Not sure how it came by the name.
Book Update
I received a proof today of the second attempt at getting a paperback version of Arms and White Samite. Thanks to Douglas' help, and the patience of the cover artist, most of the problems are fixed. There remain a few persistent issues that will require more work and another proof, but in a few weeks we might have a final version.
It is already much better, though. It's just not right.
It is already much better, though. It's just not right.
Right to Peaceful Protest
It’s too important to be limited by virus mitigation, but only if the cause is good enough. Don’t take my word for that; here are nearly thirteen hundred public health experts asserting it.
“Money quote: ‘This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.’”
“Money quote: ‘This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.’”
"Define Racism"
It's a Socratic point, and one that brings us back around to the kinds of problems that Socrates tried to illustrate during his life. (That video in which the discussion was taking place, by the way, is a vivid warning of what kinds of genuinely terroristic tactics are available.)
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is after a definition of piety. Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for murder; he claims that it is pious to do this because his relationship with his father should not blind him to the justice of the prosecution. Socrates suggests this is merely an example of something pious, not a definition of piety itself. Euthyphro decides that piety is doing what the gods love, and impiety doing what they dislike; Socrates presses him to explain whether the pious thing is pious because the gods love it, or whether -- and this is crucial -- they love it because it is pious.
There's a similar problem with racism. A lot of people accused of racism don't actually even believe in race. How can you be a racist if you reject that race represents something biologically real? The answer is that you take (or endorse) actions that disproportionately harm people of some races and not others. Yet this assumes the validity of race as a form of analysis; if race isn't real, why would you try to cash out its effects in terms of the harm 'to races' whose reality you have already rejected?
The best answer seems to be the one floated by Charles Mills and others, which is that race can be rejected biologically but not socially. Socially, race is real even if in fact there are not "races" in any meaningful biological sense. Then, rejecting race as a social phenomenon because you rejected it as a biological phenomenon is a category error, a serious philosophical mistake.
That still leaves us with problems. Given that the social phenomenon is based on an incorrect view of human nature and biology, we might wish to move to a more correct view. Yet because we have to continue to evaluate things in terms of the social account of race, we end up baking that view into our future. We can't leave it behind if we have to carry it with us, and constantly check ourselves against it. How do you build a society without race if you're judging progress by constantly referring to race? It's dead weight, but treated like a lodestone.
The second problem is that the social view is often incoherent, which makes it a poor lodestone anyway. In the discussion linked, the woman is charging racism based on the fact that a man suggested that this kind of violence was unsurprising in Mexico. There are two sets of problems with that.
The first is that Mexico includes people of many different genetic heritages, who are even less plausibly 'one race' than, say, denizens of Scotland (many of whom, these days, are from the Indian subcontinent). The fact is that the Mexican government has been involved in a decades-long fiction about 'La Raza' designed to paper that over. Yet if we can eliminate racism by constructing new races, well, why not start doing that here? Rather than continuing to recognize existing social definitions of race in America, might we not instead follow Mexico and institute a new 'American race' that ignores genetic heritage?
The second problem is that violence in Mexico is unsurprising for reasons that are severable from race, 'race,' or La Raza. If you're unsurprised by a violent assault in a country largely run by extraordinarily violent criminal cartels, well, why wouldn't you be? There's no reason to rope biological commentary into it. Mexico is violent because it is badly governed, especially in terms of the absence of a Second Amendment. The people endure the cartels and their violence not because they are genetically primed to do so, but because they are disarmed. The police are assassinated not because they are inferior or corrupt, but because the populace cannot provide them with effective support. They're too terrified to work with the police because they are kept defenseless.
The second problem, in other words, turns out to be that the incoherence of the definition ends up allowing it to be used in places where the concept is actively damaging to attempts to fix the problem. "It's all racism" suggests the problem is in people having a negative view of the chaos in Mexico, rather than the problem lying in the absence of positive steps to empower the citizens to defend themselves.
