Wednesday, November 09, 2016

Social Justice Warriors as Neurotic Nanny

John C. Wright comments below on a study of political correctness reported by Canadian free-speech champion Jordan B. Peterson and his rather glamorous student. 

It is a pity the study does not appear to have been released to the academic journals.  It is available only as a lecture series.  From what I gather, however, it seems academically sound. 

He finds that there are two types of political correctness warriors, a "mothering" type and an authoritarian type.  The authoritarian ones go all out to shut up any speech they disagree with while the mothering type provide justifications for that.  Amusingly, the authoritarian ones have a much lower IQ.

Psychologists have long denied that there is such a thing as an authoritarianism of the Left so it is pleasing to see an academic psychology study that had no trouble finding it

Peterson is a tenured professor at the University of Toronto so it is an amusing thing that there is no profile of him on the university website.  You would normally get a list of his publications at least.  They are obviously trying to ignore him.  He has himself fallen victim to politically correct censorship

My comment:

I frankly mistrust scientific-sounding approaches to common sense issues, and the use of statistical analysis of groups of questionnaire responses does not bring any real scientific measurement into the question: it merely tells you how many people said certain things.

But there is an insight hidden here beneath the scientificky jabberwocky which the scholars have found an scientificky jabberwock way to say, to make it sound more definition and impressive.

But the insight is sound.

The brightest angel becomes the darkest devil when he falls.

Germany turned Nazi was more dangerous than Mohammedans turned Wahhabist, because the Germans had more virtue to begin with, being a civilized and advanced Western nation with an organized military and adorned with scientific genius, as opposed to sexual perverted camel-jockeys mired in tribalism unable to field a proper military force, and able only to attack woman and children, and only then from ambush.

Likewise, an intelligent man is more likely to fall deeper into unrepentant sin than a stupid one, as he can bedevil and bedazzled himself with ever more complex intellectual excuses. And likewise again a brave bully is more to be feared than a craven one.

So here too: the maternal and feminine virtue of empathy for one’s child is said to be the source of the madness called Political Correctness. And the female loyalty, or battered wife syndrome, which bids them bid adieu to logic and reason and cleave to whatever strong leader fills the masculine role in their lives, prevents them from heeding any criticism, no matter how justified, once they are mentally trapped in the cult. A mother with a criminal child will always side with the child over law and order. She will never debate the child’s guilt because that simply and utterly does not matter to her.

It is as invisible as x-rays to a blind man. So, too, do the Political Correctness mavins simply not see the crimes committed, in this generation, by Black Lives Matter, by Hillary Clinton, or by Mohammedan terrorists. Any accusations, no matter how airtight the Prosecution’s case, is dismissed as mental aberration, racism, misogyny, Islamophobia,or the like.

In the prior generation, the PC loons likewise could not see any crimes committed by Communists, so that any opposition to communism was a ‘Red Scare’ or ‘McCarthyism’ and paranoia against Mommy’s harmless widdle boy.

It was not that they saw the crimes and discounted them as insignificant. That is not the way Mother’s love works. I assume that to the Mother of Jack the Ripper, the harlots of Whitechapel deserved what they got.

The insight is an excellent one, for one cannot explain the remarkable success of PC lunacy without explain the powerful appeal. The darkest wolf hides between the whitest sheep’s coat.

There were three other things in the clip I’d like to bring to your attention, dear reader:

Note, first,  how blunt the admission that the idea of Rightwing Authoritarianism was propaganda from the Frankfurt School (I reminded of Erich Fromm THE ART OF LOVING, which I had to read in High School)

Note, second, the very trenchant comment at the very end of the clip. It is almost a definition of an ideologue: and ideologue is someone who has a stance on every problem but cannot solve any problem.

He has all the right answers, given by his theory, but none of his answers work.

This is the meaning of ‘ideologue’ to keep in mind the next time you hear a conservative say that conservatism is not an ideology.

Ideologies are utopian daydreams based on theory that demands reality change to fit, and when reality does not, police state tactics are used, first, to enforce a mass-hallucination or mass-roleplaying-game to pretend that it is working, and, second, to genocide the designated scapegoat de jour. The theory is that if enough blood is spilled, reality, the rules of economics, the nature of justice, the laws of history, will all somehow give way.  Reality here is a father figure against whom the spoiled brat of utopia rebels.

Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, or whatever you want to call the radical ideals of the Founding Fathers, is that men not being angels, and Utopia not being an option, the most pragmatic laws and customs must be set in place prudently, carefully, with due regard to the probable human ambitions and weaknesses, self interest, lawerly misinterpretations and abuses, in order to hinder the power of the state from trampling the rights of the individual.

The reason why the Left never contemplates the dangers of self interest, if the theory given above is correct, is that no loving Nanny with a child in pain acts in her own self interest, and no such child need any protection from his loving Nanny.

The question simply never comes up and need never come up.

The Nanny must act, and cannot wait for the child to solve the problem on his own. The idea of leaving the free market, or private charity, or the Church, or anyone else free to solve the problem is unthinkable to them.

Leftist, being mentally disorganized and often mentally deranged, cannot envision or even understand in theory the concept of treating men as grown-ups, equal, self-reliant, responsible. To them, we are all children.

This, by the way, is why the word ‘equality’ when used by the Left means inequality. Equality really means all men being the same rank: no one born with more votes, more dignity, or more civil rights than his brother. But to the Left the word means how a Nanny sees children playing with toys. If the older brother is hogging the ball or the older sister hogs the doll, Nanny will rush in sternly and force each child to have no more toys than the other. That is the only ‘equality’ she knows. The question of whether or not the eldest child worked for forty years with brain and brawn and the sweat and sleepless nights to win his so called toy never occurs to them. The question simply cannot enter their minds.

The idea that one child deserves or earned or have a right to the toy cannot exist in them. Children have rights only insofar as Nanny permits, and if you having a toy makes another baby cry, well, you have to be the big boy and give it up. Anything else is selfish and stubborn and … here is a favorite word of the Left, otherwise incomprehensible when talking about men standing on their rights … mean spirited.

Note, third and last, how useful is the distinction between Egalitarians and Authoritarians here is. A similar distinction would be useful, for political analysis purposes, albeit less useful for rhetoric, between the Alt-Right, the Alt-White, and the Alt-West.

It would be useful for me, at least. I used to be an admirer of the Alt-Right until I spoke at length to several of them.

I would prefer to be an admirer again, if possible.

I would be grateful if someone could tell me in what ways the Alt-Right minus the Alt-White, that is, minus the racist thuggees, differ from libertarians and conservatives, that is, differ from those who believe in limited government of armed voters avowed to forfend abrogations of the Rights of Man in the name of necessity; or differ from those who seek the revival of Christendom, or both.

I myself think it fascinating that the antagonism of socialism versus capitalism, which prevailed my whole life, has finally fallen to nothing.

Those who call themselves socialist these days use an entirely different set of excuses for looting: it is now seen not as a curative for poverty, as Marx saw it, nor as a curative for colonial cruelty to backward natives, as Neomarxists saw it, but as a curative for any and all forms of micro-agressions, unseen insults, invisible acts of oppression, by anyone who can claim any form of victim status whatsoever.

In other words, the modern conflict is not over economics. It is over culture.

Those who wish to defend the West, the conservative Christians, are against those who wish to destroy the West, the globalist elitist nihilists, gnostics and mystics. The Muslims, homosexuals, women, and racial hate-groups are merely means to an end for the nihilists.

The Alt-White stand firmly against Western institutions and Church teachings and the very idea of equality under the law or equality in the eyes of God. They are respecters of persons, and their respect is based on birth and bloodline, as aristocrats of old. God is no respecter of persons, and judges each man on his merit, as all men of good will should also.

Whether they like it or not, they are part of the problem they say they are trying to solve.

For the devil sends all ills into history in pairs, that a man who flees blindly from the one falls blindly into the other. The ardent anti-Communist becomes a Nazi, just as the ardent Nazi becomes a Communist, never knowing both groups were organized by one movement. So, too, here, the anti-White racists of the Left provoke blind ardor in their foes who, eager to avoid the madness of anti-White racism, rush into pro-White racism.

Both are collectivist. Both are against Greek philosophy, Roman law, Canon law, and Common law, common sense, and the teaching of the Church. Even racial slavery, that sickness that started during the Reformation, is an import from Mohammedanism into Christendom. The slavery practiced in the Fourth and Third Century was more like our indentured servitude, and slavery was unknown in Europe in what are called the Dark Ages.

But the Alt-West and other subgenres within the Alt-Right? They have brought a zest and a fire to the fight against the PC thought police I have not seen the conservative leadership ever display, and which I have, to my anger and outrage, seen conservative leadership despise and disarm.

Which ever Alt of any brand is in favor of Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump, I side with you. We have a common foe and blood to shed together.

Which ever Alt of any brand mocks the Bible, the Constitution, the Rights of Man, or the concept of equality of rank under the law, or who glorifies, excuses, or glosses over Nazism, or plays the apologist for the Holocaust, away with you. Return to the devil, your father.


Maine Gov.: I'm not letting any more refugees into state

Maine Governor Paul LePage says he’s making big changes to how Maine participates in the federal refugee resettlement program, CBS affiliate WGME reports.

Friday afternoon, when the governor was in the WGME studio, he said the state would stop helping resettle refugees here in Maine.

He’s sent a letter to the president, ending the state’s participation in the program.

It’s a controversial move, but he says he’s just lost confidence in the federal government’s ability to safely and responsibly run the refugee program.

In the letter, he goes on to say he no longer wants Maine associated with that shortcoming.

He cites an example of a refugee living in Freeport, who went back to Syria and died fighting for ISIS.

He says the state has also found welfare fraud especially prevalent within the refugee community, but during our interview, he stressed safety, and concerns the program puts American lives at risk.

“The president of the United States is bringing in immigrants from Syria without vetting them,” LePage said. “He says they’re vetted; how do you vet someone you don’t have records on? I just sent him a letter today we’re pulling out of the refugee program.”

Texas, Kansas and New Jersey have also cut ties with the fed’s refugee resettlement program.

While the state can’t block refugees from entering, it can refuse to help with the process, which is what appears to be happening here.

A spokesperson for Catholic Charities of Maine said they were disappointed in the decision.

“We have had a good working relationship with the State over many years on the refugee resettlement program and we are disappointed in this decision. And we are disappointed the governor did not contact us directly,” says Judy Katzel, chief communications & development officer for Catholic Charities Maine.

The ACLU released a statement following the governor’s remarks: “Gov. LePage wants to make us afraid of people who are different from us by saying things that are not true. The truth is, refugees are the most heavily vetted people in this country. Thankfully, the governor does not have the power to stop refugees from coming to Maine. Maine is a welcoming state, and we will continue to welcome refugees with open arms.”


Amnesty Would Cost Taxpayers Trillions, National Academy of Sciences Report Indicates

The long-term costs to taxpayers of immigrants and their descendants are detailed in a new report from the National Academy of Sciences.

The findings in the report indicate that if amnesty for illegal immigrants were enacted, the government would have to raise taxes immediately by $1.29 trillion and put that sum into a high-yield bank account to cover future fiscal losses generated by the amnesty recipients and their children.

To cover the future cost, each U.S. household currently paying federal income tax would have to pay, on average, an immediate lump sum of over $15,000.

The National Academy of Sciences report, “The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration,” provides fiscal balance projections for immigrants and their descendants over 75 years.

The fiscal balance of an individual equals all government taxes paid minus all benefits received. Federal, state, and local benefits and taxes are included in the estimates.

The NAS report, released a few weeks ago, shows that the fiscal balances of immigrants vary greatly according to education level: Immigrants with low education levels impose substantial fiscal costs that extend far into the future. The government benefits they will receive greatly exceed the taxes they will pay.

This is critical because current illegal immigrants have very low education levels.

Around 10 million adult illegal immigrants currently are in the U.S. Nearly half don’t have a high school diploma. Overall, adult illegal immigrants are six times more likely to lack that diploma than are U.S.-born residents.

Illegal immigrants currently receive routine government services such as roads, sewers, and police and fire protection. The children of illegal immigrants currently receive heavily subsidized public education at an average cost of $12,000 per child per year.

Children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. are eligible for the same welfare benefits (such as food stamps, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) as children born to U.S citizens.

Because illegal immigrant families already receive many government benefits and services, they currently impose a fiscal cost on taxpayers. The benefits they receive exceed taxes paid.

Amnesty or “earned citizenship” would provide current illegal immigrants access to an additional level of expensive government entitlements and benefits.

All of the major “comprehensive” immigration reform or “earned citizenship” bills debated in Congress since 2006 would have granted nearly all current illegal immigrants eligibility for future Social Security and Medicare benefits after 10 years of work. These bills also would have given amnesty recipients access to almost the entire U.S. welfare system, after modest delays.

In effect, amnesty would give current illegal immigrants access to the same government benefits as immigrants who are here legally. Thus, as a general rule of thumb, the long-term fiscal balance of an illegal immigrant, after amnesty, would be roughly equal to the cost of a current legal immigrant with the same age and education level.

The NAS report does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. But, as noted, the report does provide fiscal projections for immigrants at different education levels. Because the education level of adult illegal immigrants is approximately known, the NAS projections enable us to project the future fiscal costs of illegal immigrants if they were granted amnesty or “earned citizenship” as a group.

Based on the education level of illegal immigrants, the NAS figures project that the net fiscal cost (benefits minus taxes) for 10 million adult illegal immigrants after receiving amnesty would have a net present value of negative $1.29 trillion.

The concept of “net present value” is complex; it places a much lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures. One way to grasp net present value is that it represents that total amount of money that would have to be raised today and put in a bank account earning 3 percent interest above the inflation rate in order to cover future costs.

As noted above, this means that if amnesty were enacted, government would have to immediately raise taxes by $1.29 trillion and put that sum into a high-yield bank account to cover the future fiscal losses that will be generated by the amnesty recipients and their children.

And to cover the future cost, each U.S. household currently paying federal income tax would have to pay, on average, an immediate lump sum of over $15,000.

Of course, if the federal government were to grant amnesty, it would not actually raise current taxes by $1.29 trillion and put the money in a high-yield bank to cover the future costs. Instead, in the government’s normal pattern, the costs would be unfunded and passed on to future years.

Converting a net present value figure into future outlays requires information on the exact distribution of costs over time; unfortunately, that data is not provided by the National Academy of Sciences. However, a rough estimate of future net outlays to be paid by taxpayers (in constant 2012 dollars) for illegal immigrants after amnesty is around $3.6 trillion over 75 years.

Advocates of amnesty have suggested that low-skill immigrants generate large-scale positive economic results that benefit U.S. workers. The NAS report finds no evidence of such effects.

On the other hand, the report clearly shows that the continuing inflow of low-skill immigrants into the U.S. creates large fiscal burdens for taxpayers in the present and the future.

Moreover, granting amnesty is likely to generate even greater flows of illegal immigrants into the United States, adding even more costs.


Australia: The anti-democratic Left shows its colours

Democracy is only good if it leads to the "right" answers

The Federal Government's bid to hold a plebiscite on whether to legalise same sex marriage has been defeated in the Senate. The proposal was voted down on Monday night in the Upper House 33 votes to 29.

The Attorney-General George Brandis had warned that a defeat would result in delaying same sex marriage in Australia for years to come.

But the Federal Opposition says the plebiscite would have resulted in harmful debate against the gay and lesbian community and want a direct vote in Parliament, instead.

Labor and the Greens were joined by the Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch to defeat the bill, while the Coalition secured the support of the One Nation Party, the Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm and Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie.

Liberal Senator Dean Smith abstained from voting in Parliament late on Monday night.

It ends 14-months of debate over the fate of the plebiscite, which was first proposed by the former prime minister Tony Abbott and taken by his successor Malcolm Turnbull to the 2016 federal election.

The Federal Government said it was the quickest way to achieve same sex marriage, promising a plebiscite would be held in February 2017, with Mr Turnbull confident it would be supported by the public.

But the Federal Opposition, joined by an increasing number of gay and lesbian groups, argued it would result in divisive debate that would have hurt vulnerable members of the community.

It also attacked the proposed $170 million price tag for the plebiscite.

Attorney-General George Brandis earlier criticised Labor for opposing the plebiscite.

"Stop playing politics with gay people's lives, because that is all that you are doing," Senator Brandis told Parliament.

"A vote against this bill is a vote against marriage equality."

"And those who claim to believe in marriage equality, but nevertheless, for their own cynical, game-playing reasons, are determined to vote against it, should hang their heads in shame."

Labor Senator Louise Pratt described the plebiscite as "an utterly demeaning act."

"No child should have their family status a subject of public debate like this."

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said the gay and lesbian community had lobbied strongly for the plebiscite bill to be defeated.

"I've lost count of the number of my LGBTIQ friends who have urged and begged us not to support this plebiscite."

Chair of Australian Marriage Equality Alex Greenwich said supporters of same sex marriage should refocus efforts on a direct vote in Parliament to change the Marriage Act.

"We know that a majority of Australians, indeed a majority of parliamentarians, support this reform."

"We hope that we can all work together to finally get this through our Parliament."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: