From The Ethics Alarms Corrupt And Cowardly Colleges Files: Marquette And Penn State

I’m sorry. I really am. These stories get worse and worse, far beyond anything I could have imagined just  a few years ago. I am so relieved that my son decided long ago that for him, college would be a waste of money and time. This has spared me the chore of explaining to him that it would be a waste of his values and mind as well.

First, let’s look at the latest chapter in the Marquette debacle involving Samantha Pfefferle, the incoming freshman who became an object of revulsion and terror because she dared to post a harmless, infantile video proclaiming her support for President Trump. The first part of the story dawned on Ethics Alarms this morning, here. Now we know that Mike Lovell, the president of Marquette, sent an email to Marquette’s Board of Trustees about the incident. The email was a dishonest, dastardly misrepresentation that would fully justify his firing for cause if the trustees had the curiosity and integrity to investigate the facts. Here I’m going to send you to John Hinderaker’s blog, Powerline, to read his expert vivisection of Lovell’s slimy machinations. I’m leaving it to him for two reasons. First, Hinderaker is a a skilled legal mind, and he does a superb job. Second, his blog is specifically mentioned, and denigrated, in in the president’s email.

The last time Marquette was mentioned critically here was in 2015, through the attentions of MIA Ethics Alarms commenter Rick Jones, aka “Curmie.” Rick, who used to give out his annual “Curmie Awards” for outrageous conduct in academia, nominated Marquette for firing a tenured professor who wrote a blog post that criticized a graduate student teaching assistant for telling a student that his opinion opposing gay marriage was homophobic and would not be permitted in her class.

Curmie was right and Marquette was wrong: a court later reinstated the professor and held the university liable for breaching his  “contract’s guarantee of academic freedom.”  The latest episode show that the school’s progressive intolerance for non-conforming view has metastasized since Curmie’s nomination.

John Hinderaker  titled his latest post “Marquette Weasels.” If that conduct was weaselly, what do we call this, from Penn State?

Pennsylvania State University issued a message via tweet  assuring students that the institution welcomes all races, creeds, ethnicities, genders and viewpoints:

Yes, even conservatives are welcome: “Dear conservative students, your viewpoints are important.”

But affirming openness to hated conservatives brought down the fury of the woke twitter mob, in a flood of idiotic messages too dumb to repeat. OK, if you insist…here’s a typical one:

“Conservatives having their feelings hurt because other students think they’re sexist, racist assholes is NOT THE SAME as protecting the physical safety & humanity of others!”

So Penn State took down the tweet! Yes, after being instructed by students that the university should not assure all students that they will be treated respectfully and fairly, because the school has indoctrinated their charges to regard any ideas they disagree with as “violence,” Penn  State confirmed who is in charge of that school, explaining its craven action with a statement that is best translated as “We have no principles, just tell us what will make students like us and not make trouble!”

Penn State Director of Strategic Communications William Hessert, Jr. said that while the school’s message was meant “to express the inclusive, democratic and participatory values of the liberal arts,” it “was not being received well and it is important for us that our messages be received as intended. While we do not believe in deleting our posts, given the sensitivities of the matter we felt that it was better to remove it.”

Oh.

Time for the weasel poll!

62 thoughts on “From The Ethics Alarms Corrupt And Cowardly Colleges Files: Marquette And Penn State

  1. I have nothing but contempt for these overpaid cowardly university administrators who are quick to placate the leftist mobs that populate their schools. I suppose the answer if you want to be trained in a profession is find a university that is actually interested in teaching critical thinking skills.

  2. It’s beginning to be very dangerous for conservatives, especially white conservatives. That reply is typical of the up and coming liberal generation. They think we conservatives exist primarily to hate anyone who isn’t like us. They think we wake up in the morning and our first thought is “It’s not going to be a good morning until these goddamn bitches get back in the kitchen, these goddamn niggers go back to the ghetto, these goddamn spics go back south of the border, and these goddamn faggots disappear.”

    Then they think every time we look at a black person, we think “nigger,” even if we don’t say it. They think we hear Spanish and our first thought is “what is that fucking spic still doing here? Is ICE slacking?” They think we see a woman and think “why doesn’t she go back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich before I beat her?” They think we see a gay person and our fists clench, because our first impulse is to hit them. They think before we lay down each night, we pray that we may rise to a world cleansed of everything but conservatives.

    Even on my angriest mornings, that was not my first thought, or even close to it. Even on the days when I’m pissed and I have reason to be, I don’t go around burning with hate and contempt for everyone who is different from me. On the rare occasions when I might say a prayer before retiring, it certainly is not a petition for a world like Nazi Germany aspired to be.

    To the left, we’re half ignorant rubes driving around in dirty old trucks with gun racks who read nothing but the Bible, when we can read, half evil geniuses who spend our time creating fiendish plots to deny everyone else their freedom. True Orwellian doublethink. A lot of them wish WE were the ones that would disappear. At the very least we need to stay far away from them, so we won’t disrupt their peaceful world of universal love.

    To them, it’s an act in defense of love when they see a red hat and attack the person wearing it. It’s an act of peace when they flood the streets and destroy things. It’s necessary and not even that regrettable when they silence and pour contempt on those they disagree with. Why don’t we racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, RACIST assholes just get the hell out of THEIR country, where there’s room for everyone…except us?

    Mark my words, the day is coming, and it’s probably coming soon, in which we conservatives are going to get fed up, and start taking action. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a nation cannot be effectively led by those who hate it. We can’t survive if half the nation wants the other half to disappear.

    • Well hold on a minute! You mean you are going to start taking action at some point when, one might assume, you have not been taking action? Or do you mean that you are going to take some reckless action — acting out of anger and frustration — that achieves nothing and actually sets things back?

      My object here has not been to make friends, it has been to try to define a truthful perspective. I want to go to the absolute extremes of polemical communication. I have said and I maintain this is very difficult. I try to point out how it is that our perception has been taken over by damaging perspectives and sick ideology. Naturally, I have gotten attacked. But this is how we of the dissident right have been framed.

      I propose to you that your Conservative perspective is not part of a solution but it intimately tied to *the problem*. I find that it is necessary to repeat and repeat and repeat statements like this. This fits with my sense, my understanding, that we have been subject to extreme forms of indoctrination and we have *integrated* them into our very self.

      As a Mac user I have been trying to master (ooops!) the operating system Catalina. A few days ago it occured to me that when I confront American Conservatives that what I am confronting is an outmoded operating system that needs — requires — an upgrade. Because as it turns out you have no action to take. You have no program. American Conservatism has contributed to everything going on today. But I will admit that, suddenly, when they noticed that it all was turning against them did they start to complain. Think Steve Witherspoon whose most radical *activism* is to post a link to The Wave. 🙂

      It is precisely this that needs to be talked about. And it is precisely this that needs to become the topic of a conversation on ethical values. How has this come about? Is it the sell-out of WF Buckley? (This would be a symbol of a general American Conservative sell-out).

      To what degree have American Conservatives participated in or indeed spearheaded the destruction of the livelihood of the American worker? What happened back in the Sixties when the immigration rules were changed? What is the relationship between the demographic shift which has reduced European American whites to somewhere like 65% of the population when in the Sixties and before they were 90%? Who has the courage to look into these things? Who has the courage to make statements.

      Shall I rely on you or Jack or Steve Witherspoon or anyone else who writes here for sound analysis? Can you genuinely and honestly present a case where I should? Will you offer anything else but *resounding silence*? Will you continue to pretend that you-plural occupy some moral and ethical high-ground and don’t need to stoop down to answer?

      The only thing that can be done now is to share information and perspectives. And to stimulate what is called the Red-Pilling of people just like you. To take the Red Pill and to have it begin to work within the fibres of our being — our perceptual system, our operating system — is what it is about. The general, operative system that surrounds us and subsumes us . . . is the problem. In this process — and here I will be truthful — we have no choice but to confront our own self. And by this I mean the non-productive aspects of those false-perspectives held essentially by those who call them self ‘conservative’. We can start right here, right now: Humble Talent (:::laughs:::), Jack in many ways (radical liberal!), Steve Witherspoon and a solid dozen others.

      It seems to me that if you-plural are really serious, and not just posing, that this requires a far more profound analysis of what is going on in our present: how it happened, where it will go, and what activity is needed to countermand it. This is not just about *America*. It is about a whole group of different elements that are intimately connected. Essentially, it has to do with the destruction of the core of Europe. A weakening of resolve. A loss of nerve perhaps one might say.

      Instead of carrying on like “arrogant a**holes” perhaps you-plural will choose to do a bit of listening. Can’t hurt, can it? (I dedicate this last sentance to SlickWilly wherever may he roam…)

      Wake up.

      Some quotes by Wilmot Robertson.

        • Did not know you were a fan of him. On my new hero rating system he would come close to topping the list called “Heroes of the Shadow.” Although he was a battlefield virtuoso in WW1 and earned both the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross, he made his mark and achieved his greatest continuing influence as a spymaster.

            • He actually made his way into my college buddy Chris Serb’s book on football during the world wars. “Heroes of the Shadow” of course are spies, spymasters, etc. Possibly Kate Warne is going to be the only woman on that list. Then we get into heroes of the sky, heroes of the sea (with a possible sub-list, no pun intended, for heroes of the deep) and so on.

        • Pretty amazing. I had no idea:

          Donovan set up espionage and sabotage schools, established front companies, arranged clandestine collaborations with international corporations and the Vatican, and oversaw the invention of new, espionage-friendly guns, cameras, and bombs. Donovan also recruited agents, selecting individuals with a wide range of backgrounds – ranging from intellectuals and artists to people with criminal backgrounds. He hired a great many female spies, dismissing criticism by those who felt women were unsuited to such work. Among his prominent recruits were film director John Ford, actor Sterling Hayden, author Stephen Vincent Benet, and Eve Curie, daughter of the scientists Marie and Pierre Curie. Other OSS recruits included poet Archibald MacLeish, banker Paul Mellon, businessman Alfred V. du Pont (son of industrialist Alfred I. du Pont), chef Julia Child, psychologist Carl Jung (who helped with the effort to analyze the psyches of Hitler and other Nazi leaders), author Walter Lord, and members of the Auchincloss and Vanderbilt families. There were so many aristocrats in the agency that the joke went around that OSS stood for “Oh So Social”.

          What do you suppose is going on today within American intelligence? How are they reacting to the crisis in America today? What sorts f actions are they taking? What sorts of espionage interventions and missions?

          How interesting the communication between American intelligence and a prominent psychologist.

          The more that I talk with you-plural the more I understand that you see everything . . . and understand so very little. 🙂 You seem stuck in an overwhelming present with no proper tools to analyze it.

          • Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The OSS was created in war, for war. Its progeny is per se unethical, and can only be justified, if at all, on the theory that “the ends justify the means” and that ethics are useless in international relations, which may be true.

            “You-plural” is obnoxious and offensive. I recommend retiring it.

            • Why is you-plural offensive? In Spanish we have a you singular and a your plural. I have no interest in being offensive or in offending. My interest is in clarity and honestly. I can’t imagine you not agreeing with me on the importance of these.

              Not relevant to the issue at hand? How could you say such a thing. The US intelligence apparatus is, and must be, directly involved with what is going on within culture now in the United States. Are you saying it is not?

              Its progeny? You mean the CIA and the enormous US intelligence machinery? In their view, and in the view of those who operate within power-dynamics, the ends defintely justify the means.

              I want to repeat it here so I will have said it: I do not want to offend anyone, and not you. I force myself to say things when I feel an invisible constraint. When I feel *coercion*.

              My intention is pure polemics. I have stated it and declared it. My objective and in a sense my delight is in idea-battle.

              No one should ever take it personally and be offended.

            • I dunno about the CIA and the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies being per se unethical. The fact of the matter is that success or failure often depends on how much accurate information you can get. There is a moral ambiguity in the methods often used to get the information, and there is also moral ambiguity in clandestine operations, which might involve assassinations, etc. Still, if assassinating one terrorist leader today means we avoid a lot of dead Americans tomorrow, I’m down with it. I might add, if the Irish are still down with Michael Collins assassinating police and intelligence officers, and the Israelis are still down with Moshe Dayan and his crew blowing up British police stations, then we Americans have every right to be ok with our folks arranging for an “accident” that claims the life of some Hugo Chavez-wannabe or putting a bullet in the head of the next guy dumb enough to want bin Laden’s job.

              • And there you have the *open declaration* — honest, direct, with no minced words — that demonstrates and defines how American power works, but also how all power-systems function.

                The problem here — which Jack cannot or does not want to acknowledge — has to do with a) the degree to which American intelligence intervenes in domestic politics, and b) if we also must accept, along with our defense of the use of straight power, the degree to which you and we are comfortable and supporting of the Surveillance State. Now that surveillance state operates similarly — similarly but not the same — as the *recognized evil* of the Chinese State, which we condemn. Yet it is undeniable that similar agencies work behind the scenes both in America domestically and also internationally.

                My position is not so much that I fail to understand how Power functions — I think I do very well — it really has to do with allegiance: a sense of what I must have allegiance for. I can fully understand being an American patriot of the sort that supports all aspects of American policy. But there is a dark side to allowing that Power to operate unchecked. Unchecked power tends to over-exceed its limits. And America as a concept was based on the notion of rejection of tyranny and the idealistic belief in the value of liberty.

                All of this is rendered absurd when Power simply does what it will and what it must.

                If you can posit that a *Huge Chavez* should be and can be assassinated, you will certainly allow any other sort of machination or intrigue. It will have nothing to do with ‘righteous cause’ if they assassinate a leader, but strictly with power-principles.

                But the most horrifying aspect of all of this — the entire conversation and all considerations of it — is when you meditate on what Power will decide for America now, today. And the degree to which *they* (it) will choose not Constitutional liberty and all the values inherent in it, but will rather see things in terms of strict power-principles. And if that is so you have justified your own elimination and the elimination of your ideas and opinions.

                Oh but wait! Hold on now. Just a second: that is exactly what is going on in our present and How About That: you-all complain bitterly about it.

                Do you even register the irony here? When some famous person said “The Chickens Have Come Home To Roost” he obviously meant that what *you* did internationally was quite naturally brought home to the domestic sphere. What that means is a State (or national) political police that serves the interests of Power.

                A little too much for you? A little too much *ethics* to consider there?

                This is one reason I sometimes refer to the hypocrisy I notice here. But I do certainly appreciate a direct telling of the truth about how power functions. I might even agree to support that power.

                The present time that we are living in requires bold analysis and honesty.

      • There’s a Nazi trying to recruit you. What would William Donovan do?

        That is an interesting take on the game of discrediting and dismissal. It works through the standard leftist teqhnique of employing the *Nazi* condemnation which is rather transparent.

        But then through a false question, a Question/Statement, about what a famous American General would do in relation to that imagined Nazi.

        But yet it seems to be a good question: What would that famous general think about the present? About the collusion of the government itself in these present conditions? What would he think and what would he do?

          • Valky: you are too tricky for me. You say things . . . without having said them. You imply things . . . without stating them directly. But you never develop your ideas in any substantial form. You never make any direct statements.

            I know the game that you-plural play in relation to the ideas I present. I can speak openly about that and I can speak openly about all that you try to label *Nazi*. I know what your silence means. And I know that you are constrained and held down by coercive forces that cause you to limit what you say and what you think. I understand this and to a degree I sympathize with your cowardice.

            • Still not a denial.

              A really nice performance of the “no, you!’ though. Four tens and a 9.2 from the Russian judge.

              You say things . . . without having said them. You imply things . . . without stating them directly. But you never develop your ideas in any substantial form. You never make any direct statements.

              Can you make direct statements?
              Would you remove all black and brown people from the United States if you could?
              Would you remove all Jews from the United States if you could?
              Do you believe black and brown people are inferior to white people?
              Did the Holocaust happen? How many Jews Slavs Roma Jehova’s Witnesses and homosexuals died as a result of Nazi policy between 1939 and 1945 inclusive?
              Can you translate the words ‘Hail Trump, hail victory’ into German for me?
              Is slavery, as the word was understood in pre-1865 America acceptable in any way?

              • It’s no secret that “hail, victory!” is “sieg heil!” in German. And I think it’s well-established that the totals for the Holocaust were, in round figures, 6 million Jews, 4 million Polish Catholics, and about 2-3 million other “undesirables,” i.e. Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, so-called “race defilers,” and others. Of course it happened, I had relatives who had their “band of brothers” moment, I had a neighbor who was a survivor, and every year at WW2 Weekend David Tuck, an Auschwitz survivor, tells his story to an audience so silent you could hear a pin drop. I think it’s been determined that slavery is a no-no, at least in the West. However, it still holds out in a few places.

                • Oh, you mean that you took her question was genuine: When Richard Spencer said ‘Hail Trump, Hail our people’ of course he was riffing off Heil Hitler. I thought that was known and understood. And they often refer to *blood and soil*. So what?

                  Her question was not a question, it was a statement. She is trying to imply that Spencer — and some, or perhaps all of the dissident right — is a Nazi. But this brush is absurdly broad. Spencer is definitely not a Nazi.

                  If you want to understand how he sees his dissidence — he is not a good example in my case because he is a narcissist in many ways — you would have to look more closely into it. And if you wanted to understand better the examination of the forbidden ideas of right-leaning political theory I can refer you to Michael Millerman and his Millerman Speaks series:

                  At the very least you can begin to understand how the suppression of ideas functions when it comes to non-Left political theory. And with Millerman you can at least grasp how some of the suppressed ideas are filtering back.

