Bari Weiss Resigns from NYT

For a thorough understanding of what is wrong with US media, read this resignation letter by Bari Weiss. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned.

Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage.

Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari

Addendum:  Some more words of wisdom from Jason Whitlock (he’s on the left)

The theory driving the importance of a “a free press” is that journalists will deliver truthful information to the public and the public will make good decisions based on that information.

Feed the public social media-friendly, clickbait narrative lies disguised as racial-justice truth and you provoke the kind of unrest currently sweeping this nation. Media black lies matter. They agitate old wounds, sow discord and distrust, undermine patriotism and prevent us from addressing real problems.

The annual murder of thousands of black men is a legitimate problem. Social media has us fixated on the annual murder of a half dozen. Black lies matter, especially when they’re used to conceal a political agenda detached from the advancement of freedom.

Journalists should not be political partisans. We’re supposed to be arbiters and discoverers of truth. Nothing in Sen. Hawley’s email should’ve triggered Wojnarowski. Nothing in Woj’s two-word rebuke should’ve triggered other journalists to support him.

Under the pretense of resisting the Trump presidency, journalists joined the mob and dropped their ethics. We became everything we accuse the president of being. Rude, emotional, arrogant, irrational, dishonest, vain, racist, elitist and obsessed with our social media feeds.

There is no lie we won’t tell in pursuit of smearing President Trump. The Resistance acts as religion, washing away the sins of its congregants and labeling non-believers as heathens unworthy of America’s kingdom.

But President Trump is merely a smokescreen, a beard justifying the mob’s dismantling of truth and destruction of freedom. The enemies of the American way use the Orange Man as bait for the abandonment of our founding values, principles and pillars —Jesus and Journalism, the belief in the liberating power of truth.

In rejecting those values, we also must reject and demonize the founders of this country. Their flaws nullify their truths, good works and all the documents they created that led to a level of freedom envied by the world. The revision of history and establishment of a new worldview requires an evisceration of the historymakers who valued religion and a search for truth above all else.

 

Braving Today’s Cultural Minefield

Lionel Shriver provides guidance on what’s going on in our social spaces lately, writing at the Spectator The vanity of ‘white guilt’.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

We’re making a spectacle of shame

Though the concept of collective ‘white guilt’ has been with us since at least the 1960s, it’s seen quite the fashionable resurgence in the wake of the George Floyd protests last month. As universities, businesses and celebrities fall all over themselves to banner their racial blameworthiness, pale-faced mea culpas gather into a deafening chorus.

The issues are two. First, one of this column’s running themes: emotional fraudulence.

Clarion declarations of moral dereliction do not have the texture of guilt. They are prideful. They have the texture of preening. Elaborate racial apologies are a form of showing off. When last month the actress Jenny Slate resigned from the animated Netflix show Big Mouth because voicing a half-black character was ‘an example of white privilege’ and ‘an act of erasure of black people’ within ‘a system of societal white supremacy’, she wasn’t making a career sacrifice, but bidding for elevated status.

Bet it works, too. Bet the lady isn’t short of work for long. FYI, a backhanded boast of my own: my latest novel anticipates white audiobook readers and voice-over artists being forbidden the ‘mimicry’ of speaking as non-white characters. The prescience is depressing.

We’re witnessing the spectacle of white people frantically competing with other white people over who can appear more self-excoriating, more self-loathing. But these people don’t hate themselves. They hate other people — mythical other people, for the most part, all those terrible racist white folks to whom they can feel vastly superior. Now that ‘white silence = violence’, they can also feel superior to regular going-about-their-business white people who haven’t managed to get prostrate pronouncements of self-disgust on Buzzfeed.

These confessions are also defensive. They’re diversionary, and an attempt to opt out. They translate as: ‘You don’t want to come for us! We’re on your side! We’re allies! We’re the nice white people, and because there’s no such thing as nice white people, that means we’re not really white after all! So you don’t want to burn down our premises, right? You want to go for those horrible white people, over there! Here, take some petrol and matches, on us! And we won’t call the cops, honest!’

Yet ask Adam Rapoport, forced to resign as editor of Bon Appétit over an ancient ‘brown face’. The opt-out doesn’t work. You get cancelled anyway, when your unseemly Black Lives Matter grovelling is deemed insufficiently pious.

Proper guilt feels bad. Its emotional cousin, shame, feels even worse. Whenever I leaked a bit because I didn’t want to come in from playing outside, my mother forced me to wash out my panties by hand in the sink, in front of my brothers. Behold: shame. Adult examples of shame in my life I’d be reluctant to share here. Shame is soul-destroying, the stuff of suicide. You don’t parade shame in public; you’re unlikely to leave the house. So none of last month’s white protestors was ashamed.

Issue two: We’re in danger of installing heritable guilt as morally valid.

Now that we’re to embrace the concept of an ineradicable ‘systemic racism’ while employees take mandatory courses on ‘unconscious bias’, bigotry is no longer a sin we choose or refuse to perpetuate, but a stain handed down through the generations that’s just as indelible as the peach juice on my pink dress. Is this what we want? Really? Will we stick modern Mongolians with the rampages of Genghis Khan? Hold some 19-year-old Muscovite today responsible for Stalin’s gulags? Force Germans to keep expiating their little hearts out over the second world war in the year 3000?

Maybe we should enlarge the lens. Frankly, I’m weary of the whole category ‘white people’, which throws folks of wildly different backgrounds, from Russians to Jews to Scots, into one big indiscriminate pot. So let’s talk about people, full stop. As a species, we’ve been treating each other like shit from the year dot. The horrors to which we’ve subjected one another, including slavery but a great deal else, are so incomprehensibly dreadful that no one, as an individual, could conceivably bear the crushing weight of all that torture, mass murder and sadism. If guilt is inherited, then every last one of us should be condemned to Dante’s nine circles of hell.

