Author: Bill Vallicella

Why Won’t Leftists Enforce Existing Laws?

A reason, perhaps the main reason, may be gleaned from the following graphic:

The above stats are clearly in the ball park according to every study I have read. Heather Mac Donald has done outstanding work on this topic. I refer you to her.

One reason why leftists won't enforce existing laws is because (1) doing so would have a "disproportional impact on blacks," and (2) such disproportionality violates the value of 'equity' to which leftists subscribe.

Leftists (mis)use 'equity' to mean equality of outcome or result. 'Equity' is at or near the top of the Left's axiological hierarchy:  a high or the highest value to be striven for in our social and political arrangements. 

Someone who accepts both (1) and (2) will be loathe to enforce existing laws against homicide and other crimes. 

Now (1) is undoubtedly true. The reason is simple: blacks as a group commit more crimes than the other groups mentioned.  And so it follows that their incarceration rates are higher.  This is so even after we subtract off unjust convictions due to racial bias among jurors, and the malfeasance of corrupt judges, overzealous careerist prosecutors, and bad cops. 

(2), however, is undoubtedly false.  The reason is that 'equity' is a disvalue, not a value. The word as used by leftists is a neologism that conflates the distinction between equality in legitimate and attainable senses (equality of opportunity, equality before the law, treating like cases in a like manner, and such related ideas as due process which are the glory of the Anglo-American legal system) and, on the other hand, equality of outcome, which is unattainable except by police-state means, and even then not sustainable for long: life's  natural hierarchies will inevitably reassert themselves.

It might go like this: the USA under the yoke of 'woke' continues to weaken itself until it collapses under the  effect of its own decadence in synergy with  external attack and invasion by its geopolitical enemies. It is a good bet that this is in our near future, within ten years.  It is not inevitable, but there is no reason to be sanguine about the prospects of push-back. The oligarchic deep state will do everything and anything to crush Donald J. Trump and will of course if necessary attempt an 'Ecuadorean solution.' 

If the USA collapses, then the natural hierarchy of aptitude, ability, resoluteness, etc, will have reasserted itself.  We will then both collectively and individually face the Islamist-Sino-Russki trilemma: either embrace and affirm the new order, or accept political-cum-religious dhimmitude, or 'be put to the sword,' if not literally then by cancellation of livelihood and incarceration.

There will never be, and their cannot be, equality of outcome or result over the long haul because of the different aptitudes and abilities and interests of different peoples and groups of people.  

Thomas Mann on Blogging

Thomas Mann: Diaries 1918-1939 (Abrams, 1982, tr. R & C Winston), p. 194:

I love this process by which each passing day is captured, not only in its impressions, but also, at least by suggestion, its intellectual direction and content as well, less for the purpose of rereading and remembering than for taking stock, reviewing, maintaining awareness, achieving perspective . . . .

I agree, although for me rereading and remembering have as much value as the taking stock, etc. There is the pleasure of writing but also that of rereading and rethinking what one has written.

As for remembering a passage such as one above, its notation allows me to pull the book off the shelf and return to the pleasurable semantic penumbra which is the quotation's context. 

The China Convergence

This Substack piece by N. S. Lyons is very long but very good. I invite my top commenters — I won't name names lest I inadvertently omit someone — to weigh  in on it or parts of it. The drift of the piece is announced early on:

. . .when it comes to the most fundamental political questions, China and the United States are not diverging but converging to become more alike.

In fact, I can already predict and describe the winner set to prevail in this epochal competition between these two fiercely opposed national systems. In this soon-to-be triumphant system…

Despite a rhetorical commitment to egalitarianism and “democracy,” the elite class deeply distrusts and fears the people over whom it rules. These elites have concentrated themselves into a separate oligarchic political body focused on prioritizing and preserving their rule and their own overlapping set of shared interests. Wracked by anxiety, they strive constantly to maximize their control over the masses, rationalizing a need to forcefully maintain stability in the face of dangerous threats, foreign and domestic. Everything is treated as an emergency. “Safety” and “security” have become be the watchwords of the state, and of society generally.

Who can deny that given the events of the last few days?

Deeper in, the following passage caught my attention due to my interest in Carl Schmitt:

Across the West, the managerial elite therefore immediately went into a frenzy over the danger allegedly presented by “populism” and launched their own revolt, declaring a Schmittian state of exception in which all the standard rules and norms of democratic politics could be suspended in order to respond to this existential “crisis.” In fact, some began to question whether democracy itself might have to be suspended in order to save it.

“It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses,” New York Time Magazine journalist James Traub thundered with an iconic 2016 piece in Foreign Policy magazine. This quickly became a view openly and proudly embraced among the managerial elite, who no longer hesitated to express their frustration with democracy and its voters. (“Did I say ‘ignorant’? Yes, I did. It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them,” Traub declared.) “Too Much Democracy is Killing Democracy,” is how a 2019 article published by neocon rag The Bulwark put it, arguing for Western nations to take their “bitter technocratic medicine” and establish “a political, social, and cultural compact that makes participation by many unnecessary.”

My posts on Carl Schmitt are collected here. Most relevant is perhaps A Good Summary of the Political Thinking of Carl Schmitt. (Written 17 February 2019)

Asian Family Harrassed by Three Black Teens on NYC Subway

Leftists have something like the Midas touch. Everything  King Midas touched turned to gold; most of what leftists touch turns to crap. NYC and San Fran are prime examples. No surprise that these crapholes are bleeding population 'big time.' 

The Asians, bien-pensant 'liberals' apparently, blamc 'society' and not the racism of the black teens.  

More than a soupçon of absurdity is added to the story by the fact that "Cops are calling it a hate crime – something the Youngs say shouldn't be the case."

I rather doubt that the Youngs understand why it should not be a 'hate crime,' but Nat Hentoff does. 

Nat Hentoff on 'Hate Crime' Laws

An oldie but a goodie less than six minutes long by the late,  great civil libertarian.  We of the Coalition of the Sane and Reasonable need to punch back hard against the willfully self-enstupidated wokesters who promote 'hate crime' blather. As Hentoff points out, 'hate crime' is thought crime.

Here is a recent example of what we are up against:

“Under the proposed statute, ‘intimidate and harass’ can mean whatever the victim, or the authorities, want them to mean. The focus is on how the victim feels rather than on a clearly defined criminal act. This is a ridiculously vague and subjective standard,” he said.

“The absence of intent makes no difference under this law. You are still guilty of the crime because the victim felt uncomfortable.

“The bill will lead to the prosecution of conservatives, pastors, and parents attending a school board meeting for simply expressing their opposition to the liberal agenda,” Kallman said.

The proposed statute is obviously insane and anti-civilizational as any reasonable person will immediately discern. Like it or not we are now in the Age of Feeling.  

Let it be noted en passant that 'liberal agenda' is not quite the right phrase; 'hard' Left' and 'woke' are more fitting adjectives.  To say it again: don't confuse a classical with a contemporary liberal. The latter slouches toward the Gomorrah of wokery. A pox be upon all who so slouch.

Related: The Age of Feeling or the Age of Pussies?

The Asian family story here.

Diplomad 2.0 on the Biden ‘Special’ Counsel

We all know it's a joke, a joke worthy of that all-time jokester and comedian, Lavrenti Beria.

Beria would have appreciated AG Garland's "sudden" naming of a Special Counsel to look into Hunter Biden, this after years of saying no SC was needed. He also would have appreciated that the Special Counsel (SC) named is none other than US Attorney David Weiss (another miserable Trump appointment), who "investigated" Hunter for the past three three years: remember the laptop? On top of it, Beria would have appreciated how Garland has violated the law by picking Weiss; the law requires that the SC come from outside of the government, certainly not be a DOJ Attorney and the one, on top of it all, who has protected the Biden Crime Family (BCF) for these past three years. Let us not forget that Weiss masterminded that other joke: the "plea deal" for Hunter which would have allowed that crackhead to skate on serious tax fraud and gun charges that would have put any of us in the slammer for years.

Well, of course, it turned out some honest judge threw out the plea deal as it contained promises of, in essence, permanent immunity for Hunter from any other prosecutions. 

Read it all.  Garland & Co. see themselves and their 'president' as above the law while piously intoning, "No man is above the law, not even the president of the United States."  

Edith Stein: Faith, Reason, and Method

Top o' the Stack.

August 9th is the feast day of St. Theresa Benedicta of the Cross in the Catholic liturgy.  She is better known to philosophers as Edith Stein (1891-1942), brilliant Jewish student of and assistant to Edmund Husserl, philosopher in her own right, Roman Catholic convert, Carmelite nun, victim of the Holocaust at Auschwitz, and saint of the Roman Catholic Church. One best honors a philosopher by re-enacting his thoughts, sympathetically but critically. Herewith, a bit of critical re-enactment.

In the 1920s Stein composed an imaginary dialogue between her two philosophical masters, Edmund Husserl and Thomas Aquinas. Part of what she has them discussing is the nature of faith.

 

Matt Taibbi

Campaign 2024, Officially Chaos. Excerpts:

The cognoscenti never figured out or accepted that the support for protest candidates like Trump or Bernie Sanders even is rooted in wide generalized rage directed their way. To this day they don’t accept it. They keep thinking they can wish it away, describe it away (see Bump’s description of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as “not at this point serious competition”), indict it away. If you drop 76 charges on a candidate and he goes up in polls, you might want to consider that you might be part of the problem. But they can’t take even that heavy a hint.

[. . .]

Democrats meanwhile are repeating the process of cooling turnout by blasting their own protest candidate, and instead of an alert-if-off-putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket, the standard-bearer is a half-sentient, influence-peddling version of Donovan’s Brain, with no one behind him but Kamala Harris — who just got asked by a trying-to-be-friendly reporter at ABC if “race and gender” were a cause of her own historically low approval rating. Absent a big switch, our future is either Donald Trump, who by next year will be in more restraints than Hannibal Lecter on the tarmac, or this DNC dog’s breakfast. Other countries are surely already laughing. It’s getting harder to resist joining them.

A Short History of Slavery

Candace Owens, about five and a half minutes.  A crisp refutation of widespread leftist lies and omissions. Do your bit and propagate this video.

"Truth is not a leftist value." (Dennis Prager) Some of you think that I came up with the line. Not so. I got it from Prager. Always give credit where credit is due. Or are you a plagiarist like Joe Biden?

His plagiarism is a comparatively minor element given the depth of his moral corruption, as is becoming increasingly evident. The case against Biden 2024 is massive even if you don't agree with me that the hard-Left/'woke' policies this puppet promotes are destructive unto national suicide.

Political views aside, anyone can see that Biden is physically unfit for office and non compos mentis, not of sound mind. These two absolutely undeniable points disqualify him, especially as commander-in-chief. (Our geopolitical adversaries are licking their chops and testing the old fool with blatant provocations in preparation for events that few want to talk about.) Biden's supporters will deny his moral corruption; their denial, however, only serves to make evident their moral corruption and disregard for facts.

Beware of Projecting . . .

. . . your attitudes and values into others.

Leader of the Stack. Excerpts:

We are not all the same 'deep down,' and we don't all want the same things. You say you value peace and social harmony? So do I. But some are bellicose right out of the box. They love war and thrive on conflict, and not just verbally.  

It is dangerous to assume that others are like we are.  (I am thinking right now of a very loving and lovable female neighbor  who makes that dangerous assumption: she has a 'Coexist' sticker affixed to her bumper.)

Liberal 'projectionism' — to give it a name— can get your irenic self killed.

Coexist sticker
 
[. . .]
 

There can be no peaceful coexistence in one and the same geographical area over the long term except under classical liberalism.  For classical liberalism alone is tolerant of deep differences and is alone respectful of our equally deep ignorance of the ultimate truth about the ultimate matters.  Why must we be tolerant? Because we do not know. The classical liberal  is keenly aware of the evil in the human heart and of the necessity of limited government and dispersed power. So he is justified in making war against fanaticism, one-sidedness, and totalitarian systems of government whether theocratic or 'leftocratic.'  It would not be a war of extermination but one of limitation. It would also be limited to one's geographical area and not promoted abroad to impose the values of classical liberalism on the benighted tribalists of the Middle East and elsewhere.

Finally, can American conservatism and the ideology of the Democrat Party in its contemporary incarnation peacefully coexist? Obviously not, which is why there is a battle for the soul of America. Either we defeat the totalitarian Left or we face a nasty trilemmatic trident: acquiesce and convert; or accept dhimmitude; or be cancelled in one’s livelihood and then eventually in one's life.

Facing Reality: Two Truths About Race in America

Some notes on Charles Murray. Substack latest.

Includes a comment by 'Jacques,' a credentialed philosopher who dare not appear under his real name in these race-delusional and totalitarian times.

The Republic is collapsing into a police state. Here is another bit of evidence of how the totalitarian state can and will mercilessly crush anyone it wants to for any reason it can fabricate. In this case a harmless January 6th trespasser is labelled an 'insurrectionist' and a 'terrorist' and sentenced to prison. He committed suicide.  Propagate the video. 

David Brooks

Read for free his What if We Are the Bad Guys Here? 

I invite Vito Caiati's comments and anyone else's who is capable of saying something intelligent and to the point.

Addendum 8/6

I wonder if David Brooks can understand the point of the graphic below. In its third clause, the First Amendment guarantees free speech and the freedom of the press.  Now there was evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election.  Maybe a lot, maybe a little. No matter. But even if there was none all, we all have the right to express our opinion on the question, even Donald J. Trump. No man is below the law! Not even the president of the United States.  By indicting him, the deep state operatives in the DOJ, CIA, FBI, NSA, the White House, and wherever else are plainly interfering with the  2024 election.

And yet these people go on and on about democracy. But what could be more anti-democratic than election fraud?