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.

“The truth is that diversity is America’s greatest weakness.” 

Immigration’s False Premise by Robert Ringer

The Radical Left never tires of making bogus immigration arguments, all based on a major false premise and many false sub-premises as well.  The major false premise is that the purpose of immigration is to help those in other countries whom open-borders cheerleaders like to refer to as “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.”

Note to the open-borders crowd:  These words do not constitute a law — or even an official government policy.  They are nothing more than a couple of lines in a poem that appears on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty.

The author of these words — as well as the sonnet in which appear (“The New Colossus”) — was a woman by the name of Emma Lazarus.  As one would suspect, dear old Emma was a poet, not a legislator.

It’s not just that her words have no legal meaning, they do not even express the feelings of millions of American citizens regarding immigration.  On the contrary, they are the subjective feelings of one individual.  Thus, those who imply that they represent some sort of official U.S. policy on immigration are either uninformed or intent on misleading low-information Americans.

The reality is that no one has a right to become a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.  Even so, so-called progressives love to scream and yell about the rights of those who want to come to America and those who are already here illegally.  However, their viewpoint is based on the false premise that non-citizens are protected by the Constitution.  Sorry, but they are not.  The Constitution specifically protects the rights only of American citizens.

Notwithstanding the phony and pathetic pleas of Barack Obama that “This is not who we are as a nation,” the simple fact is that Americans do not have a moral obligation to welcome anyone into their country.  One can be sympathetic to the plight of hundreds of millions people around the globe who are living lives of quiet desperation, but that doesn’t mean he has to favor unrestricted immigration.

If we opened the doors to all those who are living in poverty and oppression in other countries, the United States population would quickly exceed 1 billion and the country would collapse into economic and social chaos.  Why would anyone who is concerned about the quality of life in America want that?

One time, loud and clear:  The purpose of immigration is not to help people in other countries.  The one and only purpose of immigration is to benefit America and Americans by bringing in men and women who can add value to the country and thereby improve the lives of its citizens.

The immigration policies of countries like Australia and New Zealand make it clear that they do not want the tired, the poor, or the huddled masses.  What they want are doctors, scientists, and engineers — and then only if they have a shortage of those professionals.  It goes without saying that wealthy people who can contribute to the country financially are also welcome.

Of course, the worst excuse of all for ignoring merit-based immigration is the desire to make America “more diverse.”  Sorry, but immigration was never intended to be a social experiment — and certainly not a lottery.

The “diversity lottery” is a very bad joke, a symbol of America’s decline into the depths of depravity and insanity.  And, as we saw with the recent terrorist attack in New York, it can have deadly consequences.

The claim that “diversity is America’s greatest strength” is the biggest of all lies.  The truth is that diversity is America’s greatest weakness.  We see this not only in America, but in countries like Germany, France, and Belgium, where far-left leaders have destroyed their once proud cultures with immigration policies that ignore the wants and needs of their own citizens.

As is always the case, when I use the term diversity, I am not referring to a person’s skin color, be he white, brown, yellow, or other.  Diversity is about a person’s cultural beliefs and practices.

The hard truth is that tribalism, which has been around since the dawn of civilization, is the underpinning of a civilized and peaceful society.  The reality that those on the Radical Left (and many in the RINO camp) refuse to accept is that people prefer to be around others who are culturally most like them and, the corollary, they have little desire to be in close proximity to those who are culturally different.

Using myself as an example, I wouldn’t mind at all if I never had contact with anyone in the Radical Left tribe.  Why would I want to be in close proximity to uncouth cultural zombies who are prone to violence?

When those in power try to force tribes with different cultural values to live together, it tends to engender hatred and violence, which is why the government should remove itself from the social-experimentation business and let tribes live separately and in peace with other tribes.

And let us not forget the scam known as “the Dreamers.”  The argument that Dreamers are innocent because their parents brought them here when they were small children is nothing but a diversion from the real issue that they did, in fact, come here illegally.

Granted, it’s not their fault that their parents broke the law, but it’s also not a justifiable reason to reward them.  To be rewarded for being brought to America illegally would give other non-citizen parents a huge incentive to continue breaking the law.

Finally, there’s the issue of illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes.  The Radical Left’s argument is that illegal immigrants do not commit any more crimes than legal citizens, which is irrelevant.  Just because some citizens in the United States are criminals is no reason to bring in more criminals.

As painful as it may be for Trump haters to hear, the final word on immigration comes from the president.  He, and he alone, has the authority to ban foreigners from entering the country, so long as he has a “rational basis” for believing they pose a threat to the nation’s security.  If challenged, of course, it’s up to the courts to judge whether or not his basis is rational.

In any event, one last time for the benefit of liberals:  People who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States have no constitutional rights, and pretending as though they do is not only not true but downright annoying.

That said, why don’t we stop tiptoeing and tell it like it really is:  Bringing in immigrants who are low skilled, do not speak our language, and have different cultural values is really nothing more than a political scheme to add Democratic voters to the registration rolls.  And, at least until recently, most Republicans have seemed to be just fine with allowing the Dirty Dems to get away with this scheme.

As the populist genie that is now out of the bottle continues to gain momentum, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans’ colossal sellout continues.

ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author who has appeared on numerous national radio and television shows, including The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, ABC Nightline, The Charlie Rose Show, as well as Fox News and Fox Business. To sign up for a free subscription to his mind-expanding daily insights, visit

Father of Frankfurt School: a CIA Agent

by Bionic Mosquito

Repressive Tolerance, by Herbert Marcuse….prompted by an email request from Stephen W. Carson which has finally moved me to action on this aspect of our current state.

Who is Herbert Marcuse?

Herbert Marcuse (German: [maʀˈkuːzə]; July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German-American philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the universities of Berlin and then at Freiburg, where he received his Ph.D. …In his written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, historical materialism and entertainment culture, arguing that they represent new forms of social control.

Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in U.S. Government service for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency)….His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the United States and internationally.

What is the Frankfurt School?

The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of social theory and philosophy associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University Frankfurt. Founded during the interwar period, the School consisted of dissidents who felt at home in none of the existent capitalist, fascist, or communist systems of the time.

Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind; they shared the Marxist Hegelian premises and were preoccupied with similar questions….Following Marx, they were concerned with the conditions that allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions. (Emphasis added)

What is meant by “Critical Theory”?

Critical theory (or “social critical theory”) is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. (Emphasis added)

The culmination of the Enlightenment.

In sociology and political philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

Critical Theory teaches one to be critical of every prevailing norm, attitude, and cultural attribute in society.  Herbert Marcuse being one of the important founders of the Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci being one of the important influences.

With this background out of the way, I turn to the aforementioned essay written by Marcuse. What does he mean by “Repressive Tolerance”?  His opening paragraph packs it all in; I will dissect it, one sentence at a time:

THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.

Prevailing tolerance is repressive; it is tolerance within limited bounds.  This is not tolerant; it is repressive and controlling.  In order to generate true and complete tolerance, intolerance must be practiced against prevailing culture and those who support it; those being repressed must repress in order to gain and hold tolerance.

In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period–a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice.

By intolerantly breaking the prevailing culture, true tolerance will be achieved – subversive against the prevailing order.

Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.

Because as tolerance is practiced today (he wrote the original essay in 1965, according to the link), it only serves to allow tolerance within acceptable bounds.  This oppresses those who do not live within these bounds.

It is a long essay.  I will take some time and write one or more further posts to cover it in some detail.  I only here intend to introduce the subject and offer a few initial thoughts.

I begin with a paragraph that I wrote the other day:

Many years ago, well before bionic was even a twinkle in my eye and well before I was able to maturely consider anything associated with this idea of libertarians and culture, I tried explaining libertarian theory to my father.  He asked, very directly: “What are you?  A communist?”  I thought he was crazy, but I have come to learn that he understood this stuff far better than I did.

I first began to understand what he meant only recently…a hint of it came when reading about the Spanish Civil War: what were communists and anarchists doing fighting on the same side? Yet, each knew that if they were victorious, they would next have to fight each other.

But the light really began to shine brightly when I first began to dig into what is commonly known as left-libertarian.  The interconnectedness of the founders of what is understood today as “left” and what is understood today as “libertarian” runs pretty deep.  As I recall, both Murray Rothbard and Kevin Carson (perhaps as “left” a left-libertarian as I have found) point to some of the same earlier thinkers, yet…obviously…ended up with drastically different conclusions regarding the term “libertarian.”

It really jumped out at me especially when seeing Antonio Gramsci and his method cited positively as an influence by Carson.  Even at my age, the older I get the smarter my dad becomes.

When I read this essay by Marcuse, I find myself nodding in agreement with many of his complaints and criticisms regarding the current order; hence, the enemy of my enemy.  Yet, I cringe while reading his prescription.

He is, in some ways, the enemy of my enemy; yet, in no way, shape or form is he my friend.  The solution he describes – which, in many ways, we are seeing unfold around us – will lead to and is leading to a physical hell on earth for many people – ultimately, even for those he pretends to want to save.

Marcuse, like Gramsci before him, offers a prescription for destroying the social order different than the one offered by Marx.  But the means is really irrelevant; it is the same end.  Destroying the social order will not bring utopia; it will bring a hell for those who live to see it.  We have seen it – the twentieth century is full of the bodies of its victims.

I will examine the common enemies and I will examine the uncommon prescriptions for remedy. Once complete, a sharp distinction will be drawn between those libertarians who see as foundational to liberty the building blocks of traditional family and culture and those libertarians who advocate that liberty demands escape from all prevailing norms of culture and hierarchy.

The enemy of my enemy is an even more deplorable enemy.  But I guess this just makes me one of those who must be repressed.


This is why Trump was elected.  He symbolizes a pushback against the revolution that has its roots in the Renaissance and has been carried on through the Enlightenment and, inevitably, the Progressive Era.  The fruits of this we now find in the destruction of the West – made manifest in all mainstream news, college campuses and prevailing thought.  Call them social justice warriors.

They aren’t after Trump because of Russia; they are using Russia as a stick, only because Trump represents the anti-progressive movement – the culmination of which we see in the manifestation of the ideas of Gramsci and Marcuse.

They are willing to risk war with Russia to get what they want – a continuation of their culture-destroying ideology.  Some people may finally have decided it is time to push back.  Note what they are fighting for: culture, family, tradition.  Note what they are not fighting for: the non-aggression principle.

Reprinted with permission from Bionic Mosquito.

You could go to Bolivia, you could go to Bulgaria, and you could go to the peasant class, and you could say “Let’s flip this place.”

Fascinating interview of Andrew Breitbart by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute.  The first 25 minutes are excellent.  Worth watching the whole interview.  Breitbart, 1969-2012, was railroaded endlessly before his death on March 1, 2012.

Here is a loose transcript of the 21:40 to 25:30 segment:

BREITBART   They were trying to figure out how to effect . . . how to spread Marxism around the world.  You could go to Bolivia, you could go to Bulgaria, and you could go to the peasant class, and you could say “Let’s flip this place.”  The Marxist-Stalinist argument of getting the workers upset at the owners was very easy but not in America where the middle class was invested in their productivity, invested in the concept that they could have their own small little American dream . . . a white picket fence that they could invent something and go from one generation being dirt poor to being an owner within a very quick period of time.  What these guys figured out . . .when they came to the United States–and Adorno is the one that drives me the most crazy–he came out to California . . . I think it was Bertolt Brecht . . . in the 1940s at the height of the Golden Age . . . .  Think about this: these guys left Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy to come to California and they lived by the beach (i.e., Santa Monica) and they were depressed by the relentless cheeriness, the productivity, and the capitalism that they witnessed around them.  They came up with a . . .  you can call it Cultural Marxism . . . but we experience it on a day-to-day basis, and by that I mean a minute-by-minute, second-by-second basis  . . . it’s a political correctness and multiculturalism.  And what it took was this amazing concept of E Pluribus unum and everybody comes here and contributes, everybody becomes an American and contributes, but we have a common culture, a common border, a common mind-set, that what they did was take the haves versus have-nots friction and translate it into  “Oppressor versus the Oppressed.”

ROBINSON  “And got taken up by faculties across the country. . . embraced by ‘60s academics.

BREITBART  “Post-structuralism, all of that, is pitting people against each other.  It is anti-American to its core.”

ROBINSON  Who  is Saul Alinksy and why should anyone care?  Obama is an acolyte of Alinsky, who created concept of community organizing.

BREITBART  Took all of this ethereal claptrap, this Noam Chomsky-like jargon that the average person couldn’t understand

ROBINSON  Herbert Marcuse is very hard to read . . .

BREITBART  . . . but he was able to translate the Cultural Marxist down to a series of rules and a mind-set, a warrior mind-set where the critical theory was like take on your enemy, take him directly on, destroy that person. He applied that critical theory down to the street-war level, and I would argue that the Katie Courics of the world, the Chris Matthews of the world, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Obermann are studied in the tactics of Alinksy.

via Target Liberty

The Confederate Flag: What’s It All Mean?

History is always full of surprises because what we live on without knowing it is the victor’s propaganda of history. Public schools are the major purveyors of that propaganda from kinder to age 18. Eighteen years of indoctrination. Some might call that cruel and unusual punishment. Schools, textbook companies, and the priestly caste of university professors work assiduously to preserve the national propaganda history, a history forged by Yankees.  And I’m not referring to the Derrick Jeter baseball club.

Let’s take a look at the recent hubbub surrounding the Confederate flag following the murder of seven black members of an AME Church in Charleston.  First, the focus on the terrible tragedy turned too quickly to the Confederate flag.  I mean even before we were half way done mourning for the tragic loss of life, the media seizes upon the Confederate flag and made that the story.  Yes, memorial services were held at various AME churches around the country.  Yes, your typical race baiter was out decrying that we’re not doing enough about racism.  But to rush to judgment on a symbol?  Really? Seven people are killed and the news blames a symbol for generating hate?  That, to me, sounds like personification used in fiction or poetry.  And according to the national media, the Confederate flag means only one thing: hatred. Pure, unadulterated hatred.  Forget for a moment that the slanted cross historically belongs to St. Andrew.  The flag in question is the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia Army:

The Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

But the attack against the Confederate flag comes from the standard media play book of define and destroy.  It is school ground tactics.  Reduce any topic, regardless of its complexity, to harsh black and white terms, demonize it as immoral so that the discussion begins from the result you’re seeking, forcing all other opinions into the position of defense.  It’s “Us” versus “Them.”  It’s tribal.  The discussion is framed in this manner.  It’s easy to do.  This same technique works well when you want to destroy any individual as well.  You want to destroy a person, a state, a people? Define them in singular, non-redeeming terms.  Rinse and repeat.

So we’re told that it’s hatred, folks, pure and unadulterated hatred. Hatred by whom, toward whom?  Some will reply “Oh, you’re just playing stupid.”  To which I would answer, “No.  I want specifics.  I want proof.  Where is the proof that the Confederate flag is a symbol of hatred?

Then I find this guy. It’s dated but relevant–

He explains “To me it’s a heritage thing, it’s a Southern pride thing. It’s not a racist thing whatsoever.” And I liked his answer to the question by the reporter as to why he should hang the flag up now, knowing that his parents would strongly disapprove of him doing that at home.  “I’m 18.  I should have my own right, belief on how I want to believe about things and form my own opinion about how I feel about things.”  This young man loves the flag because he loves Southern heritage and culture.  And maybe culture is what we’re all trying to preserve. Bionic Mosquito makes this excellent point on a slightly different topic.  Given all of the adjustments in values and morals imposed on communities across the country, it requires a real fight to preserve what others take from us.  So it’s not hatred.  I have never hated any flag.  On the contrary, at different times growing up I was fascinated by the different colors and symbols and their meaning. But hatred?  Never entered my mind.  But the media tells us it is seething hatred evocative of a burning cross. Well, the cross on the flag is St. Andrew’s leaning cross.  See for yourself.  It is the patron cross of Scotland.  What’s it doing in the South?  The Scotch/Irish settled the Southern states.  The cross is symbol to their heritage.

Here Roof is burning the American flag of empire. Robert Wenzel points out that “. . . it should not be forgotten that the Confederate flag was not the only flag that had meaning to Roof. He on more than one occasion displayed hate toward the US flag,” adding that “This suggests that Roof viewed the flags as symbols of geographic rule. It suggests that he preferred the rule of the long ago defeated Confederate government over rule by the world’s current dominating Empire.”
Dylann Roof with Confederate flag, small by comparison to other enthusiasts who display a full flag. And he’s wearing a Gold’s Gym tank top. Unusual endorsement for a kid who does not appear to have hardy any muscular definition at all. His white safari hat or unfolded dixie cup over a towel that looks more like it was made from silk nylon. Behind him looks like a barrel barbeque. In front at the foreground right looks like light clamps. He’s no pauper: those aren’t too cheap. Wearing his watch on his right wrist is traditionally worn by left-handers. But his dominant left-hand is empty. But what the heck is hanging on the wood slats of the shed behind him?

The shooting took place on June 17, 2015 at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina. The shooter was a 21 year-old man by the name of Dylann Roof.  Then there is this report:

If you can endure the speaker’s mild contempt for those lacking historical understanding, you might find his points interesting.  Here is a paraphrase of a few of his points:

1.  Several slave states fought for the north.  True.

2.  President Lincoln was himself a white supremacist who wanted to send blacks back to Africa.  True.  If you doubt this, please see Lincoln’s first inaugural address.  He states, and I quote, ”

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

3.  The Civil War was about states’ rights and economics and almost nothing to do with slavery. The Morrill Tarrif Act, 1859, did in the South.  Fort Sumter, where the first shots were fired, was the fort on the port where they collected the taxes or tariffs.

4.  Lincoln freed slaves in the southern states but not in the North. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic by Lincoln sold as a gesture to free the slaves.  What it did was cause plantation riots on women, elderly, and children, while the men were fighting in their regime against the Yankees.

5.  US enslaved Chinese to build railroads, further proof that any action taken by Lincoln was not intended to end slavery.

6.  Battle flag honors those that fought an invading army that burned entire cities and raped women and children.

7.  The south and the north both had slaves. The north was fighting to preserve the union was a lie.  Tennessee volunteers helped to defeat Mexico, so did Robert E. Lee. The North made money from these wars won by the south, profited by the north.

8.  Black code laws of Illinois.

9.  Largest race riot in the country was in New York, 1863, during the Civil War.

10. MLK endorsed the confederate flag as part of his support for the Mississippi Freedom Party.