‘The Heresy of Equality’

Posted on | November 4, 2019 | 1 Comment

In 1970, Willmoore Kendall and George W. Carey published The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition, a careful attempt to distinguish our nation’s actual historic traditions from the mythical version of those traditions that had gained popular currency. In 1975, Professor Harry Jaffa published a critique of Kendall and Carey’s work with the title, “Equality as a Conservative Principle.” To this, Professor M.E. Bradford replied in 1976 with an essay, “The Heresy of Equality,” (included in Bradford’s 1979 book, A Better Guide Than Reason) which included this quote:

“Equality as a moral or political imperative, pursued as an end in itself — Equality, with the capital ‘E’ — is the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle.”

The grounds of that dispute between Kendall, Carey, Jaffa and Bradford we need not rehash here. In 2010, I found myself in the comments here explaining the problem with Jaffa, as a disciple of Leo Strauss, and his influence on the conservative movement:

Jaffa made his name as a Lincoln hagiographer, and has spent a half-century attempting to make Lincoln’s rhetoric the basis of a sort of conservatism. But as Kendall, Bradford and others pointed out, Jaffa’s arguments are ahistorical and serve to obscure, rather than reveal, the genuinely conservative nature of the American founding. This has also brought Jaffa into conflict with Robert Bork, among other conservative thinkers.
Let me cite just one example of the fundamental problem with Jaffa-ism: Jaffa has argued against gay rights. Yet if equality is, as Jaffa insists, a conservative principle, why shouldn’t this principle apply to homosexuals?
This is the kind of problem that Kendall and others foresaw, and Jaffa clearly did not: Equality is a ravening wolf (cf., Matthew 7:15) with a boundless appetite, and there is no telling what future use might be made of such a “principle,” which is most certainly not conservative.

Jaffa died in 2015, and the Claremont Institute, in which he was a towering figure, has since apparently purged some of his writings against gay rights from its website, but the problem persists of the confusion caused by “Equality as a Conservative Principle.” And what Bradford called the heretical nature of Equality — with a capital “E” — has affected our society in many harmful ways. Red Pill philosopher Rollo Tomassi, speaking of how some men try to use egalitarian approach to male-female relationships, calls equality “a deliberate lie with the hoped-for purpose of empowering people who cannot compete, or believe they have some plenary exclusion from competing in various aspects of life. . . . There is no such thing as ‘equality’ because life doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”

The point Rollo makes is important: People do not embrace an intellectual abstraction like “equality” because it is self-evidently true, but rather because, as he says, they fear that they are somehow disadvantaged in the competition of life. Thus, whatever advantages are enjoyed by the winners in the competition are condemned as unfair — a violation of equality — and from this emerges a politics of envy called “social justice.” We see this, for example, in demands for “free” health care and “free” college tuition. Because more affluent people can afford to pay cash to send their kids to Harvard, according to this egalitarian “social justice” mentality, it is unfair that less fortunate people are effectively excluded from elite schools or, if they can gain admission to Harvard, must borrow money to attend. But if college tuition is to be “free,” why not a new car? Some people can afford new Cadillacs, while other people are forced to settle for used Nissans. (Don’t tell me that quality transportation is less important than quality education, or I might get triggered — that’s a micro-aggression against old Nissan drivers.)

What we see is that Equality with a capital “E” has attained such influence in our way of thinking that, as Rollo points out, even our romantic relationships are distorted by this concept. Many people believe they are abused or exploited in relationships, simply because their partners fail to fulfill their expectations of “equality.” They believe they are entitled to a 50-50 compromise on every disagreement, or that their partner is obligated to reciprocate their efforts in a certain way — “I bought her a steak dinner, she should have sex with me” — and become disgruntled if their expectations are not met: “It’s not fair!”