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is after a definition of piety. Euthyphro is prosecuting his own father for murder; he claims that it is pious to do this because his relationship with his father should not blind him to the justice of the prosecution. Socrates suggests this is merely an example of something pious, not a definition of piety itself. Euthyphro decides that piety is doing what the gods love, and impiety doing what they dislike; Socrates presses him to explain whether the pious thing is pious because the gods love it, or whether -- and this is crucial -- they love it because it is pious.
There's a similar problem with racism. A lot of people accused of racism don't actually even believe in race. How can you be a racist if you reject that race represents something biologically real? The answer is that you take (or endorse) actions that disproportionately harm people of some races and not others. Yet this assumes the validity of race as a form of analysis; if race isn't real, why would you try to cash out its effects in terms of the harm 'to races' whose reality you have already rejected?
The best answer seems to be the one floated by Charles Mills and others, which is that race can be rejected biologically but not socially. Socially, race is real even if in fact there are not "races" in any meaningful biological sense. Then, rejecting race as a social phenomenon because you rejected it as a biological phenomenon is a category error, a serious philosophical mistake.
That still leaves us with problems. Given that the social phenomenon is based on an incorrect view of human nature and biology, we might wish to move to a more correct view. Yet because we have to continue to evaluate things in terms of the social account of race, we end up baking that view into our future. We can't leave it behind if we have to carry it with us, and constantly check ourselves against it. How do you build a society without race if you're judging progress by constantly referring to race? It's dead weight, but treated like a lodestone.
The second problem is that the social view is often incoherent, which makes it a poor lodestone anyway. In the discussion linked, the woman is charging racism based on the fact that a man suggested that this kind of violence was unsurprising in Mexico. There are two sets of problems with that.
The first is that Mexico includes people of many different genetic heritages, who are even less plausibly 'one race' than, say, denizens of Scotland (many of whom, these days, are from the Indian subcontinent). The fact is that the Mexican government has been involved in a decades-long fiction about 'La Raza' designed to paper that over. Yet if we can eliminate racism by constructing new races, well, why not start doing that here? Rather than continuing to recognize existing social definitions of race in America, might we not instead follow Mexico and institute a new 'American race' that ignores genetic heritage?
The second problem is that violence in Mexico is unsurprising for reasons that are severable from race, 'race,' or La Raza. If you're unsurprised by a violent assault in a country largely run by extraordinarily violent criminal cartels, well, why wouldn't you be? There's no reason to rope biological commentary into it. Mexico is violent because it is badly governed, especially in terms of the absence of a Second Amendment. The people endure the cartels and their violence not because they are genetically primed to do so, but because they are disarmed. The police are assassinated not because they are inferior or corrupt, but because the populace cannot provide them with effective support. They're too terrified to work with the police because they are kept defenseless.
The second problem, in other words, turns out to be that the incoherence of the definition ends up allowing it to be used in places where the concept is actively damaging to attempts to fix the problem. "It's all racism" suggests the problem is in people having a negative view of the chaos in Mexico, rather than the problem lying in the absence of positive steps to empower the citizens to defend themselves.
Headlines from 2020
Slate: “Non-violence is an important tool for protests, but so is violence.”
That’s true, actually, but it does elide the moral question.
That’s true, actually, but it does elide the moral question.
"Rule of Law"
It's pretty much dead now, isn't it? First we had governors assuming emergency powers often in direct violation of the Constitution and their own state constitutions; now we've got widespread support for rioting. Bernie Sanders has an 8 point plan (some of which are very good and reasonable, like ending qualified immunity) that would replace many cops with social workers, and District Attorneys in blue cities won't prosecute rioters.
The other day Minneapolis police managed to ignore rioters but arrest a guy for defending his business from looting and arson. Why should a jury go along with that?
The other day Minneapolis police managed to ignore rioters but arrest a guy for defending his business from looting and arson. Why should a jury go along with that?
