RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://swtotd.blogspot.com/

Anarchy, war and despotism are the natural states of man, not freedom, democracy and classical liberalism. (I use the term “classical liberalism,” which speaks to the advocacy of civil liberties under the rule of law, with an emphasis on individual economic freedom, to differentiate from today’s use of “liberalism,” which is defined as a compassionate but intrusive, all-powerful state. Thomas Sowell was more direct when he declared “liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face.”

Anarchy is at one end of the spectrum, with totalitarianism at the other. In his 1927 book, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, a book in which he uses the word “liberalism” as I do “classical liberalism,” Ludwig von Mises wrote: “Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.” It is to provide justice, not social justice.

Totalitarianism represents the other extreme. In harsh, dictatorial nations blemishes are obvious. But in a state where, over time, one is seduced by offerings of free services, like food stamps, help with housing, health and college, life can be comfortable. All that is asked in return is allegiance to a political party. Beware apathy, warned Baron de Montesquieu: “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”  Like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, despots build their power bases slowly, deliberately, much like the lobster dropped into tepid water, with the heat gradually increased, so that when the water boils the lobster has already succumbed. The best antidote to tyranny is education, which is why citizens should be concerned by the attack on meritocratic public schools in big cities like New York. The slogan for Sy Syms’ one-time company was “an educated consumer is our best customer.” Classical liberalisms’ best defense is an educated citizen.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/transgender_surgery_is_the_lobotomy_of_the_21st_century.html

Psychology is a “science” that studies human behavior but is itself morally bankrupt.  That is, psychology is unable to scientifically define normality.  It can’t.  “Normal” depends on what the society (through “norms”) or the patient views as morally correct.

This limitation of psychological study is apparent when addressing transgenderism, until recently labeled a mental illness (“gender dysphoria”) by psychology.  Modern textbooks on transgender (and other paraphilic) disorders observe that they arise from “adverse childhood experiences” (ACEs): “Any event sufficiently stressful to threaten a fragile ego” (Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing, 8th edition, Mary C. Townsend, 2015, p. 615).  But here we face a conundrum: the textbook relates that such people are “unable to use coping mechanisms effectively” and become either “adaptive” (“urges are suppressed and not acted upon”) or “maladaptive” (“urges or behaviors cause significant distress or interfere with social, occupational or other important areas of functioning”).  But if society alters its mores such that a person is rewarded for his paraphilic condition in self, occupation, or even a run for public office, then this textbook is reversed, and what was viewed as adaptive becomes toxic, and what was termed maladaptive is healthy.

Drug addiction also is linked directly to ACEs.  Is the “cure” for the disease of addiction found in affirmation or in “correction”?  In encouraging more heroin abuse or in helping people into recovery?  We must ask this question of transgenderism with the utmost compassion and introspection.  If the behavior is “normal,” there is no “condition” to address.  America’s Left has imposed the conclusion of normalcy, without critically considering the effect on the patient or others.

https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/290884/north-korean-israeli-shadow-war

The North Korean-Israeli Shadow War

Whenever nuclear weapons technology appears in the hands of Israel’s enemies, Pyongyang is usually involved

By Jay Solomon

Jay Solomon is an adjunct fellow at The Washington Institute. A veteran journalist whose career has included postings in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, in addition to Washington, he is the former chief foreign affairs correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and author of The Iran Wars (Random House, 2016).

It was largely by chance that Israel scored one of its greatest ever intelligence coups in 2007.

At the time, Mossad was running surveillance on the director general of the Syrian Atomic Energy Commission, a pudgy, bespectacled bureaucrat named Ibrahim Othman. Othman was visiting Vienna that winter to attend meetings of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Mossad sought to learn more about his secretive activities. The Israelis hacked the Syrian’s personal computer after he left his hotel for meetings in the Austrian capital.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/can_mainstream_conservatism_survive_in_the_21st_century.html

Is it authoritarianism to ban Drag Queen Story Hour in public libraries, with the explicit threat of violent prosecution?

