I’m a middle-aged musician, I play cello on Broadway, and like what you are describing the scene here is one of supposedly liberal people shutting down and ostracizing anyone who doesn’t agree word for word with exactly whatever they happen to believe today. That would be, whatever the NYT thinks today. More than agree, you must spout the party line publicly, and on social media, otherwise you’re labeled “one of them”. So many friends and colleagues who are supposedly liberal folks are filling the newer Broadway bands and other groups with people who are the right gender, and the right color; though very often they are not the right musician for the job. For example, if a player can’t handle the music on the page the solutions these days is to simply make the music easier. It’s more important to them to have diversity than to have a compelling musical product. If you object, you’re a racist bigot. Last spring the band at Hadestown the musical announced that they would no longer be hiring white men for the most part, https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/HADESTOWN-Band-Announces-Diversity-Initiative-20210525, and even though that’s discriminatory hiring and illegal according to our union contracts, they were celebrated and continue to be. I find myself mostly disappointed that so many friends and colleagues are so caught up in their desire to be liked and have the approval of their peers (and thus remain employed) that they are willing to throw out so many bedrock ideas about being an American.
I am fully aware of the monstrous degeneration of the American minds, especially among those you describe (I am an European, artist and say an intellectual whose place would be among them, but I ran like a madman, as far as possible from NYC and LA, my (prior) only two experiences in the States for I can't stand that insane, myopic hubris they display) and yet, when I read what you wrote, it crushes me.
I lived through the communist tyranny and to see it here is both mind-boggling and terrifying.
I’m in immigrant from Poland and I don’t recognize the country I moved to 30 years ago. This developments infuriate me and make me want to fight it as I have nowhere else to go. William Bennett called America The Last Best Hope. I am hopeful but it will take a lot of work to fix it. Remember-it all starts at home.
I am the son of refugees from communist Czechoslovakia. I am grateful my father, who was immensely thankful for the opportunity he had in the United States, is no longer alive to see the same tactics used in his adopted country.
Yenomi Park is unfortunately most likely a fraud. Her story changes all the time, and even her mother says that she is exaggerating everything she says. North Korea is a horrible place, but I think she personally isn't credible.
BB, I have watched quite a few of her videos and plenty of other videos about North Korea (not created by her). They all seem quite consistent. Her claims about life in North Korea seem to match what everyone else is saying. Is she perfect? No. She (at one point) seemed to believe that COVID-19 would bring down the North Korean government. That didn't (and won't) happen. However, the North Korean airforce did stop flying for a month, which suggests that COVID-19 hit the north rather hard.
What's happening here to J.R. reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China, a time you could just smear someone based on some out of context remarks and turn him or her into a public enemy. It is fucking horrifying.
It's not hubris when you really are the best nation on the planet, as opposed to Europe, which has completely subjugated itself to its ruling elite, and impotent, resorts to snarky backbites upon those of us who have as yet not fully succumbed. Yes, we're far from perfect, but in contradistinction to the rest of the world, we admit it - and we try to do better. You'd better hope we get ourselves straightened out and soon have these communists hanging from trees; you never know when we'll have to rescue you again.
Remember when the nation went barking mad, believing there was an epidemic of child rape occurring at day care centers? If not for some brave reporters, notably Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ who exposed the insanity of these claims, innocent people would still be rotting in jail. We are in the grip of yet another wave of mass psychosis in our country.
Correct. I believe Mrs. Amirault died in prison. Her son was released but not without serving a number of years. All innocent. All railroaded by the same sort of groupthink madness.
How does the Democratic Party: have, reflect, or foster the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
For one by choosing Supreme Court candidates solely on the basis of race at least as to the first portion of your question/statement. As to the second I deal with evidence and the introduction thereof. I also deal with juries and the selection thereof. As a result I am familiar with the concepts of bias and prejudice not only in the context of race but also independent of their use in the context of racial issues. In my world bias is toward something while prejudice is against something. Either mean a person who has either is not objective and thus may not be fair. Personally I believe this underlies much of the current racial disharmony. We are all biased toward our culture. I personally think that is a good thing. I am not threatened by those of another group having a bias toward their group. I think that is healthy.. Nor should I be labeled as racist when I express support for my group/culture. It is prejudice against others which should be condemned. Because I am for my group does not make me against your group. Unless of course the two groups cannot co-exist. I do not believe that but I am getting the feeling some of you do.
I also am familar with the concept of legal fictions (which I admit I have always struggled with); but, IMO, that is the device being employed in the race arena at this point. Do not forget that proponents of Critical Race Theory are quick to say it is a law school concept and is not in American public schools. The legal fiction device, which basically is that A, whatever that is, is accepted and valid, whether it is or not and whether or not there are valid arguments against it. In the context of race that is why to say America is a melting pot is now racist, as is to question that the 1619 theory is axiomatic (regardless of the fact that it is acknowledged to be fictionalized and even the actual historical event was the result of a shipwreck for Pete's sake) , and then relying on that event for the proposition that the entire country was founded on and built on slavery. In sum the entire modern construct of racism is built on fiction. I am not denying the existence of racism and slavery but rather saying the modern construct is fiction. And this matters because the same construct is being employed in connection with covid. The damage done by that one is astonishing.
No. I clearly said that was in reference to the the first portion of the question/statement which I took as "how does the Democratic Party have, reflect or foster the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities". I am also not opining on the qualifications of any of the ladies, merely the selection methodology. And for what it is worth I value individuals over their group status and individual merit over group status.
Do black women have any different human traits and capacities than the rest of humanity or are they not the same? If they are the same, there should be no problem picking one!
Isn’t it ironic that lowering standards is the “final solution” to eliminate you?
Clearly, if you’re a young while male talented cellist (or actor, or stage play dancer) you must change careers or starve.
And when that’s happening I wonder how many parents will steer that talented child to careers which cannot be identity crushed, such as PhD chemical engineering.
Get out of New York. It's a dead city and the city council hates white men. It was once a place of incredible creativity. Take a look at the Bass Performance Hall in Fort Worth and the many inclusive venues in Austin. Don't give up but please get out of that toxic environment.
I’ve noticed the last couple of days some have commented about the fact that Pres. Biden said that he would appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. If you didn’t make the same kind of comment when Pres. Trump said he would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. You need to find a mirror, look into it, and when you see your reflection staring back at you, you need to say to that reflection, you are a racist!
A woman would be drawn from 50% of the general population and I think a larger percentage of the legal population; black woman would be drawn from 50% of the general population population and, according to a quick search, 14% of the legal population.
Based on their pigment color, they make up 14% of the legal population, but the reality is there is no ethnic group; society separates them because of their pigment color, not because of their ability. They’re not any less or any more intelligent because of their pigmentation!
” If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).”
We have ice so everything is shut down. I am sitting in front of a roaring fire refining my argument. I had not actually thought about the legal fiction reference before but I do think it is valid.
you... it is called the "Ravine Jump". Comes into play when everyone is told "you do not fit" and then "You" make the fit. You have created "Onus", which is a Burden, that is the problemo.
Before anyone jumps, i have 12 Black Women that i would like to see appointed/ elected. I can find more...now what?
Golfer, I agree! When I told a Progressive, liberal anti-America (from NYC) family member that as a moderate, still pro-America (from Texas) that I respectfully suggest we “just agree to disagree” I was told “NO WAY! How dare you! Silence is violence”
The effect this is having on families is awful. Either you avoid a whole bunch of topics like the plague or you end up in nasty arguments. In my family we are five siblings who have stayed close over decades. We are all now 50’s and 60’s age range. But three of us are conservatives and two are liberals, one militantly so. So bad that our 92 year mother avoids having Fox News on when this sibling is visiting her. Our society is now dividing not between conservative and liberal anymore. It’s dividing between those who are open have the self confidence and decency to have free exchange. And those that do not. It’s an era of anti intellectualism that I am working hard to make sure my 11 year old daughter spent succumb to.
I think the point is, who the hell cares? Just stop gloating about it and shoving it down everyone else's throat like it's some kind of incredible accomplishment, while endlessly demanding that everyone else celebrate and make special accommodations for you 24/7. That's what's disgusting.
