Political Correctness

The Tyranny of the Majority

A commonly used phrase by minorities to denigrate the will of the majority.
A fundamentally anti-democratic expression.
Note the selectivity with which it is used.
The phrase is only applied to selected majoritarian policy preferences.
In fact, it is fairly safe to observe that
it is only used against majorities which are heavily white and/or Christian.
In practice, it is used heavily by the usual practitioners of PC
to attack the policy desires of the non-PC.
Finally, consider a variant:
When have you ever heard the phrase
“The Tyranny of the Minority”?
Is it only possible for majorities to be tyrannical?
Of course not,
but who would want to admit the possibility of a tyranny of the PC?
Might sound too much like what we really have.

An excellent discussion of the origins and history of political correctness
is given in a roughly half hour video by William Lind
a YouTube playlist for the William Lind talk
The playlist embedded:

Miscellaneous Articles


A Bustling Hate-Crime Industry
By George F. Will
Washington Post, 2007-05-13


Economy? What Economy?
By Harold Meyerson
Washington Post, 2008-09-03

[Its conclusion; emphasis is added.]

But the economy is not all;
the GOP’s last best hope remains identity politics.
In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee,
the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party,
the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future,
the party of the American past.

[Some of us, but evidently not Mr. Meyerson, still admire and respect that past
and abhor the notion of a multicultural future.]

Republican conventions have long been
bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity,

[The word “exclusivity” is perhaps misleading here.
If the Republican Party is heavily white,
that is not because Republicans keep blacks out,
but because blacks choose, out of their own free will, not to join.
Also, when black Republicans run for office in majority-black districts,
they are usually defeated by black Democrats.
And note how such black Republicans as Clarence Thomas
are shunned and reviled by the bulk of the black community.]

but coming right after the diversity of Denver,
this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white.

[Evidently in the eyes of Mr. Meyerson
the founders of the American republic,
and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution,
were “un-American.”]

Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.
This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power.
If the election is about the economy, they’re cooked --
and their silence this week on nearly all things economic
means that they know it.

[“Anti-Semites” have traditionally said that a main objective of Jews was
to undermine the power of the white Christian majority.
Is telling the truth “anti-Semitic”?]


The Roots of Political Correctness
By William S. Lind
The American Conservative, 2009-11-19

In response to the killing of 13 American soldiers at Ft. Hood by an Islamic U. S. Army major, a number of senior officials have expressed their fear, not of Islam, but of a possible threat to “diversity.” “Diversity” is one of the many false gods of “Political Correctness.” But what exactly is Political Correctness?

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. Its history goes back not to the 1960s but to World War I. Before 1914, Marxist theory said that if a major war broke out in Europe, the workers of every country would join together in a revolution to overthrow capitalism and replace it with international socialism. But when war came, that did not happen. What had gone wrong?

Two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so “blinded” the working class to its true (Marxist) class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. When Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik government in Hungary in 1919, one of his first acts was introducing sex education into the Hungarian schools. He knew that destroying traditional sexual morals would be a major step toward destroying Western culture itself.

Lukacs became a major influence on a Marxist think tank established in 1923 at Frankfurt University in Germany, the Institute for Social Research, commonly known as the Frankfurt School. When Max Horkheimer took over as director of the Frankfurt School in 1930, he set about in earnest to do Lukacs’ bidding by translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms. Other Frankfurt School members devoted to this intellectually difficult task were Theodor Adorno, Eric Fromm, Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse. Theirs was not the Marxism of the Soviet Union – Moscow considered them heretics – but it was Marxism nonetheless.

The Frankfurt School’s key to success was crossing Marx with Freud. They argued that just as under capitalism everyone lived in a state of economic oppression, so under Western culture people lived under psychological repression. From psychology they also drew the technique of psychological conditioning. Want to “normalize” homosexuality? Just show television program after television program where the only normal-seeming white male is homosexual.

In 1933 the Frankfurt School moved from Germany to New York City. There, its products included “critical theory,” which demands constant, destructive criticism of every traditional social institution, starting with the family. It also created a series of “studies in prejudice,” culminating in Adorno’s immensely influential book, The Authoritarian Personality, which argued that anyone who defends traditional culture is a “fascist” and also mentally ill. That is why anyone who now dares defy “PC” gets sent to “sensitivity training,” which is psychological conditioning designed to produce submission.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Herbert Marcuse translated the abstruse work of the other Frankfurt School thinkers into books college students could understand, such as Eros and Civilization, which became the Bible of the New Left in the 1960s. Marcuse injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation, to the point where it is now that generation’s ideology. We know it as “multiculturalism,” “diversity” or just Political Correctness.

That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism. If the average American knew that, I suspect Political Correctness would be in serious trouble.

The Ft. Hood killings raise an interesting question: why would Marxists of any variety come to the support of Islam? After all, if the Islamics took over, they would cut Marxists’ throats even before they cut the throats of Christians and Jews. The answer is that cultural Marxism will ally with any force that helps it to achieve its goals, destroying Western culture and Christianity.

Obviously, there is far more to the history of the Frankfurt School and its creation of Political Correctness than I can cover in a short column. This is just a bare-bones outline. For those who want to learn more (and I hope you do), you can find a short book on the subject, which I edited, on the website of the Free Congress Foundation (www.freecongress.org). Free Congress also produced a short video documentary history of the Frankfurt School, which I’m told is available on Youtube (look under Frankfurt School or under my name). The video is especially valuable because we interviewed the principal American expert on the Frankfurt School, Martin Jay, who was then the chairman of the History Department at Berkeley (and obviously no conservative). He spills the beans.

Most people in the U. S. military hate Political Correctness, but they don’t know how to fight it. The way to fight it is to find out what it really is, and make sure all your friends find out too. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, which is to say intellectual Soylent Green. Here more than in anything else, knowledge is a weapon!


Sexism Charges Divide Surgeons’ Group
New York Times Well Blog, 2011-04-15

A Valentine’s Day editorial in the official newspaper of the American College of Surgeons has set off a firestorm of controversy that has divided the largest professional organization of surgeons in the country and raised questions about the current leadership and its attitudes toward women and gay and lesbian members.

The editorial, written by Dr. Lazar J. Greenfield, an emeritus professor of surgery at the University of Michigan School of Medicine and president-elect of the American College of Surgeons, extols the mood-enhancing effects of semen on women.
It begins with a reference to the mating behaviors of fruit flies,
then goes on to discuss studies on
the menstrual cycles of heterosexual and lesbian women who live together.
Citing the research of
evolutionary psychologists at the State University of New York,
it describes how
female college students who had been exposed to semen
were less depressed than their peers who had not,

“So there’s a deeper bond between men and women
than St. Valentine would have suspected,
and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”

This month, in response to complaints, the editorial was retracted and pulled from the group’s Web site, and Dr. Greenfield was asked to step down from his position as editor in chief of the surgeon’s newspaper. But criticisms continue to mount.

“I was aghast,” said Dr. Colleen Brophy, a professor of surgery at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, and a member of the organization for over 20 years. Dr. Brophy, who served as chairwoman of its surgical research committee, publicly resigned from the College on Thursday. “I’ve gone back and reviewed the science, and it’s erroneous,” she said. “But I’m resigning from the college not so much because of the editorial but because of the leadership’s response to it.”

The organization has more than 75,000 members (I am one). Roughly 10 percent are women. There are five women on the organization’s 22-member governing board; this month, they issued a letter requesting that Dr. Greenfield step down as president-elect. The entire board is set to vote on the issue on Sunday.

Dr. Greenfield has not issued a formal statement and could not be reached for comment, but in an e-mail to his colleagues in response to the criticism, he wrote that his editorial “was considered by the Women in Surgery Committee and the Association of Women Surgeons as demeaning to women.
Despite my apologies, they brought the issue to the Board of Regents.”

