Today is my annual struggle (since 2009) to try to think of my birthday as something better than “Finding Dad Dead In His Chair Day,” and I must say, Facebook Friends have been especially helpful by sending along happy birthday wishes. Since none of them de-friended me for political differences during and after the campaign, I was intrigued by this essay in the National Review, titled “Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Cut Trump Voters from Their Lives.”
Now as I have made painfully clear, I was no Trump voter, having determined early on that I would sooner undergo a head-transplant from a warthog, even a Bernie-boosting warthog, but I was no Hillary Clinton supporter either, and was especially eager to shoot down particularly stupid memes from OccupyDemocrats, MOVE-ON, and the National Federation of the Brain Debilitated when my friends posted them, which was depressingly often. (Come to think of it, most of those FBFs who are addicted to progressive memes haven’t sent me birthday wishes, the bastards, but then the National Review piece wasn’t called “Ten Reasons Left-Wingers Won’t Say Happy Birthday To Facebook Friends Who Point Out That The Memes They Post Have Been Proven To Cause Retardation In Chimps.
The article is biased, of course: it’s the National Review. Obviously its assertion is over-generalized. But how fair is its general proposition, which is that the 2016 phenomenon of people cutting off friends and family is “one-sided”?
“Why don’t we hear about conservatives shunning friends and relatives who supported Hillary Clinton? After all, almost every conservative considered Clinton to be ethically and morally challenged. And most believed that another four years of left-wing rule would complete what Barack Obama promised he would do in 2008 if he were elected president — fundamentally transform the United States of America. In other words, conservatives were not one whit less fearful of Clinton and the Democrats than Democrats were of Trump and Republicans. Yet virtually no conservatives cut off contact with friends, let alone parents, who supported Clinton.”
1. Just like our universities shut out conservative ideas and speakers, more and more individuals on the left now shut out conservative friends and relatives as well as conservative ideas.
2. Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives.
3. Most left-wing positions are emotion-based.
4. Since Karl Marx, leftists have loved ideas more than people.
5. People on the right think that most people on the left are wrong; people on the left think that most people on the right are evil.
6. The Left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions.
7. Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment “Honor your father and your mother” means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump.
8. Unlike conservatives, politics gives most leftists’ lives meaning.
9. The Left tends toward the totalitarian. And every totalitarian ideology seeks to weaken the bonds between children and parents.
10. While there are kind and mean individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, as a result of all of the above, there are more mean people on the left than on the right.
Your Happy Birthday Jack Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz is this:
Is the article fair?
Is this a generally accurate description of progressives/liberal/Democrats, or is it just more partyism and demonization of “them”? Which, if any, of the ten reasons are accurate and therefor honest and fair, and which are untrue?
I guess I’ve already signaled that my own experience suggests that it’s not fair, though I don’t know enough Trump voters to say with any basis that they haven’t cut off the liberals in their lives, or that they have. At first glance, I would say that #2 alone is undoubtedly true, and I have been coming to believe that #9, frighteningly, is becoming more and more true.
Your analysis is sought…
Ethics Alarms 
Happy birthday keep up the hard work! I think it would have been profound to meet your dad.
I think I’ll sit back and watch this discussion awhile.
First, happy birthday. Sorry this is a tough day for you; I’m glad you’re finding comfort in your friends.
Second, I think some of the traits Prager assigns to liberals here are fair, especially 1-6. My main quibble is his conflation of “Trump voters” with “conservatives.” As you know, one does not have to have “progressive values” to find Trump or his supporters ridiculous. I feel like this election fell less into the left/right binary than most; after all, National Review itself actively campaigned against Trump. That said, I’ve not heard of #NeverTrump conservatives dumping their family and friends over this election.
My girlfriend’s mother supported Trump. This has created some hard feelings on my girlfriend’s part, but she hasn’t cut off contact. They have a rough relationship for reasons other than politics, but they still talk. I get along with her just fine. We just don’t talk politics.
I will echo others on the birthday and also with Chris on #1-6. I found myself nodding in agreement until the list wandered off the tracks a bit on #7. Also – emotions seem to prevail no matter what.
Lists are what they are and that is generally mush for the mind – click bait. I’ll seen some that target conservatives and find myself nodding in agreement with selected ones.
Thanks. This is the first time since that day 7 years ago that I’ve celebrated my birthday, in part because my sister is making me. the ironic thing is that I am and was glad I was the one to find my dad, glad for the moments alone with him I had before the EMTs arrived, and glad he went exactly the way he wanted to: independent, no drama, no illness, no burdens on anyone. He earned it.
Happy birthday. Your father did well bringing up a son like you.
I refer my own son to your site quite often. He’s a bit more to the right than me, but then, so was I at his age.
I have relatively few friends who voted for Trump. The only difficulty I have with them is resisting the urge to say “I told you so!” as it would do no good, and would be hurtful.
I have bigger fish to fry anyway. Maybe things won’t be as bad as I expect, and nowhere near as bad as I and many other Trans and Intersex people fear. But that’s the unknowable future, at this point we’ve done about all we can in mitigation.
While both the VA and Medicare have reversed course already in anticipation of their future head honchos’ likely directives, ignoring current policy, rather more areas are still proceeding out of inertia.
“The only difficulty I have with them is resisting the urge to say “I told you so!” as it would do no good, and would be hurtful.”
Wait…What?
For you to be able to say “I told you so!”, would sort of require something absolutely awful to happen *during* Trump’s presidency as a DIRECT result of whichever of Trump’s bad values you supposedly warned your friends about.
Seeing as how Trump ISN’T EVEN PRESIDENT yet, let alone something awful happening under his watch due to his values, what on earth could you possibly have to “tell your friends so!” about that you so valiantly stifle the urge to do so?
What an indictment on your mindset.
Happy Birthday, you old reprobate. (And I know just how old you really are!)
One of my son’s 3 best friends voted for Trump. This very nice young man is a hyper-evangelical Christian who believes the stories about Hillary’s murderous Satanic proclivities. My son really struggled with how he was going to relate to this friend. I reminded him — you’ve put up with all of the other crap for this long, a Trump vote should have come as no surprise and doesn’t trump (ha ha) the joyous friendship they’ve had for quite a few years. My son got over his shock and their friendship is sound.
I haven’t spoken to my very conservative brother for 3 years. I don’t know if he voted for Trump, but my guess is that he did. Neither of these are the reasons I haven’t spoken to him in 3 years. My husband and I are convinced that I’m going to hell for this.
Thus, it profits one nothing to lose one’s soul over family tragedy, But for Trump?
“A green toad is you!” (That’s a Spanish-to-English translation of a mondegreen of the Happy Birthday lyrics, congrats!)
As to your question, I wouldn’t know, since I was probably one of the few #NeverHillary people in my social group, and while a couple of my FB friends cut me off I did not see any going the opposite route – mostly because there weren’t any Trumpers to start with. This leads me to wonder if maybe the cause is that FB is much more prevalent among the left than the right. For a Democrat to virtue-signal by cutting off his pro-Trump friends is not that hard: cut off a few acquaintances and you’re done. For the pro-Trumper that same signal costs more like 70% of his social network (this is based on my experience, I’m sure outside my bubble things are somewhat different). I’m not saying that the right may take the same approach if the population ratios were reversed, but sometimes the answer is in the cost-benefit analysis and I don’t see that in the NR piece.
(Note that this comment applies only to the Facebook phenomenon, I don’t feel myself remotely qualified to analyze the meatspace issue)
Perhaps I am wrong but I have the sense that I have explored more of the fringes of both the ‘hard left’ and the right and definitely the so-called ‘ultra-right’. My understanding of what is going on within conservatism extends well beyond what one finds in typical media. The place where the ‘New Right’ in America and in Europe carries on its exchanges is not in typical places. I suppose one would say it is within ‘social media’. It is not hidden but people seem to avoid these places because they are fearful. I mean, fearful of being influenced away from ‘safe designations’. The opinions being exchanged, and the contacts being forged in these places will, I think, determine far more than the ‘standard media’. Based on what I see, though I am sorry to say this, the future is to be one of struggle and conflict. It will likely involve something like totalitarianism as these structures are imbedded now and, it sure looks to be so, they will not relinquish control. This is all-out idea-war.
The opinions that are being formed, and the degree that people are entirely cynical and disbelieving of traditional sources, always amazes me. What else amazes me is the level of sophistication of the conversations. For example (though all of you will consider this ‘evil’) I get YouTube videos from some Stormfront — ‘Alt-Right Andy’ for example — sources and occasionally listen to them. Their analysis is much more sophisticated than what one would think. These are not drooling ‘jibaros’ (country bumpkins is the translation I found). .These people are doing real research and are attempting to comprehend their world, and they also intend to be active in it, and they reject typical ‘conservatism’ and describe Liberal-Progressivism as their enemy. Some of them are also quite religious in a postmodern way it seems to me. Maybe it is the IDEA of religion they still seek to hold to?
I see each of these numbered items as reflecting a great deal of truth. Obviously 1-6. I find No.3 perhaps the most interesting since the destruction of the capacity to think critically and in hard terms will always lead to emotional and sentimental outlooks. The issue os the ‘feminization of thought’ but even the Conservatives have a hard time understanding that one!
I know that some part of my rather crude anti-Marxism comes across as cartoon-esque and I am sorry that I am not sophisticated enough to present it well. I’ll get better though. But the more that I research, the more I see the spector of Marx behind many negative aspects of our present. To build a conceptual alternative is therefor a ‘radical project’ and it is not easy. It is radically difficult. So it seems to me that the predominant brand of ‘progressivism’, insofar as it is Marxism and post-Marxism and neo-Marxism, is in its essence an acid and surely will dissolve the bonds to one’s ancestors. In fact Marxism dissolves the bonds to one’s own Self. But that is harder to speak about, harder to demonstrate.
I honestly thought his theory is a load of BS, and I can honestly name flaws with each and every one of the 10 ‘reasons’.
“1. Just like our universities shut out conservative ideas and speakers, more and more individuals on the left now shut out conservative friends and relatives as well as conservative ideas.”
This is pure circular logic, claiming to be a reason for the phenomenon but actually just restating the phenomenon with some red-meat anti-university rhetoric thrown in.
“2. Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives.”
Most people in the center and right would say that leftists don’t become fully indoctrinated until college – unless one is a right-winger who views the center as leftist.
“3. Most left-wing positions are emotion-based. ”
This is irrelevant to the thesis, and one could make the case that most right-wing positions are also emotion-based. To paraphrase the old proverb, this seems like a case of complaining of a speck in someone else’s eye when you have a stick in yours.
“4. Since Karl Marx, leftists have loved ideas more than people.”
This point seems like it is in direct opposition to point 3, but further, I think it’s far, far towards the side of demonizing the opposition. In particular, the author is using a guilt-by-association tactic to connect all leftists to Marx, while not apparently understanding Marx.
“5. People on the right think that most people on the left are wrong; people on the left think that most people on the right are evil.”
Once again, this point seems pretty hypocritical. There are plenty on the left who don’t see their opposition as evil, and there are plenty of people on the right who think that leftists are evil (including, apparently, the author). Tribalism and ‘team’ politics is a scourge on both parties in our system.
“6. The Left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions.”
As before, this is either pure hypocrisy or total blindness to the flaws of the Right. I’m not saying the Left doesn’t tend to do this, but they’re not the only ones with this problem.
“7. Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment “Honor your father and your mother” means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump.”
There is so, so very much wrong to unpack here. Let’s start with the fact that it’s a direct contradiction to point 5 – the author is claiming that people are evil because of their political leanings. Second, the incorrect claim that ‘Most individuals on the left are irreligious’. Atheists and Agnostics are still a small minority even in the Left, but the Left does have a larger proportion of religious minorities and those who see themselves as broadly ‘Christian’ rather than a member of a specific sect. Finally, the author appears to be conflating biblical values with morality, and claiming that those who do not follow the Bible are per se immoral.