I get your point Candis, I just feel you're exaggerating...words like "endlessly," "shoving," and "celebrate" seem excessive. I've never felt burdened like this in any job, organization, or group. Have you ever really felt you had to pretend to like Kwannza or gay pride or whatever else? I've never even known anyone who felt they had to front appreciation.
Stacey, this has actually been going on since the 90s. It's just that today it's crazy. Remember the Seinfeld episode about the AIDS ribbon? Kramer didn't want to wear the AIDS ribbon because he just didn't want to, and because he didn't wear it, people accused him about being AGAINST the movement.
That's exactly what we are experiencing today. Sometimes keeping your mouth shut isn't enough. If you don't recite the same words, you are considered a heretic and need to be punished.
That is my position as well Golfer but I don't think Candis was referring to you as gloating, etc. I think she was referring to those with alternative lifestyles trying to impose acceptance by others by rubbing their opposition's nose in it, as the old folks used to say. We are facing that in my tiny town with the public schools and school board elections. It is horribly divisive. But to me tolerance means tolerance for everyone's point of view. Otherwise it is a mockery of the concept.
WHO GIVES A FUCK ! WHAT PEOPLE DO AT HOME IS THEIR BUSINESS NOT MINE NOT YOURS . U CAN FUCK GOATS IN YOUR SPARE TIME I DON'T CARE . IT'S YOUR LIFE LIVE IT THE WAY YOU WANT Just don't bring it into work , i don't have to agree or like your lifestyle . It has nothing to do with the work environment , same as religion
One of the things that impresses me about Bari is her ability to make alliances with people who oppose something pretty fundamental to her identity and lifestyle. Frankly, I wouldn't blame her for drawing a line in the sand and deciding that she can't pal around with people who oppose her marriage. But she hasn't done that, and I respect her for it.
The idea that non-Progs oppose those things is absurd. It’s just a Lefty fever dream that they cultivate to give their empty lives meaning. Like complaining about a celebrity talk show as if the fate of the world depended on it. Angry, disconnected, paranoid losers
I'm Libertarian, and a close friend in NYC is a writer on The View. I love having friends whose views don't conform with mine. We have surprisingly common ground and he's sometimes led me to change my mind on important issues. These relationships enrich our lives. But people have to be of good faith, like Ms. Weiss and her wife are.
And her apparent ability to bring together in this place people of widely divergent ideologies for civil conversations. I think it is because many, many, many of us want to see a return to the day of the individual navigating our daily life with common sense, regardless of the source of that common sense. It gives me hope.
Interestingly your instructor has an unconscious bias, right? The HR March to berate and silence is clear. I’ve watched VP slots get filled for DEI only and a Sr Director hired with exactly the same position description to do the work. Entire groups of “strategy” staff are created out of thin air snd staffed only by identity. Ask one wrong question and you’re gone.
I believe it is only a matter of time before those who can be fired stop helping those who will never be criticized.
Joe Rogan would happily welcome Neil Young or any of the others on to his show and let them state what the "misinformation" he is spreading is. But none of them will do it.
They're not senile, they're not dinosaurs, and they're not telling us what we can and cannot say. They told Spotify, one of their distributors, that it's them or Joe Rogan. Spotify chose Rogan and dumped the musicians. Fine, everyone got what they wanted.
Personally, I thought it stupid on the musicians' part. It gave Rogan publicity that will increase his fan base, not shrink it, which is the opposite of what they wanted to happen.
I also think the Biden administration should have stayed the hell out of it. Government has no business saying "good, we need more of that." Rogan is entitled to say what he wants without government interference.
The old hippies are now closed minded reactionaries. They were interested in fame and fortune and the flavour of the day was peace and love (which I’m sure they believed in) but they were really after money and noterietay.
Yes, that's my mom. An old hippie who now acts like some sort of Soviet-era block warden towards anything she detects that might be "Republican" and refuses to discuss any of the above.
Young sold his music portfolio to the Blackstone Inc., via Hipgnosis Songs Fund. A rewind to 04 August 2020: "Blackstone Announces Appointment of Jeffrey B. Kindler, Former Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as Senior Advisor". Than the old sold-out offers fans "free Amazon Music" to move there.
This is how things go in the Pfizerstan. Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) owns 5.80% of the Blackstone and 6.56% of the Amazon. AMZN is Bezos, he owns The Post, the Post is a CIA outpost and Rogan is not yet controlled by the CIA. Therefore, crush Spotify, move the monies into the "right hands," those of our own ghouls and all would be fine.
To expect old washed out junkies, now multimillionaires, to be anything but the pawns in the game of totalitarian takeover of the country (or its ultimate demise) is more naive than they themselves were while they were young and poor.
Having some friends in the religious right in the 80's, I think you are underestimating the totalitarian left. The religious right had far lower expectations, and never aspired to total power. They never tried to censor political content. They were only interested in "smut."
The left today wants to control everything. They censor any news that makes Democrats look bad. One petty example is blacking out news of a trucker convoy in Canada, protesting vaccine mandates, that was 45 miles long.
It's suspicious that Marxists say that oligarchs censoring the news doesn't violate the 1st Amendment, because the oligarchs censor using private companies. As the quote in the article shows, the government encourages the censorship. How is that not a violation of free speech?
I take all of it as an isolated case. Compared to nationwide riots, burning churches, synagog shootings and systemic censorship of news and social media, the 80's are small beer. Today's extensive black listings of political dissidents put Joe Mccarthy to shame. Twitter alone canceled hundreds of thousands of conservatives' accounts.
Democrats are math and measurement challenged. For you, nastiness in one rust belt town is the equivalent of riots that killed dozens, injured hundreds and did billions of dollars worth of damage.
I grew up in Missoula, Montana, in the late 1950's and early 1960's. We were unpopular for paying Indians "white wages" to make hay on our ranch. But nobody pretends the Salish and Kootenai Tribes haven't made any progress since then. They have a huge timber operation, their own 4 year college, their own hotel, and an electronics factory. They own the hydro-electric dam that powers their valley. They also just took over the administration of the National Bison Range on their reservation.
The problems with systemic racism today are concentrated in urban hell holes run by Democrats for decades. They're the racists.
I don’t know what 1980’s you are thinking about but it’s not the 1980’s I grew up in and I grew up in a small Kansas town.
I agree that the “moral majority” was somewhat authoritarian but nothing like what you are talking about. Gays, were accepted as people though their practices were not.
They were “at war” with evolution and the Big Bang. There were a few nut cases far more militant about the abortion they were slow to condemn. They made it so I did not consider them at voting time except for local elections.
And the black segregation thing has ALWAYS been the left and Democrats.
I don't need to be Carnac the Magnificent to know that not accepting "their practices"--i.e., who gays sleep with--means you don't accept them as people. How'd you like it if they applied the same standard to you?
I don't remember the 1980s the way you do, but I was just a kid so I wasn't really paying attention to the adult topics of the day. I assume your list is accurate for some places of that era... but, then again it is accurate for some places of this era too... just with a depressing twist.
1980s, Michigan. Admittedly a rough town, but Satanic Panic, homophobia, and racism were pretty ugly back then. To the point that today's complaints seem pretty trite, to be honest.
Antifa/BLM riots that killed dozens, injured hundreds and destroyed billions of dollars worth of property dwarfed anything that happened in the 1980's. I remember both times quite well. Your memory seems quite selective.
Democrats facilitated the Antifa/BLM riots by ordering the police to stand down. When Trump said he would restore order with federal resources, Democrats defended their right to allow riots in their cities and states. About 50 generals and admirals condemned the use of federal troops to put down riots, as if federal troops had never been used to put down riots before.
The history (herstory?) of federal troops putting down internal unrest starts with the Whiskey Rebellion, which President George Washington put down in 1794.
The Antifa/BLM riots were intentional political violence, calculated to make Trump look fascist or impotent, depending on whether he took action or not. The riots inflamed racial tensions and locked in the identity voting Democrats depend on. The riots also intimidated officials into ruling on issues in favor of Democrats, and voters into voting for Democrats to avoid further riots.
Is it that today's issues typically lack aggressive violence that makes them trite? How are the "religious" panics of today substantially different from the religious panics of that day? Is the racism of today where we segregate to "protect" the minority a better racism than the racism of yesterday where we "protected" the majority? Does intention/ends justify the means?
I am truthfully interested in the answers here. I don't have a good historical feel for it and I'm suspicious of my feelings that "today it is worse." I'm certainly not pining for the good old days here, but I do believe that not everything in all ways is always better than yesterday.
In 1966, the NYT wrote "Success Story, Japanese-American Style". By 1966, Japanese-Americans were already more successful than whites. By 1920, Jews were already 20% of Harvard's entering class. Your fantasy America may have existed in the 19th century (in some, but not other places), but is not representative of 20th century America.
The measurement of success isn't Harvard, it is a strong middle class from which the poor ascend to and then settle or ascend from in a few generations, a society - not a narcissistic, faux-elitist, bourgeois shitshow that we see in many groups.
Your individual place in the heap of society is meaningless if the society at large is stagnant, but many 'non-whites' fail to grasp that as they gaze into their gaudy, mirror-filled lives.
Another reason Harvard isn't a good measure, my Mother didn't go to college, I graduated from a state Uni, and my daughter is in grad school at Cambridge - some (of us whiteys) leapfrogged right over Harvard.
Harvard created its Jewish quota in 1920. No less than FDR voted in favor. Of course, the quota was rather large (15% if I remember correctly, when Jews were far less than 15% of the population). James Conant championed the SAT to specifically allow talented 'outsiders' (as Jews were then) to attend Harvard. Yale took until the 1960s to make merit more important than being a good WASP.
and apparently, the Supreme Court case happening currently, reverse discrimination affecting asians and non-POC (jews not considered a minority as usual.. nothing changes with antisemitism..) is a major feature of the IVY's like Harvard...
EB, I would not say 'nothing changes'. There is a fairly serious claim that college admissions are now biased in favor of Jews. Not directly of course. However, the practical consequence is that Jews may be over-admitted.
PP, Read my notes. Getting into Yale was much easier back then, as was graduating. Kerry and Bush were C students who got a bit better from their freshman year onwards. It looks like Bush made more progress as a student than Kerry. Neither was a great student. Neither had to be. That weren't trying to graduate with honors. They didn't.
Both Bush and Kerry took several standardized tests. Bush and Kerry took military aptitude tests (Air Force Officer Qualifying Test and Navy Officer Qualifying Test). Bush appears to have done slightly better. Both Bush and Kerry took the SAT. However, only Bush released his scores. He got a 566 in verbal and a 640 in math for a total of 1206. Re-centering makes that equivalent to 1280 today.
"The Class of 1970 entered with the highest SAT scores in Yale’s history; a student who scored its mean SAT verbal mark of 697 would have been in the 90th percentile of the Class of 1961, and the 75th percentile of the Class of 1966. Put in a national context, half of the incoming freshmen scored in the top 1 percent nationally on the verbal SAT. These SAT marks were higher than those scored by the incoming class at Harvard, also a first for Yale. By year’s end, the Class of 1970 would score an average mark of 81, another school record."
Note that 1966 is the year that Yale changed its admission policies to favor test scores over other criteria. When Bush applied in 1964 his scores were below average in verbal and average in math. However, he was far from "bottom of the barrel" when he was admitted.
It turns out that Bush took note of the changing student body while he was at Yale and didn't like it. A WASPy school was becoming academically oriented (not to his taste). Some Yale professors liked it (in the sciences). Others did not.
Back then entry into Yale was different in two major respects. First, fewer students applied and the percentage admitted was considerably greater. Second, admissions were not (mainly) academically based. Basically, it was a class system that (strongly) favored WASP kids (boys back then) from the North East along with legacies (with a large overlap between the two groups).
The "Birth of a New Institution" article has endless discussion about whether Yale should admit boys from the Bronx High School of Science. With exceptions the answer was no. They were clearly academically superior (far superior), but were the wrong class (middle) and the wrong religion (Jewish). Quote
"It is not surprising to find that during Griswold’s first five years in office, Bronx Science sent only seven graduates to Yale, while Phillips Andover (which was nowhere near as academically selective) sent 275."
It turns out that Yale was obsessed with the Bronx High School of Science. Quote
"Chairman Doob remembers that committee members were particularly upset by “the fact that almost no students from the Bronx High School of Science were admitted, and that these were serious, lower-class New York boys, Jewish in many cases, who had a real interest in science, and they weren’t the well-rounded types. The Bronx High School of Science just appeared again and again in our discussions as epitomizing this problem.”"
The bottom line is that Bush and Kerry were typical Northeastern WASP kids (Kerry may not have been a WASP in the literal sense) with decent SAT scores who got into Yale in the 1960s because they were the kind of kids Yale recruited (and wanted to go to Yale). They made it through Yale because Yale was structured for kids like them. Yale (back then) wasn't trying to be MIT or UC Berkeley. Nor was Harvard at that point. By the 1970s things had changed and neither of them could have gotten into Yale. Nor could they now (unless they were a non-Asian minority).
Somehow we need to find each other so we can become a force like the Canadian truckers who have come together to push back against authoritarianism. I have no voice but I am supporting those who still do have a voice by subscribing to voices on Substack, Tucker Carlson on FoxNation, Epoch Times, Rebel News, etc. My contribution may be a drop in the ocean but if enough drops get together we become a flood.
Thank you Bari Weiss for allowing free expression on your Substack and giving a platform so Winston Marshall can shed light on this.
I'd like to see a national rally/march for freedom of expression. NOT a right-wing thing, but something that would draw in people of diverse views who all want to protect free speech. Held in Silicon Valley.
By today's standards, anyone who is against the "narrative" is considered right wing. You just need to become comfortable being called names that you're not. At the end of the day, they are only words.
First, no way would you get me to Silicon Valley, or California. What exactly is "right-wing?" Who defines it? It is someone with conservative values who believes in God, hard work, the Constitution? Is it someone who voted for Donald Trump?
The media (MSM), Big Tech, and this administration will define who is "right wing" if this rally were to go against their messaging. The Constitution in the Bill of Rights gives us the right to petition our government and the to peaceful rallies. However, the definition of what constitutes "peaceful" becomes a captive of the messaging by the media and Big Tech. If you aren't sure about this recall the Antifa riots of Portland were largely ignored by the MSM and the BLM riots which destroyed the city centers of many cities were described as "mostly peaceful" yet the January 6th demonstration at the Capital has been described as an insurrection. Imagine just for moment if the "insurrection" at the Capital had been largely comprised of Antifa and BLM activists instead of the people who participated. Do you believe the Antifa and BLM acitivists would not have destroyed the statuary and paintings and wrecked the interior? Certainly some windows were shattered but in all very little damage was done to the premises.
It's hard to see how a rally for freedom of expression would not be portrayed in the MSM as anti-all "vulnerable groups". The Social Justice Ideology is very busy these days with dictating how we use words and language. They believe hate, violence and dominance are baked into nearly everything we say and think, and that it's critical to regulate how we speak, write, and think.
I'm only saying that the march/rally would not be partisan. Any right-wingers who believe in freedom of expression for their ideological opponents would be welcome -- in fact solicited -- as would any such left-wingers. The point is this would be about freedom of expression, not the politics of any particular partisans.
I understand what you are saying. Consider this: it isn't what the participants of this rally believe about themselves but the way in which the MSM, Big Tech and the current government would define this rally. I say this because this rally would be threatening to the current hierarchy (MSM, Big Tech, the Democrats) that is desperately trying to maintain control. It would be in their interests to denigrate, marginalize, and label the participants.
Look at the Canadian truckers. These are people who have been pushed to the breaking point. They are taking a stand against the mandates which are crushing them and for freedom. They want Canada as it was before the virus mandates hit. Then see what Trudeau is calling them and accusing them of. He is doing his best to define them as racists, bigots, white supremacists, insurrectionists, etc. Is he going to succeed?
The truckers are making their point because they have shut down Ottawa and the crossing in Alberta into the USA. It is a non-violent protest and if it continues it will hobble the Canadian economy and the USA economy to an extent. That is why it is the best way to stand firm against the draconian authoritative policies of the current Canadian government. I applaud them. It is the Boston Tea Party writ large. Way to go truckers.
Wesley Yang calls the phenomenon “authoritarian utopianism”. Free-speech is a problem: incorrect thinking, impertinent questions, orthodoxies get questioned. The election of an unauthorized president proves that people are too stupid to be trusted with free speech. This is a commonly held belief amongst progressives, just ask, they will happily tell you this is their deeply held belief. In they’re thinking I am too stupid to be allowed to say what I think because I am dangerously wrong
First_Fit said it very well (paraphrasing): as the secular age replaced the antiquated notion of a creator god The human intuition of intelligent design migrated to new ares of moral authority currently centred in the academic left. Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are captured by old fashioned, time honoured and quintessentially human religiosity and moralistic opprobrium, they are unthinking adherents too the strictures of their clergy, the academic left.
My guess is that they are likely less informed, particularly about COVID and the many ramifications. Sad to see old counterculture icons now just be old...
Yes. But to be totally clueless about something so fundamental about liberal, American free speech, at that age, having been shielded and protected by it during the whole of their careers, really frosts me. All of them engaged in protected political speech, some of it really asinine. Yet they try to block the same right, not privilege, for someone whose politics don't match their own. This is about more than Covid, and it smells. You counter speech with speech, not gag orders. It's insufferably smug.
Outstanding article and truth-telling from Winston Marshall once again. This was a great read. My spouse is an artist and we have routinely shaken our heads at the artistic community’s increasing deference to government and establishment politics over two decades.
Artists become slaves of the State. Even just 10 years ago that was unthinkable.
I have never respected artists for anything other than their professional skills. I've never understood why so many people conclude that because someone is really good at singing, or playing a guitar, or pretending to be someone else, they also have an inherent channel to special wisdom that "normal people" don't possess.
What is exceptionally dangerous is the State pushing private companies to increase censorship. The left has learned from the mob (the real mob): "Nice bidness youz got dere...be shame should you looz it."
This is disturbing on many levels. In the West, particularly in English-speaking societies, popular music has traditionally been the voice of rebels and misfits. Today, the "people's music" is heavily commercialized; money, not the innate yearning to express free ideas, dictates what musicians may say.
Consistent with the tremendous latitude afforded "BIPOC" members of society to speak and act outside of norms, rap and hiphop have extremely racist and sexist lyrics, reflecting a decrepit, empty ghetto culture rooted in violence and nihilism. This is acceptable and allowable by white culture because it's perceived as a cry for justice, and also it sells.
The so-called rebels of the 1960s were rebelling against crass materialism, not true injustice. The issues they sang about -- peace, racial justice, environmentalism -- were being addressed as far back as 1949, when President Truman ordered the military to integrate, and all through the quiet 1950s American society grew to accept racial equality, culminating in the Republican-driven Civil Rights Act. It was Richard Nixon who founded the Environmental Protection Agency in 1971. These accomplishments were mainstream efforts, and were not driven by spoiled rich white kids banging on guitars.
Now those same sanctimonious loudmouths are speaking out against... the right to question the origins and treatment of a Chinese virus??? They were fools 50 years ago and are still fools today.
Aren't these aging artists really saying, "protect me first since I am old and sick." And wouldn't it be interesting to hear what they think was said on the two podcasts that was disinformation.
I bet you they haven't listed to one second of his podcasts; they're just parroting what they've heard from others, or soundbites taken out of context.
He doesn't claim to be an expert on anything nor anyone - he just plays host to a variety of people and topics that the public is interested in. Nothing to deride about that...
That won't happen. They are using the Moral Authority frame to keep control of the discourse. When you are the moral authority, you automatically win the argument and you are not required to "lower" yourself into dealing with any competing opinions at all. You simply demand, you do not respond, ever. Because you are the final word. Like God. Like "the Science." If you can somehow appear to genuinely achieve a Moral Authority frame during the sales process, you always make the sale. Like Pfizer.
Rogan has all the leverage here. If Spotify was dumb enough to fire him, he could set up shop right next store on another site, which site would immediately draw tens of millions of listeners. The real problem comes if and when the firms that run the internet itself (AWS, Google, GoDaddy) collectively decide to shut him down. When Psaki talks, this is what I worry about.
eventually, we will have a distributed system that allows people to find and use information, news, and media, free of centralized control. Some are calling it "Web 3.0". However the fact that the ex-Twitter CEO is involved in Web3 makes me suspicious. A truly free internet will take a concerted effort by dedicated libertarian types.
Yes, some people claim Signal is more secure, but Telegram's definitely better than WhatsApp (Facebook owned), skype and other insecure/corporate services.
I was horrified, but not surprised, to see CSNY (and others) demanding censorship, Young no longer rails against "tin soldiers and Nixon coming" but has joined the bolshevik/fascist establishment currently in power. They demand groupthink and newspeak and will destroy anyone who opposes them or questions their orthodoxy. I wonder if any of these useful idiots have even read Orwell. Some of them must have, so I can only assume that their embrace of totalitarianism is deliberate. The rest are just unprincipled conformists who (apparently) believe whatever Twitter tells them to believe.
I’m a middle-aged musician, I play cello on Broadway, and like what you are describing the scene here is one of supposedly liberal people shutting down and ostracizing anyone who doesn’t agree word for word with exactly whatever they happen to believe today. That would be, whatever the NYT thinks today. More than agree, you must spout the party line publicly, and on social media, otherwise you’re labeled “one of them”. So many friends and colleagues who are supposedly liberal folks are filling the newer Broadway bands and other groups with people who are the right gender, and the right color; though very often they are not the right musician for the job. For example, if a player can’t handle the music on the page the solutions these days is to simply make the music easier. It’s more important to them to have diversity than to have a compelling musical product. If you object, you’re a racist bigot. Last spring the band at Hadestown the musical announced that they would no longer be hiring white men for the most part, https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/HADESTOWN-Band-Announces-Diversity-Initiative-20210525, and even though that’s discriminatory hiring and illegal according to our union contracts, they were celebrated and continue to be. I find myself mostly disappointed that so many friends and colleagues are so caught up in their desire to be liked and have the approval of their peers (and thus remain employed) that they are willing to throw out so many bedrock ideas about being an American.
This is beyond tragic.
I am fully aware of the monstrous degeneration of the American minds, especially among those you describe (I am an European, artist and say an intellectual whose place would be among them, but I ran like a madman, as far as possible from NYC and LA, my (prior) only two experiences in the States for I can't stand that insane, myopic hubris they display) and yet, when I read what you wrote, it crushes me.
I lived through the communist tyranny and to see it here is both mind-boggling and terrifying.
I have heard that same sentiment from many immigrants to the US.
To us, and we talk about this ongoing insanity often, is like reliving the nightmare. A nightmarish experience in its own.
I can't image the feeling of escaping to freedom only to have that freedom be replaced by that which you escaped. A reckoning is coming.
Hold on. And pray.
I’m in immigrant from Poland and I don’t recognize the country I moved to 30 years ago. This developments infuriate me and make me want to fight it as I have nowhere else to go. William Bennett called America The Last Best Hope. I am hopeful but it will take a lot of work to fix it. Remember-it all starts at home.
I am the son of refugees from communist Czechoslovakia. I am grateful my father, who was immensely thankful for the opportunity he had in the United States, is no longer alive to see the same tactics used in his adopted country.
A defector from North Korea (Yenomi Park) describes Columbia as "Crazier than North Korea". Sadly, she is probably right and that is saying a lot.
Yenomi Park is unfortunately most likely a fraud. Her story changes all the time, and even her mother says that she is exaggerating everything she says. North Korea is a horrible place, but I think she personally isn't credible.
BB, I have watched quite a few of her videos and plenty of other videos about North Korea (not created by her). They all seem quite consistent. Her claims about life in North Korea seem to match what everyone else is saying. Is she perfect? No. She (at one point) seemed to believe that COVID-19 would bring down the North Korean government. That didn't (and won't) happen. However, the North Korean airforce did stop flying for a month, which suggests that COVID-19 hit the north rather hard.
What's happening here to J.R. reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China, a time you could just smear someone based on some out of context remarks and turn him or her into a public enemy. It is fucking horrifying.
It's not hubris when you really are the best nation on the planet, as opposed to Europe, which has completely subjugated itself to its ruling elite, and impotent, resorts to snarky backbites upon those of us who have as yet not fully succumbed. Yes, we're far from perfect, but in contradistinction to the rest of the world, we admit it - and we try to do better. You'd better hope we get ourselves straightened out and soon have these communists hanging from trees; you never know when we'll have to rescue you again.