                  The backbobe in fact of Real Conservatism. That is my opinion in any case.

                  • Ahh when it comes to Spencer this recording, released by one of your own darlings, Milo, is the most instructive I think.

                    Tell me again how he’s not a Nazi.

                    By the way Aliza, you still haven’t denied being a Nazi but you have spoken in admiration of George Lincoln Rockwell, what did he found again?

                    • My darling, did you say? Milo? I detest Milo. Though he has had some good moments. I also don’t really like Spencer that much. Greg Johnson [now there is an association you should try to exploit: far more deadly than Spencer. Get to work on it right away!) refers to Spencer as a popinjay. I learned of Spencer from his Vangard podcast series (still up on YouTube. Search under BOWDEN! podcast). I am aware of the recorning having listened to it months ago.

                      But putting Spncer to the side, I make it a point to listen to the most damaged and angry individuals, those who have been cast aside and also those who lack skills of articulation. My theory is that it is from the wounded sectors that you will get forecast and revelation about what is going wrong. The fringes always have a story to tell and in a way truth to reveal. Note that the sector of America that elected Donald Trump is that sector. I tune in to their ‘ache’ as it were.

                      You will never succeed in roping me into your game of *denials*! You remind me of course of Chris who would attempt such a thing. It is essentially underhanded. With me you can get all the information you want by a direct approach. If you want to know how I relate to my own Jewish background and my transcendence to other ways of seeing and understanding I will happily tell you. Just ask. My ideas about Judaism are similar to Dennis Praeger’s and I was influenced by his book To Be A Jew. The idea is that when Jews cease to be Jews they get into trouble. This connects to E Michael Jones’ ideas about the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Everything that I might say (on the topic of Judaism and Jewry) is already said by Jews them self.

                      Richard Spencer, as I said before, is an odd bird. A narcissist perhaps. Defintely a spoiled and rather arrogant man. Yet there are things about him I admire. But I do not either defend him or condemn him nor have I tried to explain him. As I said to Steve: It is not myself that is the object of study here. It is ‘yous’.

                      These methods of fevered high-moralizing, examination, condemnation, calumny, distortion — the whole game you play — that is what is being examined, and whether you like it, or understand it, or not.

                      I completely admire George Lincoln Rockwell! But because he was a fighter! I spent time listening to his lectures but I don’t remember a great deal now. Except that he noted how America was being sold out (an idea that resonates to my understanding). I also admire David Duke and Louis Beam. I admire people I am not supposed to admire. I also admire people I do not agree with, or only partly agree with. I deliberately investigate people that I am told not to admire. I went through SPLC’s Hate List and investigated each person myself. One by one. But I can do this and you can’t because I claim intellectual freedom. I admire Noam Chomsky and Norman Fincklestein too. I take from them what makes sense to me.

                      Buty let’s face it: many here can’t do that. That looser Spartan said something incredible. Never having read any Chomsky she actually said “I don’t have to to know that sh*t stinks.” That keyed me in. That’s ‘dumbed-down America’ talking. It was a shameful confession.

                      My impression of you (though you reveal so very little!) and others I encounter here and in other places is that you are like schools of fish. If one goes one way the rest follow. You are like intellectual herd-animals. Why is that? Because you live in a society that pretends to independence by insisting on group conformity. Right? There is a Party Line with specific *points* that you have to believe and parrot . . . or you will be *cast into the outer darkness*. Just like what you are working so hard to do to me! Here, it becomes a group-effort. One chimes in, then the other, then you share your agreements while chuckling. But you are actually non-capable of putting together a sound and coherent argument.

                      If that works for you I guess you should keep it up!

                    • But putting [Spencer] to the side, I make it a point to listen to the most damaged and angry individuals, those who have been cast aside and also those who lack skills of articulation.

                      As cult leaders and extremists have done for millennia. You seek out “the most damaged and angry individuals” to radicalized, to turn them loose on your chosen targets. What did you say above?

                      Or do you mean that you are going to take some reckless action — acting out of anger and frustration — that achieves nothing and actually sets things back?

                      Don’t want to waste an act of violence on nothing if the perpetrator can be convinced to do it on your behalf? You’ll dance around and never deny it.

              • Valky! You did it! I’m so proud of you. You have formulated direct questions. Just imagine now if you will forumate direct rebuttals!

                1) Would you remove all black and brown people from the United States if you could?

                Absolutely not. But I would definitely have chosen to keep the immigration to the US from Europe, as it had been since the inception of the US. The 1965 immigration reform act has led to conditions of social and cultural conflict. It is ipso facto not working out.

                My position is that white people, European Americans, need to recover their self-respect and their identity and to choose to put their values ahead of the values of others. I definitely support freezing all immigration and as Coulter says allowing eveyone here to *assimilate*. But I also 100% support European Americans regaining supermajority status. And I can argue this as an ethical position and perspective.

                And there is more to say about the entire issue.

                2) Would you remove all Jews from the United States if you could?

                Of course not, you nut! What I recommend is becoming aware of the Jewish Project vis-a-vis America. The use of America by Jews and Jewish interests to further strictly Jewish historical aims. I completely support a critical conversation about the influence of Jews and a ‘Jewish agenda’ as well as Jewish involvement, speaking generally, in progressive politics. I can refer you to Jews who speak about all of this in a critical way. I understand anti-Semitism very well because I have studied it. More than you I have no doubt.

                I would recommend that people — people here for example — to become aware of the anti-Zionist conversation that is going on out there. I would alert them to it. But that is very different from having or holding anti-Jewish sentiments.

                And there is definitely more to talk about here. But you-(plural) cannot have that conversation because it has been made off-limits — for obvious reasons and as you well know. I believe in LIFTING all those restraints.

                3) Do you believe black and brown people are inferior to white people?