“8. Unlike conservatives, politics gives most leftists’ lives meaning.”
This seems to be a very broad reading that attempts to conflate a large group with their most vocal minority. Isn’t that the sort of thing that conservatives rightly lambasted Hillary for for her ‘basket of deplorables’ comment?
“9. The Left tends toward the totalitarian. And every totalitarian ideology seeks to weaken the bonds between children and parents.”
Once again, I could argue the same for the Right – except where the far left seems to want a secular, PC totalitarianism, the far right seems to want a theocracy, as evidenced by point 7.
“10. While there are kind and mean individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, as a result of all of the above, there are more mean people on the left than on the right.”
This is an unprovable assertion and an appeal to emotion. It also seems to fly directly in the face of the author’s assertion that people on the right don’t see leftists as evil.
Overall, the author’s entire case seems to be based entirely on a claim that the Left is uniquely awful, but I don’t think he makes any case here for phenomena unique to the Left. The same problems he rightfully calls out in the Left are all too present in the Right as well.
Thank you. Some religious people have a terrible tendency to think that no one can do any good without some old book to give them explicit instructions. I want to ask them, “Do you think that YOU would go around killing, stealing, and raping at will if you didn’t have preachers telling you not to?”
Given the state of European tribal ethics prior to the firestorm-like expansion of Christianity and it’s Judeo-originated concept that the Creation of Man in God’s Image conferred an incredibly unprecedented *intrinsic* value on any individual’s life, it is safe to postulate that, yes, our modern ethics may not be anywhere near what they are now if it hadn’t been for *that* old book giving explicit instructions….
““Do you think that YOU would go around killing, stealing, and raping at will if you didn’t have preachers telling you not to?””
You are asking that question without recognizing that our modern ethics benefit directly from about 1500 years of Christian philosophy in Europe.
In that case, let’s look at the ethics of non-Abrahamic religions. In India (largely Hindu) and East Asia (largely Buddhist), ethics are largely the same as in the West, at least as far as major crimes go, and have been throughout history. Feudal societies are similar in ethics no matter their religion, as are democratic societies. There is a bit more emphasis on collectivism in Asia, as opposed to individualism, but I would argue individualism in the West is despite the Abrahamic religions, not because of them. It seems Abrahamic religions are not necessary for modern ethics.
I would also draw attention to all the people throughout history who went around killing, stealing, and raping as a matter of cultural imperative even though they subscribed to the Abrahamic religions and claimed to be very well versed in them (ancient Hebrews, Christian Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, crusades, conquistadors, fascists (no, Hitler was not an atheist), the mafia, and of course terrorists. It seems that Abrahamic religions are not sufficient for modern ethics.
If Abrahamic religions are neither sufficient nor necessary for modern ethics, then I’d argue that despite people paying lip service to them whenever they talk about ethics, they’re really making up the ethics themselves (rightly or wrongly) and ascribing their origin to their religion.
I’ll have more later. I don’t disagree with you. I merely stated that as much as people love poo pooing Christianity, it takes an incredible amount of denial to pretend like “an old book” didn’t positively impact European ethics.
But I will ask you this-
If three cultures decide “it is wrong to commit murder” but
culture A decides that because “each human is property of the king, and to murder is to destroy the king’a property”
Culture B decides that because “each human adds a specific value to the community and it seems most people contribute above that value, it is wrong to damage value production in the community”
Culture C decides that because “every individual human has intrinsic value in and of themselves as individual humans, it is wrong to murder them”
Which culture’s conclusion, though identical, do you trust more?
And ponder this, of the 3 hypothetical cultures above, philosophers down the ages may end up abstracting enough to recognize that “human lives matter just because” and strip away the other reasoning.
But that Christianity helped us get there faster via the rationale “because God says He made Man in His Own Image”
Wow Tex – you didn’t sit back for very long to just watch this discussion, like you said you would! (but I am glad you didn’t)
Personally, I think the article is unfair (as only Prager can be – by which I mean, I do trust that he doesn’t constantly and deliberately MEAN to be unfair), despite how the 10-point summary in bold above helps me to recognize my own lenses and blinders and (probably) frequently unjustifiable “LA!-LA!-LA!-LA!-LA!” attitude toward leftists and leftism.
I had to say all the preceding, you see, because of all the leftists in my family (and _ I _ am the “hippie” of the bunch! Just ask them!). As long as I can love a leftist, then there’s hope for us all.
I would trust B or C. From B it’s only a few steps to conclude that the reason we care about communal well-being is because it’s good for the individuals who make up the community. C is also decent, but it’s troubling that it seems axiomatic and that it doesn’t seem to have a way to triage things during an apocalypse (unless, of course, everyone is selfless enough to be willing sacrifice themselves when called upon).
It is fortuitous that a set of ideas as slapdash as Christianity managed to advance us at all, but it has held us back on many fronts in the past and continues to do so in the present. It has also been used to justify both slavery and abolitionism, creationism and evolution, so the ethics of Christianity seem to come mostly from Christians than from Christianity itself.
I would credit Christianity with some good principles but many more bad ones such that the whole religion is a Rorschach experiment, with little real character of its own as far as net good or evil is concerned, even if only 75%* of those claiming to be Christian are correct. (*Does not contain real statistics.) Those who use Christianity for good choose to emphasize the good parts of it, and are more likely to have been raised by parents who did the same. Those who use Christianity for misguided purposes, or for evil, choose to use the bad parts of it. It’s a Magic Feather, though, giving people the courage to do good or evil. Once people realize the existential truth, they will see that the ethics were inside them, all along! Well, something like that, anyway.
In any case, I would much rather rely on philosophers seeking universal truths than a set of ideas that evolved to serve itself, when it comes to exploring ethics. Looking forward to hearing more about your take on this.
Tice with a J said, “Some religious people have a terrible tendency to think that no one can do any good without some old book to give them explicit instructions.”
I’ve been part of religion for my entire life an I haven’t met on “religious” person that have that tendency – none. Your statement is BS propaganda.
Tice with a J said, “I want to ask them, “Do you think that YOU would go around killing, stealing, and raping at will if you didn’t have preachers telling you not to?” “
My first reaction to that statement is extremely negative but that might be because I’m not entirely clear what you’re trying to say, so I’m going to give you a chance to explain that in more detail before I render an opinion. I’ll take a non-response from you to mean that my initial reaction was likely the correct one.
I’ve been part of religion for my entire life an I haven’t met on “religious” person that have that tendency – none. Your statement is BS propaganda.
Except that that’s exactly what Dennis Prager is doing in the article Jack cited–saying that because leftists are generally less religious, they don’t ascribe to the commandment about honoring their parents. Which is absurd, as that’s a universal value.
Chris,
I stated below in no uncertain terms that I think the article is not fair; that’s one of the reasons. Please at least try to keep up.
Sorry for the radio silence; for some reason, WordPress wouldn’t let me see replies to my replies. Anyways, it’s stupid to say that the article is “not fair” as on objection to Chris. You said that you’ve never met a religious person with the tendency I described. Chris pointed out that the religious person writing the article is an example of such a person, and you say that the article is not “fair”? I agree that the article is unfair (that’s why I objected to it) but what does that have to do with this? You’ve essentially accused me of making a straw man (criticizing a viewpoint that doesn’t exist) but we have a real man right here, doing just what I’ve accused religious people of doing.
For another example, here’s something from the faith I left behind:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/to-whom-shall-we-go?lang=eng
M. Russell Ballard just can’t imagine how anyone can be good without Mormonism. His loss.
Tice with a J,
Neither the linked piece in the blog or the piece you linked to state or imply that “no one can do any good without some old book to give them explicit instructions”. In my opinion you have failed to support your argument.
Tice with a J; Please quote from Ballard’s piece what you claim is him stating or implying that “no one can do any good without some old book to give them explicit instructions”.
Chris; Please quote from Prager’s piece what you claim is him stating or implying that “no one can do any good without some old book to give them explicit instructions”.
Don’t get me wrong Tice or Chris, there are some real pompous asses out there that spew some genuine frontier gibberish opinions all in the name of their “religion” and others that circle around issues endlessly without ever making a clear point; my point is that I have never met a person that has proclaimed or implied that “no one can do any good without some old book to give them explicit instructions”.
You made the claim, I think your claim is BS propaganda; prove your claim.
From Prager’s piece: “Most individuals on the left are irreligious, so the commandment “Honor your father and your mother” means nothing to those who have cut off relations with parents because they voted for Trump.”
How are we to interpret this? I think it reasonable to say that Prager thinks we won’t honor our fathers or mothers if we don’t accept the Bible as an authority in our lives. He certainly seems to be saying the irreligious people (like myself) are more likely to cut off our parents, and that we do so precisely because we ignore the 10 Commandments.
Ballard’s piece is more about the value of a religion in general than about a religious book, so it’s not a perfect fit here. I apologize for that. But even granting that, he seems to think that no one can do good outside his church. Consider:
As far as he can tell, there is no meaning outside the “Plan of Salvation” he’s selling. There are no communities of good people outside the LDS church, perhaps because there are no communities holding the right set of prescribed values and standards. And all the people outside the church could not possibly offer the counsel and inspiration that men inside the church can offer.
Now let’s be honest here. What do you think that Prager and Ballard would say to me, knowing that I’m an atheist? What would they suggest I do? What source would they recommend for a guide in my life?
There are plenty of people out there claiming that the Bible is the only source of morality. You don’t have to look very far. Here’s one: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-morality.html You can find other sources claiming that it has to be the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or some other book. I reject them all.
Tice with a J said, “How are we to interpret this?”
I honestly think there are some post extrapolations after reading the blank white spaces between the lines; translation, building of strawmen from assumptions. Rhetorical question; is your choice to build a strawman based on assumptions based on your choice to be an atheist and you’re trying to find a way to “attack” religion?
Tice with a J said, “There are plenty of people out there claiming that the Bible is the only source of morality.”
I think the Bible is a decent source of teachings about morality but it’s certainly not the only source available. Choosing, or not choosing, a higher power is a personal choice; you’ve made your choice and I’ve made mine.
Tice with a J said, “I reject them all.”
Reject all you want, how far are you willing to go to reject absolutely all the teachings you learned? Good or bad, your past history with the LDS is part of what makes you the person you are today, someday you’re going to have to accept that part of yourself.
You’re quite right that a part of me will always be a Mormon. I don’t read the scriptures anymore, but I’ll be able to recite verses until the day I die. Mormon ideas still affect the way I view the world, and in some ways, that’s not so bad. But I do reject the idea that the Book of Mormon is the “most correct of any book of Earth”. There are better books than the Book of Mormon, and better books than the Bible, and I seek them out and read them. I do not reject every last part of all the various holy books (I apologize for implying that I did) but I do reject them as sole sources of morality.
You are not saying that the Bible is the only source of morality, but other people are, and that’s what really irritates me. There are people who really believe that. They cannot comprehend the idea that you and I look elsewhere for moral guidance. They are especially baffled at the idea that I, an atheist, could have some source of morality besides God. These people may seem utterly strange to you, but they do exist. You can see them on the street corner with their tall and verbose signs. I argue that you can also see such a person in Dennis Prager. He automatically correlates being irreligious with being disrespectful to your parents; by the same logic, he could easily conclude that the irreligious violate the other 9 commandments more often than Christians do, meaning that we’re more likely to kill, steal, use God’s name in vain, etc., and I think he does conclude that. He upholds the 10 commandments as “Still the Best Moral Code”. I’m not sure if they were ever the best.
I may be overreacting to Prager, but I do think he’s pretty dumb for thinking that I’m more likely to be immoral because I don’t take the Bible literally.
“1. This is pure circular logic, claiming to be a reason for the phenomenon but actually just restating the phenomenon with some red-meat anti-university rhetoric thrown in.”
I think his point was more of a “This grew from a situation that happened on campuses.” as opposed to “the phenomenon caused itself.”, but I think that it’s interesting that you think that the shunning of conservatives on campus and the shunning of conservative friends as phenominons are so similar as to be functionally identical. You should examine that.