None of us chose the world in which we emerged. We didn’t pick our race, sex or natal nationality; any inbuilt leg-up or disadvantage these traits conferred at birth was not of our making. We didn’t select which awful history soaks the ground at our feet. It’s insensible to feel ‘guilty’ or ‘ashamed’ about something you didn’t do. It’s entirely sensible to feel regret, sorrow and abhorrence about the likes of slavery. It’s commendable to be informed about the past and to try to understand the nature of its wretchedness, as it’s also commendable to strain to leave the world a little better than you found it.

But claiming that what happened before you were born is all your fault is not only ridiculous. It’s vain.

See also American Soviet Mentality

Chancey Biden

For those who are unfamiliar with either the book or the 1979 movie starring Peter Sellers, “Being There” is an allegory about a simple-minded man — Chance, the gardener — whose world is defined by what he has seen in the garden and on TV. Through various twists of fate, Chance the gardener becomes Chauncey Gardiner, and is catapulted to the upper echelons of society, business and government.

His advice is sought by the president and other world leaders, who interpret Chauncey’s simple statements about the garden as pithy metaphors about the economy.

For example, asked if the government can stimulate economic growth with temporary incentives, Chauncey replies: “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.”

He explains that “growth has its seasons.” And, yes, “there will be growth in the spring.”

Compare those comments with these Bidenisms:

“As my father says, Don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget. I’ll tell you what you value.”

“My wife has an expression: Any country that out educates us will out compete us.

“If my mother were here, she’d say, ‘Joe, hush up and start taking some questions.’ ”

Without your word, you’re not a man” (his dad); “As long as a person’s alive, they have the obligation to strive” (his mom); or “The greatest gift God gave to mankind was the ability to forget” (his first wife, who died in a car accident).

‘Joey, don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative.’ ’’

“I shouldn’t have started this because it was too complicated, I know

My dad would “say, ‘Joe, remember, never argue with your wife about anything that is going to happen more than a year from now.’ ”

Those anecdotes from Chancey Joe are folksy, for sure, but other ones are more disturbing:

“Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a racial jungle, with tensions so high that it is going to explode.

“If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn,”

“I told Ukraine, if the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the billion dollars.”

If Trump loses and won’t leave, I’m convinced the Military will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

“We would make sure Coal and Fracking are eliminated, and no more subsidies for either one of those, period.’”

“I would immediately rejoin the Paris climate accord, which I helped put together.”

When a woman comes forward with claims of sexual violence “at least the essence” of what she is saying should be presumed true.

“I would do everything possible to make it required that people have to wear masks in public.

Get a Grip: Street Theater vs. Real Life

In the past era of honest mass media, journalists took seriously their responsibility to not only report news but to place events in an historical context.  When the reporting is limited to a few facts, the audience becomes trapped in the writers’ narrative, lacking the big picture to interpret for themselves the meaning and implications of happenings.  Perpetrating a myopic view of situations gives rise to criticisms of media bias and “fake news.”

The most recent example is the uprisings in US cities since the death of George Floyd.  Kurt Schlichter provides the bigger picture in his insightful assessment of the BLM-led protests in US city streets in his Townhall article This Leftist Tantrum Is an Information Operation and Trump Is Winning It. Excerpts in italics with my bolds

It’s certainly frustrating to watch a pack of reeking leftist scumbags declare a portion of an American city an “autonomous zone” – what is it with Democrats and their secession fetish? – but do not get frustrated because Donald Trump has not sent the 101st Airborne in to powerwash the human grunge from Seattle’s feces-bedecked streets.

That’s what the Democrats want. And Trump – a better strategic thinker than all the media geniuses, hack politicians, and Afghan War-losing generals who cry about him – is not only not going to give them the victory they crave. He’s going to jam their cheesy plan down their throats.

The libs’ plan to win in November corresponds to Trump’s plan to crush them yet again. Skeptical? Consider this. In the five years since he rode down that escalator bringin’ hell with him, how many times have they come at Trump and won? Zero. He’s spent half a decade on the edge of doom and he’s still here. Why would you think that the walls are suddenly closing in now? You shouldn’t.

Let’s understand the strategic scenario. The long-term strategic objective of the leftists is to turn the United States into Venezuela, and they want to be Maduro. The major strategic objective that will put them in position to do so is victory in the November elections. Everything happening right now is part of their overall strategy to achieve that objective. But what kind of operation are they using to achieve that objective? There are two types of operations relevant here – kinetic and information. A kinetic operation is actual warfare. It’s violence designed to defeat the enemy and cause his surrender by either physically destroying him or occupying his territory and compelling surrender. An information operation is designed to affect the perceptions, and thereby the actions, of the target.

Kinetic ops tend to do something to the enemy;
an info op tends to get the target to do something to himself.

Elections are usually information operations. They attempt to build a narrative and play on perceptions and cause the target to take the action that will lead to victory. That is, get the target (the electorate) vote for the candidate the info operator wants elected.

Okay, so what is the 2020 elections, with the rioting, vandalism, violence and occupations?

This still an information operation, not a kinetic one.

They want to convince us we are powerless, that everyone else supports their commie agenda, that we cannot win. Their tactics are designed to create that impression and crush our morale. These include the 24/7 media hype, the outright media lies, the movie stars with their dumb PSAs, the staged statue attacks, the corporate solidarity proclamations, the social media cancellations, and the craven kneeling by people who are supposed to stand up for us. But another tactic, familiar to any student of insurgencies, is to provoke an overreaction by those in power in order to undermine its moral authority. They want is to make us (including the president) think this is a kinetic operation, and get our side to make fundamental strategic errors by failing to recognize the true nature of the threat. They hope that such a mismatch between perception and reality will then lead to gravely damaging blunders. One of those would be Trump succumbing to his legit frustration and sending in a bunch of federal troops to crack skulls in Seattle.

