Proxy War

At Berkeley, police stood down as the Blackshirts attacked conservative events – twice.

At Middlebury College in Vermont, police stood idly by as “Anti”-fascists attacked a conservative speaker and one of their own professors.

And in Charlottesville last weekend, the police were given a “Stand Down” order, (by a mayor who condemned the permitted protesters, but pointedly refused to address the Blackshirts) allowing the Blackshirts to attack a “white supremacist” rallly with impunity

Nope – nobody dare suggest that Big Left is all about getting and holding power.  Perish the thought.

Damore, Damerrier

James Damore is exploring his legal options against Google.

And apparently he has some:

According to Dan Eaton, an attorney and ethics professor at San Diego University, the engineer certainly has grounds for a case on two fronts. “First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions,” Eaton writes.

And second, because the memo was a statement of political views, Eaton says Google may have violated California law which “prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”

An international corporation with armies of both lawyers, Google knew all this. They decided to take their chances with state and federal law anyway rather than stick up for one of their employees and risk public backlash. That’s an incredibly telling decision from a company that has mastered everything from artificial intelligence to self-driving cars.

Question:  Will a Goodle “self-driving car” actually drive someone who opposes Planned Parenthood?

But I digress.  If Mr. Damore has a legal plaintiff’s fund, I’ll be contributing.

By the way –

Let’s Sue The President Over His Twitter Account

A bunch of journos are apparently getting ready to sue the President for blocking them from his Twitter account.

I’m about ready to send money to their plaintiff’s fund.

Wny?

Because the journos are right.  Why should pols get to decide whose speech to restrict, and from whom they can restrict access to their public speech?

It’s downright un-American.

And I’ve got quite a little list of DFL pols who’ve done exactly the same to me, and I’d guess most every conservative pundit in Minnesota.

In some cases – like Kim “Profile in Courage” Norton – it was because I publicly called out her lies over “criminal protection” laws.

And yes, I may have actually broken the story of Alondra “The Industrial Engineer” Cano distributing personal information on Twitter about people who’d criticized her privately  (or so they thought() on the City of Minneapolis website to try to bully them into silence.

Both of these politicians blocked me almost immediately after I publicly ate their lunches.  Waah waah waaah.

Likewise, the Twitter accounts of “Alliance for a Better Minnesota” and “Protect MN” have long since blocked me – because I crush them every time I turn my attention to them.

But others – Rep. Melissa Hortmann, Senator Tina LIebling, as well as several DFL-xupporting non-profits – already had me blocked before I ever attempted to write/tweet about them.

I know that there are apps that can systematically block all social media from authors matching some lists or algorithms – which is why I suspect the blanket block from DFL pols.

But I don’t care.  If it’s fair for CNN, it’s fair for me.

Remember that in all cases, while I am a stone-cold purveyor of unassailable fact, I am also scrupulously polite to a fault.    Anyone who wants to claim otherwise is welcome to prove it – and yes, there I AM more than willing to file a test case.  I’m not the sharpest tool in the box, but I’m way smarter than that.

So yes, “journos”.  Sue Donald Trump.  I beg of you.  Indeed, there’s some legal grounding already starting to happen:

So let the courts court, and the juries jurr.

Then get it incorporated onto all the states.

And hurry.  Some MN Pols need some freaking free speech already.

And we’ve got some lost time to make up for.

Something To Resist

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Journalists and actors and leaky politicians love to claim they’re part of The Resistance, as if Trump were Hitler and these schmucks were the French Underground.  So Brave.

Except members of The Resistance were summarily executed.  Lined up and shot.  That was the price they agreed to pay when they decided to join.

Trump should reinstitute the policy, for the sake of verisimilitude.  Put some skin in the game or drop your claim to stolen valor.

Joe Doakes

The number of “progressives” who know more about history than they learned in 11th grade would fit into a Prius with room for a load of (Whole Foods* groceries in the front seat.

Lowest Setting

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

John Scalzi summed up Liberals’ worldview when he quipped “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is.”

 

The problem with any quip is that it contains a kernel of truth so it can’t be denied completely.  But only a kernel, meaning it should be denied in part.  The difficulty lies in determining which part.

