, in reality, the cause of most of the avoidable problems in our political world. Which leads from this: Federal election 2019: Woman charged after Scott Morrison egged while campaigning in Albury. She thinks she has struck a blow for something positive but is only making Australia a worse place to live. The judge who eventually sets her free with a token fine or a few hours of community service, will also be contributing to making Australia a worse place to live. The story comes with this:

Shortly afterwards, Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Sally McManus attacked the PM’s comment.

“How dare you accuse us of this and make the association. You seem to have no respect for the truth or any concern about running down your fellow Australians. We would never support such behaviour,” she tweeted.

And just what had the PM said?

“My concern about today’s incident in Albury was for the older lady who was knocked off her feet,” the Prime Minister tweeted.

“I helped her up and gave her a hug.

“Our farmers have to put up with these same idiots who are invading their farms and their homes.

“We will stand up to thuggery whether it’s these cowardly activists who have no respect for anyone, or militant unionists standing over small businesses and their employees on work sites.”

What a joke. As if there were any circumstances whatsoever that would make Sally or her mates support the PM.

The true face of socialism

Socialism is a con job put over because there are just enough people around who believe in the tooth fairy. Short of war, these people stick around for a long, long time. Vicious and without a drop of humanity in their veins, Lenin and Stalin created the mould which has remained in place ever since. If you do not understand that a market economy embedded within a genuine democracy is the only means towards freedom and prosperity, you are wilfully ignorant in the face of more than a century of evidence that has comprehensively demonstrated that no other combination of politics and economics can succeed.

Might just note for the record that it is May Day today. An unfortunate and instructive lesson; one more socialist tragedy to add to all of the others.

It is astonishing how dishonest the American media is

From the people who never said a word about, “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”: Washington Post fact checker says president has now lied 10,000 times since taking office. From the same people who supported the most corrupt individual ever to run for high office in the United States. And how about, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”.

These people are pathological fools.

LET ME SUPPLEMENT THE ABOVE WITH THIS: From just now at Instapundit.

HE’S NOT WRONG: Israeli ambassador calls NYT ‘cesspool of hostility.’

Richard Fernandez explains what’s going on.

Nazis were socialists


What amazes me more than anything is that I have never seen this picture before. You can easily understand that our modern socialists do not wish anyone to recall their ancestry but it is undeniable. The following text is from the introduction to Arnold Lunn’s 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. Here again we see that there was a time when it was perfectly well understood that Nazis and socialists shared the same ideology.

We are indebted to Soviet Russia not only for the horrors of Russian Communism, but for the example which Russia set and for the consequences of that example in other countries. The Nazi Gestapo is modelled on the Ogpu and the atrocities of Dachau rival the brutalities of the Russian penal camps. Socialism, which necessarily involves compulsion, cannot be imposed on a State without tyranny and terrorism, but neither tyranny nor terrorism are peculiar to Russia. Nazi Germany has not only adopted the incidental features of revolutionary Socialism, in Russia and elsewhere, but is approximating more and more in its economic structure to the Socialism of Soviet Russia. “While Germany has retained the outward forms of capitalism,” writes the well-known economist, Paul Einzig, “for all practical purposes her economic system is that of Bolshevism – the nationalistic brand of Bolshevism, it is true, but not the less Bolshevik for that.

“The owners of property,” Dr. Einzig insists, “are little more than paid managers of their own factories and landed estates. Their profits are strictly limited by the fixing of a maximum rate of dividends, by heavy taxation which is likely to increase, and by the ‘voluntary’ contributions to Winterhilfe. Their activities are surrounded by innumerable regulations and are subject to interference by various organs of the Government, by petty local party officials, and by workmen’s committees. They are ordered to sell their products at a fixed price, irrespective of whether it allows them a margin of profit. They are ordered to export at a loss, irrespective of whether they can recoup themselves by selling in the home market at a profit….

“One of the characteristics of the Communist system is that production is not dependent upon the working of the financial system, but on the amount of labour, raw material and industrial capacity available. This fundamental principle has been taken over in full by the German brand of Bolshevism.” (Lunn 1939: x-xi)

From Lunn, Arnold. 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.

I will also add this which was posted by some anonymous commenter on a different thread, but captures to perfection why every socialist denies that every single actual existing form of socialism is not real socialism.

The reason why Socialist ideology convinces impressionable people it would work is that it preys upon the narcissism of everyone by tricking them into believing their own personal vision of what socialism would look like is the vision that will in fact happen.

Since only one overall plan can be enforced however, each socialist sees something different happen in socialist experiments than what their own personal visions looked like.

Hence every socialist can then claim every past socialist experiment is not real socialism, which doubles as an excuse for them all to keep rabble rousing for more socialist experiments…

Until they each see their respective personal visions realized…

Which requires each of them to be the dictator to enforce their vision…

But only one plan can be implemented…

One party or one person “wins”.

Then every other socialist begins to hate that socialist and claim not real socialism because it wasn’t their personal vision for socialism…

So socialism naturally becomes a fight to the death for whose plan is to be enforced…

Which is why all socialist experiments have been totalitarian nightmares of socialists killing other socialists…

And at the same time they all keep thinking real socialism never existed…

The rise of savage terrorist creeds

This is from Arnold Lunn’s 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. It comes at the start of Chapter XIV, “The Fruits of a False Philosophy”. The waning of the Christian ethic across the world will have and is already having moral consequences.

“Cruelty and the abuse of power,” wrote Charles Dickens, “are the two bad passions of human nature,” passions which have not been eradicated, but have certainly been tamed by Christianity, for though no Christian can read without shame the history of the Inquisition or the story of the Catholic martyrs racked and tortured in Elizabethan England, Europe, even in its darkest moments, paid homage to Christian ideals, ideals whose influence was cumulative and progressive. The rack and the stake vanished from Europe under pressure of the strongest of all arguments, the appeal from Christians to Christ. The contrast between the ideals and the practice of Christian men is impressive, but the value of of the Christian ideals has been proved by the consequences which follow when these ideals are repudiated. Russia is the first European country officially to accept atheistic materialism as the State creed, and only those who are wilfully blind can continue to ignore the fruits of that philosophy.

Soviet Russia provides indirect evidence of the immense importance of high standards even in a society in which only a minority seriously attempt to live up to those standards. Even lip-service to an ideal has some value. The contrast between Soviet Russia and the Christian Europe which even in the darkest period recognized Christian ideals, is a powerful if indirect argument for the influence of Christianity. Soviet Russia with a few short years has sacrificed the hard-won gains of the Christian spirit, and has re-established the ruthless standards of the pagan world into which Christ was born. The uneasy conscience of Christendom which still condoned and exploited pre-Christian methods of persecution is apparent from the apologetics with which Christians attempted to justify the rack and the stake. These tragic derelictions, which Christians defended with halting casuistry, are proudly accepted by Communists as an integral element of their new civilization. Modern states accused of war atrocities have implicitly recognized the Christian standards, and have either indignantly denied the charges, or have disclaimed responsibility for regrettable excesses. The worst crimes charged against States still influenced by Christianity are venial compared with the horrors officially enjoined by the rulers of Soviet Russia. The secretive use of terrorism as an emergency weapon to be disowned and denied when challenged has been displaced by the defiant glorification of terrorism and of violence. Lenin, indeed, argues that the dictatorship of the Proletariat is impossible without the “violence which is not limited by any laws or restricted by any absolute rules.” Lenin glorifies terrorism in the famous letter published in The Bolshevik for October 31st 1920. “The legal trial,” he wrote, “is not intended to replace terrorism; to make such a profession would be a deception of others or oneself; but to base terrorism firmly on a fundamental principle and give it legal form, unambiguously, without dishonesty or embellishment.” (Lunn 1939: 128-129)

Over the past 200 years if one could know only one fact about some nation that would determine where it was safest to live it would be whether the leader of its government was a believing Christian. Not absolute, by any means, but no other question imaginable would provide the kind of assurance that knowing the head of a government was a believing Christian.

The full bibliographic reference is: Arnold Lunn. 1939 Communism and Socialism: A Study in the Technique of Revolution. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. A book well worth the read if you can get your hands on one.

Self-confessed Marxist professors

Here’s the original article: Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors. These are two of the comments and there are others if you go to the link. First this:

You hate capitalism because you don’t fully understand it. You obviously hate Christianity but that also follows with college indoctrination. Capitalism is about freedom within restraint and the ability of people to achieve on their own and to their own limits. Most socialism degenerates to authoritarian Communism because that is its goal – CONTROL over people and limits on freedom. Oh yes, Sweden and Denmark are such stellar examples of socialism that works. Just this week, I heard a lady who used to live in Sweden explain that the government starts with taking 70% of your income for taxes. Sure, most things are free, but what does that leave you? That also does not account for your basic necessities of life. Plus most people cant afford even small luxuries. She went on to explain how awful the system really was, not how it is portrayed by Socialists. I choose capitalism, even with its faults, because it is miles ahead of any other system since it allows the individual the freedom to achieve. We already have numerous examples of socialism that has invaded our country with the idea of single-payer healthcare, free education, free this and free that. Oh, it all sounds so good and compassionate but it always comes with a price and a hook. Unfortunately, the poor fools that believe it are destined for a poorer standard of living. Your education, if you have much, must be very limited in the area of economics, and most of all, in common sense.

This is the second.

The Marxists aren’t really true ‘believers’. It’s like they are trying to be cool and that’s what the out there profs are! They are really square, dull, conservative in the socially awkward sense, not the individuality and self reliance of western conservatism.

So, they need something to increase their uni-cred. Marxism hits all the nodes. Being a Randian would be a true act of defiance and intellectually stimulating and interesting, but most don’t have the prerequisite confidence nor, frankly, intelligence. Marxism gives intellectual points for its convoluted drawn out over indulgence on topics without having to really need to find out the messy truth, that people are different, good and evil, ridiculously lazy and ridiculously hard working. The difference between two individuals in one domain of competence can be bewildering, but their are multi varied analysis that need to be done to figure things out even to get nearer the truth. So one variable, 2-3 at most and blame it on the west as was cool when they’d been in school, fighting the man, (who was a slightly above average IQ female teacher who was a teacher for the hours and benefits, not the shaping of young minds and the potential therein).

But they had to rebel and one part of the rebellion is holding on to these crazy Cold War Soviet propaganda machines hold on useful idiots. Intelligent enough to become a professor, but not enough to recognise the truth cos their cognitive dissonance is too strong due to years of rejection from the best girls and bitterness at settling whilst dumber kids got the chicks n’ checks. That’s enough to convince you Western Civilisation is rigged and corrupt to the core. That’s how someone with 81’s approaching 150 can purport to believe in the wage gap based on one variable, gender, which of course is a social conduct.

So logic is not important in their politics. And they are usually atheist, so an own goal there as religion doesn’t claim logical in the same sense, it’s a story of archetypes and behaviour and how to (and not to) live your life.

All this brought about because they lost their virginity at 26 to a 5/10 librarian and they will get their revenge as the 8/10 who you got into college doing her homework was fucking Brad, the athlete who earns as much as you after student fees plumbing and, well, really? How’s that fair? That’s what the Corbyn and co are so ‘passionate. Substitute passion for frustrated or angry and that would be more plausible. I mean each to their own but even in those niche circles, Diane Abbott isn’t quite A grade, especially for a powerful man, an MP no less. Look what that UKIP guy got, and Profumo was quite a catch by anyone’s standards and both are in the same league as Jezza. No wonder he’s ‘passionate’. I would be too with virtually no outlet worthy of your station in life.

So, rationalise away your shortcomings and weaknesses. It’s the inevitable result of Capitalism, people’s sexual desirability has nothing to do with the socioeconomic political environment. No matter that humans have always been this way across time and space, race and cultures. Women mate across and up competence hierarchies, not dominance hierarchies as few of those exist and they aren’t very stable. The irony is that the West has replaced the ratio of functioning hierarchies from dominance based to competence based.

That and men practicing monogamy, so the very few at the top get all the women and it’s the reason high achiever females struggle to get partners, (When that happens, the men who don’t get access to females get mad and start rioting and burning).
it’s a real and worsening problem (the women getting partners, not the men rioting cos they can’t get them, which is partly why places like Saudi Arabia are as tyrannical as they are. They know first chance, they’ll be torn to pieces to get the most attractive women that the elites have a monopoly of so they use the Quran to prove this is what Allah wants. And who argues with Allah. Bit like Henry VIII, no?)

As women start to get the higher positions, which is a good thing as we’re doubling the talent pool, but the individual women themselves, they are already outperforming men until 30, but then they leave to have families, statsistacally speaking of course, #NotAll. Women who do rise in these hierarchies also proves they’re not dominance but competence based as women wouldn’t have a chance in the numbers they are achieving at present if it was a dominance trait, but in third world countries it is. How many women leaders are their in Africa that got their on there own and not because of a male relative, father or husband. The same as it has been for all human civilisation, about 2-5%, compared to 20-40% in the west and the wealthier the country the higher the women leadership goes up. Not only that but the trends are strongly in their favour.

Back to intelligent men being resentful of less intelligent but more competent men getting all the most desirable women… all cultures, ever, have done this. It’s just hard to accept that that being in the top 3-5% of intellectually gifted increases your market value, but nowhere near as good genes and athleticism does, understandably. Put together and Donald Trumps grotesquely chauvinist comments are suddenly not so outlandish. In fact, to put it bluntly, as he definitely achieved, it’s true. Maybe that’s why women are still fixated on that comment so long after it was released, not to mention made, is because they know it’s true and they hate themselves for it. Same for so called beta-males. They resent that women behave that way and not in a rational way that is in their self interest. But self interest is not what we are all striving for all the time.

But try telling that to geeks who are convinced the tide will turn and women will want intelligence over fitness due to the tech revolution. And Marxism will set the dynamics in culture and society to make it possible.

Billions of years of evolution says, well …No!

There is a lesson there but only if you can understand it

The analogy is not perfect. Socialists do not want to kill you, it just sometimes happens that they do. It is often the only way to keep the power they were given by offering free things to people who, based on these promises, allow them to take the reins of government.

People’s lives are then plunged into darkness because they took the word of political leaders who offered them what cannot possibly be afforded, who had no means to deliver on their promises.

No socialist will ever solve a single one of your economic problems. They will inevitably make the ones you have worse than they were before while adding new ones onto the old.