Tumor shrinkage is desirable but insufficient for cure. As long as viable tumor remains in the body, it can grow again and metastasize--it can even mutate into a more aggressive form of cancer.
When I see a new column from you I wince knowing that my scheduled arrival time in the studio will be delayed by the considerable time it will take me to work my way through your cultural observations and those mentioned in the hyper-links you so generously provide. Thank you for tirelessly standing watch over our freedoms. Even in those instances where we don't agree you make me think long and hard.
If anyone deserves a place on the pillory, it was Gay. Harvard didn't just ignore her suspect credentials, which required nothing more than a Google Scholar search, or her plagiarism, which was well known to many, they also ignored her reprehensible behavior. She was a vicious bureaucratic infighter who took down other far more distinguished black scholars with what appeared to be deliberate malice.
Maybe Jewish men could attend the original Harvard but they’d be subject, like every other student, to mandatory chapel and Christian studies classes. The point is, there’s nothing stopping any other group from starting their own schools, businesses, etc., to compete with institutions such as Harvard. Wasn’t Brandeis founded by and for Jews? We make a big deal of Historical Black Colleges like Howard University. But everybody wants to go to Historical White Colleges, which are now being destroyed by the interlopers and their white liberal enablers. Why?
Because these hostile groups – including feminists – to their horror, discovered they couldn’t compete against white men fair and square, and developed a parasite strategy. [I think Jews could have competed very well against Harvard, but Howard or Wellesley not so much.] And, because western white men created an overly-rational, bureaucratic civilization (Age of Reason), instead of maintaining a genetic and religious identity (like the Jews, blacks, Chinese, Indians, well, everyone else on the planet) in their over-weening hubris they, white men, have invited Nemesis.
So, instead of ingratiating themselves like parasites described by Lucian in his essay, Parasitic as an Art, the “disadvantaged” and “marginalized” can now simply demand various entitlements from an inhuman system, rather than wealthy individuals. So, they quite naturally act entitled and spiteful to their benefactors. Nobody likes to admit they’re a parasite, after all.
It's plausible that without the Age of Reason, there would be no white identity as such, and Catholics and Protestants would have continued murdering each other for centuries. Europe could have ended up like modern Arabia, technologically dependent, superstitious kingdoms at each others' throats for doctrinal disagreements and slights from a millennium and a half earlier.
Current aficionados of white identity seem to be looking longingly over at other racial and sexual pride movements and wishing they could organize similarly. It would solve nothing. Most whites are as parasitic upon the history of "white" achievement as anyone else. I'm fond of asking white identitarians how many European languages they speak fluently, and how well they know calculus. Typically they're monolingual in English and groused their way through trignonometry.
They often feel kinship with European greats who would not have given them the time of day. One of these fellows once remarked to me that Africa never produced a Leonardo. It may be true enough, but I don't need to hear it from someone who can't name a Renaissance artist who wasn't also a ninja turtle and couldn't put together a sturdy doghouse. It turns out that Leonardo's mother was likely a Circassian Jew anyway.
At any rate, your list (Jews, blacks, Chinese, Indians) has an item that is not like the others in terms of genetic and religious identity, and it is as not as successful as the other three. I point it out because "whites" resembles the former far more than the latter.
Who mentioned hoi poloi? I'm talking about elite institutions like Harvard and high culture. Why do you equate Europeans with Arabs? Totally different people. In fact, European culture is/was unlike any other.
Surely, the latest uproar about Israel and Palestinians proves my point. Parasitic racial and sexual groups in elite institutions WHO NEED QUOTAS identify with Palestinians. Can you not see this?
"Totally different people"? The more history I learn the more I doubt it. In the 500s Justinian closed the pagan schools and subsequently made the Muslim world the scions of Greek mathematical knowledge. By 1000 they had developed a placeholder for zero and were solving polynomial equations, while Christian Europe was still trying to do arithmetic with Roman numerals. If there's something different about the Eastern and Western temperaments, its not proclivity to dogma.
There aren't parasitic racial and sexual groups, there are parasitic political projects that have taken on an identitarian cast. You're getting the causation backwards.
Harvard cancelling Auchincloss was either clumsy and stupid or, more likely, a manifestation of the presumption of invulnerability--as in "We can do as we like, since we're ultimately untouchable." It's the same attitude as that of the New York Times, for pretty similar reasons.
The demand in question is basically that Jews, considered whites who just happen to be Jewish, assume/adopt white guilt as conceived and enshrined in the woke "progressive" narrative and suffer accordingly. Of course, that also allows one to be antisemitic by other means--under the cover of whiteness. It's not just a raw deal but no deal at all, and there is absolutely no obligation to accept it.
The intifada chants (among other anti-Jewish niceties) which were permitted at Harvard, presumably as free speech, beg a rather obvious question: Would chants to "send black people back to Africa" also be permitted as free speech by Gay's administration? Just wondering.
As for Smirky from Penn, she must be seriously bummed that her Harvard counterpart, even with a plagiarism rap, is still not going anywhere. Of course, a melanin shield and being "historic" are no small advantages, not to mention that Gay is entirely Harvard's creature or product. Thus, Harvard will not renounce her as long as it can somehow keep her in place. I'm not sure it would have helped, but maybe Smirky should have made a point of "identifying" as black.
On another front, Yale's current president, who is a white male Jew, will be stepping down soon. His replacement is virtually certain to be another DEI hire like Gay. Watch for it.
