Post-Postmodern America, Meet Mao’s Cultural Revolution

By Victor Davis Hanson

When the progressive woke revolution took over traditional America, matters soon reached the level of the ridiculous.

Take the following examples of woke craziness and hypocrisy, perhaps last best witnessed during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution:

The Biden administration from its outset wished to neuter immigration law. It sought to alter radically the demography of the U.S. by stopping the border wall and allowing into the United States anyone who could walk across the southern border.

More than 7 million did just that. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden ignored the role of the Mexican cartels in causing nearly 100,000 annual American fentanyl deaths.

Then border states finally wised up.

They grasped that the entire open-borders, “new Democratic majority” left-wing braggadocio was predicated on its hypocritical architects staying as far away as possible from their new constituents.

So, cash-strapped border states started busing their illegal aliens to sanctuary blue-state jurisdictions.

Almost immediately, once magnanimous liberals—whether in Martha’s Vineyard, Chicago, or Manhattan—stopped virtue-signaling their support for open borders.

Instead, soon they went berserk over the influx.

So, now an embarrassed Biden administration still wishes illegal aliens to keep coming, but to stay far away from their advocates—by forcing them to remain in Texas.

That means the president has redefined the U.S. border. It rests now apparently north of Texas, as Biden cedes sovereignty to Mexico.

Pre-civilizational greens in California prefer blowing up dams to building them.

They couldn’t care less that their targeted reservoirs help store water in droughts, prevent flooding, enhance irrigation, offer recreation, and generate clean hydroelectric power.

Now an absurd green California is currently destroying four dams on the Klamath River. In adding insult to injury, it is paying the half-billion-dollar demolition cost in part through a water bond that state voters once thought would build new—not explode existing—dams.

The Biden administration is mandating new dates when electric vehicles will be all but mandatory.

To prove their current viability, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm led a performance-art EV caravan on a long road trip.

When she found insufficient charging stations to continue her media stunt, she sent a gas-powered car ahead to block open charging stations and deny them to other EVs ahead in line.

Only that way could Granholm ensure that her arriving energy-starved motorcade might find rare empty charger stalls.

In some California charging stations, diesel generators are needed to produce enough “clean” electricity to power the stalls.

The state has steadily dismantled many of its nuclear, oil, and coal power plants. It refuses to build new natural-gas generation plants.

Naturally, California’s heavily subsidized solar and wind plants now produce too much energy during the day and almost nothing at night.

So, the state now begs residents to charge their EVs only during the day. Then at night, Californians may soon be asked to plug them in again to transfer what is left in their batteries into the state grid.

Apparently only that way will there be enough expropriated “green” electricity for 41 million state residents after dark.

One of the loudest leftist voices to defund the police, and decriminalize violent crimes in the post-George Floyd era, was Shivanthi Sathanandan, the second vice chairwoman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

She was recently not shy about defunding: “We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. Say it with me. DISMANTLE.”

But recently the loud Sathanandan was a victim of the very crime wave she helped to spawn.

Last week, four armed thugs carjacked her automobile. They beat her up in front of her children at her own home, and sped off without fear of arrest.

The reaction of the arch police dismantler and decriminalizer on her road to Damascus?

The now-bruised and bleeding activist for the first time became livid that criminals had taken over her Minneapolis: “Look at my face. REMEMBER ME when you are thinking about supporting letting juveniles and young people out of custody to roam our streets instead of HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.”

Andrea Smith was an ethnic studies professor at the University of California at Riverside. But now she has been forced out after getting caught lying that she was Native American.
Prior to her “outing,” she was well-known for damning “white women” (like herself) who opted to “become Indians” out of guilt, and (like her) for careerist advantage.

The Takeaway

The common theme of these absurdities is how contrary to human nature, impractical, and destructive utopian wokeism is, whether in matters of energy, race, crime, or illegal immigration.

There are two other characteristics of the woke revolution.

One, it depends solely on its advocates never having to experience firsthand any of the nonsense they inflict on others.

And two, dangerous zealots with titles before (and letters after) their names prove to be quite stupid—and dangerous.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/09/15/post-postmodern-america

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

Federal Judge Again Declares DACA Program Unlawful

A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday declared the revised version of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program illegal.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling reiterated that the Obama-era federal policy is unlawful and should have come from Congress. DACA provides hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children with a two-year renewable shield from deportation.

"The remaining provisions of the original injunction are to remain in place and are to be applicable to Final Rule DACA," Judge Hanen wrote.

The ruling blocks the federal government from accepting new DACA applications but maintains the program for existing recipients during the appeals process. The ruling does not mandate immediate action against current DACA beneficiaries.

Texas and eight other states have been actively opposing DACA. Their central argument is that the Obama administration exceeded its authority by creating DACA in 2012, bypassing Congress. They have contended that President Joe Biden also overstepped his authority when he renewed it in 2022, bypassing Congress.

The nine Republican-led states also asked the court to phase out the program over two years, calling the Biden administration's revised version "substantively unlawful" for the same reasons as the original Obama-era DACA Memorandum.

"The Court should declare it unlawful and unconstitutional, vacate it in its entirety, and permanently enjoin its implementation (with a prudent transition for existing DACA recipients),” their lawsuit, filed earlier this year, stated.

Around 800,000 individuals are believed to be recipients of DACA, with two-thirds of those enrolled in the program thought to be aged between 21 to 30, having lived and worked in the United States for most of their lives after illegally entering as young children.

The plaintiff states in the case also contend that they bear substantial costs, including hundreds of millions of dollars for health care and education, when immigrants are allowed to remain in the country without legal status.

In 2021, Judge Hanen, an appointee of President George W. Bush, declared the program illegal, citing its lack of compliance with required public notice and comment periods. This decision was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022.

Attempting to address the judge's concerns, President Biden announced the renewal of the DACA program in August 2022, making it a federal regulation. It came into effect in October, subject to public comments in a formal rule-making process, replacing former President Barack Obama’s 2012 memo that initially established DACA.

At the time, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said the administration was "taking another step to do everything in our power to preserve and fortify DACA."

Mr. Mayorkas said that the United States has "been enriched" by the young people on the DACA program, referred to as "Dreamers," contending that they "have known no country other than the United States as their own."

The plaintiff states, meanwhile, argued that President Biden overstepped his constitutional authority by renewing DACA without getting approval from Congress.

Judge Hanen agreed, maintaining in his ruling on Wednesday that the revised version of DACA is unconstitutional and that the policy should come from Congress.

The judge’s ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The DACA program has been overseen for the last decade by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memorandum that established it under President Obama who described the action as a "temporary, stopgap, measure."

The Trump administration's attempts to terminate DACA in 2017 were thwarted by the courts.

The nine states that filed the lawsuit are Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/federal-judge-again-declares-daca-program-unlawful-5491209

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

My grandson might not remember our games, but does that matter?

Richard Glover

What’s your first memory? Mine is from when I’m five. I’m at a kindergarten in Hornsby and they have Cuisenaire Rods, plus there’s a jelly-bean reward system for any child who succeeds in using the Rods. They also have a large boat in the playground, just sitting there in the dirt, unsecured, as if abandoned by Sturt on his trip to find the inland sea. We kids love playing in it.

These are not even important memories. They are just first in the memory queue. I wished I’d picked something consequential.

Some people can recall a few things from when they were three or four. Rarely earlier. This, it seems to me, is a design fault when it comes to our species. The first few years determine who we are, yet we remember none of it.

These early years are also, generally, so full of fun. Why do we remember all the terrible years of adolescence in such forensic detail, but recall nothing of the joy of being a little kid?

I think about the rich life led by my grandson Pip. He is adored, and adorable. Strawberries, his favourite, are widely available, and at a good price. He lives in the era of Bluey. He has share rights in a good dog. He has a Nana who makes a particularly fine banana pancake. He has spectacular parents.

In truth, I’m a little envious. Why can’t we all live like two-year-olds?

I hope it will somehow become part of him, and his sense of how lovely he is.

When Pip feels a book has outlived his interest, he throws it to the floor. I believe he’s onto something. I’ve read a few recent British literary works that deserved exactly this sort of vigorous review, and yet I merely placed them back on the shelf with a defeated sigh.

Pip eats when hungry. Jocasta and I, involved as we are in a cult led by Michael Mosley, have nary a bite until noon, by which time Pip has already eaten his own body weight in banana pancakes. My point: it’s better being two.

Pip has great clothes, with pants and tops festooned with animals, mythical creatures and, most of all, diggers. Me? Not so much. I am constrained, by the rules of the adult world, to attend work in a shirt that’s plain white, plain blue or plain grey. I team this with a pair of grey pants.

My young friend understands the attraction of repeating an enjoyable activity. If it’s fun doing it once, why not do it again? And again. And again. And yet when I want to watch Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge for the 27th time, there’s criticism from other family members, even though it’s no match for the 145 times Pip has already viewed Paw Patrol.

I laugh easily, but not as easily as Pip. He finds pretty much everything to be hilarious. Joy, with him, is so close to the surface. I wish it was still like that for me.

Why do we not remember these first years? Is there a way we could summon them up, through photos, anecdotes, or most of all, by assessing our own psychology and figuring out the role those years must have played?

In my case, I spent most of it in Port Moresby with Danota, the young Papua New Guinean woman who looked after me. From the evidence of my father’s photos, I know that she showered me with love in a way that other supposedly closer family members failed to do. We had fun together, I am sure. I know she saved me. She gave me my life. I’d just like to remember the details of how she did it.

Curiously, when we hit our teenage years, we seem to remember everything. For many people, 14 to 17 are the toughest times they ever have, and yet we remember every single thing. Why is 14-to-17 so privileged in human memory when it’s so likely to be difficult?

Again: design fault.

Meanwhile, Pip suggests another game of Paper Clips on Pa’s desk, a game of his own invention. We’ve played it a million times, but that just increases its allure.

Pip pours the paper clips from my jar, we slap each other’s hands in the battle to put them back in the jar, and I say: “that’s good, all good, they are back in the jar”, which is my main role in the game, at which point he again upends the jar, and it all starts again.

It’s true he won’t remember the game, or the delight I have for him as we play the game. How can he? Science says he won’t.

But I think about my experience with Danota. She made me, even if I can’t recall the details. Adult Pip will know nothing of this game – or our laughter as we battle for the paperclips - but I hope it will somehow become part of him, and his sense of how lovely he is.

I’m only a small part of the building of this boy – his parents are the chief architects - but my own story tells me that extra love matters, at whatever age it’s delivered.

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/my-grandson-might-not-remember-our-games-but-does-that-matter-20230912-p5e3x3.html

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

The Feelgood versus the rational

I have set out at some length here why Leftists tend to have ego problems. They have a great need for praise and admiration. So if an opportunity comes up for a Leftist to say or do something that will win him/her congratulations for being caring (etc.), he/she will grab that opportunity. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that. The problem arises when the feelgood policy has consequences that are destructive or dangerous. What if some action that at first seems praiseworthy turns out to do a lot of harm if you take that action?

A Leftists will not normally be deterred by that. His/her need for praise will cause him to close his eyes to the bad consequences down the track and keep advocating anything that sounds good. He needs the praise too much to give up the feelgood policy

But conservatives are not like that. They are cautious and want to avoid doing anything that will hurt people. So they will point to the future harms of the feelgood policy and will oppose it because of those harms. The conservative does not allow the feelgood nature of some policy to swamp all other considerations.

And Australia is at the mmoment gripped by a debate over a policy that feels good to most people but which could do real harm if implemented: The "Voice" debate.

Leftist feel all warm and righteous at advocating a special voice in Federal parliament for Aborigines. Aborigines as a group are in a hell of a mess in many ways so "doing something" for them has great appeal. It shows how much heart you have for their problems and may lead to better treatment of them by future governments.

But conservatives know their history and are quite appalled by the prospect of racial privileges for one particular group. If the 20th century taught us anything, it taught us the evils of racial favoritism. There can be no doubt that racial preferences are simply evil and provoke disharmony.

So conservatives are against the Voice on that and other grounds. And that makes them the enemies of the Leftist feelgood policy. So what do the Left do when thretened with the loss of their feelgood policy? Do they simply concede the point and desist from advocating something that could be very harmful? No way. They like ther feelgood policy too much to abandon it.

So what do they do? In good Leftist style they resort to abuse and lies. They go "ad hominem". They cannot answer the conservative arguents so they impugn the motives of conservatives who oppose the polcy. In the oldest bit of Leftist abuse in the book, they accuse conservatives of racism. They say that it is racism that lies behind opposition to the "voice". That they are are the one who are advocating something racist seems quite lost on them.

So they pretend tat it is white supremacists who are their opposition while they are the good and noble guys. It's a sad commentary on the ego needs that drive such irrationality but it is a classic bit of Leftist argumentation.

The toon below describes the mythical world that the Left have created around the "Voice". One of the many things that the Left are sedulously ignoring is that it is not only white conservatives in opposition but many Aborigines too. Around half of Aborigines seem to be opposed to the Voice and say so. How come they oppose something that is supposed to help them?

The only way the Left have of dealing with that puzzle is by ignoring the Aborigines concerned. The toon features some well-known Aborigines who oppose the Voice and shows them as canvassing for a "No" vote



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

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

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