Must watch video.
June 21, 2017
June 19, 2017
On Friday June 16th, Journalists Laura Loomer and Jack Posobiec protested “Julius Caesar” by New York’s Shakespeare in the Park which features the nightly mock assassination of President Donald Trump. Loomer was arrested for interrupting the leftist assassination pornography and charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct. After years and years of passively “taking the high road” and losing – what happens when the right starts using the lefts own tactics against them?
Over the long run, conservatives could end up winning the ideological contest with fertility rather than arguments.
By now there is a huge body of literature in behavioral genetics, which shows that pretty much every psychological characteristic we can measure is to some degree heritable. This raises a question that has received little discussion beyond academia – what about political views? Are they heritable? And if so, what does this mean for the political landscape of future generations?
The evidence for the heritability of psychological traits is immense. The authors of a recent meta-analysis published in Nature Genetics looked at 2,748 publications surveying 17,804 traits. They found that “estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%.”
These results shouldn’t be surprising. If offspring didn’t resemble parents to some degree, evolution as we understand it could not occur. Indeed, according to the Darwinian paradigm, evolution takes place through variation and selection.
Imagine, for example, that you wanted to domesticate a wild animal. Foxes are cute, so let’s talk about them. One thing we know about foxes is that some of them are naturally aggressive, while others are more docile. Suppose you decide to mate the most gentle males with the most gentle females. Do the same thing for a number of generations, and eventually you’ll have an animal that more closely resembles a modern dog than a fox.
June 18, 2017
“His was a terrorism constructed out of the narcissism of small differences.” — Steven Malanga
Alexandria, Virginia shooter James T. Hodgkinson was certainly angry about the direction of the country, but his vision of America was prosaic and predictable—ripped from the pages of the Huffington Post. Branding himself a member of the “99 percent,” he advocated higher taxes on the rich, according to letters he sent to a local newspaper. He opposed the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, wanted Democrats to filibuster the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, and supported the proposed Presidential Accountability Act, which extends conflict-of-interest laws for federal officials to the president and vice president, who are currently exempt. In other words, his was not the religious fervor of the jihadist seeking a caliphate, nor did he envision the sweeping historical dialectic of Das Kapital. His ideas weren’t even as dramatic as the cultural revolution imagined by the 1960s’ Yippie manifesto. Yet Hodgkinson was apparently willing to kill for higher marginal tax rates, stricter conflict-of-interest laws, and Obamacare. His was a terrorism constructed out of the narcissism of small differences.
June 16, 2017
In a wide-ranging interview Paglia talks about Donald Trump’s successes, how Chuck Schumer emboldened the “resistance,” why the left can’t condemn Islamist terrorism, and “the cold biological truth that sex changes are impossible.”
Camille Paglia is one America’s smartest and most fearless writers. Like Elvis, she’s the kind of superstar who really needs no introduction—though it is worth pointing out that Pantheon has just published a collection of her essays on sex, gender, and feminism, titled Free Women, Free Men. It’s fantastic and if you love her work, it’s must-reading. (And there’s another collection due out in the Fall of 2018, which is more good news.)
Last week I sat down with Paglia over email to talk about Donald Trump, Islamist terrorism, and the transgender crusade. Here’s a transcript of our conversation:
JVL: Donald Trump has recently feuded with Jim Comey, Bob Mueller, Sadiq Kahn, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, NATO—we’ll stop the list there. You were one of a very small number of people who understood Trump’s populist appeal early on. Looking at his presidency so far, do think he’s continuing to deliver on that appeal? What is he doing right? What is he doing wrong?
Camille Paglia: Some background is necessary. First of all, I must make my political affiliations crystal clear. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary and for Jill Stein in the general election. Since last Fall, I’ve had my eye on Kamala Harris, the new senator from California, and I hope to vote for her in the next presidential primary.
“Human emancipation” is the goal of Marxism, the fat-cat professor explains.
The University of Wisconsin-Madison offers a sociology course informing students that capitalism creates “a world of great misery, inequality and oppression” that “is irrational in ways that hurt nearly everyone.”
Erik Olin Wright, the well-heeled professor who teaches the graduate-level course, rakes a sweet annual salary of $170,000 per year.
The MacIver Institute, a free-market think tank, obtained the syllabus for Wright’s course by way of a public records request. The course is entitled: “Class, State, and Ideology: An Introduction to Social Science in the Marxist Tradition.”
The affluent professor’s course syllabus, which goes on — and on — for almost 80 pages, declares that capitalism “generates harms” and “generates injustices” which “can be broadly grouped under three rubrics: exploitation, domination and irrationality.”
Marxism, on the other hand, is an “emancipatory social science” that seeks to “fulfill the goal of generating critical social scientific knowledge relevant to the task of challenging systems of oppression.”
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) blasted the angry left on Wednesday at the scene of a shooting earlier in the day that wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), an aide, and two Capitol Police.
“America has been divided,” King said, according to the Washington Post. “And the center of America is disappearing, and the violence is appearing in the streets, and it’s coming from the left.”
Asked whether the shooting was politically motivated, he said he did not know why the gunman did what he did.
However, King pointed at anger and demonstrations against Trump, according to the Post:
King, in his remarks at the shooting scene, said it was impossible to separate the hyperpartisan climate in Washington — especially people protesting Trump — with Republican members of Congress being fired upon at a baseball practice.
“The divisions within the country, people that can’t accept the results of the election that are determined to try to take this country down, take this organization down,” he said. “This city was filled up with demonstrations the day after the inauguration, where you couldn’t drive down the streets. And we’ve had demonstrations every week since then, sometimes different topics.”
June 12, 2017
Perhaps one day, the Brown and his Democrat friends will understand as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did that there is no social justice without a job – but don’t count on that any time soon.
Welcome to California. It is a state of a perfect set of laws – at least in the minds of those wedded to the legislative pursuit of social justice. Under the one-party Democrat rules, spending on fairness tops $100 billion every year. Meanwhile, the basic infrastructure of the state, so necessary for the economy long and short term, is collapsing.
The California legislature has been busy making the news these days. They are determined to fight President Trump tooth and nail – and they are putting the taxpayers’ money where the legislature’s mouth is.
California Democrat after Democrat has decried President Trump. The day after the election, a “Joint Statement from California Legislative Leaders on Result of Presidential Election,” issued in part by California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (formerly Kevin Leon), stated:
“While Donald Trump may have won the presidency, he hasn’t changed our values. America is greater than any one man or party. We will not be dragged back into the past. We will lead the resistance to any effort that would shred our social fabric or our Constitution.”
June 6, 2017
A column in May/June issue of Mother Jones celebrates the rise of fringe leftist groups ready to take part in everything from nonviolent resistance to armed revolt.
Some of the groups have risen to fight the media-created caricatures of Trump supporters. These caricatures include “white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Klansmen.”
According to Mother Jones, the leftist groups include the Bastards Motorcycle Club, By Any Means Necessary, Redneck Revolt, and the Huey P. Newton Gun Club.
The Bastards Motorcycle Club was formed a few years ago by Steven “Chavez” Parker and Joseph Guinn; two South Carolinians seeking a biker gang that was “anti-racist” and “LGBT friendly.”
By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), ” formed in 1995 to fight California’s rollback of affirmative action.” BAMN is led by civil rights lawyer Shanta Driver and “has organized anti-Trump rallies and high school walkouts.” But Driver makes clear the group will also take part in “militant actions” when necessary. She said, “We are not people who believe, in situations where we’re under attack, that we should turn the other cheek.”
Redneck Revolt consists of “anarchists and libertarians” who are “focused on anti-racist organizing among the white working class.” The group has chapters throughout the country and takes their cues from the Black Panthers. Redneck Revolt does firearm training and advertises with the slogan, “Fighting Nazis Is an American Tradition: Stop the Alt-Right.”
The liberal contempt for middle America is baked into the idea of identity politics.
Nine years after Barack Obama accused small-towners of clinging to guns or religion, nearly three years after Jonathan Gruber was shown to have attributed ObamaCare’s passage to the stupidity of the American voter, and eight months after Hillary Clinton pronounced half of Donald Trump’s voters “irredeemable,” Democrats are now getting some sophisticated advice: You don’t win votes by showing contempt for voters.
In the last week or so a flurry of articles have appeared arguing for toning down the looking-down. In the New Republic Michael Tomasky writes under the heading “Elitism Is Liberalism’s Biggest Problem.” Over at the New York Times , Joan C. Williams weighs in with “The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension.” Slate goes with a Q&A on “advice on how to talk to the white working class without insulting them.” Stanley Greenberg at the American Prospect writes on “The Democrats’ ‘Working-Class Problem,’ ” and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones asks for “Less Liberal Contempt, Please.”