Tumor shrinkage is desirable but insufficient for cure. As long as viable tumor remains in the body, it can grow again and metastasize--it can even mutate into a more aggressive form of cancer.
When I see a new column from you I wince knowing that my scheduled arrival time in the studio will be delayed by the considerable time it will take me to work my way through your cultural observations and those mentioned in the hyper-links you so generously provide. Thank you for tirelessly standing watch over our freedoms. Even in those instances where we don't agree you make me think long and hard.
If anyone deserves a place on the pillory, it was Gay. Harvard didn't just ignore her suspect credentials, which required nothing more than a Google Scholar search, or her plagiarism, which was well known to many, they also ignored her reprehensible behavior. She was a vicious bureaucratic infighter who took down other far more distinguished black scholars with what appeared to be deliberate malice.
Maybe Jewish men could attend the original Harvard but they’d be subject, like every other student, to mandatory chapel and Christian studies classes. The point is, there’s nothing stopping any other group from starting their own schools, businesses, etc., to compete with institutions such as Harvard. Wasn’t Brandeis founded by and for Jews? We make a big deal of Historical Black Colleges like Howard University. But everybody wants to go to Historical White Colleges, which are now being destroyed by the interlopers and their white liberal enablers. Why?
Because these hostile groups – including feminists – to their horror, discovered they couldn’t compete against white men fair and square, and developed a parasite strategy. [I think Jews could have competed very well against Harvard, but Howard or Wellesley not so much.] And, because western white men created an overly-rational, bureaucratic civilization (Age of Reason), instead of maintaining a genetic and religious identity (like the Jews, blacks, Chinese, Indians, well, everyone else on the planet) in their over-weening hubris they, white men, have invited Nemesis.
So, instead of ingratiating themselves like parasites described by Lucian in his essay, Parasitic as an Art, the “disadvantaged” and “marginalized” can now simply demand various entitlements from an inhuman system, rather than wealthy individuals. So, they quite naturally act entitled and spiteful to their benefactors. Nobody likes to admit they’re a parasite, after all.
It's plausible that without the Age of Reason, there would be no white identity as such, and Catholics and Protestants would have continued murdering each other for centuries. Europe could have ended up like modern Arabia, technologically dependent, superstitious kingdoms at each others' throats for doctrinal disagreements and slights from a millennium and a half earlier.
Current aficionados of white identity seem to be looking longingly over at other racial and sexual pride movements and wishing they could organize similarly. It would solve nothing. Most whites are as parasitic upon the history of "white" achievement as anyone else. I'm fond of asking white identitarians how many European languages they speak fluently, and how well they know calculus. Typically they're monolingual in English and groused their way through trignonometry.
They often feel kinship with European greats who would not have given them the time of day. One of these fellows once remarked to me that Africa never produced a Leonardo. It may be true enough, but I don't need to hear it from someone who can't name a Renaissance artist who wasn't also a ninja turtle and couldn't put together a sturdy doghouse. It turns out that Leonardo's mother was likely a Circassian Jew anyway.
At any rate, your list (Jews, blacks, Chinese, Indians) has an item that is not like the others in terms of genetic and religious identity, and it is as not as successful as the other three. I point it out because "whites" resembles the former far more than the latter.
Who mentioned hoi poloi? I'm talking about elite institutions like Harvard and high culture. Why do you equate Europeans with Arabs? Totally different people. In fact, European culture is/was unlike any other.
Surely, the latest uproar about Israel and Palestinians proves my point. Parasitic racial and sexual groups in elite institutions WHO NEED QUOTAS identify with Palestinians. Can you not see this?
"Totally different people"? The more history I learn the more I doubt it. In the 500s Justinian closed the pagan schools and subsequently made the Muslim world the scions of Greek mathematical knowledge. By 1000 they had developed a placeholder for zero and were solving polynomial equations, while Christian Europe was still trying to do arithmetic with Roman numerals. If there's something different about the Eastern and Western temperaments, its not proclivity to dogma.
There aren't parasitic racial and sexual groups, there are parasitic political projects that have taken on an identitarian cast. You're getting the causation backwards.
Tomato, tomahto, I think you are splitting hairs. I mentioned the Enlightenment but you disagree. Thanks for your article and replies, Franklin.
Harvard cancelling Auchincloss was either clumsy and stupid or, more likely, a manifestation of the presumption of invulnerability--as in "We can do as we like, since we're ultimately untouchable." It's the same attitude as that of the New York Times, for pretty similar reasons.
The demand in question is basically that Jews, considered whites who just happen to be Jewish, assume/adopt white guilt as conceived and enshrined in the woke "progressive" narrative and suffer accordingly. Of course, that also allows one to be antisemitic by other means--under the cover of whiteness. It's not just a raw deal but no deal at all, and there is absolutely no obligation to accept it.
The intifada chants (among other anti-Jewish niceties) which were permitted at Harvard, presumably as free speech, beg a rather obvious question: Would chants to "send black people back to Africa" also be permitted as free speech by Gay's administration? Just wondering.
As for Smirky from Penn, she must be seriously bummed that her Harvard counterpart, even with a plagiarism rap, is still not going anywhere. Of course, a melanin shield and being "historic" are no small advantages, not to mention that Gay is entirely Harvard's creature or product. Thus, Harvard will not renounce her as long as it can somehow keep her in place. I'm not sure it would have helped, but maybe Smirky should have made a point of "identifying" as black.
On another front, Yale's current president, who is a white male Jew, will be stepping down soon. His replacement is virtually certain to be another DEI hire like Gay. Watch for it.