Defining this insurgency as a kinetic operation supports the leftists’ information operation goal of making Americans perceive the situation as out of control, of there being chaos, and of making the election of Grandpa Badfinger being the only thing that will resolve the situation. But there is no kinetic situation to resolve – at least none that is strategically significant in a kinetic sense. Despite the hype, the protests may have involved a peak of 2 million people across the country – out of 330 million. That’s nothing kinetically; it’s significant informationally because it is pushed by so many cultural influencers. The scurvy scumbags of Antifa hold essentially no ground except the turf they are physically standing on at the moment, and that is minuscule. Even the hilarious Road Warrior Republic of Seattle is not even a rounding error of a rounding error in terms of US territory. It’s significant only in the context of an information operation.

Many of us cons are furious that Trump is “doing nothing.” This is the wrong thing to think. Trump is only doing nothing if this is a kinetic operation; because this is an information operation, not going kinetic (sending in the troops) is doing something. And in fact, Trump is employing the law enforcement component of his kinetic assets by having the feds wait and arrest Antifa types after the protests end, and hitting them with hardcore federal rioting-related charges. Previously, they would get ticketed and released; now, looking at a five-to-ten stretch, the lawyers their daddies hired to get these sunshine anarchists out of their beefs are going to be advising them to roll over so they can start back up at Cornell in September and not at Leavenworth.

Trump can and should let Seattle’s problem be Seattle’s problem.

Understand that the leftist establishment would like nothing better than for Trump to go kinetic. That’s why it is baiting him, and hoping that those of us who are sick of these Lil’ Red Guards will pressure him into dropping in the paratroopers to bust some heads and – oh please, oh please, oh please – get caught on video Kent Stating up a batch of fresh new martyrs. Trump’s too smart for that, and frankly the establishment is too dumb and undisciplined to carry it out. The media shot its wad on the hyperbolic reaction to clearing out the park in front of the White House, demonstrating that even the most gentle and restrained of kinetic actions was going to get transmogrified into Hitler’s blitz across the Low Countries. And those generals screwed-up too, bad. They should have waited to wring their hands over Trump’s violent and dangerous employment of the military until he actually violently and dangerously employed the military. A bunch of allegedly (but not actually) neutral and nonpartisan military figures with heaps of establishment street cred coming down on POTUS in the wake of a bloodbath could have had a devastating political effect, but they pulled the trigger too early. Mattis and Milley and the rest of the medal men we’re supposed to think are superb strategic operators, but who still haven’t won the war against a pack of turbaned banditos after about 20 years, screwed-up yet again. They were supposed to deliver an info op kill shot to define Trump to the masses as a bloody tyrant and instead got just one news cycle of play with the Twitter blue checks. The only casualty was not Trump’s rep, but their own credibility with anyone outside of the Beltway.

Right now, the American people are seeing chaos. But chaos does not necessarily play against Trump in the long term. Biden is trapped, trying to nuance his unsteady carcass through the conflict between the Democrats’ “’Defund the Police’ means ‘Reform the Police’” faction and the “No, ‘Defund the Police’ really means ‘Defund the Police’” faction. All the while, Trump is tweeting “LAW AND ORDER!”

Do you think this is all helping the Dems? If you do, stop watching MSNBCNN. Except among Hollywood jerks, urban hipsters and whiny woke wine women from Westchester, the attack on order means “Advantage: Trump.” You can see the results if you look behind the media curtain. Remember how the media had a collective panty-wetting over the meaningless Georgia primary and the GOP’s alleged voter suppression? Did you wonder why the media felt it was such a big deal? The answer is in the actual results, which you did not hear about if you listen to the garbage mainstream media. Trump, who had the nomination sewn up, crushed Biden and the rest of the Dems combined in votes. Wait, didn’t all the smart people tell us that Georgia, under the carb-curious leadership of Governor Stacy Abrams, was turning blue?

Yeah, right.

Trump is winning this information battle. Conservative Americans – and moderate Americans who want law and order – can’t wait to vote against defunding the police, rioting and appeasement. The Silent Majority is being roused again.

American Soviet Mentality

Izabella Tabarovsky draws on her experience of Soviet Russia to expose the cultural revolution currently attacking the roots of American civil society.  Her article at the Tablet is The American Soviet Mentality. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Collective demonization invades our culture

Russians are fond of quoting Sergei Dovlatov, a dissident Soviet writer who emigrated to the United States in 1979: “We continuously curse Comrade Stalin, and, naturally, with good reason. And yet I want to ask: who wrote four million denunciations?” It wasn’t the fearsome heads of Soviet secret police who did that, he said. It was ordinary people.

Collective demonizations of prominent cultural figures were an integral part of the Soviet culture of denunciation that pervaded every workplace and apartment building. Perhaps the most famous such episode began on Oct. 23, 1958, when the Nobel committee informed Soviet writer Boris Pasternak that he had been selected for the Nobel Prize in literature—and plunged the writer’s life into hell. Ever since Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago had been first published the previous year (in Italy, since the writer could not publish it at home) the Communist Party and the Soviet literary establishment had their knives out for him. To the establishment, the Nobel Prize added insult to grave injury.

None of those who joined the chorus of condemnation, naturally, had read the novel—it would not be formally published in the USSR until 30 years later. But that did not stop them from mouthing the made-up charges leveled against the writer. It was during that campaign that the Soviet catchphrase “ne chital, no osuzhdayu”—“didn’t read, but disapprove”—was born: Pasternak’s accusers had coined it to protect themselves against suspicions of having come in contact with the seditious material. Days after accepting the Nobel Prize, Pasternak was forced to decline it. Yet demonization continued unabated.

Some of the greatest names in Soviet culture became targets of collective condemnations—composers Dmitry Shostakovich and Sergei Prokofiev; writers Anna Akhmatova and Iosif Brodsky; and many others. Bouts of hounding could go on for months and years, destroying people’s lives, health and, undoubtedly, ability to create. (The brutal onslaught undermined Pasternak’s health. He died from lung cancer a year and a half later.) But the practice wasn’t reserved for the greats alone. Factories, universities, schools, and research institutes were all suitable venues for collectively raking over the coals a hapless, ideologically ungrounded colleague who, say, failed to show up for the “voluntary-obligatory,” as a Soviet cliché went, Saturday cleanups at a local park, or a scientist who wanted to emigrate. The system also demanded expressions of collective condemnations with regards to various political matters: machinations of imperialism and reactionary forces, Israeli aggression against peaceful Arab states, the anti-Soviet international Zionist conspiracy. It was simply part of life.

Twitter has been used as a platform for exercises in unanimous condemnation
for as long as it has existed.

Countless careers and lives have been ruined as outraged mobs have descended on people whose social media gaffes or old teenage behavior were held up to public scorn and judged to be deplorable and unforgivable. But it wasn’t until the past couple of weeks that the similarity of our current culture with the Soviet practice of collective hounding presented itself to me with such stark clarity. Perhaps it was the specific professions and the cultural institutions involved—and the specific acts of writers banding together to abuse and cancel their colleagues—that brought that sordid history back.

On June 3, The New York Times published an opinion piece that much of its progressive staff found offensive and dangerous. (The author, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, had called to send in the military to curb the violence and looting that accompanied the nationwide protests against the killing of George Floyd.) The targets of their unanimous condemnation, which was gleefully joined by the Twitter proletariat, which took pleasure in helping the once-august newspaper shred itself to pieces in public, were New York Times’ opinion section editor James Bennet, who had ultimate authority for publishing the piece, though he hadn’t supervised its editing, and op-ed staff editor and writer Bari Weiss (a former Tablet staffer).

Weiss had nothing to do with editing or publishing the piece. On June 4, however, she posted a Twitter thread characterizing the internal turmoil at the Times as a “civil war” between the “(mostly young) wokes” who “call themselves liberals and progressives” and the “(mostly 40+) liberals” who adhere to “the principles of civil libertarianism.” She attributed the behavior of the “wokes” to their “safetyism” worldview, in which “the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.”  See Update: Stories vs. Facts

It was just one journalist’s opinion, but to Weiss’ colleagues her semi-unflattering description of the split felt like an intolerable attack against the collective. Although Weiss did not name anyone in either the “woke” or the older “liberal” camp, her younger colleagues felt collectively attacked and slandered. They lashed out. Pretty soon, Weiss was trending on Twitter.

As the mob’s fury kicked into high gear, the language of collective outrage grew increasingly strident, even violent.

Goldie Taylor, writer and editor-at-large at The Daily Beast, queried in a since-deleted tweet why Weiss “still got her teeth.” With heads rolling at the Times—James Bennet resigned, and deputy editorial page editor James Dao was reassigned to the newsroom—one member of the staff asked for Weiss to be fired for having bad-mouthed “her younger newsroom colleagues” and insulted “all of our foreign correspondents who have actually reported from civil wars.” (It was unclear how she did that, other than having used the phrase “civil war” as a metaphor.)

Mehdi Hasan, a columnist with the Intercept, opined to his 880,000 Twitter followers that it would be strange if Weiss retained her job now that Bennet had been removed. He suggested that her thread had “mocked” her nonwhite colleagues. (It did not.) In a follow-up tweet Hasan went further, suggesting that to defend Weiss would make one a bad anti-racist—a threat based on a deeply manipulated interpretation of Weiss’ post, yet powerful enough to stop his followers from making the mistake.

All of us who came out of the Soviet system bear scars of the practice of unanimous condemnation, whether we ourselves had been targets or participants in it or not. It is partly why Soviet immigrants are often so averse to any expressions of collectivism: We have seen its ugliest expressions in our own lives and our friends’ and families’ lives. It is impossible to read the chastising remarks of Soviet writers, for whom Pasternak had been a friend and a mentor, without a sense of deep shame. Shame over the perfidy and lack of decency on display. Shame at the misrepresentations and perversions of truth. Shame at the virtue signaling and the closing of rank. Shame over the momentary and, we now know, fleeting triumph of mediocrity over talent.

In a collectivist culture, one hoped-for result of group condemnations is control—both over the target of abuse and the broader society. When sufficiently broad levels of society realize that the price of nonconformity is being publicly humiliated, expelled from the community of “people of goodwill” (another Soviet cliché) and cut off from sources of income, the powers that be need to work less hard to enforce the rules.

For the regular people—those outside prestigious cultural institutions—participation in local versions of collective hounding was not without its benefits, either. It could be an opportunity to eliminate a personal enemy or someone who was more successful and, perhaps, occupied a position you craved. You could join in condemning a neighbor at your cramped communal flat, calculating that once she was gone, you could add some precious extra square meters to your living space.

The mobs that perform the unanimous condemnation rituals of today do not follow orders from above. But that does not diminish their power to exert pressure on those under their influence.

Those of us who came out of the collectivist Soviet culture understand these dynamics instinctively. You invoked the “didn’t read, but disapprove” mantra not only to protect yourself from suspicions about your reading choices but also to communicate an eagerness to be part of the kollektiv—no matter what destructive action was next on the kollektiv’s agenda. You preemptively surrendered your personal agency in order to be in unison with the group. And this is understandable in a way: Merging with the crowd feels much better than standing alone.

Americans have discovered the way in which fear of collective disapproval breeds self-censorship and silence, which impoverish public life and creative work. The double life one ends up leading—one where there is a growing gap between one’s public and private selves—eventually begins to feel oppressive. For a significant portion of Soviet intelligentsia (artists, doctors, scientists), the burden of leading this double life played an important role in their deciding to emigrate.

Those who join in the hounding face their own hazards. The more loyalty you pledge to a group that expects you to participate in rituals of collective demonization, the more it will ask of you and the more you, too, will feel controlled. How much of your own autonomy as a thinking, feeling person are you willing to sacrifice to the collective? What inner compromises are you willing to make for the sake of being part of the group? Which personal relationships are you willing to give up?

From my vantage point, this cultural moment in these United States feels incredibly precarious.

The practice of collective condemnation feels like an assertion of a culture that ultimately tramples on the individual and creates an oppressive society. Whether that society looks like Soviet Russia, or Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, or Castro’s Cuba, or today’s China, or something uniquely 21st-century American, the failure of institutions and individuals to stand up to mob rule is no longer an option we can afford.

Comment:  Precarious, indeed.  For Background, See Patriotism vs. Multiculturalism

When PC Backfires

The classical criticism of liberalism is mistaking right thinking for right action, IOW confusing theology with ethical behavior.  For a true liberal, stating the right answer resolves an issue.  Those who aren’t ideologues realize that actions speak louder than words, or as Texans say:  “Money Talks, BS Walks,” i.e. put up or shut up.

Political Correctness is the powerful current manifestation of liberal mistaken morality.  Today come reports demonstrating the disconnect between words and accountability.

Example #1: A mayor in Washington state changed her mind about the BLM protests when she was damaged personally.  Washington state mayor now calls BLM protests ‘domestic terrorism’ after her home vandalized  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A Washington state mayor was fine with the Black Lives Matter protests that followed George Floyd’s death in police custody.

But that was until vandals damaged her home, according to reports.

Now, Mayor Cheryl Selby of Olympia refers to the protests as “domestic terrorism,” according to The Olympian.

“I’m really trying to process this,” Selby told the newspaper Saturday, after the rioters’ Friday night spree left her front door and porch covered with spray-painted messages. “It’s like domestic terrorism. It’s unfair.

Earlier this month, Selby issued a statement saying Olympia would not impose a curfew on protesters demonstrating against Floyd’s death.

“Let me be clear: The City of Olympia supports the peaceful protests that highlight the racial injustices black people continue to endure at the hands of police in the United States.”

Olympia, she said, was “not without sin in this matter.”

Example #2: Another BLM supporter, ESPN writer Chris Martin Palmer, who commented “Burn it all down,” when retweeting a photo of a Minneapolis building in flames in late May, had a different reaction when rioters came close to his house, The Sporting News reported.

“Get these animals TF out of my neighborhood,” Palmer wrote. “Go back to where you live.”

Example #3:  The Facts in Rayshard Brooks Case Don’t Point to Murder

Michael Stern writes at USA Today:

From the horrifying flashpoint of Floyd’s killing came weeks of cops punching, gassing and shooting peaceful protesters and journalists. Then, on Friday night, a white Atlanta police officer shot and killed a Black man in a Wendy’s parking lot after an altercation. It took less than 48 hours for the wildfire of racism allegations to spread, for Atlanta’s mayor to fire the officer,for the police chief to resign, and for an angry mob to seek vindication by burning the hamburger restaurant to the ground.

But not every white officer who shoots an African American man is motivated by racism, and not every police shooting is a crime. Facts matter. Here are the facts leading up to the shooting. 

Rayshard Brooks was killed after resisting arrest, attacking two police officers, taking an officer’s Taser and shooting it at a police officer. The decision by the Times’ editorial board to intentionally omit this last fact is damning proof of its effort to create a narrative that serves a social agenda, despite evidence that supports a contrary conclusion.

That a man died is tragic. But the protests, celebrity outcry and general media capitulation that equates Brooks’ death with that of George Floyd, and countless other African Americans who were murdered at the hands of flagrant police misconduct, is wrong.

In a headline reminiscent of the National Enquirer, the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial Tuesday titled: “Atlanta police killed a Black man for being drunk at Wendy’s.” No. Mr. Brooks was not killed for being drunk.

Example #4: A Backlash Against Democratic Control of Cities?

Yet in the midst of the national upheaval over police brutality and claims of systemic racism, it also highlights the fact that Democrats have been in control of nearly every major urban center in America for decades. It’s worth looking at a list:

  • Atlanta has been controlled by Democrats for the past 140 years.
  • Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi’s father and eldest brother, have held the mayor’s office in Baltimore for all but eight of the last 89 years.
  • In Chicago, Democrats have been in charge of the nation’s third-largest city exclusively since 1931.
  • Detroit has been run continuously by Democrats since 1962, including 39 years of stewardship by African-American mayors between 1974 and 2013.
  • In Los Angeles, 13 of the past 15 mayoral terms have been held by Democrats. Their control of the city began in 1961 and was interrupted by Republican Dick Riordan’s two terms from 1993-2001.
  • Democrats have held control in Philadelphia since 1952.
  • City Hall in Seattle was, by design, nonpartisan until 1990 when three-term incumbent Charles Royer left the mayor’s office. The year before, Seattle was named one of the “best managed cities in the nation.” Since then, Democrats have run the city exclusively, including through the recent turmoil and the uproar resulting from the city’s first gay mayor, Ed Murray, resigning after multiple allegations of child sex abuse.
  • Finally, there is New York, where Rudy Giuliani’s two terms as mayor from 1993-2001 followed by Michael Bloomberg’s 12-year tenure as a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent gives the city some claim to bipartisan management over the last three decades. Even so, Democrats have long had a lock on the City Council and the place was run exclusively by Democrats for the 25 years between 1969 and 1994. For the last six years it has been helmed by Bill de Blasio, one of the most outspoken progressive Democrats in America.

Whatever problems exist today in America’s major cities, and in their respective police forces, they are not bipartisan in nature. Republicans have been shut out of the governing apparatus of these cities and excluded from any serious discussion of policy solutions for decades.

There is a disconnect between the Democratic Party’s rhetoric and how it governs “minority-majority” cities. This is a far bigger issue than one election and ultimately has little to do with Donald Trump. It’s about accountability — about which of the two major political parties can build a better future for those living in America’s storied, but long-troubled, urban centers.

See Also:  When a Hate Cult Took the Streets

 

Sister Cities: Minneapolis and Mogadishu

I was born in St. Paul, Minnisota, so it saddens me to see the Twin Cities falling down like the Twin Towers.  How did  “failed states” come about in the USA resembling collapsed social order in places like Somalia? There are differences, of course:  Mogadishu was blown up by Islamist Jihadists, whereas Minneapolis suffers at the hands of “Woke” Jihadists, in the streets and in positions of governance. Otherwise, the disdain for unbelievers looks similar, along with the intent to separate the sheep from the goats, with the latter as the underclass, tolerated as long as they submit and take their punishment.

Anger in Mogadishu after police kill civilian in COVID-19 curfew

Protests in Somalia after fatal shooting of at least one person by police enforcing coronavirus-related restrictions.

There has been growing anger among some residents over alleged abuses by security forces, including beatings while enforcing virus-related restrictions.

Shouts of “No police, no curfew” could be heard as protesters took to the streets and damaged a police landmark at a city roundabout.

The country’s police chief on Saturday fired the commissioner in charge of security in Bondhere district where the shooting took place.

In other Somali news:

10 killed as minibus hits roadside bomb near Mogadishu ( 2 weeks earlier)

Governor killed in suicide bombing claimed by al-Shabab (3 weeks earlier)

Black pain is ours: Minneapolis Somali community rallies over Floyd killing

Somali community, being both Muslim and Black, plays unique role within protest movement

Minneapolis hosts a large Somali-American community, the biggest Somali diaspora group in the United States, according to the American Community survey in 2017.

They began coming to the US as early as the 1980s, but more emigrated in the 1990s to escape a civil war in Somalia.

Somalis began resettling in Minneapolis after securing jobs at meat-packaging plants, and have since opened businesses and established deep roots in the city.

Ali said that the community has since struggled with its identity, as many of the older generation are averse to being considered Black Americans.

Still, most of the younger Somalis who grew up in the US have aligned themselves with the Black Lives Matter movement, especially after witnessing discrimination and racism at the hands of law enforcement, she said.

Being seen as both Black and Muslim, Minneapolis resident Haji Yussuf said, sometimes means facing multiple forms of discrimination.

“Somalis are Black. So, a white cop or a bad cop doesn’t really see a difference. He sees Black, and then when he hears the name, the racism is even more pronounced,” said Yussuf, who ran for Congress before dropping out and endorsing eventual winner Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

Ilhan Omar, the Somali-American congresswoman who represents the district where Floyd was killed, on Friday introduced a resolution alongside Black Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley condemning police brutality, racial profiling and the excessive use of force by law enforcement.

Omar calls for dismantling Minnapolis Police.

At least in the US, people vote and get the government they choose.  How remarkable in 2020 to witness elected officials preside over destruction and social division, claiming to be responsibly executing their office to serve and protect the citizenry.  Wake up and smell the smoke. You too, Seattle.

 

Update 2020 Divide: Producers vs. Parasites

Update June 14, 2020:  The New Face of Diversity

The silent march in Seattle on Friday shows how diversity looks according to BLM.  Those who think like us but don’t look like us are tolerated, so long as they know their place at the bottom.  Look at how the parade was organized.  From KOMO in Seattle.  In italics with my bolds;

In Seattle, marchers met at Judkins Park at 1 p.m. and start marching to Jefferson Park just after 2 p.m.

Organizers say the march was a black-led event and asked participants to respect the march procession order, starting with Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County leadership, followed by (in order) black youth, black community members, people of color, elected and appointed officials, political candidates, white allies and bicyclists.

Rosa Parks refused to ride in the back of the bus.  Should non-Blacks submit to 2nd, 3rd, or lower class citizenship?  This is pure Marxist class warfare, with no redeeming qualities, and adding segregation on top.  What is on offer is pitched street battles to throw the rascals (whites) out, destroy their monuments, place BLM leaders in power, and impose their will upon the others.

Background

In 2015 I posted on the US socio-political climate after Trump entered the contest.  Animal Farm and Climate Change.  The introduction went this way:Animal Farm2

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a masterpiece of a simple story suggesting so many realities of societies. Among many things, it shows how a basic dichotomy mobilizes people (or creatures) for social or political action. The image above expresses the heart of the story whereby some animals took power over the others out of fear of humans.

Consider another dichotomy:    Producers Good, Parasites Bad.

Bumper Sticker

Bumper Sticker

People who are astounded by Donald Trump’s candidacy are overlooking how widely and deeply felt is this distinction between those who produce and those who take, and not only in the Tea Party but far beyond. The power arises from the emotional investment in the branding, no matter how illogical or mistaken it may be. Those who don’t feel it, don’t “get it.” Add in the envy of someone so rich he can say anything unbounded by Political Correctness, and Trump becomes a force to be reckoned with. It remains to be seen whether his followers are voters beyond being fans.

 2020 Update

Against all odds, and to his own surprise, Trump went on to win the Presidency and survive a fierce resistance from entrenched partisans who voted for his opponent.  Now that effort to unseat him is intensifying leading up to this year’s general election.  The rioting triggered by George Floyd’s death shows that the Producer/Parasite dichotomy is now overlaid with racial bigotry:  Black Lives Good/ White Lives Bad.  Premium brand items were targeted in the looting, justified by saying:  “People deserve to have nice things.”

The Parasite claim comes through the the Black Lives Matter manifesto calling for freebies.  #BlackLivesMatter movement bizarrely demands: “Reparations for…full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education…retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.”  See When a Hate Cult Took the Streets

The producer/parasite divide also appeared in governors’ priorities during lockdowns:  Public Workers Essential/ Private Workers Nonessential. As some observed, knowledge workers and employees paid with tax dollars didn’t miss a check while taxpaying workers who make things were laid off. See Bad Idea: Politicians Decide Essential Business

And this gets at the heart of the contradiction between socialists’ focus on redistributing wealth vs. capitalists’ emphasis on producing wealth.  In the current meme, capitalism and its artifacts must be destroyed to make way for the people’s paradise. It is remarkable that the ideological divide is opening up at all levels,  Federal, State and City, including national policies and pandemic relief, state post-covid regulations and city policing priorities.

Another twist:  This is not your stereotypical uprising of the poor against the rich.  Ed West explains how and why upper middle class youth are in revolt against the “system” they see aligned against them.  The essay at Unherd is Why the rich are revolting. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Great Awokening and the 2020 protests are the product of growing radicalisation among the upper-middle-class

That year (1968), the United States was rocked by riots, assassinations and political crisis, and half a century later, history seems to be, if not repeating itself, then certainly rhyming. Yet while there are huge differences between the 1968 and 2020 disturbances, the one continuous theme running through both uprisings, and indeed all revolutions down the years, is the prominent role of the middle class. In particular, the upper-middle-class, the haute bourgeoise, are the driving force behind revolt and disorder throughout history, especially — as with today — when they feel they have no future.

Today’s unrest involves two sections of US society, African-Americans and upper-middle-class whites, who together form the axis of the Democratic Party, but it is the latter who are far more engaged in racial activism. The “Great Awokening”, the mass movement focused on eradicating racism in America and with a quasi-religious, almost hysterical feel to it, is dominated by the upper middle class.

The rich have always paradoxically been radical, something G.K. Chesterton observed over a hundred years ago when he wrote “You’ve got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists: they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists.”

The wider Great Awokening, of which the 2020 disturbances are a part, is a very elite phenomenon, with progressive activists nearly twice as likely as the average American to make more than $100,000 a year, nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree, and only one-quarter as likely to be black. Likewise with the radicalisation of American academia, with the safe spaces movement most prevalent at elite colleges, where students were much more likely to disinvite speakers or express more extreme views.

Climate protesters disrupt Yale-Harvard football game. Nov. 23, 2019.

Meanwhile, the expansion of the university system has created what Russian-American academic Peter Turchin called ‘elite overproduction’, the socially dangerous situation where too many people are chasing too few elite places in society, creating “a large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable… denied access to elite positions”.

So while around half of 18-year-olds are going onto college, only a far smaller number of jobs actually require a degree. Many of those graduates, under the impression they were joining the higher tier in society, will not even reach managerial level and will be left disappointed and hugely indebted. Many will have studied various activist-based subjects collectively referred to as ‘grievance studies’, so-called because they rest on a priori assumptions about power and oppression. Whether these disciplines push students towards the Left, or if it is just attending university that has this effect, people are coming out of university far more politically agitated.

This has been bubbling up for years — and then along came the coronavirus, throwing millions of people out of work, many from exactly the sort of sections most likely to cause trouble. And what makes it slightly spooky is that a few years back Turchin predicted that there would be a violent flashpoint in American politics — in 2020.

2020 Divide: Producers vs. Parasites

In 2015 I posted on the US socio-political climate after Trump entered the contest.  Animal Farm and Climate Change.  The introduction went this way:Animal Farm2

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a masterpiece of a simple story suggesting so many realities of societies. Among many things, it shows how a basic dichotomy mobilizes people (or creatures) for social or political action. The image above expresses the heart of the story whereby some animals took power over the others out of fear of humans.

Consider another dichotomy:    Producers Good, Parasites Bad.

Bumper Sticker

Bumper Sticker

People who are astounded by Donald Trump’s candidacy are overlooking how widely and deeply felt is this distinction between those who produce and those who take, and not only in the Tea Party but far beyond. The power arises from the emotional investment in the branding, no matter how illogical or mistaken it may be. Those who don’t feel it, don’t “get it.” Add in the envy of someone so rich he can say anything unbounded by Political Correctness, and Trump becomes a force to be reckoned with. It remains to be seen whether his followers are voters beyond being fans.

 2020 Update

Against all odds, and to his own surprise, Trump went on to win the Presidency and survive a fierce resistance from entrenched partisans who voted for his opponent.  Now that effort to unseat him is intensifying leading up to this year’s general election.  The rioting triggered by George Floyd’s death shows that the Producer/Parasite dichotomy is now overlaid with racial bigotry:  Black Lives Good/ White Lives Bad.  Premium brand items were targeted in the looting, justified by saying:  “People deserve to have nice things.”