Expectations of “equality” cause us to forfeit happiness by dwelling on situations that seem to us unfair. Rather than to be grateful for what we’ve got — we can afford to pay the electric bill this month — “equality” incites us to envy those who have more, and to resent people who have done us no harm, simply because they fail to meet our expectations.

Category: Culture

Rule 5 Sunday: Sean Young

Posted on | November 4, 2019 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

We’re now in November of 2019, which is when the movie Blade Runner is supposed to take place, and there’s been a lot of discussion online about the resemblances between Los Angeles in the movie and Los Angeles in real life. Our concern, however, is with the ladies of that movie, and particularly Sean Young, who played the cute cyborg Rachel. Unfortunately for our purposes, Rachel is quite conservatively dressed in that movie, so I had to pull this pic from Ace Ventura, Pet Detective.

This doesn’t look like a transsexual to me.

Ninety Miles From Tyranny tees up with Hot Pick of the Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #790, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. At Animal Magnetism, it’s Rule Five Income Inequality Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL brings us Lucy Fry, Baseball’s Banned Boob Flashers, Katie Hill, Naomi Watts, Michelle Phillips, Halloween, Noomi Rapace, LA November 2019, Barbara Pepper, and Allison Paige.

A View From The Beach serves up A Late Halloween Treat – Deborah Ann Woll, The Great Spotted Lantern Fly Massacre, Of Course We Should Offer Her Asylum, Trick, or Treat?, Tanlines for Thursday, Water Bottles or Wet Shirts for Wednesday?, “Born For This”, Maryland Gets a New Record Fish, Try (Just a Little Bit Harder), She Will Be Missed, Bottles, Bags, and Straws Banned and The Night That the Lights Went Out in California.

Proof Positive’s Vintage Babe this week is Cassandra Peterson, better known as Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. Yitzakhon, a/k/a Red Pill Jew, has Women With Drinks.

Thanks to everyone for the luscious linkagery!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Shop Sex & Sensuality Gifts

Category: Rule 5

The Myth of Social-Media ‘Meddling’

Posted on | November 3, 2019 | 1 Comment

In the most recent Canadian election, a lot of media coverage was devoted to hyping fears of “foreign interference” on social media. Researchers found that this didn’t really happen:

Now that the election is over and researchers have combed through the data collected, their conclusion is clear: there was more talk about foreign trolls during the campaign than there was evidence of their activities.
Although there were a few confirmed cases of attempts to deceive Canadians online, three large research teams devoted to detecting co-ordinated influence campaigns on social media report they found little to worry about.
In fact, there were more news reports about malicious activity during the campaign than traces of it.
“We didn’t see high levels of effective disinformation campaigns. We didn’t see evidence of effective bot networks in any of the major platforms. Yet, we saw a lot of coverage of these things,” said Derek Ruths, a professor of computer science at McGill University in Montreal.
He monitored social media for foreign meddling during the campaign and, as part of the Digital Democracy Project, scoured the web for signs of disinformation campaigns.
“The vast majority of news stories about disinformation overstated the results and represented them as far more conclusive than they were. It was the case everywhere, with all media,” he said.
It’s a view mirrored by the Ryerson Social Media Lab, which also monitored social media during the campaign.
“Fears of foreign and domestic interference were overblown,” Philip Mai, co-director of the Social Media Lab, told CBC News.

Gosh, it’s like “Russian collusion” was a hoax or something.

Category: Canada

NBC: The Rape Network

Posted on | November 3, 2019 | Comments Off on NBC: The Rape Network

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

Certainly by now it’s clear that Me Too has not gone too far in canceling powerful men. Harvey Weinstein is popping up at industry networking events in New York City. Louis C.K. just announced tour dates.
Perhaps the most glaring sign that the boys’ club is still alive — and somewhat well — is flashing at NBC News. At its 30 Rock headquarters, NBC News President Noah Oppenheim and his boss NBC News Chairman Andy Lack are still running the show.
They remain at the helm despite the explosive reporting in Ronan Farrow’s new book “Catch and Kill,” which reveals how Oppenheim and Lack not only shut down the investigation into Harvey Weinstein’s predatory and abusive treatment of women, but how NBC News silenced or ignored multiple allegations of sexual misconduct inside the company ? including overlooking the behavior of “Today” show host Matt Lauer for years before finally firing him in 2017.
What Farrow’s book, and other reporting, shows is a news outlet more concerned with protecting powerful men than reporting the truth ? or protecting its employees from sexual predation. The tactics the company used to silence women — Farrow reports on nondisclosure agreements used to keep women silent — were not unlike the ones employed by Weinstein himself, or so many other sexual harassers.
However, there are some recent signs that those methods are failing the news outlet: On Wednesday, 150 staffers at NBC News’ digital arm announced plans to unionize, in part because they wanted more transparency over how sexual misconduct is handled at the company.
“Recent weeks have highlighted serious questions as to how NBC News has handled incidents of sexual misconduct in the workplace as well as the opaque processes and procedures for reporting on and exposing powerful predators,” said the announcement from the organizing workers.

Normally, as a matter of principle, I believe in due process of law — “innocent until proven guilty” — but if the feminist #MeToo movement is going to destroy powerful institutions of the liberal media establishment, I’m willing to waive my principles: #BelieveWomen!

(Via Memeorandum.)

Category: Uncategorized

FMJRA 2.0: Away From Home

Posted on | November 2, 2019 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Hard to believe that dope-addled slattern beat out Countess Dracula this week, but there you are. Thanks to everyone who bought stuff through my Amazon links and sent me $$ though PayPal. It’s helped a LOT.

Naked Bisexual Democrat Katie Hill Announces Resignation from Congress
Wizbang
Dark Brightness
Locomotive Breath
A View From The Beach
EBL

Rule 5 Sunday: Ingrid Pitt
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach
EBL

Self-Destructive Illusions of ‘Social Justice’
EBL

Report: U.S. Special Operations Raid Kills ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi
Locomotive Breath
A View From The Beach
EBL

Al-Baghdadi ‘Died Like a Coward’
Dark Brightness
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Too Late To Be Late Again
A View From The Beach
EBL

How Newsweek Became a Clickbait Farm
EBL

‘Austere Religious Scholar’
EBL

About That Yellow Button…
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.28.19
357 Magnum
A View From The Beach
EBL

Back on the Bisexual Democrat Beat
EBL

Barrett Brown’s Long, Sad Story
Bacon Time
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.29.19
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach
EBL

The Katie Hill Blame Game
First Street Journal
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.30.19
Proof Positive
EBL

BREAKING: Suspected ‘Whistleblower’ Met With DNC’s Alexandra Chalupa
A View From The Beach
EBL

Party-Line Impeachment Vote
A View From The Beach
EBL

Hillary in Greenface Excites the Muse
EBL

Katie Hill and Her Victimhood Narrative
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

In The Mailbox: 10.31.19
Proof Positive
A View From The Beach
EBL

The Deep State and UkraineGate
A View From The Beach
EBL

The Democrats’ 2020 Implosion
EBL

Jabba the Hut Gets Hired by Seattle Schools to Humiliate White Racist Kids
357 Magnum
EBL

BREAKING: O’Rourke Drops Out
EBL

How #StickToSports Became the New #LearnToCode — Deadspin Is Dead
EBL

In The Mailbox: 11.01.19
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

Top linkers for the week ending November 1:

EBL (26)
A View From The Beach (11)
Proof Positive (6)

Thanks to everyone for all the linkagery!

Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: FMJRA Award

‘The Most Vulnerable Among Us’

Posted on | November 2, 2019 | Comments Off on ‘The Most Vulnerable Among Us’

Ed Driscoll calls our attention to this Daily Caller item:

Writers bashed former President Barack Obama after he criticized “woke” social justice warriors during a speech Tuesday.
Obama spoke at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago and hit back at alleged activists who attack other people on the internet because of their “flaws,” according to the former president. His comments saw bipartisan support, but some liberals disagreed with his thought that this rhetoric is “not activism.”
Journalist Ernest Owens wrote that he “gasped” when he heard Obama’s comments and called the former president’s views that of a “boomer” in an op-ed featured in The New York Times Friday.
“But the former president’s disdain for the kind of criticism that has become popular to dismiss as ‘cancel culture’ … is misguided,” [Owens] wrote, adding:

“His eagerness to dismiss one part of what happens when young people stand up for what they believe in as ‘casting stones’ is a reminder of a largely generational divide about whether it’s impolite to speak out in favor of the most vulnerable among us and the world we’d like to live in. While there’s some debate about which generation Mr. Obama belongs to, he’s solidly in the older camp.” . . .

To further quote Owens:

The issues that my fellow millennials, along with even younger people in Gen Z, tend to be “judgmental” about are the same ones many of our parents and grandparents have been debating for decades. Being outspoken about climate change, women’s rights, racial justice, LGBTQ inclusivity and gun control — and critical of those who stand in the way of progress on these issues — is work that’s been left to us. . . .
The group that Mr. Obama joins in his scolding of outspoken young people is dominated by white straight men, far-right conservative talking heads, and celebrities who feel entitled to audiences who appreciate their art and dutifully ignore their missteps. It’s no surprise that Fox News fretted that his comments were “snubbed” and didn’t receive sufficient coverage from broadcast television networks.

Whatever one might say about this controversy, it is obvious that Ernest Owens is profoundly ignorant, despite his Ivy League education. He is a man who thinks in slogans, and has never made any effort to understand the reasoning of anyone who might sincerely disagree with him, instead dismissing them in terms of identity-politics formulations and ideological labels — “white straight men, far-right conservative talking heads.” Why would any intelligent person take me seriously if, in offering a rebuttal of Mr. Owens, I made a point of his being a gay black man?

Well, ad hominem arguments are sometimes relevant, as a way of understanding motives in an age of identity politics. Democrats seek power by leveraging our tribal impulses — “You are [insert identity category] and therefore should vote Democrat” — and this formula has the effect of turning every policy debate into tribal warfare. The perpetrators of identity politics claim to be on the side of Progress, with a capital P, and define their opponents as advocates of Hate, with a capital H. In reality, however, “progressives” are the ones fomenting hatred and, rather than leading us into a utopia of enlightenment, instead point us toward the darkest depths of a degenerate and atavistic barbarism.

How does one refute the libelous accusations implied by Mr. Owens’ argument (which, I hasten to add, is not actually an argument as any student of formal logic would define an argument)? For you see that his assertion is that he and his generation have a monopoly of wisdom and charity, while their elders are all selfish fools. According to Mr. Owens, we of older generations are ignorant — we don’t know nothin’ about no “progress on these issues” — and are guilty of insufficient sympathy for “the most vulnerable among us.” Obviously, I don’t have an Ivy League diploma, and therefore can perhaps be forgiven my ignorance, but how is Mr. Owens (Penn, Class of 2014) better qualified than me to determine whether our former President is “misguided”? Upon what credentials does Mr. Owens claim this authority to sit in judgment of his elders?

Did I mention — because I think it’s relevant — that Ernest Owens fell hook, line and sinker for the Jussie Smollett hoax?

On Monday night, a black gay man was attacked for existing in both of these identities.
Empire actor Jussie Smollett was hospitalized after allegedly being assaulted in Chicago by two individuals who also tied a noose around his neck, and who poured an unknown chemical substance on him. The unidentified culprits appear to be Trump supporters who, according to TMZ, yelled at Smollett, “This is MAGA country,” along with hurling racist and homophobic slurs. . . .
It shouldn’t be a coincidence that such bigotry escalated from written hate mail to physical violence. History often showed us during the Jim Crow era of the 20th century that discriminatory laws led to lynchings and other legalized acts of white supremacy. What happened to Smollett was a form of white terrorism that targeted both his racial identity and sexual orientation simultaneously.

Of course, Jussie Smollett was not a victim of “white terrorism,” yet having been so naïvely credulous as to believe this hoax — which never fooled any intelligent person — now Mr. Owens expects us all to accept his authority to pass judgment upon former President Obama.

As a “white straight . . . far-right conservative,” of course, I could never expect the New York Times to publish anything I wrote (even if I would consent to have my byline appear in that disgraceful publication, which of course I wouldn’t), but they do not hesitate to provide a platform for the opinions of Mr. Owens, who is demonstrably a fool.

And that, you see, is the point of my argument. Once it can be shown that one’s antagonist is a fool, the debate has concluded, because no intelligent person would take advice from a fool. Selah.

Category: Barack Obama, Gays, New York Times, Racism

Trouble for the Anti-White, Anti-Male, Anti-Heterosexual, Anti-American Party

Posted on | November 2, 2019 | Comments Off on Trouble for the Anti-White, Anti-Male, Anti-Heterosexual, Anti-American Party

Identity politics is organized hatred, and the problem with the Democratic Party is that they have become a party that is unequivocally against the interests of a majority of Americans:

“Despite demographic trends that continue to favor the Democrats, and despite Trump’s unpopularity among wide swathes of the electorate, it will still be difficult for the Democrats to prevail against an incumbent president who has presided over a growing, low-unemployment economy and retains strong loyalty among key sectors of the electorate,” write Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin of the Center for American Progress. No conservatives they.
The Democratic difficulty has a name: the Electoral College. Twice in the twenty-first century, the level of the presidential vote has mattered less than its distribution. Trump’s people are spread much more evenly across the country than his opponents are. His base of white voters without college degrees, say Teixeira and Halpin, “make up more than half of all eligible voters in critical Electoral College states he won in 2016—including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—and in key target states for 2020 such as New Hampshire.”
Non-college white voters comprised the largest part of the electorate in 2016. Trump won them 63 percent to 31 percent. That margin more than compensated for his 7-point loss among whites with college degrees. Teixeira and Halpin predict that the number of white voters without college degrees will drop next year. But they also recognize that Trump can still win. “If he increased his support across states among these voters by 10 margin points, he would in fact carry the popular vote, albeit by just 1 percentage point.”
White voters without college degrees are the reserve army of the GOP. They are a falling percentage of the U.S. population but a rising percentage of the Republican Party.

(Hat-tip: Donald Douglas at American Power.)

Why did Hillary Clinton lose in 2016? It wasn’t just because working-class white men didn’t vote for her — a majority (53%) of white women also voted for Trump — but also because Hillary failed to generate the level of turnout among black voters that Obama got in the two previous elections. In other words, after Obama, some black voters have decided they won’t vote for white Democrats any more. That’s why candidates like Beto O’Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand never caught on this cycle, and it’s why the likely nomination of Elizabeth Warren in 2020 will almost certainly be a disaster for Democrats. Does anyone think black voters are going to be excited about the fake Cherokee Harvard professor? In a desperate (and misguided) effort to win in 2020, Democrats and their media allies have doubled-down on identity politics, with feminists promoting an angry anti-male message and LGBTQ activists promoting insulting and offensive rhetoric against heterosexuals. Democrats are now the “Drag Queen Story Hour” party and the Angry Fat Woman party, and I don’t think that message will resonate with Middle America.

Democrats think that Trump is so unpopular that they can be as extreme as they want to be — confiscate all the guns! free college tuition for illegal aliens! abolish private health insurance! — and still win. And they never seem to consider the possibility maybe they’re wrong.

Why should white working-class voters in Michigan vote for Democrats, when Democrats have gone to such lengths to demonstrate how much they hate the white working class, simply for being white?

Category: Election