Monday, April 23, 2018

Dear Natalie Portman: I too was once a liberal Zionist Activism Robert Cohen

“Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power.”
Dear Natalie
I too was a liberal Zionist.
I too thought the problem was the leaders of Israel and their policies.
I too thought a change of leadership and a change of policies could fix things.
I don’t think that anymore.
Like you, I care about “Jewish values” but I long ago gave up on the idea that Israel, and the Zionism that created and sustains the Jewish State, would protect those values.
We should both be clear about what those Jewish values are.  They’re to be found in the Hebrew bible and are the ideas that have stood the test of time and been passed on to the world through Christianity and Islam: The innate equality of all humanity; a bias towards the poor, the downtrodden and the marginalised; and a committment to speak out against the wrong-doing of authority. In your statement on Friday you list what happens when these values are lost: “violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power”.
But to protect those Jewish values you have to push yourself beyond Zionism, especially of the liberal variety that sees today’s violence and inequality as merely a derailment from Zionism’s true course.
Let me explain why.

Genesis Prize

Natalie, without doubt I welcome your decision to snub the Genesis Prize. As an A-list Jewish Israeli-American Hollywood movie star, your stand is a big deal. People take notice. It has influence. Minds are changed when people like you do things like this. So I congratulate you. You’re are already taking serious flak for this and it will take a toll on you personally and professionally.

Read More:

"White Privilege" vs. "Jewish Privilege" by Steve Sailer

Screenshot 2018-04-21 14.53.32
The less white privilege exists, the more it gets talked about.
In my general impression, white privilege and Jewish privilege are fairly comparable in causes, magnitude, as well as quantity and quality of evidence for their existence. For example, whites tend to make more money than nonwhites and Jews tend to make more money than gentiles, and for roughly similar sets of reasons. Whether “privilege” is an appropriate term for either of the two gaps are about equally arguable.
In other words, thinking about Jewish privilege can help us obtain a better perspective on white privilege and vice-versa.

Read More:

Chasing Hillary: Clinton’s ‘Deplorables’ Was No One-Off Gaffe

Chasing Hillary: Ten Years, Two Campaigns and One Intact Glass Ceiling, Amy Chozick, HarperCollins, 400 pages

Time does not heal all wounds. Since November 8, 2016, the national divide has only grown deeper. During the campaign, Donald Trump stoked the fires of cultural and economic resentment while Hillary Clinton worshipped at the twin altars of identity politics and political correctness. The social and demographic tectonics that led to the Trump presidency are still shifting. The election continues to be relitigated hourly in a non-stop loop.

With Chasing Hillary, Amy Chozick of The New York Times offers a clear-eyed assessment of what went wrong inside the Clinton campaign bubble. Drawing upon a decade of covering Clinton, first at the Wall Street Journal and then at the Times, Chozick depicts a campaign removed from America’s geographic and cultural center. While James Comey may have actually cost Clinton the White House, neither the candidate nor her minions were doing all that they could to get her to 270, the magic number. At times, they did just the opposite.

Most glaringly, Team Clinton seemed oblivious to the aftermath of the Great Recession and its resultant middle class anxieties. To put things in perspective, in April 2015, with the presidential race about to heat up, nearly half of Americans, 48 percent at that, self-identified as working or lower class. As Mandy Grunwald, a long-time Clinton advisor, framed things, Clinton could sound like she “DOESNT think the game is rigged,” only recognizing that the “public thinks so”—not exactly an “I feel your pain” reaction, and definitely not her husband’s kind of response. 

In contrast to the candidate, Chozick depicts former president Bill Clinton as still connected to the concerns of everyday Americans. Chasing Hillary documents Bill going “red in the face” almost daily as he warned his wife’s campaign of Trump’s “shrewd” understanding of white working class voters, voters who were Bill’s base in 1992 and 1996 but were neglected by Hillary’s data-driven endeavor.

Read More:

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Mobs Win at CUNY and Duke Undisciplined by JONATHAN MARKS

I don’t envy university administrators the hard job of responding to student protests. But it’s not hard to understand that the job requires a clear view of what sets universities apart. Universities are supposed to be havens for rational inquiry into ideas, however unorthodox they may be. That is why they are uncommonly open to protesters, who often try to convey neglected ideas, and also why their rules are designed so that protests will, as much as possible, catalyze fresh thinking instead of hindering it. But sometimes administrators, either because they don’t understand universities or because they panic, neglect those rules and thereby do harm.

Late in March, Josh Blackman attempted to discuss freedom of speech at the City University of New York School of Law. Protesters, who had persuaded themselves that Blackman is a white supremacist, derailed his talk. Blackman, an associate professor of law at the South Texas College School of Law, is a mainstream legal conservative.

He had initially been invited, by students in CUNY Law’s Federalist Society, to participate in a “panel discussion about theories of constitutional interpretation.” But the students couldn’t find any other professors to participate. Blackman suggested an “event about free speech on campus.” The students, again, found no one to join him. At CUNY Law, which doesn’t hide its progressive commitments, you evidently can’t find anyone to share a stage with someone like Blackman.

Blackman’s talk attracted five listeners and around 30 protesters. After the protesters dispersed, his audience swelled to around 30. Students, Blackman was told, were “ashamed or intimidated” by the protests. At CUNY School of Law, evidently, at least some students who want to hear a legal conservative speak are made to feel ashamed and intimidated. If you think these students are just snowflakes, watch the video.

Read More:

U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley Arrogantly Leaves UN Security Council Meeting

Gingrich Breaks down the Current Status of Mueller's Investigation

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Soros in Retreat: Billionaire’s University to Move Out of Hungary!!!

Canada Has No Border

Starcucks & Il Grande Trucco Magico by EMMANUEL SPRAGUER

The disparate way the media treats the Alt-Right, a movement of truth-loving dissidents, vis a vis random black loiterers and trespassers, is as absurd as it is unequivocal and illustrates decisively what utter low-lives white-hating Western power players really are.
Alt-Righters all over the nation are being persecuted merely on account of our thoughts. This fact is virtually undeniable. Our websites are being deplatformed, our videos are being demonetized, we are being purged from social media, we are being fired from our jobs, due only to what goes on in our own minds. Discrimination and persecution against us, again, merely on account of our thoughts, is widespread. Yet the media treats this inherently totalitarian treatment as if it is perfectly fine. Verily, if anything, the media encourages it. But how could a war against freedom of speech and freedom of conscience ever be justified? What kind of twisted group of psychopaths would desire this? Even President Donald Trump ignores our maltreatment at the hands of large social media entities, despite the Alt-Right’s indispensable role in getting him elected via social media itself. The US power class’ unofficial position is, essentially, that we deserve it. There is probably nothing more evil, more indefensible, not to mention more totalitarian, than persecuting & wronging people merely on account of their thoughts, speech & political activities (especially in a democracy). Yet there has been no outcry on account of our abuse at the hands of the mighty and the elite. Opposition to thought-policing and the infringement upon private conscience used to be a core feature of American identity and culture, all the way back to America’s founding. Not anymore I guess.
Meanwhile, last week in Philadelphia two black men were forcibly removed from a Starbucks coffee shop because they sat there for a few hours without actually purchasing anything (they may have been protesting not being given access to the restroom). Of course, being denied access to a cafe’s or a restaurant’s restroom is pretty much standard treatment when one is not a paying customer, and although being forcibly removed by the police, or arrested, is rather extreme given the circumstances, Starbucks is well within its rights to remove trespassers from its property; especially when they refuse over and over again to leave via their free will. In the aftermath of this alleged mistreatment of these two young black men, there was something of a media-engineered national outcry regarding how hard blacks have it in America. The CEO of Starbucks is also falling all over his pasty, cucky self to apologize for this horrible injustice, and Starbucks will shut down all of its 8000 stores in America next month for a full day of nothing but shaming white people and indoctrinating innocent employees, so as to ensure that black people never have to follow the law ever again.

Read More:

Conservative Media Outlet PERMANENTLY BANNED From Twitter Without Reason By Vincent James

Pre-Midterm Election Twitter Purge Continues 

Recently, Twitter has been banning many accounts that were influential during the 2016 election leading up to the midterms in 2018 and purging conservative accounts from social media platforms appears to be the only election-changing strategy the authoritarian left has left.
Silicon valley has made it clear what their target and have realized that the only place where conservatives share their views is on the internet as the mainstream is dominated by the left. The answer? Strip that weapon away as soon as possible away if they have any hope for the ‘blue wave’ in the midterms.
Twitter’s latest target is conservative media outlet “The Red Elephants.” This sizable outlet has been quoted by Fox News referencing stories they have broken amongst many other mainstream news outlets.  The Red Elephants have over 350,000 followers onFacebook, 65,000 on Youtube and up until this week, almost 30,000 followers on Twitter with a reach of one million people per week.

The Red Elephants were especially influential during the election on Facebook with some videos that reached records of ten and twenty millions views.  Facebook has recently changed it’s algorithms to show more posts from friends and less from news sources in the last few months.

Read More:

Meritocratic Fallacy — Choosing the Brightest doesn’t necessarily choose the Best — Problems of Symbolic Morality over Real Morality among the Powerful

In the most basic sense, meritocracy is the fairest and most effective way of selecting the most capable. This is most obvious in sports. The fastest runner is the fastest runner. Fastest swimmer is the fastest swimmer. The heaviest-lifter is the heaviest-lifter. We can’t argue with the results. But, we also know that the most capable are not necessarily the best in terms of morality and character. We know that many top athletes are scummy lowlifes. Who can forget the saga of OJ? Still, there is an idolatrous aspect to our nature that wants to believe that the most talented, most skilled, or most able is also the best in character. This is why most action movies have heroes who are not only the best-looking but the toughest. There is an idealized combination of attractiveness, ability, and morality. Good guys look good and are really the best. The handsome hero of SHANE really is the fastest gun in the West. Even so, we don’t expect too many athletes or some such to be paragons of morality and ethics. (But then, in our nihilistic age, many thug athletes and rappers are admired precisely because they spit on norms of morality and decency.) 

But what about the elites in law, academia, government, enterprise, and media? Unlike athletes who merely need to prove their mettle in brute strength, people who succeed with their minds must gain knowledge, attend prestigious schools, and demonstrate worth on many levels of human relations. Because education is about the teaching of history, literature, science, ideas, and culture, we would like to believe that those who won by intellectual meritocracy are indeed the best kind of people. Not only the smartest but the wisest and most judicious. After all, they read so many books and gained so much knowledge. Unlike sports where brutal performance is all that counts, academics isn’t only about getting good grades but attaining higher and deeper understanding of many facets of truth. Or so we like to think. 

Now, there are certain inbuilt virtues within meritocracy itself. Any serious student must have the simple virtues of effort, diligence, discipline, commitment, and stamina. Without such habits and attitudes, one cannot do well in school(unless one happens to be a super-genius). But simple virtues are just that. They are useful in the service of attaining certain goals, but they don’t reveal the higher truth or deeper meaning. After all, simple virtues can be in the service of an evil system. Dutiful and sober men can work hard to support the system. The men in the German film DAS BOOT are high in simple virtues. They are men of commitment and patriotism. But they ultimately serve an evil system.

Read More:

Jordan Peterson on Lobster Hierarchy: A Response to P. Z. Myers' Critique

P. Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist, has attacked Jordan Peterson's account of lobster hierarchy as utterly stupid in its ignorance of Darwinian evolutionary science. Here are the videos.  The total time for all three is about thirty minutes.  The first one is eight and a half minutes.

Peterson argues that the similarities between lobster hierarchy and human hierarchy show that human hierarchy is rooted in an evolved human nature, and therefore that it cannot be a purely cultural construction of capitalist patriarchy, as some radical feminists have claimed.

Against this, Myers raises four objections.

(1)  Hierarchies in the animal world have not evolved to be fixed and identical, as Peterson claims, because they are variable in response to variable social circumstances; and therefore human hierarchies really are social constructions, and as such they are open to change.

(2) Peterson claims that the hierarchies of lobsters and human beings are the same in being derived from a common evolutionary ancestor, but this is denied by the logic and evidence of evolutionary science, which therefore refutes his assertion that human hierarchy is biologically determined.

(3) Peterson claims that the hierarchies of lobsters and human beings are the same in being based on the same nervous system that runs on serotonin, but this is denied by the fact that the nervous systems of lobsters and humans are very different, and by the fact that serotonin serves diverse functions in different nervous systems.

(4) Against Peterson's claim that all hierarchies are simple, linear, and competitive, Myers argues that in fact they are complex and nonlinear, and they are based not just on competition but also on cooperation.

All four objections fail because they are based on a straw-man fallacy: Myers is refuting claims that Peterson has not made.

Notice that like Cathy Newman, Myers is engaged in a dominance contest with Peterson.  For Myers, an intellectual discussion like this is an opportunity to show his superiority over those with whom he disagrees, as shown by his smug insulting dismissal of Peterson: "he is a loon!"  So Myers gives us a good illustration of what Peterson identifies as one of the eight kinds of conversation--the dominance-hierarchy conversation.  This debate over the idea of hierarchy is itself a manifestation of the natural human inclination to hierarchy.

Read More:

Can we just make it illegal to arrest black people in the United States of America? Black Police Commissioner of 70% Black Baltimore Apologizes to Blacks at Rap Concert for the City Once Holding Blacks Accountable for Their Actions

If you've read The City that Bleeds: Race, History, and the Death of Baltimoreyou know black people in Baltimore carefully protect their city by using black criminality to keep out white people from ever being a demographic threat to run things again.

You'll also know that in 1917, Baltimore was 88% white. Restrictive covenants and segregation kept city prosperous and safe from the very population now representing 70% of the city's population, with the white population below 25 percent.

Yes, Baltimore is a 70 percent black city. It was roughly 10 percent black in 1917. With black-fueled violence exploding across the city, it's important to remember the reality of homicide in Baltimore: Lynchings in USA over an 86-year time-span vs. Homicides in Baltimore over a 7-year time-span (91.5 percent Black-on-Black)

Again, in 1917, Baltimore was 88% white. Restrictive covenants and segregation kept city safe and prosperous from the very population now representing 70% of the city's population.

In 2018 Baltimore, a 70 percent black city governed by democratically elected black officials, we are on the verge of seeing a black police commissioner unofficially hand the city over to the criminals.


Read More:

The Rainbow Nation goes dark Racial population distributions in South Africa, by age cohort:

This data is from 2011. Farm murders have stepped up since then. So has black immigration into South Africa from other sub-Saharan African countries. White emigration from South Africa has increased, too. The demographic situation is thus even bleaker than the above graphs indicate.

The last civilizational light flickering on the southern end of the Dark Continent will be extinguished--the question is "when?", not "if?". Not long after that, the continent's youngexploding population will stampede north. Or, in what will be an ironic historical twist, sail west in tightly-packed ships as the trans-Atlantic 'refugee' invade commences.

Read More:

A New Religion for Us, part 10 by Kevin Alfred Strom

American Dissident Voices broadcast of April 21, 2018
Audio Player
by Kevin Alfred Strom
TRUE RELIGION is not impractical. True religion is not “pie in the sky in the sweet bye and bye.” True religion is not “love thy invader and hate thyself.” True religion is not Jesus and not the bloody, genocidal Torah. True religion issomething we as a people must rediscover if we are to survive. And it is something that will make us incomparably stronger as a race. It is something that will steer us on our true path toward the stars.
No man offered deeper insights on true religion, and on the shape that the White society of the future should take, than William Gayley Simpson. A profoundly religious and philosophical man, he went from an earnest advocate of Christian ideals — to an understanding of the revolutionary philosophy of Nietzsche — to a vision of our race’s place in the evolution of Life and consciousness that can only be called Cosmotheist.
I give you the words of William Gayley Simpson, taken from his important philosophical works, especially his book Which Way, Western Man?, read by Miss Vanessa Neubauer. Listen:
* * *
[The Christian concentration on the allegedly] spiritual… meant an indifference to, and a neglect of, physical relatedness in all its aspects — family kinship, gratitude and obligation to one’s ancestors, identification with one’s kind by which one feels oneself differentiated from all other kinds of human beings, and under the pull and direction of which identity every member should undertake with the rest of his kind to preserve an indissoluble bond, so that in every hour of peril and crisis they should unite to form a solid fighting phalanx against every common foe.
Jesus’ neglect of every sort of physical relatedness left the soil quite untended against the invasion of the rank weed of the doctrine of human equality, as soon as a shift in the winds began to carry the seeds of it into lands taken over by Christianity. Our air is fairly filled with the floating seeds of this detestable doctrine: “one man is as good as another; the differences that are hereditary, that are handed down from father to son, and that run in families—are of no consequence.” “Why should we bow before the will of a king? What is an aristocracy but a useless and costly burden? Why should there not be the same law for the high as for the low, for the low as for the high? Why should there any longer be any ‘high’? Should not we all, one as much as another, have the right to judge, to decide, and to rule? Should not he who rules, rule by our will, with our permission, as our servant and subject to our approval?” Thus men have said within themselves and to one another.

Read More:

Trump Goes Nuclear, Uses 4d Chess with Wendy Wasserman Schultz and Invok...

Tesla’s Troubles Reveal Elon Musk as a Replicant of a Real Visionary

N.B.: With all of the trouble Tesla Motors is running into now, I thought it germane to publish this article which originally appeared in the December issue of the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter

I know that the sequel to 1982’s classic film Blade Runner didn’t exactly set the box office on fire. Neither did the original. Blade Runner depicts a world where androids, called replicants, are so advanced they are indistinguishable from humans in every way but one.
Replicants can’t feel empathy. In the original film’s opening sequence Leon, a replicant, shoots the policeman conducting an ‘empathy test’ on him after being asked how he feels about his mother.
The new film takes the ideas from the first and expands on them, deepening both the story and the allegory. It’s great stuff.
Despite its lack of wide appeal, a movie like Blade Runner 2049 is exactly the kind of thing we need in this age where nothing is as it appears.
Control of the narrative is far more important than little things like the truth. In a hyper-politicized world which would make even George Orwell blush, he who controls the narrative controls the capital. And it is this obsession with style over substance, what you can get away with is more important than what value you produce for your fellow man.
Read More:

The Imran Awan story needs further investigation & the mainstream media ...

Friday, April 20, 2018

Who Misbehaves? Claims that school discipline is unfairly meted out ignore actual classroom behavior. By Heather Mac Donald

 Image result for Who Misbehaves? Claims that school discipline is unfairly meted out ignore actual classroom behavior.
Race advocates and the media are greeting a new Government Accountability Office report on racial disparities in school discipline as a vindication of Obama administration policies. The GAO found that black students get suspended at nearly three times the rate of white students nationally, a finding consistent with previous analyses. The Obama Education and Justice Departments viewed that disproportion as proof of teacher and principal bias. Administration officials used litigation and the threatened loss of federal funding to force schools to reduce suspensions and expulsions radically in order to eliminate racial disparities in discipline. The GAO report, which implicitly rubberstamps the Obama approach, comes just as Trump education secretary Betsy DeVos is evaluating whether to rescind Obama’s school discipline directives. DeVos should go forward with that rescission: the administration’s policies were fatally flawed, as is the GAO report that attempts to justify them.

The GAO report ignores the critical question regarding disciplinary disparities: do black students in fact misbehave more than white students? The report simply assumes, without argument, that black students and white students act identically in class and proceeds to document their different rates of discipline. This assumption of equivalent school behavior is patently unjustified. According to federal data, black male teenagers between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at nearly 10 times the rate of white male teenagers of the same age (the category “white” in this homicide data includes most Hispanics; if Hispanics were removed from the white category, the homicide disparity between blacks and whites would be much higher). That higher black homicide rate indicates a failure of socialization; teen murderers of any race lack impulse control and anger-management skills. Lesser types of juvenile crime also show large racial disparities. It is fanciful to think that the lack of socialization that produces such elevated rates of criminal violence would not also affect classroom behavior. While the number of black teens committing murder is relatively small compared with their numbers at large, a very high percentage of black children—71 percent—come from the stressed-out, single-parent homes that result in elevated rates of crime.

Read More:

Thursday, April 19, 2018

One Percent Chance Comey Not A Self-Dramatizing Fruitcake by Ann Coulter

There have been a lot of questions about why Trump fired James Comey, ever since he announced to NBC’s Lester Holt—incomprehensibly—that it was his decision, citing, by my count, at least a half-dozen different reasons.
On Sunday night, that question was answered. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Comey for showing the American people why he was so badly in need of firing.
Interviewed on his new book, Living in Truth, The Dictates of My Conscience, The Politics of Truth, A Higher Loyalty, it quickly became apparent that one of Comey’s favorite formulations is: I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether so-and-so sodomized a chicken. It’s possible. I don’t know.
Here he is on ABC News, accusing Trump of hiring prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed in Moscow (possibly—I don’t know):
“I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.”
And here he is on ABC accusing Trump of colluding with Russia:
“More words I never thought I’d utter about a president of the United States—but it’s possible (that he is compromised by Russia). It is stunning, and I wish I wasn’t saying it, but it’s just—it’s the truth. ... It’s possible.”

Read More:

Conservative Media Outlet PERMANENTLY BANNED From Twitter Without Reason By Vincent James

Pre-Midterm Election Twitter Purge Continues 

Recently, Twitter has been banning many accounts that were influential during the 2016 election leading up to the midterms in 2018 and purging conservative accounts from social media platforms appears to be the only election-changing strategy the authoritarian left has left.

Silicon valley has made it clear what their target and have realized that the only place where conservatives share their views is on the internet as the mainstream is dominated by the left. The answer? Strip that weapon away as soon as possible away if they have any hope for the ‘blue wave’ in the midterms.

Read More:

Back To The Beginning by Richard Spencer

Since the rise of Donald Trump, journalists, academics, and activists have amused themselves penning elaborate “think pieces” on the Alt-Right. “How could this have happened!?” seems to be the unvoiced question behind almost all of them. Whether it’s a smear job against an individual activist or an attempt to deconstruct, once and for all, the entire movement—or the occasional insightful analysis—the premise is that something has gone “wrong” somewhere. Thus, we get journalism as psychoanalysis and insinuation—how the Alt-Right is all about White racial anxiety, toxic masculinity, problematic online cultures, or how this is all just Russia’s fault.

There might be some kernels of truth in there; but in fact, the Alt Right can be explained very simply. It is a loosely organized grouping on the American Right, united around core commitments—Whiteness being indispensable. As I wrote on the eve of Charlottesville, “The Alt-Right wages a situational and ideological war on those deconstructing European history and identity.”

In this situational battle, the Alt-Right is marked by its opposition to the established conservative movement, what could be called “Conservatism, Inc.” Indeed, opposition to “conservatism” is a more decisive factor than opposition to the Left and Social Justice Warriors. After all, your average cuckservative, libertarian, and gaming-ethics advocate hates the Left and SJWs and is able to deconstruct them with ease. If we are going to risk our reputations and lives for something, we might want to go after higher hanging fruit.

In the Alt-Right’s “beta” stage, you could say—before it had a term recognized in the mainstream—the grouping consisted of people who were “purged” by the conservative movement, those who broke with the it over major issues, and those who took one look at the Beltway Right and declared it to be too stupid to survive. The journalist and sociologist Sam Francis is paradigmatic in this regard, as was Paul Gottfried.

Read More:

Fahrenheit 451 updated On the Amy Wax controversy surrounding the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

What took them so long? That was our first question when we heard the latest news about the distinguished University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax. Last summer, Professor Wax created a minor disturbance in the force of politically correct groupthink when she co-authored an op-ed for The Philadelphia Inquirer titled “Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.”

What, a college professor arguing in favor of “bourgeois” values? Mirabile dictu, yes. Professor Wax and her co-author, Professor Larry Alexander from the University of San Diego, argued not only that the “bourgeois” values regnant in American society in the 1950s were beneficial to society as a whole, but also that they were potent aides to disadvantaged individuals seeking to better themselves economically and socially. “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake,” Professors Wax and Alexander advised.

Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.
Such homely advice rankled, of course. Imagine telling the professoriate to be patriotic, to work hard, to be civic-minded or charitable. Quelle horreur!

Wax and Alexander were roundly condemned by their university colleagues. Thirty-three of Wax’s fellow law professors at Penn signed an “Open Letter” condemning her op-ed. “We categorically reject Wax’s claims,” they thundered.

What they found especially egregious was Wax and Alexander’s observation that “All cultures are not equal.” That hissing noise you hear is the sharp intake of breath at the utterance of such a sentiment. The tort was compounded by Wax’s later statements in an interview that “Everyone wants to go to countries ruled by white Europeans” because “Anglo-Protestant cultural norms are superior.”

Can you believe it? Professor Wax actually had the temerity to utter this plain, irrefragable, impolitic truth. Everyone knows this to be the case. As William Henry argued back in the 1990s in his undeservedly neglected book In Defense of Elitism, “the simple fact [is] that some people are better than others—smarter, harder working, more learned, more productive, harder to replace.” Moreover, Henry continued, “Some ideas are better than others, some values more enduring, some works of art more universal.” And it follows, he concluded, that “Some cultures, though we dare not say it, are more accomplished than others and therefore more worthy of study. Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean that all contributions are equal. . . . It is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as to put a bone in your nose.”

Read More:

Max Bruch: The Romantic Composer You’ve Never Heard (Enough) Of by Terez Rose

The problem with poor Max Bruch was that he was born too late. What he produced is art that seems to give off an invisible radiance, one you can feel on your flushed cheeks, deep within your heart as you listen. This is art that got overlooked because it came just a little too late in the cycle of things, in the relentless push of progress,  in the seeking out of a new sound, something less classically romantic, more gritty and provocative…
Max Bruch, German composer of the Romantic Era, wrote more than 200 works. Ask any violinist and he’ll nod, maybe even roll his eyes, saying “of course, the Violin Concerto. Played it. Everyone student has.” Or heard it. Or heard Bruch’s celebrated Kol Nidrei for Cello and Orchestra. Or his Scottish Fantasy for violin and orchestra. And that sums up Bruch for most.
Bruch wrote two more violin concertos that, possibly, you’ve never heard (not to mention a gorgeous Serenade for Violin and Orchestra). He wrote three symphonies that, likely, you’ve never heard. I’m listening to the second one right now. It’s cracking my heart open.

The problem with poor Bruch was, you see, he was born too late. He had to follow in the footsteps of German masters of the Romantic Era such as Beethoven, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Brahms. He learned a lot from them. He loved their structured, balanced, lyrical style; it was what he did best. However, by the time Bruch had a really good sound going, the times, they were a-changing. A new kind of Romantic music was piquing the interest of the public, the more flamboyant, passionate styles of Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Wagner, and Bruckner. Bigger orchestras. Bigger risks. Bigger sound, larger than life drama and pathos and redemption all built in.

And like that, the tides had shifted. While Bruch continued on with a successful career, composing, teaching, conducting, what have you, history turned its back on him. It cast him as a side note to the masters and deemed his repertoire, with the exception of his Violin Concerto and Kol Nidrei, largely forgettable. Not music you will hear too frequently in today’s concert halls.

I love Bruch’s other violin concertos, his Serenade for Violin and Orchestra (op. 75), his Romance for Violin and Orchestra (op. 42), his In Memoriam (op. 65). And his symphonies. The No. 2 in F-minor, in particular. The second movement. I am utterly smitten. I play it over and over and it’s as if I can feel the spirits of Schumann and Beethoven. They are hanging out with me here as I sit and listen. Check it out.

Read More:

The Anthropology of the Ethnos: The Shaman, Gender, Identity by Alexander Dugin

Gender and Labor

A gendered division of labor is observed in the most simple and archaic societies. Men primarily hunt and women gather. At the same time, it is thought that the most ancient forms of hunting are catching wild animals with the help of snares, traps and nets, like fishing. The bow and arrow and the spear are invented, among the most archaic societies, under the influence of external impulses.

Women in such societies gather fruit or collect edible roots (in particular, yam). Bound to their children and often pregnant, the women of archaic ethnoses do not wander far from their home. Men, at any rate, move further away.
Care for children and maintenance of the hearth, as well as preparing food, are considered female labor even where light sheds or natural shelters are used for housing. In archaic hamlets, the “home” is the hearth and care for it is practically always and without exception the woman’s prerogative.
These gender functions are also an integral part of gender status. The figure of the “digger,” “gatherer,” “caretaker of the hearth,” the one who “tends to the children,” and “prepares food,” is a female gender set. The one who “leaves far from home,” “hunts for animals” and “has snares” is a male gender set.

In agrarian societies, the gender division of labor changes qualitatively. The significance and value of women grow, since agrarian ethnoses depend vitally on gardens and fields, with which women are predominantly occupied. They secure the stable provision of products, developing their gender labor (gathering close to home) in the direction of artificial organization around the settlement of a cultivated, worked space. In archaic societies, the working the soil by hoe is a woman’s affair. The men, as a rule, engage in planting garden trees, which they place into holes dug by women.
If in agrarian societies the woman cares for the garden and field, the man breeds cattle. Overall, in agrarian societies the woman’s status increases substantially, which can produce either a matriarchal or patriarchal outcome. In the first case, the status set of “women’s masks” acquires an additional degree of freedom, which shows itself in particular in the heightened erotic freedom of girls before marriage and more public functions for primarily older women. In the second case, men begin to relate to woman as an “instrumental value,” leading to polygamy and patriarchy.

Read More: