“If he’s just going to be vaporized and have his life’s work wiped out, we should know what he did and who he did it to.”

Red Nation Rising‘s headline works best

The backlash is coming.  Men will begin to feel it’s not worth the risk and fewer women will be hired because of fear of accusations, real or unfounded. 

Here’s the clip.

Here is Tucker Carlson’s full interview with Mark Steyn.

4:40 to 6:20

Regarding Garrison Keeler . . . if he’s just going to be vaporized and have his life’s work wiped out, we should know what he did and who he did it to.

There’s a general agreement on the Left—and this has been driven by left wing dominated industries (for example?)—that they’re now weaponizing sex as they’ve weaponized race.  That they’ve concluded that it’s a useful weapon to them and that necessarily includes a clearing out the decks. 

On the vast empty plains of the PBS schedules, All the septuagenarian hosts are gone.  Just gone in moments.  It’s absolutely astonishing to me, and in the end it will make social relations impossible.  You must think as I think occasionally, do I really want to be alone with a female employee now?  Who knows how she’s going to feel about it 20 years’ time?

Perhaps his best point came at the end, where Steyn points out that Hollywood is getting clobbered financially, that supply far out paces demand.  

TV and motion pictures are being clobbered.  The supply far out outpaces demand.

That may be true for Hollywood and the entertainment industries.  We’ve recently learned that the NFL will be live-streaming their games.  And more recently that net neutrality is banned, opening up the market for more subscriber networks online.  Net neutrality seems implicated in a lot of this.  Look at the industries that it will serve–entertainment, sports, and politics.  

How does this explain the purges in D.C.?


“We curate our lives around this perceived sense of perfection”

Chamath Palihapitiya

150 people run the world. Anyone who wants to go into politics–they’re all $%*#ing puppets. There are 150 and they’re all men.  Period.  Full stop.  They control most of the important assets and money controls.  They are going to get rolled over the next 5-10 years. When you get behind that curtain and see how the world works, That world is unfairly set up for them and their progeny.  First order of business is I want to break through and be at that table.  The way that I do that is prove that I can do what they do as well as they do it.  And then do it better than they do it.  They control most of the money flows, most of the important assets in the world.  Be in a position to aggregate enough capital of the world to then reallocate it against my world view.  

How am I going to act?  What am I going to embody?

They are commercial animals.

Successful companies, like Bezos, compounds in scale very slowly.  Counter-intuitive to Silicon Valley.  

It’s at the 19-minute mark where he talks about the fail-fast psychology of social media, engineered to give people a dopamine hit to keep them coming back.  Well, if that’s what’s happening, there is little review of one’s failure, of one’s mistakes that led to that failure, because you’ve always got immediate and infinite access to a do-over.  He says that people don’t have the ambition to tackle big challenges.  Capital markets don’t have the incentive to reward that kind of decision making.  He denounces Crunchbase.  Never heard of them.  

Capital markets are just completely, completely out of their minds.  

I feel tremendous guilt from social media inventions.  There aren’t really bad unintended consequences.  The way we defined it was not like this.  We have created tools that has ripped apart society’s fabrics.  If you feed the beast, that beast will destroy you.  People need a hard break from these tools.  No civil discourse.  M

Where bad actors can manipulate large swathes of people to do anything you want [them to do].

We curate our lives around this perceived sense of perfection because we get rewarded in these signals hearts, likes, thumbs up,, and we conflate that with value and we conflate that with truth

Incentive to build a portfolio approach to a career . . . 18 months here, 18 months there, 18 months . . . .

“Because I’m white . . . you think I was privileged? Are you kidding?”

This was a gem.

h/t TargetLiberty

This was a New Brighton City, Minnesota city council meeting held on Tuesday, October 3, 2017.  Councilwoman, Mary Burg, instructs her fellow members, most of whom are men, that they should feel guilty for being white, that being white that they just can’t really know the extent to which they are privileged.  Councilwoman Gina Bauman thankfully took exception to such an idiotic accusation, citing the fact that she herself was the daughter of immigrants who worked hard for what they’ve earned. 

“Because I’m white, you think I was privileged my whole life? Are you kidding?” Bauman retorts. “I grew up in an Italian neighborhood. They came here–my grandfather came–they didn’t speak English, but they assimilated.”

Incensed, Bauman refuses to acknowledge Johnson’s charge of “white privilge” and the snowflake begins to cry. 

Oh, yeah, whites got it mad with all that privilege.

2016 mark Perry DQPtPHhXcAIUtsp

h/t Steve Bartin

Seems almost that white privilege is all the rage.  Though it seems a bit overdone, I am going to reprint the transcript of the exchange in the video.  These meetings are basically fights where one person has $.69 worth of power trying to lord it over everyone else.  That is no different anywhere.  Here’s the exchange.

We all have white privilege.  We don’t know what it’s like to not have it.  because we do.  We go everywhere.  We have that.  We don’t know the difference.  We don’t know what it’s like to not have it.  we can’t do . . . we can’t move forward being people of white privilege.  We can’t because we don’t know the privilege of not having it. 

Because I’m white do you think I was privileged my whole life?  Are you kidding?  I grew up in an Italian neighborhood.  They came here, my grandfather . . . they didn’t speak English but they assimilated. But I resent that you think I had white privilege.  Everybody that I work for or with is usually from another country.  And they say to me, here’s what they say, “We as Americans, and it doesn’t matter what color we as Americans are, don’t realize, how privileged we are to just live here. So I don’t want to think that this body doesn’t feel that we can’t represent people because they’re white.  And that again to me is just saying I’m different because of color.  No, I might be different because of culture, because of tradition but those are the things that I always ask.  Because I work with these people.  I ask about their country, I ask about their families, how it is, how they feel about America, all of that.  That’s how you get to know somebody, how you get to understand where they come from and where their opinions come from, but I don’t think that you can make such a broad brush and say that we’ve all been privileged or that we can’t understand because we’re white. 

You are the exact reason why we need this commission.  If you don’t understand white privilege, then you are not representing those people.  You’re not willing to listen to them, and what you’ve just said is the most racist . . .

EXCUSE ME!!!  don’t you ever, ever accuse me of that.  You have no basis to say something like that in public . . . and no basis to say something like that. 

Then let me rephrase it.  That statement was one of the most racist things I’ve ever heard.  (I would have insisted that she retract her comment, not allow her to rephrase it.)

What statement!

That you are offended by the fact that you are not feeling . . . th . . . the white privilege thing.  White privilege exists and it is something we need to accept in this country . . .

In your opinion

You’re interrupting me and by golly I’m running this meeting!!

You’re accusing me of something pretty big here.


It’s unacceptable because you have no basis for it. (pointing)

You’re out of order!  (pointing)

You’re out of order!  (pointing)

No, I have basis for it based on what you just said.

No, you don’t.

Well, because you said “Hi” to Bernard, you understand?!!

Excuse me, I work with him.  I probably know many more people of color (pointing) than you do and I work with them, so I am not going to have this argument with you.  But you are . . .


You’re out of order.

You’re out of order.

And you’re out of line.

Okay, fine.  Let me just say this.  That the discussion I just heard now makes me so angry I am shaking.  You refuse to understand how the other people in this community feel but you refuse

How do you know . . . .

But you refuse to . . . .

How do I refuse?

Because you’re obviously not going to support this.And what you’re doing

You don’t know what I’m going to do..

What I heard was a racist statement. You discrediting . . . Goddam it, Gina.  I’m passionate about this.  I’m passionate about hearing both sides of the story, and for you to disregard the fact that white privilege exists is beyond me. 

“these professors are the dividend of thousands of lives of people who’ve sacrificed–to do what–to give us the material bounty and the freedom of expression that they count on as second nature?”

Here is Victor D. Hanson and here are his published books listed at Amazon.  As to his Wikipedia introduction, it’s here:

Victor Davis Hanson (born September 5, 1953) is an American classicistmilitary historian, columnist, and farmer. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for National ReviewThe Washington Times and other media outlets. He is a professor emeritus of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in classics and military history at Stanford University‘s Hoover Institution. He chairs the Hoover working group on Military History and Contemporary Conflict as well as being the general editor of the Hoover online journal, Strategika. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College where he teaches an intensive course on world, ancient or military history in the autumn semester, as the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History since 2004.[1] Hanson is the author of Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power (2001), a New York Timesbest-selling book.

h/t Steve Bartin @ NewsAlert.

He starts of with the typical complaint about liberals of which he is right.

Throughout the democratic party and the liberal elite, it’s almost a psychological mechanism that people adopt a hyper-liberalism as a way, whether you’re al gore and your carbon footprint is astronomical, or you’re the styre brothers railing against private money corrupting things while you infuse $50 million or whatever the particular sin is, it’s a psychological mechanism for a lot of people in academia to make a lot of money, to have a lot of tenure, to have a lot of perks, and not to feel guilty about it because they feel they’re on the barricades of social progressive change. 

I liked his point here because it is the meanest of the academic hypocrisies. 

So that’s one thing that’s very disturbing to see these professors talk about granite counters, hardwood floors, the latest Volvo SUV, while they go into the classroom and tell working kids that they’re part of a patriarchy or a white privilege.  It doesn’t connect anymore; it’s almost embarrassing.

And his point about how history is taught is absolutely correct.  Or maybe it is a case for me that I should go back to school and take a history class or two to find out if he is correct.  But I can’t afford it.  Can’t afford to help the professor finance his latest Volvo SUV.

The second that I really don’t like about the university any more is that we’ve reduced history to cardboard caricatures.  What do I mean by that?  When you say that the civil war was Harriet Tubman or that Rosie the Riveter represents World War II we say that all those people who died in WWII, 12,000 in Okinawa, 50,000.  They’re nothing anymore.  Or the tens of thousands of people who came out on the Oregon Trail. They got typhus fever.  They got malaria.  They got yellow fever.  Terrific depravations to found Oregon and California.

He references the author E. B. Sledge.  Here are some google entries on Sledge. 

Yes, the way that history is taught in schools today is chilling.  Thanks in large part to the state legislator.

4:35.  We go back as if we’re picking winners and losers in history as if it’s some melodramatic game and not a tragedy.  This guy’s good because he’s a person of color; she’s okay, she’s a woman; this guy was a cowboy who was gay, he’s okay. And these are the bad guys—they killed Indians and desecrated the environment. 

He continues . . . 

4:53.  What’s terrible about this is, first, we don’t give any latitude for the human experience.  They were wonderful people.  Second, this process is all occurring in a material, psychological, and political context that these people gave us.  Nobody [meaning professors] wants to go to Angola and do this.  Nobody wants to attack the United States from the UN and move the UN to Guatemala.  So what I am saying is these professors are the dividend of thousands of lives, millions of lives of people who’ve sacrificed . . . to do what—to give us the material bounty and the freedom of expression that they count on as second nature?

5:50.  It was brought home to me in a conversation with a faculty member

8:18:  Yes, Chicanos and blacks were under represented, but Asians were over represented.  I don’t like those words “under” or “over.”  Who cares if Berkeley is 100% Asian if it is meritocratic.  But what he was telling people was that he wants to come here and he wants some type of quota to reduce the number of Asian students so I can mechanically somehow create this diversity which I will be immune from myself as a white male.  You should have resigned and said there were too many white males, I want a black chancellor.  So that’s the second thing that all of us don’t like is the hypocrisy and the reduction of individuals in history and tragedies in history to superficial Saturday night melodrama. 

There’s a third, and this is a pet peeve of mine and that is military history.  History didn’t exist apart from military history and its origins.  Name any historian of antiquity—Thucydides, Herodotus, Polybius, . . . , Livius (i.e., Livy), and Tacitus. History was war.  Because they felt . . . they didn’t like war no more than a brain surgeon likes tumors.

They studied these pathologies.  The Battle of Kursk, 1943, the greatest tank battle of all times, was a little more important second by second and it affected a few more million people than in California whether this legislator was voting on transgender restrooms.  I’m sorry but every moment in history is not equal.  And military history reminds us of that.  And it was a way of studying U.S./world history so that when we had this common core, and we had this body of professors who were disinterested.

His conclusion was compelling. 

70th anniversary of D-Day this week.  Does anybody believe that American students who graduate know anything about George S. Patton or the 3rd Army?  Did they know why we invaded in June 6, 1944 and not 1942 or not 1945?   Do they know anything about the strategy behind D-Day?  No.  if you ask them what do you know about ww ii, they know nothing.  They don’t know any military history.  There are 4 recognized military history programs in the U.S. where you can get a major, and there are 230 Peace and Studies programs.  We can stop war by telling people not to go to war.  We’ve done that for 2500 years but it’s there’s no record that it’s ever worked.  Military history teaches us why people destroy each in an insane fashion.  And they do it unfortunately toward general logic.  The logic is when you lose deterrents, when there’s a lack of balance of power, when wars are inconsequential they go on and on.  And what causes peace is peace of parenthesis, like Plato said—very rare period in history.  What keeps the peace are armed deterrents.  Alliances, balance of powers.  What keeps the peace?  Defeating the enemy as quickly as possible.  And not have an element interrupt him.  These are the essentials of western military history and they’ve absolutely disappeared from the modern curriculum. 

Now this flies in the face of the Libertarian’s NAP, Non-Agression Principle.

Victimized mentality . . . [is] a justification for the use of power.

With almost anything that Jordan Peterson says you will find some excellent insight on the multi-culturalist, social justice warrior mob’s violent mentality. In this short interview he does not disappoint. The parts that I am referring to is the 4:20 mark to the end where he points out that the victimized mentality that the angry, social justice often female teachers teach.  And these teachers get a pass because they are “passionate,” which I take as code for a willingness to crack a few eggs.  These schools are dangerous, so listen to Peterson . . .

Victimized mentality.  It’s a justification for the use of power.  If you’re a victim and you can ascribe moral superiority to yourself you can justify the use of force. 

Precursors to genocide—was an enhanced sense of victimization. That allows you to lash out at hypothetical perpetrators before they do anything because you’re being victimized.  You saw the same thing in Nazi Germany.  Hitler claimed the Jews were victimizing Germany. Once you’re a victim, you have all the moral status that goes along with being a victim, then you can’t do any wrong essentially. 

Power may seem like a good thing to a lot of folks, but the ones I’ve seen wield power often use it to violent ends where they destroy the rights of others. 

“Western societies are remarkable at generating wealth”

For me at least, this is one of the best presentations I’ve heard from Jordan Peterson, because I find myself all the time arguing the value of capitalism, middle-class and Christian values (even though I am constrained by them), and western thought. While working at delivery and sales jobs, I earned a BA between 1987 and 1992. And Post-modernism during those years was extremely popular in English courses at the local Junior College and at the universities. And everyone was going around praising Derrida and getting their underoos wet from “his presence on campus” but they couldn’t articulate a single thought of his other than he was a deconstructionist. Whoop-de-doo.  I gave up trying to think about Derrida’s importance.  I needed to find a job and get my life going.  And so I hadn’t really given him a single thought since, nor have his admirers to whom they gave their undying inarticulate support.  So it is almost a weeping pleasure here to hear and see a university professor condemn him and other deconstructionists. 

h/t Robert Wenzel @ TargetLiberty

Particularly refreshing is the part where Peterson renounces the ingrates as being resentful with this statement

Post modernism is what you’re up against.  It’s a much more nihilistic and intelligent doctrine . . . . Compared to any hypothetical utopia, it is an absolutely dismal wreck.  But compared to the rest of the world and the plight of other societies of the rest of the world, we’re doing pretty damn well and we should be happy living in this society that we’re living in. The first thing you want to know about Post-modernism is that it doesn’t have a shred of gratitude.  And there’s something pathologically wrong with a person who doesn’t have any gratitude.  Especially when they live in what is so far the best of all possible worlds. 

If you’re not grateful, you’re driven by resentment, and resentment is about the worst emotion you can possibly experience apart from arrogance.  Resentment, arrogance, and deceit–there’s an evil triad for you.  And if you’re bitter about everything around you, despite the fact that you’re bathed in wealth, there is absolutely something wrong with you.  

The black community in the US is the 18th wealthiest nation on the planet.  Relatively.  Western societies are remarkable at generating wealth. 

I weep at this because I’ve seen remarkably smart individuals, leaders in their own right, succumb to this fatalistic vision because of guys like Derrida and others to whose altar they were compelled to kneel.  The folks I am thinking of lost their way.  Any promising career or life, married with a family, were catastrophically torn asunder simply because they were smitten by one of the ugliest ideologies they embraced wholly and no conflicting opinion could be brought to bear to pry these proud folks against what they saw and felt to be a harsh world. 

This is the book that Peterson recommends at the beginning.  It’s titled Explaining Post-Modernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Focault by Stephen R. C. Hicks, 2013.