[“Demeaning to women”?
What baloney.
The feminists just can’t stand to think that men might provide something women lack.
What bitches they are.
In fact, to call them bitches probably demeans dogs.

If the science is erroneous, that is a legitimate criticism.
The science deserves to be scrutinized.
But the word "demeaning" has no scientific standing.
Rather, it is a political judgment.
But feminists subordinate science and truth to their political values.
So do some (male) psychologists, by the way, as I discovered in the early 1980s.]

Dr. L. D. Britt, the current president of the organization and chairman of surgery at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, also did not respond to requests for comment. But at a surgical meeting this month, he invoked the experience of “oppressed” South Africans who chose “reconciliation,” adding, “If someone is truly apologetic, we have to consider that.”

While women now make up almost half of all entering medical school classes in the United States, fewer than a third choose to go into surgery, in part because of a perceived male bias, negative attitudes of surgeons and a lack of female mentors. Once in practice, studies have shown, well over half of all women surgeons report feeling demeaned, and nearly a third say they have been the objects of inappropriate sexist remarks or advances.

Dr. Greenfield has had what many believe is an exemplary career not only as a surgeon but also as a longtime mentor and advocate of women in surgery. He is the editor of one of the major textbooks of surgery and the inventor of the Greenfield Filter, a device that has been used in hundreds of thousands of patients to prevent life-threatening blood clots from entering the lung. And Dr. Greenfield has been a mentor to countless surgeons, many of them women, while serving as chairman of surgery first at Virginia Commonwealth University and then at the University of Michigan.

“He has always been above reproach,” said Dr. Mary T. Hawn, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Alabama School of Medicine in Birmingham, who worked as a medical student, surgeon-in-training and faculty member under Dr. Greenfield. “Our understanding was that he went out of his way to recruit women on the trainee and faculty level.”

Dr. Diane M. Simeone, a professor of surgery at the University of Michigan who was a co-author of a recent article on barriers faced by women in academic surgery, agrees. “There still is a lot of gender bias in surgery, and I have seen it myself on multiple fronts,” she said. “That was never evident from Dr. Greenfield. I think it’s important to know that this is one event and to weigh it against a long career where he has always been completely above board and a role model for supporting women in surgery.”

It is less clear what attitudes Dr. Greenfield or other leaders of the organization have toward the college’s gay and lesbian members. “I think race and religion have made a lot more progress in the college than women, and particularly gay women or men,” Dr. Brophy said. “This is probably the first time I’ve ever seen the word ‘lesbian’ used in a piece or associated with the college. Ever.”

For some, the controversy is less a matter of Dr. Greenfield’s fate as president-elect and more a reflection of what some see as a deep disconnect between the old guard and its respect of hierarchy and professional omerta, and a newer generation of surgeons and leaders who embrace a culture of transparency in the age of the Internet.

Many surgeons chose not to comment on the matter,
for fear of professional repercussions,

but one said,
“It’s frankly been heartbreaking for all of us.”

“There are all these men and women out there
who are afraid to say something,”

said Dr. Barbara Lee Bass,
chairwoman of surgery at the Methodist Hospital in Houston,
who recently served on the college’s governing board.
“It reveals that there is still this intimidation and fearfulness,
and that’s what troubles me most.”

[Yep, that’s our feminists.
Clamping down on anyone who says anything of which they disapprove.
Reminds me of my married days.]

“I’m not sure some of the old guard see this as the watershed moment it is,” she continued. Referring to the college’s role as a standard bearer for surgeons and an advocacy organization for patient care and patient safety, she added: “It’s not so much about Dr. Greenfield anymore. It’s about the spine of our organization and the principles by which the organization governs itself.”

[Further comments, largely repeating those above:
The feminists have shown both their desire and ability to suppress any communications which suggest that their views are wrong.
See, for example, their successful war against doctors who tried to publicize the fertility problems that the lifestyle favored by feminists impose on women who (eventually) desire to have their own children,
and also their claims that pornography is only for the benefit of men,
rather than having the potential to motivate and encourage both men and women
to engage in mutually beneficial sexual relations
(which it certainly can do)
(see, for example, their attack on Faith Kroll's demonstration of
how she achieves female pleasure).

They are disgusting examples of speech and thought police.]

The editorial
by Lazar Greenfield

[The above New York Times gives a very small part of the editorial.
I think the whole paragraph in which that part appears is significant,
so here it is:]

As far as humans are concerned,
you may think you know all about sexual signals,
but you’d be surprised by new findings.
It’s been known since the 1990s that
heterosexual women living together
synchronize their menstrual cycles because of pheromones,
but when a study of lesbians showed that they do not synchronize,
the researchers suspected that semen played a role.

In fact, they found
ingredients in semen that include mood enhancers
like estrone, cortisol, prolactin, oxytocin, and serotonin;
a sleep enhancer, melatonin;
and of course, sperm, which makes up only 1%-5%.

Delivering these compounds into the richly vascularized vagina
also turns out to have major salutary effects for the recipient.
Female college students having unprotected sex
were significantly less depressed
than were those whose partners used condoms

(Arch. Sex. Behav. 2002;31:289-93).
Their better moods were not just a feature of promiscuity,
because women using condoms were just as depressed
as those practicing total abstinence.
The benefits of semen contact also were seen in fewer suicide attempts
and better performance on cognition tests.

Can We Start Taking Political Correctness Seriously Now?
By Jonathan Chait
New York Magazine Daily Intelligencer, 2015-11-10


[T]o imagine p.c. as simply a thing college kids do
relieves us of taking it seriously as a coherent set of beliefs, which it very much is.
Political correctness is a system of thought
that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender.

It manifests itself most prominently in campus settings not because it’s a passing phase, like acne,
but because the academy is one of the few bastions of American life
where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others.
The phenomenon also exists in other nonacademic left-wing communities,
many of them virtual ones centered on social media,
and its defenders include professional left-wing intellectuals.

The upsurge of political correctness is not just greasy-kid stuff,
and it’s not just a bunch of weird, unfortunate events that somehow keep happening over and over.
It’s the expression of a political culture with consistent norms,
and philosophical premises that happen to be incompatible with liberalism.
The reason every Marxist government in the history of the world turned massively repressive
is not because they all had the misfortune of being hijacked by murderous thugs.
It’s that
the ideology itself prioritizes class justice over individual rights
and makes no allowance for legitimate disagreement.

(For those inclined to defend p.c. on the grounds that racism and sexism are important,
bear in mind that the forms of repression Marxist government set out to eradicate were hardly imaginary.)

American political correctness has obviously never perpetrated the brutality of a communist government,
but it has also never acquired the powers that come with full control of the machinery of the state.
The continuous stream of small-scale outrages it generates
is a testament to an illiberalism that runs deep down to its core
(a character I tried to explain in my January essay).

The scene in Columbia and the recent scene in New Haven share a similar structure:
jeering student mobs expressing incredulity at the idea of political democracy.
As far as the students are concerned, they represent the cause of anti-racism,
a fact that renders the need for debate irrelevant.
Defenses of p.c. tactics simply sweep aside objections to the tactics as self-interested whining.
“It’s not about creating an intellectual space,” shouts one Yalie.
Notably, the events at Yale have redounded in New Haven to the benefit of the protesters,
who have renewed their demands,
and Nicholas Christakis, the Yale administrator seen pleading futilely for reason, issuing apologies for his behavior.
Likewise, at Wesleyan, the student newspaper that sparked outrage
by publishing the op-ed of a student (cautiously) questioning elements of the Black Lives Matter movement has been harshly sanctioned.

That these activists have been able to prevail,
even in the face of frequently harsh national publicity highlighting the blunt illiberalism of their methods,
confirms that these incidents reflect something deeper than a series of one-off episodes.
They are carrying out the ideals of
a movement that regards the delegitimization of dissent
as a first-order goal.

People on the left need to stop evading the question of political correctness —
by laughing it off as college goofs, or interrogating the motives of p.c. critics, or ignoring it —
and make a decision on whether they agree with it.

[It seems to me the designation of dissenting groups as "hate groups"
is rather similar.
One cannot advocate, for example, for the interests of white people
without being designated "a hater".
On the other hand, those advocating for the interests of black people
get a free pass.
The resonance this strikes with me is with a view I first met at Brandeis University c. 1970.
It seemed to be a given in the general campus culture
that something called "the establishment" or "the system"
was something to be opposed, for keeping (presumed deserving) people down.
(This whole anti-establishment attitude was definitely something I had never encountered before.)
An underlying assumption seems to be that the people then "on top" of the system
did not deserve to be there....]


An open letter to the Virginia Tech community
by Charles Murray, 2017-03-17

Last week, the president of Virginia Tech, Tim Sands, published an “open letter to the Virginia Tech community” defending lectures delivered by deplorable people like me (I’m speaking on the themes of Coming Apart on March 25). Bravo for President Sands’s defense of intellectual freedom. But I confess that I was not entirely satisfied with his characterization of my work. So I’m writing an open letter of my own.

Dear Virginia Tech community,

Since President Sands has just published an open letter making a serious allegation against me, it seems appropriate to respond. The allegation: “Dr. Murray is well known for his controversial and largely discredited work linking measures of intelligence to heredity, and specifically to race and ethnicity — a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.”

Let me make an allegation of my own. President Sands is unfamiliar either with the actual content of The Bell Curve — the book I wrote with Richard J. Herrnstein to which he alludes — or with the state of knowledge in psychometrics.



Cultural Marxism

A useful reference, available online, is “What is Cultural Marxism?” (no date)
by William S. Lind

Lind has also written a column:

“The Scourge of Cultural Marxism,”
by William S. Lind
The American Conservative, May/June 2018 print issue

As of 2019-03-21, that does not seem to be on the Web.
It really is an excellent column, so I am taking the liberty of reprinting it here.

“The Scourge of Cultural Marxism”

The alienation factor is crucial to the leftist agenda
By William S. Lind
The American Conservative, May/June 2018

[1] In previous columns I have used the term “cultural Marxism,” which may not be familiar to all readers.
What is cultural Marxism?
Is it Stalin leading the Moscow Symphony Orchestra or an exhibit of Walter Ulbricht’s watercolors?

[2] Not exactly.
Almost everyone knows cultural Marxism under a different name.
As “political correctness” or “multiculturalism,” we have all had it shoved down our throats for too long.
Though it seeks to disguise its real nature and goals, which are the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion, it is in fact a full-blown ideology, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
As with most things, we can understand it best through its history.

[3] Early 20th century Marxism said that if another big war broke out in Europe, the working class would join hands across national boundaries and overthrow capitalism.
But when war broke out in 1914, that didn’t happen.
In 1919, two Marxist intellectual working independently, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, explained why.
The Christian religion and Western culture had so blinded the working class to its class interests that communism was impossible until both were destroyed.
When Lukacs became deputy commissar for culture in Hungary’s short-lined Bela Kun Bolshevik government, he proclaimed a program of “cultural terrorism.”
He asked, “Who will save us from Western civilization?”

[4] Lukacs went on to influence a Marxist think tank established at Frankfurt University in Germany in 1923, the Institute for Social Research.
When a brilliant young Marxist intellectual name Max Horkheimer took over the Institute (today usually known as the Frankfurt School) in 1930, he picked up Lukacs’s work and expanded it into a new version of Marxism, very different from Moscow’s.
That new version, cultural Marxism, is what we now know as “political correctness.”

[5] The task was intellectually difficult because the Institute had to argue against Marx on some points.
Most critically, it posited that Marx was wrong in saying that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” determined by ownership of the means of production.
Horkheimer said that, on the contrary, it was an independent and highly important variable.

[6] To assist in developing this new Marxism, Horkheimer brought in some additional Marxists who thought as he did.
The most important was Theodor Adorno, whose influence remains vast today.
Adorno argued that because capitalism is alienating, all art, to be “true,” also had to be alienating.
That is why, all around us, we hear and see alienating music, art, and architecture.
Adorno further said that anyone who defended traditional culture was both a “fascist” and mentally ill.
His book, The Authoritarian Personality, is still a basic text for the left.
It is also the source for much of the nonsense in education theory that has wrecked America’s public schools.

[7] Two other Marxist thinkers, Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm, helped the institute cross Marx with Freud, another challenging task.
They argued that in Western culture, everyone lived in a state of repression from which they must be “liberated.”
The results began to become apparent in the 1960s.

[8] Those results were in large part due to a young graduate student at the Frankfurt School shortly before it left Germany for the United States in 1933, after Hitler came to power.
His name was Herbert Marcuse.
In the 1950s and ’60s, Marcuse translated the highly abstruse work of the other Frankfurt School thinkers into books college students could easily read and understand, including Eros and Civilization, which became the New Left’s bible.
That book said that by replacing repression with “non-procreative eros” and substituting the “pleasure principle” for the “reality principle,” we could create a society of all play and now work.
Marcuse also argued that the revolution would not come from the working class but from a coalition of blacks, gays, feminist women, young people, etc., the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness.

[9] But how did those universities become so intolerant of any other viewpoint?
Again, we have Marcuse to thank.
In the 1960s he wrote a famous essay on what he called “liberating tolerance.”
He defined it as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movement coming from the right.
When the apostles of political correctness call for “tolerance,” Marcuse’s is the “tolerance” they are talking about.

[10] Marcuse injected cultural Marxism into the Baby Boom generation when the Boomers were in college, and it remains their ideology today.
Anyone who defies it becomes an “unperson.”
It is propagated by much of the video screen media.
Cultural Marxism relies for its power not on logical argument but on psychological conditioning, to which video screen lend themselves all too well.

[11] Conservatives who want to fight cultural Marxism should begin by getting its conditioning mechanisms, especially the public schools and the television, out of their families lives.
Beyond that, the best weapon is truth exposing “political correctness” and multiculturalism for what they are:
Marxism translated from the economic into cultural terms.
It tries to present itself as “just being nice to everyone.”
There is nothing “nice” about it (one of the Institute’s heroes was the Marquis de Sade).
Like the Marxism of the old Soviet Union, it is a totalitarian ideology, as evidenced by what it is doing on campuses today.
And that’s precisely what it seeks to do nationwide.

Black Jewish alliance

How Israel may be damaging the alliance between blacks and Jews
by Colbert King
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2015-07-24


[T]he argument over the Iran deal could well stress
the long-standing and largely fruitful
political alliance between blacks and Jews
in this country.

It would be a pity if the nuclear arms debate shapes up as
a dispute between U.S. supporters of Netanyahu’s policies
and Americans who respect and trust Obama’s judgment.
And it would be a sorrow to those of us who still look with favor upon
an alliance that has stood the test in the hardest of times.


[For an example of how that "alliance between blacks and Jews"
is realized right on the opinion pages of the Washington Post,
consider the following two opinion pieces which appeared there.]

Why the Iran nuclear deal is not a friendship agreement
by Colbert King
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2015-07-17

Obama offers the perfect response to the Confederate flag wavers
by Dana Milbank
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2015-07-17

"The politics of division"

Why is it that those standing up for traditional values
are described as practicing (“the politics of division”,
while those promoting non-traditional, radical, social policies,
such as same-sex marriage are not?

Arnold Schwarzenegger writes:
Now I’d like to speak to some of my fellow Republicans.
I know plenty of Republicans who are sensible and driven to solve problems for America.
They believe in Reagan’s vision of a big tent where everyone is welcome.
This message isn’t for them.

