Group identity: Some thoughts for the new year

The term "race" must now be regarded as obsolete. Leftists use the term "racist" to refer to a great variety of apparently unrelated things so the term is no longer informative. So I will NOT use the term here.

"Group identity", on the other hand is very widely and uncontroversially used. Leftists talk of little else. They talk of gays, transexuals, blacks and Christians with great abandon. They like the first three of those group identities and despise the latter.

I am very happy with that sort of usage but disagree with the values that Leftists put on the identities concerned. I think that gays and transexuals are unfortunate; I note the century of research that has shown people of predominantly African ancestry to be of markedly lower average IQ and I think that Christians are a major support of civilized society.

But the thing that I deplore most is the overwhelming attention that minority identities get in the media. It is greatly disproportionate to the numbers concerned. Like most people, I relate best to people like myself and as a WASP, I am interested mostly in news about people in that group.

But I usually have to plow through news about various minorities and their pronouns before I get to news that interests me. I would like it better for equity to be observed in news stories, with people who constitute (say) 2% of the population appearing in only 2% of the stories I encounter. But I know that I will have to put up with being bored by much of what does actually appear. I will survive the imbalance, however. It's no real burden to skip stories about transexuals (etc.) and I do.

Another group preference I have concerns people's appearance. To me the people of Northern Europe all look the same. By appearance alone I cannot tell the difference between the native people of England, Ireland, Nederland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Poland and Russia. They have a high frequency of blue eyes and blond hair during childhood but neither of those things are universal among them.

But they do tend to have what was once called "fine features", which I take to mean narrow noses, thin lips and a long, narrow head. Round heads are not "fine". And since my ancestors were transplants from that Northern group I am identifiably part of it.

And I like the appearance of the group to which I belong. The converse of that liking is that I tend to dislike the appearance of people who do not have fine features. A person with a flat nose, thick lips and a round head looks unattractive to me and I would prefer not to have them in my environment. Mostly I get that wish. I live in a place populated mostly by Northern transplants like me. And the largest minority is Chinese, who often have VERY fine features

Below is an example of a face that I would rather not see in my surroundings. No personal discredit to her, though. Bess Price was a Country Liberal Party member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 2012 to 2016.



And a Northern lady with fine features below



It's Ingeborg Hallstein in her earlier years. Hear her incredible coloratura voice here:

*****************************************

The Left did very well in 2022

Pundits reviewing 2022 are heaving a palpable sigh of relief. This was the year, or so the consensus goes, when far-right strongmen such as Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro were enfeebled, China stumbled and the “West” made a comeback, at least against Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Such assessments, nostalgic for a lost “liberal international order,” ignore a more widespread development: how a general discontent with the old order, exacerbated by the pandemic, is fueling a revival of the left in Latin America, Europe and Australasia.

The trend can be seen most clearly in Latin American countries that have long been tormented by extremes of poverty and inequality. Returning to power in Brazil in October, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva heads a remarkably long victory parade by leftists throughout the region. In June, Colombia elected its first leftist president in Gustavo Petro. Gabriel Boric became in December 2021 the most left-wing president of Chile since Salvador Allende. Bolivian President Luis Arce came to power in 2020. In 2019 in Argentina, Alberto Fernández defeated an incumbent right-wing president. A year earlier, Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador won in a landslide. (Pedro Castillo’s ouster in Peru after a failed attempt to dissolve congress stands as the movement’s one notable reverse.)

Australia, New Zealand and many European countries provide additional context for why so many voters are turning to social-democratic, and in some cases avowedly socialist, leaders. In the simplest terms, the benefits of globalization are shrinking and, as the prices of essentials such as energy and food soar, voters expect more social protections from governments. This is why center-left parties — from Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party in New Zealand to Pedro Sanchez’s Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) in Spain — share an emphasis on improved wages, better job security and more public goods.

This is a step away from the goals of privatization and marketization that since the 1980s have been energetically pursued by not only right-wing but also center-left and even some socialist parties in Britain, France, Germany, Sweden and other countries. Public opinion has shifted; the ideological hegemony of the so-called “ Third Way” of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder now survives mostly in small bubbles, chief among them journalists and commentators over the age of 40.

Another preserve is Britain’s Labour Party, whose Blairite leader Keir Starmer and supporters in the media currently find themselves out of step with overwhelming public support for striking public-sector workers. Today’s cannier social democrats such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Portugal’s Socialist President Antonio Costa work with the insight that the neglect of the welfare state, the shredding of the social security net and the rise of inequality — in part, consequences of the Third Way that were experienced with deeper pain during the pandemic — were what pushed many voters to the far-right. To get them back, leaders have to recreate some part of the old compact between the social-democratic left and the weak, the insulted and the injured. Thus, Scholz’s election campaign ran on the theme “respect for you” ( Respekt für Dich).

That said, too much should not be read into the increasingly close relations between Germany’s Scholz, Spain’s Sanchez and Portugal’s Costa, or in the Socialist International conference in Madrid in November, which was presided over by Sanchez and attended by several heads of state.

Leftists today are very far from the clear and confident consensus that in the 1970s united such European leaders as Willy Brandt, Olof Palme, Bruno Kreisky and François Mitterrand, and extended deep into governments and political movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. For one, electorates have fractured, probably irrevocably, and most social democrats and socialists today come to power in coalition governments with narrow margins of victory.

They have little scope for structural transformations and the new alliances they create are precarious. While winning back alienated working classes, they cannot afford to lose the progressive and professional middle classes in metropolitan areas, as well as young activists seeking climate and gender justice.

But this dilemma is not unsolvable. As inflation peaks amid the unending crises of a pandemic and war in Ukraine, fear of the future will make many more people than before look to governments for social and economic security.

And politicians who respond to this widespread longing for reassurance are likely to do better than those still going on about how free markets will unleash entrepreneurial spirits and turbocharge growth. For example, after lagging behind for years, Spain’s PSOE has in recent months overtaken the right-wing Partido Popular (PP) in opinion polls with a program of public spending funded by tax hikes on banks, utility companies and large fortunes.

In reaction, a cornered right is likely to become even more intransigently radical, ramping up its culture wars. Those celebrating the return of the West in 2022 ought to turn their focus to what’s likely to be the main event of next year: how, after years of ideological confusion and stalemate, the real battle for hearts and minds will be led by a freshly reconstructed left.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-12-28/global-left-made-a-comeback-in-2022-politics#xj4y7vzkg

*****************************************************

The Falsehood of White Privilege

One of the Left’s favorite ways of attacking Whites in general and men in particular is to accuse them of benefiting from white privilege. Their only goal in doing so is the attainment of more power for themselves.

During the past few years, the concept of “white privilege” has taken hold of the Democratic Party and those on the Left. The idea is that all White people have enjoyed and still enjoy privileges and advantages by virtue of their being white, and this state of affairs leaves “people of color” at a structural disadvantage in almost all human endeavors—bringing up a family, getting into college, succeeding in work or business, buying a home and more. The concept of white privilege is used as a cudgel against the Left’s opponents, not to help Black people or others but rather to concentrate power in the hands of politicians, college administrators, woke corporate professionals, entertainers and the like. White privilege is a falsehood in more ways than one.

At the most basic level, the United States has such a mixed and diverse population that there is unfortunately no shortage of poor Whites, whether in Appalachia or in towns where the jobs moved out and fentanyl moved in. Additionally, there are many “people of color” who are wealthy or super-wealthy. Who has privilege—a millionaire Black businessman who grew up in a middle class family or a poor White man whose family has been barely getting by in coal country for generations? Beyond the fact that there are many Americans who do not fit into the patently false narrative of specifically white privilege, the concept itself is based on a falsehood antithetical to the “American Way.”

In the past, when America was a more religious country, one realized that his or her task in this world was to take whatever was given and make the most out of it in a lifetime. If one was born into wealth, then more was expected by society as well as by the person himself. This concept was expressed as noblesse oblige and for generations well-to-do Americans saw it as their obligation to use their positions and means to serve the country in the armed forces, charities, and/or government. Have you ever noticed that older hospitals tend to have religious names like St. Mary, Mount Sinai, or Lutheran General where I was born. Industrialist Andrew Carnegie used part of his wealth to build over two thousand libraries worldwide and Vannevar Bush left MIT to run the Army’s scientific war effort when his country needed his expertise. The president of Harvard joined him.

It was expected that those who had advantages in this world would give back to those who did not and to their country that helped them to make it. Privilege brought with it responsibility and while not all wealthy people helped those in need, there are many examples even today of those who dedicate part of their wealth or time to advance others. The last time I was at the Hadassah Hospital here in Jerusalem, I saw the new Bloomberg wing for mother and child. One may not like the man’s politics or his media empire, but clearly Michael Bloomberg feels that part of his wealth should be used to help others. Even as mayor of New York, he spent $12 million of his own money on city projects. Michael Bloomberg was born to a bookkeeper father and an at-home mother.

Bloomberg believed that financial companies would want business-related information in real time and would be willing to pay for it. He took a large risk and could have failed with his news company if the market was not as he thought or if someone had done it better. There was no guarantee that he would succeed, and had he failed, nobody would have come to help pick up the pieces. He took a risk and succeeded. For every successful inventor or entrepreneur, there are dozens whose bets did not pay off. Each of us is expected to use all that is available to us with our own effort and risk-taking to get as far along in life as possible. Guaranteeing outcomes means that people like Bloomberg would have no reason to take the risks.

There are two ways to get more even outcomes—help those in need to get ahead or to punish those who are successful by pulling them down. The Left’s goal of leveling the playing field by pulling down those who took that which they were given and made something out of it will not help the poor. Denying Whites admission or advancement will not make non-Whites more successful. Harvard admitted in court that without their denying many Asian students acceptance to the undergraduate college, the Black population on campus would be much smaller. Harvard’s goal should have been to help Black students become more competitive prior to applying. Harming Asian applicants who threw themselves into their studies and activities to be worthy of admission is a sign of a failed admission system. The lawsuit brought by Asian student organizations against Harvard was recently heard by the Supreme Court.

The goal of throwing white privilege at people who of no fault of their own were born Caucasian and of means or backgrounds not of their choosing will not help Blacks, Hispanics and others to succeed. The goal is simply to pull down those who strive so that we can all be mediocre together. Rather than demanding that rigorous standards be met for college acceptance, joining the SEALs or being accepted for pilot training, standards are lowered—even the SAT is being abandoned. Those who succeed are not lauded for their efforts and determination but rather are accused of being recipients of gifts and background conditions that were unfair as if their personal efforts in maximizing the usefulness of their starting conditions were meaningless.

Claims of white privilege are based on the destructive idea that we should all have equality of outcomes (“equity”) rather than allowing each and every American to succeed according to his/her abilities and personal efforts. By demanding equality of outcomes and accusing Whites of having some privilege that gives them an unfair leg up in all of life’s activities, those on the Left are demanding mediocrity; they are effectively telling students not to push themselves, not to try their best, because whatever they do, the results are not theirs and that their successes have been at the expense of others.

Accusing Whites of having unfair advantage will not help “people of color” succeed. That which is needed is a focus on the family in Black communities. Black births out of wedlock in the US are greater than 50 percent. The most important factor in success is not money but rather family. Children study, learn to take risks, and push themselves because they know that their families have their backs. Stable and successful Black families will do more to advance Black men and women to success than all the efforts to punish Whites for being white. Tiger Woods’ son is already playing golf with his dad. There is no question that he has an enormous advantage over future golfers of his age. Should he be punished? Should he be accused of privilege and denied a professional golf career? Of course not. He should be encouraged to push himself to become an amazing athlete and golfer like his dad if he sees golf as his future.

One reads now and then of Whites being punished for no other crime than the color of their skin. Whether it is a sign-language translator fired from his job on Broadway or teacher candidates denied jobs because of their skin color, Whites are being told that because of a supposed privilege they inherited, they do not deserve to work or to benefit from their skills and efforts. United Airlines has made much noise about wanting to have a more diverse flight crew. My only concern as a passenger in the back is having the best pilots at the front of the plane; I could not care less if it is a man or a woman, or what color he or she is. Not for United. Will they sacrifice pilot quality to reach their minority pilot quota? Will anyone take responsibility if something goes wrong in the air? Of course not. In business and government, nobody takes responsibility for failure.

A person is charged in this world with using whatever skills, gifts, and opportunities he or she has with a personal drive to get as far along in life as possible. There is no question that for some the road to success is longer and harder than for others, but pulling down one group will not help others to succeed. I once heard an interview with the daughter of a very famous musician. She said that her last name automatically got her auditions, but if she could not perform on the piano at the highest professional level, her father’s name and reputation would not help her land a job. America needs to focus on encouraging and supporting those who wish to succeed, regardless of skin color or starting point. Success must be seen as what you did with yourself and not where you started.

https://townhall.com/columnists/alanjosephbauer/2022/12/31/the-falsehood-of-white-privilege-n2617631

*************************************************************

The New, New Antisemitism

Victor Davis Hanson

The old antisemitism was more a right-wing than a left-wing phenomenon - perhaps best personified by the now-withered Ku Klux Klan.

New antisemitism followed from the campus leftism of the 1960s. It arose from and was masked by a general hatred of Israel, following the Jewish state's incredible victory in the 1967 Six-Day War.