That’s the question at the heart of the recent debate between author Sohrab Ahmari and National Review’s David French.  Moderated by columnist Ross Douthat at Catholic University, the disputation was the first public confrontation of fusion conservatism and a burgeoning but inchoate mix of nationalism and integralism.

The contest of ideas, sad to say, wasn’t an even-sided scrimmage.  The mainstream conservative side, represented by the hail-fellow-well-met writer David French, was dominant, aided by French’s attorney background and jujitsu-style argumentation.  Ahmari ping-ponged between decrying proceduralism’s fecklessness and offering his own thin-soupy proceduralist solutions.

For example, when pressed on how he’d combat crossdressers reading children stories in taxpayer-funded libraries, flaunting their sexual depravities, Ahmari could only recommend a congressional hearing and proscription via local ordinance.  Not exactly the Battle of Lepanto.

Ahmari lost the verbal battle, but the war over a proper right-wing philosophy in tune with the greater good continues.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14879/self-esteem-public-service

“Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” — Socrates, “On Personal Service,” 469-399 BCE.

“With no attempt there can be no failure; with no failure no humiliation. So our self-feeling in this world depends entirely on what we back ourselves to be and do.” — William James, “The Strangest Lightness.”

Those in public service have a daily opportunity either to welcome that challenge of advancing our nation or to retreat into mediocrity…. [I[t becomes evident that securing self-esteem is the true benefit from such a career and one that every public servant should aspire to.

“You will learn that those with ideas and enthusiasm to work hard and improve services may be ostracized by the status quo elements…. Set goals, dream big, and ask ‘why not.’ Maintain an exemplary standard of ethics. Begin with the end in your sights. And, above all, maintain your sense of humor!” — Larry J. Gordon, Gordon Visiting Professor, UNM School of Public Administration, 1994 Commencement Address.

That most precious of resources, time, gives us the means to think, ponder, reflect and acquire that most coveted of treasures: wisdom. The thought-provoking writings of three eminent scholars — Socrates, William James and Larry J. Gordon — bridge the centuries to provide us with the means better to understand ourselves and our era. Take the time to read their essays.

When it came to the role of teachers in our society, Socrates knew exactly what their role was. He observed, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” He reminded all of us that the educator’s real goal is to excite a student with the love of learning — perhaps one of the most crucial responsibilities in any society. More than any paycheck, pension or summer recess, creating a legacy that ensures a new generation will welcome that “flame” of wisdom elevates our teachers far beyond measure, a fact too often lost amidst the debate over benefits and course curriculum.

One can make that argument for all those who are in public service, whose responsibilities are meant to advance our nation, protect our future and better the lives of our fellow citizens. These careers offer a benefit that is far beyond measure — self-esteem — and the knowledge that they have the means to “kindle a flame” that shines a bright and lasting light on democracy.

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/09/opinion/pseudo-science-the-bible-and-human-freedom/

Scientists are confused about every foundational problem in physics and biology. The more confused they get, the more prevalent the notion becomes that the human brain is just another machine and human consciousness is a byproduct of electromagnetic effluvia. Never mind that we don’t know what an electron is, let alone an atom, not to mention a molecule, and we don’t know why such things interact with each other.

The trouble is that people want to believe that their thoughts and impulses are determined by something other than their own judgment. The popularity of scientific determinism has jumped while the explanatory power of science has bumped up against its own limitations, whether acknowledged or not. The irony is that our longing for determinism has nothing to do with science as such. On the contrary, the popularity of scientific determinism has grown along with obviously pre-scientific kinds of determinism, notably astrology, which is enjoying a revival among millennials. These considerations came to mind reading Scott Shay’s book In Good Faith, which contrasts the claims of biblical religion to the old idolatry of the pagan world and its contemporary avatars.

Shay observes, “The Bible assumes human beings have the ability to make moral choices. But today, many scientists, particularly neuroscientists, have begun to question the idea that man possesses any such things as ‘free will.’ The Bible takes for granted that man knows the difference between good and evil, even if we are tempted to deceive ourselves. Scientists, in contrast, are not so certain. In the book Free Will, Sam Harris takes the position that free will is illusory. At the same time, he recognizes, as do other neuroscientists, that as humans we can consciously deliberate and make choices. So what is the current debate on free will all about?” The full-credit answer requires reading his book. Below are a few pointers.

https://www.steynonline.com/9731/john-boltin

On the eve of the annual 9/11 observances, America’s National Security Advisor John Bolton was either fired (per Trump) or resigned (per Bolton). The dispute is being portrayed as one between a Bush-era neocon and an “America First” Trump. But that is something of an over-simplification. As I wrote upon Bolton’s appointment a year and a half ago:

Bolton is viewed with suspicion as a ‘neocon’, which is not a term of much practical use these days. But then so was his predecessor – H R McMaster. So the substitution might be of no more significance than a neocon whom Trump likes the company of taking the job of a neocon whom Trump finds a bit of a cold fish. There may be a little more to it than that: McMaster was complacent, and conventional to a fault; Bolton is a realist, and harder-headed about the illusions of mankind. Beyond that, McMaster belonged to the group of foreign-policy panjandrums who expected Trump to move towards them; Bolton has moved towards Trump.

And, having moved towards Trump, he came to have ever more reservations about what he found there. Whatever the President now says, at the time Bolton’s appointment was a Trump choice reflecting a desire to regain control of an administration in danger of being neutered by the GOP establishment:

At this stage the Gullible Old Pussies of the Republican Party are pretty much openly advertising that giving them control of the House, the Senate and the White House is the equivalent of giving Yosemite Sam three sticks of dynamite to shove down his pants – with the additional nicety that this time round they’re actively flipping the finger at their president’s bedrock issue. I reiterate the point I first made on the radio a year ago: On January 20th 2017 Trump should have taken all those showboating showbiz no-shows at face value and held a businesslike inauguration at the southern border while laying the first brick. The brick remains unlaid – not because Vicente Fox refuses to ‘pay for Trump’s f**kin’ wall’ but because Paul Ryan does.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/724363700/trump-fires-john-bolton-in-final-break-after-months-of-policy-divisions President Trump has fired national security adviser John Bolton, the lifelong proponent of American hard power, after months of division between the men over the direction of foreign and national security policy. Trump announced the news Tuesday on Twitter. Bolton was Trump’s third national security adviser and continued the pattern of departures by advisers […]

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/09/civility-is-wasted-on-the-left/

Like Jordan Peterson’s reputation, Lionel Shriver’s conservative credentials were burnished by leftist idiocy. In Peterson’s case it was his interview on the UK’s Channel 4 by Cathy Newman. In Shriver’s case it was Yassmin Abdel-Magied walking out of the Brisbane Writers’ Festival in 2016 in protest at Shriver’s views on identity politics and cultural appropriation.

Neither Peterson nor Shriver are my kind of conservatives and, to be fair, I am sure they would not claim to be or would want to be. That’s fine. What I would like to say is that conservative warriors are now needed more than ever. Much less useful are prominent notables on the conservative side who come over all reasonable in the face of those intent on our destruction.

Peterson lost his standing with me when he suggested that Brett Kavanagh should first win his confirmation to the Supreme Court but then immediately resign to clear his name. That was a ridiculous suggestion, to put it extremely mildly. Clearly Peterson has no idea about the enemy we face.

I caught Shriver on Q&A last week. True, I could only stand five minutes or so before turning it off. Any longer spent watching Q&A is injurious to my peace of mind. Nevertheless, I saw enough to sense that Shriver was trying hard to appear “reasonable” to other panellists and to the usual green-leftist ABC audience. Hint for Shriver: Prostration is pointless. They’ll always despise you. Look to, say, Michelle Malkin for a role model.

Did I get a false impression of Shriver’s demeanour? I think not. The following evening I attended the Bonython Lecture in Sydney, where she explained that her engagement, front and backstage, with other Q&A panellists was civil; and, furthermore, she made a point of extolling the need for civility generally in political debate.