It is for Republicans who choose the politics of division
[my emphasis]
over policies that improve the lives of all of us.
[This is a false choice.]
It is for Republicans who have decided to neglect
the next generation of voters.
[What Schwarzenegger is referring to
is how shamefully our educational system
has failed to uphold the transmission of traditional values.
Making things even worse,
those determining the cultural milieu have all too often
worked to undermine them.]

It is for Republicans who are fighting for laws
that fly in the face of equality and freedom.

If we want our party to grow and last,
we must be focused on real solutions to problems Americans are facing.

We could start with infrastructure.
Traffic costs our drivers over $100 billion annually.
Airport delays cost another $22 billion.
Or we could get to work on education.
If graduation rates don’t increase, we will have a shortage of 5 million workers by 2020 —
not because we lack the manpower, but because the jobs will require education that our students aren’t receiving.
We could clean up our air: MIT researchers found that pollution kills more than 200,000 Americans every year — more than traffic accidents, homicides, suicides and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
There are so many real problems that need solving.
[Fine, go to work on those, if they can be solved.
But retaining the traditional definition of marriage
hardly is a roadblock to working on those issues.]


The PC Mind

What Do You Call a Black Man with a Ph.D.?
The Skip Gates arrest shows
how little some features of the national racial landscape
have changed over time.

By Lawrence Bobo
TheRoot.com, 2009-07-21

[A slightly different version of this
appeared in the Op-Ed page of the (printed) Washington Post on 2009-07-22.
That version does not appear to be on their web site.

In that version (the printed version), the headline and subtitle are

At Home While Black
Henry Gates’s Run-In With ‘Post-Racial America’.


Ain’t nothing post-racial about the United States of America.

I say this because my best friend, a well-known, middle-aged, affluent, black man, was arrested on his own front porch [1] after showing his identification to a white police officer who was responding to a burglary call. Though the officer quickly determined that my friend was the rightful resident of the house and knew by then that there was no burglary in progress, he decided to place my friend in handcuffs, put him in the back of a police cruiser and have him fingerprinted and fully “processed,” at our local police station.

This did not happen at night. It happened in the middle of the day. It did not happen to a previously unknown urban black male. It happened to internationally known, 58-year-old Henry Louis “Skip” Gates Jr. I am writing about this event because it is an outrage, because I want others to know that it is an outrage, and because, even now, I have not fully processed the meaning of it.

Here’s what I understand to have happened: The officer in my friend’s case was really motivated by a simmering cauldron of anger that my friend had not immediately complied with his initial command to step out of the house. In hindsight, that was the right thing to do since I think my friend could have been physically injured by this police officer (if not worse) had he, in fact, stepped out of his home before showing his ID. Black Americans recall all too well that Amadou Diallo reached for his identification in a public space when confronted by police and, 42 gun shots later, became the textbook case of deadly race-infected police bias.

Skip is one of the most readily recognized black men in America and the most broadly influential black scholar of this generation. And yes, in the liberal, politically correct cocoon of “the people’s Republic of Cambridge,” a famous, wealthy and important black man was arrested on his front porch. The ultimate charge? “Disorderly conduct.” Whatever that means.

Even before the charge were dropped Tuesday, I knew in my bones that this officer was wrong. I knew in my bones that this situation was about the level of deference from a black male that a white cop expects. I say this even though I did not see the events themselves unfold. What I do know with certainty is that the officer, even by his own written report, understood that he was dealing with a lawful resident of the house when he made the arrest. That same report makes it clear that at the time of the arrest, the officer was no longer concerned about the report of a “burglary in progress” involving “two black males.” No, by this point we’re talking about something else entirely.

Maybe this “situation” had something to do with Harvard University and social class. It is possible that one element of what happened here involved a policeman with working-class roots who faced an opportunity to “level the playing field” with a famous and successful Harvard professor. But even if class mattered, it did so mostly because of how, in this situation, it was bound up with race.

Imagine the scenario. An influential man, in his own home, is ordered to step outside by a policeman. Naturally and without disrespect he asks “Why?” or perhaps “Who are you?” The officer says words to the effect, “I’m responding to a burglary report. Step outside now!”

To which, our confident man, in his own home, says, “No. This is my house. I live here. I work for the university, and the university manages this property.” The response prompts the officer to demand identification. “Fine,” our resident says, and he pulls out two forms of identification from his wallet.

The officer now knows with high certainty that he is dealing with the legitimate resident of the home. Does he ask, “Is everything alright, sir? We had a report of a burglary.” No, he does not. Does he say, “I’m sorry, sir, if I frightened you before. We had a report of a burglary, and all they said was ‘two black men at this address.’ You can understand my concern when I first got to the house?”

No, he didn’t do that either. He also could have disengaged by walking away. But no, he didn’t do that either.

This officer continued to insist that my friend step outside. By now, it is clear to my friend that the officer has, well, “an attitude problem.” So, as I suspect would happen with any influential, successful person, in their own home, who has provided authoritative identification to a policeman would do in this situation: My friend says, “I want your name and badge number.” The cop says nothing sensible in response but continues to wait at the door.

The request for the officer’s name and badge number is pressed again. No response. Social scientists have plenty of hard data showing that African Americans, across the social-class spectrum, are deeply distrustful of the police. The best research suggests that this perception has substantial roots in direct personal encounters with police that individuals felt were discriminatory or motivated by racism. But this perception of bias also rests on a shared collective knowledge of a history of discriminatory treatment of blacks by police and of social policies with built-in forms of racial bias (i.e., stiffer sentences for use of crack versus powder cocaine).

In the age of Obama, however, with all the talk of post-racial comity, you might have thought what happened to Skip Gates was an impossibility. Even the deepest race cynic—picture comedian Dave Chappelle as “Conspiracy Brother” from the movie Undercover Brother [2]—couldn’t predict such an event. But, I will say that when I moved into the same affluent area as Gates, I wondered whether someone might mistakenly report me, a black man, for breaking into my own house in a largely white neighborhood and what I would have to do to prove that the house actually belonged to me if the police showed up at the door.

I remember joking with my wife that maybe I should keep a copy of the mortgage papers and deed in the front foyer, just in case. I do now. And it is no longer a joke.

There is no way to completely erase and undo what has been done. And there is, indeed, a larger lesson here about the problem of racial bias and misuse of discretion by police that still, all too often, works against blacks, especially poor blacks. If Skip Gates can be arrested on his front porch and end up in handcuffs in a police cruiser then, sadly, there, but for the grace of God, goes every other black man in America. That is one sad statement, and it should also be enough to end all this post-racial hogwash.

Maybe events will prove my cynicism and anger unwarranted. Perhaps the officer involved will be fully held to account for his actions. Perhaps Gates will hear the apology he so richly deserves to hear. Perhaps a review of training, policy and practice by police in my fair city and many others will take place and move us closer to a day of bias-free policing. If you’re inclined to believe all that will happen, then I’ve got a shiny, new, post-racial narrative I’d be happy to sell.

Lawrence Bobo is the W.E.B. Du Bois Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University.


The mode of thought and activity
that is conventionally labeled “political correctness”
contains several laws and tactics.
Among those are:
  • The “law”:
    In a dispute over facts
    between the politically incorrect and the politically correct,
    the politically incorrect {whites/men/gentiles}
    lie, or are delusional, or motivated by irrational hatred,
    the politically correct
    always tell the truth, have accurate recollections,
    and have nothing but pure motives (e.g.).

  • The tactic of selective memory (e.g.)

Both of these are illustrated in 2009-07-27-Gates-NYT-Warner-Judith below.

A Lot Said, and Unsaid, About Race
by Judith Warner
New York Times Op-Ed, 2009-07-27

Perhaps the most telling moment
in Sgt. James Crowley’s account of
his now epoch-defining arrest of the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
occurs about three-quarters of the way through the report
that the officer subsequently filed with the Cambridge Police Department

In his story of their verbal tussle,
Crowley describes himself as overwhelmed by the noise in Gates’s kitchen,
as the black professor loudly accused the white cop of racial profiling.
Seeing that Gates could not be persuaded to use an inside voice,
Crowley retreated to the street,
inviting Gates to join him outdoors.

“Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside,”
Gates allegedly told him.

Gates denied referring to Crowley’s mama.
“The idea that I would, in a vulnerable position
talk about the man’s mother is absurd,”
he told Gayle King of Sirius radio.
“I don’t talk about people’s mothers …
You could get killed talking about somebody’s mother in the barbershop,
let alone with a white police officer …
I think they did some historical research,
and watched some episodes of ‘Good Times.’ ”

I think there’s more to it than that.
I think it’s very likely that
Crowley really does believe he heard the insult to his mother.

And that’s because Gates wasn’t the only one in that house, on that day,
whose thoughts were traveling well-worn grooves chiseled by race.
Both men were, consciously or not,
following scripts in their heads,
stories of vulnerability and grievance
much more meaningful than their actual exchange.

[This illustrates a “law” of political correctness asserted above.
Judith Warner has pointed out that
the African-American Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and
the Cambridge, MA Police Sergeant James Crowley
have different recollections of whether a specific utterance (“Ya … mama …”)
was said by Professor Gates.

Now, without a shred of evidence to back up her reasoning,
she implies that the statement only has existence in Crowley’s head,
rather than having been actually spoken by Gates on that day.
How on earth can Warner imply that
the (black) Harvard professor’s recollection was accurate
and the (white) police sergeant’s not?
Is this not a clear instance of the “law” asserted above?]


Had Gates been a white man,
approached in his home and abruptly told to step outside,
he might well have bristled at the cold officiousness of the officer’s tone,
but he probably wouldn’t have thought, or known,
that to leave the haven of his house
would expose him to the possibility of sudden arrest.

Had he been white,
a request for ID would probably not have sounded like an insult,
or worse, a potential danger.
It would probably not have stirred up
memories of black men like Amadou Diallo,
the Guinean immigrant who in 1999 was killed by police in the Bronx
as he reached for his wallet.
He very likely would not have seen
what Gates was sure he saw in Crowley’s face,
as the cop scanned the professor’s Harvard ID,
trying to take in the fact that the man before him was not an intruder.
“He’s trying to unpack a narrative …
He was so sure that he had a catch,”
Gates recalled to King.
“That is when everything turned.”

We don’t know precisely what was going through Crowley’s mind.
But his report and later statements seem to attest to
a greatly outsized sense of vulnerability and victimization.

Crowley demanded that the small, slight, cane-carrying professor come outside,
he said,
because he feared not living to make it home to his wife and children.

[Note the clear use of selective memory here.

In paragraph 10 Warner cited the 1999 killing of Amadou Diallo
as supposed justification for fear Professor Gates might have had
at a request to show his ID.
But that ignores a number of significant differences between
Diallo’s situation and Gates’s.

On the other hand, in paragraphs 11 and 12 Warner all but mocks
(“greatly outsized sense of vulnerability”)
any fear that Crowley might have had about
entering into potentially dangerous situations.
But if black Americans can constantly be reminded of the death of Diallo,
do not white policeman have at least equal justification to be concerned about
a repeat of the 2009 Oakland police killings,
two of which occurred precisely when
white police officers entered a black-occupied apartment
and were surprised by a sneak attack?

Is this not a clear instance of selective memory,
arguing that blacks must fear police
while white police need not fear blacks?

As to how Sergeant Crowley actually phrased his concerns, see this.]

A remark by Gates — “That’s none of your business” —
appeared to sting him to the quick.
And then there was that matter of his mama.
“Speaking about my mother,”
he said sadly to a sympathetic local pair of radio talk show hosts,
“it’s just beyond words.”

In Crowley’s excessive ultimate reaction to Gates’s angry accusations,
I was reminded of
the story candidate Obama told in his race speech in Philadelphia last year,
when he talked of beleaguered working- and middle-class white Americans
who don’t “feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race”
and who, when held accountable for institutional racism,
respond with a long-nursed “resentment.”

Obama warned that for America to move forward,
both blacks and whites need to listen to each other’s narratives,
and stop reflexively dismissing them either as paranoia or simple prejudice.

The “He said/He said” of Ware Street in Cambridge
might be just the place to start.


Two terrible tragedies occurred in America:
Somehow, though,
the killing of Diallo gets cited incessantly
to justify or explain black fear of police,
while the slaying of the four Oakland police officers
seems to have almost gone down the memory hole,
in terms of attention in the elite media.

For an example of this selective memory,
see 2009-07-27-Gates-NYT-Warner-Judith-12-selective-memory.

Note added later:
Note also the brutal assassination of four white police officers in Lakewood, WA by a black man.



Washington Post Editorial, 2010-01-31

THERE WERE dozens of witnesses on Nov. 13
when a Fairfax County[, Virgina]
police officer
shot an unarmed, mentally ill driver, David A. Masters,
in broad daylight amid heavy traffic in the Huntington area.
But none of the witnesses --
not the other drivers nearby, nor any bystanders,
nor two other police officers who had approached the man’s vehicle --
saw what the shooting officer says that he saw,
which was Mr. Masters reaching for what the officer feared was a weapon.
That, said the officer, prompted him to open fire,
killing Mr. Masters, a 52-year-old former Green Beret with bipolar disorder
and a tendency toward bizarre behavior.

In the event, Mr. Masters,
though he may have gestured oddly and acted erratically, had no weapon.
His apparent crime, which prompted the police response?
Taking some flowers from a planter.


[A photo of Mr. Masters:

It sounds as if, based on what the Post describes,
that a terrible mistake was made.

But sometimes mistakes are made.
In this case, a white man was fatally shot,
in circumstances
(broad daylight, only one officer saw a supposedly threatening move)
that, to my eye,
make this incident more problematical than
the fatal shooting of Amadou Diallo in 1999.

The shooting of Mr. Diallo seems to be brought up
whenever the black community wishes to claim that police, at least some of them,
are racist,
and that blacks are unfairly targeted and
warranted in fearing unjustified shooting from them—
a recent case in point was in the Henry Louis Gates affair in Cambridge,
where Gates used the Diallo shooting to justify, in his mind,
his refusal to follow the orders of a white policeman.

I wonder if those who argue that the police are biased with respect to blacks
are aware of, or care about,
the fact that both blacks and whites have been killed
in these instant-reaction situations,
not to mention the cases, just in 2009 [Oakland CA, Lakewood WA], of
cold-blooded, premeditated murder of white police officers by blacks
which can only inspire, in a rational mind, some degree of fear by whites of blacks.]


PC Proof Theory

What methods do the politically correct use to “prove” their case(s)?
They basically use two methods:
  1. Ignore or suppress any facts or rationale
    which would contradict the result they are trying to prove.

    (This is basically the old “down the memory hole” method
    so familiar to Orwellians.)

  2. Introduce or fabricate “facts”, theories, or rationales
    which suffice to imply their desired result.

A mathematical digression, perhaps just for my own amusement,
as to how the latter works.
Suppose you wanted to prove “2 + 2 = 1”.
Here’s how to do it.
Take the ordinary integers and
define a new relation, called “congruence” ( )
or, if you want to be more precise, “congruence (mod 3)”,
whereby two integers are congruent (mod 3)
if they differ by a multiple of 3.

2 + 2 = 4 = 1 + 3 ≡ 1,

et voilà!
(In that calculation,
“=” denotes equality in the ordinary integers, while
“≡” denotes the new relation of congruence (mod 3).)
So we have “2 + 2 ≡ 1” in the new system.

If we just live in the new system,
we may view congruence as the new equality, and switch notation.
But if we want to consider both new and old systems, as we almost always do,
we must use separate notations for congruence and equality.

Anyhow, so much for this digression, and back to dreary old politics.

The Washington Post, Henry Gates, and Leon Lashley


False comparisons of PC

Here is a look at some of the false comparisons
which lie at the heart of much of the PC program.

Echoes of the past
by Wil Haygood
Washington Post Style section, 2013-07-16

[This article was the lead story in the Style section that day,
running from the top of the available part of the page
down thru the top 40% of the below-the-fold content.
Its thrust is, as its headline suggests,
to make a comparison between the acquittal of George Zimmerman on murder and manslaughter charges
stemming from his shooting of Trayvon Martin,
an acquittal which had occurred the Saturday before this Tuesday article.

Here is the beginning of the article:]

When Bill Baxley assumed office as Alabama attorney general in 1971,
he was determined to bring to justice
the bombers who lit the dynamite beneath the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham,
killing four little black girls Sept. 15, 1963.

[The article goes on to, naturally, compare that case to
George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin.
But aside from the fact that in each case black persons were killed by white men,
where is the comparison?
Are all such cases equivalent?
In particular,
Trayvon Martin inflicted physical harm to George Zimmerman
before Zimmerman shot him.
Did the four "little black girls"
inflict physical harm on the people who killed them
before the killing occurred?
Of course not.
Does that not make a difference?
Evidently not to those who seem to see
every case of whites killing blacks
as being indistinguishable.

The article features four large black-and-white period photos,
with captions.
Here is a table showing those captions with my reaction to the caption.
The table also includes some other comparisons made in the Post
that I take objection to.]

Year Caption KHarbaugh question
1933 The Scottsboro boys case
More than 1,200 attend a rally in New York in 1933
on behalf of the nine youths,
who were accused of raping two white girls.
Did the Scottsboro boys attack anyone?
1955 Emmett Till slaying
In 1955,
officers stand by as black religious leaders from Chicago
demonstrate outside the White House
against the killing of the Chicago 14-year-old,
who was accused of flirting with a white woman
while visiting relatives in Mississippi.
Did Emmett Till attack the men who shot him
before they shot him?
1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing
Civil rights leaders sing at a 1963 memorial in New York
for the four girls killed in the Birmingham, Ala. explosion.
Did the four girls killed in this bombing
attack the bombers before they exploded the bomb?
1963 Medger Evers assassination
Mourners march in Jackson, Miss.,
after services in 1963 for the civil rights leader,
who was slain by a white man.
Did Medger Evans attack the man who shot him
before he shot him?
2013 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Did the people who the Tsarnaev brothers
killed and injured in the Boston Marathon bombing
cause any harm to the brothers?
2013 Ariel Castro Did the three women Ariel Castro imprisoned and raped for a decade
do anything to Castro to cause him to take that action?
2012 George Zimmerman Did Trayvon Martin attack George Zimmerman
before Zimmerman shot him?
That is, at the very least, a very real possibility.
And that possibility, if not probability,
distinguishes the Zimmerman/Martin case
from all of the above.

[My point is that
it hardly seems appropriate to compare the Zimmerman/Martin case,
where Trayvon Martin indisputably caused physical injury to George Zimmerman before he was shot,
to these other cases where black people were killed who had caused no injury to
the person or persons who committed their killing.]


The lies of PC

The 'hunger' hoax perpetuates dependency
By: Thomas Sowell
Washington Examiner Op-Ed, 2011-10-04

The political Left has turned obesity among low-income individuals
into an argument that low-income people cannot afford nutritious food,
and so have to resort to burgers and fries, pizzas and the like,
which are more fattening and less healthful.
[I need to interpolate something here.
Pizza, in its basic configuration, just a bread dough without much grease or oil
dressed with a healthy tomato topping,
is actually quite healthy.
Further, topping it with lots of veggies only adds to its healthiness.
It only becomes unhealthy when the toppings are heavy on greasy meats,
or when the bread dough is saturated with oils or fats.
I think a better common fast food to have knocked would have been fried chicken,
which is certainly popular among some elements of our society
and is, in most fast food versions, high in unhealthy fats.
I know at my favorite pizzeria they produce a very healthy product.]

But this attempt to salvage something from the “hunger in America” hoax
collapses like a house of cards
when you stop and think about it.
Burgers, pizzas and the like cost more than
food that you can buy at a store and cook yourself.
If you can afford junk food, you can certainly afford healthier food.
A Sept. 25 article in the New York Times by Mark Bittman showed that
you can cook a meal for four at half the cost of a meal from a burger restaurant.

For some years I have been wanting to add a personal observation
to the “poverty causes obesity” lie spread by elements of the PC
(who I suspect are especially all those hyper-PC, and often obese themselves, women).

Some years ago I was quite poor,
and needed to save as much money as possible on food.
It was not hard.
The local supermarket sold sacks of dried peas,
and the package contained a recipe for how to make soup from those peas.
A delicious vegetable soup could be produced with minimal cost and expense,
starting with the dried peas and adding carrots, celery, onions, and potatoes,
all of which are quite inexpensive.
To complement the soup it was easy to make delicious home-made French bread,
which only required water, flour, yeast, and salt.
What could be healthier?
A delicious meal of vegetable soup and freshly-baked French bread
could be made for very little cost,
and with absolutely no fat and very few calories.
To enrich the meal a little,
one could buy butter or margarine to spread on the bread.

So when those fat-cat advocates for the poor get off on
how it takes a lot of money to eat a healthy diet,
I can only add that to the many lies of the PC community.

By the way, a variation on the “poverty causes obesity” lie is that
“it takes an education to learn how to eat healthy.”
Yeah, right.
A third-grade education should suffice
for any sane, responsible person possessed with will-power.

Labels: ,

The Directorate of Lies

Professor Anthony Pagden published a book review in the March/April 2010 National Interest.
Here is an excerpt from Professor Pagden’s review,
with my comments interspersed in this font and color,
and some emphasis added to the original text:

Modern genetics has demonstrated conclusively that
no such thing as race exists.

Thanks to the mapping of the human genome,
we now know that each person
shares 99.99 percent of his or her genetic material with everyone else.
We all know that people have differences in a number of ways,
whether their genetic pattern is 99.99 or 99.999999999 percent identical.
Whatever the extent of the genetic difference is,
that significant consequences follow from that difference
seems unarguable.
So why did Professor Pagden bring up the extent of the genetic similarity?
It seems like a distractor or red herring.]

Similarly, skin color and physiognomy are now no longer regarded as
the most obvious ways of classifying peoples by the scientific community.
[What is obvious is a subjective decision.
Further, even if you accept what Professor Pagden just asserted,
how would that prove that “no such thing as race exists”?]

There are more significant indicators of human difference,
and these tell quite another story
than the one narrated through the Greco-Roman model.
[Again, “significance” is a highly context-sensitive concept.
Significant in what context?
And again, even if you accept what Professor Pagden just asserted,
how would that prove that “no such thing as race exists”?]

Fingerprints link Europeans, black Africans and East Asians
together in one group;
Mongolians and Australian Aborigines in another.
Cerumen (earwax) is of two types—
wet and sticky, controlled by a recessive gene.
This connects most Europeans and most Africans (who have the sticky variety),
but distinguishes both from most Asians,
while body-hair types link Europeans to Australian Aborigines
and to the Ainu people of northern Japan.
And as for blood:
the A/B/O system (in any case now thought to be rather primitive)
links the English to the Icelanders to the Sami to the Melanesians.
It also seems that
greater blood variations occur within human populations
than between them.

[There certainly are a number of genetically determined or influenced characteristics
which are independent of race.
Sex or gender is the most obvious one
(although scientific professionals might argue, too obvious.)
Height is not totally determined by ones genes, but is affected by them.
Height is also not totally determined by race,
as we see height variations in all races.
(There may be difference in average height between racial groups.
This is affected by difference in diet, so may not be genetically determined.)

In any case, the indisputable fact that
race does not determine all of one’s characteristics
clearly does not imply that
race determines none of one’s characteristics.]

There is also, of course,
no evidence linking any of these things to behavior—or intelligence.

[It seems to me that
Professor Pagden has totally failed to substantiate
the sweeping generalization of his opening sentence.

Can any fair-minded person disagree?

Here are some counter-examples to the claim:

While fingerprints, earwax, and body-hair type may be independent of
the customary and evident racial characteristics,
at least some other characteristics have been linked to
specific genes which are indeed identified with race.
Consider, for example, the Nicholas Wade New York Times article
“East Asian Physical Traits Linked to 35,000-Year-Old Mutation”,
which begins with the paragraph
Gaining a deep insight into human evolution,
researchers have identified
a mutation in a critical human gene
as the source of
several distinctive traits that make
East Asians different from other races.
The article continues with
A Chinese member of the team, Sijia Wang,
then tested people in China and discovered that they, too,
had more numerous sweat glands, evidently another effect of the gene.

Another surprise was that the engineered mice had less breast tissue,
meaning that EDAR could be the reason that
East Asian women have generally smaller breasts.

East Asians have distinctively shaped teeth for which
their version of EDAR is probably responsible.
The researchers cited in the article are at the Broad Institute,
which certainly qualifies as a scientific institute.

Demonstrably, anyone who says "race does not exist"
or "race is merely a cultural construct"
is either a liar or an ignoramus.
It is hard for me to understand how university professors
can get away with deceiving their students and the general public.
PC is indeed a culture of lies and deceit
for the benefit of certain groups.

Also, even predating Pagden's misguided article,
there had been numerous articles in the scientific literature
asserting racial differences in the pattern of disease,
differences which do not seem to be correlated with
environment or level and quality of care.

Even the black community seems to acknowledge that
there are genetically-determined racial differences.
For example, Google "Gabby Douglas hair".
I never have heard a white person being told his or hair was "nappy."
While many people no doubt regard that as an insignificant difference,
still it is a genetically-determined racial difference
recognized within the black community.]

(Back to comments by the author of this blog, in the normal type font.)
But enough about Professor Pagden’s argument, or lack thereof.
Another pseudo-argument from
those who argue that “there is no such thing as race”
is that
we are all a mixture of races, no one is racially pure,
so why bother to categorize by race?
(Or some variant on that argument.)
Of course, if that argument were true,
than how is it that
some people are favored by affirmative action on racial grounds
while others are not?
It seems that beneficiaries of affirmative action like to have it both ways:
When they worry about being characterized by race,
they argue that race does not exist,
or is only a figment of racist’s imagination.
But then, quick like a bunny, when they can use race to their advantage
(I deserve special treatment on account of my race),
they rush to be classified as one of the favored group.
Frankly, that methodology seems sick to me, wanting to have it both ways.
(I wonder what would happen to whites on college campuses who point that out.)

On the strength of the argument,
one might point out an analogous situation with respect to dogs.
Just because many dogs are of mixed breed (familiarly called “mutts”)
doesn’t mean that pure-bred dogs don’t exist.
Just ask the American Kennel Club about that.
With regard to people, I believe the situation is the same.
People come in a variety of racial purity levels,
from half and half to close to 100 percent pure
(examples: Bantu, Han Chinese.
I checked Wikipedia to see if I could find an analogous entry for, say, Aryans, but such, to Wikipedia,
is only an obsolete and probably dangerous concept.
To Wikipedia, the racial difference between, say, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is a figment of your imagination!
What a crock!
The racial similarity between, say, the first 43 Presidents of the United States
and its difference relative to the leaders of the African nations
does not exist in PC-land?)

But so much for trying to debunk
the arguments made by the “race does not exist” people.
What are the arguments, if any,that race does really exist and is genetically determined?

When a white man and a white woman conceive,
the resulting child may vary in a number of ways,
but it will be recognizably white, not black, not Han Chinese.
Go to Iceland and see
how many black or Asian-resembling children are born to the Nordic people.
The same would be true for a trip
to where Bantu people or Han Chinese people are the population.

The Wikipedia article on race, as of 2012-12-19, contains the following as the contents of its first primary heading Complications and various definitions of the concept.
I have inserted a few comments in this font and color.

It is demonstrated that race has no biological or genetic basis:
gross morphological features which traditionally ha[ve] been defined as races (e.g. skin color)
are determined by non-significant and superficial genetic alleles
with no link to any characteristics,
such as intelligence, talent, athletic ability, etc.
[It seems to me that anyone who sees a photo of the finish line of any track and field race involving the top athletes in the world
would have a hard time denying the racial homogeneity of the world's fastest runners.
Explain that as a social construct!]

Race has been socially and legally constructed despite the lack of any scientific evidence for dividing humanity into racial baskets with any generalized genetic meaning.[11][12][13][14]

When people define and talk about a particular conception of race, they create a social reality through which social categorization is achieved.[15] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[16] These constructs develop within various legal, economic, and sociopolitical contexts, and may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[17] While race is understood to be a social construct by many, most scholars agree that race has real material effects in the lives of people through institutionalized practices of preference and discrimination.

Socioeconomic factors, in combination with early but enduring views of race, have led to considerable suffering within disadvantaged racial groups.[18] Racial discrimination often coincides with racist mindsets, whereby the individuals and ideologies of one group come to perceive the members of an outgroup as both racially defined and morally inferior.[19] As a result, racial groups possessing relatively little power often find themselves excluded or oppressed, while hegemonic individuals and institutions are charged with holding racist attitudes.[20] Racism has led to many instances of tragedy, including slavery and genocide.[21]

In some countries Law enforcement utilizes race in profiling suspects. These uses of racial categories are frequently criticized for perpetuating an outmoded understanding of human biological variation, and promoting stereotypes. Because in some societies racial groupings correspond closely with patterns of social stratification, for social scientists studying social inequality, race can be a significant variable. As sociological factors, racial categories may in part reflect subjective attributions, self-identities, and social institutions.[22][23]

Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately.[24] Accordingly, the racial paradigms employed in different disciplines vary in their emphasis on biological reduction as contrasted with societal construction.

In the social sciences theoretical frameworks such as Racial formation theory and Critical race theory investigate implications of race as social construction by exploring how the images, ideas and assumptions of race are expressed in everyday life. A large body of scholarship has traced the relationships between the historical, social production of race in legal and criminal language and their effects on the policing and disproportionate incarceration of certain groups.

A key point to note is that much of this
is not really an argument that race does not exist,
but rather that, in the past, racial thinking has led to
results harmful to some groups, notably blacks and Jews.
No one can dispute that argument.
But is that really an argument to abandon the recognition of racial differences,
or rather the need to avoid what everyone can agree is and was wrong, genocide and slavery?

Labels: , , ,

PC thuggery

“Anti-Racist Action vs. Matt Hale”:
Note who hides their identity and initiates violence.
Note how the tactics of disruption are euphemized as “shutting down.”

I got sick to my stomach at the use of violence by the left in the 1960s.
(Also, their use of “agent provocateurs” to spur a reaction.)
Obviously, violence is a never-ending tactic by some elements of our society.
Although those thugs are not identified,
it is not hard to predict their ethnicity.
(My views, it should be known, are informed by
my knowledge of
SDS members, tactics, and actions circa 1970).


On Shutting Down Pro-White Meetings
by Kevin MacDonald
TOO Blog, 2010-02-26


As Hillary Touts Free Speech,
Police Brutalize Ray McGovern

by Eric Garris
Antiwar.com Blog, 2011-02-17

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday
about the failures of foreign leaders to respect people’s freedoms,
a 71-year-old U.S. veteran Army officer,
a man who spent 27 years in the CIA and delivered presidential daily briefs,
a peace activist and proponent of nonviolence,
the man who famously confronted Donald Rumsfeld for his war lies,
the man who drafted our letter to Spain
and delivered it to the Spanish Embassy on Monday,
our friend Ray McGovern turned his back in silence.
As Clinton continued to speak about respecting the rights of protesters,
her guards –
including a uniformed policeman [a GWU security man]
and an unidentified plain-clothed official –
grabbed Ray, dragged him off violently, brutalized him,
double-cuffed him with metal handcuffs, and left him bleeding in jail.
As he was hauled away (see video), Ray shouted “So this is America?”
Clinton went right on mouthing her hypocrisies without a pause.

Ray told Rob Kall at OpEdNews what he had been protesting
by standing silently with his back turned:
[This is covered in depth by McGovern’s own column below.]

[What a despicable bitch Hillary is.
What Ray McGovern did
was a standard gesture of protest against
any representative of the administration then in power [Nixon-37]
who tried to speak on a college campus
during the time when Hillary Rodham was an undergraduate,
during the Vietnam War.
In fact, it was far milder than some of the more active, vocal, and cruder protests.

Here is the conclusion of the article:]

Ray compared this incident to his earlier questioning of Donald Rumsfeld,
an incident in which Ray did not stand in silent protest
but rather waited for his turn at the microphone
and did something U.S. journalists tend not to:
asked uncomfortable questions:

“When Clinton started talking about
how people beat up and arrested people in Iran,
it gave some poetic justice, a great irony,
to my standing there and what happened to me then,
when she’s talking about what happened in other countries
and there I am being handled in a vicious way…
God knows what would happen next.
Maybe some senior would ask her questions [she doesn't take questions].
As bad as Donald Rumsfeld was, he let me speak.
He let me speak and engaged me in dialog.”

“At the same [Rumsfeld] speech,
there was a courageous guy who stood with his back to Rumsfeld
the entire speech.
They left him completely alone and he walked out at the end, unbothered.

Four years later, things have changed.”

[Maybe it isn’t the change in time.
Maybe it’s the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld.]

Ex-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Beaten, Arrested
for Silent Protest at Clinton Speech

Democracy Now!, 2011-02-18

The Push of Conscience and Secretary Clinton
by Ray McGovern
Antiwar.com, 2011-02-24

[Here is an excerpt from the article,
followed, after a horizontal rule by some comments of mine.]

As the video of the event shows,
Secretary Clinton did not miss a beat in her speech
as she called for authoritarian governments to show respect for dissent
and to refrain from violence.
She spoke with what seemed to be an especially chilly sang froid,
as she ignored my silent witness
and the violent assault that took place right in front of her.

The experience gave me personal confirmation
of the impression that I had reluctantly drawn
from watching her behavior and its consequences over the past decade.
The incident was a kind of metaphor of
the much worse violence that Secretary Clinton
has coolly countenanced against others.

Again and again, Hillary Clinton –
both as a U.S. senator and as Secretary of State –
has demonstrated a nonchalant readiness to unleash the vast destructiveness of American military power.
The charitable explanation, I suppose, is that
she knows nothing of war from direct personal experience.

And that is also true of her husband,
her colleague Robert Gates at the Defense Department,
President Barack Obama,
and most of the White House functionaries blithely making decisions
to squander the lives and limbs of young soldiers in foreign adventures —
conflicts that even the top brass admit cannot be won with weapons.

To that article, I have appended a comment.
As of Friday, 2011-02-25, it was as follows:

Mr. McGovern,
You asked "Who are you? Who are you?".
Did you ever find out what organization the plainclothesman was from?
My guess would be her personal security detail,
but you have both more experience and better contacts than I.

I also noticed your account:
When somebody said, "Is that his blood?"
One of the cops said, "No, no I pricked my finger".

Did they ever give you a specific statement
of the official reason for their action?
You were treated exactly as a suspected criminal, or worse.
What was the explanation for the crime of which you were suspected?
Is standing and turning your back to Hillary Clinton a crime?
Obviously disrespectful, but is that a crime?
Sounds like those people who did what they did to you
were really out of control.

Of course, what they were really doing is trying to teach you a lesson,
on how disrespect to the great Hillary would be treated.
I remember when Jim Baker was SecState, he was dissed at speeches,
but so far as I know his opponents were never treated as you were.
But now we have Imperial Feminism.

Also, compare the treatment you received
to the kid glove treatment given Code Pink
at their frequent Capitol Hill demonstrations, and elsewhere.
Think those "authorities" would have given the same treatment
to a female who did exactly the same thing you did?

I wonder why this did not make the Washington Post?????????
What does that say about the Post?
If you had been in one of their favored groups,
women, blacks, homos, and Jews,
and suffered the experience you did,
this would have been front-page news.
Further, they would never have missed a chance to keep bringing it up.
Compare how they relentlessly hyped
then-Senator Allen's use of the word "Macaca".


U. of Missouri professor under fire in protest flap
by Roger Yu and Aamer Madhani
USA Today, 2015-11-10

[A YouTube video referenced in the above article:]
#ConcernedStudent1950 vs the media : U. Missouri, 2015-11-09
by Mark Schierbecker (6:36 video)


Protesters Disrupt Speech by ‘Bell Curve’ Author at Vermont College
New York Times, 2017-03-03

[This was also covered by Inside Higher Ed.]

BOSTON — Hundreds of students at Middlebury College in Vermont shouted down a controversial speaker on Thursday night, disrupting a program and confronting the speaker in an encounter that turned violent and left a faculty member injured.

Laurie L. Patton, the president of the college, issued an apology on Friday to all who attended the event and to the speaker, Charles Murray, 74, whose book “The Bell Curve,” published in 1994, was an explosive treatise arguing that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites because of their genetic makeup.

“Today our community begins the process of addressing the deep and troubling divisions that were on display last night,” Ms. Patton said in her statement, adding that the Middlebury community had “failed to live up to our core values.” She said that some of the protesters appeared to be from elsewhere but that Middlebury students had also been involved.

The chaotic scene at the small liberal arts college in Vermont drew sharp criticism from the right. Conservatives said that the students were intolerant, had engaged in mob mentality and were quashing free speech, while those on the left maintained that the speaker was racist and hateful and had no place on their campus.


[W]hen Mr. Murray rose to speak, he was shouted down by most of the more than 400 students packed into the room, several witnesses said.
Many turned their backs to him and chanted slogans like “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away!”

After almost 20 minutes, it was clear that he would not be able to give his speech, said [Bill Burger, a spokesman for the college]. Anticipating that such an outcry might happen, Mr. Murray was moved to a separate room equipped with a video camera so that Allison Stanger, a Middlebury professor of international politics and economics, could interview him over a live stream.
Mr. Burger said
the administration felt strongly that Mr. Murray’s right to free speech should be protected
and that “no one should have the heckler’s veto.”

Once the interview began in the second room, protesters swarmed into the hallway, chanting and pulling fire alarms.
Still, the interview was completed and officials, including Ms. Stanger, escorted Mr. Murray out the back of the building.

There, several masked protesters, who were believed to be outside agitators,
began pushing and shoving Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger, Mr. Burger said.
“Someone grabbed Allison’s hair and twisted her neck,”
he said.

After the two got into a car, Mr. Burger said,
protesters pounded on it, rocked it back and forth, and jumped onto the hood.
Ms. Stanger later went to a hospital, where she was put in a neck brace.


Labels: ,