                I believe that left to them self both *brown* and *black* people would follow their own inclinations of achievement, and that these are not the same and not commensurate with the general achievements of Europeans. I do not think the Black Nation (to use a more biblical way of seeing a people) have the same desires of achievement as Europeans. I think this is obvious. I live among Latinos now and know, beyond doubt, that their goals and aspirations (here I speak generally) are not the same as Europeans (taken as a whole). Do I have a problem with that? No.

                The issue is not inferiority or superiority. And I have expressed this time and again. You would have to develop your (likely absurd) ideas through referring to solid examples. The issue has to do with *corporate consciousness* and in the case of Europeans of their having been subject to 1000 years of civilization’s influence and molding force.

                These are different peoples, with different destinies. That is how I see it.

                4) Did the Holocaust happen? How many Jews Slavs Roma Jehova’s Witnesses and homosexuals died as a result of Nazi policy between 1939 and 1945 inclusive?

                Long ago — years — I made it very clear that the destruction of European Jews definitely happened. The larger bulk of it in the East. I do deny gas chambers as the means of Jewish death. Starvation, disease, and more convention means of death were the way the destruction occurred.

                5) Can you translate the words ‘Hail Trump, hail victory’ into German for me?

                You are funny to me. If you are referring to Spencer you had better look into him with more seriousness. I would recommend his interviews with Jonathan Bowden (still up on YouTube — but hurry!).

                If you took all of that seriously you made a mistake. But, if you did want to gain some seriousness and actually understand what many people now feel about the *JQ* I can help you to orient your self. I’ll be your guide. A Beatrice as it were as you descend into the shadowy regions of death and darkness. 🙂

                6)Is slavery, as the word was understood in pre-1865 America acceptable in any way?

                I certainly can’t find much use for it or value in it, can you?

                The Huge War and the terrifying destruction Abe Lincoln and his partners brought down on the South was a terrible crime. Slavery was on the way out . . . and would have died away.

                But what that war did to the psyche of America . . . still goes on, still ramifies.

                Well, do I get a COOKIE here?!? If not I will burn your cities to the ground!

                    • You are a racist and an anti-Semite. There’s no other way to put it. I can’t take anyone who believes in, essentially, the ZOG machine, or that the gas chambers didn’t happen, with any degree of seriousness. I wish I could bring you face to face with the few remaining Holocaust survivors, and the remnants of the Soviet army who liberated Auschwitz, and have you tell them that.

                    • Oh there indeed is another way *to put it*, as you say. And instead of the focus being on me here, I suggest you deliberately turn the focus around. Make your self the focus of your sharp enquiry. I do not *deny the Holocaust* — though some do I suppose. I deny that there were actual gas chambers in which cyanide gas was used in a mechanical system to exterminate people, be they Jews or anyone.

                      I have no doubt there are survivors of the destruction of European Jews. None. And their stories would be horrifying. At the same time around 50 million people did throughout the entire conflict. Misery and horror all the way round.

                      What I say is that to the best of my abilities to investigate the gas-chamber stories, they have proven false. You do the same thing here that Jack did some years back. I do not *deny* the Holocaust (the better term is destruction of the European Jews). I deny the gas-chambers as an industrial killing-machine. They have been proven FALSE. And there is no evil in pointing that out.

                      What you begin to do now is what Valky tries to do: suck me into the whole game of ‘denials’.

                      I never used the term ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government). I spoke of what is known and understood to all Jews and which appears in all standard Jewish histories, those of the most normal and conventional sort. America, and then Israel, have been extraordinary events in the history of Jewry. That is all that I said. And you have read into it something else. Because (I suppose) that is all you can *hear*. Unfortunately for you there are certain areas where you are not allowed to think, not allowed to enquire. They are *off limits* zones.

                      The point is not that you feel you can morally condemn and shame me — you think you have ground to stand on here but I assert you do not, and thus you engage in calumny — it is that you show 2 areas where you cannot think critically. I am not the one who needs to examine her predicates. You need to do this.

                      Since I have participated in this blog I have continually suggested that you *turn the lens of examination around*. I repeat it. It is not you that will examine and adjudicate me, but rather that you will be put on the examination table and be examined.

                      Why is this so important? Just look at what you have done, here and now. You twist things to conform to specific terms (racist, anti-Semite) and try to fit someone’s far more complex perspective into a box that you can then control. This is precisely what is going on around you! That is what *they* do. But you refuse to see this.

                      I said nothing that is not part of common-sense perspective. Everything I said I can defend, rationally and ethically. But you cannot do the same.

                      And it is with this, and in this area, that I critique your conservatism. I call it a ‘structure of view’ or if you wish your ‘operating system’. I suggest — fairly, politely and in simple direct prose — that you modify your operating system.

                    • Long ago I defined myself (here) as *identitarian*. I use the term racialist also to define my position. For you perhaps, no difference. I did not make any *racist* statement. I made a common sense statement about a given people showing certain characteristics and other people not showing or sharing those characteristics. This is a fair and a rational statement. And I stand by the fact that everyone has a right to their own chosen destiny.

                      I have spent a number of years researching the ideas that stand behind my views.

                      You have offered no counter-argument of any sort as to why you think the specific thing I wrote — referring specifically to my paragraph and not to any whimsical paraphrasis of it — was ‘racist’ and thus unethical or immoral.

                      My views are couched within ethical and moral concepts. If they were not I’d have to modify or abandon them.

                      \You’ve done nothing here buy employ calumny. You are at ethical fault.

              • I’ll play.
                Can you make direct statements?
                Yes.

                Would you remove all black and brown people from the United States if you could?
                No.

                Would you remove all Jews from the United States if you could?
                No.

                Do you believe black and brown people are inferior to white people?
                No. There are some elements of the culture that is normally associated with black people that I think are self-destructive, such as the rejection of two-parent families. But these things are cultural and not genetic, and we’re dealing with correlation rather than causation. I also am uncertain whether said culture is more correctly associated with urban/city dwellers than with skin colors.

                Did the Holocaust happen?
                I’m not an eyewitness, but I’m confident that it did.

                How many Jews Slavs Roma Jehova’s Witnesses and homosexuals died as a result of Nazi policy between 1939 and 1945 inclusive?
                I honestly don’t know the number. I know it was quite large.

                Can you translate the words ‘Hail Trump, hail victory’ into German for me?
                No I cannot. I don’t speak German.

                Is slavery, as the word was understood in pre-1865 America acceptable in any way?
                Absolutely not.

                That wasn’t so hard.

                –Dwayne

    • Actually there are a fair number of Black and Hispanic conservatives that are sick and tired of this leftist bullshit and won’t back down so there’s a good chance that we can turn things around together. Jack is only one guy that foresees the dreadful mess this country could become if AOC and BLM intimidate enough of us.

  3. Had to go with Marquette in the poll. Penn State displayed cowardice. Marquette displayed cowardice with a huge second helping of dishonesty.

  4. Penn State should have taken the tweet down for the simple reason that it exposes their bias and stupidity.
    Set aside for a moment the stereotyping involved in the groupings, and note that one group, and one group only, is on that list for their political viewpoints. Are they implying conservatives are likely to receive disrespect in the same way as, say, Latinx? Why conservatives? Why not progressives? Socialists?
    They could never answer that question honestly, so the tweet had to be erased.

  5. I nominate myself as the biggest weasel for voting for “Weasels? What weasels?” strictly for the amusement value. And now i can’t seem to undo that vote. Yay!

  6. The Penn State tweet was underinclusive.

    They mentioned Latinx, but not Greex nor Slavix.

    Check this out.

    When you debate a a person about something that affects them more than it affects you, remember that it will tyake a much greater emotional toll on them than on you. For you it may feel like an academic exercise. For them, it feels like revealing their pain only to have you dismiss their experience and sometimes their humanity. The fact that you might remain more calm under these circumstances is a consequence of your privilege, not increaswed objectivity on your part. Stay humble.

    • I left this comment.

      so no discussing gun control with gun owners, especially ifg the gun owner is a young black man who works late nights in high-crime neighborhoods to support his family, and who is unable to obtain a permit for a handgun because the police do not believe that having to work “late nights in high-crime neighborhoods” constitutes sufficient “just cause”?

    • When you debate a a person about something that affects them more than it affects you, remember that it will tyake a much greater emotional toll on them than on you. For you it may feel like an academic exercise. For them, it feels like revealing their pain only to have you dismiss their experience and sometimes their humanity. The fact that you might remain more calm under these circumstances is a consequence of your privilege, not increaswed objectivity on your part. Stay humble.

      The interesting question is how to defeat this *line of argumentation*. It is an absurd argument, an emotional and sentimental argument, and there is no way to refute it — according to the inner logic of it — unless you assert that ‘intellectual calmness’ and ‘academic distance’ is what is needed, not what must be suppressed.

      This is the argument of a spoiled child, a child who has been waaaaaaayyyy over-indulged. To the point of becoming a Little Monster. How does one deal with such a Little Monster? It is not easy since it requires that everyone in his or her circle reject the entire platform of behavior. Any ‘right’ to act that way must evaporate.

      This game that is displayed in that ridiculous paragraph presents a will that will not go down easily. Once it has seen that it can get things, or get respect, or that anyone will even listen to it, it revels in the Power that has been given it.

      As I think this through I do not know if there is any other solution for the Little Monster but to get a beating. Why? Because by definition there is no way to converse or to dialog. My reaction when I read it (written on a school chalk-board?) was to go directly to insult — the most outrageous and viscious insult. The absolute dismissal of not only the whole argument but the person as well.

      What is presented through this *argument* is actually much more complex and problematic than it appears.

  7. Jack wrote:

    I’m sorry. I really am. These stories get worse and worse, far beyond anything I could have imagined just a few years ago.

    I’m sorry you have to deal with this tragic human comedy of lunacy. Alas, circumstances have conspired to keep it in your face, 24-7.

    Regarding your question, let’s engage in further analysis:

    Marquette University

    Synopsis of the facts: Marquette responded to student complaints about another student’s social media commentary that is currently disfavored on the campus by both students and faculty. The MU administration then subjected her to an inquisition, during which they apparently said the equivalent of, “Nice admission to MU you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it,” which the student then appeared to relate verbatim in interviews.

    This prompted Marquette to huddle with their public relations people and issue a deceptive and dishonest statement about what happened.

    In mitigation: They did not revoke the student’s admission, and in the end, appear to affirm at least a lip-service commitment to free speech:

    By their very nature, institutions of higher education are places of public dialogue and vigorous discourse about the most compelling issues of the day. The 500-year-old tradition of Catholic, Jesuit education is grounded in the discovery of knowledge and the sharing of diverse viewpoints – political or otherwise. Marquette takes this responsibility very seriously and prides itself on teaching our students how to think, not what to think. Through university-sponsored events, student organizations and myriad opportunities for engagement, diverse viewpoints from across the political spectrum are shared regularly with opportunity for discussion and the airing of a variety of viewpoints.

    In aggravation: In this process, Marquette dishonestly represented the views of several conservative commentary outlets and blogs, and appears to have defamed at least one of them. Also, their commitment to free speech as noted above, while hitting most of the high notes, rings insincere after the forced interview with the student over her private social media postings. Their behavior is unprofessional and shameful, perhaps even to the extent of violating a tort, and acts to suppress free speech rather than empower it.

    Penn State

    Synopsis of the facts: Penn State posted on social media an unsolicited, totally voluntary statement of a commitment to diversity of religion, gender, race, and — unusually for such statements — political beliefs. Perhaps notably (although excusably), liberal or leftist orientation was not included, presumably because it is common knowledge that college campuses are mostly on the political left in administration, faculty, and student body.

    Whether the trigger event was the omission of liberal political viewpoint (doubtful) or the mere presence of a welcoming statement toward conservatives (highly likely), a social media mob descended on PSU criticizing their inclusion of conservatives as an assault on “other students.” PSU then took down the tweet and made a lame excuse for doing so.

    In mitigation: The social media mob is frightening to universities, and they are often cowed by them. Their behavior is remarkably similar to companies facing similar social media mob action, possibly because they have the same types of communications and public relations people advising them. Yes, I’m having a hard time with this subheading, and this is the best I can do.

    In aggravation: PSU’s response calls into serious question the sincerity of this completely unsolicited tweet. Their unwillingness to stand up for their own statement, which was clearly inoffensive to anyone without a political agenda and in full possession of their faculties, is signature significance. PSU’s already deeply tarnished reputation from outrageous scandals in the early part of this century is of a piece with this intolerable fecklessness. This was shameful, belly-up “Please sir, may I have another” submission to the “cancel culture,” and has done nothing but embolden it.

    My conclusion is that Penn State’s abject, yellow-bellied cowardice is far, far the worse of the two. Not only will they refuse to defend their conservative students if challenged, but won’t even defend a milquetoast statement of support for them. Their fear of the mob has emboldened and empowered it, and anything that does that is destructive to society and to the United States.

  8. I would respect them far more if they used it as a teaching moment about the golden rule and first amendment. If you’re that afraid of mob hysteria, be quiet and stay off social media.

  9. The retreat of the American academy has turned into a full-on rout, a stampede for the exits. The students decide what gets taught! Why are these people going to school if they already are able to dictate the curriculum? Craziness.

    • They pay for a degree, and thus feel they can dictate grades, standards and conditions. This makes the degree meaningless and worthless, and eventually employers will wise up.

      • I wonder whether minority graduates of elite schools get hired by prestigious companies, law firms, etc. with the anticipation these hires are essentially underqualified and only burnishing their resumes before they move into cushy government and NGO positions. The Barack and Michelle Obama and Stacey Abrams track. These hires make the companies and law firms look good even though the hires contribute nothing to the bottom line while they’re there. Just a cost of doing business, I guess.

  10. I thought it worthwhile to continue in this rather stupid and very shallow exchange with both Valky and Steve. Remember: What I do and what I insist must be done is to turn the lens of examination around; to reverse the moral and ethical investigation. I assert it is not I that require moral probing — to discover where my thinking is wrong and distorted — but rather *you*. That is my entire approach to Jack’s blog, and this describes my relationship to the ideological system that our present is. It is a system whereby specific allegiances are required and these are arrived at through coercive processes. You have this distorted idea and participate in a self-lie that you are free thinkers yet, I suggest, you are not.

    I am essentially interested in and studying the perspectives and ideology of those who write here. But I am mostly in Jack’s *structure of view* and Steve’s because as so-called Conservatives they are emblems of the American Conservatism that abandoned Conservatism to become a hand-maiden to American Progressivism. What these *false-Conservatives* have done is to have allied them self in embarrassing ways with State power and Corporate power and allowed them self to become mouth-pieces of forces which, beginning in the Postwar, turned essentially against the American worker. When I say *American worker* I mean ‘the original demographic of America’. The people that it was created for.

    My orientation is to go back through the history, to follow back the causal chain, and to locate those crucial points where *you* sold-out America. This *you* is problematic of course. I do not know what language convention to adopt. I do not mean exclusively a you-singular and when I refer to a plural *you* I also mean all of us, in one degree or another. I do not necessarily exclude myself either. I want to speak of all of us as part-and-parcel of perception- and interpretation-systems.

    You are a racist and an anti-Semite. There’s no other way to put it. I can’t take anyone who believes in, essentially, the ZOG machine, or that the gas chambers didn’t happen, with any degree of seriousness. I wish I could bring you face to face with the few remaining Holocaust survivors, and the remnants of the Soviet army who liberated Auschwitz, and have you tell them that.

    When the lens of examination is turned around, this conversation becomes a different one indeed. I do not give you the power nor the knowledge to define me. What you do is non-different from what California Chris did and does. The slightest critical response to those dumb questions that Vally asked — the fact that I did not launch into a ‘denial’ which is all that she asked for — is adequate reason to dismiss all my ideas, and indeed my person from ‘the conversation’. You show how exclusion and concomitant coercion function. “Either you think like us, and repeat what we repeat, like parrots, or we will dismiss you from our group”. Any deviation will be punished.

    Your paragraph is simply silly — though I could also say *stupid* (though I avoid such hot terms). I propose to you that there is a larger conversation going on which has to do with a critical examination of Jews, Judaism, and Jewish influence in America. Because I mention this, and because I have knowledge of this arena, does not mean I agree with all their assertions. Yet I certainly do consider that they have valid arguments. Or arguments that are fair and which can be considered. So Kevin MacDonald and his Culture of Critique and E Michael Jones and his The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit are works, highly suppressed of course and vilified, that I have studied. Are these people anti-Semites? Well, according to your definitions I must assume yes. But you allow zero critical posture. Any critical posture is for you anti-Semitic. But of course that is a stupid position to have and it shows how constrained and controlled your thinking is: and you impose these regulations on your self and then demand that other people impose them too. This is a sickness. It needs to be exposed. Therefore: you are the one under study as are you-plural.

    I can write at length about my findings and I can do this fairly as well as ethically. But you have specific areas where critical thinking is excluded and *off-limits*. I bring to you a critical perspective about the *structure* of your own ‘conservative’ mind that challenges it. I see you in a specific historical light. I regard you not as having truth or as defining what is true, but can show you why your thinking is in some areas twisted and also perverse. But this is true for late-American conservatism generally. It is in very difficult conditions. And it does not have what is needed to confront this remarkably strange, and dangerous, present.

    Both of you — Jack and you Steve — are in many ways part of a problem and not a solution to the problem. You are also exceedingly arrogant at times! You assume that you have *right* on your side. That is a dangerous self-assertion. Both of you nevertheless I admire tremendously. Both of you are uniquely skilled and insightful. I can talk about that too at length.

    But when you pretend that you have a right to simply dismiss me and my ideas and perspectives I will come back and demonstrate to you that you do not. And I laugh in your faces when you do this! But always good-naturedly. 🙂

    There is so much more to talk about here — important stuff — and you will both *go silent* because in your own ways you are arrogant and also cowardly.

  11. I wrote: “But putting [Spencer] to the side, I make it a point to listen to the most damaged and angry individuals, those who have been cast aside and also those who lack skills of articulation.”

    Valky said: “As cult leaders and extremists have done for millennia. You seek out “the most damaged and angry individuals” to radicalized, to turn them loose on your chosen targets. What did you say above?”

    First, you are nothing more than silly.Nevertheless I respond to you and to all silly people who do not and are not paying sufficient attention to what is going on in the US and in the world. To achieve an understanding and a perspective requires work and study. You have not put in the time. You are not serious. And for this reason your ideas take shape within pre-established tropes. You presented to Steve the example of an important general who fought in a Grand Struggle for America’s interests. And you used this — or tried to use it — to both test Steve’s ideological limits and to express something of your own. And you were working to assert (in this sickly passive way of yours) that I am not associated with those values and that I serve something different — and should be shunned. That is why you said “A Nazi is trying to recruit you”.

    This is how your sickly argument functions. It is not just you-singular but hudreds of throusands of people — millions and millions — who have been trained to think in certain ways. You, Jack, Steve and numerous others here, attracted to this brand of ‘conservatism’ express your self through these pre-established tropes. You have to slot everything and everyone. There is a great deal that has to be said about *what you-plural do*. It is crucial to say it and to communicate it. You-plural do not have moral or ethical authority of any sort to judge me or adjudicate my ideas. Each of you, in unique ways, is ignorant. Intellectually lazy, resting on past accomplishment, and often thoroughly superficial in your perspectives and analysis.

    Get it?

    The lens of examination is turning around now. You are recognized as having failed. You have participated in the selling our of your country and your people. I can talk about this, I do talk about it, and I will continue to talk about it. And in a larger sense *we* of a dissident right will challenge you, as we have done. And our ideas have moved and will continue to move the conversation back to a more genuine conservatism [I recognize that this paragraph is less directed to you — as a sort of wishy-washy lefty or Heaven-knows-what — and more to my chosen audience the American Conservative.].

    I read closely Kathleen Belew’s recent study Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America and I read her as an extension of the efforts of the SPLC, the ADL, and numerous others. So when I say that I pay attention to what the damaged and wounded sectors of society have to say I do so with a different object in mind. It is the Republican Establishment, speaking generally, that *sold-out America*. The Reaganites. The Neo-Conservatives. The American Conservative Establishment. And ‘the chicken came home to roost’ when the victims of war-policies returned home, as Belew outlines in her book. Louis Beam (if I remember) is a man she refers to: A Vietnam vet who became a radical to the régime ruling America (as he would describe it).

    It is not that I do anything with him (he is still alive I think but has retreated into Christian quietism) it is that I refer to him, and to many others, as part of an endeavor to gain understanding. So, one can examine Beam, Duke, Jared Taylor, Spencer, Randy Weaver and a whole range of people (often always of the ‘original demographic’ I refer to) as a way of understanding what happened to America, and who did this to America. That is why I use the term ‘sell-out’. We are living in the outcome and the consequences of that sell-out. Some part of my analysis here is definitely more left-leaning and ‘democrat’ insofar as I cannot see a way around having to define postures that support the American worker. These are people, not tools to be used by corporate, government and ‘social engineering’ powers and forces.

    If you want to talk about the link between this often crude reactionism of the ‘original demographic’ and the inclination to use those familiar tropes you are referring to, we can go in this direction. But to go ion that direction means that it would have to be an open and honest conversation. But you cannot have such a conversation, and the blog definitely cannot, because the topic is off-limits. It is wiser not to talk about any of this, especially when one has social standing, a business, etc. I assume you understand what I am getting at here.

    You are going to have to accept that there are radical changes in the works. You are going to have to accept that there is a radical turning against set liberal assumptions and controls. You are going to have to accept the presence of a dissident right and I suggest to you that you make an effort to understand what they say and why they say it. But if you desire to mis-perceive — that may be your object after all — just keep on in the same way.

    As to ‘what I said above’: I stand by it. And I can defend it all intellectually, ethically and morally. You cannot do the same because your *ideas* are based in irrational sentiments, not ideas.

    I wrote: “Or do you mean that you are going to take some reckless action — acting out of anger and frustration — that achieves nothing and actually sets things back?”

    Valky said: “Don’t want to waste an act of violence on nothing if the perpetrator can be convinced to do it on your behalf? You’ll dance around and never deny it.”

    Understanding violence is different from condoning violence. But unless you bring up a specific example of the violence you think I support or condone — that you ask me to *repudiate* — I don’t know what you are talking about. Christchurch? Dylan Roof? The synagogue massacre?

    I am interested in the violence that is unfolding today in America. Very different from condoning it. And I know that violent acts serve no purpose. What I mean is reactionary violent acts by the Right. We know — indeed we know! — that Left and Radical violence has a purpose and (seems) to achieve its goals. But all that *we* can do is to continue to talk and to stress the need to read and study.

    In the larger frame — though I doubt you are concerned or even wish to know — people are examining different political theories than the regnant one. See Michael Millerman Talks on YouTube if it intererests you.

    See also Ronal Beiner’s Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger and the Return of the Far Right (a Jewish-liberal perspective likely commensurate with yours). If you are interested in the range of emerging Right-leaning ideas see also Key Thinkers of the Radical Right edited b Mark Sedgwick (Oxford).

    You can remain stupid and uninformed like everyone else . . . or you could choose to take another path.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.