David Thompson
Subscribe
Blog powered by Typepad

« Elsewhere (224) | Main | Simple Folk »

February 06, 2017

Comments

Mags

#LeftiesProject

Hopp Singg

Ignore them. If they attack, stomp them and return to ignore. Repeat as necessary.

David

#LeftiesProject

I suppose that if you want to imagine yourself as heroically fighting monsters – Nazis, fascists, zombie hordes, whatever – and reality doesn’t oblige, and doesn’t justify the intimidation and thuggery that’s so very titillating, then you’ll just have to invent them or wildly exaggerate. And so a camp provocateur who snipes about how fat feminists are and how much he likes black cock has to be construed as a mortal threat to civilisation. And whatever your view of Milo, much the same delusion and hysteria has erupted in response to more measured speakers – say, Ben Shapiro and Christina Hoff Sommers, whose attempts to speak attracted intervention from these sweet-natured creatures.

And don’t forget the conservative writer Don Feder, who attempted to give a (rather dry) lecture on “hate crimes” legislation and relevant statistics, but wasn’t allowed to speak for more than a few seconds. Instead he was assailed with screamed abuse and epithets about his daughter, thanks to members of the International Socialist Organisation and Radical Student Union. Or Tom Tancredo, a retired congressman, who was physically harassed by leftist students who, being pious, then started smashing windows, showering people with glass, before literally chasing him off campus.

And if you poke through the archives, you’ll find plenty of other examples.

Frank

Do you think it possible for her to have a midlife revelation about things and become dogmatically conservative in later life? Sort of like Dylan going electric, man.

Y. Knott

Nuts. My Altruism-Caution light is flickering again...

Ignore them. If they attack, stomp them and return to ignore. Repeat as necessary.

I've had conversations with a couple of raving warmists, and at least one conspirANNOYanist (all relatives) - I ended it in each case - they refused to reply - by pointing-out "One of us is right. One of us is wrong, I will NEVER convince you it's me, you will NEVER convince me it's you, and the issue is way beyond any ability of ours to materially affect in any way, if we lived a thousand years - which we won't. Only time will tell - right?"

So when the day comes that one of us can no longer deny even to himself that he was wrong... what then? We've still gotta share the Earth... I (usually try to) retreat into "I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death" &c - how magnanimous of me. Too soon old, too late smart...

Jen

And so a camp provocateur who snipes about how fat feminists are and how much he likes black cock has to be construed as a mortal threat to civilisation.

Lol. That.

David

Lol. That.

As Ben Shapiro says, the thuggery at Berkeley isn’t even about Milo per se, as indicated by their bizarre descriptions of him as a “Nazi,” a “white supremacist,” and a “homophobe.” He’s whatever bogeyman they need him to be. It’s much more about not allowing anyone deemed, as it were, corrupting to leftist purity anywhere on campus. It’s a territorial power play. Hence the chanted claim, heard over and over again, that whatever it is they’re ‘occupying’ or obstructing or trashing suddenly belongs to them.

Theophrastus

Laurie's pious tweet suggests to me that she's still smarting from the Twitter criticism she recently received from her ostensible comrades. They out-competed her status display by virtue-signalling their disapproval of engaging in any way with 'fascists'. Now, she responds with a holier-than-thou pontification - containing a sly dig at her critics - to reclaim the moral high ground. Classic.

David

They out-competed her status display by virtue-signalling their disapproval of engaging in any way with ‘fascists’.

It all sounds so exhausting.

R. Sherman

So, Penny's enemies are "charming;" her allies are "spiteful." I suppose she doesn't expand on what leads her to use those two adjectives.

David

So, Penny’s enemies are “charming;” her allies are “spiteful.” I suppose she doesn’t expand on what leads her to use those two adjectives.

Laurie has often stressed the importance of “staying angry,” of being angry all the time. Which doesn’t sound like a recipe for a sense of proportion, or for mental health in general. And certainly not charm.

Patrick Brown

Baby steps.

Ten

#LeftiesProject

And they famously split, for they are dysfunction.

The next leftist you meet who can articuklate the kause will be the first and yet they're eternally on about 'principle', or my favorite, 'messaging'. Suffer a stinging defeat and it's all due to poor messaging. This is another manifestation that they think you think like they do, or dysfunctionally.

For these reasons it's good to remember that to give them too much time and space is codependency.

David

In other news, according to the Canadian branch of Black Lives Matter, Justin Trudeau is a “white supremacist terrorist.”

Henry

Charming but deadly eh? Is she talking about Milo, or has she met someone she deeply fancies who holds one or two regrettable opinions?

To my eternal shame, I haven't been studiously following Laurie's Twitter journey, but I read that she'd erred for a second and said that even rightwing people were human. Apparently the pack descended on her, furiously..

David

I read that she’d erred for a second and said that even rightwing people were human. Apparently the pack descended on her, furiously.

That’s pretty much the gist of it. I believe the words “collaborator,” “appeaser” and “sympathiser” were used, unironically, along with accusations of “soft-selling fascism” and “literally promoting violence.” Because “THEY WANT TO KILL US.”

David

Oh, and one chap said, again quite seriously, that “if you go drinking with someone U R 1 of them (invariably).”

Purity of essence, people. Don’t touch their biscuits!

R. Sherman

I read that she’d erred for a second and said that even rightwing people were human. Apparently the pack descended on her, furiously.

Well, to be fair, there a certain things people just know, their personal experience, observations and interactions notwithstanding.

Sam Duncan

“It’s a territorial power play. Hence the chanted claim, heard over and over again, that whatever it is they’re ‘occupying’ or obstructing or trashing suddenly belongs to them.”

Absolutely. And what is Penny's tweet but a clear admission that it's entirely about tribal labels and absolutely sod-all to do with anything anyone actually does or says? The whole thing reminds me of nothing so much as soccer violence. “No matter how charming City fans can be, don't become one of them. No matter how spiteful United fans can be, don't lose faith or stop fighting”. It fits like a glove. Laurie's a Lefty casual.

Anyway, you've probably already seen this, but:

Lord Carey, who served as Archbishop of Canterbury for nearly a decade, argued the "rage" at his election victory was "astonishing" and stressed the need for people to respect the choice of US voters.
"It is one of the key characteristics of those who consider themselves progressive to reserve condemnation for America, the West, or Israel and ignore actual evil-doers."

Bravo, Lord Carey. Cue denouncement and ostracization in 3, 2, 1...

Matt G

Personally I'm far keener to get an update on Laurie's steamy (or not) love life as I found her recent-ish admission that she's quite lonely (on account of not exactly having blokes queuing round the block to date her) rather bewildering all things considered.

Indeed, what's not attractive about a helium-voiced, mockney-accented, mentally infirm, upper-middle class 'Socialist' (with a legacy) and raging narcissist boasting a consistently tenuous grip on reality?

What indeed.

*sigh* If only she could pick a man as skilfully as she picks her nose she surely wouldn't have these trite concerns and the glorious world revolution could continue mercifully unimpeded....

Farnsworth M Muldoon

...on account of not exactly having blokes queuing round the block to date her...

It appears the locals are taking to heart the old saying about what shouldn't be placed in crazy.

David

This is for Matt G.

If his hands go anywhere near his trouser pockets, everybody scream.

David

This comment by redlonghorn, from the previous thread, seems apposite.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

This is for Matt G.

As I recall, Miss Penny said she was trying to normalize her appearance. Though the weird hair color is gone, she still needs to work a bit on the "really, I'm not crazy" look, and if Matt's hands go near his pockets a tranquilizer dart would be more appropriate than screaming.

David

and if Matt’s hands go near his pockets a tranquilizer dart would be more appropriate than screaming.

Big Mary keeps just the thing behind the bar. She says the dose is non-lethal, more or less.

Joan

Oh, and one chap said, again quite seriously, that “if you go drinking with someone U R 1 of them (invariably).”

Purity of essence, people. Don’t touch their biscuits!

Don't share that water fountain.

David

Don’t share that water fountain.

I’m now trying to imagine what it must be like to have to vet your entire social life so as to avoid proximity to unbelievers and accidentally indulging their wickedness with small acts of kindness, or even forbearance. I mean, you wouldn’t want to buy someone a drink and then find out that they aren’t even an anarcho-communist, like Laurie says she is.

Killer Marmot

It makes sense that her progressive friends -- or whatever they are -- would denounce Penny's fraternizing with the enemy.

They live in a cult. Cults must defend against exposure to alternate viewpoints, as their ideology is a house of cards that does not stand up to the winds of solid rebuttal.

In a healthy ideology -- e.g., classic liberalism -- exposure to alternate viewpoints is considered a positive, as it helps one refine and sometimes correct one's beliefs. The tree is strengthened by the wind.

redlonghorn

Oh, and one chap said, again quite seriously, that “if you go drinking with someone U R 1 of them (invariably)."

Well that explains why going to a party and not spending the whole night insulting the host would be treated like a capital offense.

Stan

Why does everything the left does these days remind me of a scene in Monty Python's Life Of Brian?

Stan

Whoops, here's the Life Of Brian scene:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/QereR0CViMY

David

#LeftiesProject

Speaking of projection, here’s a thing. It turns out that if you’re a Christian lady who owns a wool store and you put up a notice explaining why you’d rather not sell your yarn to feminists who want to dress as giant vaginas and scream about their genitals, this makes you an oppressor, a hater, and therefore justifies threats of rape and violence, and round-the-clock harassment, from those same caring and compassionate feminists.

All in the name of “social justice,” presumably.

Farnsworth M Muldoon

It makes sense that her progressive friends -- or whatever they are -- would denounce Penny's fraternizing with the enemy.

They live in a cult.

It rather reminds me of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Spiny Norman

Stan,

I was thinking more of this scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY

Matt G

"Why does everything the left does these days remind me of a scene in Monty Python's Life Of Brian?"

It's interesting and indeed telling to note that many on the Left (at least those that I've observed) discussing/lauding 'Brian seem to take the film purely at face value, regarding it simply as a searing indictment of Christianity as a religious edifice.

Now this may well be a subconscious necessity of self-deceit given the film's proficiency in lampooning the far Left but one gets the distinct impression that they genuinely don't comprehend such wry satire, nor the sort of people the 'People's Front of Judea' and the 'Judean People's Front' is directly inspired by...

All that aside do you know what's truly depressing about 1979's Life of Brian? Arguably not a single satirical facet is either antiquated or else irrelevant in 2017....

Hal

. . . and you put up a notice explaining why you’d rather not sell your yarn . . .

. . . Honestly, why?