More, I’m not going to say that ALL progressives shun the conservatives in their life, but the phenomenon of progressives doing to is 1. real and 2. not mirrored in conservatism, at least not with any kind of frequency. When’s the last time you heard about a progressive speaker barred from campus? Identifying the problem is a necessary step in addressing it.
You do identify it as a problem, right?
“2. Most people in the center and right would say that leftists don’t become fully indoctrinated until college – unless one is a right-winger who views the center as leftist.”
This is…. fair. It’s starting to creep into high school, and we even hear stories about teachers committing acts of child abuse trying to indoctrinate the young early, but generally it starts in college.
“3. This is irrelevant to the thesis, and one could make the case that most right-wing positions are also emotion-based. To paraphrase the old proverb, this seems like a case of complaining of a speck in someone else’s eye when you have a stick in yours.”
That’s an awful comparison. “Let he who is blameless cast the first stone” might be better. But I agree that the thinking/feeling distinction is useless here. Even were the premise true, a conservative who thought that a liberal was toxic could still shun them, and a liberal who felt that a conservative was evil could still try to redeem them.
But doesn’t that just make clearer an uncomfortable truth: Liberals, whether thinking or feeling, are intellectually isolating themselves. Regardless of why they do that, it’s not healthy.
“4.This point seems like it is in direct opposition to point 3, but further, I think it’s far, far towards the side of demonizing the opposition. In particular, the author is using a guilt-by-association tactic to connect all leftists to Marx, while not apparently understanding Marx.”
Said the kettle to the pot. Look, once you compare the “Othered” and “In Power” groups to the “Proletariat” and the “Bourgeoisie”, a lot of progressive cant starts to make sense. And so, if you feel there are negative connotations to Marx, you might want to re-evaluate your association with ideas that so closely mirror his. You want to call it something else? You go right ahead, but never let yourself be fooled into thinking that progressivism is anything at its core but people-as-a-class based social warfare.
“5. Once again, this point seems pretty hypocritical. There are plenty on the left who don’t see their opposition as evil, and there are plenty of people on the right who think that leftists are evil (including, apparently, the author). Tribalism and ‘team’ politics is a scourge on both parties in our system.”
I think it takes wilful ignorance to write things like this. You look at the language the left uses… the default to “racist, sexist, misogynist, Islamophobic, homophobic” reflexively, with very little stimulus… And most importantly, without knowing a single thing about the person they’re talking to. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called homophobic for saying the most innocuous of things…. Which at this point I just find funny. The rush to judgement without actually knowing anything but the most surficial of things is the definition of hate.
Is this a problem that the right has as well? I think it’s not unfair to say they do. “Cuck” needs to die a swift and painless death…. But this as with so many other things is a matter of occurrence and scale. First off: If it occurs and it’s bad, it doesn’t cease to occur because someone else does it. Second off: Remember that stick and speck comparison you made? The left has a stick, the right has a speck on this issue. Hating the “Other” is the bread and butter for a lot of progressive voices, and I think it’s telling that you don’t see it for what it is. Maybe the stick is in the way.
“6. As before, this is either pure hypocrisy or total blindness to the flaws of the Right. I’m not saying the Left doesn’t tend to do this, but they’re not the only ones with this problem.”
Remember that the author was listing reasons that progressives shunned their conservative friends, not reasons in general why progressivism sucks. Because I have the feeling that that article would be much, much longer. You could come back with “But Jeff, if both groups do this, and if this is a reason why the phenomenon happens, shouldn’t both groups do this?” And yes, if that were the entire fact pattern in a vacuum, this would be true. But obviously, this is not true. We’re left with three choices:
1) The phenomenon combines with other phenomenon found more exclusively with the progressive group to create the outcome. (That is, you are ignoring the whole story in order to make a point.)
2) There is a correlation between the act and the outcome, but you’re wrong about the frequency in the conservative group, or perhaps the flavour of it. (That is, you’ve drawn a false equivalency.)
3) The phenomenon has no correlation to the outcome (That is, you’re right).
Now I’m completely willing to entertain the possibility that I’m wrong. I don’t think I am, but I could be. If I’m wrong, then I don’t know WHY progressives are abandoning people who don’t think like them in significant numbers, but they’re still doing it. And I’m just completely unable to think of a good and healthy reason for this to be true.
On the other hand, “What If You’re Wrong?” (A question I think we should all ask ourselves more often): What if, in fact, progressives are in fact alienating dissenting voices based on a false morality?
“7. There is so, so very much wrong to unpack here. Let’s start with the fact that it’s a direct contradiction to point 5 – the author is claiming that people are evil because of their political leanings.”
I think you need to examine some biases here. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be inferring that “thinking people aren’t religious” or that “non-religious people have no conception of evil” because otherwise I don’t see the contradiction.
“Second, the incorrect claim that ‘Most individuals on the left are irreligious’. Atheists and Agnostics are still a small minority even in the Left, but the Left does have a larger proportion of religious minorities and those who see themselves as broadly ‘Christian’ rather than a member of a specific sect. Finally, the author appears to be conflating biblical values with morality, and claiming that those who do not follow the Bible are per se immoral.”
Right… I’m not even sure that this has anything to do with the topic… There are more than enough Christians willing to forgo scripture when it’s convenient, and can find it in them to justify almost anything. I just want to point out the absurdity of arguing that a progressive is just as likely to be swayed in action by his religion as his conservative counterpart. I’ve never heard someone mention “the religious left”, ever.
It’s funny… I was just talking about something marginally related at a diversity conference I went to with work… “The Changing Face of Canada”… I was surprised to find out that a staggering rate of people who identify as Agnostics go to church and pray. What does being agnostic even mean at that point? Praying to who? For what? Obviously “Agnostic” means different things to different people, and translates into different actions.
“8. This seems to be a very broad reading that attempts to conflate a large group with their most vocal minority. Isn’t that the sort of thing that conservatives rightly lambasted Hillary for for her ‘basket of deplorables’ comment?”
I actually think the author has a point. I think the kind of person that commits himself to self-imposed social isolation for political reasons almost by definition has internalised their politics to a degree that someone who does not feel strongly enough to do this has. Again, I could be wrong… But how else do you get to that point?
“9. Once again, I could argue the same for the Right – except where the far left seems to want a secular, PC totalitarianism, the far right seems to want a theocracy, as evidenced by point 7.”
This is very similar to the Christiam/Muslim dichotomy. Both have a history of atrocities, and I believe if left unchecked and to their own devices, both would probably negatively effect my life. But Muslims in America are 21 times more likely (it’s a napkin math number, but it’s close) to commit mass murder. And as a gay man, you couldn’t pay me to travel to Muslim Majority nations because I have a crippling fear of falling to my death. If Christians were committing atrocities at the same rate as Muslims, I would speak out against the institution of Christianity more than I do.
Similarly, if I felt that it was legitimate that the religious right were as enthusiastic and able to be as authoritarian as the left currently is, that’s exactly where my scorn would be. Potential action just isn’t as important as current events.
“10. This is an unprovable assertion and an appeal to emotion. It also seems to fly directly in the face of the author’s assertion that people on the right don’t see leftists as evil.”
I think it’s telling that you conflate “mean” with “evil”, and go a long way to proving the author’s point in doing so.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called homophobic for saying the most innocuous of things….
What did you say?
Most recently was when I said that I thought the gay lobby went about gay marriage from the wrong angle. I think that we would have had equal protections and rights 20 years ago if we could have settled on civil unions that were called something other than “marriage”, that the movement therefore really wasn’t about ‘legal’ rights so much as it was about ‘acceptance’. ‘Acceptance’ by the way, that we still don’t necessarily have, which is why Christian bakers get treated to so much vitriol. And might never have if we don’t stop squicking the Christians.
“Is this a problem that the right has as well? I think it’s not unfair to say they do. “Cuck” needs to die a swift and painless death…. But this as with so many other things is a matter of occurrence and scale. “
Nah. Now that it’s an apt description of Alizia Tyler’s horrendously upside down world view, I think I’ll use it more often. But only in that limited context. Since it’s one of her faves!
Happy Birthday! I am sorry for your loss. My father died just the same way. Not on my birthday, but my anniversary. I hope to die in my own chair or bed as well. No muss, no fuss.
If it makes you feel any better, I was unfriended by several Trump supporters in my friend list when I made a habit of de-bunking many of their ulra-right, fake news memes. I hate political memes….most of them are at best twists and exaggerations of truth, at worst are flat out lies. My conservative friends simply state that all mainstream news sources and fact-checking sites are a huge left wing conspiracy and reliable news comes from Breitbart. I regularly correct liberals who post political memes as well. I.m just not a fan of engineered propaganda. I had a hard right friend who I called out for posting a meme that was blatantly untrue with an inflammatory photo that was not even related to the subject of the meme and his reply was “I don’t care if it’s not true, as long as it keeps “Killary” out of the White House.”
I was unfriended by my niece’s mother, not for being a Clinton supporter, but for being forthright enough to tell her that her expressed belief that “freedom of religion only applies to Christians”–her words, not mine–was bigoted.
Was I wrong to tell her this? I know many people here have a different definition of bigotry than I do, but this seems pretty clear-cut. Should I have not used the term “bigotry” to define her beliefs in order to preserve the friendship?
Were you wrong? No… But I question what you think would happen. Generally you don’t call someone a bigot to get a conversation started. Honestly, if you wanted to preserve the friendship, or even if you were willing to lose the friend, but wanted to attempt a constructive conversation, they frankly, yes, you should have started with something a little more surgical than a sledgehammer to the face.
And this isn’t just on you, this is very common to the left, and very topical to this conversion: Calling someone a bigot is silencing language. If the purpose is to piss them off, feel superior, and retreat to the echo chamber, then that’s a job well done. I asked you this before: “What If You’re Wrong”? What if that person you just called the worst thing you can think of ISN’T actually a bigot. What if they just haven’t thought about it in those terms before? Do they owe you a response? Enlightened conversation? You certainly didn’t give that to them.
If Chris is okay with 1 through 6, I’ll heartily second his opinion and congratulate him for his admirable even-handedness. 7 is probably a stretch. Personally, I’d go along with 8 and 9. 10 seems a bit of a stretch.
I would say over all Prager is one of the many people who have been pushed over the edge by the aggressive left, members of which his points best describe. I think it’s part of the counterbalancing that outfits like NRO and Fox provide and get so much abuse for providing. Over all, I’d say, all things considered, it’s fair.
Happy birthday and sorry to hear about your finding your Dad. Getting our parents underground is one of the most difficult and inescapable responsibilities we all face sooner or later.
I would say over all Prager is one of the many people who have been pushed over the edge by the aggressive left
Is there anyone whom you would describe as being “pushed over the edge by the aggressive right?”
Probably not, Chris. For example, I don’t take Evangelicals seriously and neither should anyone else. And the GOP made a terrible mistake letting them into the party when they fled the Democrats after integration. See also 5 and 6 above, which you are apparently okay with.
And I don’t see the aggressive right dominating the right the way the aggressive left is dominating the left these days, Chris. I think that’s a significant difference. Plus, the right is out-gunned. The left has Hollywood, the news media, academia, etc.
Even 20 years ago I might have disagreed with you, but I think this is fair now, we’ve experienced a shift over time, and significantly in the last ten years that the left doesn’t want to admit has happened, partly, I think, because then they might have to come fact to face with the absurdity of some of their positions.
You don’t get a choice who you “let in to a party” which is why I think all this Nazi talk is ridiculous…. So what if Nazis support Trump? Are his policies racist in and of themselves? If not, they aren’t racist by association. If they were, by that logic Hillary’s policies are the tools of terrorism. That said… The right didn’t need to PANDER to the religious right quite like they did.
“The right didn’t need to PANDER to the religious right quite like they did.”
I’d like to understand better what you mean there. Are you talking about 2016 national election campaigns (only?), about abortion? Marriage?