 

In Rome in 400 AD, Straight White Male was undeniably the lowest difficulty setting.  Women and minorities had it tougher, no question.  In South Africa in 2017, Straight White Male is a death sentence.  The validity of the quip depends on Where you are.

 

Limiting the quip to the United States, it’s still not universally true.  In Virginia in 1800, sure.  In Minneapolis in 2017 with its commitment to diversity and affirmative action in education and employment, it’s definitely not so.  The validity of the quip depends on When you are.

 

Liberals continue to act as if today was November 1, 1959; as if Eisenhower was still the President; as if drinking fountains were still segregated, women had coat-hanger abortions, welfare was non-existent and the Klan enforced Jim Crow laws.

 

It takes a special kind of wilfull blindness to ignore the progress America has made, to continue to blame everything on the past, insisting on new and better solutions to problems that already have been solved.

 

Joe Doakes

“Willful Blindless” – or consistent strategy?

On Your Own Dime

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The author proposes that conservatives begin to use shaming and shunning as a weapon against liberals, the way they have used them against us. I say it won’t work, because Liberals control all the institutions where shaming and shunning is enforced.

I can’t shame anybody on Facebook or Twitter, because my post will be blocked by the liberals who administer the website.

My complaints to HR will be disregarded because of the liberals who administer employee discipline programs. My complaints to the court will be dismissed  because of liberals who sit on the bench. And of course, God help anybody who attempts to shun gays by refusing to bake their wedding cake.

We can’t use character assassination against them because they already own the HR department.  To those people, claiming my boss harassed me on account of my political beliefs won’t get him disciplined, it’ll get him a raise: it’s good to harass a Nazi fascist, they deserve it.  And all the Liberal Democrats who work in HR believe that without question.

It is too late to attempt to use shaming and shunning to shut down liberals. So what’s the next weapon to use in the war of degenerating civil standards?  Either we undertake a decades-long sustained effort to take back the institutions, or we bypass the institutions that have been captured by social justice Warriors. And when you talk about bypassing the courts, you’re talking about Street Justice which is another word for Civil War. When reason is not available, violence is the last resort.

Perverting the institutions that ensure social order results in destroying social order.   Another application of Berg’s Law: Liberal Values Destroy Liberal Societies.

Joe Doakes

Leaving only power – those who have it, and those subject to it.

Which is really what it’s all about.

Ripped From Social Media

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A:        I have a question.

B:        I’m sorry, I’m not giving you an answer.

 

A:        Why not?

B:        Because you don’t want to hear it.

 

A:        Yes, I do.  Why won’t you tell me the answer?

B:        Because I’m an Old White Male and therefore disqualified from having an opinion, any opinion, about anything whatsoever.

 

A:        You don’t even know what the question is.

B:        Doesn’t matter.  If I answered it, that would be “mansplaining” which is a hate crime.

 

A:        I bet you don’t even know the answer.

B:        I do, but it’s not a sensitive and empowering answer; therefore, to protect your feelings so you don’t feel threatened and need to  retreat to a safe space, I’m not telling you the answer.

 

A:        You just won’t tell me because I’m a woman/Black/gay/left-handed/poor/Muslim.  That’s racisssssssssssss.  You’re too hateful to be allowed to have an opinion and even if you told me the answer, I wouldn’t listen to it because you’re such a hater.

B:        Told you.

Joe Doakes

You might call it fiction.

I call it the Hamline-Midway Facebook page.

I’m Done Pretending To Call This Sort of “Feminism” Anything Other Than Child Abuse

Back in the ’00s, when there were a lot more blogs, I used to amuse myself by calling myself “The Twin Cities’ Best Feminist”.

I did it partly – OK, mostly – to troll the local feministbotblogger community; so un-self-aware were they, and so seriously do they take themselves, that they found countless ways to spin their underwear into knots when I wrote that.  (“The Twin Cities ‘Best’ Feminist?”  Really?  What does that even mean?)

Background:  I did it partly because it was true.  Well, partly – because “Feminist” doesn’t just have one meaning.  Because as Camille Paglia noted around twenty years ago, there are really two branches to “Feminism”.

There’s “equity” Feminism – the idea that women should have the same opportunity to go as far and do as much as their merits and talents can take them.  It’s the feminism that killed off the “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” thing; the one that advanced the world out of the “Mad Men” era.  I think any father with a daughter qualifies on one level or another.    Am I “the best” at this?  Sure, why not?

Then there’s “Identity Feminism” – the idea that women are an identity group, like blacks or Armenians or Jews, with an agenda and history and grievances against long-time enemies and oppressors, and a collective (and to one extent or another, retributive) political interest.  I’m proud to say, I’m no good at this.  l

So we have – again, Paglia’s idea, not mine – the “feminists” who seek equality, and the “feminists” who seek demagoguery and political power.

We’ll come back to that.

Boys Without Mothers Won’t Quite Be Boys:  There’s a huge body of research about what happens when girls grow up without fathers – because our society is rife with it, thanks to our family court system and an urban culture than systematically devalues fatherhood.   Such girls grow up much more likely to fail in school, to get pregnant while a teenager or single, to have trouble with guys, and to suffer from depression and other psychological issues in adulthood.

The study of boys without mothers – or whose mothers systematically devalue their relationships with their sons – is a lot newer, since it happens a lot less often   But it’s starting to happen.  And it’s not pretty.  Boys whose mothers are absent, impaired, or who just undercut that relationship in favor of other things – other relationships, addiction, or dysfunctional addiction to career – grow up very likely to act out, to be violent, to have trouble in school and at work, and to have the same raft of psychological issues as girls whose fathers do, basically, the same thing.

We’ll come back to that.

Meet The Mother Of The Year:  Jody Allard is a feminist writer in, where else, Seattle.   And her sons are going to make some psychologists very wealthy,  Ro judging by this article, “I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons).

I have two sons. They are strong and compassionate—the kind of boys other parents are glad to meet when their daughters bring them home for dinner. They are good boys, in the ways good boys are, but they are not safe boys. I’m starting to believe there’s no such thing.

A psychologist once told me there are two lies that everyone tells:  “I never doubted my sexuality” and “I’ve never ever even once thought about suicide”.   Without arguing about the point, I’d add a third; “I’ve never thought things about my kids that concerned, worried or scared me”.

But one thing most parents don’t do is tell it to their kids, even directly.

Not Allard (emphases added by me):

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture. The struggle I wrote about was universal, I thought, but I was wrong. My essay went semi-viral, and for the first time my sons encountered my words about them on their friends’ phones, their teachers’ computers, and even overheard them discussed by strangers on a crowded metro bus. It was one thing to agree to be written about in relative obscurity, and quite another thing to have my words intrude on their daily lives.

Can you imagine – one of your parents considering you guilty until  proven innocent (not to mention with no actual avenue to prove yourself innocent(?

One of my sons was hurt by my words, although he’s never told me so.

And have it wind up in the Washington Post in a few months?  I’d take a pass, too.

He doesn’t understand why I lumped him and his brother together in my essay. He sees himself as the “good” one, the one who is sensitive and thoughtful, and who listens instead of reacts. He doesn’t understand that even quiet misogyny is misogyny, and that not all sexists sound like Twitter trolls.

Let’s just take a step back and reassess:  “Mom” has called her sons, essentially, rapists in training – because of traits their mother insists are in them, never mind their lying eyes, brains or senses of self.  

It seems to astound Ms. Allard that her son has reacted:

He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

His problem is not an “ungrateful woman”.  It’s one, apparently narcissistic woman who he has, luckily, discovered has been trying to gaslight him – to convince him, via .

I teeter frequently between supporting my son and educating him. Is it my job as his mother to ensure he feels safe emotionally, no matter what violence he spews?…When I hear his voice become defensive, I back off but question whether I’m doing him any favors by allowing his perception of himself to go unchallenged. When I confront him with his own sexism, I question whether I’m pushing too hard and leaving him without an emotional safe space in his home.

Am I the only one who suspects that poor kid hasn’t had “emotional safe space” since he was a zygote?

I’ll leave the rest of this exercise in narcissism – in the full, clinical sense – to you to read (or not.    And I hope this woman’s poor sons find some way to fill the hole she’s no doubt left in their lives from prioritizing them below her yapping ideology; I hope they can find some sense of themselves outside of her gaslighting.

But for a parent to marginalize their children in the face of their ideology?

It might be mental illness, of a sort (my vote is for Narcissistic Personality Disorder).     Is it exacerbated by an ideology that treats men as an enemy to be vanquished – even one’s own children?

Which came first:  the mental illness or the ideology?

UPDATE:  Kurt Schlichter notes that one of Ms. Allard’s sons has given indications of being suicidal – which, naturally, “she” used as fodder for her self-adoration:

In a post as recent as May, the feminist wrote in Role Reboot about her and her suicidal son watching 13Reasons Why, a show that has been argued to glorify suicide.

Someone get this chick a Mother of the Year award.

Curiously, Allard also has at least one daughter about whom we can’t find any public shaming pieces.

I have no words to describe my revulsion for this “person”.

 

The Privilege Of Barbering About Privilege

I said it during the 2016 campaign. I’m gonna say it again.

The reason everyone had to start talking about “white privilege” was to pre-empt discussion of “class privilege” – of the sort that is Big Left’s real power base.  If the body politics – especially the part that votes Democrat – were too busy barbering about “white privilege”, the notion that a hot tar roofer from Little Rock with an Arklahoma accent has some innate leg up over Oprah Winfrey because white – they wouldn’t have time to fuss about the class divide that separates Kenwood from North Minneapolis, Carlton from North Hennepin Community College,

Every time I’m ready to completely give up on David Brooks – and it happens frequently enough – he writes a column like this, about  how class privilege (especially in our “progressive” zip codes) perpetuates itself.

Recently I took a friend with only a high school degree to lunch. Insensitively, I led her into a gourmet sandwich shop. Suddenly I saw her face freeze up as she was confronted with sandwiches named “Padrino” and “Pomodoro” and ingredients like soppressata, capicollo and a striata baguette. I quickly asked her if she wanted to go somewhere else and she anxiously nodded yes and we ate Mexican.

Brooks’ point is a good one – language is  a primary way to include or exclude people.  And it’s not just vocabulary; a southern accent is sure to draw discrimination here in Minnesota, while a mid-Atlantic, Boston or Brooklyn accent will engender zoo-like curiosity.

And Brooks’ point is that these dividers – both social, and their more concrete legal varieties, like zoning codes, transit strategies and the like, cost our economy dearly; Brooks quotes one estimate at 50%, which strikes me as high, but you don’t have to look at Minneapolis long to see that there’s a problem.

But it goes way beyond simple inclusion and economics:

American upper-middle-class culture (where the opportunities are) is now laced with cultural signifiers that are completely illegible unless you happen to have grown up in this class. They play on the normal human fear of humiliation and exclusion. Their chief message is, “You are not welcome here.”…

To feel at home in opportunity-rich areas, you’ve got to understand the right barre techniques, sport the right baby carrier, have the right podcast, food truck, tea, wine and Pilates tastes, not to mention possess the right attitudes about David Foster Wallace, child-rearing, gender norms and intersectionality.

The educated class has built an ever more intricate net to cradle us in and ease everyone else out. It’s not really the prices that ensure 80 percent of your co-shoppers at Whole Foods are, comfortingly, also college grads; it’s the cultural codes.

And the first rule of Urban Progressive Privilege club is, you never talk about Urban Progressive Privilege club.  You deflect to White, Male Privilege (where the Urban Progressive white male has already declared nolo contendere), and deflect like mad.

As is maddeningly common with Brooks, you should read the whole thing.

Watching The Defectives

At the “Pride” Parade in Minneapolis yesterday, the processijon got delayed 20 or so minutes by a BLM group that apparently couldn’t find the freeway.

After they’d had their die-in, they got up and spent the rest of the parade marching a block or two ahead of the rest of the procession.

But not before issuing a list of demands…to the Pride organizers.

Here they are – direct and unedited:

LIST OF OUR DEMANDS

  1. We demand that Twin Cities Pride honors the legacy and life of trans women of color and recognize Pride as the byproduct of their resistance of police brutality and repression
  1.  We demand Twin Cities Pride combats State violence with the total elimination of police and law enforcement

I’m sure that’ll go over well.

  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride is accountable for their perpetuation of white supremacy and homonormativity and that they eradicate their normalization of these violent systems

“Homonormativity”.

I’m just gonna let that sit there like a big glob of goo.

  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride provide an exclusive healing space at future events for indigenous and people of color to process, rest, and restorative justice

“Process, rest and restorative justice” – Verb, Verb, Noun phrase?

Apparently grammar is an agent of white supremacy.

  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride divests from all corporations as they promote the marginalization, exploitation, and criminalization of marginalized communities
  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride funds and organizes a Town Hall alongside members from marginalized communities including but not limited to Twin Cities Coalition for Justice 4 Jamar, Native Lives Matter, and Justice4MarcusGolden
  1. We demand Twin Cities Pride provide radical reparations via redistribution of resources and monetary compensation to grassroots organizations of the coalition’s choice

And there we are;  good old-fashioned extortion.

My big question:  will the left manage to eat itself before it eats everything of worth in our society?

It’s The Hypocrisy, Stupid

Victor Davis Hanson’s conclusion on the problem our coastal “elites” have:

An elite’s lectures on melting ice caps, transgendered restrooms, or Black Lives Matter are progressive versions of an unapologetic sinner’s singing hymns in church on Sunday; the harangues bring them closer to their social-justice deities and apparently give personal meaning to their otherwise quite non-transcendent lives.

In all their own manifest hypocrisies, Americans take for granted that elites of the Left have become the Jimmy Swaggarts of our age.

How did he get there?

Read the article!

(And see how it ties into this)

The New Brahmins

Democrat congresswoman tells commoner that her First Amendment rights are “Different” than his:

A bit of background:  when Rep. Demings was a police chief, her gun was stolen from her car; it’s tautological that her gun fell into the hands of a criminal.

Demings is, naturally, a gun grabber:

So that’s two “rights of the people” where this Demcorat rep thinks some people are more people than others.

Unpacking The Invisible NPR Tote Bag

“White Privilege” has been all over the news this last couple of years.

 It’s been there because the Big Left has ordained that it should be.  My theory;  in a nation full of “privilege” – class, racial, academic, social and, let’s be honest, the privilege of being born here rather than Russia or Nigeria or Burma – Big Left needed to focus on racial, “white” privilege to whip up black votes for Hillary Clinton, a geriatric white plutocrat.  As a result, all discussion of other “privilege” is off the table.

Terms, Terms, Everywhere Are Terms: White privilege exists, of course.  It goes hand in hand with the idea of “we-ism” – the idea that everyone on earth is more comfortable around, and accomodating of, people more like them than less.

Beyond that?  In my more sardonic and less cautious days, I defined it as being a descendant of a society from a harsh, lethally inhospitable place that had zero words for “hakuna matata” but more words for “stab him!” than Eskimos have for “snow”; a dour, patriarchal warrior culture that killed everyone that had designs on enslaving them.  As a result, my culture has no commonly-held concept of being enslaved.  We  operate from the standpoint of people who’ve been free (or at least subjects of generally benign monarchs) as far back as our cultural memory goes.  On behalf of all my cultural cousins, I am sorry for those of you who are descended from matriarchal hunter gatherer societies that couldn’t effectively resist the slave merchants, but I can’t change history any more than you can.  Just the present – a present I and my cultural cousins have been trying to change for 240-odd years, now.

More soberly, and after interviewing a representative of Black Lives Matter on my show, I arrived at the idea that “white privilege” is the ability to walk into a room and not have everyone wondering if you’re “one of the good ones”.   It was a little after that that I first encountered the academic paper in which the term “white privilege” was coined, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh.   It supplied fifty definitions of white (also male) privilege.

Every one of which, by the way ,translates to “freedom”, “justice” and “being accorded the dignity of being treated as an autonomous individual rather than a member of a group” – all of which are supposed to be values near and dear to our Republic and Western Civilization itself, and all of them things we should be working tirelessly to spread to everyone.

And when some mindless Social Justice Warrior jabbers about “smashing white/male privilege”, the proper response is “so – you want to smash freedom, justice and individual dignity?  See you at the barricades”.

Discussion of all other privileges – academic, social, class – were drowned out.  As they were intended to be.

But with the complete subsumation of the left by identity politics, it’s time to return the favor Peggy McIntosh did us; it’s time to define Urban Progressive Privilege.

Unpacking The Invisible NPR Tote Bag:  I’m going to borrow McIntosh’s format – which I suspect was actually tacitly borrowed from Jeff Foxworthy – of the simple list of attributes of Urban Progressive Privilege.

To wit:


Urban Progressive Privilege; Unpacking the Invisible NPR Tote Bag

Mitch Berg

“You were taught to see Urban Progressive Privilege as a bit of talk show rhetoric – not in terms of a very vislble system conferring dominance on my group via a meritless meritocracy”.   

As an urban progressive, you have been taught about “privilege” by others who have that privilege.  Being able to caterwaul about privilege is a prerogative of the privileged.

Like the concept of “white privilege” (which, conventional wisdom tells us, that “whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege”), the first rule of Urban Progressive Privilege is “I don’t believe there is such a thing”; it’s the water in which the Urban Progressive swims.  So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have Urban Progressive Privilege. I have come to seeUrban Progressive Privilege as an invisible and group package of unearned assets that I can count on using daily, but about which it’s hard to be anything but oblivious.

Urban Progressive Privilege is like an invisible weightless NPR tote bag of special permissions, immunities, secret handshakes, Whole Foods gift cards, a virtual echo chamber accompanying everyone who has that privilege, filtering out almost all cognitive dissonance about political, social or moral questions, and a virtual “cone of silence” immunizing them from liability for anything they say or do that contradicts the group’s stated principles.  As we in Human studies work to reveal Urban Progressive Privilege and ask urban progressives to become aware of their power, so one who writes about havingUrban Progressive Privilege must ask, “having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?”

So – when assessing Urban  Progressive Privilege, can you say any of the following?:

  1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people who believe exactly as I do about politics, society, philosophy, morality and the like, all or nearly all of the time.
  2. I was educated from my earliest years through post-secondary education by people whose political and social beliefs mirrored mine, and who didn’t challenge any of mypolitical, social, philosophical and moral beliefs.
  3. My progressive beliefs were never challenged through four or more years of higher education – indeed, they were reinforced, while competing views were shamed and shouted down.
  4. When I went into the working world, my politics, social background or philosophy were never adversarially questioned.
  5. I work, very likely, in an environment staffed with people who agree with and never challenge my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  6. My social life is made up of people who share, pretty much to a fault, my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptins.
  7. I can avoid, during my daily life, spending time around anyone who will challenge my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  8. My neighbors – the people in my physical community in which I live – share, almost without exception, my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs.
  9. If someone in  my social or professional life does express a point of view discordant with my and my group’s political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions intrudes into my sphere, I can count on overwhelming support from the rest of my personal, social, professional circles to defend me.  Those who don’t share our beliefs thus either keep quiet, or are shamed into silence.  Thus, their beliefs have no impact in my life. .
  10. My informational world – my news media, my online social circle, my institutional associations (churches/synagogues, my social groups – will not contradict my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  11. I can count on the news media I listen to – my community’s newspapers, TV stations, as well as stereotypical outlets like NPR, PBS and the like – to reinforce my political and social assumptions.
  12. I can count on as the entertainment media not to contradict my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.
  13. I can count on the education system in my community not to undercut the political, social, philosophical and moral I’ve tried to pass on to my family.
  14. My kids’ schools give them textbooks, lectures and other materials that reinforce, never undercut, my political, social, philosophical and moral worldview and that which I’ve tried to teach them.
  15. I can be fairly certain that when I go to my kids’ school, the principle will not condescend to me based on my perceived academic or social background.
  16. I have never had anyone laugh at the accent or vocabulary of my native spoken English.
  17. I can rest fairly certain that no “well-meaning” pundit or scholar will ever paternalistically castigate me for “voting against my interests” (as determined by the pundit’s / scholar’s political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions) for voting in accordance with my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs.
  18. I can choose to ignore the parts of our society outside the East Coast, West Coast, and selected “progressive” archipelagos in between, and express not only ignorance but mockery of the rest of the country, without being seen, shamed, and scorned as a provincialist.
  19. I can express scorn for individuals, groups, religions and social classes that don’t share my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs, accents and worldviews, entirely based on those beliefs, and not be shamed and labeled as a bigot.
  20. I can make racist, sexist and classist statements about people who do not share my community’s political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions, and rest assured I will not be castigated for violating community standards.
  21. I have never been treated as a foreign culture in my own country; I have never had journalists, academics or pundits dispatch a special group to research, analyze and report on why my social circle believes and votes as they do – because the media, academics and punditry are from my class, and share my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions; the more aware ones would be offended by being subjected to such a condescending, patriarchal bit of cultural chauvinism.
  22. My children and family are safe, almost entirely, from the economic, social and criminological  consequences of my political, social, philosophical and moral beliefs; indeed, I personally am almost entirely insulated from them.
  23. I can simultaneously say “I believe in science, and have a fact-based worldview” – while never being corrected, much less called out or scorned, for expressing beliefs that have no scientific basis (belief that there are no evolutionary differences between men and women, believe a human isn’t a human until it emerges from the birth canal, believe that there’s scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic).
  24. I can simultaneously eschew racism and racists, even as I gang up with others like me to oppress black, latino, asian and females who disagree with my political, social, philosophical and moral assumptions.  I can say things like “That’s not a real, authentic (Black, Latino, Asian) person!” and not get scorned as a racist and patriarch.
  25. I can exhibit ghastly contradictions in my world view and be reasonable sure that nobody in my regular social circle is going to say or do anything about it; if I call someone I disagree with a “fascist” or “patriarch” or “1 percenter” while displaying Che Guevara memorabilia or studiously intoning approval for “Chavezism”, nobody in my social or professional life is going to castigate me for it.
  26. I tut-tut about the virtues of Western civilization and praise Multiculturalism – but do so entirely from a perspective that could not exist outside of Western civilization.  Nobody in my personal or profession or social circles ever brings this up, because they all believe the same thing.

I’m looking for more examples.  Keep ’em generic – not related to any specific issue.   .

Getting Ready To Mint Another “Berg’s Law”

And if I do, it’s going to read “All claims of racist “hate speech” not delivered face to face by someone proven not to be a ringer should be presumed hoaxes until proven otherwise”.

Because when I got the first word of this “attack”, the first thing that crossed my mind was “No way, just  no way, that that actually happened”.

I was right.  I’m almost always right

Let me be clear (because liberals have a hard time arguing with anything but straw men, so a conservative must always straw-proof their argument) – any actual hate speech needs to be met by overwhelming opposition, as well as any rules that apply (and don’t violate everyone’s free speech rights).

It’s just that it’s so very hard to find such an episode that isn’t a hoax perpetrated by social justice weasels looking for a headline.

Shot In The Dark: Today’s News, Ten Years Ago

It’s been a little over 11 years since I coined the term “we-ist” – the notion that everyone in the world is more comfortable around, more forgiving of people more like themselves, and less so around those less like them.  In extreme cases that turns to intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

And it covers everyone in the world; just as the white redneck might be less tolerant of the black teenager, so might the middle-class black woman look down her nose at the blue-collar Mexican latino, who is at least thankful that he’s more creole than the native-looking Latino, who disdains the Korean grocer, who has no time for the Japanese-American customer, who is thankful she’s not Chinese, who think Anglos in general are annoying…

And it’s not just race; liberals are every bit as intolerant as conservatives are:

Research over the years has shown that in industrialized nations, social conservatives and religious fundamentalists possess psychological traits, such as the valuing of conformity and the desire for certainty, that tend to predispose people toward prejudice. Meanwhile, liberals and the nonreligious tend to be more open to new experiences, a trait associated with lower prejudice. So one might expect that, whatever each group’s own ideology, conservatives and Christians should be inherently more discriminatory on the whole.

But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it’s not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.

Surprisingly?

Not if you’re a conservative in a liberal town, it’s not.

Color Me Shocked

Steven Colbert – a person who’d still be playing character parts on Law and Order if there weren’t a wave of pervasive liberal smugness to ride – is in a bit of “trouble” for saying the sort of thing that would have gotten a Congressional hearing if Rush Limbaugh had said it.

It’s all just wind in sails, of course; Urban Liberal Privilege means that there’s no penalty for violating PC codes when one is attacking apostates (and as an NYC plutocrat, who should be a “progressive” and was a Democrat, Trump is surely an apostate).

Honestly?  Up until the last year or two, I’d have figured it would fly for the same reason that black people can drop the n-bomb or the Irish can call themselves “harps” but have license to pound the stuffing out of anyone else who does; I always figured Colbert was gay.

I’m told he’s not.

Now, I don’t care either way.  I’ve seen a lifetime grand total of 40 minutes of Colbert.  I don’t plan to add to it.  Ever.  Even if he has a late-life epiphany and becomes a conservative firebrand.  His delivery, his style, and even the timbre of his voice annoy the living bejeebers out of me. Also, he’s just not very funny.

“I Hate You”, She Explained

Progressive Lino Lakes City Councilwoman Melissa Stockman-Maher contributed to this nation’s civic discourse in commenting about a Tom Emmer “town hall” meeting on a 6th District farm:

If you live in Lino Lakes, you might want to ask if Councilwoman Stockman Maher is threatening only Congressman Emmer, or if there are parts of Lino Lakes that conservatives in general should try to avoid, lest the Councilwoman likewise sic an armed mob on them.

Or maybe just make sure someone runs against her, with this tweet as part of their campaign literature.

There Will Come A Day When Berg’s Seventh Law Is Required Reading In All Classrooms

Bit by bit, some liberals are getting it.

John Kass at the ChiTrib?  He seems to have figured out the Big Lie of the Big Left:

The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right.

Conservatives would take away our right to speak our minds, and use the power of government to silence dissent. The right would intimidate our teachers and professors, and coerce the young.

And then, with the universities in thrall, with control of the apparatus of the state (and the education bureaucracy), the right would have dominion over a once-free people.

Some of us were taught this in school. Others, who couldn’t be bothered to read books, were fed a cartoon version of the diabolical conservative in endless movies and TV shows.

Best bad example?  Every episode of Law and Order after about season 5.

The most entertaining of these were science fiction, sometimes with vague references to men in brown shirts and black boots goose-stepping in some future time.

But the lie is obvious now, isn’t it?

A lie – and a Berg’s Seventh Law invocation.

Because it is not conservatives who coerced today’s young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.

The left did all that.

It’s there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.

They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.

We have not just one, but two generations of people who think 1984 is about the right, and who think they’re Winston Smith.

As Foretold

The Monday, April 10 NPR Morning Edition piece on Richard Florida and “creative class” workers leaving the rest of the city behind.   It’s he that is largely behind one of the Big Left’s current conceits; that briniging “the creative class” to big cities will revolutionize them, bringing them a new lease on life.

How’s it working?

From an NPR interview with Steve Inskeep:

Richard Florida promotes what he calls the creative class. He has said for years that cities prosper when they attract upscale innovators and entrepreneurs. Make your city a place where the creative class wants to live, and they, in turn, will create jobs.

INSKEEP: Many cities followed that advice. And now Richard Florida faces the downside. The creative class, he says, is creating cities that are massively unequal.

Well, there’s a freaking shock.

Manufacturing plants create several jobs in the area for each job actually in the plant; truckers, waitresses, janitors, HVAC contractors, management consultants, contractors, you name it.

Ad agencies don’t.

RICHARD FLORIDA: …Which is terrifying to me. The middle class in this country has declined. But, more importantly to me, the middle-class neighborhoods, those platforms for the American dream, have been decimated.

Of course, if you read this blog you are a solid decade ahead of the typical NPR listener.   It was in 2007 that Joel Kotkin foresaw all of this; the fact that the middle class is decamping to the third-tier exurbs, and to smaller and middle-sized cities.   Major cities are turning into an inner core of the wealthy, surrounded by formerly middle-class areas that the social service buearucracy has taken over to warehouse the poor.

Of course, NPR, being a PR wing of the Democrat party, knows who not to blame if it wants its belly rubbed (emphasis added):

INSKEEP: And that metric is especially bad in big, progressive, otherwise successful cities. Those cities are often led by Democratic mayors who criticize inequality…Have progressive policies failed those places?

FLORIDA: I think we’ve abandoned progressive policies. We’ve had an incredibly daunting and troubling reaction. I had to rewrite this entire book in the wake of Trump’s election. I mentioned, you know, I had called for a federal urban policy. I had called for the newly-elected Democratic administration to appoint a council of cities, you know, of great mayors to deploy federal resources.

Can you imagine?  Bill DeBlasio, Rahm Emanuel and Betsy Hodges getting together to “deploy” even more money?

The article gets even more out of touch.   You’re on your own.