An Attempted Coup at NYT
Andrew Sullivan is right about this one.
It's worth noting that all of this chaos is happening in the blue cities and blue states. The target of Antifa and their ilk isn't you and me, it's blue institutions. The NYT is in danger for the same reason that the Minneapolis Police Department -- controlled by Democrats since 1978 -- is in danger. The Hard Left is trying to win control of the left-leaning powers, which in fact control most of America's cities and therefore much of America's wealth.
They might come for us later, or they might decide it's too much trouble especially since they'll have taught police, who might possibly have tried to carry out gun confiscations in red America, that their only friends are in red areas and red states. The hinterlands may be too hard a nut to crack if police won't enforce their laws here, and juries won't either.
It's worth noting that all of this chaos is happening in the blue cities and blue states. The target of Antifa and their ilk isn't you and me, it's blue institutions. The NYT is in danger for the same reason that the Minneapolis Police Department -- controlled by Democrats since 1978 -- is in danger. The Hard Left is trying to win control of the left-leaning powers, which in fact control most of America's cities and therefore much of America's wealth.
They might come for us later, or they might decide it's too much trouble especially since they'll have taught police, who might possibly have tried to carry out gun confiscations in red America, that their only friends are in red areas and red states. The hinterlands may be too hard a nut to crack if police won't enforce their laws here, and juries won't either.
Night-Fire Practice
I can hear my neighbors shooting tonight, a fairly impressive array of hardware. It's all too methodical and regular to be any sort of gunfight; they're just practicing and making sure everything is in good order.
They're going to be so disappointed when there's no reason to use all that stuff. These hub city ninjas aren't about to drive out shadowed dirt roads in the high mountains, where one human habitation can't be seen from the next. They'd be terrified by the sight of such an empty road, long before they ever got out to someone's trailer or cabin. Everyone knows what happens to people who go out beyond the Fields We Know into the Wilds Beyond.
It's even in the folk songs: "Once a stranger climbed old Rocky Top, looking for a moonshine still. Stranger ain't come down from Rocky Top, reckon he never will." "Well, I wonder where that Louisiana sheriff went to? You can sure get lost in the Louisiana bayou."
It is an irony that Mad Max (1979) treated the cities as a kind of safe place, with the wilderness controlled by violent motorcycle gangs. It turns out it's the other way around. Police protection doesn't protect. Every night our cities burn with fire, and every night our mountains linger through the long gloam to twilight, fearsome, lonesome, and at peace.
They're going to be so disappointed when there's no reason to use all that stuff. These hub city ninjas aren't about to drive out shadowed dirt roads in the high mountains, where one human habitation can't be seen from the next. They'd be terrified by the sight of such an empty road, long before they ever got out to someone's trailer or cabin. Everyone knows what happens to people who go out beyond the Fields We Know into the Wilds Beyond.
It's even in the folk songs: "Once a stranger climbed old Rocky Top, looking for a moonshine still. Stranger ain't come down from Rocky Top, reckon he never will." "Well, I wonder where that Louisiana sheriff went to? You can sure get lost in the Louisiana bayou."
It is an irony that Mad Max (1979) treated the cities as a kind of safe place, with the wilderness controlled by violent motorcycle gangs. It turns out it's the other way around. Police protection doesn't protect. Every night our cities burn with fire, and every night our mountains linger through the long gloam to twilight, fearsome, lonesome, and at peace.
The Real History of Antifa
Kyle's a good guy, and a careful worker in his field, which is the study of radical organizations. You can trust his findings.
Concerns about Government Power
Some of us have been here for a while, as Ellen Reynolds at the Federalist notes.
Distrust of government is a tradition going back to our founding. “I am not a friend to a very energetic government,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison. “It is always oppressive.”It would be nice if these newly-shared concerns opened a path forward to solutions such as shrinking the size and power of the government -- to include the police agencies. We could even have fewer laws!
As a result, the founders carefully limited the scope and power of the federal government. Since then, conservatives have continued to be skeptical of strong government and big government programs.... But in the last century, liberal progressives have celebrated the expansion of the federal government and its growing power. It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a champion of the Left, who transformed the size and function of the federal government, specifically the executive branch, when the Brownlow Committee recommended the creation of the Executive Office of the President in 1937. (Roosevelt’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover, was criticized when he replaced the president’s singular secretary with four aides.) Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, lauded by the Left, dramatically increased the role that the federal government played in Americans’ daily lives.
Under the administration of democrat Lyndon Johnson, federal programs (and their influence and power) expanded again, with “Great Society” initiatives such as Medicare, Medicaid, federal involvement in education, and public housing programs. Certain bureaucratic failures of these programs aside, the Great Society posed another reach by the federal government into Americans’ lives.
Today, a man who was almost the Democratic presidential nominee (twice) advocates for dramatically expanding the power of the federal government. Sen. Bernie Sanders has plans for the nanny state to become the provider of higher education, housing, healthcare, child care, and even high-speed internet. He also wants to erase the constitutional right to bear arms, and plans to pay for his excessive programs by taxing Americans.
For the last hundred years, the Left has been the standard-bearer for the growth of government. And suddenly, they’re reaping the results. They’re horrified at a strong federal government and its power to police its constituents. On behalf of limited-government conservatives: welcome to the club.
The Perils of Gentrification
There is more than one peril. One is that it will bring the Left's rich, white faction into conflict with minority group factions -- such as in this post, "Cats v. Communists."
But perhaps sometimes the friction produces not just conflict but hybrids.
But perhaps sometimes the friction produces not just conflict but hybrids.
Beginning in the 1960s and the ’70s, with the Weather Underground terrorists, and continuing in the 1990s, with “black bloc” vandals traveling around the world to smash office and hotel windows at global financial meetings, there has been a violent subculture on the radical left in the United States and Europe. For the most part, the members of groups like Antifa, the latest incarnation of the violent left, have always been the pampered children of the white overclass. Twenty-somethings who are poor and working class lack the money to buy fancy black ninja outfits and the leisure to spend time plotting in advance of demonstrations....The article is generally down on these spoiled children playing ninja, but sympathetic to the working class that's being supplanted. For those who remain on the fringes of the gentrifying areas, police are used intensively to protect the Cat Cafes owned by children of the overclass. This produces occasional brutality, which produces protests, which the children of the overclass feel very proud about joining and supporting. But they're the ones who are stealing, in the analysis of the poorer members being run out of those neighborhoods. The overclass children are stealing not just the neighborhood itself, but also the right to speak about these issues -- framing them instead in ways that are about the overclass' children's own issues.
What is new about the nationwide riots of the last week that have followed the death of George Floyd is the convergence of these two previously separate streams—traditional urban riots in poor neighborhoods triggered by police-related incidents, and the ideologically motivated vandalism by young white members of the overclass in downtown districts. This convergence is the result of hub city gentrification....
Gentrification explains why there are so many white young adults, both ordinary protesters and anarchist vandals, compared to African Americans in the videos we see of protests and riots in big cities across the United States, compared to images of urban riots in generations past. Thanks to rising rents, young white leftists and liberals have been displacing the nonwhite working class and poor, many of them social conservatives, in places like Brooklyn and Oakland and Austin.
The black poor and working class first had their urban industrial jobs taken away from them by corporate executives in the white overclass who offshored them to Mexico or China. Then they were replaced in their former urban neighborhoods by the hipster children of the white overclass. Now even their grievances like protests against horrific police brutality are stolen from them by their supposed allies in the white overclass and turned into an occasion for virtue-signaling or vandalism by the elite.They're sure too that they're the ones on the right side, the very side of justice.
Oops!
As the Russia hoax unravels, Rod Rosenstein admits to Congress that he wouldn't sign the Carter Page FISA warrant with the facts now in evidence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)