Speaking only for myself – considering myself on “the religious right,” but then, maybe I’m on something else, but surrounded by friends and family on what I consider the religious right – I knew exactly what the, er, non-Left was lying about concerning abortion and marriage, in hopes of drawing out voters to oppose the Left in winning numbers. My “crusade” for 2016 was to see the Left put down like they never have been put down before. But I wasn’t going to waste any pearls on swine, if I could help it. My expectations were upended; my hopes and fears were ever one and the same, per the adage: Careful what you wish for; you just might get it.
The “Right” has its own imperfections, but also has its underappreciated and under-implemented good policy ideas. As much as I am an abolitionist about abortion, I do not expect the Right ever to gain the upper hand in moving abortion policy very far, if at all, in that abolitionist direction – ever. Nor do I expect the Right to succeed in rendering the judicial decision on marriage watered-down, muddled, or (especially) “rolled back” – ever. The turning-point moments for those issues are past and will never* be time-machined back to some new present (*barring a complete breakdown of the social order, with succession by brutal, damned-foolish totalitarians).
I was (and remain) definitely frightened by the totalitarian ways of the Left. My fear affected my voting this year, but nobody on the Right was comforting me or giving me any hope of relief from that menace. In fact, I think of the Apprentice (Trump) as just a filthy rich mouthpiece for a rogue faction of the LEFT, not the Right – a figurative roadside bomb who might, for a year or two, bog down the Left’s Long March to crowning themselves Guardians of The People (and Niggerizers of Dissidents), in the fullness of their cruel, Rex-Lex, God-damning vainglory. They’ll get what they wish for.
HT, my chief contention with your “You don’t get a choice who you ‘let in to a party’…” is that the Republican Party DID let in the Apprentice, when they had 16 other, better qualified candidates competing against him (with at most two of them having any favor toward the Right). They (the Republican Party) got what they wished for. Life will only suck more.
Lucky, I applaud both your beliefs and your realism and maturity. Congratulations.
Sorry Lucky, but I wasn’t talking about this election cycle, Somewhere along the way I think the Republican party realised they needed to take the division of church and state a little more seriously, and so you’re right, in this cycle you probably didn’t hear the bells ring. And to be completely honest, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
If Christian morality is supposed to come from the book, you’ve failed, spectacularly. You probably eat food you aren’t supposed to, wear clothing you aren’t supposed to wear, and do things you aren’t supposed to on a daily basis. If you’re married, for instance, I doubt very much that you sent your wife to sit on the corner of your roof every time she menstruated and burned her clothes when she was done. No, Christians decided a very long time ago that they were going to pick and choose what they wanted to keep out of the Bible and what they didn’t, and by doing so took hold of their own morality.
I don’t mean we throw Christian values in the bin and forget them, I just think we need to ask ourselves why certain things are Christian values. While “The Book Told Me So” isn’t good enough anymore, if it ever really was…. There are things in the book, lessons in it, that still apply to today, and so now for Christian values to be relevant, you have to take that extra little step and effort and say “I think X should be policy, not only because my faith pushes me that way, but because…..” I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised with how many biblical mores have justification outside of a Christian context.
HT, since I meant to reply to your 5:17 pm comment above “later,” but, it is SO much later now, and since I don’t want to go “full Alizia” (but I truly don’t mean that to insult Alizia), I’ll just say that I appreciate your clarification, appreciate your perspective (especially as expressed in your third paragraph), and thank you for helping along my own thought process.
Feel free! I discovered notifications, and now I get a little red circle whenever anyone replies to something old (And it happens more often than I thought it would).
Never fear Lucky. I’ll take a stab at it:
“I don’t mean we throw Christian values in the bin and forget them, I just think we need to ask ourselves why certain things are Christian values. While “The Book Told Me So” isn’t good enough anymore, if it ever really was…. There are things in the book, lessons in it, that still apply to today, and so now for Christian values to be relevant, you have to take that extra little step and effort and say “I think X should be policy, not only because my faith pushes me that way, but because…..” I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised with how many biblical mores have justification outside of a Christian context”
In answer to the first ‘question’: because Christian thought is an encounter with the Hellenic world and the profundity of Pagan thought. It connects you with everything of value in ‘our traditions’. It is a false idea to understand Christian thought as an extension of Judaic thought. Christian thought is Greek thought. See: ‘The Legacy of Greece’ Esays by Gilbert Murray, WR Inge, A Toynbee and RW Livingstone among many others. See especially WR Inge’s essay on ‘Religion’.
Once one makes that connection, which is also a disconnection, one is in a very different territoty and, in my own view, that is where progress begins.
Houston Chamberlain referred to the swamp and slurry of the ancient world as ‘a chaos of peoples’. Much of Christianity has to do with this swamp of ideas. However, it is possible to clarify the water so to speak and Greek rationalism and a greater appreciation of Christianity’s connection with especially the best of Hellenic thought is the means of clarification. If you think it through you will see that there is really no other way.
The straight-across rejection of Christianity by a sort of mind (like yours HT) is the easiest mistake that can be made because it appears most ‘logical’ and even necessary. To rescue ‘the Spirit’ as it were is the most difficult undertaking (IMO). If you compare St Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus with the gist of Plato’s statements about philosophy in his Seventh Epistle you will, I think, underdtand what I mean.
This was really only a “1/3 Full Alizia” and I am sorry for that. I do not wish to short-change anyone. My best friend is visiting with her kids and they are making a racket and demanding attention.
I’ve got some grandkids on the way to visit, too. So I understand, Alizia. Thank you too. I do like how HT thinks and expresses himself, and I am reading your comments more and more and finding good nuggets.
Your generosity is appreciated! I also like HT’s posts.
You’re right, HT. Pander is the right term.
“For example, I don’t take Evangelicals seriously and neither should anyone else. And the GOP made a terrible mistake letting them into the party when they fled the Democrats after integration.”
So Evangelicals joined the GOP because Evangelicals are racists?
You wanna re-do that one?
Thanks Tex; what you quoted in Italics caught my eye too, and I was going to ask him about that (but not the same thing you ask there). But then I got carried away with trying to make sure I understand Jeff. (still meaning to follow-up his latest reply, later) I had thought about the possible racist (anti-integration) angle to the realignment of the formerly (Democrat) “Solid South.” But I speculate that the “defection” was due to much more than just that alone – but you can’t dismiss the racist angle, because there was such a clear schism between southern blacks and southern whites. Then, there’s the ever-present ease of conflation of racism with “states rights” views.
Tex. Of course many bible thumpers are retrograde. George Wallace, the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond, Lester Maddox. Southern Baptists. They were all right out of Clemens or Faulkner. It’s the legacy of people like that, and their heirs, that have made the GOP so unattractive to younger, non-southern voters.
Let me put it a little more succinctly. I think lots of Evangelical Christians are essentially theocrats. As such they are not a great addition to any political party in a country valuing the separation of Church and State as one of its founding principles.
I cannot say each of the ten points is fair and accurate for all but I do think each of the ten can be associated with individual rationales for defriending people.
I would say that many rabid Trump supporters can be as closed minded as those who believe anyone that supported Trump is an uneducated moron because they choose to overlook some of his failings instead of ignoring the opposition’s integrity challenges, lies and condescension. The difference is that the left has consistently pushed the idea that people who chose to support Trump are nothing but biggots who must be excised from society. The right simply calls them socialists. Before someone brings up the alt-right dogma I suggest that they consider the Muslim/terrorist issue. Do not claim that all conservatives or Trump supporters are supporting neo-facist nationalists while you simultaneously promote the fact that 99 percent of muslims are peace loving people and terrorism is being done by others perverting the faith.
You cant have it both ways.
Happy birthday, Jack. My husband’s grandmother passed the day after his birthday, a few months before we got married. I think we were married 10 years before he would even acknowledge his birthday, I understand how you feel. Best wishes, and I hope you have a nice time with your family.
As for the list, I’m seeing 1,3, and 5 daily. I think 6 applies as well. When a friend shared the “Trump is on trial for rape in December” meme and everybody piled on, I debunked it, saying how odd the suit was, how it was filed, etc. I said that an allegation is not proof, that innocence is presumed until guilt is proven, and her answer was ” But it doesn’t matter if there’s a case or not…” and frankly that was shocking. They knew the suit is fishy, but if was going to defeat Trump, it was fair game. These were the same people who were calling any and all allegations against Hillary false even when they involved the FBI because “She’s never been convicted”.
The modeling photos of the First Lady being used to ridicule Trump are more of the same tactics. Some of those sharing them were same people always talking about being ‘body positive’ and ‘sex positive’. This is the behavior of bullies, using information they know is false or potentially embarrassing, and justifying it because it’s against someone they hate. Any means towards their end. So, yes, to me they seem to be emoting more than they are thinking, and personal worth directly linked to how closely you think like they do. My FB page is pretty silent lately, none of them like or comment any more. I’m assumed to have voted for Trump because I dared defend him. It reminds me of junior high…to me this kind of ‘think like us or you’re out’ just smacks of immaturity, intolerance, and emotion-based reasoning.
Because of this, I can see people leaning towards the conclusion that religion(more common on the right)= honesty, and that religion is necessary to have a moral backbone, as those on the left seem to flip-flop on their positions dependent on how they feel on any given issue, and defend boorish behavior ( the Hamilton flap, for one example) when it benefits them. Spreading false information knowingly, open ridicule,things we’ve been taught are wrong since childhood being deemed proper depending on the target…that’s too fluid for a lot of people. I think, though, that it’s wrong-headed to jump to the conclusion that only religion can guarantee good character. I can’t agree with 7-10. That’s making too many broad presumptions.
I don’t know what the reason for this phenomenon is, but I can say that the public divide between the parties is certainly spilling over into communities and families. Fish rots, head down.
But, Happy Birthday, Jack. I hope you can find joy in it.
Although the National Review fell into the camp of the Never Trumpers, I believe in general their analysis is accurate. Take #4 for example: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro never gave a whit about the effect their policies were having on individuals. I believe this is true for the progressive lefties in America. They are so wrapped up in their narcissistic vision of what America should be that they easily overlook the effect that their harebrained scenes are having on ‘privileged’ individuals and society in general. I’m uncertain whether all leftists believe that anyone who doesn’t support their policies is evil: However the labels they use to describe those that believe otherwise to demonize individuals and groups such as homophobic, misogynistic, racist, chauvinistic, leads me to believe that this is generally correct.
#6 “The Left associates human decency not so much with personal integrity as with having correct — i.e. progressive — political positions.”
This, at least, is SPOT ON. And it is a uniquely Leftist issue.
At the far extreme of Marxism, ALL morality is boiled down to politics. Either you identify with the just, downtrodden proletariat, or you are part of the corrupt, capitalist system. And that lens colors how modern Leftists see everything.
“Systems of oppression” “the patriarchy” “the military-industrial complex” “the vast right-wing conspiracy” “the Jewish cabal” “the 1%” “the religious right” “the theocracy” “white supremacy” “rape culture” … people are not individuals, they are either radical freedom-fighters (how they imagine themselves), or part of some villainous organization of fat cats, scheming about how to destroy the world.
It’s a tempting way to look at things, precisely because it doesn’t require introspection. If you can lump yourself in with some oppressed group, or at least be accepted as an ally, you don’t have to worry about whether you might be, say, a liar, or a crook. You are at worst, a lovable rogue, because you’re still on the side of the good guys.
It’s not exclusively Leftist to be tempted to see oneself as a hero striving against an impersonal foe (political conservatives could and do see themselves that way with the State as the foe), but there is a counterbalance on the political Right to this delusion, and that is the traditional, Protestant ethic. In Christianity the chief enemy is the self. If you take Christianity seriously (or were at some point informed by its values, as much of the West is) then you are encouraged to “repent,” to examine yourself, and to purge yourself of vices like dishonesty, hate, anger, greed, and so forth. Only after this struggle can you even “see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.”
