Dyson calls Peterson a mean white man and Inquisitioner

That Michael Eric Dyson, such a wordsmith, eh?  The one great comment came from Stephen Fry at the 21-minute mark.

The Oxford Manner . . . .  Which I take to mean the ability to play gracefully with ideas.  Isn’t that the most beautiful definition of education you’ve ever heard? The ability to play gracefully with ideas! So whether the idea be coffee, whether it be paper, whether it be . . . , whether it be floorboards, it doesn’t matter. Because intelligence is about connection.  —Stephen Fry

This was illuminating.

It shows how the Left is the most brutal, conversational thugs. They want no debate. They seek opportunities for performance art, not reasoning out important issues.  In fact, there is no issue more important than themselves. 

Michael Eric Dyson teaches post-modernism.  Wikipedia loves Lefties.  

Peterson’s reply to the “mean white man” comment was unremarkable.  He said “It’s conceivable that I am a mean man.  Not as mean as others.  Race got dragged into that comment is what is wrong with the politically-correct Left than anything else that could have happened. 

Dyson, like all race-baiters, loves to gloss over ahistorically and non-specifically about historical episodes instead preferring a “self-evident” rapport with his fans when he references “horrors.”  What horrors?  He doesn’t specify.  Then Dyson takes part in name-calling, calling Peterson an “inquisitioner.”  Peterson’s assumption, rightfully, in my opinion, is that he’s in attendance to take part in an academic discussion.  

NeoUnrealist misses the point.  He gets it wrong.  What happens is that the contenders erect, invent, or otherwise create talking points as they speak in the debate as a way to avoid topics agreed upon or presumed as a condition to joining the panel.  It’s the whole reason why Peterson has to remind the audience and the panel that this is a debate on political correctness.  That doesn’t get well-defined, of course, for good reason: it’s an invitation to speakers to roam all over the map.  It’s not a debate; it’s entertainment.  You hear the audience applauding their support or regret.  Dyson picks up on this and moves the crowd one way, then another.  



“It’s useful for the American people, even a safeguard, to know that their president is not a great man, that he comes from the people and returns to the people.” –Calvin Coolidge

Contrast Coolidge’s remarks with today’s attitudes from and toward presidents, senators, and congressmen.  Americans have been primed to disappointing heights to expect greatness from their political leaders.  But let me tell you, you will learn more, a lot more from the folks in your immediate neighborhood than you ever will from any president, black, white, woman, or whatever.  This statement by Jeff Deist nails it:

All I can say in closing is that unfortunately today we insist on electing and running megalomaniacs, especially in presidents.  We want people to solve climate change and Syria and Ukraine, stock markets and monetary policy and there are no humans equipped to do that.  God knows we could use a quiet competent administrator these days.

1929 Stock market crash happened under Hoover and acted more like a democrat than a republican as far as his response to the crash.  He believed in “easing.”  He believed in spending to stimulate, he believed in pushing wages upward in a downturn so the worker will spend to stimulate the economy.  He believed in regulating Wall Street and chastising it in a downturn.  These are not concepts that Coolidge would have agreed with or understood. 

Coolidge had homespun wisdom on money.  “Inflation is repudiation.”

[15:37]  The inflation after WWI took them all by surprise.  Coolidge had observed what the policy was in the downturn in the early 20s, perceiving that downturn and fearing it, the government raised interest rates and cut the government, meaning itself, in half.  That’s not what we do today.  That terrible downturn of the early 20s went away pretty fast and it’s the “Forgotten Depression.”  Jim Grant even wrote a book called that.  So take from that what lessons you will.  In our conversation, Coolidge would not have spoken of inflation so much as of “credit.”  That’s the way they thought of it: credit from banks.  Too much credit in the marketplace, too little credit.  And there’s some merit in that as well.  He didn’t know that much about the Federal Reserve, the new entity.  No one knew what the Fed might do or could do.  This was just the beginning of what we tend to think about open market operations. 

DEIST [16:43]  There was no dual mandate.  The Fed was a different thing back then. 

[17:09]  Monetary policy was a new thing back in the 1920s. 

Fortney-McCumber under Coolidge.  Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act under Hoover. 

Calvin Coolidge 176375_5_

His beauty was that he cut taxes dramatically, multiple times, in the face of opposition.  Bringing the top marginal rate after many battles down to 25%.  That’s below Ronald Reagan. The rate had been over 50% even though the income tax was young in the 20s.  it was already a powerful tool and the Treasury recognized that.  So with great effort, Coolidge cut the tax back

And oppositions in his own party.  Remember the Republicans were the progressives.  And he gets a lot of points for that.  He waged war to lower taxes the way other presidents waged war abroad. 

Followed by strong prosperity.  1920s reform of Coolidge.  Statistics of income online.  Gov’t made more money back received more revenues than expected.  Supply-siders can find evidence for their position.  FDR had to be a hero and Coolidge went down. 

The 1930s, presidents were ranked.  The ranking is your sum.  Can’t have two tops.  You’re forced to make a choice.  Coolidge’s success being better than FDR is that acknowledging that Coolidge’s arguments have merit against FDR’s policies is disquieting to people who want an active government.  [23:19]

FDR was popular because he had a 1st class temperament, lovable, and led our country in a war that most Americans believed was necessary and he did that well.   If a president is a war hero and stopped the Nazis, yo0u’re going to forgive his economics.  FDRs economics wasn’t so awesome.

Forgotten Man is a revision.  The book is taught all over the country.  The Great Society is also serious revision. 

Economics and the Public Welfare, Benjamin Anderson, 1980. 

When people force companies to raise wages, will they force people to hire fewer? 

“It’s useful for the American people, even a safeguard, to know that their president is not a great man, that he comes from the people and returns to the people.” Very different attitude from today, republican or democrat.

Went back to their house in Vermont.  Coolidge was popular.

All I can say in closing is that unfortunately today we insist on electing and running megalomaniacs, especially in presidents.  We want people to solve climate change and Syria and Ukraine, stock markets and monetary policy and there are no humans equipped to that.  God knows we could use a quiet competent administrator these days.

Author of 4 New York Times Best Sellers

Chair, Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation

Presidential Scholar, The King’s College, New York

AmityShlaes.com.  She’s written several books, one of which is Coolidge, Amity Shlaes, 2014.  

The Forgotten Man: A History of the Great Depression, Amity Shlaes, 2008.  Her book has been attacked.  This book of hers is taught all over the country.  It was a serious revision and her current book, due out in the November of this year, is The Great Society: A New History of the 1960s in America, 2018.  

Some Ideas Can Get You Killed

From the comments section of this Tom Woods episode. . . 

In addition, the anarchistic upshot of the libertarian doctrine appealed to the countercultural left. For did not the illegitimacy of the state and the nonaggression axiom (that one shall not initiate or threaten to initiate physical force against others and their property) imply that everyone was at liberty to choose his very own nonaggressive lifestyle? Did this not imply that vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality, insofar as they were victimless crimes, were no offenses at all but perfectly normal and legitimate activities and lifestyles? Not surprisingly, then, from the outset the libertarian movement attracted an unusually high number of abnormal and perverse followers. Subsequently, the countercultural ambiance and multicultural-relativistic “tolerance” of the libertarian movement attracted even greater numbers of misfits, personal or professional failures, or plain losers. Murray Rothbard, in disgust, called them the “nihilo-libertarians” and identified them as the “modal” (typical and representative) libertarians. They fantasized of a society where everyone would be free to choose and cultivate whatever nonaggressive lifestyle, career, or character he wanted, and where, as a result of free-market economics, everyone could do so on an elevated level of general prosperity. Ironically, the movement that had set out to dismantle the state and restore private property and market economics was largely appropriated, and its appearance shaped, by the mental and emotional products of the welfare state: the new class of permanent adolescents.” —Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed

Self-described libertarians are, in general, even more degenerate than people who describe themselves as very liberal. It is very telling that rather than focusing on increasing property rights, reducing taxation, etc, many libertarians focus more on legalizing drugs, reducing things that would almost definitely be in effect even in a stateless society (such as driver’s licenses and other such regulation), and open borders as if the western states do not have an interest in importing barbaric and socialistic peoples and reducing the social capital of whites. The future of human accomplishment, property rights, of stable, socially conservative white societies, will not be in a social order that average libertarians desire.

“If you have your children in a school and they talk about equity, diversity, white privilege, take them out of class. They’re not being educated, they’re being indoctrinated”

h/t Lew Rockwell

Peterson made an excellent retort to the feminist tenet of “patriarchy” as “a reprehensible . . . rewrite.”  I would call it an abominable lie but who am I to mince words?

Men and women have lifted themselves up over the millennia in a “cooperative endeavor,” and for feminists to characterize the history of the world as “centuries of the oppression of women by men” is an “absolutely reprehensible ideological rewrite of history.”

Peterson tells parents with boys to teach them courage.

His advice for parents of young boys was to “encourage them,” meaning to “instill courage in them, to support their courage.”

“That doesn’t mean protect them from what’s dangerous,” he said. “It means teach them how to be competent and teach them that they can rely on themselves to prevail in even the darkest of circumstances.”

And his coup de grace was this

Peterson also had some very specific advice for parents: “If you have your children in a school and they talk about… equity, diversity, inclusivity, white privilege, systemic racism–any of that–you take your children out of the class. They’re not being educated, they’re being indoctrinated,” he declared.