The Parasite claim comes through the the Black Lives Matter manifesto calling for freebies.  #BlackLivesMatter movement bizarrely demands: “Reparations for…full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education…retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.”  See When a Hate Cult Took the Streets

The producer/parasite divide also appeared in governors’ priorities during lockdowns:  Public Workers Essential/ Private Workers Nonessential. As some observed, knowledge workers and employees paid with tax dollars didn’t miss a check while taxpaying workers who make things were laid off. See Bad Idea: Politicians Decide Essential Business

And this gets at the heart of the contradiction between socialists’ focus on redistributing wealth vs. capitalists’ emphasis on producing wealth.  In the current meme, capitalism and its artifacts must be destroyed to make way for the people’s paradise. It is remarkable that the ideological divide is opening up at all levels,  Federal, State and City, including national policies and pandemic relief, state post-covid regulations and city policing priorities.

Another twist:  This is not your stereotypical uprising of the poor against the rich.  Ed West explains how and why upper middle class youth are in revolt against the “system” they see aligned against them.  The essay at Unherd is Why the rich are revolting. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

The Great Awokening and the 2020 protests are the product of growing radicalisation among the upper-middle-class

That year (1968), the United States was rocked by riots, assassinations and political crisis, and half a century later, history seems to be, if not repeating itself, then certainly rhyming. Yet while there are huge differences between the 1968 and 2020 disturbances, the one continuous theme running through both uprisings, and indeed all revolutions down the years, is the prominent role of the middle class. In particular, the upper-middle-class, the haute bourgeoise, are the driving force behind revolt and disorder throughout history, especially — as with today — when they feel they have no future.

Today’s unrest involves two sections of US society, African-Americans and upper-middle-class whites, who together form the axis of the Democratic Party, but it is the latter who are far more engaged in racial activism. The “Great Awokening”, the mass movement focused on eradicating racism in America and with a quasi-religious, almost hysterical feel to it, is dominated by the upper middle class.

The rich have always paradoxically been radical, something G.K. Chesterton observed over a hundred years ago when he wrote “You’ve got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists: they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn’t; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists.”

The wider Great Awokening, of which the 2020 disturbances are a part, is a very elite phenomenon, with progressive activists nearly twice as likely as the average American to make more than $100,000 a year, nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree, and only one-quarter as likely to be black. Likewise with the radicalisation of American academia, with the safe spaces movement most prevalent at elite colleges, where students were much more likely to disinvite speakers or express more extreme views.

Climate protesters disrupt Yale-Harvard football game. Nov. 23, 2019.

Meanwhile, the expansion of the university system has created what Russian-American academic Peter Turchin called ‘elite overproduction’, the socially dangerous situation where too many people are chasing too few elite places in society, creating “a large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable… denied access to elite positions”.

So while around half of 18-year-olds are going onto college, only a far smaller number of jobs actually require a degree. Many of those graduates, under the impression they were joining the higher tier in society, will not even reach managerial level and will be left disappointed and hugely indebted. Many will have studied various activist-based subjects collectively referred to as ‘grievance studies’, so-called because they rest on a priori assumptions about power and oppression. Whether these disciplines push students towards the Left, or if it is just attending university that has this effect, people are coming out of university far more politically agitated.

This has been bubbling up for years — and then along came the coronavirus, throwing millions of people out of work, many from exactly the sort of sections most likely to cause trouble. And what makes it slightly spooky is that a few years back Turchin predicted that there would be a violent flashpoint in American politics — in 2020.

George Was Foil for Climate Uprising

The rampage in Minneapolis was apparently planned ahead of time by organizers of the Sunrise Movement, who are committed to mayhem in the name of climate, as much or more so than Extinction Rebellion.  The scoop comes from Millenium Millie, supported by undercover reporters.
 
 
We have sources imbedded within these groups to get to the bottom of where all this leftist radicalization is coming from. We got their plans, manuals, intercepted internal communications, and have recordings of their zoom chats.
 

What you are about to see is part of a two year undercover investigation into the leftist radicalization imbedded within the climate justice movement that contributed to the riots in Minneapolis, Minnesota. In this first video, we are going to show how the Sunrise Movement played a preemptive role in carrying out the mayhem, taking advantage of George Floyd’s death and using it as a trigger point, to further push their Green New Deal agenda and promoting the abolition of the police.

What some parents may have thought were innocent youth organizations genuinely fostered and ran by children are actually top-down monolithic structures with private intelligence, military contractors, and foreign interests influencing children to carry out their subversive objectives.

The events that erupted in Minneapolis, Minnesota were not a spontaneous reaction to the murder of George Floyd. These were well planned events anticipating some perfect trigger point to bring about the “new normal” – a world without police, without borders, without industry, without wealth, without private property, without an economy – a world based on communist ideals imbedded within the Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal is not about climate change, it is about climate justice – a radical new ideology hellbent on destroying western civilization under the false pretense that white supremacy is the leading cause of climate change, social injustice and all problems globally.

The organizers of these Youth Non-government Organizations, or Youngos, embellish white supremacy as a systemic problem, hyper-focusing on statistically rare instances of racial inequality and injustice, while ignoring great strides of progress the United States has made over the past century towards equal opportunity and criminal justice reform. However, in order to normalize radical policies put forth by the Green New Deal, crises have to be capitalized on to further their agenda while destroying the great accomplishments of civil rights movements of the past.

We didn’t expect to find organizers radicalizing middle school and high school children teaching them military tactics and preparation for high risk actions. Some of these tactics include escalation provocation techniques, blocking freeway traffic, and how to get arrested bogging-down law enforcement in the name of destroying capitalism to make way for the Green New Deal.