Marxist revolutionary thought plays right into the human urge to ignore one’s own faults and blame all problems, personal and large-scale, on external forces. The end result is more nastiness and self-righteousness all around. It’s why every Leftist revolution against greed, corruption, and violence ends in an orgy of even more greed, corruption, and violence. We are all about to learn, as millennials take their place in the halls of power and eventually run the country, that introspection (and things like guilt, shame, and humility) are kinda important.
I’ve had several supposed friends unfriend me on facebook over this election. I did support Trump although I don’t particularly like some of the things in his past. The main point of contention is that many on the left have convinced themselves of the bigotry, misogyny and islamophobia lies spewed by left wing propagandists and insist on attaching those attributes to anyone who supported Trump. When asked to support their claims, they react with anger and are unable to understand or accept that someone might be willing to make a leap of faith and give someone like Trump a chance when presented with an alternative like Clinton who represents more of the same stuff that has denigrated this country over the last eight years. They then lose their minds and unfriend you when you point out that their nearly intolerable hubris is every bit as intolerant, divisive, and hateful as they claim Trump supporters to be even though they are the ones storming away mad when they hit the unfriend button. Just my own observations.
P.S. Happy Birthday!!
Yesterday, my premature son turned blue in my arms and the nurses had to run to him to make sure he was okay. They also had to put an IV into him.
Today, I was able to hold him for the first time since that moment.
I know I am just an irregular commentator on the Internet, but I thought knowing that something really happy happened today just might do a little to brighten up what is obviously a very difficult day for you.
You’re so kind. Thank you. And congratulations…how wonderful!
I think it’s true for most utopian idealists, especially those on the religious right as well as progressive left.
Example:
Dear Governor McCrory:
As North Carolinians and Pediatricians with specialty training in Endocrinology, we respectfully request that you reconsider Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (HB2).
A law that defines biological sex as “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate” is inherently flawed and potentially harmful to a group of children that we care for in our pediatric practices.
As professional experts in the field of chromosomes and genital anatomy, we provide professional consultation to our colleagues on babies in whom assigning sex may not be possible at the time of birth. For example, there are babies born in whom chromosomes suggesting one sex do not match the appearance of the genitalia. This can be due to multiple biological causes such as chromosome abnormalities, abnormalities in anatomic development, environmental exposures during pregnancy, genetic mutations in the syn thesis and actions of adrenal and gonadal hormones, and tumors that make sex hormones.
For these children, gender assignment at birth is challenging and takes substantial time – sometimes requiring re – evaluation over months to years. Severe hormonal imbalances at birth may also result in gender assignments at the time of the birth that may require reassignment later in life.
Our patients already face major medical and social challenges and HB2 creates unnecessary hardship for these vulnerable youth. We respectfully ask you to repeal this hurtful bill.
Respectfully, Deanna W.Adkins, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Duke University Medical Center
Evelyn Artz, MD Pediatric Endocrinology Mission Children’s Specialties Mission Children’s Hospital
Robert Benjamin, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Duke University Medical Center
Ali S. Calikoglu, MD Professor of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Cathrine Constantacos, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Section of Pediatric Endocrinology Wake Forest Baptist Health Brenner Children’s Hospital
A. Joseph D’Ercole, MD Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Elizabeth Estrada, MD Clinical Professor of Pediatrics Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Michael Freemark, MD Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Professor of Pediatrics Chief, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Duke University Medical Center
Nancy E. Friedman MD Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Duke University Medical Center
Pinar Gumus Balikcioglu, M.D . Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Duke University Medical Center
Nina Jain, MD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Kateryna Kotlyarevska, MD Pediatric Endocrinology New Hanover Regional Medical Center
Jennifer Law, MD, MSCR Assistant Professor of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Nancie MacIver, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes Duke University Medical Center
Shipra Patel, MD Adjunct Faculty of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Elizabeth Sandberg, MD Incoming Fellow Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Robert Schwartz,MD Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics Section of Pediatric Endocrinology Wake Forest Baptist Health Brenner Children’s Hospital
Maureen A. Su, MD Associate Professor of Pediatrics Division of Pediatric Endocrinology University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I’m not going to say you’re wrong… But doesn’t that make Jack’s point? “The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions?” So what, it still goes to Hell.
There was never any good intent about HB2.
It has as much logic as banning Bahais from owning lighters or matches, or purchasing gasoline, because a Bahai or someone pretending to be a Bahai might burn down an orphanage. Even though that’s never actually happened, it might, right?
I originally wrote “Jew” rather than Bahai. But the analogy fails then, the existence of the Jewish faith is too well known, I had to pick something many have never heard of, or know the first thing about.
HB2 catered for bigots, and those who are ill-informed and fearful of what they don’t understand. Mostly the latter, and they can hardly be faulted for not knowing much about this specialised area, so falling for malicious lies deliberately crafted to “get out the base”.
It was a vehicle for rolling back civil rights for Blacks to pre-1985, for reducing minimum wages statewide, and for concentrating power in the state legislature. The bathroom stuff was the pretext, and a very effective one too. The other 4/5 of the bill was a GOP wishlist they’d never be able to get passed after any debate in the normal fashion.
On another subject.. it has been my impression, right or wrong, that very many on the Right just want to stick it to the Left, regardless of consequences. Undermine the 1st Amendment? That will make Lefties heads explode! Increase infant mortality? That will show em!
I don’t see this poisonous partisanship ending soon, and it certainly played the major role in Trump’s victory. The worse he does, the more likely he’ll get a second term. And a third if things go badly enough, though I don’t expect that even now.
A lot of those in flyover country wouldn’t consider it too great a tragedy if a few of those democrat-dominated cities got nuked. That would show em, getting rid of the eggheads, commies and elites..
Meanwhile here am I dismissing real people as “flyover country”, showing exactly the arrogant disdain they so rightly complain of. In that regard, I’m no better. Ah Spit. Need to work on that.
Has anyone noted how non-self-aware the Left is these days?
Ok, I will defer to these docs opinion that it is difficult to assign gender in a small number of cases of children at birth. I have never read this “hurtful bill” and I doubt that I ever will. However, as a layman I would think by adolescence it would be pretty apparent what sex a youth is. I believe that the religious right has far fewer utopian idealists than the left. Maybe the Puritans or the Shakers might have been described as utopian but I don’t think that there’s any of them still around. There are still plenty of utopian leftists in America today along with awful countries such as Venezuela and it’s pretty clear what they do to a society.
It seems a safe statement that the political Left, as in America and Canada and Europe, could be said to be largely motivated by a utopian vision. This seems especially true in America where — and not only Lefties but the Center-Conservatives — operate with this bizarre (utopian) ideal that all the races of the world can be blended together into political and social harmony, et cetera, et cetera. The multicultural social and economic vision is an expression of utopianism. Add to that the Colors of the Gay Rainbow and any sort of deviance (which cannot of course be called such) and I think one can readily see that America is itself a Utopian nation. Two thousand one hundred and twenty-two times (it might be twenty three now) I have mentioned Robert Bellah and his idea of America’s ‘civic religion’ and it seems to me that especially in America utopianism operates very strongly.
I have said that the political and progressive Left seems to be an effect of a shift to a post-Christianity. My understanding is that since the 50s or so people have left their churches but that a form of Unitarian Liberal-post-Christianity is something like the reigning religion. It seems to offer to people a structure through which they can name and attack evil (a relishable and satisfying activity) and align themselves with the Good. It simply has lost its vertical dimension, if you understand me. It is now played ‘horizontally’.
Having read a fair amount of the Catholic theologians (like Christopher Dawson, one of my favorites) I think that ‘mature Christianity’ and often especially the Catholics, have a pretty solid grasp of human nature. So they have a great deal of patience and understanding — toleration — of human foibles. Usually they align themselves more to the Conservative side and always act as a brake on forward-rushing Liberal culture. If they are utopian it is with the long LONG view in mind. It seems to me that this religious conservatism still understands that the field where the *work* must go on is inside the person predominantly. In contrast, my impression is that the Progressive Left is extroverted. It wants to impose changes externally and that is how it understands ‘spiritual work’.
Now, I will say that I think you are quite wrong about Venezuela! I don’t think the high-minded ‘democratic’ Americans will like this much, and it will be just one more self-banged hammer in my own coffin, but to a significant degree what is destroying Venezuela-as-nation is the people itself. Hugo Chavez represented and reflected the brute citizen, the unprepared citizen, the thoroughly and completely uneducated citizen. He reflected and acted as ‘the body’ rising up to take over the ‘directing mind’. He represents the ‘brown people’, the people of the lower orders, taking over the activity and the social responsibility of the directing class, which is to say the white upper-echelon. Thus ‘Venezuela’ represents what is now coming to pass in America except that in Venezuela ‘they’ are 80-85%. But it is basically the same phenomenon that is beginning in America and it extends directly from 60s politics and the civil rights movement.
There is no cure for it except white people gaining renewed consciousness and defeating what Lothrop Stoddard called ‘The Rising Tide of Color’. I laugh inside me because I know that when *you* read this the idea behind it is ‘inconsiderable’.
I think that some of the Lefties who write on this blog (no names need be mentioned) understand well when they notice that it was a white block that brought Mr Trump into the White House. And they are right to understand that this is white America asserting itself, or beginning to, as-against brown America. Blasphemous words, I know. Remember Dosoevsky’s ‘Notes from Underground’? It was really ‘notes from under the floorboards’ but I would use it to indicate that rising up out of the ground itself, from a silent and repressed people, the people who made everything that is of value in America and the ones who can preserve it: they begin to sound from ‘under the floorboards’. They have been stupidified but they are now beginning to wake up.
Well, if they don’t: Venezuela. Years ago a veritable anti-Marxist that I used to argue AGAINST (I know, unbelievable) said ‘I predict that one day Obama will sit down with Castro and share a celebration drink’. It didn’t quite happen that way. But it happened more or less with Raul, didn’t it? That is your ‘rising tide of color’ and it comes to you in Maoist tones. You either see it and resist it, or get on board with it.
What do you think Wayne? Should I go into politics? 😉
An interesting analysis but wrong about Venezuela and Chavez: According to Wiki, he won the election in 1989 with 56% of the vote, not 80-85% with most of his support coming from the poorer sectors of Venezuela. The morenos (brown skinned people) compose about 50% of the population. Venezuela like Mexico has plenty of oil and is one of the world’s leading exporters. However Chavez really messed up the economy and as a result his price controls caused shortages in basic foods such as cooking oil, chicken, cheese, etc. and prices skyrocketed. Caracas has the highest murder rate in the world. It’s basically a country that has fallen apart.
I think you got a typo: it was 1998. Man, that is another good reason why not to trust Wiki! I used to rely on it but you can’t now. The white population is about 20% and 65% is mestizo with somewhere around 10% being Black. The rest are Indians and Arabs and Chinese.
His support comes from the lower sections of the population and the Chavez phenomenon was powered by the fuel of resentment. Also, Venezuelans have very very poor work habits. It got worse after Chavez came to power.
I understand that you base your view on some statistics or something you read and that is fine. But don’t forget what I said as, in fact, it is largely true. But I understand that it is not a popular view and not one that you can repeat in polite company.
“This seems especially true in America where — and not only Lefties but the Center-Conservatives — operate with this bizarre (utopian) ideal that all the races of the world can be blended together into political and social harmony, et cetera, et cetera”
This apparent thesis statement and first principle for your entire world view is pretty much finished as soon as it exits the starting gates, given that for the most part, ethnicities, including non-white ones — such as asian communities, post-reconstruction african immigration, and pre-modern era immigration from islamic areas, etc have had little to NO difficulty assimilating into American culture.
Yes, the african-american community specifically descended from the direct abuses of slavery have had the hardest time assimilating and were doing quite well at it, but now may never truly assimilate due to rather nefarious efforts on the part of one half ot he political spectrum.
Yes, the Mexican-American community is having an increasingly difficult time assimilating, but they have another distinctly unique immigration situation, given that their cultural base of support is readily accessible just across the border.