Very much instead as in Hi there, welcome to the store, where as long as you don't trash the place and pick fights with the other customers, we've got lots of stuff to sell to you . . . Certainly, I may think and you may prove you're an idiot, and I'm more than happy to legally take your money from you so that I can have it instead of you and will then giggle all the way to the bank . . .

Then again, given a comment in the article of . . . .

. . . getting a lot of attention on Facebook.”I couldn’t get my mind around it, people were responding so fast,” she said.

She stayed in the car for three hours reading the comments on her post before calling the police to alert them about the threatening tone of some of the responses.

. . . she spent three hours sitting in a car staring at FB . . . . Or as a neighbor or two may have commented over a shoulder, Mom, that weird yarn lady is stuck in her driveway staring at her phone again . . .

They live in a cult.

It rather reminds me of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

---Better yet, instead, what if she very loudly announced a pink yarn sale, equally loudly noting that a massive amount of the resulting profits will be donated to [insert enraging charity here].

David

Better yet, instead, what if she very loudly announced a pink yarn sale, equally loudly noting that a massive amount of the resulting profits will be donated to [insert enraging charity here].

I think that might be closer to my response, if I were the owner of a yarn store, etc. But the point is the lunatic vitriol and disproportion of the response - by people who presumably imagine themselves as heroic, noble, just, etc.

Matt G

"This is for Matt G"

Blimey, she even scowls at the camera in purportedly more candid moments!

Nevertheless said image has inspired me to ask a particularly pertinent question:

Has anyone ever seen Laurie smile?

Now obviously I appreciate that as an aspiring socialist/feminist revolutionary singular in both purpose and mind Laurie can't afford the bourgeois luxury of indulging in mirth, humour, love and happinesses et al......but surely even she must give herself a day off every so often?

David

Blimey,

Er, just keep those hands where we can see them.

David

I’m still trying to imagine what it must be like to be one of the Berkeley ‘activists’, loudly professing a devotion to “social justice” and the wellbeing of humanity, while exulting in mob intimidation and spraying blinding irritant into some random woman’s eyes. And then hitting her, while she’s blinded, with a metal pole. The dissonance and projection must be tricky to manage.

But apparently, projection and disproportion are very common among people with Cluster B personality disorders.

Hal

I think that might be closer to my response, if I were the owner of a yarn store, etc.

Some number of years ago I was working in a campus textbook store, and one of the customers was looking for a copy of Mein Kampf. We didn't have any, as we only carried whatever was being requested for the current classes, but I did have an idea. I called up the then current local revolutionary communist bookstore to ask them, given what seemed the rather obvious idea of Know Your Enemy/Fellow Extreme Leftie/Whatever. The very immediate response from the fellow at the store was No, We Don't CLICK!!!!

My congregation supports all denominations, but our favorites are twenties and fifties.
---Henry Gibson

Hal

......but surely even she must give herself a day off every so often?

Bah. Humbug!!!

Hal

Following the recent scolding by her crab-bucket comrades, Laurie Penny wishes to reassert her leftist credentials:

Romania's government refuses to quit despite dropping corruption amnesty in face of mass protests

Now that is a protest . . . .

Trevor

... among people with Cluster B personality disorders.

Sometimes known as ladies who munch.

Ted S., Catskill Mtns., NY, USA

Farnsworth:

You've got the wrong version.

And Kevin McCarthy's sister Mary is the one with the famous zinger about Lillian Hellman, "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."

Matt

Now obviously I appreciate that as an aspiring socialist/feminist revolutionary singular in both purpose and mind Laurie can't afford the bourgeois luxury of indulging in mirth, humour, love and happinesses et al......but surely even she must give herself a day off every so often?

Probably obvious, but I'm reminded of this:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C.S. Lewis

What's pernicious about Laurie, and SJWs in general, is that they seem to combine both ends of Lewis's spectrum: a cause they consider supremely moral not only gives them license to indulge in the lowest and pettiest human nastiness by brushing that behavior with a veneer of righteousness, it commands them to do so.

Sporkatus

The very immediate response from the fellow at the store was No, We Don't CLICK!!!!

Rather telling, I think. With the combination of belief in the semi-magical power of words (see: false consciousness, having the right "narrative", etc.) and some type of (suppressed) identification of the mush-headedness of everyone in their circle, perhaps even recognizing the Not So Different nature of the thing, they decided to be safe in not carrying it. The dark talismanic power of an Austrian painter's grumbling might prove too much for a feeble mind...

AndrewZ

Even if they can't ever acknowledge it, leftists always assume that their opponents won't ever decide to treat them in the way that they treat their opponents. Indeed, their survival depends on the assumption that the law-abiding majority will always stay law-abiding and that the evil fascist right won't actually start acting like fascists. But the Trump phenomenon is evidence that many people on the right, and others who are simply appalled by the left, are deciding that civil political discourse is for suckers.

In fact, we can see a clear process of escalation. The Tea Party was a patriotic reform movement that was polite and civil and worked within the system. In return it was relentlessly slandered and insulted, harassed by the IRS and betrayed by the GOP. The Trump movement has given up on civility but still works within the democratic system. If Trump is defeated, then the next level of escalation will be a populist movement that rejects all the normal bounds of civil behaviour and which also rejects normal democratic politics as irredeemably corrupt.

