Is there something in the water libs drink?
Appointed Montana Democrat Senator John Walsh is busted. Read the link. This is incredibly bush league stuff.
Is there something in the water libs drink?
Appointed Montana Democrat Senator John Walsh is busted. Read the link. This is incredibly bush league stuff.
This time it’s Scientific (sic) American doing the scalping. What have we come to when a scientific magazine feels obligated to enforce Cultural Marxist PC social “science” doctrine?
Here’s John Derbyshire’s take at VDARE.
Here is a Washington Post story on the matter.
Curtis Brainard, the blog’s editor, needs to grow a pair of nads and stand up to the PC jihadists. Hey Curtis, see what I just did there? I suggested that standing up to (intellectual) bullies is a masculine action that is generally aided by the presence of a couple of testosterone producing organs. I just spoke crimethink. I must be purged.
Left-wing academic superstar, Slovoj Zizek, has been caught plagiarizing, but the best part of the story is what he plagiarized and how he was caught. Read the story here, and that the story made Newsweek is an indication of how big Zizek is in certain circles. He was caught by Steve Sailer and some sleuthing blog commenters plagiarizing a book review from American Renaissance of Kevin McDonald’s Culture of Critique. It just doesn’t get any more sweetly ironic than that.
Here is an article that contains Zizek’s explanation, and it contains some interesting commentary on the nature of academic publishing as well.
His explanation is plausible, but my first thought when I read his explanation was the same as the authors. I suspected he has others doing substantial parts of his writing for him, although he vehemently denies that here.
Then I read a little of his work. It is so obnoxiously obtuse that I suspect it would be difficult for someone else to reproduce.
This video has been making the rounds. I’m not sure that I agree that graphic pictures of aborted babies is really the best way to win hearts and minds and make political headway. But that said, just how out of touch and ensconced inside a leftist Cultural Marxist bubble do you have to be to think that calling a pro-life activists a misogynist and accusing him of privilege is actually a persuasive arguing technique? Her Burger King uniform suggests she is a working woman, but surely she is attending college somewhere, because only a clueless mush brain routinely bathed in such Cultural Marxist PC nonsense could actually think that a normal guy is going to care if you accuse him of privilege. What did she expect? “Oh my! I didn’t realize I was guilty of privilege. Thanks for informing me. I’ll go on and take these pictures down now.”
Mike Adams is a professor at UNC – Wilmington. Here is a link to some of his columns. I meant to cover this when he initially won his suit, but I didn’t get around to it. Now the University System of North Carolina has to pay his legal fees as well.
I had read some of this guy’s columns. I don’t know if he is a mainstream conservative or some other type of conservative, but I remember when I read his stuff and saw where he worked, I thought to myself “I bet he gets a hard time at work.” Little did I know there was a lawsuit going on. Good for him, and the University got what it deserved.
The PC gatekeepers are going after Andy Nowicki, who teaches Enlish at a state university in Georgia.
He sent an e-mail to his colleagues attempting to pre-empt the whisper campaign. This is how a man responds to the PC police. Take note … Well, I thought about naming some names, but I won’t. They know who they are. They have to deal with their own shame.
I am aware that some of my expressed views are outside the bounds of what are generally considered to be “acceptable” beliefs by contemporary (and quite arbitrary) standards of discussion and discourse. Be that as it may, I make no apologies for anything I have written… though I also think it’s quite possible that certain articles have been misunderstood by some of you.
I also don’t deny keeping company– both professionally and personally– with people who many of you would find to be dubious characters. Again, so be it. My writings are my writings, and my friends are my friends, and I don’t repudiate anything or anyone, although it should be kept in mind that professional association and/or friendship with someone shouldn’t imply a presumption of identity of viewpoint with said person. (emphasis mine)
Felicia Smith, a 42-yr-old teacher (13-yr veteran) at Stovall Middle School, gave a 4-minute lap dance to a male student in front of her class, during class session.
Stovall Middle School is 65% Hispanic & 30% black, according to Zillow.
Parents are outraged; but if all cultures are equal, upon what basis do parents object? I expect Americans will one day be forced to tolerate traditional lap dancing, daggering, and so forth just as they’ve had to accept sodomy, gay adoption, and perhaps soon polygamy as “normal”.
The demography of American students as a whole is approaching a nonwhite majority. Upon what culture and identity are they supposed to build upon? “Reason” neither justifies nor condemns any of these things.
Yahoo News hosts an amusing example of an athlete’s final paper, chock full of errors, that received an A- from the esteemed UNC.
In my experience though, it’s not only athletes who receive such treatment. And it isn’t right to label these as “no-show” classes. The emphasis should be on what a student actually learns, not his attendance in class. College should not be adult day care, and some are simply not college material.
The solution here is the same with public schooling: Separate the bright from the dim, make actual learning a requirement to pass, don’t fear to flunk a student who refuses to, or cannot, learn.
The PC hysteria caucus is predictably outraged because a long time South Carolina Republican who may have something other than scorn and contempt for his ancestors and state has been picked to head the College of Charleston.
I don’t know if a retiring politician is actually qualified to be a University President, but a school picking a politician is certainly not without precedent. David Boren became the President of the University of Oklahome. Donna Shalala became the President of the University of Miami, and those are just off the top of my head. So who really believes these PC enforcers are more worried about credentials than they are right think?
McConnell, who spent more than 30 years in the state Senate (including 11 as its leader before becoming lieutenant governor) is being eyed suspiciously for two reasons: his political connections and his association with Confederate history.
Faculty said the search process was a sham, given that McConnell emerged at the top of the heap despite reports the search committee didn’t choose him as a finalist.
His critics also paint him as a Confederate sympathizer. He used to own a shop that sold memorabilia of the South’s rebellion; he appears in a widely circulated picture dressed as a Confederate general; and he is a longtime supporter of flying the Confederate flag on the statehouse grounds. McConnell, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, has previously said his affiliation with Confederate regalia has to do with history and states’ rights.
Apparently the faculty at Layola University, including the University President, has their panties in a bunch again because Walter Block won’t play by their PC rules. Of course, this is, as usual, entirely feigned outrage. They know good and well that an anarchist libertarian doesn’t think slavery is peachy, and if they don’t know that then they are too ignorant to be teaching at the local elementary school, much less at a respected university. They are just jumping on an opportunity to do the PC “point and sputter” because Block is clearly not a PC rightthinker otherwise.
To address the Presidents’ childish letter (I guess they don’t make Jesuits like they used to) specifically, since Block is a libertarian it logically follows that he doesn’t support anti-discrimination laws such as the Civil Rights Act because he supports the right of private individuals and entities to discriminate, whether he agrees with it morally or not. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be a consistent libertarian. You know, like the cosmotarians at Reason. So again, spare me the feigned outrage that’s obviously calculated to protect you and your institution from charges of wrongthink from the PC though cops, rather than make a sound argument. And spare me the claim that you would fail Block for illogic, when you just wrote a whiny letter to the school paper that is full of its own illogic as I point out above.
Here is the faculty letter which is a little more substantive than the President’s, but still a classic example of “point and sputter” feigned PC outrage. Just to address one point, the letter rants “Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…” Well yeah … because the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional and from a libertarian perspective was illegitimate for the reason I explained above. (For the record, I consider myself more of a paleocon than a libertarian, but you don’t have to be one to understand logical consistency.) If he didn’t think it was illegitimate then he wouldn’t be a proper libertarian now would he? As for it being unconstitutional, you have to understand that not everyone turns off their intellect and genuflects before the determinations of a modern Court. I assume Block is speaking from an originalist perspective, which would argue that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because there is no constitutionally delegated power to prohibit private discrimination. If these PC cloistered academics would actually educate themselves instead of just repeating approved platitudes, they would know that such a thing as originalism exists, and then they might actually be able to attempt to counter it rather than run to the student newspaper saying essentially “Mommy, Mommy, Mr. Block uttered wrongthink! Please make him stop!” like a bunch of kindergarteners.
Tom Woods explains the situation below:
Here is the Walter Block resource page Woods speaks of.
Here is Woods’ blog post containing the above video.
The only slavery the faculty and President of Layola University should be concerned about is their own PC thoughtslavery.
Attn: This story is now officially a hoax. Ignatiev is not even retiring.
I actually didn’t doubt the quote, because I knew Ignatiev’s history, but I did doubt the sincerity of the website that was praising it. But finding out this was a hoax was not easy. I ran several web searches before I found the story above.
Original story begins below.
Noel Ignatiev is the infamous white hater who edits the journal Race Traitor (Yes there really is a “journal” called Race Traitor.) and is probably most infamous for this quote:
“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”
Not content with that little gem, he recently used the occasion of his retirement to let lose with this doozy:
“If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others!”
Ignatiev, who is of Russian Jewish heritage, of course looks as white as I do. (See above link.) The link is to a site called Diversity Chronicle. I have yet to decide if Diversity Chronicle is legit, or if it is really an elaborate spoof of the foolishness of people like Ignatiev. This paragraph makes me think it may really be a spoof:
The good Professor’s sound and reasonable words resonate with every enlightened and progressive mind. They are indisputable and no one can debate them. They should not be controversial in the slightest, yet remarkably a few far-right extremists object to the Prof. Ignatiev’s advice.
No one could seriously be that clueless, could they?
Addendum: The whole quote along with Diversity Chronicle may be a spoof. I’m still looking into it.
In his very generous, widely distributed review of my book on Leo Strauss and Strauss’s effect on the American conservative movement, Jack Kerwick observes that amidst our ideological division, my study stands out as “model of civility.” Apparently this judgment didn’t sit well with some commentors at freerepublic.com who weighed in against me as a nasty controversialist. Among my transgressions is to have defended the notorious anti-Semite Joe Sobran. Further, in my presumed attacks on Leo Strauss in a book that my ungrammatical critics never bothered to read, I besmirched a true patriot, who loved our liberal democratic government. Since Strauss defended what he thought America had been set up to represent, he must have been an authentic conservative, and it was therefore wicked on my part to challenge his political credentials. One critic even went so far as to describe me as driven by “anger,” that is, as someone who is no longer capable of rational judgment. This rant replicated almost word for word the unprofessional opinions that had been sent by a referee for an outline of my (then unwritten) book on Strauss that had been submitted to Yale University Press three years ago. Although my alma mater was about to give me a contract for the book Cambridge later brought out, after the receipt of the poison pen letter, the editor broke off negotiations.
These comments occasion certain thoughts, or more accurately, force me to revise certain preconceived notions. Up until a few days ago I had assumed that my adversaries in the conservative media simply ignored my critical writings. They treated me as an inconsequential rightwing kook, whom they had no interest in calling attention to. Last week I encountered a young gentleman who told me how at “conservative” youth conferences he attended, he was warned against my uncooperative attitudes. I was certainly a presence at these events, in the same way that Goldstein was in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. And I suspect I enjoyed about the same degree of popularity among the organizers as Big Brother’s straw man.
For the record, my well-prepped critics are wrong on two points, in addition to their egregious syntax. One, I never defended Joe Sobran as an “anti-Semite” or as a critic of the policies of the Israeli government, which for some of my critics are the same. I simply noted somewhere that Sobran was unjustly treated by the movement to which he had devoted his life. I never expressed approval of his judgments about Israel, which I do not happen to share. Two, my work on Strauss, which my detractors obviously never looked at, is every bit as civil as Jack Kerwick suggests it is. One would be hard pressed to find a single snide comment about my subject and in fact one encounters in the biographical sections many empathetic remarks about Strauss’s treatment as a scholar in Germany before he was forced by the Nazis to leave. I note parallels between my family’s experiences and those of Strauss and stress repeatedly the breadth of Strauss’s erudition. I have absolutely no idea how anyone but a driven fanatic could find anything demeaning about my descriptions.
My downfall with this book is that I’m not a Straussian or someone who interprets Strauss and his disciples as “conservatives.” Since as an intellectual historian I treat even classical Marxists with sympathy, the fact that I don’t characterize the Straussians or their master as conservative should not be viewed as an insult. But it may be a costly faux pas. Strauss’s more prominent disciples are used to being slobbered over in certain magazines conventionally associated with the right. Unfortunately for my sales, I don’t follow this party-line.
Paul Gottfried chronicles how obsessive multiculturalism and political correctness has ruined Elizabethtown College where he taught, and this all happened between 1989 and his retirement in 2011. While this is about Elizabethtown College specifically, it is a microcosm of what has happened to higher education in this country in general.
Another sad part of this story is that E-Town College is supposedly religiously affiliated with the Church of the Brethren. How have all these Christian denominations let colleges they supposedly sponsor run amok with anti-Christian political correctness? Its not only a shame, its a sin.
Warren Throckmorton, the blogger who first “exposed” (whined about) the League of the South connection to the conference we reported on below, is surprisingly a Professor at the conservative Christian Grove City College. Grove City has long been a favorite among conservatives because it, like Hillsdale College, does not accept federal financial aid.
I’m sure people will say that Professor Throckmorton has academic freedom, and that’s fine. I’m not suggesting that Grove City College should fire him or silence him. But political correctness is the mortal enemy of both conservatism and Christianity. I find it odd that this is where this guy teaches instead of Berkley or Harvard or somewhere else you would more expect to see such lefty politically correct moral posturing. I just wonder what the chances are that we’ll get a statement from Grove City distancing themselves from Professor Throckmorton’s left-wing empowering hobby of doing the $PLC’s dirty work for them. Lehigh University issued a statement disassociating themselves from the work of Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe. California State University, Long Beach officially distanced itself from Kevin McDonald. I don’t think it is asking too much to suggest that Grove City should similarly distance itself from someone who propagates the openly anti-conservative and anti-Christian dogma of political correctness.
French rightist, Professor of History, Dominique Venner, shot himself in the head at the cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris on May 21.
His last blog post details one who confronted the reality of both the legal acceptance of “gay marriage” and the other notion, that soon Islamic dominance in France will do away with such a thing (i.e. learn to love the bomb). Staring the nightmare in the face, he pursued an act of theater to encourage his positions.
Revilo Oliver, a veteran Far Rightist (a professor at the University of Illinois and in Bill Buck’s wedding party) died by his own hand in the nascent Internet Age, where as Mssr. Venner was able to provide a blog post (and apparently a more traditional written note) in a more grandiose final act.
As fewer Rightists, for a variety of reasons, are given the opportunity to exist as a Professor, a fact Mssr. Venner surely understood, consider his performance as something we might not see again.
This is interesting news. We have sometimes been critical of FPR (see here, here, here and here), but I consider this good news. As I said in the Policy Review post below, the left has journals for every conceivable niche, but the right has only a few. Likewise with publishing companies. There are all sorts of niche left-wing presses, but very few “conservative” presses and most of them primarily churn out books from “conservative” celebrities. This is a welcome development.
The following is taken from Richard M. Weaver’s classic The Southern Tradition at Bay: A History of Postbellum Thought, first published in 1968.
4. The Character of the Enemy
Thus the majority of Confederate officers looked upon themselves as Christian gentlemen, and in the recognized calling of war they sought to maintain that character, often to the point of nicety. The style and spirit of their warfare was a source of great pride to them, but that of the enemy provoked criticism and condemnation, on what grounds we must see. It is well to proceed cautiously here, for as an early English poem says, “In broyles the bag of lyes is ever open,” and the enemy is likely to be represented as barbarous in proportion as he proves stubborn and difficult to conquer. But after all precautions have been taken and all corrections have been made, there remains considerable foundation for the assertion that the United States is the first government in modern times to commit itself to the policy of unlimited aggression. This was one of the many innovations which came out of the American Civil War. It is true, of course, that no war is wholly free from atrocities, but a distinction must be drawn between those excesses committed by soldiers who have broken discipline and those which are a part of the determined policy of commanders. Generals Hunter, Sheridan, and Sherman put themselves on record, both by utterance and practice, as believing in the war of unlimited aggression, in the prosecution of which they received at least the tacit endorsement of the Lincoln administration.
This is a matter of prime importance in the history of the American past, because the real significance of the war of unlimited aggression is that it strikes at one of the bases of civilization. As long as each side plays according to the rules of the “game,” with no more infraction than is to be expected in any heated contest, the door is left open for reconciliation and the eventual restoration of amity. But when one side drops the restraints built up over a long period and commits itself to the total destruction of the other by any means, no longer distinguishing between combatants and noncombatants, then the demoralization is complete, and the difficulty of putting relationships back on a moral basis is perhaps too great to be overcome. In war, as in peace, people remain civilized by acknowledging bounds beyond which they must not go. Even in military combat there must be a supreme sanction, uniting those who in all else are in opposition, and if this is disregarded, then the long and painful business of laying the foundations of understanding must be recommenced from the very beginning. The expression “Christian civilization,” when examined, denotes just this body of fundamental concepts and allegiances, which one may not drop without becoming “un-Christian” and so, in the meaningful sense of the word, excommunicated. When this is understood the term “Christian soldier” ceases to be paradoxical. The Christian soldier must seek the verdict of battle always remembering that there is a higher law by which both he and his opponent will be judged, and which enjoins against fighting as the barbarian.
It is not unusual to read in Southern accounts of the rejection of some procedure as “unworthy of a Christian soldiery.” Indeed, by the standard of modern practice, which represents a revolt against all civilized restraints, the matter of regard for rule was carried far.78 Exceptions were found, naturally, among the disorderly elements which made up parts of the Western armies, but few outrages can be ascribed to the armies of Johnston, Lee, and Bragg, and none of them was condoned.
Ugh! As I have said before, I’m not inclined to argue the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) on political grounds. But I am inclined to comment on the state of the debate. As I said in the article linked above, the insufferable smugness of the AGW true believer crowd is profoundly unhelpful to their cause. This story from Political Outcast is a perfect example of what I mean:
The funny thing is, Professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz isn’t even a climate scientist. He teaches Systematic Musicology. So, if you’re one of those global warming deniers, then you shouldn’t be allowed to have an opinion because you don’t have enough expertise in climate science, or if you do, you should have your credentials stripped from you because you’ve proven yourself unworthy to have them. On the other hand, if you support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, it doesn’t matter what credentials you have or don’t have, your opinion is vital and true. You could be a bum living in a cardboard box in D.C. with an 8thgrade education and believe that man is causing the earth to warm, and that if the “lords” over in the D.C. castle don’t “do something” about it, humanity will be wiped out, and it will be the fault of all those “deniers.” And that poor bum’s opinion will have more respect than the climate scientists with 18 Ph.D.’s who believe the only thing that’s manmade about anthropogenic global warming is the theory itself.
The good professor has changed his original article (follow the links in the article above) presumably in response to criticism, but he seems more concerned with establishing his liberal bona fides in light of his call for the death penalty than he does in walking back from his outrageous premise. Either way, his over the top nonsense has certainly done more harm to the cause he espouses than good. The AGW true believers need to step outside the bubble they inhabit and join the rest of us in the real world where there is, for better or worse, still doubt.
I’m wanting to archive some right-wing books in .txt format, cartoons, and music. M-Disc looks like the most reliable choice, and I figured I’d share it here.
I doubt claims that M-Discs are significantly more resistant to physical damage (including from regular use), but they will resist time better than currently available alternatives. An implied M-Disc life of centuries Vs. 2 to 5 years for regular CDs/DVDs. This is because M-Disc’s data layer is physically carved in “rock-like materials” as opposed to the standard, short-lived dye.
M-Discs also cost much more per disc, and the only DVD-burners currently capable of writing on them are made by LG. M-Discs aren’t rewritable, so any errors are permanent, requiring a new disc to correct. I probably will not use many discs, but this is again the best long-term storage option I’m aware of.
M-Disc mentions competitors (likely optical discs using a similar technology) claiming 300-year shelf lives, but no brands are listed. Internet searches bring up nothing.