And of course, I expect the Arab community of the Islamic persuasion to increasingly have dificulty assimilating in the modern era. Yet THEY DID JUST FINE before.
Your little thesis hinges on the notion that ethnicities just simply cannot assimilate into one culture…and the fact that even ONE has been able to (let alone the dozens who have done so) undermines your worldview in it’s ENTIRETY. Your entire set of conclusions are driven on flawed premises. A premise, by the way, that is derived directly from the Leftist narrative that one of the key divides between Left and Right is one of Race-Inclusion vs Race-Division. A narrative by the way that never has been based in fact and has only been pushed in an effort for the Left to distance itself from the Nazis mid-century because all the totalitarian regimes increasingly were leftist, the Nazis were an easy one to push away from so the Left wouldn’t look AS BAD). They made the narratives and definitions that you are falling for…if anything, your camp are the ‘cucks’ you so love labelling others as. Cucks being played for fools by the hyper-Left.
But, enjoy playing Beer-Hall Putsch…if it makes you feel better.
You should probably start by divorcing “culture” from “ethnicity” and you might start to understand how your worldview falls flat on it’s face.
My ‘little thesis’ does not hinge on that. It actually hinges on other considerations. Many others. It is an expression of chauvinism and white identity and is ‘reactionary’ to post 1965 immigration policy. Fifty years of demographic shift, et cetera, et cetera. You may not like it, and that is both fine and certainly understandable. While I understand the position and the outlook, and I also respect and admire many who are developing it, what I am uncertain about is where it will go.
You make a mistake when you assume erroneously that people are ‘playing’, and then you also make a mistake when you mistake what is being ‘played’. It is more serious and more consequential than you seem aware of. I don’t think I go over the top in mentioning my perspectives and I do try to tone it down. I think of myself (here) as one bringing a message. If it is listened to, fine. If not, also fine. I don’t even mind the ridicule!
The European Right that I admire is neither Left nor Right. It is a perspective that locates itself in the present and views ‘what is going on’ from unique vantage. The Alt-Right is somewhat embarrassingly incomplete and inchoate. But as I say they are working out their perspectives. And they are here to stay (though I don’t mean to sound dramatic)/.
“It actually hinges on other considerations. Many others.”
Oh? Could you list some of your other first principles??? I actually know you have other ones, but I were compelled to derive your first principles ONLY from what you’ve written here, it would boils down to “differing ethnicities are absolutely incompatible”.
Because really seems like the only one you ever discuss is that it’s impossible for different ethnicities to work in a unified culture…
I wait with bated breath.
“The Alt-Right is somewhat embarrassingly incomplete and inchoate. “
Understatement of the century.
I think most juveniles go through totalitarian phases and alt-left phases. Hell I even went through a “gee communism sounds awesome” phase in high school for about a half-hour. I may even have looked at the Nazi’s and said “man they’ve got some pretty snazzy uniforms and awesome Tanks”, but then my 9th grade mind matured.
It’s just really sad when juvenilistic totalitarians never grow up and actually examine human nature balanced with self-awareness of their own human nature. They either become hyper-Utopians (progressives) or whatever the hell you are, which I think alt-left is a pretty awesome description, since even the Left has successfully distanced itself from the national-socialists (a left oriented philosophy from its inception).
Inchoate.
Word of the day.
Inchoate is roughly equivalent of Alizia Tyler’s world view.
“imperfectly formed or formulated”
Let’s start by examining this (our) conversation from some distance. Because with you it has always seemed to be less about what is said or communicated and more about your bad habits of communication. You start from a position of insult. You start from a negation and you immediately communicate that because you feel free to insult and deride you really are not in a conversation with the other person. Almost all of your posts, and of course when you are ‘battling’ those you disagree with take place through this form. Now, with that bit of information stated I say that through that I *locate* you. I don’t have the time or the desire to go into the detail it merits but I have noticed that one blogs and forums like this people tend to take predictable positions and general attitudes and, very quickly, the conversations polarize into their ‘classic forms’.
Therefor, I assume (I think it is correct) that you are 100% non-interested in what I think, or what my intellectual goals are, or spiritual goals, or really anything at all. No matter what I have said (in the past, when I first interacted with you) you have made it clear that you think that I am a joke. Talking to you, that is what one gets from you. There is something that is self-centered about you, even strangely narcissistic. But by this I am speaking more about *habits of communication* that have been developed. I don’t really have an interest in sounding out the reasons why you take this tack. I don’t have any good reason to care. So, I more or less humor you.
But what I will say to you, though you likely will not wish to hear it, is that by denying anyone your basic respect you indicate pretty clearly where you stand in regard to the very important issue of respect for other people. I have been reading your thoughts on Christianity and the importance and valuation of the ‘individual’, but I notice in you that you largely do not show yourself as respecting individuals. For this reason I can only take conversation with you with limited seriousness.
The basic structure of your argument is constructed on a false-metaphor. I mean the ‘Amerikadeutscher Volksbund’ references which have appeared in each of your recent posts. It is a mistake for you to see any of the Alt-Right or the European New Right in this way. But I don’t think this statement will stop you from seeing it (or them or anyone) according to your chosen and established frame. Remember: you start from this position and you end in it. It is a sort of loop for you (and you made the reference to ‘loops’ of this sort below I think).
But this is how it actually plays out, in reality. The European New Right, from a position within postwar modernity *reviews* the postwar period as a creation in all senses: economic, ideological, in how it understands freedom, and in what its overall designs and goals are. And it involves itself in a Project of Villification against the ideas, modes, objects, and goals of the others, its enemies. My impression has been that this Right examines the whole structure from a different angle, maybe a more neutral angle is the way to describe it. But it notices that we create certain *narratives* about ourself, and the same about others, which amounts to a framing of both what we do and then how we relate to ourselves. This particular Right investigates that, questions it, puts pressure on our views and assumptions. It is a critical position, and it is one that takes issue with aspects of what has been created in our own world, and it is one that also examines the ideas and platforms of the other (that might be very right-wing political ideas such as found in Catholic hardcore and semi-fascistic writings and in many different so-called ‘ultra-right’ sources from the early 20th century but also especially the interwar period). My impression is that it stands back to some degree and seeks to examine it all but from a perspective within a present that it (this Right) questions. When I say ‘questions’ I mean of course ‘is opposed to’ ‘sees as corrupt’ ‘understands as careening out of control’ and as well that, in its own ways, is inimical to the individual in, perhaps I might say, the classic Christian sense.
First Principles therefor have basically to do with this Individual. Alain de Benoit as one example seems to me to start from a principled position when he, from the Right (though he did not define himself as such), critiques the strange and destructive events that began to unfold in France 1968. To understand his critique you’d have to read it. But it is based, in my view, in the unique position of the European Individual (and in this sense I think you might agree: the 1000 year Christian and European project has allowed for the Individual in a special sense to come to exist). I certainly do not desire to quibble with you over any of these details and I only mention them because it is important to understanding the ENR.
As I understand it, the further issues branch out of the most basic one (the sovereignty of the individual) and I think they question and challenge the *mechanisms’ and *machinations* of social and economic structures which, from a given perspective, rush people along in their current. I think that in essence this Movement is reactionary to the Present perhaps in a similar way that Christopher Dawson is when he presents a critique of modernity in, as one example, ‘The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: The Way to a Renewal of Human Life’. That in itself is an entire statement! (And the book is very good). But my point is that this ENR, in its different manifestations, is a quest for renewal. Its propositions begin in that mood, shall we say. Actually, it seems to start in essentially a ‘spiritual’ mode, that is, abstract to some degree; personal; interior.
The question you asked (::: laughs :::) was about First Principles and I have made an effort to answer you to a small degree. But of course to understand anything it always requires more work. Work that you likely have no interest in. But I present this because what more concerns me is the American Alt-Right and the American Continental Alt-Right (Alt-Derecha is a term that also has traction in Spanish-speaking circles, in Argentina and Chile, in Colombia, in Mexico and of course in Spain where it is developing quite strongly in fact). I must also mention in South Africa. Whether you like it or not, and whether you understand it or not, or take it seriously or not, there are people who are working together within the wide pan-European community, so to get clear about their situation, about the modern structure of society, about patterns of globalization, but in the very essence I will say that it touches on prime questions of ethics and morality.
This is sort of Part 1. I will try to expand on some other parts (and address the segregationist aspect, or the ‘white supremicist’ aspect which most concerns you and everyone, and with justice).
A clarification: “And it [read: our own modernity, our own culture] involves itself in a Project of Villification against the ideas, modes, objects, and goals of the others, its enemies [fascism, ultra-right, etc.]. My impression has been that this Right examines the whole structure [our own mdernity] from a different angle, maybe a more neutral angle is the way to describe it.
I beg forgiveness. I really need an edit function perhaps more than others.
This is what I meant to say in the 5th paragraph. It is an important idea and I wanted to clarify it.
“But this is how it actually plays out, in reality. The European New Right, from a position within postwar modernity *reviews* the postwar period as a creation in all senses: economic, ideological, in how it understands freedom, and in what its overall designs and goals are.
“In our present one notices a Project of Vilification against the ideas, modes, objects, and goals of the others, its enemies. My impression has been that New European Right examines the whole structure from a different angle, maybe a more neutral angle is the way to describe it. But it notices that we create certain *narratives* about ourself, and the same about others, which amounts to a framing of both what we do and then how we relate to ourselves.”
I’m going to do something with this diatribe that I’ve always want to do with one of yours. I’m actually going to break it down so you can see once and for all why you really don’t say much at all using a record-breaking quantity of words. Full disclosure: I pasted in your edits from your own post-scripts.
“Let’s start by examining this (our) conversation from some distance. Because with you it has always seemed to be less about what is said or communicated and more about your bad habits of communication. You start from a position of insult. You start from a negation and you immediately communicate that because you feel free to insult and deride you really are not in a conversation with the other person. Almost all of your posts, and of course when you are ‘battling’ those you disagree with take place through this form. Now, with that bit of information stated I say that through that I *locate* you. I don’t have the time or the desire to go into the detail it merits but I have noticed that one blogs and forums like this people tend to take predictable positions and general attitudes and, very quickly, the conversations polarize into their ‘classic forms’.
Therefor, I assume (I think it is correct) that you are 100% non-interested in what I think, or what my intellectual goals are, or spiritual goals, or really anything at all. No matter what I have said (in the past, when I first interacted with you) you have made it clear that you think that I am a joke. Talking to you, that is what one gets from you. There is something that is self-centered about you, even strangely narcissistic. But by this I am speaking more about *habits of communication* that have been developed. I don’t really have an interest in sounding out the reasons why you take this tack. I don’t have any good reason to care. So, I more or less humor you.
But what I will say to you, though you likely will not wish to hear it, is that by denying anyone your basic respect you indicate pretty clearly where you stand in regard to the very important issue of respect for other people. I have been reading your thoughts on Christianity and the importance and valuation of the ‘individual’, but I notice in you that you largely do not show yourself as respecting individuals. For this reason I can only take conversation with you with limited seriousness.
The basic structure of your argument is constructed on a false-metaphor. I mean the ‘Amerikadeutscher Volksbund’ references which have appeared in each of your recent posts. It is a mistake for you to see any of the Alt-Right or the European New Right in this way. But I don’t think this statement will stop you from seeing it (or them or anyone) according to your chosen and established frame. Remember: you start from this position and you end in it. It is a sort of loop for you (and you made the reference to ‘loops’ of this sort below I think).”
24.
24 sentences & 465 words dedicated to self-styled martyrdom.
At least Chris got the sentiment across in about a half dozen words.
“But this is how it actually plays out, in reality. The European New Right, from a position within postwar modernity *reviews* the postwar period as a creation in all senses: economic, ideological, in how it understands freedom, and in what its overall designs and goals are.