Remember when the nation went barking mad, believing there was an epidemic of child rape occurring at day care centers? If not for some brave reporters, notably Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ who exposed the insanity of these claims, innocent people would still be rotting in jail. We are in the grip of yet another wave of mass psychosis in our country.
I think some of those people rotted in jail anyway. I seem to recall Martha Coakley behind covering it up, and she has always gotten away with it.
Correct. I believe Mrs. Amirault died in prison. Her son was released but not without serving a number of years. All innocent. All railroaded by the same sort of groupthink madness.
Also Janet Reno was involved in all that.
Check out "They say it's rare" on Telegram for just a taste of crimes against humanity. Front and center.
Racists are in ascendancy. Long history of racism in the democrat party
How does the Democratic Party: have, reflect, or foster the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
For one by choosing Supreme Court candidates solely on the basis of race at least as to the first portion of your question/statement. As to the second I deal with evidence and the introduction thereof. I also deal with juries and the selection thereof. As a result I am familiar with the concepts of bias and prejudice not only in the context of race but also independent of their use in the context of racial issues. In my world bias is toward something while prejudice is against something. Either mean a person who has either is not objective and thus may not be fair. Personally I believe this underlies much of the current racial disharmony. We are all biased toward our culture. I personally think that is a good thing. I am not threatened by those of another group having a bias toward their group. I think that is healthy.. Nor should I be labeled as racist when I express support for my group/culture. It is prejudice against others which should be condemned. Because I am for my group does not make me against your group. Unless of course the two groups cannot co-exist. I do not believe that but I am getting the feeling some of you do.
I also am familar with the concept of legal fictions (which I admit I have always struggled with); but, IMO, that is the device being employed in the race arena at this point. Do not forget that proponents of Critical Race Theory are quick to say it is a law school concept and is not in American public schools. The legal fiction device, which basically is that A, whatever that is, is accepted and valid, whether it is or not and whether or not there are valid arguments against it. In the context of race that is why to say America is a melting pot is now racist, as is to question that the 1619 theory is axiomatic (regardless of the fact that it is acknowledged to be fictionalized and even the actual historical event was the result of a shipwreck for Pete's sake) , and then relying on that event for the proposition that the entire country was founded on and built on slavery. In sum the entire modern construct of racism is built on fiction. I am not denying the existence of racism and slavery but rather saying the modern construct is fiction. And this matters because the same construct is being employed in connection with covid. The damage done by that one is astonishing.
Are you saying black women are inherently superior to white folk?
No. I clearly said that was in reference to the the first portion of the question/statement which I took as "how does the Democratic Party have, reflect or foster the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities". I am also not opining on the qualifications of any of the ladies, merely the selection methodology. And for what it is worth I value individuals over their group status and individual merit over group status.
You put in all that work and "Just me" responds with a stupid troll. Ah well.
Do black women have any different human traits and capacities than the rest of humanity or are they not the same? If they are the same, there should be no problem picking one!
You’re kidding right? Just land here?
Madjack, you didn’t answer the question!
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
Isn’t it ironic that lowering standards is the “final solution” to eliminate you?
Clearly, if you’re a young while male talented cellist (or actor, or stage play dancer) you must change careers or starve.
And when that’s happening I wonder how many parents will steer that talented child to careers which cannot be identity crushed, such as PhD chemical engineering.
Get out of New York. It's a dead city and the city council hates white men. It was once a place of incredible creativity. Take a look at the Bass Performance Hall in Fort Worth and the many inclusive venues in Austin. Don't give up but please get out of that toxic environment.
I’ve noticed the last couple of days some have commented about the fact that Pres. Biden said that he would appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. If you didn’t make the same kind of comment when Pres. Trump said he would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. You need to find a mirror, look into it, and when you see your reflection staring back at you, you need to say to that reflection, you are a racist!
Gasp!
Should I kill myself now and leave all my world possessions to BLM?
I think a much better course would be to examine why you are racist instead of killing yourself!
Or maybe I'm not and neither are most Americans.
Thanks. You're no doubt correct. "just me" and "Matt Mullen" (clearly not the old Raider) share the same dementia.
Hardly, women comprise 50% of the population, no?
One president says a woman, and the other says a black woman; what distinguishes the two comments?
A woman would be drawn from 50% of the general population and I think a larger percentage of the legal population; black woman would be drawn from 50% of the general population population and, according to a quick search, 14% of the legal population.
Based on their pigment color, they make up 14% of the legal population, but the reality is there is no ethnic group; society separates them because of their pigment color, not because of their ability. They’re not any less or any more intelligent because of their pigmentation!
” If separate racial or ethnic groups actually existed, we would expect to find “trademark” alleles and other genetic features that are characteristic of a single group but not present in any others. However, the 2002 Stanford study found that only 7.4% of over 4000 alleles were specific to one geographical region. Furthermore, even when region-specific alleles did appear, they only occurred in about 1% of the people from that region—hardly enough to be any kind of trademark. Thus, there is no evidence that the groups we commonly call “races” have distinct, unifying genetic identities. In fact, there is ample variation within races (Figure 1B).”
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
And that song is better than anything NY ever put out.
We have ice so everything is shut down. I am sitting in front of a roaring fire refining my argument. I had not actually thought about the legal fiction reference before but I do think it is valid.
you... it is called the "Ravine Jump". Comes into play when everyone is told "you do not fit" and then "You" make the fit. You have created "Onus", which is a Burden, that is the problemo.
Before anyone jumps, i have 12 Black Women that i would like to see appointed/ elected. I can find more...now what?
Lol. Tear down this wall, why don't we?
Golfer, I agree! When I told a Progressive, liberal anti-America (from NYC) family member that as a moderate, still pro-America (from Texas) that I respectfully suggest we “just agree to disagree” I was told “NO WAY! How dare you! Silence is violence”
We are living a nightmare!
The effect this is having on families is awful. Either you avoid a whole bunch of topics like the plague or you end up in nasty arguments. In my family we are five siblings who have stayed close over decades. We are all now 50’s and 60’s age range. But three of us are conservatives and two are liberals, one militantly so. So bad that our 92 year mother avoids having Fox News on when this sibling is visiting her. Our society is now dividing not between conservative and liberal anymore. It’s dividing between those who are open have the self confidence and decency to have free exchange. And those that do not. It’s an era of anti intellectualism that I am working hard to make sure my 11 year old daughter spent succumb to.
You know golfer, Bari Weiss is in a same-sex marriage. And I know that because she talks about it all the time, and her wife posts A LOT.
He's going to need his sand wedge to get out of this one...
I think the point is, who the hell cares? Just stop gloating about it and shoving it down everyone else's throat like it's some kind of incredible accomplishment, while endlessly demanding that everyone else celebrate and make special accommodations for you 24/7. That's what's disgusting.
I get your point Candis, I just feel you're exaggerating...words like "endlessly," "shoving," and "celebrate" seem excessive. I've never felt burdened like this in any job, organization, or group. Have you ever really felt you had to pretend to like Kwannza or gay pride or whatever else? I've never even known anyone who felt they had to front appreciation.
Stacey, this has actually been going on since the 90s. It's just that today it's crazy. Remember the Seinfeld episode about the AIDS ribbon? Kramer didn't want to wear the AIDS ribbon because he just didn't want to, and because he didn't wear it, people accused him about being AGAINST the movement.
That's exactly what we are experiencing today. Sometimes keeping your mouth shut isn't enough. If you don't recite the same words, you are considered a heretic and need to be punished.
That is my position as well Golfer but I don't think Candis was referring to you as gloating, etc. I think she was referring to those with alternative lifestyles trying to impose acceptance by others by rubbing their opposition's nose in it, as the old folks used to say. We are facing that in my tiny town with the public schools and school board elections. It is horribly divisive. But to me tolerance means tolerance for everyone's point of view. Otherwise it is a mockery of the concept.
G...sounds like "you lost another Ball".
So now you know how a personal attack feels.
WHO GIVES A FUCK ! WHAT PEOPLE DO AT HOME IS THEIR BUSINESS NOT MINE NOT YOURS . U CAN FUCK GOATS IN YOUR SPARE TIME I DON'T CARE . IT'S YOUR LIFE LIVE IT THE WAY YOU WANT Just don't bring it into work , i don't have to agree or like your lifestyle . It has nothing to do with the work environment , same as religion
Just exactly how are you forced to advocate for same-sex marriage?
That's a very fair answer.
One of the things that impresses me about Bari is her ability to make alliances with people who oppose something pretty fundamental to her identity and lifestyle. Frankly, I wouldn't blame her for drawing a line in the sand and deciding that she can't pal around with people who oppose her marriage. But she hasn't done that, and I respect her for it.
The idea that non-Progs oppose those things is absurd. It’s just a Lefty fever dream that they cultivate to give their empty lives meaning. Like complaining about a celebrity talk show as if the fate of the world depended on it. Angry, disconnected, paranoid losers
I'm Libertarian, and a close friend in NYC is a writer on The View. I love having friends whose views don't conform with mine. We have surprisingly common ground and he's sometimes led me to change my mind on important issues. These relationships enrich our lives. But people have to be of good faith, like Ms. Weiss and her wife are.
And her apparent ability to bring together in this place people of widely divergent ideologies for civil conversations. I think it is because many, many, many of us want to see a return to the day of the individual navigating our daily life with common sense, regardless of the source of that common sense. It gives me hope.
Omg
These people don't last on the job in the end. Stay strong.
Interestingly your instructor has an unconscious bias, right? The HR March to berate and silence is clear. I’ve watched VP slots get filled for DEI only and a Sr Director hired with exactly the same position description to do the work. Entire groups of “strategy” staff are created out of thin air snd staffed only by identity. Ask one wrong question and you’re gone.
I believe it is only a matter of time before those who can be fired stop helping those who will never be criticized.
9iron...so funny, yep.
Joe Rogan would happily welcome Neil Young or any of the others on to his show and let them state what the "misinformation" he is spreading is. But none of them will do it.
Because they would be asked questions they don't want to answer and made aware of information that they don't want to know.
Neil Young wouldn’t understand a scientific study if it bit him in his ass.
But he understands bullying.
Can CSNY please reunite for the first time in years on Joe Rogan's show? Would be an incredible group interview
They’re all simply bullies. And it seems to lazy engage in the marketplace of ideas.
So a couple of senile Canadian dinosaurs are telling us what we can and cannot say. Good times.
They're not senile, they're not dinosaurs, and they're not telling us what we can and cannot say. They told Spotify, one of their distributors, that it's them or Joe Rogan. Spotify chose Rogan and dumped the musicians. Fine, everyone got what they wanted.
Personally, I thought it stupid on the musicians' part. It gave Rogan publicity that will increase his fan base, not shrink it, which is the opposite of what they wanted to happen.
I also think the Biden administration should have stayed the hell out of it. Government has no business saying "good, we need more of that." Rogan is entitled to say what he wants without government interference.
Is Joni Mitchell Canadian as well ?
Yes. So much for looking at life from both sides, eh?
The old hippies are now closed minded reactionaries. They were interested in fame and fortune and the flavour of the day was peace and love (which I’m sure they believed in) but they were really after money and noterietay.
Yes, that's my mom. An old hippie who now acts like some sort of Soviet-era block warden towards anything she detects that might be "Republican" and refuses to discuss any of the above.
The hippies were always little commies without power ... now they have power.
Same
I've become convinced that there is a certain point where money takes it's due in grey matter.
Oh God, how I want to fit this as a joke. Joni used to be for the people, but she sees both sides now.
eh ? 😂🤣😂🤣
Actually, the bankers who bought the music library off of a couple of grey rockers are telling us what we can and cannot say ... that's different.
Young sold his music portfolio to the Blackstone Inc., via Hipgnosis Songs Fund. A rewind to 04 August 2020: "Blackstone Announces Appointment of Jeffrey B. Kindler, Former Chairman and CEO of Pfizer, as Senior Advisor". Than the old sold-out offers fans "free Amazon Music" to move there.
This is how things go in the Pfizerstan. Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) owns 5.80% of the Blackstone and 6.56% of the Amazon. AMZN is Bezos, he owns The Post, the Post is a CIA outpost and Rogan is not yet controlled by the CIA. Therefore, crush Spotify, move the monies into the "right hands," those of our own ghouls and all would be fine.
To expect old washed out junkies, now multimillionaires, to be anything but the pawns in the game of totalitarian takeover of the country (or its ultimate demise) is more naive than they themselves were while they were young and poor.
True that. Vanguard funds own about 7% of US equities overall.
👍👍
How much of Pfizer does Vanguard own?
https://www.wallstreetzen.com/stocks/us/nyse/pfe/ownership
TL;DR: Vanguard is the largest institutional owner of Pfizer, "owning 459.94M shares representing 8.19% of the company."
I’ve deleted.
The fund companies since 2004 can vote the underlying shares. So whoever controls the funds gets the vote.
My bad.
The truth hurts.
Ironically, the "progressive" Left has become just like the religious right of the 1980's; Hysterical, illogical, censorious, totalitarian.
It's especially ironic that supposed freedom activists are the ones leading the charge against freedom of expression.
"He who fights with monsters..."
Having some friends in the religious right in the 80's, I think you are underestimating the totalitarian left. The religious right had far lower expectations, and never aspired to total power. They never tried to censor political content. They were only interested in "smut."
The left today wants to control everything. They censor any news that makes Democrats look bad. One petty example is blacking out news of a trucker convoy in Canada, protesting vaccine mandates, that was 45 miles long.
It's suspicious that Marxists say that oligarchs censoring the news doesn't violate the 1st Amendment, because the oligarchs censor using private companies. As the quote in the article shows, the government encourages the censorship. How is that not a violation of free speech?
Smut lol. Haven't heard that term in a while!
I personally experienced or witnessed everything I detailed. Again, it was a very rough rust belt town, but it happened.
I take all of it as an isolated case. Compared to nationwide riots, burning churches, synagog shootings and systemic censorship of news and social media, the 80's are small beer. Today's extensive black listings of political dissidents put Joe Mccarthy to shame. Twitter alone canceled hundreds of thousands of conservatives' accounts.
Democrats are math and measurement challenged. For you, nastiness in one rust belt town is the equivalent of riots that killed dozens, injured hundreds and did billions of dollars worth of damage.
I grew up in Missoula, Montana, in the late 1950's and early 1960's. We were unpopular for paying Indians "white wages" to make hay on our ranch. But nobody pretends the Salish and Kootenai Tribes haven't made any progress since then. They have a huge timber operation, their own 4 year college, their own hotel, and an electronics factory. They own the hydro-electric dam that powers their valley. They also just took over the administration of the National Bison Range on their reservation.
The problems with systemic racism today are concentrated in urban hell holes run by Democrats for decades. They're the racists.
Driving gays out of town
Segregating blacks
Beating up "satanists" (kids that liked Ozzy Osbourne)
Shunning non-believers
Getting non-Christians fired from jobs
Good times!
These people were 30-50 years old in 1985. More like your parent's generation, not your grandparents.
I don’t know what 1980’s you are thinking about but it’s not the 1980’s I grew up in and I grew up in a small Kansas town.
I agree that the “moral majority” was somewhat authoritarian but nothing like what you are talking about. Gays, were accepted as people though their practices were not.
They were “at war” with evolution and the Big Bang. There were a few nut cases far more militant about the abortion they were slow to condemn. They made it so I did not consider them at voting time except for local elections.
And the black segregation thing has ALWAYS been the left and Democrats.
"Gays were accepted as people though their practices were not."
You did not actually accept gays as people, you only pretended to.
Are you a mind reader?
Your statement is born or arrogance.
I don't need to be Carnac the Magnificent to know that not accepting "their practices"--i.e., who gays sleep with--means you don't accept them as people. How'd you like it if they applied the same standard to you?
Are you writing about the 1980s or 2020s?
I don't remember the 1980s the way you do, but I was just a kid so I wasn't really paying attention to the adult topics of the day. I assume your list is accurate for some places of that era... but, then again it is accurate for some places of this era too... just with a depressing twist.
1980s, Michigan. Admittedly a rough town, but Satanic Panic, homophobia, and racism were pretty ugly back then. To the point that today's complaints seem pretty trite, to be honest.
Antifa/BLM riots that killed dozens, injured hundreds and destroyed billions of dollars worth of property dwarfed anything that happened in the 1980's. I remember both times quite well. Your memory seems quite selective.
Democrats facilitated the Antifa/BLM riots by ordering the police to stand down. When Trump said he would restore order with federal resources, Democrats defended their right to allow riots in their cities and states. About 50 generals and admirals condemned the use of federal troops to put down riots, as if federal troops had never been used to put down riots before.
The history (herstory?) of federal troops putting down internal unrest starts with the Whiskey Rebellion, which President George Washington put down in 1794.
The Antifa/BLM riots were intentional political violence, calculated to make Trump look fascist or impotent, depending on whether he took action or not. The riots inflamed racial tensions and locked in the identity voting Democrats depend on. The riots also intimidated officials into ruling on issues in favor of Democrats, and voters into voting for Democrats to avoid further riots.
Doug...nice fill and i loved the "herstory"
Is it that today's issues typically lack aggressive violence that makes them trite? How are the "religious" panics of today substantially different from the religious panics of that day? Is the racism of today where we segregate to "protect" the minority a better racism than the racism of yesterday where we "protected" the majority? Does intention/ends justify the means?
I am truthfully interested in the answers here. I don't have a good historical feel for it and I'm suspicious of my feelings that "today it is worse." I'm certainly not pining for the good old days here, but I do believe that not everything in all ways is always better than yesterday.
I don't think anyone is oppressed in 2022. Anyone who says they are is a failure looking for someone to blame said failures on.
And yes, actual violence is much worse than harsh words on an obsolete image board that incel neckbeards and 12 year old bullies frequent.
In 1966, the NYT wrote "Success Story, Japanese-American Style". By 1966, Japanese-Americans were already more successful than whites. By 1920, Jews were already 20% of Harvard's entering class. Your fantasy America may have existed in the 19th century (in some, but not other places), but is not representative of 20th century America.
LOL. Typical.
The measurement of success isn't Harvard, it is a strong middle class from which the poor ascend to and then settle or ascend from in a few generations, a society - not a narcissistic, faux-elitist, bourgeois shitshow that we see in many groups.
Your individual place in the heap of society is meaningless if the society at large is stagnant, but many 'non-whites' fail to grasp that as they gaze into their gaudy, mirror-filled lives.
Another reason Harvard isn't a good measure, my Mother didn't go to college, I graduated from a state Uni, and my daughter is in grad school at Cambridge - some (of us whiteys) leapfrogged right over Harvard.
interesting, because Jews faced quotas a major universities in the 50-60s...
Harvard created its Jewish quota in 1920. No less than FDR voted in favor. Of course, the quota was rather large (15% if I remember correctly, when Jews were far less than 15% of the population). James Conant championed the SAT to specifically allow talented 'outsiders' (as Jews were then) to attend Harvard. Yale took until the 1960s to make merit more important than being a good WASP.
and apparently, the Supreme Court case happening currently, reverse discrimination affecting asians and non-POC (jews not considered a minority as usual.. nothing changes with antisemitism..) is a major feature of the IVY's like Harvard...
EB, I would not say 'nothing changes'. There is a fairly serious claim that college admissions are now biased in favor of Jews. Not directly of course. However, the practical consequence is that Jews may be over-admitted.
EB, I wrote the following some time ago.
PP, Read my notes. Getting into Yale was much easier back then, as was graduating. Kerry and Bush were C students who got a bit better from their freshman year onwards. It looks like Bush made more progress as a student than Kerry. Neither was a great student. Neither had to be. That weren't trying to graduate with honors. They didn't.
Both Bush and Kerry took several standardized tests. Bush and Kerry took military aptitude tests (Air Force Officer Qualifying Test and Navy Officer Qualifying Test). Bush appears to have done slightly better. Both Bush and Kerry took the SAT. However, only Bush released his scores. He got a 566 in verbal and a 640 in math for a total of 1206. Re-centering makes that equivalent to 1280 today.
Could a student get into Yale in 1964 with 1206 on their SATs? Sure they could. Remember that quote from "The Birth of a New Institution" (http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/.../admissions.html).
"The Class of 1970 entered with the highest SAT scores in Yale’s history; a student who scored its mean SAT verbal mark of 697 would have been in the 90th percentile of the Class of 1961, and the 75th percentile of the Class of 1966. Put in a national context, half of the incoming freshmen scored in the top 1 percent nationally on the verbal SAT. These SAT marks were higher than those scored by the incoming class at Harvard, also a first for Yale. By year’s end, the Class of 1970 would score an average mark of 81, another school record."
Note that 1966 is the year that Yale changed its admission policies to favor test scores over other criteria. When Bush applied in 1964 his scores were below average in verbal and average in math. However, he was far from "bottom of the barrel" when he was admitted.
It turns out that Bush took note of the changing student body while he was at Yale and didn't like it. A WASPy school was becoming academically oriented (not to his taste). Some Yale professors liked it (in the sciences). Others did not.
Back then entry into Yale was different in two major respects. First, fewer students applied and the percentage admitted was considerably greater. Second, admissions were not (mainly) academically based. Basically, it was a class system that (strongly) favored WASP kids (boys back then) from the North East along with legacies (with a large overlap between the two groups).
The "Birth of a New Institution" article has endless discussion about whether Yale should admit boys from the Bronx High School of Science. With exceptions the answer was no. They were clearly academically superior (far superior), but were the wrong class (middle) and the wrong religion (Jewish). Quote
"It is not surprising to find that during Griswold’s first five years in office, Bronx Science sent only seven graduates to Yale, while Phillips Andover (which was nowhere near as academically selective) sent 275."
It turns out that Yale was obsessed with the Bronx High School of Science. Quote
"Chairman Doob remembers that committee members were particularly upset by “the fact that almost no students from the Bronx High School of Science were admitted, and that these were serious, lower-class New York boys, Jewish in many cases, who had a real interest in science, and they weren’t the well-rounded types. The Bronx High School of Science just appeared again and again in our discussions as epitomizing this problem.”"
The bottom line is that Bush and Kerry were typical Northeastern WASP kids (Kerry may not have been a WASP in the literal sense) with decent SAT scores who got into Yale in the 1960s because they were the kind of kids Yale recruited (and wanted to go to Yale). They made it through Yale because Yale was structured for kids like them. Yale (back then) wasn't trying to be MIT or UC Berkeley. Nor was Harvard at that point. By the 1970s things had changed and neither of them could have gotten into Yale. Nor could they now (unless they were a non-Asian minority).
Somehow we need to find each other so we can become a force like the Canadian truckers who have come together to push back against authoritarianism. I have no voice but I am supporting those who still do have a voice by subscribing to voices on Substack, Tucker Carlson on FoxNation, Epoch Times, Rebel News, etc. My contribution may be a drop in the ocean but if enough drops get together we become a flood.
Thank you Bari Weiss for allowing free expression on your Substack and giving a platform so Winston Marshall can shed light on this.
I'd like to see a national rally/march for freedom of expression. NOT a right-wing thing, but something that would draw in people of diverse views who all want to protect free speech. Held in Silicon Valley.
By today's standards, anyone who is against the "narrative" is considered right wing. You just need to become comfortable being called names that you're not. At the end of the day, they are only words.
First, no way would you get me to Silicon Valley, or California. What exactly is "right-wing?" Who defines it? It is someone with conservative values who believes in God, hard work, the Constitution? Is it someone who voted for Donald Trump?
The media (MSM), Big Tech, and this administration will define who is "right wing" if this rally were to go against their messaging. The Constitution in the Bill of Rights gives us the right to petition our government and the to peaceful rallies. However, the definition of what constitutes "peaceful" becomes a captive of the messaging by the media and Big Tech. If you aren't sure about this recall the Antifa riots of Portland were largely ignored by the MSM and the BLM riots which destroyed the city centers of many cities were described as "mostly peaceful" yet the January 6th demonstration at the Capital has been described as an insurrection. Imagine just for moment if the "insurrection" at the Capital had been largely comprised of Antifa and BLM activists instead of the people who participated. Do you believe the Antifa and BLM acitivists would not have destroyed the statuary and paintings and wrecked the interior? Certainly some windows were shattered but in all very little damage was done to the premises.
