The Totalitarian Epistemological Closure of Social Justice

September 2nd, 2020

I have this ginormous post on Social Justice that just keeps getting bigger and bigger, with more and more links, and I’ll never finish it unless I start breaking it down into smaller chunks. So this post focuses on two meaty pieces about the theoretical underpinnings of Social Justice, and how it suffers from epistemological closure.

First up: James Lindsay on why the woke will not debate you:

There are a number of points within Critical Social Justice Theory that would see having a debate or conversation with people of opposing views as unacceptable, and they all combine to create a mindset where that wouldn’t be something that adherents to the Theory are likely or even willing to do in general. This reticence, if not unwillingness, to converse with anyone who disagrees actually has a few pretty deep reasons behind it, and they’re interrelated but not quite the same. They combine, however, to produce the first thing everyone needs to understand about this ideology: it is a complete worldview with its own ethics, epistemology, and morality, and theirs is not the same worldview the rest of us use. Theirs is, very much in particular, not liberal. In fact, theirs advances itself rather parasitically or virally by depending upon us to play the liberal game while taking advantage of its openings. That’s not the same thing as being willing to play the liberal game themselves, however, including to have thoughtful dialogue with people who oppose them and their view of the world. Conversation and debate are part of our game, and they are not part of their game.

The first thing to understand about the way adherents to Critical Social Justice view the world is just how deeply they have accepted the belief that we operate within a wholly systemically oppressive system. That system extends to literally everything, not just material structures, institutions, law, policies, and so on, but also into cultures, mindsets, ways of thinking, and how we determine what is and isn’t true about the world. In their view, the broadly liberal approach to knowledge and society is, in fact, rotted through with “white, Western, male (and so on) biases,” and this is such a profound departure from how the rest of us—broadly, liberals—think about the world that it is almost impossible to understand just how deeply and profoundly they mean this.

In a 2014 paper by the black feminist epistemology heavyweight Kristie Dotson, she explains that our entire epistemic landscape is itself profoundly unequal. Indeed, she argues that it is intrinsically and “irreducibly” so, meaning that it is not possible from within the prevailing system of knowledge and understanding to understand or know that the system itself is unfairly biased toward certain ways of knowing (white, Western, Eurocentric, male, etc.) and thus exclusionary of other ways of knowing (be those what they may). That is, Dotson explains that when we look across identity groups, not only do we find a profound lack of “shared epistemic resources” by which people can come to understand things in the same way as one another, but also that the lack extends to the ability to know that that dismal state of affairs is the case at all. This, she refers to as “irreducible” epistemic oppression, which she assigns to the third and most severe order of forms of epistemic oppression, and says that it requires a “third-order change” to the “organizational schemata” of society (i.e., a complete epistemic revolution that removes the old epistemologies and replaces them with new ones) in order to find repair.

This view is then echoed and amplified, for example, in a lesser-read 2017 paper by the Theorist Alison Bailey. Therein she invokes explicitly that in the neo-Marxist “critical” tradition, which is not to be mistaken for the “critical thinking” tradition of the Western canon, critical thinking itself and that which is seen to produce and legitimize it are part of the “master’s tools” that black feminist Audre Lorde wrote “will never dismantle the master’s house.” Since nobody ever believes me that she really writes this, here’s the quote:

The critical-thinking tradition is concerned primarily with epistemic adequacy. To be critical is to show good judgment in recognizing when arguments are faulty, assertions lack evidence, truth claims appeal to unreliable sources, or concepts are sloppily crafted and applied. For critical thinkers, the problem is that people fail to “examine the assumptions, commitments, and logic of daily life… the basic problem is irrational, illogical, and unexamined living.” In this tradition sloppy claims can be identified and fixed by learning to apply the tools of formal and informal logic correctly.

Critical pedagogy begins from a different set of assumptions rooted in the neo-Marxian literature on critical theory commonly associated with the Frankfurt School. Here, the critical learner is someone who is empowered and motivated to seek justice and emancipation. Critical pedagogy regards the claims that students make in response to social-justice issues not as propositions to be assessed for their truth value, but as expressions of power that function to re-inscribe and perpetuate social inequalities. Its mission is to teach students ways of identifying and mapping how power shapes our understandings of the world. This is the first step toward resisting and transforming social injustices. By interrogating the politics of knowledge-production, this tradition also calls into question the uses of the accepted critical-thinking toolkit to determine epistemic adequacy. To extend Audre Lorde’s classic metaphor, the tools of the critical-thinking tradition (for example, validity, soundness, conceptual clarity) cannot dismantle the master’s house: they can temporarily beat the master at his own game, but they can never bring about any enduring structural change. They fail because the critical thinker’s toolkit is commonly invoked in particular settings, at particular times to reassert power: those adept with the tools often use them to restore an order that assures their comfort. They can be habitually invoked to defend our epistemic home terrains. (pp. 881–882) .

Here, the “master’s tools” are explicitly named by Bailey as including soundness and validity of argument, conceptual clarity, and epistemic adequacy (i.e., knowing what you’re talking about) and can easily be extended to science, reason, and rationality, and thus also to conversation and debate. The “master’s house” is the “organizational schemata” laid out by Kristie Dotson as the prevailing knowing system. Her claim is that these tools—essentially all of the liberal ones—cannot dismantle liberal societies from within, which is their goal, because they are the very tools that build and keep building it.

Bailey’s point is clear: the usual tools by which we identify provisional truths and settle scholarly disagreements are part of the hegemonically dominant system that, by definition, cannot be sufficiently radical to create real revolutionary change (a “third-order” change, as Dotson has it). That is, they can’t reorder society in the radical way they deem necessary. The belief, as both scholars explain in different ways, is that to play by the existing rules (like conversation and debate as a means to better understand society and advance truth) is to automatically be co-opted by those rules and to support their legitimacy, beside one deeper problem that’s even more significant.

The deeper, more significant aspect of this problem is that by participating in something like conversation or debate about scholarly, ethical, or other disagreements, not only do the radical Critical Social Justice scholars have to tacitly endorse the existing system, they also have to be willing to agree to participate in a system in which they truly believe they cannot win. This isn’t the same as saying they know they’d lose the debate because they know their methods are weak. It’s saying that they believe their tools are extremely good but not welcome in the currently dominant system, which is a different belief based on different assumptions. Again, their game is not our game, and they don’t want to play our game at all; they want to disrupt and dismantle it.

Their analysis would insist that their methods aren’t weak; it’s that the dominant system treats them unfairly. By being forced to participate in the dominant system, they therefore believe, they’re being cheated of the full force of their cause. To them, if we set the legitimization of the system part aside, to engage in scholarly conversation or debate is like a boxer stepping into an MMA match in which kicks, punches, throwing, and grappling are all on the table for the MMA fighter whereas gloved punches are the only thing the boxer is allowed to use, only far worse.

Debate and conversation, especially when they rely upon reason, rationality, science, evidence, epistemic adequacy, and other Enlightenment-based tools of persuasion are the very thing they think produced injustice in the world in the first place. Those are not their methods and they reject them. Their methods are, instead, storytelling and counter-storytelling, appealing to emotions and subjectively interpreted lived experience, and problematizing arguments morally, on their moral terms. Because they know the dominant liberal order values those things sense far less than rigor, evidence, and reasoned argument, they believe the whole conversation and debate game is intrinsically rigged against them in a way that not only leads to their certain loss but also that props up the existing system and then further delegitimizes the approaches they advance in their place. Critical Social Justice Theorists genuinely believe getting away from the “master’s tools” is necessary to break the hegemony of the dominant modes of thought. Debate is a no-win for them.

Therefore, you’ll find them resistant to engaging in debate because they fully believe that engaging in debate or other kinds of conversation forces them to do their work in a system that has been rigged so that they cannot possibly win, no matter how well they do. They literally believe, in some sense, that the system itself hates people like them and has always been rigged to keep them and their views out. Even the concepts of civil debate (instead of screaming, reeeee!) and methodological rigor (instead of appealing to subjective claims and emotions) are considered this way, as approaches that only have superiority within the dominant paradigm, which was in turn illegitimately installed through political processes designed to advance the interests of powerful white, Western men (especially rich ones) through the exclusion of all others. And, yes, they really think this way.

For adherents to Critical Social Justice Theory, then, there’s just no point to engaging in conversation or debate with people with whom they disagree. They reject the premise that such a thing is possible at all, because what is discussed or debated are, if changeable, in some sense matters of opinion. They don’t see the world this way at all, though. “Racism is not a matter of opinion” is, after all, one of their thought-stopping mantras. For them, disagreements across a stratifying axis of social power are a matter of being, experience, reality, and even life and death. These are not matters to be debated; they’re far too important for that.

Snip.

Secondly, the organizing principle of their worldview is that two things structure society: discourses and systems of power maintained by discourses. Regarding the systems of power, their underlying belief is genuinely that of the Critical Theorists: society is divided into oppressors versus oppressed, and the oppressors condition the beliefs and culture of society such that neither they nor the oppressed are aware of the realities of their oppression. That is, everyone who isn’t “Woke” to the realities of systemic oppression lives in a form of false consciousness. Members of dominant groups have internalized their dominance by accepting it as normal, natural, earned, and justified and therefore are unaware of the oppression they create. Members of “minoritized” groups have often internalized their oppression by accepting it as normal, natural, and just the way things are and are therefore unaware of the extent of the oppression they suffer or its true sources. In both cases, though in different ways and to different ends, the falsely conscious need to be awakened to a critical consciousness, i.e., become Critical Theorists.

Adherents to this worldview will not want to have conversations or debate with people who do not possess a critical consciousness because there’s basically no point to doing such a thing. Unless they can wake their debate or conversation partner up to Wokeness on the spot, they’d see it as though they’re talking to zombies who can’t even think for themselves. Unwoke people are stuck thinking in the ways dominant and elite powers in society have socialized them into thinking (you could consider this a kind of conditioning or brainwashing by the very machinations of society and how it thinks).

Much discussion of Foucault postmodernism snipped.

The knowledge principle is that knowledge is socially constructed and the result of political processes, and therefore objective truth is unattainable and irrelevant except in that some people make unjustified claims upon having access to it. The political principle is that these unjustified claims create a form of hegemonic dominance that needs to be deconstructed and dismantled through manipulations within the discourses at the level of the meanings of ideas.

You really do have to understand this like a religious view, very much like a Holy Spirit that is the Word, where the “Word” is the prevailing discourses, and the “Spirit” isn’t really holy: it’s systems of power and attempts at their disruption. Power is viewed to work through all people at all times as a result of the discourses that they accept and participate in, and so participating in conversation or debate with people who uphold the dominant discourses causes that power to work through you as well. That makes you complicit in the dominant discourses, even if you think you reject them, which makes having a conversation with the wrong person tantamount to a sin. This attitude is overwhelmingly present in the critical whiteness literature, which devotes a considerable portion of all of its proliferation to pointing out that white progressives who try to help out are the worst kind of racists because they no longer think that they’re equally significant conduits of the problematic dominant discourses and systems of society.

Snip.

Thirdly, adding to this is a theme we draw out significantly in the eighth chapter of Cynical Theories: they believe all disagreement with them to be illegitimate. If we followed from Dotson in the paper named above and another slightly earlier one (2011) about “epistemic violence,” it could be pinned on what she calls “pernicious ignorance.” Robin DiAngelo would call it “white fragility” to disagree. Alison Bailey refers to it as an attempt to preserve one’s privilege under the kind of term George Carlin lived to make fun of: “privilege-preserving epistemic pushback” (four words, twelve syllables, one hyphen). Further, Bailey said all attempts to criticize Critical Social Justice thought, because they come from that “critical thinking” and not the “critical theory” tradition (within which they’d obviously agree), generate “shadow texts” that follow along but don’t truly engage (in the correctly “critical” way; i.e., agreement with her). Barbara Applebaum said similar in her 2010 book, Being White, Being Good, wherein she explains that the only legitimate way to disagree with Critical Social Justice education in the classroom is to ask questions for clarification until one agrees (which, you might notice, isn’t disagreeing at all).

In general, as mentioned a bit earlier in the essay, if you disagree, you either have false consciousness or the willful intention to oppress, and so your disagreement isn’t genuine. Only disagreement that comes from a Critical Theory perspective would be genuine, but this isn’t actually disagreement with the Woke worldview, only with superficial aspects of how it is playing out. The Woke view genuinely is that unless you agree with the Woke worldview, you haven’t disagreed with the Woke worldview in an authentic way, and therefore your disagreement cannot be legitimate. Read it again: unless you actually agree, you didn’t disagree correctly.

Remember how shocked Bret Weinstein was at finding that Social Justice Warriors at Evergreen College not only rejected the enlightenment, but the very idea of enlightenment. To them, capitalism, democracy, the rule of law, critical thinking, logic and the scientific method are not just flawed, they are inherently racist systems of oppression that must be destroyed and replaced by Social Justice.

Social Justice isn’t at war with “oppression” or even “whiteness,” it is at war with the entirety of western civilization.

Remember my post about Social Justice as sick religion? Here Bradley Campbell expounds upon the religion theme:

The “snowflake” language fails to capture the moral seriousness of social justice activists. If you understand them mainly as undisciplined and self-absorbed, you’ll expect the movement to fizzle out, but it’s clear that’s not happening, and won’t happen anytime soon. The activists’ seriousness is better captured by critics who see them as adherents of something like a new religion. John McWhorter has written about what he calls the new religion of anti-racism, with its own notions of sin and Judgment Day and its own rituals. For example, anti-racist classes and seminars commonly teach whites to regularly acknowledge their privilege, which McWhorter sees as a “self-standing, totemic act… based on the same justification as… fundamental sinfulness is as a Christian.”

This is closer to the mark, but the problem with many of these comparisons is that they’re coming from those who have negative views of both the social justice movement and religion. McWhorter says that some of the key anti-racist ideas aren’t very well thought out, but that this is a feature of religion: “It is inherent to a religion that one is to accept certain suspensions of disbelief. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely—and the answer one gets, despite being somewhat half-cocked, is to be accepted as doing the job.” Others may point to the “cancel culture” aspects of the social justice movement and compare it to religious people persecuting heretics, apostates, and unbelievers. This is all fine as it goes, but it is limited to criticism as opposed to analysis, and it overlooks a more fundamental aspect of the social justice movement: that social justice culture is a moral culture, similar in some ways and different in others to other moral cultures. It also overlooks other, more positive ways the movement resembles religious movements.

In 2014 Jason Manning and I first wrote about the rise of a new moral culture. We called it victimhood culture because among those who embrace it, victimhood comes to act as a kind of moral status. While there are right-wing versions of it, most of the activists embracing this new culture are on the Left, and they see themselves as pursuing social justice. This culture, then, which can also be called social justice culture, is a moral framework concerned primarily with documenting and fighting oppression.

This new moral culture differs from prior ones, particularly in dealing with conflict. The honor cultures of many traditional societies valued bravery above all else, and in these societies people needed to stand up for themselves, often by engaging in violence, to demonstrate they weren’t cowards and wouldn’t let others take advantage of them or insult them. A duel over an insult, which seems so strange to most of us, made sense in this context. Surely if someone calls me a liar, we might think, our firing guns at one another doesn’t prove I’m not a liar. But what it does prove is that I’m not willing to let such an insult stand without a fight, that I’m willing to risk death to try avenging it. It may not prove I’m honest, but it does demonstrate my bravery, which may be more consequential.

In the United States and elsewhere, honor culture eventually gave way to dignity culture. It became more important to recognize one’s own and others’ inherent worth, so reputations weren’t so important. People came to believe they should let most insults stand, and that they should rely on the legal system for solving more serious disputes.

Social justice culture is similar to honor culture in that people might be concerned even with small slights and insults (microaggressions) that would be ignored by people in a dignity culture, but it’s similar to dignity culture in that people often appeal to authorities and other third parties rather than handling the slights themselves. The elevation of one virtue over others—from demonstrating bravery in honor cultures, to recognizing the worth of every individual in dignity cultures, and opposing oppression in social justice cultures—occurs along with different ways of conceiving of and responding to transgressions. It is important to note in this context that people immersed in different moral cultures commonly find each other’s behavior offensive or incomprehensible. And just as those in dignity cultures object to the violence of honor cultures as being foolish and cruel, and just as those in honor cultures object to the avoidance of conflict or the appeal to law in dignity cultures as cowardly and weak, those in dignity cultures sometimes see social justice activists as self-absorbed and childish—snowflakes. What they miss is that their behavior makes sense given their assumptions. That doesn’t mean it’s always sincere—people don’t always have pure motives when they express moral outrage and condemn wrongdoing—but it seems it often is, and it’s probably as sincere as that of any other activist group.

That the activists are usually sincere doesn’t mean that they’re right. I have been writing for some time about the threats the new culture poses to free speech and due process. But those who are concerned about problems arising from the new culture would do well to understand that these problems don’t come because people just haven’t learned how to be adults, or how to live in the real world. Problems that arise come from the culture’s elevation of social justice concerns above all else and from the interpretation of nearly all human interaction and all social institutions in terms of oppression and victimhood.

As part of its axiomatic tenets, Social Justice decrees that it cannot be criticized from any viewpoint outside Social Justice. By automatically and schematically rejecting all outside critiques, Social justice is a totalitarian system suffering epistemological closure. Where no outside critique is possible, no change is possible. In decrying every competing system as a system of repression, it becomes a system of totalitarian repression itself, in which every challenge to its own power is illegitimate. As a religion substitute, its axioms are not debatable, but unchanging and unchangeable dogma.

Like Communism, its totalitarian ancestor, Social Justice decrees that it is the only true path to building utopia on earth. Like Communism, all opposing systems, institutions and viewpoints must be destroyed. Like Communism, those who reject its tenets, or just embrace them too weakly, must be made to renounce their sins, and those who refuse to do so must be destroyed. (“For those outside the Party, nothing. For those inside the Party, everything.”) “If you want to know what the future looks like, imagine everyone in the world forced to denounce themselves in a perpetual struggle session…forever.”

But there’s one key difference between Communism and Social Justice. Marx cloaked his theory in the language of science as “scientific socialism.” Social Justice Warriors reject the scientific method as a system of oppression. The basis of modern civilization is just another instance of the “master’s tools” to be cast down.

Social Justice cannot measure an electron’s charge or whether a load-bearing concrete pillar can support a floor’s weight, but only whether those things are racist or not.

To quote Lindsay again:

One of the biggest mistakes we keep making as liberals who do value debate, dialogue, conversation, reason, evidence, epistemic adequacy, fairness, civility, charity of argument, and all these other “master’s tools” is that we can expect that advocates of Critical Social Justice also value them. They don’t. Or, we make the mistake that we can possibly pin Critical Social Justice advocates into having to defend their views in debate or conversation. We can’t.

These principles and values are rejected to their very roots within the Critical Social Justice worldview, and so the request for an advocate to have a debate or conversation with someone who disagrees will, to the degree they have adopted the Critical Social Justice Theoretical ideology/faith, be a complete nonstarter. It’s literally a request to do the exact opposite of everything their ideology instructs with regard to how the world and “systemic oppression” within it operates—to participate in their own oppression and maintain oppression of the people they claim to speak for.

Social Justice cannot be reasoned with. It can only be isolated, quarantined, fought and destroyed.

An End To Wokeness?

September 1st, 2020

I’m working on a Big Think piece on Social Justice, and while I ratchet all those parts into place, here’s James Lindsay, founder of New Discourses, on Joe Rogan, and how he sees the competing claims of ultimate victimhood finally derailing the Social Justice Warrior crusade:

He also mentions how California is trying to bring back legal racial discrimination. For Social Justice.

As a spoiler for the Big Think piece: At least one New Discourses piece will figure prominently in it…

BidenWatch for August 31, 2020

August 31st, 2020

Biden’s phony-baloney polls are running behind Hillary’s phony-baloney polls of four years ago, more China policy weakness, more anti-police rhetoric, and Slow Joe comes in many days and dollars short denouncing the antifa/#BlackLivesMatter riots. It’s this week’s BidenWatch!

  • “Biden Is Under-Performing Hillary Clinton in Battleground States She Lost.”

    On election day, Hillary Clinton polled 6.5 points ahead of Trump in Wisconsin in the Real Clear Politics average (an aggregate of polls). Trump ended up winning the state by 0.7 points. Biden currently leads by 3.5 points in Wisconsin in the RCP.

    The story is the same in North Carolina and Michigan. In North Carolina Trump lead Hillary by only 0.8 points on election day but ended up winning by 3.6. Biden is tied with Trump currently in the polls. In Michigan, Clinton lead by 3.6 points on election day, but Trump won by 0.3. Biden currently leads by 2.6 points.

    Or more accurately, “supposedly leads.”

    If we measure Hillary’s polling averages as of August 26th instead of election day, as the National Review’s David Harysanyi notes: Biden is +5.5 in Pennsylvania today [the 26th]. Hillary was +9.2 the same day in 2016. Florida is the only battleground state where Biden (+3.7) is outperforming Clinton (+2.7).

  • More on the same theme:

  • This Is How Biden Loses:

    In mid-August, a Pew Research Center poll found that the issue of violent crime ranks fifth in importance to registered voters—behind the economy, health care, the Supreme Court, and the pandemic, but ahead of foreign policy, guns, race, immigration, and climate change. The poll found a large partisan gap on the issue: three-quarters of Trump voters rated violent crime “very important,” second behind only the economy. Nonetheless, nearly half of Biden voters also rated it “very important.” Other polls show that, over the summer, Biden has lost some of the support he gained among older white Americans in the first months of the coronavirus pandemic.

    With some exceptions, the media have been reluctant to shine a bright light on the summer’s violence—both the riots and the concurrent spike in violence. The New York Times ignored or downplayed the subject for weeks. One of its first major articles appeared in mid-August, under the headline “In the Wake of Covid-19 Lockdowns, a Troubling Surge in Homicides.” The piece argued that the crime surge had to do with the end of the lockdown that coincided with the beginning of summer, citing the skepticism of criminologists that “the increase is tied to any pullback by the police in response to criticism or defunding efforts,” and pointing to economic disruption and the spread of despair. But it also offered a different explanation, contradicting the thesis: “Police officials in several cities have said the protests have diverted officers from crime-fighting duty or emboldened criminals.”

    After the 2016 election, the Times admitted that it had somehow missed the story, and it earnestly set about at self-correction. Like many other outlets, the paper sent reporters to talk to Americans who had put Trump in the White House. It was a new beat, almost a foreign bureau—heartland reporting—but that focus soon faded as the president’s daily depredations consumed the media’s attention. This election year, news organizations grown more activist might miss the story again, this time on principle—as they avoid stories that don’t support their preferred narrative. Trump supporters are hoping for it.

    I think I speak for all Trump supporters when I say hat we want a news media that honestly and fairly reports the news. But that ship sailed a long, long time ago. (What was the last Republican President who got unbiased reporting in the media? Eisenhower?) But I do agree that the MSM’s unsuccessful attempts to enforce preference falsification turns out to be a major advantage for Republicans.

    (Hat tip: Chuck DeVore.)

  • Speaking of Chuck DeVore, he has a piece on how well President Trump is doing when it comes to foreign policy, how bad Biden’s foreign policy record has been, and how weak Biden is on China:

    Biden’s lifetime of foreign policy miscues include:

    • Opposing Ronald Reagan’s military buildup and the Strategic Defense Initiative
    • Voting to invade Iraq in 2002, saying in 2003, “I voted to go into Iraq, and I’d vote to do it again.”
    • Early support for the 1999 bombing of Serbia which pushed Serbs to back the authoritarian leader there while stifling the nascent pro-democracy movement.
    • Criticism of President Trump’s authorization to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the man responsible for paying bounties to the Taliban for the killing of American troops in Afghanistan.
    • Advising President Obama to wait for more information before approving the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011—advice, that if acted upon, might have led to bin Laden’s escape.

    Reviewing Biden’s campaign statements and materials for clues on his foreign policy proposals suggests a Biden administration would major on the minors. In a sprawling 4,444-word essay entitled, “Why America Must Lead Again,” Biden sets out his vision. He mentions China 13 times:

    • Suggesting U.S. tech giants shouldn’t be aiding China’s repression.
    • Claiming his foreign policy will help the middle class “…win the competition for the future against China or anyone else… (author’s italics).”
    • Saying “There is no reason we should be falling behind China or anyone else (author’s italics) when it comes to clean energy, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, 5G, high-speed rail, or the race to end cancer as we know it.”
    • That, “The United States, not China, should be leading…” with new trade deals.
    • Admitting that “The United States does need to get tough with China…” or else China will “…keep robbing the United States and American companies of their technology and intellectual property,” with the best way to address the challenge being to “…build a united front of U.S. allies and partners to confront China’s abusive behaviors and human rights violations, even as we seek to cooperate with Beijing on issues where our interests converge, such as climate change, nonproliferation, and global health security.”
    • Working with “…China, to advance our shared objective of a denuclearized North Korea…”
    • Ensuring that “the rules of the digital age (aren’t) written by China and Russia.”
    • And working with China on climate change.

    Absent is any mention by Biden of China’s massive military build up of modern missiles, ships, aircraft, and space systems and its growing willingness to use that military power against virtually all neighboring nations. It’s as if, by closing one’s eyes to the threat, one can wish the dragon away.

    So while the People’s Republic of China under the Chinese Communist Party is methodically preparing for a military conquest of the free island of Taiwan, to slice off more Himalayan territory from India, to take islands from Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia (all while holding the U.S. military at bay with an increasing array of long range missiles), Biden stresses the importance of climate change and getting the Chinese to use less coal.

    President Trump is paying attention to the true nature of the existential threat from communist China, while Joe Biden focuses on lesser irritants from an earlier era.

  • More on the same theme:

    The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee Joe Biden is “dangerous” when it comes to offshoring American jobs and because of his past relationship issues with China, and the United States needs a tough president like Donald Trump to stand up against the country’s bullying behavior, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said Friday.

    “The problem with Joe Biden is he has a record, 44-year record,” Navarro said on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “In 2001, he voted to allow China into the World Trade Organization. That created a tsunami of offshoring, where we lost over 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs. This also happened on his watch when he was vice president.”

    Meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party is trying to “bully this country into submission through threats on Huawei and medical supplies,” Navarro said.

    “What we learned from this pandemic is we need to bring home our supply chains and manufacturing, not just for our essential medicines or medical supplies like masks or medical equipment like ventilators but for everything,” Navarro said. “China is bullying Australia right now for daring to question how that virus was created. Australia wants to do an investigation of China about where the virus came from. The next thing you know China is punishing Australia and New Zealand. It is a bully.”

    (Hat tip: Director Blue.)

  • No post-convention bump for Biden. “Getting no boost after a convention has happened only a few times in modern Democrat Party history. By John Kerry in 2004 and George McGovern in 1972. Kerry ended up losing to George W. Bush and McGovern got thrashed by Nixon in an historic landslide beaten only in scale by Presidents FDR and Ronald Reagan.” (Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ.)
  • “C-SPAN Had So Many Democrats Calling In Support For Trump That They Had To Change Their Protocol“:

    C-SPAN changed their open phone line labels after an overwhelming number of Democratic viewers called on Wednesday night proclaiming their support for President Donald Trump in the upcoming election.

    “I’m a longtime Democrat, born and raised … After watching tonight … I have made up my mind. I am definitely gonna vote for Donald Trump,” said one of the many voters who dialed in.

    Before the Republican National Convention, C-SPAN’s open phone lines were labeled as open for “Democrats,” “Republicans,” and “Other” viewers to call into and share their opinions on-air. After Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, however, C-SPAN received an influx of callers who identified as Democrat but said they would be voting for Trump in November.

    Due to the increasing nature of these calls, the network adjusted the phone lines to encompass those who “Support Trump,” “Support Biden,” and “Support Others.”

    (Hat tip: Instapundit.)

  • The RNC destroyed Biden’s basement campaign. Also: conservatives dominate Facebook’s top ten links list? I had no idea. But look at this:

    Ben Shapiro is doing the work of thousands!

  • Is Joe Biden for or against defunding the police? Yes:

    We should begin with Joe Biden who said he would redirect budgeted police money to non-police areas. That’s right. Biden made that statement on July 8, when he replied, “Yes, absolutely” to an interviewer who asked him, “But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?”

    But this defunding of the police, or “redirecting” as Biden spins it, contradicts a June 8 statement by his campaign claiming that Biden “does not believe that police should be defunded.”

    When that contradiction and doublespeak raised eyebrows, Biden then reversed on both prior positions, claiming he would give more money to the police to handle the “god-awful problems” they face in the line of duty. Talk about a pandering, wishy-washy politician who will say anything to get elected. Can anyone believe Biden now?

  • “Police group leader calls Biden-Harris ‘most radical anti-police ticket in history.'”

    The president of the top lobbying group representing police and law enforcement officers tore into Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, calling them the “most radical anti-police ticket in history.”

    Michael McHale, the president of the National Association of Police Organizations, decried what he described as a rash of violence against police officers in recent months and railed against “failed” elected officials in cities such as Minneapolis, New York and Chicago who he said had made “the conscious decision not to support law enforcement.”

    Biden, he said, would follow their lead.

    “Joe Biden has turned his candidacy over to the far-left, anti-law enforcement radicals,” he said. “And as a senator, Kamala Harris pushed to further restrict police, cut their training, and make our American communities and streets even more dangerous than they are.”

  • Nor are they attempting to lower the rhetoric:

  • Biden finally denounces all the antifa/#BlackLivesMatter violence and rioting, many days and dollars too late:

  • Biden and Harris want to monkey with your 401Ks. I don’t know a single person who contributes to a 401K who goes “You know what the problem is? I’m just saving too much in taxes!”
  • Now Nancy Pelosi is saying Biden shouldn’t debate Trump.
  • Speaking of Slow Joe, here he confuses Jacob Blake with Kyle Rittenhouse:

    Plus he doubled-down on the “very fine people” hoax yet again.

  • Know all that “Trump won’t conceded if he loses” rhetoric from the left? Still more projection: “Hillary Clinton: Biden should not concede under any circumstances.”
  • Nothing says you’ll fight for black people quite like being endorsed by white supremacist Richard Spencer. Hey, the MSM insisted on linking this loon to the Republican Party for four years, so it’s only fair Republicans return the favor.
  • Who watches the watchmen? “‘Factcheckers’ Keep Lying about Biden’s Abortion Position.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.”)
  • Slow Joe update:

  • Heh:

  • Noted for the record: “Joe Biden to visit Southwestern Pennsylvania Monday; location, details not announced.” My experience has been that most presidential campaigns announce a time and place for a candidate’s appearance well more than a day in advance.
  • Good question:

  • The new pieties:

  • Lyin Joe:

    

  • Michael Moore thinks President Trump is going to win again. He was right about this in 2016 as well. “The Biden campaign just announced he’ll be visiting a number of states— but not Michigan. Sound familiar?”
  • Speaking of Michigan: Trump 47, Biden 45. It’s almost like the working class is never returning to the Democrat Party. (Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ.)
  • Epic comeback:

    

  • Boom:

  • Heh:

  • Heh 3:

  • “Biden: ‘My Doc Says I Don’t Have Alzheimer’s, Dementia, Or Alzheimer’s.'”
  • Also, I note for the record that no notable Kamala Harris links made their way across my desktop this week. I wasn’t trying to exclude them, but after the DNC was over, it seemed like the media universe at large just sort of lost interest in her. She generates a palpable lack of excitement.

    Like BidenWatch? Consider hitting the tip jar:





    The Portland Mystery

    August 30th, 2020

    Night after night, Portland’s Democratic mayor Ted Wheeler allows antifa/#BlackLivesMatter rioters to run wild in his city, carrying out organized criminal campaigns of violence. Last night, a man wearing a “Patriot Prayer” hat was murdered there.

    The question is: Why?

    What’s in it for Wheeler?

    We know why Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt refuses to press charges against rioters: because that’s what DAs backed by George Soros money do.

    President Donald Trump is not a fan of the way Wheeler has handled the crisis:

    President Trump ramped up his attacks against Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) on Sunday after a person was killed in the Oregon city following skirmishes between supporters of the president and Black Lives Matter demonstrators.

    Trump did not address the incident, however he posted multiple tweets claiming that tensions in the city demanded federal intervention. In response to a tweet documenting clashes between Trump supporters and counterprotesters, the president claimed that it was a result of incompetence from the mayor.
    “The big backlash going on in Portland cannot be unexpected after 95 days of watching and incompetent Mayor admit that he has no idea what he is doing,” Trump said. “The people of Portland won’t put up with no safety any longer. The Mayor is a FOOL. Bring in the National Guard!”

    He added in a separate tweet that Wheeler was “incompetent, much like Sleepy Joe Biden,” referencing the Democratic presidential nominee.

    “Our great National Guard could solve these problems in less than 1 hour,” he said. “Local authorities must ask before it is too late. People of Portland, and other Democrat run cities, are disgusted with Schumer, Pelosi, and [their] local ‘leaders.’ They want Law & Order!”

    This follows an appeals court lifting a stay against federal law enforcement in Portland.

    Even more puzzling: Those same antifa/#BlackLivesMatter rioters he refuses to reign in seem to hold Wheeler in contempt as well, as they occupied his condo lobby and demanded his resignation.

    Rose City Antifa has been around since 2007, and has not been shy about stating their goals in Portland: It’s the violent overthrow of the United States.

    Weirdly, Wheeler is running for reelection at the same time he allows riots to continue night after night, against runoff opponent Sarah Iannarone, who is evidently even more pro-rioter than he is.

    Even Portland’s Democratic governor Kate Brown says enough is enough. And this despite Oregon State Police ceasing to protect the besieged Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in downtown Portland.

    So the question remains: How does Portland’s Democratic mayor Ted Wheeler benefit from rioters continuing to assault police officers and commit other felonies in downtown Portland?

    What’s in it for him?

    TPPF On Homelessness in Austin (And Elsewhere)

    August 29th, 2020

    Here’s a Texas Public Policy Foundation roundtable on homelessness, with a focus on the problem in Austin.

    I’ve cut out five minutes of nothing-at-all at the beginning.

  • Filmmaker Chris Rufo has produced a documentary called America Lost, and he notes it’s not a housing shortage issue. “About three-quarters of those on the street have a substance abuse problem, and about three-quarters also have some sort of mental illness.”
  • Michele Steeb, who ran the St. John’s homeless shelter for women and children in Sacramento, said she saw about the same ration: 80% addicted, 75% with mental illness, and 50% lack a high school diploma or GED. Neither Austin nor Sacramento has put a dent in their homeless problem. Affordable housing doesn’t do it. “Around 70% of them need deep, individualized interventions.”
  • Texas Republican congressman Chip Roy. “if you have perspectives that don’t involve big government programs, you’re accused of ignoring the problem.” He says that when you get the federal government involved without policy innovation, you end up with problems. Says Austin Mayor Steve Adler’s policies have made the problem a whole lot worse. “We’ve seen a 45% increase [in homelessness] from 2019 to 2020. It’s a direct result of the policies the city council adopted”
  • Roy: “What doesn’t work is patting yourself on the back as the leftist mayor of Austin, Texas and saying ‘Look how important I am about focusing on the homeless,’ while you’re letting the homeless suffer in the streets.”
  • Rufo: “If you don’t have a local government that is willing to enforce the law, create rules, and maintain public order, you’re wasting your time.”
  • Homeless people say they can’t get access to the services Austin provides because they fear for their safety just walking four blocks.
  • (Hat tip: Cahnman’s Musings.)

    LinkSwarm for August 28, 2020

    August 28th, 2020

    Greetings, and welcome to another Friday LinkSwarm! The Republican National Convention finishes up and more news of those “fiery but peaceful” riots.

  • Here’s President Donald Trump’s full nomination acceptance speech from the RNC:

  • The PJ Media crew live-blogged night four of the RNC. (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
  • Victor Davis Hanson on what the riots are really about:

    As with most cultural revolutions that wish to start things over at “year zero,” the violence is aimed at America’s past in order to change its present and future.

    The targets are not just the old majority culture but also classical statues and buildings, hallowed institutions, religious icons, the renowned names of streets and plazas, and almost every representation of tradition and authority.

    For the majority of Americans who do not buy into the revolution, it all seems so surreal — and hypocritical.

    Only a despised, dynamic American economy allows millions to divorce from it for a summer of protest.

    A ridiculed U.S. Constitution ensures that looters and arsonists have due process.

    The Bill of Rights guarantees peaceful assembly and electrically amplified profanity rarely protected elsewhere.

    Affirmative action; federally ensured and subsidized college grants and loans; and cheap smartphones, headphones and laptops all give youth choices unimagined in the past.

    No matter — cultural revolutions are incoherent and nihilist.

    Those who signed up for the Jacobin Reign of Terror wanted violence, not a constitutional republic to replace the French monarchy.

    The Bolsheviks were less interested in substituting an elected prime minister for the Russian czar than in grabbling power and murdering millions of their enemies.

    Mao Zedong did not just hate the warlords, landlords, Mandarins and Nationalists. He wished to reinvent 1 billion Chinese in his own narcissistic image by first killing millions.

    There is, of course, reason to oversee the police more effectively.

    Universities are partly culpable for a collective $1.4 trillion in student loan debt.

    Globalization eroded the middle class. Inner-city America is far too violent — and far too neglected.

    But these are not the apparent concerns of those who carry off shoes and phones in U-Hauls, kick the unconscious on the pavement, destroy art and sculpture, or seek to torch public buildings with public servants inside.

    The point of the mob is to wipe out what it cannot create.

    It topples what it can neither match nor even comprehend.

    It would erode the very system that ensures it singular freedom, leisure and historic affluence.

    The brand of the anarchist is not logic but envy-driven power: to take it, to keep it, and to use it against purported enemies — which would otherwise be impossible in times of calm or through the ballot box.

    (Hat tip: Director Blue.)

  • “There’s little wrong with President Trump that more Trump couldn’t solve.”

    More fundamentally: where do you think the country would be without him? Even if you’re disappointed with less than 200 miles of wall, remember that leading Democrats not only insist that every single new inch is a moral atrocity, they want to tear down sections that already exist.

    Think the trade agenda is progressing too slowly? Well, President Trump already renegotiated two of our worst trade deals. How many new, bad ones do you think a Hillary administration would have signed by now? Trump not tough enough on China for you? A little too much talk about his “good friend” Xi Jinping? I sympathize. But he’s still done more than all the last four presidents combined. More than that, he’s reversed the China policy of the last four presidents combined. Have you heard how Joe Biden kowtows to China?

    And I know that some will insist that, so long as a single American soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is deployed anywhere in the Middle East, then Trump has failed—or worse, betrayed them. But in fact, the president has mostly succeeded at the tasks he promised for that region: defeating ISIS, revitalizing our alliances while requiring more from our allies, and prudently disengaging from existing conflicts while not starting any new ones.

    All of these trends, changes, policies, and initiatives, and many others—however incomplete—would be reversed in the event of a Trump loss. The ruling class would hail the president’s defeat as a historic repudiation of his (allegedly) “racist and xenophobic” vision, etc., as a vindication of every charge and complaint they’ve made against him and his supporters since Day 1. Their goal would be to erase the last four years and the 2016 election as if they never happened. If think-tank conservatives want above all to get into a DeLorean and go back to 1985, the ruling class wants to cram America into a Prius and force us back to 2015. And then resume the trajectory the country had been on back then, i.e., the road to woke managerial tyranny.

  • Password is: “Enthusiasm Gap,” with six times as many CSPAN viewers for the RNC than the DNC. (Hat tip: Ann Althouse.)
  • President Trump’s poll numbers rise in swing states. Adjust by the usual 3% polls historically favor Democrats over election results, and Trump is tied or ahead in all of them. And that was before the RNC. (Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ.)
  • Another look at the rioting in Kenosha.
  • Video of Kyle Rittenhouse exercising his right of self-defense:

  • Reporter robbed at gunpoint during riot.
  • Newspeak from CNN: “Fiery but peaceful protests.” At this point, all of us should just start pelting CNN reporters with garbage.
  • CNN’s inadvertent open mic:

  • “CNN Hires This Is Fine Dog To Report On Riots.”
  • Sadly true:

  • This is how cities die: “Shaken by summer looting in affluent neighborhoods, some Chicagoans are moving away.”
  • Jerry Seinfeld tries to refute that New York City is dead piece, but it just amounts to “New York is awesome and we’re tough” yadda yadda, and doesn’t address the insanely high taxes or actually changes in economic justification that used to make living in the city a requirement that isn’t there anymore. (Hat tip: Ann Althouse.)
  • Powerline has additional thoughts on that New York Times article mentioned yesterday that shows that, amazingly, riots, looting and arson aren’t popular with average Americans.
  • Baltimore Sun slams Maryland Republican congressional candidate Kimberly Klacik for blaming Baltimore’s dysfunction on Democrats. They said that was “ludicrous and overly simple,” which I guess is a synonym for “true.”
  • “The Post Office Conspiracy Is First Class Stupidity“:

    If you believe the mainstream media, Donald Trump is involved in a nefarious scheme to somehow make the USPS into something inefficient and incompetent, which comes close on the heels of his plot to make the sun start setting in the West. If that’s his plan, he already pulled it off decades before he first hit the cover of the New York Post. We conservatives think the president has done a lot of great stuff since humiliating Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit in 2016, but not even the most hardcore Trump Train engineer would go as far as Trump’s frothy pie-holed critics and credit the president with the mastery of time and space.

    The correspondence conspiracy is pretty much liberal Q, except the eccentric Q folks at least like America.

    And here’s a special shout-out to the Democrats pushing this intellectual fentanyl for deciding it is a good idea to choose the competence of the post office as their hill for the crusty crustacean’s campaign to die on. Please, continue pointing to the USPS as an example of what you’ll make the entire government into if we’re dumb enough to elect Gropey J. Good thinking, because if there’s anything that real people outside the MSNBCNN bubble love, it’s the post office. It’s the federal DMV, except with stamps.

    Snip.

    What is clear is that the real goal of this conspiracy theory is to launch a preemptive attempt to find another excuse for a Democrat defeat. Last time it was PUTIN PUTIN PUTIN and this time it’ll be POSTAGE POSTAGE POSTAGE.

    Apparently, his plan is to somehow make it so the post office will be unable to deliver vote by mail ballots in order to prevent Democrats from winning the election that their senile old weirdo nominee is in the process of blowing. It might be interesting to examine the details of this conspiracy theory if there was even a coherent conspiracy theory to examine, but there’s not. It’s mostly “Trump bad!,” then low and undecipherable mumbling, then “And that’s how he will steal the election!”

    The specifics of the alleged plot, to the extent you can identify them, are puzzling and elusive. What exactly is Trump going to do again? Is he going to order the mailmen to toss ballots in the shredder? Seems like it would be hard to pull off that flex with all those crack journalists out there. We are also told that he is rounding-up blue mailboxes from America’s street corners, and that this has been going on for a couple of decades is only further proof of his evil plan, somehow. What is not clear is how this might work in practice – so, the idea is that the Democrat voter comes home, ballot in hand, weeping because there are no blue mailboxes anymore to place his ballot into, and then he walks back inside his house past … his own mailbox? And then he just gives up? He sits at his dinner table, head in hands, sobbing at his inability to figure out how to drop a piece of correspondence into the postal system?

  • “New Jersey Election Invalidated Because of Mail-In Voter Fraud.”
  • Related: “Man Arrested in L.A. for Voting 3 Times as His Dead Mother.
  • Good news! Yaser Abdel Said, the man accused of murdering his own two daughters in an Islamic honor killing, has finally been apprehended after a 12 year manhunt.
  • Texas Democrats sue to keep the Green Party off the ballot in November. Remember: When Democrats say they support equal ballot access, they don’t really mean it.
  • University of Arizona stops a Wuhan coronavirus outbreak before it starts.
  • Interesting data on how UK Labour Party has become markedly unpopular in ever-younger age groups:

  • President Trump to the press:

  • Reporter: Why are the NBA’s ratings down? Expert: Woke politics and China. Reporter: Do you have any idea? Expert: Woke politics and China. Any idea at all? Expert: WOKE POLITICS AND CHINA! Reporter: 😑.
  • Palantir’s CEO Alex Karp has has had enough of Social Justice Warriors in Silicon Valley.
  • Dwight has a four part video series on The Falkland Islands War up.
  • Speaking of Dwight, he might appreciate these annotated lyrics to the C.W. McCall song “Convoy,” since we recently watched the movie of the same name. (Brief review of the movie: Deeply flawed but weirdly compelling.)
  • Captain Kirk brings the fire:

  • “Arkham Board of Health Feedback On Miskatonic University’s Draft Plan for a Safe Campus Reopening.”
  • “Did Democrats Sacrifice Several Goats To Satan At The DNC? Fact Check: FALSE. They Actually Sacrificed Just One Goat.”
  • “Facebook Now Allows Users To Flag Anything They Disagree With As ‘Literally Hitler.”‘
  • Speaking of Facebook, everyone hates their new interface. Me included.
  • Kenosha Burning

    August 27th, 2020

    Antifa/#BlackLivesMatter rioters seem determined to riot in every city in America (or at least every Democrat-controlled city), and this week it was the turn of Kenosha, Wisconsin, a city of some 100,000 on the shores of Lake Michigan between Chicago and Milwaukee, two other cities that have gotten to experience the same violence.

    Kenosha, WI is under siege by mobs of violent rioters, looters, vandals, and arsonists. The mainstream media is spinning this as a normal reaction to the police shooting of Jacob Blake, but it’s obviously a gang of criminal thugs wreaking havoc and destroying lives and livelihoods because they can. No matter the impetus, this is not okay.

    The man over whom rioters were destroying Kenosha was a repeat offender wanted on 3rd degree sexual assault charges and accused of rape.

    However, things have obviously changed in the political landscape, because after two days of letting rioters run free, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor Tony Evers accepted President Donald Trump’s offer to send federal law enforcement officers to help stop the riots.

    Some video:

    Even the New York Times has the gall to say “The politically calculated warnings of President Trump and the Republican Party about chaos enveloping America should Democrats win in November are reverberating among some people in Kenosha.” I guess “politically calculated” is newspeak whenever a Republican says something that’s obviously true. The actual-reportage-mixed-with-special-pleading continues:

    While many demonstrators have been peaceful [the ritual invocation!], others have set fire to buildings. At least four businesses downtown have been looted. Men armed with guns have shown up to confront protesters, leading to the shooting of three people, two of them fatally.”

    In Kenosha County, where the president won by fewer than 250 votes in 2016, those who already supported Mr. Trump said in interviews that the events of the past few days have simply reinforced their conviction that he is the man for the job. But some voters who were less sure of their choice said the chaos in their city and the inability of elected leaders to stop it were currently nudging them toward the Republicans.

    And some Democrats, nervous about condemning the looting because they said they understood the rage behind it [drink!], worried that what was happening in their town might backfire and aid the president’s re-election prospects.

    Yes, that’s the big problem! Not the arson, looting and murder in Democrat-run cities, but the possibility that people might vote against Democrats!

    That’s the real unforgivable crime.

    The same concern is expressed by leftwing CNN hack Don Lemon.

    CNN’s Don Lemon said Tuesday night that Democrats “ignoring” riots in some U.S. cities represents a “blind spot” for the party, and called on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to address the problem because it is “sticking” in polling and focus groups.

    The perspective comes after deadly violence continued in Kenosha, Wis., with three shot and two dead amid rioting following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

    Lemon called Kenosha a “Rorschach test for the entire country” during his handoff with 9 p.m. anchor Chris Cuomo.

    “It’s showing up in the polling. It’s showing up in focus groups. It is the only thing right now that is sticking,” Lemon said ahead of “CNN Tonight” on Tuesday. “The riots and the protests have become indistinguishable.”

    Maybe that’s because they’ve gone hand-in-hand from the very first, when radical Marxists saw George Floyd’s death, idle hands from the lockdown and widespread masking as an opportunity both to sow chaos, and to radicalize black Americans just when polls were showing President Trump managing to gain a larger share of their support.

    “I think this is a blind spot for Democrats. I think Democrats are ignoring this problem or hoping that it will go away, and it’s not going to go away,” [Lemon] added before arguing the violence needs to be addressed by Biden before the election.

    “The problem is not going to be fixed by [Election Day],” said Lemon. “But what they can do, and I think maybe Joe Biden may be afraid to do it … he’s got to address it. He’s got to come out and talk about it.”

    “And they’re rioters, not protesters. They’re criminals,” he added.

    Imagine that.

    People have finally said “Enough!” Both in Kenosha and elsewhere.

    The only reasons why the riots have been allowed to go on as long as they have is Democratic mayors, prosecutors and governors refused to let police restore order, either because they agreed with the goals of the rioters, found the riots politically useful, or lack the courage to confront leftwing radicals (“no enemies on the left”). Where police have been allowed to use sufficient force to maintain public order (including, ironically, Austin; good thing Texas has a Republican governor), either the riots stopped or protests were never allowed to escalate into riots in the first place.

    Order cures disorder, and the very first role of government is securing the life, liberty and property of its citizens.

    Democrats forget that at their (and the nation’s) peril.

    Edited to add: Saw this on Twitter this morning:

    RNC: Video, Recaps, and Recaps of Recaps

    August 26th, 2020

    I’ve been too busy to watch the RNC, but I have been watching selected videos and reading recaps, so here’s my recap of the recaps, starting with videos of some of the most notable speakers.

  • South Carolina Senator Tim Scott:

    “In an overwhelmingly white district, the voters judged me not on the color of my skin but on the content of my character.”

    “Our family went from cotton to congress in one lifetime.”

  • Running back legend Herschel Walker:

    “I take it as a personal insult that people would think I’ve had a thirty seven year friendship with a racist. People who think that don’t know what they’re talking about. Growing up in the deep south, I’ve seen racism up close. I know what it is, and it isn’t Donald Trump.”

  • Maryland Republican congressional candidate Kim Klacik:

    Democrats have controlled this part of Baltimore for over 50 years, and they have run this beautiful place right into the ground. Abandoned buildings, liquor stores on every corner, drug addicts, guns on the street: that’s now the norm in many neighborhoods. You’d think Maryland taxpayers would be getting a lot, because our taxes are out of control. Instead we’re paying for decades of incompetence and corruption. Sadly, the same cycle of decay exists in many Democrat-run cities, and yet the Democrats still assume black people will vote for them, no matter how much they let us down and take us for granted. We’re sick of it. We’re not going to take it any more.

    (Previously.)

  • Georgia Democratic State Representative Vernon Jones:

    “Unfortunately, Democrats have turned their backs on our brave police officers. They call it defunding, and it’s a danger to our cities, our neighborhoods, and our children…Our police need more funding, not less.”

  • Maximo Alverez, entrepreneur and survivor of Cuban communism:

    “The country I was born in is gone, totally destroyed. When I watch the news from Chicago, Seattle, Portland, and other cities, when I see the history being rewritten, I hear echoes of a former life I never wanted to hear again. I see shadows I thought I had outrun.”

  • Transcript of the McClokey’s speech: “Whether it’s the defunding of police, ending cash bails or criminals can be released back out on the streets the same day to riot again, or encouraging anarchy and chaos on our streets, it seems as if the Democrats no longer view the government’s job as protecting honest citizens from criminals, but rather protecting criminals from honest citizens.”
  • And they’re already receiving death threats.
  • Mollie Hemingway offers 6 Quick Takeaways From The First Night Of The Republican National Convention.

    One major theme of the Democratic convention was that America is a racial hell-hole and Donald Trump is racist. It is quite typical for Democrats and other political groups to incite or exploit racial hatred, prejudice, or tension for political gain around the time of elections. While black voters are some of Democrats’ most reliable supporters, fear of a larger segment of them being recruited by Trump has led to particular hysteria among Democratic strategists this election season.

    The typical Republican response is to cower in fear or respond defensively that they are not racist. But the first night of this convention was not that at all. At this convention, Republicans traded defense for offense.

    Whether it was Jones or Klacik speaking about their frustrations with how Democrats handle race issues, Haley describing the racism she faced as a little brown girl growing up in South Carolina, Walker talking about how offended he gets when people claim his friend Trump is racist, or Scott describing how his family went from “cotton to Congress in a lifetime,” the speeches and rhetoric weren’t timid or tiptoeing around issues but tackling them head on. It was a surprising change of pace.

  • Ace of Spades has Part One recap of the first night. Including this:

  • And Part Two.
  • A recap from Chicks On the Right.
  • China Literally Murdering Babies

    August 25th, 2020

    And this time not exclusively the unborn kind. Namely they’re murdering Uighur babies.

    Hospitals in Xinjiang aborted late-stage pregnancies and killed newborns as part of China’s mission to erase Uighur culture, a doctor who worked in the region told Radio Free Asia on Monday.

    Since 2016, China has interned at least 1 million Uighurs in hundreds of prison camps, which it euphemistically calls “reeducation centers,” where Uighurs are forced to abandon their heritage and religion.

    A large part of this crackdown involves limiting Uighurs’ reproductive rights and slashing the birth rate.

    Snip.

    Hasiyet Abdulla, a Uighur doctor who spent 15 years working in hospitals in Xinjiang and now lives in Turkey, told RFA that when a child was expected to be born into a family who already had two or three children or who’d had a child in the past three years, the pregnancy would be terminated, even at “eight and nine months.”

    Sometimes medical staff members would “even kill the babies after they’d been born,” Abdulla said.

    “They wouldn’t give the baby to the parents — they kill the babies when they’re born,” she said, adding: “It’s an order that’s been given from above, it’s an order that’s been printed and distributed in official documents. Hospitals get fined if they don’t comply, so of course they carry this out.”

    This seems like it should be bigger news than it is.

    Communist China is literally killing babies because they’re the wrong race, which is both evil and a violation of Article II of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Literally killing babies.

    Literally committing genocide.

    Can we all agree that this is evil?

    Can someone ask Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to condemn China over this atrocity?

    (Hat tip: Instapundit.)