In our present one notices a Project of Vilification against the ideas, modes, objects, and goals of the others, its enemies. My impression has been that New European Right examines the whole structure from a different angle, maybe a more neutral angle is the way to describe it. But it notices that we create certain *narratives* about ourself, and the same about others, which amounts to a framing of both what we do and then how we relate to ourselves.”
This particular Right investigates that, questions it, puts pressure on our views and assumptions. It is a critical position, and it is one that takes issue with aspects of what has been created in our own world, and it is one that also examines the ideas and platforms of the other (that might be very right-wing political ideas such as found in Catholic hardcore and semi-fascistic writings and in many different so-called ‘ultra-right’ sources from the early 20th century but also especially the interwar period). My impression is that it stands back to some degree and seeks to examine it all but from a perspective within a present that it (this Right) questions. When I say ‘questions’ I mean of course ‘is opposed to’ ‘sees as corrupt’ ‘understands as careening out of control’ and as well that, in its own ways, is inimical to the individual in, perhaps I might say, the classic Christian sense.”
9 sentences; 281 words to say in other words “I think the Alt-Right is approaches from an objective and inquisitive angle with implications that other world views don’t. I subtly imply that I think other world views succumb to blinders that somehow Alt-Right doesn’t.” That took 35 words and 2 sentences.
You use a ton of buzz words and intellectual sounding phraseology to juice it up a bit. I find this comical.
“First Principles therefor have basically to do with this Individual. Alain de Benoit as one example seems to me to start from a principled position when he, from the Right (though he did not define himself as such), critiques the strange and destructive events that began to unfold in France 1968. To understand his critique you’d have to read it. But it is based, in my view, in the unique position of the European Individual (and in this sense I think you might agree: the 1000 year Christian and European project has allowed for the Individual in a special sense to come to exist). I certainly do not desire to quibble with you over any of these details and I only mention them because it is important to understanding the ENR.”
Or, “I like Alain de Benoit’s views because of his experiences.”
Meaty.
“As I understand it, the further issues branch out of the most basic one (the sovereignty of the individual) and I think they question and challenge the *mechanisms’ and *machinations* of social and economic structures which, from a given perspective, rush people along in their current. I think that in essence this Movement is reactionary to the Present perhaps in a similar way that Christopher Dawson is when he presents a critique of modernity in, as one example, ‘The Historic Reality of Christian Culture: The Way to a Renewal of Human Life’. That in itself is an entire statement! (And the book is very good). But my point is that this ENR, in its different manifestations, is a quest for renewal. Its propositions begin in that mood, shall we say. Actually, it seems to start in essentially a ‘spiritual’ mode, that is, abstract to some degree; personal; interior.”
Or, “I think the Alt-Right approaches things from an objective and inquisitive angle with implications that other world views don’t. Here’s a book I read.”
“The question you asked (::: laughs :::) was about First Principles and I have made an effort to answer you to a small degree.”
I suppose– if “sovereignty of the individual” is the one you were going for.
“But of course to understand anything it always requires more work. Work that you likely have no interest in.”
I will admit to finding such an interest difficult after reading three dozen or so sentences of pure fluff…
“But I present this because what more concerns me is the American Alt-Right and the American Continental Alt-Right (Alt-Derecha is a term that also has traction in Spanish-speaking circles, in Argentina and Chile, in Colombia, in Mexico and of course in Spain where it is developing quite strongly in fact). I must also mention in South Africa. Whether you like it or not, and whether you understand it or not, or take it seriously or not, there are people who are working together within the wide pan-European community, so to get clear about their situation, about the modern structure of society, about patterns of globalization, but in the very essence I will say that it touches on prime questions of ethics and morality.”
Or, “I’m interested in the movement and so are other people.”
Ok. What?
“This is sort of Part 1. I will try to expand on some other parts”
What exactly did you expand on in that? That was tons of fluff and essentially an assertion that the Alt-Right is trying to interpret facts a certain way. And…………….
“(and address the segregationist aspect, or the ‘white supremicist’ aspect which most concerns you and everyone, and with justice).”
By all means do expand on segregation and ‘white supremacy’. I do wonder how it will related back to my observation…that it would appear the only real first principle you work from is “different ethnicities are incompatible in the same community”.
You see, I do read your sundry palavers; I just simply fail to see much substance. I see a ton of discussing your intent. I see a ton of mentioning that you are seeking something. I see a ton of describing that you are on a quest. But, someday you’ll need to wrap up the prologue and get to chapter 1.
Hi there Tex. Thanks for taking the time to go through everything. That took a bit of time I’m sure. I don’t have much to add right now except that instead of a duel out on the windy plains of Texas with all appropriate props and conventions (eeirie wind, coyote howling, sizzling bacon) that you simply agree to euthanasia and that I then stuff you in the finest taxidermic traditions. How shall you be dressed? I have cleaned out a corner between the bookshelves and I think you’ll be very happy there. I’m considering that mechanism where you pull the string and hear a recording:
“Stop. Just stop!” Is the one I like.
“that you simply agree to euthanasia”
The thought crossed my mind while wallowing through your piece.
Wallowing is no proper means of locomotion. Try a cangurín (Pogo-Stick).
I thought you might be interested to know that Richard Spencer spoke at A&M yesterday. The full talk, with the very interesting Q&A that followed can be Googled: Richard Spencer at Texas A&M.
This is really an important juncture. It is the first time that I know of where a White is expressing his white identity position openly and publically. This is where this movement is going. I predict that this is the beginning of far-reaching changes in and for America. Spencer does not, in the rntire talk, give a very good talk overall. But the thing that amazes me is that the conversation of *our position* has come out of the shadows.
You recently rehearsed some of your misunderstanding about ‘Cuckism’. My impression is that the audacity and the frankness of Spencer’s presentation and this aspect of *our movement* will illustrate how New Conservatism renders you ‘Cuckservatives’ who [i]serve[/i] liberal-progressive interests.
In any case the dividing lines become more clear. And it is ‘only the beginning’ as the saying goes.
Given that your entire world-view is derived from playing the game exactly as the Left has defined the game, it is safer to refer to your camp as the Cucks.
Given that your world-view is merely the pushing of a modification of left-wing values, just exclusive of non-whites, it’s better to call your view Alt-Left. Though it is convenient to call it Alt-Right since the term derives from European politics, where the Right and Left are vastly different from the American Right and Left…
But by all means, keep up your prologues. One of these days you’ll actually try to substantively elucidate on your conclusions.
As it happens, and FYI, I think I would qualify as a thinker who is exploring what was known during the interwar period as ‘radical third-way options’. But I would like you to know that I came to this through a pretty extensive reading project and well before I met my bf and the people he knows.
I came to believe, but not to be certain, that the Conservative position as a stance against radical Progressivism had merit. When I investigated further I came to understand the metaphysics: the Conservatives tend to place their focus on the notion of ‘Being’ and the Progressives on that of ‘Becoming’. One defends ‘what is’ and the other longs for and is willing to gamble for ‘what might be’. Ultimately, the positions a person stakes out (IMO) stem from one’s metaphysical predicates. (Johannine Christianity, as you may remeber my references, is a christological position leaning more toward ‘Being’).
Now, you have obviously caught me in my own dilemma. I am stuck in a sense in a pull between the two positions. I see all the merit of the Being position (to resort to a metaphysic that sees all value and meaning as already in existence, and thus that man only has to apply wisdom but hold to an unmoveable core), and as well that of Becoming (that we have to go to work on our world, that it is always in mutation and transformation and because that is so we, too, have to work to attain ‘progress’ through endless modification).
It is a very old dilemma in fact, going back to Parmenides and Heraclitus. I know there is more information there than you will be able to make use of in this incarnation but there you have it.
What in essence is Conservatism? And what in essence is Progressivism? I’ll bet that you would struggle to answer that question. As I understand things my impression is that an American Conservative is really not much more than a very confused person with an ethical and belief system almost thoroughly fractured and nearly useless. You are forced to defend ‘Empire’, unending war, and war-crimes, and all sorts of shenanigans and overt misdeeds with a sort of Patriotic zealousness. The real conservatives like Richard Weaver and Russell Kirk and the Southern Agrarians seem to have very little do do with Conservatives of the sort who show themselves in public. No wonder the disappear back into the soil. You can hear them sometimes when the wind blows in a certain way …
So it is true: I cannot help but to ethically take a stand against what I can only see as a perversion of policy and a perversion of America when, pursuing empire, she lost her way. If God were to punish America for her criminal attack on Iraq I fear what *you* will have to go through as retribution. But no one can really sit down and talk about this. They can only say It was a bad decision for America (i.e. It cost too much money!)
So much else is Ethical Train Wreck played out at international levels but transformed into Public Relations Documentaries which bolster a fundamental lie to people.
The only way that I know of to surmount the tension in this knowledge is to accept that to be a patriot, to support my country, to desire for my power system to win and prosper, is to accept that I must choose to be COMPLICIT.
Progressivism wishes to rectify what it perceives as injustices and wrongs. Be them historical, cultural, economic, etc. They look at the criminal and the unfair side of things (the big power-players who run the show and make most of the important choices) and believe they can get out on the streets and effect change. They believe in the modifiable present and in ‘Becoming’. But in their becoming-mania, which functions like an ‘acid’ against established structure, they really do end up wiping out all the ‘oppressive’ structures, which is anyone who functions out of a sense of Being (a value-core, an achieved state, an institution that they loved and built over time with great sacrifice).
Naturally, I find myself exploring what will fall under the label of ‘fascistic’ or ‘new-fascistic’ thought. But that is true of anyone who considers religious conservatism, or the Ultra-Right Catholics, and so many of the regional groups that ri=ose up in resistance to Communism in Europe in the interwar. It is a cohesive body of thought.
Obviously, history is cyclical or it appears so! The core themes still are dominant. They come to the surface again. We seem to be living them all over again.
________________
I have to admit that I do feel myself attached to the view that Richard Spencer puts forth in his talks. Its the ‘We built the country, It’s ours, It’s our genius not yours’ sentiment that resonates with me.
And now the place is, essentially, being taken over by the hordes who will, inevitably, transform it and likely ruin it. There you have my ‘white nationalism’. But because I hope that I am not stupid, at the very least I can see that to achieve a ‘white nationalist’ mind-set in all the white European world, As difficult in the Anglo-sphere, seems to me unlikely, maybe impossible — It may mean that the Identity project will have to be abandoned.
But I really only allow myself to more or less mention that I have this position. To go into it at length would not in any sense be appropriate for this blog. The whole purpose of the blog is to explore ethics in the context of the American Constitution (that is how I would describe it). And my views would necessitate the modification of the Constitution (or the creation of a separate country).
“I think that some of the Lefties who write on this blog (no names need be mentioned) understand well when they notice that it was a white block that brought Mr Trump into the White House. And they are right to understand that this is white America asserting itself, or beginning to, as-against brown America.”
More evidence of your cuckoldry. Falling for the Leftist narrative again I see.
No, “white America” didn’t surge to elect Trump. It’s been discussed ad nauseum. Trump received essentially the same or less votes this go around than Republicans in the past….
What happened is disillusioned traditional Democrats recognized how colossally flawed and historically corrupt Hillary Clinton was and just didn’t show up to vote, and to a degree I think are starting to recognize the inherent flaws in Left wing ideology (though I consider Clinton the primary push away from voting).
If it was a “white America asserting itself”, like you say in a manner that makes you look silly, then Trump would have flushed HUGE percentages of the electorate.
He didn’t.
But, by all means keep drinking the kool-aid derived from your the Left Wing narrative.
Cuck.
This position was advocated last night by an un-named party at our family dinner. My not-very political son, who was barely paying attention and who had just texted somebody, looked up briefly and said, “People who didn’t like how the country was being run and had been run were given a choice between someone who claimed, against all evidence, that everything was great and that she would do exactly what the current President was doing, and somebody else. For a lot of people, that’s an easy choice, and it doesn’t matter who the candidates are.”
Then he went back to texting.
Stopped the argument cold.
And he appreciates fire arms?
One of us! One of us!