What's more, because the only ways that the left can defeat Trump are through large-scale violence or flagrantly illegal obstruction from the deep state then the next populist movement would be even more popular. A majority of the population would decide that the whole system was rotten to the core and that the only way to save the country was to burn Washington to the ground (metaphorically or literally) and bury all the traitors and parasites in the rubble. If leftists really understood the forces that are unleashed when civil society breaks down they would pray that Donald Trump succeeds, for fear of what will happen to them if he doesn't.

David

If leftists really understood the forces that are unleashed when civil society breaks down

Setting aside the prevalence of mental health issues, people on the bedlamite left - the ones who find mob coercion arousing and who call themselves anarcho-communists without falling about laughing - tend not to be the most realistic of people.

AndrewZ

It occurred to me when writing my previous comment that there is in fact a natural hierarchy of populist movements, and that the prevalence or absence of each kind is a measure of the health of a political system. In reference to DEFCON, it can be called the POPCON or "Populism Condition" of a society:

POPCON 5 (BLUE) – Lowest state of public discontent with the status quo, little or no support for populist movements.

POPCON 4 (GREEN) – Increased public discontent, emergence of populist movements which mostly respect the norms of civil behaviour and which work within the existing political system.

POPCON 3 (YELLOW) – Significant increase in public discontent, emergence of populist movements which reject the norms of civil behaviour but do still work within the existing political system.

POPCON 2 (RED) – Widespread and intense public hostility to the status quo, emergence of populist movements which reject the norms of civil behaviour and reject the existing political system.

POPCON 1 (WHITE) – Revolution, civil war or other large-scale violent conflict is imminent.

On this system, the emergence of the Tea Party was when America went to POPCON 4. In 2016, it moved up to POPCON 3. A successful Trump presidency could move it back down to 4 or even 5. If Trump fails to really change anything or is forced out of office then it’s on to POPCON 2, and you really don’t want to find out what that would be like.

Ed Snack

Apropos the comment about "The Life of Brian" and how little things change. Many years ago I was taken for a drink to a local watering hole by the University by a fellow with wide contacts amongst the "revolutionary" left but who was not an actual member of any of the groups. For amusement, he pointed out that the pub, about half full at the time, contained at least 7 groupings, all drinking and steadfastly ignoring one another. There were the Stalinists, about 3, the Trotskyites (2), Marxist-Leninist (3), the Marxist-Lenist Maoist version (5, the largest), the Socialist workers Party (Marxist-Leninist) (3), and a Vietnamese faction of the Maoists (2) and a solitary Pol-Potist. Apparently several other "groups" of 2 or 3 existed (including I think a Titoist and a NORK fancier) but weren't there. They all drank at the same pub because that's where they started going to as a member of one or other faction, and as they split, merged, re-split and perenially feuded they couldn't agree that any of them should change locals. So they instead studiously ignored each other with just the odd sneering sideways look and mutters of "splitters".

Just for the record, 95% male.

David

In reference to DEFCON, it can be called the POPCON or “Populism Condition” of a society:

Heh. Not entirely implausible.

It reminded me of the “Occupy theoretician” David Graeber, who seemed to imagine that the lumpen masses would thrill to a vanguard of middle-class poseurs “destabilising the country” with a “vision of revolution inspired by anarchism.” Because the one thing that nice Mrs Wilson down the road can’t wait for is a communist coup, economic ruin and lots of burning cars in the street outside.

AndrewZ

"and a solitary Pol-Potist"

Ah, so that's what they mean by "socialist unity".

David

In reference to DEFCON, it can be called the POPCON or “Populism Condition” of a society:

It’s easy to laugh, and I suppose one has to, but it’s dismaying just how many cossetted middle-class leftists, including quite a few statusful academics, find the prospect of mob thuggery titillating. Provided it’s being inflicted on someone else, of course.

Surreptitious Evil

Signs. POPulism COndition of RevolutioN. POPCORN. c.f. Julia

dicentra

Laurie was letting her followers know just how brave she is for mixing with conservatives and college Republicans, i.e., the people under attack, who are apparently “vicious and vengeful.”

Right there we see the reason Laurie decides to mingle with the enemy in the first place: it's deliciously dangerous to hob-nob with Fascists, not unlike Sean Penn hanging with Chávez or Castro, a way for the Truly Badass to count coup and escape undamaged.

Wouldn't it be funny if she kept taking these daring forays into the enemy camp and then is forced to rethink her entire worldview because she realized from her own experience how WRONG she is?

She did, after all, interview Milo once and found him to be highly engaging and fun.

Her tweet contains further intimations of that very self-awareness. I'm almost encouraged: a pose can either become more than a pose or it will be eventually shed when reality demands it.

dicentra

it’s dismaying just how many cossetted middle-class leftists including quite a few statusful academics, find the prospect of mob thuggery titillating.

While at Cornell I was gob-smacked to see how often both grad students and teachers would brighten considerably when talking about the people rising up and up-ending the system.

And this was in the 1990s yet.

Nikw211

Oh, and one chap said, again quite seriously, that “if you go drinking with someone U R 1 of them (invariably).”

If, like me, you have ever pondered the baffling and seemingly inexplicable popularity of Miss Penny's output, I think the abuse she has received on Twitter recently may well have provided the key.

Quite simply, we may be the only people who have actually read what she has written - and anyone who professes to be a fan hasn't.

If true, it would seem to explain quite a lot.

She has, after all, twice already interviewed Stephen 'Tommy Robinson' Lennon - once at a Luton pub over dinner - and she has also sat down for coffee with Mike Buchanan of Justice for Men and Boys' fame - a Men's Rights Activist.

Where were the hysterical accusations of being a traitor, a collaborator and a supporter of the enemy then? I don't recall any.

But the icing on the cake is surely that only just last year she wrote a piece called I’m With The Banned, which was an interview with Milo Yiannopoulos whom she describes in the piece as "a charming devil and one of the worst people I know." In the same article she confesses that she and Yiannopoulos had met previously when they were:

    guests on opposing sides of a panel show whose topic I don’t remember and can’t be bothered to look up [A professional to the last as ever] Afterwards we got hammered in the green room and ran around the BBC talking about boys. It was fun.

Seriously, if I know this, how is it that they - by which I mean her supposed fans - don't?

Could it be that Penny is just a name they associate with Correct-Think and nothing more? That as far as they are concerned, what she actually writes is a matter of utter indifference to them - that it is enough for them to know that she has the right politics?

Jeff Guinn
[Andrewz:] On this system ... you really don’t want to find out what that would be like.

Full points. If I was the proprietor, I'd be sliding a slice of cake across the bar.

Not that I'm criticizing. Nope. Not I.

Which brings to mind this: The Left Hates You, Act Accordingly

You are normal, and therefore a heretic. You refuse to bow to their idols, to subscribe to their twisted catechisms, to praise their false gods. This is unforgivable. You must burn.

Crazy talk? Just ask them. Go ahead. Go on social media. Find a leftist – it’s easy. Just say something positive about America or Jesus and they’ll come swarming like locusts. Engage them and very quickly they will drop their masks and tell you what they really think. I know. I keep a rapidly expanding file of Twitter leftist death wish screenshots.

They will tell you that Christians are idiots and vets are scum.

That normals are subhumans whose role is to labor as serfs to subsidize the progressive elite and its clients.

That you should die to make way for the New Progressive Man/Woman/Other.

Understand that when they call Donald Trump “illegitimate,” what they are really saying is that our desire to govern ourselves is illegitimate. Their beef isn’t with him – it’s with us, the normal people who dared rise up and demand their right to participate in the rule of this country and this culture.

Being force fed crow is never pleasant. However, non-progressives treat crow as feedback: what did we miss; how do we need to change; which of our ideas need rethinking.

In contrast, since progressives are right because they have progressive ideas which are true and good because progressives hold them, adjustment is impossible.

Which means their response to a plate of stewed crow is lying, burning buildings, and beatings. They have either learned nothing from Maos cultural revolution, or learned far too much.

Squires

Useful idiots, dicentra, are called idiots for a reason.

Now that we've seen Laurie experience the "an apostate is given one chance to repent" treatment, I'm wondering what happens if one day it comes out that she slept with one of us others.

In the Religion of Progress is it also the rule that a Progressive man may bed a (willing or unwilling) unbeliever women, but for a Progressive woman such dalliances spell death?

TomJ

All that aside do you know what's truly depressing about 1979's Life of Brian? Arguably not a single satirical facet is either antiquated or else irrelevant in 2017....

I fear fewer people understand how Romanes eunt domus is wrong these days.

WTP

While at Cornell I was gob-smacked to see how often both grad students and teachers would brighten considerably when talking about the people rising up and up-ending the system.

And this was in the 1990s yet.

20 years ago, in the midst of working out butts off in 50-60 hour work weeks, our development staff of white, black, Asian Americans, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese (from Taiwan and Hong Kong), Hungarians, and one Russian were marched off to spend three hours in a not-quite-but-kinda-close Jane Elliott style diversity training class taught by two black ladies and a black gentlemen (the latter just passed out and collected the materials, said nothing). We were fed BS urban legends to "teach" us how our thinking was bad. My eye rolling or something, possibly my obvious discomfort with having to be "educated" with such lies, got me the attention of one of the instructors who at the end of the class lectured me as all my coworkers walked past. Again, this was 20 years ago. Things were out of control way back then. I related this story to my doctor saying things are spinning out of control. He suggested it was nothing to be concerned about. These things get resolved on their own, he said. Or something to that effect. Seems nobody cared to resolve these things over the last 20 years, so it looks like it's up to Donald Trump to fix it.

BTW, heard that Casey Anthony has come out of seclusion to protest outside Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort. And they said the Circus was dead.

WTP

OK, did I do that or TomJ?

Jeff Guinn

Wow. I am so glad I wasn't the one to goon up html.

The proprietor gets completely lethal about that.

(Not that I'm an informer or anything, but my money is on Squires.)

Jeff Guinn
... she slept with one of us [i]others[i]

Nailed it.

Fred the Fourth

I'm blaming Squires for all those slanty characters.

The thing about being forced into company with loads of left wing folk is that one quickly learns their patois. Hell, back in the 70s I ingratiated myself with a cute commie girl (Literally. She was a member of the RCP, who had split from the CPUSA) by muttering "oppression" under my breath as I passed behind her station on the manufacturing line one day. We dated a bit, but nothing came of it except the education I got from attending an RCP meeting in Berkeley one night. (She eventually quit work in favor of being a professional blackjack player. I Am Not Making This Up.)
I find it's ludicrously easy to sit, listen, converse, and manipulate the conversation in any direction I want. They're just so damn eager to explain everything, to theorize, to blame, to complain. You can't shut them up.

Nate Whilk

Sam Duncan | February 06, 2017 at 13:17

Compare Lord Carey with Orwell in "Notes on Nationalism":

"...if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries."

Fred the Fourth

Hey David! We're way the heck over the monthly ration for italics.
(Even though, as you know, the ration's been raised from 25 grams to 21 grams / month. All Hail Big Brother!)

WTP

Shhhh...be vewy vewy quiet. I think the Boss is sleeping. He works very hard for us. He needs his beauty rest.

Chester Draws

I love the way far Left-wingers can't even agree with each other anywhere, anytime. New Zealand, hardly a big country, has had nine officially organised Communist parties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_parties_in_New_Zealand

Meanwhile the Right can still be quite bitter about the split between rugby league and rugby union. Which was in 1895.

And, yeah, I was just trying to kill those blessed italics.

Deborah

A handy pocket guide:

http://www.returnofkings.com/113715/7-reasons-to-never-date-a-girl-who-attends-a-protest

David

[ Rubs eyes, reaches for coffee, surveys avalanche of italics. ]

I see you’ve all been busy, then.

[ Slides generous slice of Battenberg to Chester Draws, who fathomed how to stop it. ]

David

Here’s Yvette Felarca, a middle school teacher, and one of the Berkeley ‘antifa’ organisers, sharing her thoughts.

Apparently, and seemingly self-evidently, Milo is a “white supremacist… a fascist… trying to recruit more fascists.” And so Ms Felarca and her comrades are prepared to do “whatever it takes” to “shut down” not only his events but anything they don’t agree with. “The left has been far too timid for far too long,” she says. “We have a right to defend ourselves.” Even against camp mockery. The thuggery at Berkeley, we’re told, will be “a model for the future.” And while promising to impose her will via more mob violence, Ms Felarca insists that “responsibility” for “anything that happened” at Berkeley – including, presumably, the beatings of women by masked sociopaths - lies with Berkeley’s chancellor.

She says this while smiling.

Ms Felarca has a history of far-left “activism” and violent altercation.

[+]

She says this while smiling.

That's one creepy bitch.

Dr Cromarty

For amusement, he pointed out that the pub, about half full at the time, contained at least 7 groupings

Meanwhile, the *actual* proletariat was slogging its guts out brewing the beer, delivering it, serving it to them or cleaning out the rollups from their ashtrays.

David

That’s one creepy bitch.

The vanity and dishonesty are hard to miss, especially on the issue of responsibility, as she casually exonerates the people actually choosing to beat random women with metal bars. It’s the ‘baby-don’t-make-me-hit-you’ manoeuvre. My impression is that the only time Ms Felarca is truthful is when she promises more mob violence. The attendant feeling of power is evidently something she enjoys.

This isn’t really politics. It’s more like a personality disorder clutching an excuse.

Hal

Here’s Yvette Felarca, a middle school teacher, and one of the Berkeley ‘antifa’ organisers, sharing her thoughts.

Obviously she's clearly apt and to be considered a major influence---She's got the correct glasses, or at least eyeglass frames . . .

Hal

(Even though, as you know, the ration's been raised from 25 grams to 21 grams / month. All Hail Big Brother!)

Normally for this sort of work I charge $125,000 for the group, but just for readers of David's blog I offer a 60% discount, cutting all the way down to only charge $750,000 per person, 'cause after all, it's only fair, I gotta make a living too . . .

Burnsie

That’s one creepy bitch.

I read The Black Book of Communism shortly after its publication. Throughout, I could not fathom what kind of human being could so easily subject others to such atrocities.

Not the soldiers actually herding people onto trains or executing prisoners, mind you, but the faceless apparatchiks signing off on the orders.

What kind of monster could so blithely condemn dozens, hundreds, and thousands of innocent fellow citizens to certain starvation and death, merely to advance a cause?

To cut to the chase, now I know. They're among us today.

And it's staggering to think that the same thing could happen here if people like Felarca ever seized the levers of power.

PiperPaul

"clearly apt"

Heh. Apt Pupil

Stuck-Record

Watch this. An American kid of Chinese extraction hijacks Shia LaBeouf's 'He will not divide us' camera to lay into PC culture and Liberals. His mates are black, latino, and mixed race.

It's quite beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWBQTvjt7s

David

It’s quite beautiful.

I did like the line, “We are the ‘Nazis’.”

David

I doubt this news will confound anyone’s expectations:

An overwhelming majority of violent “Antifascist” protesters still live with their mom, according to a new study. Research found that 92% of those suspected of violent crimes at Left-leaning demonstrations still share their home with their parents.

Insert gag of choice.

Alex

Of course Laurie was attacked by her fellow travelers, she could have brought the whole thing crashing down. The left needs the right to appear cartoonishly evil. What if she spent some time speaking to conservatives and discovered that they, astonishingly, were not jackbooted nazi thugs? Could anything be more devastating to the left? It would render their entire enterprise pointless, and reveal them to be the fascist thugs. Can't have that.

An overwhelming majority of violent “Antifascist” protesters still live with their mom, according to a new study. Research found that 92% of those suspected of violent crimes at Left-leaning demonstrations still share their home with their parents.

It certainly makes sense, as violent protesting and maintaining a level of employment to support oneself financially are mutually exclusive behaviors.

I saw a partial list of those arrested in Washington, DC during the inauguration riots. The vast majority were mid-late 20's. Well past reasonable leaving-the-nest age.

David

It certainly makes sense, as violent protesting and maintaining a level of employment to support oneself financially are mutually exclusive behaviors.

And given that the wannabe revolutionaries tend to be middle-class and tend to mouth the same idiocies, as if regurgitating lecture notes, I suspect there’s a sizeable overlap with people who pissed away their parents money, or taxpayers’ money, on joke degrees in Angry Studies, which encouraged lots of pretentious resentment but left them close to unemployable. Presumably, this personal failure is then rationalised as the fault of capitalism or whatever. Rather than it being the obvious consequence of their own poor choices, their own vanities.

Deborah

Left out of the description, of the 92% of apron-stringers, is the percentage that are white. I do not know the breakdown, but I would suspect that the number of these 20 somethings, that are white, is high. No surprise, as they have spent their formative years being told that they're futures are bleak, necessarily, to atone for the sin of their skin color.

Hal

Presumably, this personal failure is then rationalised as the fault of capitalism or whatever.

And of course what is not going to help is the actual situations of, err, the ongoing-actual-for-good-reasons of capitalism . . . and then what is certainly also not going to help is all of the quite definite additional instances of . . . the obvious consequence of their own poor choices, their own vanities.

Unfortunately, there will always be a hipster born every minute, that annoying reality is never going away . . .

David

First-year student Malini Ramaiyer on what she saw at Berkeley:

I saw someone wearing all black walk up to a student wearing a suit and say, “You look like a Nazi.” The student was confused, but before he could reply, the black-clad person pepper-sprayed him and hit him on the back with a rod. I ran after the student who was attacked to get his name and more information. He told me that he is a Syrian Muslim. Before I could find out more, he fled, fearing another attack.

I suppose we’re all ‘Nazis’ now.

David

I quite like this:

Via.

Turk Turkleton

Lindsey Dearnley has some thoughts about Laurie's brand of feminism.

If Penny lived outside of her own bubble for any length of time, she would be aware that there are places where the ‘tyranny of heterosexual marriage’ has already crumbled and lost its moral monopoly. In this feminist utopia among the lower working class, she would find that monogamy is just one option among many and the love is as casual as the sex. Girls can enjoy full autonomy here, even from their early teens, and progressive residents are well ahead of middle classes in their desire to ditch partners and marry the state. It is a difficult thing to see day after day, and it’s little wonder I’ve retreated away from the world and put ladders up against the door.
Squires

I quite like this

All ideologies are a reflection of the psychology of their founders, and shape the psychology of the true believer in that image.

It's no coincidence that Amin al-Husseini made the cover of Vienna Illustrated back in '44, and that modern "student union" and "antifa" types happily march side by side in solidarity with the kind of grand jackasses who still consider the prick respectable.

The deceptive mentality is the deceptive mentality is the deceptive mentality.

Apologies for the late slantiness. A down-payment on an indulgence should arrive in the collection box shortly.

David

Lindsey Dearnley has some thoughts about Laurie’s brand of feminism.

There is, I think, some truth there.

David

Lindsey Dearnley has some thoughts about Laurie’s brand of feminism.

As I’ve said before, Laurie’s lifestyle advice, which is ultimately what it is, is unlikely to be rewarding, and may well prove to be ruinous, especially if embraced by women from backgrounds more modest than Laurie’s. The things that she would have her readers disdain and abandon, as both a “systemic lie” and an affront to radicalism, those “small, ugly ambitions,” are in fact cultural resources, assets for living. Assets that the state can never replace. And yet Laurie tells us, repeatedly and with an air of great earnestness, that “love needs to be freed from the confines of the traditional, monogamous, nuclear family.” Anything less is oppressive, an affront to both womanhood and radicalism, says she. Because the repeated swapping of multiple, transient partners, even on into middle age, is never, ever a recipe for insecurity and neurosis. It’s the only way to be “free,” apparently. At least until someone gets pregnant and the arguments begin.

According to Laurie, the “vanishing amount of security offered by coupledom” is outweighed by a million oppressions, like being mutually considerate and remembering birthdays, all of which constitute an intolerable loss of “personal autonomy.” Such is her disdain, she likes the idea of “women reject[ing] marriage and partnership en masse” and wishes to see the institutions of marriage and family “dismantled” in favour of atomised living and single mothers, which necessarily entails ever-more widespread dependency on the state – or as she puts it, “society doing more to support women’s choices.”

According to Laurie, the participants in a marriage or any remotely conventional coupling can never be “true equals.” And so the gist of her counsel seems to be that it’s wrong and oppressive for a woman to be emotionally or financially dependent on a man who cares for her, for richer and poorer, ‘til death, even if he is equally dependent, financially and emotionally, on her. But for women, and by extension any fatherless children, to be utterly and existentially dependent on the state, which doesn’t and cannot care, this is somehow morally right and an act of “liberation.”

And Laurie’s own private education, fashionable career and globe-trotting adventures would have been much less likely without the bourgeois values and comfortable upbringing that she publicly disdains and urges others to abandon. In fact, if you wanted to leave lots of young women frustrated and resentful, dependent and isolated, Laurie’s worldview would be a pretty good way to achieve it. But of course Laurie’s status and career, and that of other self-imagined revolutionaries of the left, depend on the resentment and disaffection of others, and on their credulity. It’s what they feed on. Our supposedly radical gurus have little to gain from successful, functional people with a grip on their own lives. And they have no incentive to offer advice that would result in more functionality and success.

In a sense, people like Laurie are cultural vandals. One might call them parasites.

Mrs A

According to Laurie, the participants in a marriage or any remotely conventional coupling can never be “true equals.” And so the gist of her counsel seems to be that it’s wrong and oppressive for a woman to be emotionally or financially dependent on a man who cares for her, for richer and poorer, ‘til death, even if he is equally dependent, financially and emotionally, on her. But for women, and by extension any fatherless children, to be utterly and existentially dependent on the state, which doesn’t and cannot care, this is somehow morally right and an act of “liberation.”

All. Of. That.

I come for the posts but I stay for the comments. :-)

Turk Turkleton

Move over, Laurie! Carrie Jenkins is the hot new academic in town making the philosophical case for polyamory, complete with breathless media coverage. Doubtless, the only thing preventing the ideal from going mainstream before now was its lack of a solid theoretical foundation. I mean, what can't be improved by academic theorizing?

Turk Turkleton

Of course, this follows on the heels of the equally breathless coverage devoted last fall to Emily Witt and her book about dismantling oppressive sexual norms, something something "the future of sex is orgy domes", etc.

David

Move over, Laurie! Carrie Jenkins is the hot new academic in town making the philosophical case for polyamory, complete with breathless media coverage.

Things can often be thrilling in the abstract, as grandiose ideals, especially when espoused by people with the comforts of tenure and the social and material resources of middle-class life. But as Tim Newman and others have pointed out, the everyday practicalities of such things – especially for people with no such resources - can be rather more squalid and disappointing. And more so with age. I don’t much care how other people arrange their romantic lives, but it seems to me that, as with Laurie’s sermonising, the practical reality entails even larger, and less sustainable, dependency on the state – by which, I mean the coerced forbearance of others. The state will pay your rent as an abandoned single mother, and feed your fatherless children, and do some of the things, albeit badly, that a committed partner would do, but without the love.

And then, still poor, you get old and lonely.

Turk Turkleton
I don’t much care how other people arrange their romantic lives, but it seems to me that, as with Laurie’s sermonising, the practical reality entails even larger, and less sustainable, dependency on the state

There's an interesting book called The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia, by Michael Booth, a British expat married to a Danish woman and living in Denmark. This section, in which he discusses political philosophy with a couple of Swedish officials, seems relevant:

Everything I read about the Swedish Social Democratic government of the last century suggested an organization that was driven by one single, overarching goal: to sever the traditional, some would say natural, ties between its citizens, be they those that bound children to their parents, workers to their employers, wives to their husbands, or the elderly to their families. Instead, individuals were encouraged — mostly by financial incentive or disincentive, but also through legislation, propaganda, and social pressure — to "take their place in the collective", as one commentator rather ominously put it, and become dependent on the government.

Berggren has a slightly different spin on the Swedish state and its role in its citizens' lives: rather than meddling and controlling, in his provocatively titled book Is the Swede a Human? he and his co-author Lars Trägårdh argue that the real aim of the Swedish government was to liberate citizens from one another, to set them free and allow them to become fully autonomous, independent entities in charge of their own destinies. Far from being the collectivist sheep their neighbors perceive them to be, Berggren and Trägårdh argue that the Swedes are "hyper individualists" — more so even than the Americans — and that they are "devoted to the pursuit of personal autonomy".

"The point we are making is not to be confused with being unconventional, or to do with independent thinking," explained Berggren. "We are talking about autonomy in terms of not being dependent on other people."

"The Swedish system is best understood not in terms of socialism, but in terms of Rousseau," he continued. "Rousseau was an extreme egalitarian and he really hated any kind of dependence — depending on other people destroys your integrity, your authenticity — therefore the ideal situation was one where every citizen was an atom separated from all the other atoms... The Swedish system's logic is that it is dangerous to be dependent on other people, to be beholden to other people. Even to your family."

..."But," I wondered, "doesn't this just replace one dependency with another — the state — which takes us back to those concerns about totalitarianism?"

"We are not arguing that people are totally independent, because they are dependent on the state. One take is your totalitarian take, but I don't buy that. I think it's a rather even trade-off. You can get an awful lot of autonomy by accepting a democratic state is actually furnishing you with the means to be autonomous in this way, and reach a certain self-realization. I wouldn't take it to its extreme, too far and you do end up with a totalitarian state. For Americans and Brits the state is such a bogeyman, such a horrible menacing thing, and in the States now they can't even have a health system because they are so scared of the state. But the point here is not that the state is saying this is how you should live your life, but it is providing you with the support structure. Society is unequal and people don't have the same opportunities, but we are trying to lift everybody to the same level so they can achieve the same kind of freedom and self-realization, which only a small group could do previously."

Burke's "little platoons" versus Rousseau's "social contract" — still a live issue after all these centuries.

David

This section, in which he discusses political philosophy with a couple of Swedish officials, seems relevant

I imagine Laurie would approve. But I refer you to last two sentences of my previous comment. And to quote the great philosopher Charlie Chan, “Theory, like mist on eyeglasses, obscure facts.”

David

By the way, if anyone’s still wondering how students like those at Berkeley arrive at their dogmatic tribalism and pretensions of victimhood, this may help answer that question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll