Back To The Past

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A Seattle councilman says cleaning human urine and feces off the sidewalk outside the courthouse is . . . wait for it . . . racist.

The technological advance that enabled people to live in cities without rampant disease was the sanitary sewer, invented 4,000 years ago.  If Seattle can’t even manage to maintain the basic level of sanitation achieved before the Bronze Age, our civilization is doomed.

Joe Doakes

So many “progressives” want to return to the Bronze Age – provided they’re the aristocracy.  And they will be.

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.

When We Say The Roots Of “Gun Control” Are Racist…

…we aren’t just referring to its historical roots, the attempts to disarm blacks after the Civil War and the urban riots of the sixties.

Los Angeles – which still has the “discretionary issue” system Minnesota ditched in 2003 – gives fewer permits to blacks, Latinos and women.

Gotta show ’em who’s boss.

When government controls who has the right to be a citizen rather than a subject, then everyone’s a subject.

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”.

 

It Never Existed, Lindström

Swedes burn books to sanitize the historical record…

of Pippi Longstocking.

The other day came the news that the library in Botkyrka municipality, on the outskirts of Stockholm, had burned older editions of one of the Pippi books, Pippi in the South Seas (1948), because local officials have decided that they “contain racism.”

After this action came to light, the municipality issued a press release acknowledging that the books had indeed been destroyed because they contained “obsolete expressions that can be perceived as racist” – but that they had been replaced on the library shelves by a 2015 edition of the book from which those expressions have been carefully scrubbed.

Problem solved?

Since Lindgren died in 2002, of course, she was not around to grant anybody the right to fiddle with her prose. Her publishers had simply taken it upon themselves to do to her work what a lot of people would love to do to, say, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Like Mark Twain, Lindgren was the very opposite of a racist. But her use of language in Pippi in the South Seas, like that in Huck Finn, violates the Left’s current ideological tests.

The news of the Botkyrka book-burning was first reported on a July 9 broadcast by investigative journalist Janne Josefsson, who appears to be one of the few level-headed practitioners of that profession left in Sweden. “When you burn books for ideological reasons,” Josefsson later told Expressen, “there’s something in me that says, wait a second now, are we really going to let these things disappear? Shouldn’t they be allowed to survive so that that I can explain to my child that this is how you talked in those days?”

To Big Left, history is just another egg to be broken to make the omelette.

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.

Fizz

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Independence Day, the national anthem, patriotism: fireworks are a national symbol.

Except in Minnesota where the governor believes Minnesotans are so much stupider than our neighbors in South Dakota and Wisconsin, we cannot be trusted to read and follow simple instructions: “Lay on ground.  Light fuse.  Get away.”

I suppose Wednesday, I’ll be reading news accounts about all the blind and fingerless Cheeseheads swamping the refugee camps in Stillwater after they accidentally burned down their own houses with bottle rockets.  At least they had fun doing it.  Me, I’m looking forward to lighting those little black ‘snake’ pellets to watch them writhe.  Whoopee,

Joe Doakes

To be fair, they just legalized Sunday liquor sales.  They probably figure too much freedom (also booze) will be too intoxicating.

Sandbagged?

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

You figure that if you are forced to shoot somebody and you’re up-front with the cops, the prosecutor will see that you’re a Good Guy and will drop the charges, right?   You can’t imagine the prosecutor will twist your words and play dirty tricks to cheat you out of your rights, all in a blind effort to appease a mob.  That wouldn’t happen in Minnesota, right?

“In the hour-long interview with Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) investigators, Yanez repeatedly used the pronoun “it” instead of “gun” or “firearm.” Prosecutors told jurors that the language proves Yanez never saw a gun. However, prosecutors never played the video during its case, thinking it more strategic to introduce the footage last Friday during the defense’s case. It is common practice to play a defendant’s interview with investigators during the state’s case.

“The rules of evidence clearly allow for the statement’s admission into evidence during cross examination,” said a written statement issued … by the Ramsey County attorney’s office. “Strategically, we felt the statement would be best used for impeachment purposes on cross examination when the defendant took the stand in his own defense.”

But the move backfired [at trial] when Ramsey County District Judge William H. Leary III criticized the prosecution’s timing and refused to allow the video. Defense attorney Thomas Kelly objected to the prosecution’s effort, calling it an “improper impeachment” of Yanez and asserting that the state allegedly withheld the video in order to compel Yanez’s testimony.”

Twisting words.  Dirty tricks.  Mob waiting outside.

Here’s the really fascinating question: is this merely local politicians and bureacrats doing their best to achieve justice, but their best isn’t very good?   Or is this part of a concerted effort at all levels to make gun ownership not only onerous, but even dangerous, for law-abiding citizens?  Defend yourself and we’ll bury you, to make sure nobody else defends themselves.

Joe Doakes

That’s the problem; when people stop trusting the “Justice” system, every manner of conspiracy becomes perfectly plausible.

Disgust

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

St. Paul Police Chief Axtell does not know what he’s talking about.

Gun violence is exploding in St. Paul.  The Chief says “ . . . basically it’s yesterday’s fistfights are today’s gun fights.”  But then he says it’s “ . . . a community health problem, this is a public health crisis.”

No.

A health problem is caused by disease.  The cure is quarantine and medical treatment for those infected, and sanitation to prevent spread of illness.  Americans know very well how to handle outbreaks of disease.  St. Paul does not have a public health problem.

St. Paul has a cultural problem.  Perfectly healthy people are choosing to shoot each other instead of fistfight.  We’re not willing to quarantine residents in Frogtown and there is no medical treatment, no vaccine that cures bad behavior.  Bad behavior is cured by deterrence and punishment, to make bad behavior unacceptably costly to the actors.

When Charles Napier wanted to end the Hindu practice of burning wives alive on their husband’s funeral pyre, he explained to the priests: “This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”  The practice of suttee ended abruptly.

In fairness, it may be that the Chief knows exactly what’s going on in his city, but he’s afraid to speak the truth because the City Council is a bunch of liberals more concerned with signaling their virtue by mouthing politically acceptable platitudes than with protecting their citizens by enacting effective law enforcement measures.  As long as the people dying are young Black men and poor children on the East Side, what’s the big deal?

Can we talk about adding another light rail line now? Because that’s a big deal. That’s something we care about.

Joe Doakes

I have to hope that there’s a lot of smart cops out there acting dumb because they want to keep their jobs.

The alternative?  Remember – today’s police forces didn’t exist when the Constitution was written.  I have a hunch they are more like the standing armies our forefathers feared than our current standing army is.

Dissent Will Not Be Tolerated

From the New York Times’ piece on the left eating itself at “progressive” Evergreen State:

For expressing his view, Mr. Weinstein was confronted outside his classroom last week by a group of some 50 students insisting he was a racist. The video of that exchange — “You’re supporting white supremacy” is one of the more milquetoast quotes — must be seen to be believed. It will make anyone who believes in the liberalizing promise of higher education quickly lose heart. When a calm Mr. Weinstein tries to explain that his only agenda is “the truth,” the students chortle.

I include the video link in the text.  You can click on it.  It won’t work.

The video – showing students bulling, shouting down and threatening Weinstein and other Evergreen staff has been “removed for violating Youtube’s bullying policy”.

Of course, it chronicled bullying; it documented the Evergreen Social Justice sturmabteilung trying to bully Professor Weinstein.

The left and their friends in social media are actively shutting down anything in their power that challenges the narrative.

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)

Misdirection

Joe Doakes from Como Pak emails:

When Bill and Hillary Clinton were under investigation for their part in the Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky affairs, Hillary Clinton told Matt Laurer that there was nothing to the charges, they were the result of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy working against her family.  She persisted in that lie for years, despite mounting evidence that the Clintons were not being wrongfully persecuted, but justly prosecuted.

When Islamic terrorists attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and dragging his body through the streets, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed the killers were innocent Muslims outraged by an offensive internet video.  She persisted in that lie for years, lying to the faces of the victims’ families, despite all evidence to the contrary.

When embarrassing Democrat party e-mails were published by Wikileaks before the election, Hillary Clinton claimed Russian hackers were trying to help Trump get elected.  Democrats are still demanding an investigation into her claim and now they’ve gotten a Special Investigator appointed.

But what if the emails weren’t stolen by Russians?  What if they were given away by a disgruntled employee of the Democrat National Committee?  Specifically, what if a 27-year-old computer programmer sent 40,000 emails to Wikileaks and later was shot in the back while walking down the street in Washington, DC, a murder the police are no longer trying to solve?  There’d be nothing for the Special Investigator to investigate.

If that were true, then Hillary’s Russian hacking story would be another misdirection lie, the same pattern of misdirection lying as Hillary repeatedly has used in the past to avoid blame for the damage she’s caused.  It fits a decades-long pattern of conduct that she’s used to great success.  Why is it so hard for people to believe it’s happening again?

Because if they allow that thought into their heads, they will be forced to admit how stupidly they’ve acted for the last 30 years as they drank the Kool-aide.  Nobody wants to admit he was duped, repeatedly, and gladly. So they perish the thought and double-down on the lie.  The Russians!  The Russians!

As Hillary slinks away.  Again.

Joe Doakes

Eventually, lotically, some conspiracy theory is going to turn out not to be a theory at all.

 

When Making Your Dining And Drinking Plans

Jamie Robinson, owner of the “Northbound Smokehouse” in Minneapolis, supports the $15 minimum wage – with a tip credit (allowing the restauranteur to deduct tip money from the basic wage).

For this, the Social Justice Warriors trashed him on social media.

Robinson has responded:

Lately, Robinson’s noticed that his political activism has turned Northbound’s Facebook page into a political arena. According to Robinson, supporters of the “15 Now” movement, which wants a $15 minimum, with no exception for restaurants, are leaving negative comments — not about Northbound’s food or beer, but about its owner…Last week, Robinson decided he was so sick of those critics, he didn’t want any more of their money. If any of them showed their “hypocritical face” in Northbound, and Robinson recognized them, they’d be “escorted right out the door in shame,” according to a Facebook post screenshot.

I’ve eaten there in the past – the food and beer are all excellent.

And I’ll be going there again, on basic principle.  Soon.

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.