It's hard to see how a rally for freedom of expression would not be portrayed in the MSM as anti-all "vulnerable groups". The Social Justice Ideology is very busy these days with dictating how we use words and language. They believe hate, violence and dominance are baked into nearly everything we say and think, and that it's critical to regulate how we speak, write, and think.
I'm only saying that the march/rally would not be partisan. Any right-wingers who believe in freedom of expression for their ideological opponents would be welcome -- in fact solicited -- as would any such left-wingers. The point is this would be about freedom of expression, not the politics of any particular partisans.
I understand what you are saying. Consider this: it isn't what the participants of this rally believe about themselves but the way in which the MSM, Big Tech and the current government would define this rally. I say this because this rally would be threatening to the current hierarchy (MSM, Big Tech, the Democrats) that is desperately trying to maintain control. It would be in their interests to denigrate, marginalize, and label the participants.
Look at the Canadian truckers. These are people who have been pushed to the breaking point. They are taking a stand against the mandates which are crushing them and for freedom. They want Canada as it was before the virus mandates hit. Then see what Trudeau is calling them and accusing them of. He is doing his best to define them as racists, bigots, white supremacists, insurrectionists, etc. Is he going to succeed?
I don't know but the truckers seem to be making their point anyway.
The truckers are making their point because they have shut down Ottawa and the crossing in Alberta into the USA. It is a non-violent protest and if it continues it will hobble the Canadian economy and the USA economy to an extent. That is why it is the best way to stand firm against the draconian authoritative policies of the current Canadian government. I applaud them. It is the Boston Tea Party writ large. Way to go truckers.
Yes, which is very atypical for Canadians
Naomi...Exactly... what is so difficult for others to see (Jan 6th), talk about a Black and White situation...easy.
aka "Domestic Terrorists"
at least in this administration
#2000Mules
Wesley Yang calls the phenomenon “authoritarian utopianism”. Free-speech is a problem: incorrect thinking, impertinent questions, orthodoxies get questioned. The election of an unauthorized president proves that people are too stupid to be trusted with free speech. This is a commonly held belief amongst progressives, just ask, they will happily tell you this is their deeply held belief. In they’re thinking I am too stupid to be allowed to say what I think because I am dangerously wrong
First_Fit said it very well (paraphrasing): as the secular age replaced the antiquated notion of a creator god The human intuition of intelligent design migrated to new ares of moral authority currently centred in the academic left. Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are captured by old fashioned, time honoured and quintessentially human religiosity and moralistic opprobrium, they are unthinking adherents too the strictures of their clergy, the academic left.
Neil Young and Joni Mitchell made their money selling songs about pushing back “against the man” - now they are the man.
They said then: don’t conform.
So we should say now: don’t conform.
We need to push back against them…hard.
Their opinions are no more important, or informed, than those here. Part of what makes this so obnoxious is that they so evidently think theirs' are.
My guess is that they are likely less informed, particularly about COVID and the many ramifications. Sad to see old counterculture icons now just be old...
Yes. But to be totally clueless about something so fundamental about liberal, American free speech, at that age, having been shielded and protected by it during the whole of their careers, really frosts me. All of them engaged in protected political speech, some of it really asinine. Yet they try to block the same right, not privilege, for someone whose politics don't match their own. This is about more than Covid, and it smells. You counter speech with speech, not gag orders. It's insufferably smug.
Old and in the way.
"Well I heard Mr. Young sing about her
Well I heard old Neil put her down
Well I hope Neil Young will remember
A southern man don't need him around anyhow"
**I could be happy the rest of my life; with a cinnamon girl:
Unless she likes Joe Rogan.
Outstanding article and truth-telling from Winston Marshall once again. This was a great read. My spouse is an artist and we have routinely shaken our heads at the artistic community’s increasing deference to government and establishment politics over two decades.
Artists become slaves of the State. Even just 10 years ago that was unthinkable.
I have never respected artists for anything other than their professional skills. I've never understood why so many people conclude that because someone is really good at singing, or playing a guitar, or pretending to be someone else, they also have an inherent channel to special wisdom that "normal people" don't possess.
What is exceptionally dangerous is the State pushing private companies to increase censorship. The left has learned from the mob (the real mob): "Nice bidness youz got dere...be shame should you looz it."
Johnny Rotten for government censorship??? Uh. No.
This shits embarrassing Neil.
Thanks Mr Marshall.
This is disturbing on many levels. In the West, particularly in English-speaking societies, popular music has traditionally been the voice of rebels and misfits. Today, the "people's music" is heavily commercialized; money, not the innate yearning to express free ideas, dictates what musicians may say.
Consistent with the tremendous latitude afforded "BIPOC" members of society to speak and act outside of norms, rap and hiphop have extremely racist and sexist lyrics, reflecting a decrepit, empty ghetto culture rooted in violence and nihilism. This is acceptable and allowable by white culture because it's perceived as a cry for justice, and also it sells.
The so-called rebels of the 1960s were rebelling against crass materialism, not true injustice. The issues they sang about -- peace, racial justice, environmentalism -- were being addressed as far back as 1949, when President Truman ordered the military to integrate, and all through the quiet 1950s American society grew to accept racial equality, culminating in the Republican-driven Civil Rights Act. It was Richard Nixon who founded the Environmental Protection Agency in 1971. These accomplishments were mainstream efforts, and were not driven by spoiled rich white kids banging on guitars.
Now those same sanctimonious loudmouths are speaking out against... the right to question the origins and treatment of a Chinese virus??? They were fools 50 years ago and are still fools today.
So true!
Aren't these aging artists really saying, "protect me first since I am old and sick." And wouldn't it be interesting to hear what they think was said on the two podcasts that was disinformation.
I bet you they haven't listed to one second of his podcasts; they're just parroting what they've heard from others, or soundbites taken out of context.
He doesn't claim to be an expert on anything nor anyone - he just plays host to a variety of people and topics that the public is interested in. Nothing to deride about that...
That won't happen. They are using the Moral Authority frame to keep control of the discourse. When you are the moral authority, you automatically win the argument and you are not required to "lower" yourself into dealing with any competing opinions at all. You simply demand, you do not respond, ever. Because you are the final word. Like God. Like "the Science." If you can somehow appear to genuinely achieve a Moral Authority frame during the sales process, you always make the sale. Like Pfizer.
Right. It really is about superiority over others, isn't it?
Rogan has all the leverage here. If Spotify was dumb enough to fire him, he could set up shop right next store on another site, which site would immediately draw tens of millions of listeners. The real problem comes if and when the firms that run the internet itself (AWS, Google, GoDaddy) collectively decide to shut him down. When Psaki talks, this is what I worry about.
That's what blockchain is for: to make it difficult if not impossible to delete someone.
Can you say more? How would it apply in this case (Joe Rogan, say, being removed from Spotify)?
eventually, we will have a distributed system that allows people to find and use information, news, and media, free of centralized control. Some are calling it "Web 3.0". However the fact that the ex-Twitter CEO is involved in Web3 makes me suspicious. A truly free internet will take a concerted effort by dedicated libertarian types.
Fascinating to consider. Thank you.
So you're saying all Rogan would need is some servers of his own, and he'd be invulnerable to censorship?
Not sufficient; they have their claws into the entire system -- Cloudflare for example. Would probably have to be foreign-based servers to begin with.
Yes, some people claim Signal is more secure, but Telegram's definitely better than WhatsApp (Facebook owned), skype and other insecure/corporate services.
I was horrified, but not surprised, to see CSNY (and others) demanding censorship, Young no longer rails against "tin soldiers and Nixon coming" but has joined the bolshevik/fascist establishment currently in power. They demand groupthink and newspeak and will destroy anyone who opposes them or questions their orthodoxy. I wonder if any of these useful idiots have even read Orwell. Some of them must have, so I can only assume that their embrace of totalitarianism is deliberate. The rest are just unprincipled conformists who (apparently) believe whatever Twitter tells them to believe.
Not much we can do except to enthusiastically encourage them to keep getting more boosters. (Gallows humor, because what’s left at this point?)