“Gooble Gobble!…”
Freaks!!!
I always read what people write, even (or especially) when it is against the views I have. And I respect what you say even if you say it with lots of rancor. My views are contingent and in a sense experimental. I am looking at a NYTs headline I just pulled up: “Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding a wave of support among white working-class voters”. Are you saying that this is part of the liberal media lie? That is was made up? I do think you are right though in saying that some part of it was the democrats who had supported Obama before, and would have supported a better candidate than HRC had they put one out there.
You are right, and I admit it, that I have been influenced by the left. I did actually read 8 Chomsky titles. But the way I came to terms with him is to see him as a Machiavellian. The real ‘prince’ must be acutely aware of Power and how it functions. I think he really does see ‘how power functions’ (read The Managua Lecture to understand) but his mistake is he is, really and truly, a Communist. Anarcho-syndicalism is mere camouflage. Just imagien a world run by a cadre of Chomskies! I would certainly vote for you even in that case … 😉
But I definitely think you are wrong on one point— you have your own biased perspective naturally — and that there is a new and different mood in the nation, and whites are thinking more about whites. Or, it could be that I am influenced by the many podcasts I listen to and the people I know?
I do not think that my point is necessarily inaccurate though, it is a part of a larger picture. And I will add that I think more activism and involvement (and politicization) of whites will go on. It sounds almost sinful to say it. I am in touch with people in Mexico, Argentina and Costa Rica (and Colombia) who are also thinking in these terms.
You are free to hate my perspective and I won’t challenge you, but it is one with merit and it is one that is also ethically defensible. The following represents an aspect of my own views, and he’s a fellow Texan! I have not asked him if he knows how to ride a steer. But I may get round to asking.
https://youtu.be/SwlzvqBXNDU
“I am looking at a NYTs headline I just pulled up: “Donald J. Trump won the presidency by riding a wave of support among white working-class voters”. Are you saying that this is part of the liberal media lie? That is was made up?”
That’s nifty and all…
I merely quoted facts when I said Trump got roughly equal to or less than a typical Republican turnout and that Hillary got a dismally awful turnout of Democrats considering past democrat performance.
Then I quoted logic when I said that the claims that Trump rode a wave “white America” to victory would somewhat require the stats to actually look like a wave otherwise the claims were nonsense.
But by all means quote the NYT headline.
Here’s what the conversation looks like:
Alicia Tyler: “Trump enjoyed a surge of white Americans!”
Texagg: “no, he didn’t, facts show he won because Hillary sucked so badly traditional supporters bailed. Anyone reporting that there was a surge of voters for Trump is just left wing media shilling to blame someone else for Hillary’s loss.”
Alizia Tyler: *quotes left wing media shilling to blame someone else for Hillary’a loss*, “yeah well what about them?”
Texagg: *sigh* “quit being a cuck for the Left”
(Though I haven’t said that last bit yet in this particular subthread, I did sigh)
When you do Amerikadeutscher Volksbund role play, what character do you prefer?
Or do you just watch Apt Pupil on loop?
Either way, keep advancing your “alt-left” world view. (A far more accurate term I think)
A NYTs headline referred to because, I think, it is a general assumption. I think that you make a good point at least in a certain sense. The Republicans with Trump won because the Democrats failed. (But not because of some massive swell of ‘white will’).
This does not actually change my understanding that, given whatever happened, it had to do with the white base and it has to do with the beginnings of a revisualization of Conservatism and certainly the beginning of a struggle against state-allied progressivism.
There is evidence all over the Western world of a shift to a nationalistic and to the so-called ‘ultra-right’. Hugary, Austria, France, etc. To me, these seems birds of a feather.
I notice in the inchoate American Alt-Right the beginnings of a white-oriented nationalism which is reactionary and renewal-centered. Right now, its primary object is 1) to increase this consciousness against opposition it gets from all angles, and 2) to focus on the primary issue: immigration reform and the limiting of non-white immigration.
http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/05/new-right-vs-old-right/
“.. the sole justification of political inequality is the common good of the body politic”. Marxist statism by any other name. Socialism, in its most perverted form.
Nationalistic Socialism. They define what the “common good” is. The Aristocracy. The Nomenklatura. The con-artists who try to pursuade you that they are superior, born to ruke, because every group that espouses such ideas, and there have been many throughout history, see themselves as being the Master Race.
Radical Islam is an example familiar to most.
There’s nothing “new” about the ideas espoused by Plato in The Republic . Rule by the best – literally the Aristocracy, “God bless the squire and his relations, and keep us in our proper stations”.
Doesn’t work.
I helped put a spacecraft into orbit round Mercury. Work I did on disaster relief logistics using xtUML, bleeding edge technology, helped save a quarter of a million lives. I’ve been instrumental in changing legislation for the better in half a dozen countries. At any one time, over a hundred people around the world have their lives dependant on my being the best and brightest at what I do.
It’s because I’m of the best and brightest, a technocrat and scientist, as well as a historian, that I know technocrats make lousy rulers. In theory, we, the learned, the intelligent, those with runs on the board and records of achievement, should be better than the hoi paloi. The evidence says otherwise. The wisdom of the crowds does better on average, and I’m too good a scientist to ignore inconvenient facts.
If I did fool myself like that in order to compensate for an inferiority simple (as opposed to complex), it would only be temporary. Reality wins in the end, and the Gods of the Copybook Headings, in whose name the alt right claim justification, will have their way, sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but inexorably.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
“The true Right, in both its Old and New versions, is founded on the rejection of human equality as a fact and as a norm. The true right embraces the idea that mankind is and ought to be unequal, i.e., differentiated. Men are different from women. Adults are different from children. The wise are different from the foolish, the smart from the stupid, the strong from the weak, the beautiful from the ugly. We are differentiated by race, history, language, religion, nation, tribe, and culture. These differences matter, and because they matter, all of life is governed by real hierarchies of fact and value, not by the chimera of equality.
The true right rejects egalitarianism root and branch…”
___________________________
I am not sure if you realy captured what is sensible and valuable in what he wrote there. All of my own studies, prior to meeting my bf and prior to getting involved with this particular community, led me independently to my clear understanding that the modern Ideology of Equality, and the machinations both interior and exterior that push that ideology, need to be resisted.
The above-mentioned idea, as a base from which to start, is crucial to the whole project. Therefor, and in an important sense, to be able to state the above is an act of the exercise of free thinking. It is a reactionary idea, reactionary to the ideology of the present, that allows for all sorts of other ideas to coalesce around it. And if a people begin to see things more in that way, they will begin to change many different things in their world. It is the core definition that allows that.
I cannot say that I underdtand the rest of your post very well. I suppose that you think, examining the Alt-Right and the European New Right that their ideas will turn out to be repeats of regressive and retrograde social and political movements. Fair enough, as far as such speculations go. However, I imagine that you come at your view through certain prejudices and also, perhaps, you have not enough background in the philosophy which informs the New Right in Europe.
But what you don’t seem to have much to say about is something that this Alt-Right but more the European New Right has a great deal to say: a critical stance in relation to the present motion of our present.
I don’t think that you have anything to say, either, about something that concerns these people: the decadence of European culture overall. Nor the danger posed to ‘European integrity’. Nor the racial and cultural issues that concern them. Probably, these are not concerns that appear on your radar as important. But they do to other people, and they articulate their concerns.
They articulate a group of ideas and concerns which are threatening to modern and accepted perspectives. As long as they continue to wish to articulate those ideas, they will be resisted and also villified.
Yeah, that petition is pretty much nonsense, since they are not describing transgenders, but hermaphrodites. That is a biological condition (and rightly seen as a “problem” or defect, for whom no one has anything but sympathy and understanding.)
It’s like saying that fingerprinting laws are insane, right-wing utopian ideas, because they don’t take into account the inconvenience that will be suffered by people born without hands. Desperation.
Jack,
Sorry but whether the article is fair or is insignificant to me right now, the more pressing issue is what you feel regarding your birthday and the passing of your father.
Rhetorical question: Put yourself in your Dad’s shoes for a moment; what would he be telling you right now about this day?
Your sister is on the right path.
It’s time to set aside the grief surrounding this day and intentionally start celebrating how his presence in your life both gave you life and helped make you the man you are today. You carry pieces of him with you everywhere you go, acknowledge those pieces, be thankful for those pieces, and be at peace.
“Is the article fair?”
No.
“Which, if any, of the ten reasons are accurate and therefore honest and fair, and which are untrue?”
As with any piece of propaganda, each of those ten reasons have a piece of truth in them to gin up an emotional response but that does not make any of them “honest”, “fair”, “truthful”. One key point is that when you see things like that that are essentially a blanket condemnation of an entire group of people based on the actions of a few, you know it’s propaganda.
Let’s take #2 as an example; “Many, if not most, leftists have been indoctrinated with leftism their entire lives”. It think it is absolutely true that all lefties have been exposed to leftism their entire lives and the same thing is absolutely true of all righties, so the the question is, is that “indoctrination” or not. I maintain that it is not indoctrination because some have chosen the lefty path and some have chosen the righty path where the indoctrination environment doesn’t allow you question or criticize those beliefs. We are not to the indoctrination stage yet yet and I truly mean yet; there is a segment of the political left (small or large is based on your experiences) that is truly aiming towards full indoctrination of leftist ideological “principles”, or lack thereof. So to sum that up, the emotional side of me and the analytical side of me are in conflict with this one, I really want to emotionally believe it’s true but my analytical side puts a stop to it.
Every one of those ten propaganda items can be broken down in much the same way.
Propaganda has been used and abused to manipulate populations to do some very terrible things, it’s something we as a society need to reject, but unfortunately it appears that our society has embraced it and history has proven time after time that it will lead to a dark place. I loathe propaganda and that is exactly what we have been faced with in our politics for some time now but the in the last 8 years we have been inundated with it, especially in the recent Presidential campaign. This trend is terribly disturbing.
“It think it is absolutely true that all lefties have been exposed to leftism their entire lives and the same thing is absolutely true of all righties, so the the question is, is that “indoctrination” or not. I maintain that it is not indoctrination because some have chosen the lefty path and some have chosen the righty path where the indoctrination environment doesn’t allow you question or criticize those beliefs.”
When Dennis Prager explains it, it’s typically from the point of view that he sees Media (which children ARE exposed too their whole lives) as dominated by the Left, Hollywood (which children ARE exposed to their whole lives) as dominated by the Left, and Education (which children ARE exposed to their whole lives) as dominated by the Left, all being part of the indoctrination…
perhaps hyperbolic. Perhaps not. But their whole lives, definitely. And probably more immersive and most “right wing” influences.
Happy Birthday! I hope celebrating this year helped you heal.
I think this article is emblematic of a larger issue. The basic premise…see how stupid and unreasonable these other people are? See how superior and reasonable we are? Neither one is true.
Most of these sound like schoolyard taunts.
#7…people on the left hate their parents? What?
#10…there are more meanies on the left?
Somehow, we can no longer respectfully disagree with one another. Instead, we have finger pointing and name calling on either side…yes, BOTH sides are guilty of it.
People left of the spectrum aren’t socialists and people to the right aren’t racists. These are insults we hurl so we don’t have to listen and maybe even learn from each other.
As for #2, my mother is liberal and my father is conservative. I got to hear both sides and my viewpoints are more middle of the road. I’m tired of both extremes and I’m better off for being exposed to dueling opinions. Rather than indoctrination, my parents sat me down and explained their thinking on an issue. Neither one of them said they were “right” and the other was “wrong”.
Listening to Prager on his radio show frequently, it’s pretty clear that he is disgusted with the Left and believes that they are morally bankrupt and totally dedicated to the destruction of the institutions that provided the foundation of American exceptionalism. Some leftists may be good people in many ways who are honest, kind, and well meaning. However, they have adopted assumptions about American society thanks to our current educational system, the media, Hollywood, and popular culture that are destroying a society that brought the greatest good to people of all classes, racial and ethnic groups, women of any nation that has ever existed.