That lopsided triumph globally transformed Israel in the leftist mind from a David fighting the Arab Goliath into a veritable Western imperialist, neocolonialist overdog.

On campuses, Middle-East activism, course instruction, and faculty profiles are now virulently anti-Israel - and indistinguishable from anti-Jewishness.

When columnist Ben Shapiro spoke at Stanford University in 2019, left-wing posters were plastered around campus depicting Shapiro as an insect menace. A "BenBGon" bug spray bottle in Nazi fashion unsubtly suggested that a chemical agent is the best remedy to make sure Jews "be gone" from the premises.

The avowed socialist Representative Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., retweeted the old propaganda boast, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

Tlaib knew well "to the sea" could mean only the extinction of Israel itself and its 9 million Jews. She deleted her tweet, but only after an outcry of protest.

Anti-Zionists and leftist Palestinian activists Linda Sarsour and Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. - "it's all about the Benjamins" - often made no effort to hide their antisemitism.

Yet now a dangerous new, new antisemitism is trending, predominantly among African-Americans - especially prominent politicians, celebrities, and billionaires.

The old trope that blacks inordinately were prejudiced against Jews due to past inner-city stereotypes of exploiting Jewish landlords has been recalibrated. It is now repackaged by black elites claiming that their careers are overly profitable to and orchestrated by "the Jews."

It has been difficult to find any major black leader who has not trafficked in antisemitism, whether Jesse Jackson ("Hymietown"), Al Sharpton ("tell them to pin their yarmulkes back"), Louis Farrakhan ("gutter religion") or former President Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright ("Them Jews").

Yet what is different about the new, new antisemitism is the open defiance, often even or especially when exposed.

Kayne West was met with pushback after warning, "I'm going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE." Yet he trumped that by soon praising Adolf Hitler.

The Black Hebrew movement absurdly claims blacks are the real Biblical Jews, and Jews the imposters. Black Lives Matter clumsily disguised its antisemitism when claiming Israelis were committing mass genocide in the Middle East.

When novelist Alice Walker was chastised for praising virulent antisemite David Icke (he claimed that Jews formed a cabal of "lizard people"), she too was unremorseful. Walker retorted that Icke was "brave" for publishing his nutty rants.

Rappers from Public Enemy and Ice Cube to Jay-Z and Kanye West all spouted anti-Jewish venom. And billionaires, from the late Michael Jackson to LeBron James, dabbled in antisemitic talk, the first in lines from lyrics, the second in retweets.

In the hate-crime statistics, blacks as perpetrators are overrepresented, and, as victims, Jews and Asians are overrepresented. "Knock out the Jew" occasionally resurfaces as a common sport among New York city black youth.

In our "woke" age, race is seen as an indemnity policy for any self-described victim. Thus even elite blacks, as the still oppressed, cannot be seen as oppressors against "white" Jews.

Wokeism's competitive victimization often embraces Holocaust denial. That way the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews in an industrial fashion does not overshadow the need for a reparatory legacy to atone for slavery and Jim Crow.

When Whoopi Goldberg claimed the Holocaust was not about race and was, for a while, suspended from her morning chat show, she only temporarily apologized. Goldberg this week returned to claiming that the Holocaust was only a crime by white people against white people.

In her ignorance, she was oblivious that Hitler and the Nazis did not believe Jews to be fully human at all.

Among black elites in professional sports and entertainment, the belief that Jews inordinately are represented as agents, executives, or commissioners is considered proof of exploitation - and often ridiculously reduced to master-slave psychodramas.

Marquee professional athletes like Kyrie Irving, DeShawn Jackson, and the retired Stephen Jackson only reluctantly backed off their blatant anti-Jewish messaging.

If the athletes of the NFL and NBA are approximately 60 percent or more African American, then they are merely diverse. But if Jews in the entertainment and sport hierarchies appear more frequently than their 2.4% demographic, then as a "cabal" they supposedly pose a threat to black livelihoods.

Black antisemitism is spreading in strange, dangerous ways.

Why? Woke orthodoxy offers cover by insisting that supposed victims can never be victimizers. A leftist-dominated media hides or contextualizes the hatred promulgated by its constituents.

Jewish-American groups remain predominantly liberal. And too often, they conveniently overlook black antisemitism, given the demands of left-wing intersectional solidarity.

So, expect the new, new antisemitism to grow more common - and more toxic.

https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2022/12/29/the-new-new-antisemitism-n2617668

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************