More on Minow and Harvard Law School’s treatment of Stephanie Grace
Eugene Volokh, who was born in the Soviet Union and came to the United States as a child, reminicises about thought control in the country of his youth and relates the atmosphere there to what happened at Harvard Law School recently in the pursuit of PC thought about race:
Now I hasten to say that the controversy at Harvard is only a pale echo of Soviet Communism. With luck, this student won’t have her career ruined, or even much affected. I’ve seen a public call for her to be expelled (a call made by a professor at a different university), but I doubt that this will happen. And even if some of the best future jobs are closed off to her, at least for a while, a Harvard Law diploma will get you to plenty of places. She doesn’t have to worry, I suspect, about not being able to feed herself or her future family.
Yet the public revelation of a private conversation; the public condemnation by management; the obvious danger of serious career ramifications; the apology, which I take it came out of a fear of those ramifications ”” all for daring to say to friends something that simply represents a basic scientific principle (the need to be open to the possibility that there are racial differences in intelligence, as one is open to other possibilities on other scientific questions) ”” that just sounded a little too familiar to me.
It’s a pale echo, but of something so bad that we should be wary even of pale echoes.
i agree with his analysis, except for the fact that I’m not sure the echo is quite as pale as all that. Harvard’s action was not a governmental policy, it’s true, as it was in the USSR (nor was the penalty for Grace death, or exile to Siberia—except perhaps in the metaphoric sense). But it has become way too prevalent in this country that, to advance in academia or journalism or any number of professions, one must toe the party liberal line, with ostracism the penalty for violations.
Yes, for you and others who are used to the American Way it is “not so pale”; for us, who’ve seen it worse – it is.
But the life in America is speeding up towards that failed experiment in USSR, presto.
Already this country resembles the one I left 18.5 years ago way more compared to the one I arrived in.
It’s all turning into a bad case of “I could have told you this will happen”, on day-to-day escalating basis, but who is listening?
Tatyana, more people share your thoughts than you might think.
My Czech friends, having escaped communism at about the same time as you, are incredulous at current events; the Mrs. said quite plaintively the other day, “Where shall we go.”
The resistance is gathering. Gandalf the Grey is about to fight his first battle and become Gandalf the White. (I guess fairy tales have some kind of use.)
If you want to know how far we’ve gone around the bend, give some thought to reports that Minow made the short list for Supreme Court.
I think there are several important components of Eugene Volokh’s piece.
The portion quoted by Neo is probably the most important aspect of his price: the manner in which the dean of Harvard Law used the tools at her disposal to publicly condemn, and ultimately to publicly silence, a student employing a provate communication to present a proposition for review.. . that this manner so closely echoes what occurred in totalitarian societies. Volokh clearly shows how this can chill the ability for free inquiry in a university.
There is another element with which I also agree with Eugene Volokh. That element is represented by the following quote from his post:
I belive Volokh is correct in asserting that identifying genetic differences between the races “has to be understood as a scientifically plausible possibility.” I think an excellent defense of such a view can be found in this excellent article by Charles Murray.
As Murray has pointed out, to hold such a view is not equivalent with being a racist. We already recognize differences between races and ethnicities in many ways: average height, facial and bodily features, succeptibility to certain diseases, succeptibility to alcoholism and other such traits. Intellectual and academic performance are a quantifiable qualities. Why should it be surprising that there is diversity there, too?
As Charles Murray has stated:
The actions of Dean Minnow have to be condemned because, as Neo and Volokh assert, it echoes the inquiry-chilling actions of totalitarians.
It also has to be stopped because Human Bio-diversity is a subject that must be allowed to be discussed, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes some. What happened to the student who made the respectful inquiry is the same thing that happened to Galileo, and to Darwin, and to those who now question global warming. If the possibility of racial differences is now allowed to be discussed by rational, thinking people, then the subject will be ultimately left to the real racists who really do hate people because of race.
As Above the Law editor David Lat notes, Judge Richard Posner has written similar things and is often welcomed to Harvard to speak:
“In Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline,” Posner defended Charles Murray and Harvard’s Richard Herrstein, authors of “The Bell Curve,” writing that their discussion of race and IQ was, at worst, a “rhetorical mistake.” There ought to be nothing controversial, Posner continued, about the propositions that 1) a black-white IQ gap exists and 2) it has genetic as well as sociological roots.”
Similarly, Peter Singer in ‘A Darwinian Left’ notes that not all inequality is necessarily due to unfairness.
David Friedman in his post ‘Who is Against Evolution?’ notes the irony of those who believe in evolution but refuse to consider its implications.
Also, Harvard Psychology Professor Steven Pinker in his Edge Essay notes that “Groups of people may differ genetically in their average talents and temperaments”. http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_3.html
Correction, my last sentence in the above post should read:
“If the possibility of racial differences is not allowed to be discussed by rational, thinking people, then the subject will be ultimately left to the real racists who really do hate people because of race.”
To be utterly nasty and perhaps even racist (as if I care)…
I take it that The Good Dean Minow is female…perchance is she black as well?
Just a speculation…
Which would not surprise me…
There is no biologically definable black or white “race.” So any claim about “white” superiority having a biological basis is junk science. We should be willing to denounce junk science, even when doing so undercuts our beliefs about innate white superiority.
Beaverboy:
Yes, “Race” is a construct…as in “Racist”.
Perhaps we can take as a category the “Melanine Challenged”. Easy enough to measure, too…
But we all know who is being described, don’t we?
Good Ole Charlie:
Martha Minow is the second female dean of Harvard Law School, after Elana Kagan (who is being considered for the Supreme Court). Both are Jewish. Make of that what you will.
Neo
I recall seeing a nun from a former Soviet Bloc Country talking about how they tried to brainwash and control people.
It was with guilt.
The nun said it was an incredibly powerful weapon. I had never thought of it that way, but as she explained, it made sense.
Can you, Neo, give any psychiatric view about how guilt can be used as a tool against people to enslave and brainwash them?
Oh, this is just ONE that got reported – this is happening more often than is publicly known in the liberal institutions – that take our children’s dollars (well their parents…) and force their doctrine down their throats. We ARE the frogs in the slowly boiling cauldron of socialism cometh…
Wow -I had very poor grammar and forgot commas…this subject just makes my skin crawl and my heart race, as we are allowing it to happen…and I read this, attempt to comment and do so poorly. 😀 (and likely still do, as I get so worked up.)
In response to Beaverman I can report that while race is a concept, it does have an empirical referent. When the police find a skeleton in the woods, they call in a physical anthropologist to determine if it was a man or a woman and whether it is a Caucasian , African American, or Asian. This assessment is made in the absence of any flesh.
There are real physical differences between people from different parts of the world, and our view of race is not nearly as sensitive as that of many places. If you listen to an Englishman speak of the Scots or the Welsh, you would think he was talking about a different race. People from various African tribes can easily spot and outsider. The Rwanda massacre was illustrative of this phenomenon.
Your educational credentials are required, Beaverman, before your biologic claim can be considered. You are likely guilty of junk science yourself.
This is where some would take us if they could: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
Race for biologist is a common ancestry, which can now be traced down to many dozen generations into past using mithohondrial genetic markers. And yes, white (Caucasian) race is a genetical reality, just as African or East-Southern Asian ancestry.
I seem to recall when liberals prided themselves on being freethinkers. WTF happened?
I’m beginning to think we are looking at people who could not psychologically handle western civilisations unprecedented prosperity. They lacked a bigger picture, like a transcended intelligence to spur their own drive for self discipline. And they long for an adverse environment for society to impose the self discipline on them.
Modern methods of genetic analysis are so sensitive and precise, that they allowed to identify a third species of Homo genus, different from both Sapience and Neanderthal, using just one finger phalanx 30 000 years old found in Altai cave.
To destroy integrity of science no physical terror is needed. Demonization of particular fields and views is quite enough.
There’s another USSR germ here. Somebody she trusted denounced her. Harvard Law School, where every other person is an informant.
If it is believed if you are perceived to be hung like a horse, can run fast and jump high, then your genes are to be shouted about, from the rooftops.
Aside from the occasional exception to every rule, you can’t have it all.
Since I’m not running for office, or attempting to graduate from a PC university resting on its previous and overblown reputation, I can call them like I have experienced them.
With no apologies.
Decades ago, studying physical anthropology, I discovered that positive characteristics were allowed to be allowed to be heritable.
Those which were not helpful in one endeavor or another…silence.
One of the more dangerous features of the Left has been its replacement of moral categories of right and wrong, and good and evil with three other categories: black and white (race), male and female (gender) and rich and poor (class).
it first tried the last part, but it could not hide that in a society like America, without an aristocratic class apart from everyone else, that rich and poor were not enough to move enough masses.
they worked on race, even to the point of murdering blacks and blaming whites for it. segregating the military by progressives (when they fought in the war of independence as equals). writing out the wisdom of any white people, and ‘white washing’ the founders as racist slave holders. anyone want to look up the man named Collins?
the failure of the revolution in europe was blamed on the fact that race, and economics was not enough!!!
so the progressives and their predecesors said we have to split them up a third way. by gender. we will start by driving a wedge through family, and this will then facilitate poverty and inability to be mobile any more. as mothers work for the state (with taxes), they will abandon their children, and their children will grow up not knowing how a family conveys advantage and helps.
we will say that they will not be free until they no longer have to have babies, and no longer have to be women! (and society will change to prevent them frmo going back!)
so people like moses harmon, and the others who copied later. decided to use the techniques dispised by common people as too dirty and so left unused.
we will make sure that each generation we will have fewer smart kids as women who are smarter have fewer babies. we will take their wealth from them, and make it harder, we will penalize them for breeding in wedlock. we will make their lives miseries and blame the others, while pretending to claim for them relief if they just listen.
we will claim (faslely) that everyone is the same and equal. we will USE women to sell that. by doing so, women will take away each and everyones specialness. no longer will each woman and man be a special unique individual and valuable for that!!! we will CLAIM that and promote the opposite. and so women and men will share work equally, and become interchangeable parts.
in this way, they will no longer protect their lineages (while we protect ours). they will wait too long and exterminate the smart family lines, as they are no longer special. over time the gulf will get wider.
those who fall into the lesser camp will refuse to be there, they will, by vanity (the same method used for women and eve), get them to believe they are superior, and so the TARGET of the problem, will be attacked for cheating.
[i showed German periodicals at a college study library that showed the mass logic. neo deleted the links]
Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color — and gender (not just “whites” but “white males”) — of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.
yup.. so if a woman following the cult of feminism says that an 90lb woman and a 200lb man are equal, by god you better believe Winston has 3 fingers up!!!!
we just never saw that WOMEN were OBRIEN… we kept looking for a person, not a persons who become one person as a collective.
so women became obrein in every home. they made sure that totalitarian rules were to be followed even if they ignored comparative advantage which made them ignore productivity advantage. (and when families underperformed they were told its the men, so dump em).
women taught us to hold 3 fingers up and believe there are 5. they were the facilitator of the purple horse of the general. its their taking on of fads and our leaving taht alone, that got them to take up the cult, and then police family members to learn to think in terms of race and gender all the time.
THEY GAVE US SOCIALIST CONSCIOUSNESS OF RACE HATE, GENDER HATE, AND ECONOMIC HATE!!!
nothing but revisionism is going to change who taught us, brought it into the house, ridiculed and sidelined ANY protests of their mate and predictions of the future being anything other than utopia…
period.
until we can see the differences adn the unique qualities of each person that separates us, which they will NOT allow!!! we wont get back to a non soviet conciouness. what do you think soviet style consciousness raising games were? (even wiki shows they were soviet style group therapy type games)
a better way is how do you erase wrong consciousness when the people who have it think its brings them everything?
As a Leftist rule of thumb — once again rendering intellectual debate unnecessary and impossible — white is wrong or bad, and non-white is right and good; male is wrong and bad, and female is right and good; and the rich are wrong and bad, and the poor right and good. For the record, there is one additional division on the Left — strong and weak — to which the same rule applies: The strong are wrong and bad, and the weak are right and good.
without the third leg of man bad woman good, the stool would collapse… it was the last part to be created and the pressure maintained.
its what the frankfurt school worked so hard on!!!
this had proceeded from them to come full circle!!!
that is until the women realied that men are bad, women are good, and that marx, engels, and the men of the franfurt school were men! (oh oh)…
at that point they would be pushed out and women would maintain the cult themselves…
Patricia Mills’ _Woman, Nature, and Psyche_ produces a sharp feminist critique of Hegel, Marx, Freud, and the Critical Theory of the so-called Frankfurt School while carrying out discussions of the ways that Critical Theory does and does not provide adequate perspectives for contemporary feminism.[1] The thrust of Mills’ critique is that all of the above named theorists represent and analyze women’s situation from a male point-of-view and exclude the specificity of women’s experience from their theoretical positions, while privileging male self-development, male relations (to father, mother, siblings, and others), and male experience and subjectivity over women’s self-development, relations, experience, and subjectivity. This leads Mills to present (counter)analyses of motherhood, sisterhood, women’s self-development and sexuality, and relations to supplement the exclusion of women from male theory.
and
Moses Harman (October 12, 1830 — January 30, 1910) was an American schoolteacher and publisher notable for his staunch support for women’s rights. He was prosecuted under the Comstock Law for content published in his anarchist periodical Lucifer the Lightbearer. He was arrested and jailed multiple times for publishing allegedly obscene material. His daughter, Lillian Harman, was also a notable anarchist.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is why, to cite another example, men are dismissed when they oppose abortion. The idea is far less significant than the sex of the advocate. As for women who oppose abortion on demand, they are either not authentically female or simply traitors to their sex. Just as the Left depicts blacks who oppose race-based affirmative action as not authentic blacks or are traitors to their race.
In this morally inverted world, the virtual absence of blacks from tea party rallies cannot possibly reflect anything negative on the black and minority absence, only on the white tea partiers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/02/why_left_talks_about_white_tea_parties_105317.html
and
REFORM MOVEMENTS, successful and unsuccessful, have occupied an important place in Kansas history. During the late 19th century such questions as prohibition and woman’s suffrage attracted much attention, as did other movements which were spectacular at the time but are less well known today.
One of these was lead by a controversial free-thought journalist named Moses Harman who not only denounced all forms of government and religion, but added a new dimension in reform by advocating that women be freed from sexual slavery by abolishing the institution of marriage.
oh… you mean like marx and engels?
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. Communist manifesto – Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
or you mean feminist leaders (who advise presidents and such)..
“A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
“It became increasingly clear to us that the institution of marriage `protects’ women in the same way that the institution of slavery was said to `protect’ blacks–that is, that the word `protection’ in this case is simply a euphemism for oppression,” — Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 214
thats the history…
now that they have this power
and us men cant say anything
neither can academics proclaim other than marxist ideas of gender, or race… (or else get erased from history… see WATSON, Christ Brand, etc)
there is no way to reform a movements goals left unchanged since 1830 or so…
there is only recognizing that the short term lies of false leadership, get work and ends of the long term… regardless of what false argument there is.
there is a reason that women claimed sovi et life would be the answer… and the promise… but yet, look to the socialist states. Only in free countries where cults are legal does femi nism blossom and then cause social destruction as it pits natural mates against each other, and requires the state to mediate relations.
“For one of the implicit, if un admitted, tenets of femin ism has been a fundamental disrespect for men.” — Wendy Dennis
“The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the sub jugation of wom en is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the gene sis of women’s rebellion throughout history.” — Marlene Dixon, “Why Women’s Liberation? Racis m and Male Supremacy
“How will the family unit be destroyed? … the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Wom en will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically indepe ndent, either through a job or wel fare.” — From Female Liberation by Roxa nne Dunbar
[here is an article from g a rights that brings up Harmon the man and daughter. as i said, the LEAD ERS know what the useful idiots do not. and the useful idiots attack anyone, like me who shows them]
atheism.about.com/b/ 2005/05/18/definition-of-marriage-in-1886.htm
n my opinion, the union between E. C. Walker and Lillian Harman was no marriage, and they deserve all the punishment which has be en inflicted upon them. … In the present case, the parties repudiated nearly everything essential to a valid marriage, and openly avowed this repu diation at the commenceme nt of their union.
(Quoted in Hal D. Sears, The Sex Radicals: Free Love in High Victorian America, p. 94.)
harmans daugher is a feminist hero
Boston Mar riage, Free Love, and Fictive Kin: Histo rical Alternatives to Mainst ream Marriage ww w.oah. org/pubs/n l/20 04aug/f reedman. html
so one cant deny the direct and straight lineage from those to the Vict orians, and even to Wiemar Germ any… then back around to us ag ain.
all this stuff was as it was in the old country… it was the cult of personality that lives with us. a critical mass of people who would permeate the public and police everyones behavior!!
they will make life easier (Utopian life is easier), hate X and love Y…
one only has to read what the men say to understand the hostility… read the ladies and you get the idea they are nto hostile enough.
and as far as those who go against the prophecies of the cults of the early 1800s… they will push you out of the cult.. and when the world is their cult, they have to remove you…
there is a huge amount of literature and ideas out there that only the anointed cult leaders read…
their followers only get the points for consumption, which is why we weren’t to know what change meant.
why explain your self to a plow horse?
I recall seeing a nun from a former Soviet Bloc Country talking about how they tried to brainwash and control people.
It was with guilt.
Mothers have been using guilt to control or at least influence their children for millenia. I’m surprised it took this long for dictators to catch a clue.
IRA Darth Aggie: …and children developed series of very successful weapons of their own. See “face, puppy”.
Yesterday, when I tried that trick on my own progeny, he dismissively told me not to bother – since he “invented and perfected it”. Mom, it won’t work on me!
Amen to that. I still remember how all of a sudden I stopped being invited/called/contacted by all of my liberal friends after one of them found out I had become a conservative. I had ceased to exist. If it’s happened to you, you know what I mean. People that used to invite you to their Christmas party stop calling, or don’t return phonecalls and emails. It’s disturbing when it happens.
“There is no biologically definable black or white “race.” So any claim about “white” superiority having a biological basis is junk science. We should be willing to denounce junk science, even when doing so undercuts our beliefs about innate white superiority.”
If “race” correlates systematically with average intelligence, then that means race has some kind of reality, whether biological or otherwise: it has effects in the actual world. And since intelligence has a biological foundation — it’s heritable — Mr. Beaverman needs to reconsider his repertoire of biological definitions. (The medievals are said to have thought that a definition could refute an observation. Now we think the inference goes the other way.)
And, by the way, correlations between race and average intelligence don’t support “white superiority”. Populations overlap, averages don’t tell you very much about particular individuals, and whites as a group don’t have the highest average intelligence anyway. Find another smear.
Reading the accounts, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that the attempted atrocities came from extreme leftists and the more moderate Left had no part in any of it. Right? Well, wrong.
Here is where the more moderate groups participate and contribute to such extremism: As soon as the demonstrations were over and the arrests were made, the more “moderate” Left began to stand behind the extremists. Local law-enforcement and the FBI’s successful efforts to stop violence and protect the Republicans right to assemble began to be portrayed as “government oppression of demonstrators.” The ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild began helping to defend the various radicals who had decided to dehumanize and interfere .
biggovernment.com/bdarby/2010/05/03/the-extreme-left-a-ticking-time-bomb/
Great news. Then there’s no basis for affirmative action, either, since we have no operational definition of who belongs to what race.
Can’t have it both ways.
RodW: find another smear
I think even better answer to Mr. Beaverman would be: ah, so “blacks” don’t exist as identifiable group? Excellent, let’s then demolish the whole Affirmative Action institution, and eliminate all tax/welfare/preferential job placement/quota college admissions etc system. Since there is no way to identify a black person – and every one who attempts doing that is a racist by definition – let’s get rid of all “community organizers”, Black Liberation theory priests, guidance councilors in colleges and schools and professors of Black Studies.
Of course, that would mean that Michelle Obama’s credentials and educational “achievements” come to a big fat ZILCH. And her last place of employment, before she went to exercise fierceness of her eyebrows to DC, as a VP of Community Affairs in UOC’ Hospital is a fraudulent sinecure by definition (despite the fact she was paid for it in excess of $300,000) – but hey, our anti-racist principles are more important to us, so Mr. Beavedrman will be prepared to admit all of the above, I’m sure.
Hey, OB! You posted one minute earlier!
What Mr. Beaverman claims about race is what has been taught in anthropology classes for years, so he may be writing it in some innocence. “There are no races, only clines.” It is still controversial, despite the abundance of data supporting the idea that one can determine continent of origin from DNA completely unrelated to skin or appearance markers. Anthropologists (and other social scientists) consider the possible abuse of race-knowledge so pernicious that acknowledgement of the sun rising in the East is denied.
To hearken back to the earlier parts of the thread, my Romanian friends would say that comparisons of America to their lives under Ceausescu are overwrought, but would agree that we trend in that direction, and that Americans do not perceive what they should.
For two generations Americans were brainwashed that racial profiling, discrimination and any criticism of typical behavior, however destructive, of certain racial and ethnic groups are inherently bad. But necessity to fight back criminality of Mexican gangs or Islamist terrorists must compel many to rethink all these axioms. Some common sense and survival instinct must now trump these ideological pieties.
Of course, that would mean that Michelle Obama’s credentials and educational “achievements”
come tobe appreciated for what they are, a big fat ZILCH.FIFY.
Great minds, and all that. /g
Thanks, OB. Sounds much better now.
PS
I was almost eaten alive when said approx. 1/3 of the statement above…
As someone who has lost a job based on never-revealed allegations of “sexist” comments in her presence (NOT TO her, mind you — in an overheard discussion with someone else) I can say that this crap is way beyond rational.
To wit: She claimed I’d said something which offended her. The nature of such comments was never revealed to me, nor were the other individuals present (including those involved in the overheard discussion) ever questioned about the statements I’d allegedly made. Her comments were assumed to be truthful and accurate. And I was out the door.
Since I know for a fact nothing I said justified such action — I’m not that stupid or unaware of what I’m saying (I won’t claim a warning wasn’t called for, I can’t tell THAT completely what I said, though I’d doubt even that), I know she was lying through her teeth. But no effort of any kind of due process was followed.
Sorry, no female should have that kind of power over another individual’s employment (nor should any male, as though THAT would ever happen).
>:-/
One reason the e-mailer got dumped upon was that she considered the possibility that a certain segment of Harvard students are NOT God’s gift to the universe. Didn’t she know that ALL Harvard students are God’s gift to the universe. Anyone who has the presumption to suggest that ANY Harvard students are NOT God’s gift to the universe will get gobsmacked inside the walls of the hallowed institution.
Years ago I was taking the train from Boston to NYC. I overheard a conversation in which someone was talking about how GOOD Harvard Law students were. He wasn’t talking about intelligence, but about personal attributes. Not only were Harvard students brighter than anyone else (implied), according to this train passenger they were also better persons than anyone else.
Gag me with a spoon, I thought to myself.
Tatyana, from your link above:
Proof positive that we lost the War on Drugs.
I read Michelle’s senior thesis. Not an original or even a defensible thought in it. It parrots rewarmed, vapid racial grievance thoughtlets, the unattractive black woman’s answer to a beauty contestant’s speech (albeit without reference to world hunger), as befits someone of modest intellectual complement. Very modest indeed.
Some day I will understand why leftists (of all stripes, from hard-core communists right through to Democrats) are so prone to cults of personality regarding their leaders. Unfortunately, however, today is not that day.
Pingback:Nolanimrod
OB – that quote, most of all, is what triggered my reaction. The complete, 180degree, reversal of reality in every word of it, as if a stubborn child screams, on purpose: No, the white is black and the black is white!
I especially appalled hearing this cultist nonsense from people who in a normal set of circumstances – say, if Michelle Obama was still who she’s supposed to be -a community organizer’s wife – and they saw her picture at some fundraiser, not only they would not praise her – they would not even notice her! This people pride themselves on being an aesthetic sophisticates (rightly or wrongly), and – again, normally – they notice every faux pas: the bad posture, flowerbed dress, lack of art education, scarcity of vocabulary, etc etc, you name it . But then here’s this magic wand – pooo! – and the same lame person suddenly is on the altar they worship at, thoughtlessly -and most importantly, quite sincerely!
Sometimes I think some people have slave nature within themselves, and are only waiting for a right moment to reveal their inner lackey…
Sometimes I think some people have slave nature within themselves, and are only waiting for a right moment to reveal their inner lackey…
Priceless!
“Years ago I was taking the train from Boston to NYC. I overheard a conversation in which someone was talking about how GOOD Harvard Law students were. He wasn’t talking about intelligence, but about personal attributes. Not only were Harvard students brighter than anyone else (implied), according to this train passenger they were also better persons than anyone else.”
No one who examines the behavior of Harvard grads in government could possibly believe this.
I am reminded of something Huey Long said, “if fascism comes to the United States it will be called anti-fascism”.
Tatyana, you are right about the inner lackey on the part of many. Freedom is not for everybody, just look at those who join mass movements in order to lose their identity.
“if fascism comes to the United States it will be called anti-fascism”.
“Fascism,” as it is often now used, has lost its original meaning. Now, its a code word for anything bad that someone wants to impose a taboo upon. Just like the word “racist.” I am reminded that the former Communist East Germany used to refer to the Berlin Wall as the “anti-fascist protector wall.”. . . apparently “protecting” East German citizens from “fascism” (aka, freedom and capitalism) all the while it kept them in.