This is not a civil right movement. This is a violent countermovement against freedom and progress (see The New Left’s War on Imaginary Structures of Oppression in Order to Hide the Real Ones). The federal government has to step in and stop this. Enough is enough. All the so-called leftist who support this? People, please. You made the wrong choice of comrades. Wake up. You let something confuse you and you don’t have your head on straight. Shake yourself out of the fog you’re in.
“Wall of Moms” between law enforcement and rioters in Portland
The question is not whether federal troops ought to intervene in situations occurring in the states. If this were true, the only place the federal government could appear is in the District of Columbia (and progressives have a problem even with that—because Trump is president). It is bizarre, frankly, to see progressives make the “states rights” argument. What do they think about President Eisenhower’s intervention in Little Rock, Arkansas when Orval Faubus used military force to stifle the right of black people to attend school with whites? We are first and foremost citizens of the United States of America. Arkansas blacks were right to expect that the federal government would defend their rights because their rights applied to all people regardless of the color of their skin. (See Fake News, Executive Power, and the Anti-Working Class Character of Street Crime.)
I am reading progressives on the matter of Portland and they sound like the far-right wing-nuts who, during the 1990s, characterized the ATF, the FBI, and other federal officers as “jackbooted thugs.” Remember that? These reactionaries claimed that the federal government was a fascistic entity depriving them of their rights. Their concerns of course fell on the deaf ears of progressives. But Waco wasn’t wrong because the feds intervened. Waco was wrong because the feds acted stupidly and recklessly. Same thing in Portland.
What we are seeing from the left is not judgment based on principle and the rule of law in a democratic republic, but panicked knee-jerking when the rule of law is applied a particular group with whom they agree. For progressives, smashing right-wingers is a beautiful thing—even when the protests are peaceful. Just the presence of conservatives and right-wingers is violence in the progressive’s eyes. They abhor the “deplorables,” white they adore Antifa for punching them in the face. When the cause they support involves arson, looting, and physical violence, then law enforcement is supposed to stand down because that mob is justified. It is an utterly contemptible double standard.
“Protestors” on the run in Portland
These progressive voices like to think of themselves as on the left, but as a lifelong left-winger, the double standard just isn’t working for me. As Marx explains, “laws are in no way repressive measures against freedom, any more than the law of gravity is a repressive measure against motion, because while, as the law of gravitation, it governs the eternal motions of the celestial bodies, as the law of falling it kills me if I violate it and want to dance in the air. Laws are rather the positive, clear, universal norms in which freedom has acquired an impersonal, theoretical existence independent of the arbitrariness of the individual.” He writes, “A statute book is a people’s bible of freedom.”
Marx was not an anarchist (neither am I).
For Marx, reason—the natural law, which for Marx is human rights, found in the objective potential of species-being—is realized in positive laws that establish the conditions for freedom (positive and negative), which has at its base security. Marx was an advocate of socialism because he wanted to improve the life chances for people. People cannot be free under conditions of anarchy because under conditions of anarchy there is no rule of law.
When E.P. Thompson embraced the rule of law in Whigs and Hunters, he was attacked by many on the left for deviating from Marxism. They did not grasp Thompson’s point that leaders disregarding the rule of law—which Ted Wheeler, Mayor of Portland, is guilty of—are a menace to freedom. Thompson meant to contrast the lawless leader from leaders constrained by the rule of law. Thompson understood that in any complex social system, the law is a necessary institution. Wheeler is not above the law. The mob he is advocating for is not above the law.
Progressives do not represent working people. They mean to disorganize the left with identity politics and postmodern thinking. They seek group rights not human rights, which are necessarily individual rights. Whatever Trump’s thinking is for intervening, the effect of his actions is pro-working class.
The just-minded don’t break laws unless they absolutely have to and this requires a legitimate cause. The mob in our streets is illegitimate. Their claims are objectively wrong. This is not a civil rights movement. It is a countermovement against progress. It is reactionary.
Civil disobedience to one side, there is no justification for destruction, plunder, and violence. Citizens have the right to expect that the government will intervene to protect them (see The States Rights Fallacy; Portland and the Rule of Law). If Wheeler fails to do that, then the federal government has to step it.
I am posting to my blog an annotated script to my recent podcast/vlog on the myth of anti-black bias in police shootings. I provide references to all the sources I reference in that blog.
I also report a casualty in the moral panic over police shootings, the “voluntary” retraction of one of the many pieces of research I cited (which was announced after I recorded my podcast). The authors did something wonderful in their retraction letter: they cited even more research that supports my thesis—research going back to 1977. That extends the body of research back in time another decade. We now have 43 years of research countering the Black Lives Matter narrative. Amid the pressure to retract their findings (the reasons for which are absurd) the researchers did so with Galilean defiance. My guess is that it was better to voluntarily retract and draw attention to the letter than have the journal retract. I have not talked to the authors, so I cannot say for sure.
I do worry that the attacks on scholars will be expanded to include others. But here’s the deal: the research is out there, and no amount of official sanctioning will diminish the power of the facts and the analysis. These findings are as certain as anything can be in the social sciences. The question is really: who do you believe? Black Lives Matter, Democrats, and the corporate media? Or the social scientists and public health researchers who have actually examined the evidence using the most sophisticated methods to date? I know who I believe.
Jeremy Peters’ July 14, 2020 The New York Times story “Asked About Black Americans Killed by Police, Trump Says, ‘So Are White People’,” is an example of the scientific impoverishment of the mainstream media, many of which carried similar stories. Peter’s claim that, in his answer, “The president rejected the fact that Black people suffer disproportionately from police brutality.” This characterization misrepresents the president’s comment.
Peters did get the scoop. The question was put to Trump by Catherine Herridge of CBS News: “Why are African-Americans still dying at the hands of law enforcement in this country?” It is a very poor question. Why is the question not about everybody who dies at the hands of law enforcement? If police brutality is a problem, then should we not be concerns about all the victims? Why would Trump reinforce the attempt to portray the victims of lethal police-civilian encounters as all or mostly black? The question disappears the white victims of lethal police violence. Moreover, the questioner doesn’t seem to recognize that she can easily answer her own question: because police confront violent offenders who are often armed and engaged in violence or are resisting in a manner that threatens the safety of the officer or others, it follows that black males are more likely on a proportional basis to fit that description.
“What a terrible question to ask,” Trump responded. Indeed. “So are white people,” he added. “More white people, by the way.” The public is not supposed to know this or think about this. The media scrambled to confuse Trump’s point.
Peters writes: “Statistics show that while more white Americans are killed by the police over all, people of color are killed at higher rates. A federal study that examined lethal force used by the police from 2009 to 2012 found that a majority of victims were white, but the victims were disproportionately Black. Black people had a fatality rate at the hands of police officers that was 2.8 times as high as that of white people.”
So, right off the bat, we have to note that Peters confirms Trump is right: “more white Americans are killed by police”; “a majority of victims are white.” What did Trump say? In as many words, just that. That’s the buried lede: Trump is right: police kill many more whites than blacks every year. But this would mean that Black Lives Matter operates on a false premise and that does not advance the agenda of delegitimizing the police function in America.
Let’s look at the last three complete years. I am using data from Statista. The data conflate race with ethnicity. White and black are racial categories. Hispanic designates an ethnicity. Most Hispanics are racially white. According to the 2010 census, 53% of Hispanics identified as white, whereas, in 2013, only 2.5% of Hispanics identified as black. However, I will not adjust the numbers in light of this since I do not know how the Hispanics in these numbers identified. There are also quite a few victims for whom either race or ethnicity is unknown, so we will have to put those aside.
Number of people shot to death by the police in the United States from 2017 to 2020, by race
For 2017, leaving out those of unknown race or ethnicity, 903 persons were shot by the police. Of those, nearly a quarter were black. Whites were just over half of all those shot by police. Let’s stop and reflect on that: more than twice as many whites were shot and killed by the police than were blacks. There is a pattern. Check it out. In 2018, just over a quarter percent of those shot by the police were black. Whites, again, were just more than half of all those shot by police. In 2019, around 30 percent of those shot by the police were black. Whites were nearly half of all those shot by the police.
Over the three-year period 1,226 whites were killed by the police in contrast to 667 blacks killed by the police. Overall, blacks were just over a quarter of those killed during this period, whereas whites were almost half of those killed by the police at 49 percent. Trump is correct. More white people than black people are shot and killed by the police. Trump is not right by a little. He is right by a lot. I realize this information is mind blowing for those who have not studied the facts, but it is documented in every study of lethal police-civilian encounters. The police kill many more whites every year than they do blacks.
One objection to these facts is that, plainly, there are more whites in America than there are blacks. The objection means to drag the argument only to the ground of proportionalities. Peters points out that “people of color” are killed at higher rates. Crucially, he notes, the victims are disproportionately black. This means that, relative to population, blacks are more likely to be shot by the police.
The overrepresentation of blacks in police shootings becomes a racial disparity that is assumed to be explained by systemic racism. Disparities are prima facia evidence of discrimination. An inequality presumes an inequity. We hear this argument all the time. However, the inference is faulty, and I want to illustrate why before blowing it up with facts and the large literature showing that patterns of lethal police-civilian encounters cannot be explained by systemic racism.
We know that 96 percent of those killed by the police are men (I calculated this from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report). We do not infer from this that lethal police-civilian encounters result from systemic misandry (dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men). Why not? The reason men are overrepresented among shooting victims is obvious: men are overrepresented among those whom police confront as violent offenders, often armed and engaged in violence or resisting in a manner that threatens the safety of the officer or others. This is so obvious that nobody cares to even look at the data showing men are overrepresented in violent or otherwise serious criminal offending.
The police do not go out looking for civilians to murder. They respond to crime. That’s their job. If a person puts himself in confrontation with a police officer, and he is a serious offender, armed and representing a threat to officers, then he is at greater risk of being shot by the police.
It follows that, if black males are more likely that white males to put themselves in this position, then it follows that they are greater risk of being shot by the police compared to whites. As I said earlier, we could infer from the facts than blacks are shot and killed disproportionately that they are overrepresented in those criminal activities that put them at higher risk of being killed. Why would one automatically assume the disparity is explained by racist cops?
The facts bear all this out—and any serious journalist who is prepared to ask the question should study the facts. Black males are responsible for more than half of all homicides and half of all robberies in the United States, two of the most serious violent crimes recorded by the FBI. Black males are responsible for 30 percent of robberies and 30 percent of aggravated assaults. Blacks males are only six percent of the population. (Uniform Crime Report, FBI)
In other words, a small proportion of the US population is responsible for a large proportion of the most serious violent offenses in America. It should be obvious from the facts of black overrepresentation in serious and violent crime that police are more likely to interact with blacks with a greater proportional likelihood of a lethal outcome than police are whites.
It is striking, though, that even with this stark overrepresentation in serious crime, the police still kill more than twice as many whites as blacks every year.
What Peters is doing in misrepresenting the president’s point is plug another data point in the alleged continuum of Trump’s racism. The objective is not only to mischaracterize the president’s comments. It is also to confuse the public over the reality of lethal police-civilian encounters, the very reality Trump is alerting the public to.
My analysis is backed up by scientific research looking specifically at the role context and crime rates play in lethal police-civilian encounters. The evidence is clear. There is no systemic racism in lethal police-civilian encounters. In fact, there isn’t much evidence for it in the criminal justice system at large.
We have known this for more than thirty years. William Wilbanks, in The Myth of a Racist Criminal Justice System, published way back in 1987, produced a comprehensive survey of contemporary research studies, searching for evidence of discrimination by police, prosecutors, judges, and prison and parole officers. Among the specific areas considered in his analysis are provisions of counsel, police deployment, use of deadly force, bail decisions, plea bargaining, sentencing patterns, and inmate classification and discipline. Wilbanks finds that, although individual cases of racial prejudice and discrimination do occur in the system, there is insufficient evidence to support a charge of systematic racism against blacks in the criminal justice system. Wilbanks summarizes: “At every point, from arrest to parole, there is little or no evidence of an overall racial effect.”
Robert Sampson and Janet L. Lauritsen, in a comprehensive review of studies of the criminal justice system, “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Crime and Criminal Justice in the United States,”published in the pages of Crime and Justice in 1997, find “little evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias.”
Heather Mac Donald’s 2016 book The War on Cops, yet another comprehensive review of the evidence, finds no evidence of racially biased policing.
Roland Fryer, in “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” published in the Journal of Political Economy in 2018, but available in 2016, finds no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account when turning his attention to the most extreme use of force, i.e. officer-involved shootings.
Joseph Cesario and colleagues, reported in 2018, in “Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2015–2016,” published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, that, adjusting for crime, no systematic evidence of anti-black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects. The authors conclude that, when analyzing all shootings, that exposure to police, given crime rate differences, accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for blacks.
Charles Menifield and colleagues find, in “Do White Law Enforcement Officers Target Minority Suspects?” published in Public Administration Review in 2019, that white officers appear to be no more likely to use lethal force against minorities than nonwhite officers. The pushback here is the argument that it is the racism endemic in policing that turns black cops into racist killers. In other words, black cops are racists against other blacks.
In “Disparity does not mean bias: making sense of observed racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings with multiple benchmarks,” published in Journal of Crime and Justice, in 2019, Brandon Tregle and colleagues, when focusing on violent crime arrests or weapons offense arrests, find that blacks appear less likely to be fatally shot by police officers.
David Johnson and colleagues, in “Officer characteristics and racial disparities in fatal officer-involved shootings,” in the pages of the 2019 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, find that it is the rate of violent crime, not the race of the officer, that determines the race dynamic of police shootings. What Johnson is speaking to, as was Cesario, is the “exposure hypothesis,” serious criminal activity increases the likelihood of officer-civilian interaction and this influences the frequency of policing shootings. As do Tregle and colleagues, Johnson and associates find that, taking crime rates into account, the bias in shootings appears to be against whites.
After producing my podcast, Johnson and Colleagues voluntarily retracted their article. Here part of what they said in their retraction explanation: “Although our data and statistical approach were valid to estimate the question we actually tested (the race of civilians fatally shot by police), given continued misuse of the article (e.g., MacDonald, 2020) we felt the right decision was to retract the article rather than publish further corrections.”
In the era of cancel culture, we should approach the voluntary character of the retraction with caution. The researchers were assailed not for the actual research, which concerned officer characteristics related to the race of civilians fatally shot by police, but for the impression critics claimed the paper conveyed that it said something about racial disparities in the probability of being shot. In other words, the conclusion was politically incorrect. The authors had issues a clarification about the matter. Apparently a clarification wasn’t good enough. They were to suffer the humiliation of a retraction.
You will note the MaDonald 2019 and 2020 references in the retraction. Indeed, they are front and center. These are references to Heather MacDonald’s essay “False testimony,” for the City Journal (Manhattan Institute), and op-ed “The myth of systemic police racism,” published in The Wall Street Journal. That the authors highlighted these particular “misuses” of their article by the much maligned author of The War on Cops suggests the character of the pressure that was put on the researchers to retract their article. MacDonald is the scourge of the Black Lives Matter countermovement against public safety. Her open defense of law enforcement and criticism of race identiarianism has made her the witch at the center of the moral panic.
That the retraction was forced by politics is furthermore suggested by this passage in the retraction statement: “Relative to the proportion of Black civilians in the U.S., Black Americans are shot more than we would expect. However, relative to various proxies for the propor- tion of Black civilians who commit violent crime, Black Americans are not shot more than we would expect. This has been consistently shown for the majority of fatal shootings (90-95%) where the citizen shot is an immediate threat to an officer or other citizen (Cesario et al., 2019; Fyfe, 1980; Goff et al., 2016; Inn et al., 1977; Tregle et al., 2019; Worrall et al., 2020), though some evidence has been presented that racial bias may be present in the remaining types of shootings (Ross et al., in press). The lack of racial disparities once violent crime rates are taken into account has also been shown in papers using more complex analytic approaches than proportion comparisons (Fryer, 2016; Mentch, 2020).”
In this passage, the authors are essentially telling readers that, while their article was being used in ways their critics did not like, the inference that systemic racism is not found in research controlling for relevant factors is nonetheless correct. All the more shameful that they claim that clarification was insufficient, in my view. However, at the same time, the passage alerts readers to research dating back to 1977 that supports the inference they were alleged to have conveyed. This list is quite helpful to readers, but only if they note it and follow up. Here are the full references to the research they cite: Andres Inn and associates’ 1977 “The effects of suspect race and situation hazard on police officer shooting behavior,” in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology; James Fyfe’s 1980 “Geographic correlates of police shooting: A microanalysis,” in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency; Phillip Goff and associates’ 2016 “The science of justice: Race, arrests, and police use of force,” Center for Policing Equity; Lucas Mentch’s 2020 “On racial disparities in recent fatal police shootings,” Statistics and Public Policy; John Worrall and associates’ 2020 “The effect of suspect race on police officers’ decisions to draw their weapons,” Justice Quarterly. These references only strengthen the thesis of my podcast, so I appreciate the care the researchers took in their retraction letter.
Katelyn Jetelina and associates, in “Dissecting the Complexities of the Relationship Between Police Officer–Civilian Race/Ethnicity Dyads and Less-Than-Lethal Use of Force,” published in the American Journal of Public Healthin 2017, find that, when controlling for other factors, the observed significant relationships between race/ethnicity dyads and use of force dissipated.
We have to be honest here. The cause of Black Lives Matter is not informed by science. The media and fellow travelers either do not know the evidence or they carry on in the face of the evidence.
Ex-cop Reddit Hudson said in a Vox article in 2016, “Racism is woven into the fabric of our nation. At no time in our history has there been a national consensus that everyone should be equally valued in all areas of life.”
The first sentence is an evil metaphor. It’s like saying racism is in our DNA. If racism is woven into the fabric of the nation or in our DNA the only option is to throw away the fabric or kill the organism—i.e. dismantle or destroy the country. The second sentence is false. There is a national consensus that everyone should be equally valued in all areas of life. Nothing could be more obvious that that. It is also obvious that there are people who hate America and want to dismantle or destroy it.
Finally, when Joseph Cesario says “not being involved in criminal activity is far and away the best way to not be shot by the police,” many will have a knee-jerk response. They will hear this as “blaming the victim.” As I have written about in my blog, “blaming the victim” is a terrible way to characterize the perpetrators of criminal violence who strike terror in the residents of our most vulnerable communities. This is the pathology of left-idealism, an ideology that heroizes the criminal as the pitiable monster of unjust social structures.
More fear mongering on the left. I am referring to the chaos in Portland, Oregon. The “rebellion” is in its seventh week of chaos. The federal government has moved to quell the mob while the corporate media amplifies the hysteria. We see the establishment media on the side of those attempting to overturn our republic. Progressives are describing the intervention as “authoritarian” and “fascist.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called the officers “stormtroopers” and accused them of “kidnapping protestors.” The Washington Post documented a single person who was arrested, briefly detained, and released. The officers followed procedures, drove him to the federal courthouse and then released him.
Federal law enforcement officers in Portland, Oregon
When we see leftist mob violence in Portland or other cities it is useful to ask what we would expect of the federal government if the authorities of a southern city or state stood by while white supremacist mobs rioted and perpetrated acts of violence on citizens. Would we expect the federal government to step in and do the job local law enforcements are failing or unwilling to do? Or would we condemn the federal government for intervening? No doubt progressives would howl if the government failed to bring the hammer down on white supremacists. In fact they do (U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism).
If I consistently adhere to principle the answer to the question is yes—whatever the ideological persuasion. I called for federal intervention in Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots back in May (The Riotous Left is on the Wrong Side of Democracy and Justice) and followed up with an blog about in June (Fake News, Executive Power, and the Anti-Working Class Character of Street Crime). I also called for federal intervention in the Cliven Bundy case, calling that situation an insurrection (see The Cliven Bundy Case and State Power; see also The States Rights Fallacy). My problem with the tragedy at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas was not not that the federal government intervened. It was how the intervention was conducted. I do not have a problem with DHS or the National Guard stepping in when local law enforcement cannot do its job. And, in the present case of Portland, federal officers are protecting federal buildings and officers.
The riots in Portland, Oregon have devastated the city
Something needs to be done. Riots, vandalism, arson—these are not legitimate acts of protest. Just because you may agree with the protestors and don’t like Trump or the police is no reason to disregard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Unlawful acts of violence and property destruction are not protected speech or expression by the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees citizens’ right to peaceably assemble. It does not give people permission to engage in insurrection, terrorism, or criminal violence.
Authoritarian governments, not democratic republics, send unmarked authorities after protesters. These Trump/Barr tactics designed to eliminate any accountability are absolutely unacceptable in America, and must end. pic.twitter.com/PE4YfZ9Vqd
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) July 16, 2020
The Constitution makes clear that the federal government—the supreme law of the land—has the authority to execute the laws of the Union, repel invasion, and suppress insurrection. It doesn’t matter whether you and I agree over what the insurrection is about or who the insurrectionists are. The government does not take a side against the people. It’s obligation is to uphold the rule of law. The Constitution guarantees a republican government to all citizens. It must step in in the face of failure or unwillingness to uphold the rule of law—especially when the republic is threatened.
Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf said in a statement a couple of days ago, “The city of Portland has been under siege for 47 straight days by a violent mob while local political leaders refuse to restore order to protect their city. Each night, lawless anarchists destroy and desecrate property, including the federal courthouse, and attack the brave law enforcement officers protecting it.” The statement continues, “Instead of addressing violent criminals in their communities, local and state leaders are instead focusing on placing blame on law enforcement and requesting fewer officers in their community. This failed response has only emboldened the violent mob as it escalates violence day after day.” The statement then goes on to detail a list of violent actions by the mob since May 29. The list of criminal actions is extensive. Portland has a problem. The city leaders either don’t know how to control criminal violence or choose not to. Under these circumstances, the federal government is obliged to step in.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler
I want to make this clear: I am a defender of the Constitution and the US Republic. I don’t care whether it’s antifascists or fascists or whatever. If people are perpetrating criminal violence, they need to be dealt with. If the federal government is interfering with lawful and peaceful protests, then I will of course condemn those actions. If the federal government is upholding the right of citizens to be free from violence and property destruction, and if proper criminal procedures are following in doing so, I will refrain from criticizing them. If there are cases where they do not correctly follow procedure, this does not necessarily condemn the overall action.
For the record, I do not agree with the motives of the insurrectionists. We are in the midsts of a campaign to delegitimize law enforcement and, more broadly, our republic. Violent anarchists or other rebels are subverting law and order. This is a regressive countermovement. To be sure, anarchists and others have the right to peaceably assemble and protest. But when their actions cross over into insurrection, terrorism, and criminal violence, I see no alternative but for a government sworn to uphold the Constitution to intervene in a lawful fashion. How the cops are dressed or what sorts of the vehicles they drive around in is irrelevant.
I will continue to closely follow these developments. But the federal government moving to suppress this insurrection is part of what I meant when I made the slogan “enough is enough” my Facebook cover. Federal intervention is long overdue.
Officer Jackson talks about being a black police officer working at the demonstrations in Portland, Oregon. pic.twitter.com/ZtIjQ7AMaO
In the summer of 1969, I was seven years old and watching Apollo 11 blastoff into space. This event put in me going forward an outlook of optimism about human possibility. I did not know that all around me 100,000 people (out of 200 million people or .05% of the population) had died from influenza strain H3N2 during the 1968-1969 flu season. The death toll likely would have been much higher but for the herd immunity acquired a decade earlier when the same strain swept the world—with a much greater proportional death toll (116,000 out of 175 million people or .066% of the population). All I knew is that we were going to put men on the moon.
Had physicians, pundits, and politicians framed H3N2 like they are framing COVID-19, which may in the end produce a proportionally comparable death toll (currently 140,000 out of 330 million or .042% of the population), albeit with a much lower lethality potential for children and adults under 50 years of age, my outlook going forward would have very likely been very different. It almost certainly would have been worse had I been younger while experiencing this trauma. Unable to have much of an abstract grasp of the risk, I would no doubt have been terrified. Like many children, the terror would manifest in ways that may not be immediately apparent to those around me. But I would nonetheless be a different person inside than I otherwise would or should have been.
Most of the brain development in our species occurs after birth, during the first five years of life. It is during this time that our nervous system potential is activated and elaborated. Depending on how the child experiences the world, this system can develop along normal and healthy or abnormal and pathological trajectories. We will discover in time—many parents already see it in their children—that the societal reaction to this virus has traumatized a generation of children and young adults. Trauma and crisis change the organism. In this case, it will be for the worst.
I confess, there is a selfishness expressed in the world today that angers me. Adam Curtis puts it well when he describes this as the result of a “century of the self.” Part of this is due to the sociopathy mass consumer culture has produced, a dehumanizing social logic engineered by corporate power for the sake of profit. But it is also the result of those whose nervous systems developed in the grip of trauma.
When I see people hellbent on deepening trauma by doubling down on hysteria, I do understand and sympathize at a certain level. I see the fear of the wounded and frightened animal in their eyes, peering over the mask. They want to keep the pandemic panic going because they’re scared. Characteristic of moral panics, it’s the paranoids and phobics acting in often unconscious ways to generalize their specific traumas to the rest of the population who become the most aggressive advocates for hysteria. They soothe themselves with the fear of others. It makes them feel not quite so alone. Their empathy deadened, they think of their own emotional and psychological needs first, and that manifests in shaming, scolding, and, if possible, coercing others into their regime of pathological anxiety and fear. The stress response becomes a political and moral cause that sweeps everybody into their pathology. This explains the remarkable degree of intolerance for the choices others make in their lives.
Salem witch hysteria—the classic case of moral panic
As a consequence of all this, a great many of our children will grow up to see other people and social situations as disease vectors, especially those who do not give into the fear that the victims of panic have become convinced is warranted. Moral panics—witch hunts, red scares, pandemics—breed suspicion of others. Mass hysteria trains people to perceive invisible enemies in need of identifying and stigmatizing for the purposes of making uncertainty manageable. It is a world of pariahs and scapegoats. Those who do not fear the invisible enemy in the way they are expected to—in the way they should—are not merely wrong but evil and dangerous. These are signs that trauma victims are imposing their victimization on others.
Many of our children will carry the anxiety and fear that others have put in them into their interactions with others. They will project their victimization in this same way. They will spread a different kind of virus, a virus of fear and loathing. Pathological fear and loathing, i.e. phobias, generates avoidance behavior. Pathological fear causes people to avoid the wellspring of common humanity—the intimate social relations that forge the well-developed and potentially self-actualized personalities that keep alive the desire for the free and open society that sustains these necessary positive interactions.
We have entered a period of rapidly-successive mass hysterias (this in itself indicating a deep disturbance in the moral order). We are experiencing a vicious downward spiral into mass pathology. In this context, all of the core values of our civilization—free speech, autonomy, privacy, personal sovereignty—are threatened. Indeed, we see a new culture emerging bearing all the signs of an authoritarian order. And that is something to panic about.
We are, like all mammals, evolved beings. Natural history has made us specially social; engaged and non-stressed interaction with other persons roots deeply in our nervous system. As Gabor Maté tells us, children require attentive and emotionally-available caregivers. Co-presence is insufficient to properly activate our nervous systems. We cannot accomplish this through screens. Children require intimate and physical interaction to develop out more fully their brains, emotions, and minds. The unfolding of the human personality is dialectical; we come with wetware that requires activation and stimulation and programming (socialization). Humans depend on sufficient dopamine production for proper levels of motivation. They need ample oxytocin for love and solidarity. Serotonin for happiness and wellbeing. And all the rest of it. It is engaged and non-stressed social interaction in childhood that builds the normal and healthy adult. Children can feel the stress their parents bring to their interactions. If parents behave as if a terrible monster waits around the corner—even more frighteningly, as if other human beings carry this terrible monster within them—the children will internalize this stress and it will damage them.
I realize that this virus is not harmless. I have said this in many essays. But the fact that we do not respond this way to the annual flu, which kills tens of thousands every year in the United States alone, tells us that the response this virus is irrational. I have written about why the response is different this time, so I won’t repeat those points here. But the rational way to have responded to the appearance of the virus would have been to focus on the vulnerable populations the authorities ignored. More than half of all those who died perished in our long-term care facilities. Only around five percent of the population live in those facilities. Making sure the vulnerable were protected, while the healthy went on with their lives, would have been the rational approach. We could shift to this approach immediately—if cooler heads prevailed. Alas, I fear they won’t.
By conditioning people to perceive disease and death in human relations and intimate interaction, the societal response to this virus is deadening people. Stress produces cortisol, a hormone that affects every system in the body. If the production of this hormone is constant, it compromises every system in the body, producing a damaged person. Like a wolf or a bear in a cage. It’s not the virus that is doing this to us. It’s the societal reaction to the virus that is doing this to us. In light of the actual risks from this disease, objectively, there is no justification for the intensity and duration of the stress response. It is tragic that only some people can see that this is the wrong thing to do in the throes of a pandemic. Maybe one day most people will see it. They usually do. But by then it will be too late. In many ways it’s already is too late. All we can do now is try to mitigate the harm the fearful and the selfish and irrational fear have inflicted upon our nation.
For all those who will take umbrage at what I have written here, know that I have been watching the way you treat other people. Your mocking and hatefulness, your belittling of others with whom you disagree, are signs of the very pathology I am writing about. The offense you take, the anger you feel, are personal reflections on the condition that you have imposed on others in a dynamic of othering. The reflex of projecting lack of empathy exposed you a long time ago. I owe you no apology. Quite the other way around. Start treating people as the human beings they are.
Continuing to push back against weaponized historical revisionism. The prevailing world-historical narrative over slavery and the West is an ideological exercise. This blog does not deny slavery was practiced in the West. Nor does it deny that racism exist or remains a problem. My previous blog Truth in the Face of the 1619 Project: The United States and the West Did Not Establish Slavery—They Abolished It attacks the idea that one can diminish Western civilization and the American republic on grounds that white Europeans made them. I argue that such an assessment of culture and ideas on account of race is a profoundly racist claim in itself. The claim is rooted in the fallacy that culture roots in race. We see the fallacy in the rhetoric of “cultural appropriation.” Leftwing identiarianism is founded upon an untenable essentialism about race (when convenient, it does the same thing with gender). As I will explain in this blog, this error results in part from the shift from class to race in New Left thought, largely the product of a Mao Zedong Third Worldist corruption. The public has no idea how much our culture and politics have been shaped by Mao Zedong thought. You cannot understand what Black Lives Matter is really about until you grasp this history.
Classical Marxists value the Enlightenment and modernity because they understand that these forces have historically detribalized people and reincorporated them as citizens and individuals in national communities based on liberal and secular values. Put another way, modernity liberates people from backwards and traditional structures. (See The Individual, the Nation-State, and Left-Libertarianism;Secularism, Nationalism, and Nativism; Capitalist Globalization and the Promise of Democratic-Republicanism.) As a consequence, working people have opportunities to grasp more clearly the primary determinant of their life-chances: social class. They come to recognize themselves as a class-in-itself and make possible thinking as a class-for-itself. This points to the bourgeois necessity of confusing the proletariat with ideology and propaganda.
Classical Marxists do not reduce the Enlightenment to capitalism. Indeed, communism and socialism are themselves products of the Enlightenment. Such liberal values as free speech are not the problem for Marxists. The problem is that the bourgeoisie possesses power and property to such a degree that the possibility of realizing these values in action are unequally distributed and thus constrained for the majority.
The Official Medallion of the British Anti-Slavery Society
More than clearing the ground for class consciousness and opening the possibility for socialism and the expansion and deepening of democracy, the ethics of liberalism and modernity articulate the reasons for abolishing slavery. By recognizing common humanity and emancipating the person from the tribe so as to make the individual, the Enlightenment puts the black man on the same moral plane as the white man. “Am I not a man and a brother?” asked the man in chains in Josiah Wedgwood’s 1787 medallion designed for the British antislavery campaign. This sentiment is made possible by the recognition of species-being. The injustice of involuntary servitude becomes an inescapable fact in the light of modernity; rationalizations of it could only work at times and in places and only for so long. The institution of slavery is marginal in the world because the West spread this sentiment across the planet.
The Enlightenment did not invent colonialism or race prejudice. It pointed a way beyond them. It was revolutionary and universalist. By transcending capitalism, the classical Marxist argues, liberal values can be more fully realized, since the contradiction that restricts access to them would be removed. Until then, the target of resistance is globalism. Karl Marx did not stand against Enlightenment but was a product of it. He did not want to overthrow modernity but universalize it.
It was Mao Zedong thought and the New Left who reframed the political problem in racial terms, shifting the dynamic from class antagonisms and struggle to white Western oppression of nonwhites. Whereas Marx exposed the strategy as “bourgeois nationalism,” Moa embraced it. The “North-South” divide in international political economy, obscuring class antagonisms in the national context, is a product of the reframing. This is Third Worldism. This Worldism is not a class-analytical standpoint, but a race-ideological one, dressed in Marxist jargon. With its rhetoric of “oppressed nations,” Maoism pits workers of some nations against workers of other nations on the basis of race. It sinks this divisiveness down into the national context, antagonizing social relations with the rhetoric of “internal colonialism,” thus making racialized minorities appear as aliens in their own countries. In this way, minorities are alienated from their comrades in the majority. This ideology makes enemies among the people. Divide and rule. The 1983 Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, in arguing that white proletarians lack working class consciousness, and that therefore nonwhite minorities are the organic vanguard of socialist revolution, is a case in point.
The crowd in the street is not a movement for equality and justice. Such a movement would be a multiracial (transracial, really) class-based mass movement against corporate power. An authentic democratic movement would not manifest as a race-identitarian reaction canceling republican institutions and liberal principles. That is an obvious contradiction. A genuine emancipatory movement would extol democratic-republican values of individual rights and responsibilities, for these are the liberating forces that abolished slavery and marginalized racism. Such a movement would not merely eschew the regressive and racist ideology of blood guilt, but would condemn it as authoritarian and retrograde. An authentic movement for equality and justice would not strive to make our most violent neighborhoods less secure by diminishing the institutions of public safety. It would demand that the national government step in to protect citizens where state and local governments fail them. A movement representing working people would focus its rhetoric on the continuing problem of class exploitation and economic inequality. The movement’s character would be populist not progressive. It would be left-realist.
Capitalists have long used race to divide the working people. They’re at it again. What we are seeing is not a democratic movement for equality but an elite-financed elite-organized countermovement to entrench corporate governance and spread neoliberal programming. It’s astroturf.
What makes today’s race project so successful is that many on the political left have adopted the transnationalization agenda of the globalist fraction of bourgeoisie: the managed decline of the West and its institutions. The left has been duped by a deformation of critical thinking that leverages against the people the alienation caused by conditions of which they remain unconscious. As they sit in their high school and college classes listening to their teachers and professors trashing the institutions of the West, they do not hear about the most important determinant of their life-chances: the capitalist mode of production. Instead, they are in training to become functionaries of the very productive modality that exploits their labor.
The progressive deceit turns out popular forces to wage war on comrades not capitalists. The mob thinks it’s working for justice. But it’s working against itself. At least it is working against the proletariat. It’s working for corporate power. The effort is not making a more just society, but undermining the striving to manifest in law and policy the values extolled by rational and fair-minded people, and with these the aspirations, interests, and security of the American working class, including the black and brown Americans for whom the riot does not and cannot speak.
“We wouldn’t have to have Black Lives Matter if we didn’t have 300 years of black lives don’t matter.” —Antiracist Jane Elliott
Slavery has been a fact of human societies across the world dating back to antiquity. Its terms are covered in the Code of Hammurabi and the Jewish Bible. The Greeks and Romans owned slaves. Slavery was widespread under Islam. The practice is not unique in world-historical terms. What is unique about the transAtlantic experience with respect to slavery is this: the West abolished the practice. The United States was a leader in slavery’s abolition from the country’s inception through the modern period, from banning the slave trade to globalizing the effort to abolish slavery everywhere. America remains vigilant (for example, in 2017, the US State Department established the Program to End Modern Slavery).
Arab slave traders under Islamic hegemony
The United States did not establish slavery in North America. Slavery existed long before the United States was a country. Within a decade after establishing the republic in 1787 (the year the Constitution was ratified), Americans outlawed the slave trade. It was a promise kept. When, in 1860, some southern states elected to secede from the Union and put slavery at the center of a new nation, the Union took up arms and put down the insurrection, abolished chattel slavery, and reunited the country under one flag. The struggle saw the sacrifice of three-quarters of a million Americans, mostly white, for the sake of the freedom of black people. Overall, more than a million Americans perished in the conflict. The Confederate flag flies only in the imagination of a recalcitrant few.
The United States government made the former slaves and their descendants citizens and, in time, guaranteed all Americans equal rights—civil, political, and social—regardless of race. When the barrier of de jure segregation was erected in the aftermath of Reconstruction, a racism hardly dissimulated by the fiction of “separate but equal,” the United States government abolished that, too. Discrimination against black people has been illegal throughout the nation for more than half a century. Black people in America now ascend to high positions in the civil and political sectors of American society. Systemic racism has been abolished. Institutional racism is a thing in the past. And very few white people carry racist beliefs in their heads anymore.
The emancipation of humanity from the scourge of slavery was a product of the Enlightenment and of Western civilization. The Enlightenment is a European philosophical and moral movement emphasizing democracy, humanism, individual liberty, liberalism, republicanism, science, and secularism. The Enlightenment is the source of the doctrine of universal human rights, which recognizes the common humanity of our species. These are radical ideas. I do not write this to ennoble white people. At the same time, we should not tear down these ideas because white people authored them. The race of a people does not determine the validity of their ideas.
The founders of the United States reflected this way of thinking. Their Declaration of Independence expresses in inspired tones the humanist principles of inalienable rights and self-governance: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This is the American creed. Their Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, embodies Enlightenment ideals and principles. It was in this light that the institution of slavery and the ideology of racism was overthrow. And it is in this light that the fight against slavery and racism continues.
The Libyan slave trade thrived in the wake of the Obama-Biden bombing campaign.
Yet, despite the devotion and success of the United States in shepherding these ideals through to practice, we are hearing, articulated by so-called radicals, the wholesale condemnation of the very civilization that gave rise to abolitionism and the granting of full citizenship to black Americans. Our people are being taught that the United States is a problematic construct because it was founded in a world where slavery was ubiquitous. Our children are being trained to gloss over such monumental facts as these: American revolutionaries overthrew a monarchy and established a secular democratic-republic and freed black people from bondage. The project seeks to move the date from our founding in 1776 to the year 1619 when Dutch slave traders brought twenty or so Africans to the Jamestown settlement in the British colony of Virginia. They mean to recenter world history on the black struggle in order to tell a tale of 400 years of uninterrupted oppression at the hands of white supremacists. This is a delegitimation project.
Today, thanks to a retelling of our common history from the standpoint of oppression, there are crowds in our street burning down government buildings, desecrating monuments and toppling statues, and physically assaulting their fellow citizens. Skirting the reality that it was white men who abolished slavery and ended Jim Crow (white men also guaranteed women the right to vote), the crowds insist that they’re overthrowing systemic racism and a regime of white supremacy. The white majority is portrayed not as a people who strived to form a more perfect union, but as habitually standing in the way of justice for minorities.
There is a fundamental error committed here—a grand ad hominem fallacy. This is the argument: Of the fifty-five delegates to the Constitutional Convention, nearly half owned slaves. The nation was stamped from the beginning as a wicked thing because of the identity of its authors. All of them were white men. This is the essentialism of identity politics. But if a ubiquitous white male supremacy constituted government and made laws to preserve particular racial and gendered interests over against the interests of nonwhites and women, then why was it white men who secured equality and freedom for blacks and women? It was not a slave revolt that won freedom for blacks. It was white men advancing the ideals of a nation who freed blacks and made sure they became citizens. Likewise, it was white men who pushed the Nineteenth Amendment through Congress and saw its ratification as part of the ever expanding Bill of Rights. It was moral conscience and patriotism guided by the America creed that moved white men to fight for equality and justice. American history is proof of the righteousness of its institutions, not an indictment of them. The American republic is irreducible to the race and gender of the men who founded it. Identitarianism is a false proposition. Yet it is the prevailing form of racism in the West today.
Of course the enlightenment was not the product of white male thought (whatever that might mean outside of racialist claims) but the product of Western civilization and culture. Civilization and culture are not racial things. Only racists believe this. The Enlightenment was not an ideology constructed to secure the interests of white males over nonwhite people. It is a error of epic proportions to think that the radical ideas of the Enlightenment spring from racial type. Race is not an actual thing. How many times do we have to speak this truth before it sinks in? If one says that we must reject European values because they’re the values of people who are judged to be on account of race a problematic people, then that person is making the same sort of racist argument that white supremacists make when they reject good and beneficial ideas from Africa or Asia on the grounds that those who hail from these continents are problematic. It so happens that the Enlightenment emerged in a region of the world that was majority white. Racists make something of that. But we shouldn’t.
In Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America, Ibram X. Kendi conflates race and culture in the same way racists do when he argues that, after biological racism was discredited as a scientific theory of racial separation and inequality, appeal to African American attitudes and culture as the explanation for disparities became the new racism. I cite his book because of all the attention it has generated, but Kendi is hardly alone in making this error. It is endemic on the left. For analyses of the problem, see my recent essays The Origin and Character of Antiracist Politics, Smearing Amy Wax and The Fallacy of Cultural Racism, and Race, Ethnicity, Religion, and the Problem of Conceptual Conflation and Inflation. (In The New Racism, which I wrote in 2008, you can see the beginning of my questioning of the new racism concept that many of us were taught from childhood. As an academic, this fallacy was reinforced in my training.) The fallacy has become more widespread over time and is now the popular understanding. It is at least the understanding that shapes discourse in popular culture. We see it, for example, in the essentialist rhetoric of “cultural appropriation,” which must assume that culture is rooted in race (see Race-Based Discrimination as a Model for Social Justice for a critique).
Kendi’s formulation is wrong. Culture and ideas do not belong to any race. They are the products of the brains of a single species: Homo sapiens. It therefore cannot be true that criticizing or praising culture and ideas is racist. For example, analyzing and criticizing the culture of violence and dependency associated black-majority neighborhoods is not a racist endeavor. There are many reasons for the relative degree of poverty that exists in the United States and the racial disparities associated with it, but it is not racist to reject the claim that systemic racism explains these inequalities. Nor can Western civilization be discredited on account of the fact that white people founded it. Western civilization is not a culture of white supremacy. It is the culture responsible for the ideas of democracy, humanism, individual liberty, liberalism, republicanism, science, and secularism that have resulted in the most advance and just societies in history—indeed, the culture in which abolitionism appeared. Defending these ideas does not require any appeal to white racial superiority. The preservation of Western civilization is not a racist project. The claim that it is a project that seeks to cancel Western civilization. Those who take up this project believe they can inoculate themselves from criticism by crying racism. We shouldn’t let them.
* * *
I quoted antiracist Jane Elliott at the start of the essay not because I admire her; on the contrary, her presence in the struggle for justice and equality is toxic. She says on the one hand that there is no such thing as race, then proceeds to frame everything in those terms. The quote—“We wouldn’t have to have Black Lives Matter if we didn’t have 300 years of black lives don’t matter”—is the subject of memes shared across social media. I shared it yesterday on facebook so I could say this snarky thing: “Because abolition of the slave trade, civil war, Emancipation, the Fourteenth Amendment, Reconstruction, Brown v Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, affirmative action, and Barack Obama never happened.” Frankly, I am not sure she actually said this. It’s a meme. But it is something she would say. Race merchants like Elliott say things like this all the time to diminish our accomplishments as a people. The New York Times 1619 Project is an project to deny progress. Kendi’s thesis that racial ideas are constructed to legitimize white supremacist policy and structure rationalizes every advance in race relations as a tactic to keep in place a system that materially benefits white men. “Not-racist” is therefore a manifestation of racism.
According to Robin DiAngelo, denial of white fragility is proof of white fragility. If our legal system worked this way, nobody accused of a crime would ever be acquitted. https://t.co/tgBe9ndlIQ
The New Left racialist project is a massive exercise in gas-lighting. If a white person denies their white privilege that proves they enjoy white privilege (a white person has it anyway by virtue of being born that way). If a white person says he not racist that means he is racist. Kendi tells us that one can either be a racist or an antiracist. There is no between. If you oppose reparations, then you are racist because “the middle ground is racist ground.” Ironic that the offspring of poststructuralism are so eager to establish binaries (when it’s convenient, of course). You are one or the other and essentially so.
“Are you doing something about your racism?” is a variation on “When did you last beat your wife?” Somebody says you are sexist. You deny you are one. That is proof that you are one. You’re in denial. The trick is meant to undermine confidence in your self-judgment by people supremely confident in their own. Those who deny woke doctrine are in particular need of the therapies amateur pop psychologists peddle. The deniers are in need of healing. Or at least in need of acquiring the skills to live with their incurable disease (whites are categorically racist, after all). Racists Anonymous. Is that a thing? “Hi, I’m Bobby Charles and I’m a racist.” It is hard to believe anybody takes this nonsense seriously. But they do. And, no matter how much it’s dressed up in jargon and confused with bad argument and statistical manipulation, it is nonsense. It’s manipulative and arrogant. Woke scolds are insufferable.
Nobody I know claims that history is free of oppression and struggle. Peasants, workers, women, children, gays and lesbians—the story of human freedom is the overcoming of barriers and injustices to ascend to new heights of dignity and liberty. Justice isn’t like flipping on a light-switch. It’s realized in steps and slowed by missteps and resistance. But the claim that black lives didn’t matter for 300 or 400 years—at least in the West—is utterly false. Elliott, along with DiAngelo, Hannah-Jones, Kendi, and the other practitioners of racecraft, erase the history of progress in order to delegitimize the American project. As Glenn Loury put it (I am paraphrasing), the historical revisionists mean to relegate civil war, abolition, and civil rights to footnotes in order to construct a grand narrative of 400 years of white supremacy and racial oppression that depicts the black victim as the pivot of historical turning. From this standpoint, nothing short of dismantling the republic can redeem such a world.
Things have changed. In the past, one could point to the oppression of the day. Today, the cries of oppression have little to justify them. We are a substantively just society in every area of social class. The panic over “microaggressions” tells us that. We have reached this stage in our development because of the Western ideals that guided the struggle of people. We reached these heights not by rejecting our values, but demanding that they be realized in practice. We’re here because our creed is righteous and our devotion to it adamant. We need to put the matter of race behind us and get to the real task at hand: poverty and class inequality.
In the following videos, Glenn Loury, economist as Brown University, and John McWhorter, linguist at Columbia University, show us how to think and talk about our history. They discuss the 1619 Project after receiving numerous emails from viewers of Loury’s vlog at Blogging Heads asking them to address the problem of its regressive and racialist narrative. I want to close with their wisdom.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” —Animal Farm
“In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance. If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.”—Donald Trump, July 3, 2020
“There’s this new, weird sort of fascism of people thinking they know what you can say and what you can’t.” —Ricky Gervais
Here’s the awesome thing about free speech: you don’t have to agree with J.K. Rowling or anybody else to support it. Indeed, the whole point of free speech is that you defend speech with which you disagree—you demand the protection of speech that you find offensive. Defending speech with which you agree is a different thing. We call that an endorsement. It must be terribly embarrassing to sign on to a letter in defense of free speech only to find out that you don’t actually believe in free speech.
You’re still following me, Jennifer. Be sure to publicly repent of your association with Goody Rowling before unfollowing and volunteer to operate the ducking stool next time, as penance. https://t.co/SgjGDt1dcF
Jennifer Boylan signed an open letter defending free speech against cancel culture. Many corporate media outlets and cancellers themselves came out against the letter. Boylan, either not knowing Rowling also signed the letter, or regretting having signed a letter the woke crowd didn’t like (worse, that they believe negates their movement and even the existence of some of their comrades), apologized for signing the letter and condemned it.
J.K. Rowling
Rowling responded with the snarky tweet I shared above. The reference is vaguely to Arthur Miller’s 1953 play The Crucible, which is a metaphor for the persecution Miller and others faced during the Red Scare of the 1940s, which, like the present mass hysteria, or moral panic, if you will, ruined the lives of people who refused to chant the approved slogans of hysterical anticommunism and betray their comrades and colleagues by giving up their names, i.e. doxxing them.
In other words, cancel culture is a witch hunt and Boylan either didn’t realize she wasn’t a witch or is ashamed of having signed a letter that also featured the signature of a well known witch. Rowling, the real witch, is calling out Boylan, a newly self-appointed witch-finder. Boylan embarrassingly realized who stood where after the fact.
In case you haven’t been following all this, this witch Rowling apparently has the magical ability to harm people by noting that persons who menstruate have traditionally been called women. She has been speaking out for a while now about what she perceives as the cancelling of women.
‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?
Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate https://t.co/cVpZxG7gaA
Rowling fails to chant the approved slogan, indeed appears to casts spells against it, because she is worried about the cancelling of women by defining them out of existence. Not just in rhetoric, but in law and policy and even science (according to some scientists). Rowling is not alone in this concern and is with her example producing what we call “mutual knowledge.” Mutual knowledge often spells trouble for counter/movements if it catches on.
Rowling is a powerful witch, i.e. difficult to cancel given her status and success. She uses her position to defend the right of others who do not enjoy her level of success to be free from the cancel mob. In other words, she is the leader of a coven of young and less powerful witches. Since she cannot be canceled by destroying her career, the witch finders are trying to make an example of her in order to silence others who can be destroyed.
That very successful people of high status have produced and signed a letter decrying cancel culture has been seen as a disaster by those who desire to change our understanding and practice of free speech and other basic liberties.
I want to be clear: the letter does not state a position on the transgender or any other issue of substance. It is a letter pointing out that in a free society people are not destroyed over an opinion on any matter. It is shameful that a letter like this even has to appear. But it does.
The West is in a struggle over whether its people shall live in one world where universal rights are recognized and protected by open and free institutions and culture, or multiple worlds where reality is subjectively defined by feelings and imagined communities and the resulting warring factions shame and cancel those with whom they disagree.
The present moment is not unlike the religious wars of yesteryear, only one side of this is secular and the other side is comprised of religious-like zealots. Hence the frenzy over the letter. The mob (financed by fractions of the corporate class—don’t think the woke crowd is marginal) believes it is finally canceling Western civilization and the sense that their efforts could be slipping away from them is heightening the mass hysteria.
Moral panics have their own organic appetites, so I suspect this will get a lot worse before it gets better. Of course, it may kill its host before it’s through.
And speaking of embarrassing, how about this essay by Billy Bragg?
“Outside Broadcasting House in London,” he writes, the BBC has erected a statue to one of its former employees, George Orwell. The author leans forward, hand on hip, as if to make a telling point. Carved into the wall beside him is a quote from the preface of Animal Farm: ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’
“It’s a snappy slogan that fits neatly into a tweet, but whenever I walk past this effigy of the English writer that I most admire, it makes me cringe. Surely the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four would understand that people don’t want to hear that 2+2=5?”
No, Bragg, Orwell would want to make sure that people enjoy the right to not have to repeat the lie that 2+2=5.
Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution.—Nineteen Eight-Four
“Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent.” —Mao Zedong
Maoism, a blend of Marxism and classical Chinese philosophy, has caused enormous problems in the West. The Cultural Revolution, coming as it did in 1966 (lasting until Mao Zedong’s death in 1976), in part designed and rolled out to influence the youth of the West, and to encourage the Black Power rebellion, was embraced by western students and black radicals as a model for countercultural and political thought and action. (See Mao’s 1968 A New Storm Against Imperialism.)
In China, Mao called on the youth to “bombard the headquarters,” to target president Liu Shaoqi. Mao, concerned that his hold over China was waning, reassured his followers that rebellion against authority was justified. The youth were encouraged to attack Chinese institutions and traditions, to disorganize the proletariat and any academic and politicians sympathetic to it.
The globalist establishment is today concerned that their hold over the proletariat is waning. They have put forward establishment politician Joseph Biden, the Senator from Delaware who, for decades, has been the figurehead of the managed decline of the American republic, preparing the American working class for full integration with a transnational order, in which the Chinese Communist Party is the shining star (The Denationalization Project and the End of Capitalism).
Bureaucratic collectivism integrated with globalist corporatism—that’s the dream of the Party of Davos. This dream ends in the nightmare of global serfdom. A Biden presidency is exactly what these enemies of the working class want. NeoMaoist forces have been unleashed to storm about in the streets of Western societies to sow chaos and drive a frightened public into the arms of the establishment.
Mao Zedong thought is attractive to those embracing the concept of the subaltern in the post-colonial context. The cultural anthropology it suggests to the Third Worldists is exotic and seductive. It frees minds from the rigors of scientific thinking. Mao justifies deviating from the scientific methods of historical materialism by declaring Marxism to be Eurocentric.
Those wanting to delegitimize the capitalist, to rebel against liberal traditions, find in Mao Zedong thought useful. Mao Zedong thought shapes critiques of the institutions of Western civilization and European Enlightenment. The images of Chinese youth berating bureaucrats and parading intellectuals around in dunce caps appeals to middle class Western youth bent on rebellion in their youthful angst. They pick the same targets. The Old Left was so yesterday. Worker solidarity passé. Has it been half a century already?
Even when the Chinese Communist Party moved on from the Cultural Revolution, condemning its radicalism as an internally destabilizing force, its consequences amounting to a “lost decade,” its influence continued to be felt in leftwing intellectual circles, in the universities and the aesthetics of the West, manifest in the derangements of identity politics, political correctness (antiliberalism), cultural relativism, antiracism, and antihumanism. We see it in accusations of white privilege and in the appearance of diversity programming, what resemble the “struggle sessions” of the Cultural Revolution.
* * *
Less than six months before Nixon made his official visit to China in 1972, Huey P. Newton visited China in late September 1971. He did not experience anti-black prejudice during his ten-day stay in the People’s Republic and walked away impressed. “Everything I saw in China demonstrated that the People’s Republic is a free and liberated territory with a socialist government,” he said. “To see a classless society in operation is unforgettable.”
In China, blacks who had been imported to bolster the CCP’s bona fides as a representative of Third World people—a propaganda campaign to “win hearts and minds”—were soon exposed to virulently anti-black prejudices. See Maoism and the Sinification of Black Political Struggle. Anti-black prejudice continues.
Star Wars' Finn (who happens to be black) and Chewbacca (happens to be Wookiee) get shafted in China. HT @asmunizpic.twitter.com/ATpvcd51L6
Mao Zedong thought not only strategically flattered nonwhite Third Worlders, but smartly appealed to intergenerational tensions. Undermining the wisdom of age, delegitimizing the elder generation, weakening established institutions and the family—all this opens youth to new doctrine and encourages rebellion. It’s the way cults work (A Fact-Proof Screen: Black Lives Matter and Hoffer’s True Believer). It’s the destabilizing capacity of Mao Zedong thought that attracted and continues to attract leftwing antiAmerican and antiwestern sentiment to it.
Maoism thus became an early Chinese export, an ideological weapon taken up by those living in West, constituting nothing short of a spectacular propaganda achievement—the colonization of the minds of the youth. In a conversation with Henry Kissinger in the early 1970s, premier Zhou Enlai responded to a question about the influence of the French Revolution in 1789 which, “It’s too early to say.” At least that’s the story we’ve heard for decades. Profound, if true. However, it appears that he was actually responding to a question about the French riots of 1968. More profound, actually.
Meanwhile, paramount leader of the People’s Republic of China from 1978-1992 Deng Xiaoping’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” blending socialist ideology with market economics, drew the attention of Western corporations. The Western power elite saw in it an opportunity to intensify the war on labor and the left they had rolled out under the progressive presidencies of Kennedy and Johnson. The radical ideas of the 1960s wormed their way ever more deeply into the administrative offices of universities and corporate boardrooms as transnational relations entrenched.
The distortions of reason are many. Under the influence of French radicalism, the developing New Left ideology incorporated postmodernist and poststructuralist ideas, drawing on such thinkers as Michel Foucault, ideas that held an affinity with Maoist thought, as well as Islamic thought. There was the odious murderous philosopher Louis Althusser and his defenders. Latter Frankfurt School Critical Theory, principally the cult of Marcuse, played a significant role. (See The New Left’s War on Imaginary Structures of Oppression in Order to Hide the Real Ones.) But the influence of Mao Zedong thought is inescapable.
The foundations of the relationship forged by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the early 1970s in the wake of the Sino-Soviet split, Western corporations outsourced their factories to take advantage of its cheap labor. Chinese businessmen acquired Western real estate. With the Soviet Union the sole anticommunist fetish, which the Reaganites vanquished to bring about the end of history, China achieved most favored nation status, a relation that in time became permanent. Cheap Chinese commodities pounded Western walls. With its Belt and Road Initiative, a global development strategy leveraging Western capital markets initiated by paramount leader Xi Jinping, China intensified infrastructure development and investments in dozens of countries. China took control of the world’s supply chains. Its influencers colonized international organizations (for example, the World Health Organization).
Joe Biden has been a the center of all of this his entire career. He supported the free trade legislation that saw China ascend to the World Trade Organization. As vice-president under Obama, Biden was tasked with getting to know Xi as part of the pivot-to-Asia strategy. In 2018, Biden bragged “I’ve spent more time in private meetings with Xi Jinping than any world leader.” The two met over private dinners for 25 hours between 2011-2012. Biden notoriously said, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man.” “I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks,” he added; “They’re not competition for us.” Is that because the pipe dream is to fuse Western corporate power with the bureaucratic collectivism of the Chinese Communist Party?
I’m not advancing a grand conspiracy theory in which China is taking over the world—which is not to say they do not have such ambitions. Rather, there is a convergence between the bureaucratic collectivism of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the bureaucratic collectivism of capitalism with globalist-corporatist characteristics. Occidental state monopoly capitalism is morphing into the state monopoly socialism of the Orient and vice-versa. Liberal democracy has outlived its usefulness in the West for, or is, in any case, being undermined by transnational corporate power. This is an organic development. What I have written here is a description of the situation.
* * *
I am approaching this critique from a Marxist perspective. One can approach the topic from other standpoints. Working from a traditionalist standpoint, Joel Kotkin’s The Coming Age of Neo-Feudalism warns the world of this development in a manner resonate with a classical Marxist interpretation. Kotkin is a fellow in urban studies at Chapman University who writes about demographic, economic, and social economic trends in the world. (Note: I lean on for John Loftus’ summary of the book, A New Book Warns of Our ‘Neo-Feudal’ Future for my points here. I have not read Kotkin’s book.)
Kotkin’s earlier book, The New Class Conflict, usefully notes that the political and cultural bifurcations are no longer left-right or liberal-conservative. Rather, he sees the rise of an oligarchy founded upon the high technological revolution, supported by the corporate state, academia, and media, a force I describe, following critical theory conventions, as the administrative state (Adorno’s take, not Waldo’s) and the culture industry. Kotkin’s view of the ideal society is one in which the cities will be abandoned for the suburbs and more traditional lifestyles.
(Although I am not a traditionalist, I agree that the standard bifurcation points are no longer those that should organize our thinking, albeit those around me still operate with these moribund distinctions in mine—they are useful for controlling the population. Rather than left-right, while identifying myself on the left (I am a socialist), the bifurcation points are democracy-technocracy, libertarian-authoritarian, nationalist-globalist, populist-progressive, and republican-corporatist. I identify myself as lying on the left hand side of each of those divides.)
In The Coming Age of Neo-Feudalism, Kotkin identifies three estates in the new world order. The First Estate is comprised of the oligarchs who have amassed great fortunes, celebrated as “disrupters,” pioneers of a new and glorious future. They are like the robber barons of the Gilded Age who built the great factories and the transnational railroads.
The Second Estate are the bureaucrats, consultants, public intellectuals, scientists, teachers, and other members of the professional-managerial strata—the administrators and cultural managers who support the First Estate. They’re the ones who preach multiculturalism and progressivism, who frame the political and societal narratives. Kotkin writes, “Many of the people in these growing sectors are well positioned to exert a disproportionate influence on public attitudes, and on policy as well—that is, to act as cultural legitimizers.”
For example, they promulgate a rhetoric of “systemic racism” and “white privilege” not to help those the rhetoric claims suffer on account of racism, but to orchestrate hegemonic devotion to the machinations of the First Estate, thus allowing the First Estate to get richer and more power, which, in turn, finances the lifestyles or the Second Estate functionaries. The university system is the mechanism that prepares functionaries for this role.
Here I want to bring in a Marxist voice, that of Adolph Reed, Jr, who argues that identity politics and antiracism are central elements in the corporatist neoliberal project (Zombie Politics: the Corporatist Ideology of Antiracism). Reed tells us in his article Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left that “antiracism is not a different sort of egalitarian alternative to a class politics but is a class politics itself: the politics of a strain of the professional-managerial class whose worldview and material interests are rooted within a political economy of race and ascriptive identity-group relations.” Antiracism is corporatist neoliberal doctrine rationalizing capitalism.
Reed writes that “although it often comes with a garnish of disparaging but empty references to neoliberalism as a generic sign of bad things, antiracist politics is in fact the left wing of neoliberalism in that its sole metric of social justice is opposition to disparity in the distribution of goods and bads in the society, an ideal that naturalizes the outcomes of capitalist market forces so long as they are equitable along racial (and other identitarian) lines.”
Kotkin describes the Third Estate as comprised of those who believe in the liberal values of modernity. Thus we have the progressive attitude, informed by the developments of 1960s radicalism, accepting the legitimacy of corporate governance (“Defining the Corporation, Defining Ourselves” and “Challenging Corporate Law and Lore”) standing in stark contrast to the populist nationalist movement defending Western civilization, the would-be defenders of modernity.
Make no mistake, Kotkin’s Second Estate is a powerful force in the West. The practice of organizing individuals into groups based on skin color and then promoting or punishing people on the basis of identity is the more insidious manifestation of neoliberalism. This thinking has invaded our institutions, public and private, and is now treated as the ground upon which other assumptions are founded. Embracing the neoMaoist Black Lives Matter agenda, universities across the country are set to roll out reeducation camps in the fall for staff and students. Intellectuals are being conscripted into the globalist corporatist project to prepare America for completely incorporation into it.
Corporatism is like the Borg from Star Trek: The Next Generation. It means to assimilate you.
3D artist Marc Bell’s model of the Borg cube model, Star Trek: First Contact.
* * *
As I have argued in other blogs, I am for the abolition of any racial classification system that has the force of policy or law. Race should never be used as a method for making decisions about the fate of individuals. Antiracism is the idea that we should consciously pick and choose people on the basis of racial classifications in order to achieve demographic proportionality. This is a racist notion.
Calling it “antiracism” doesn’t change that. But the term (like antifascism) has confused people. For a sophisticated but no less misguided paradigm of the logic of the argument in political science, see University of Chicago’s Iris Marion Young’s Justice and the Politics of Difference (I summarize it here: The New Left’s War on Imaginary Structures of Oppression in Order to Hide the Real Ones). But it’s the popular treatment of the thesis that is most damaging.
See Ibram X. Kendi’s How To Be An Antiracist, where it is asserted: “The opposite of ‘racist’ isn’t ‘not racist’.” Kendi is of the DiAngelo ilk (along with such voices as Ta-Nehisi Coates, Michael Eric Dyson, and Nikole Hannah-Jones). You can see DiAngelo and Kendi together in the video below.
Authors Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi on how to become aware of privilege, CBS This Morning
Kendi tell the hosts of the program that there are only two explanations for racial disparities: either there’s something wrong with black people or it’s racism. It is astonishing that somebody who enjoys the level of praise Kendi does could say something like this. It’s the sort of ignorant statement that somebody just approaching this subject would say, a claim that careful researchers such as Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, or Thomas Sowell, to take three black scholars who are often marginalized in these discussions, would correct immediately. This sort of black and white claim bears no relationship to the evidence that is clearly available to any American who cares to look for it. But it is not meant to be taken as an empirical claim. It’s propaganda. That it works so well indicates a deep problem in popular understanding of American society.
Here’s the trick of antiracist rhetoric: It proceeds on the basis of a false premise that disparities automatically indicate inequities. It rebrands tokenism as diversity. It retribalizes society. Following postmodern logic, central to the problem of injustice is grouped power, and the perpetrator, defined as white, especially the white male, becomes the enemy of the people. In its quasi-religious view, all white people are the perpetrator. Identity politics is thus part of the march from liberal capitalism to corporate neofeudalism. This is the ideology of progressivism—the methods of neoliberalism and neoconservatism. It also has roots in Mao Zedong thought.
According to Peggy MacIntosh, white people, whom Mao depicts as the ban of Third World peoples everywhere, outside and inside the imperialist powers, wear an “invisible knapsack” of power and privilege tools they wield as a practical matter throughout their lives. Whites have developed an apparently free and open system in order to perpetuate and entrench their racial power. The facially neutral appearance of the law is facially neutral—the doctrine of equality—is a white supremacist trick. See (Debunking a Sacred Text in the Church of Identitarianism; You are Broken. We Will Fix You.)
The racial system, the system of white supremacy, its culture of whiteness, is global, and the West, sans the colonized subjects internal to it, is the cause of global injustice. So great is this truth that the notorious Jane Elliott is hired to hector and traumatize white students in diversity/sensitivity training sessions–with minority students looking on, encouraged to join in with the cruelty. Those who are successfully changed by the struggle sessions appear on the street eager to wash the feet of a black person or throw themselves prostrate before a group of black people or may or may not be willing to absolve them of the sins.
Jane Elliot- Angry Eye trailer
The latest woke scold to appear on the scene is DiAngelo, noted above, wielding the concept of “white fragility,” pronouncing all white people racist, that all of them enjoy “white privilege,” but that only some of them can admit it. (See The Psychological Wages of Antiracism; Not All White People Are Racist; Dividing Americans by Race to Keep America From Democracy.) The point is that, because of its racism, the West should be compelled to abdicate its right to cultural integrity, its structures of democracy, freedom, and human rights, as defined by the Enlightenment.
John McWhorter puts it this way: “Smart whites have learned that their job is to simply accept everything his type claims, leaving a Kendi so unaccustomed to actual give and take that he’d feel it as racist.” Obviously he means by “smart whites” whites who are either shallow or scared. As a black man, McWhorter has some grace to say these things and not be accused of racism. Of course, he can be an Uncle Tom. A self-loathing black man.
Kendi claims, like every other white privilege/fragility preacher, that there is no such thing as “nonracist” as a nonracist position. Nonracists are racists. You can only either be racist or antiracist from the standpoint of this crowd. They mean to force people into their box, which is to declare all whites racist. Whites can only at best check their privileges and be an ally. The goal of Black Lives Matter is to recenter the “black experience” (as if it’s a monolithic thing) as the pivot on which turns transAtlantic history. They need the myths of 400 years of uninterrupted racial oppression and blood guilt (collective and intergenerational guilt) to sell the politics of it all. It’s leftwing racism. New and improved racism, in fact. It’s why the management of corporations and universities eat up this shit and force teachers, staff, and students to read DiAngelo and Kendi.
People on the left who subscribe to this crap are like people on the right who think Ayn Rand has something deep and metaphysical to say. Its pseudointellectual character betrays superficial thinking in both the producer and his audience.
This is what lies behind Ilhan Omar’s recent rant that had the rightwing media buzzing for days. “We can’t stop at criminal justice reform or policing reform,” Omar said. “We are not merely fighting to tear down the systems of oppression in the criminal justice system. We are fighting to tear down systems of oppression that exist in housing, in education, in health care, in employment, in the air we breathe.” “As long as our economy and political systems prioritize profit without considering who is profiting, who is being shut out, we will perpetuate this inequality,” she continued. “So we cannot stop at criminal justice system. We must begin the work of dismantling the whole system of oppression wherever we find it.”
This rhetoric is in the style of Mao Zedong thought. “The struggle of the Black people in the United States for emancipation is a component part of the general struggle of all the people of the world against U.S. imperialism, a component part of the contemporary world revolution,” Mao said in 1968. “I call on the workers, peasants, and revolutionary intellectuals of all countries and all who are willing to fight against US imperialism to take action and extend strong support to the struggle of the Black people in the United States! People of the whole world, unite still more closely and launch a sustained and vigorous offensive against our common enemy, U.S. imperialism, and its accomplices! It can be said with certainty that the complete collapse of colonialism, imperialism, and all systems of exploitation, and the complete emancipation of all the oppressed peoples and nations of the world are not far off.”
As I noted in an essay in May of last year (“Committing the Crime it Condemns”), the scenes we are witnessing are reminiscent of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. At talks on university campuses minority students and their allies disrupt events chanting slogans and shaking big-character posters and mobbing speakers. Dunce caps and albatross placards feel only moments away. The struggle sessions are already here. No doubt, some of the mob would put the recalcitrant on Kafka’s Harrow if they could, etching imagined sins upon living bodies via a contrived mechanical device.
The mobilization of Youth across the Western world is directed from the grave in the possession of Ilhan Omar. It is up to classical liberals and orthodox Marxists to exorcise the Maoist demon. Given the depth of corruption in Marxist thought, the classical liberals are our best bet.
* * *
When you say you are a Marxist people get worried. When you add “libertarian” to the tag they become confused. My goal is not to confuse you but to help you sort out things. On this much I am sure liberals and conservatives can agree: state socialism of the sort we saw in the Soviet Union, and especially that which prevails in China, represent the nightmare par excellence. I am also in agreement.
In my attempt to shake people out of the fog, I like to note George Orwell’s fear of totalitarian socialism expressed in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (China fits the description more than the Soviet Union, making Orwell something of a prophet). O’Brien tells Winston, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
I fear the boot stamping on the face of humanity forever as much as any freedom-loving person. Choosing between liberal capitalism and state socialism, I will always go with liberal capitalism. I just believe there is another way, one that will allow us to sustain republicanism, democracy, and liberalism (and here I mean free speech and expression, the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances) without the exploitation of man by man and machine. But for the sake of human dignity, totalitarianism cannot be an alternative. We have to save the republic for democracy to be possible.
To those who subscribe to New Left ideology, I am not trying to level a charge of disloyalty. My nationalism is civic, not belligerent. You are free to subscribe to any views you wish (you don’t need my position), just as I am free to critique them and try to talk you out of them. I am not trying to cancel anyone. As a free speech absolutist, I encourage people to make known their opinions so they can be discussed openly and critically. I would stand with anybody expressing New Left views against any attempt to suppress their speech by government or corporate entities.
But ideas have origins and consequences and the ideas that have gripped a large portion of the American population, as well as Europeans, threaten to destroy the civilization that gave rise to liberty, democracy, secularism, science, and human rights. My values—and objective fact and analysis—compel me to oppose the New Left narrative of America and the West, to deal with this claim that both are intrinsically colonialist, racist, and patriarchal.
I am, for these reasons, like late British philosopher Roger Scruton and American historian Victor Davis Hanson, both conservatives for the record, at odds with the New Left spirit of 1960s (why they lived through the first time around), not only as it represents Mao Zedong thought, but also because of many other warped thoughts—those of Max Stirner, Frederich Nietzsche, and Martin Heidegger.
Of course, I disagree with the Scruton and Hanson in their claim that New Left thinkers advance the core tenets of Marxism. In my view, the New Left is post-Marxist thought. There is no Marxist core. I resist referring to these developments as Cultural Marxism (Cultural Marxism: Real Thing or Far-Right Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory?). Rather, I see them as a deviation from a grand tradition. And that’s what makes this direction palatable to corporate power. If it were actually Marxist, CNN would not be pushing the narrative.
Indeed, while Cultural Marxism was at its core concerned with the totalitarian problematic, the New Left narrative is shot through with totalitarian desire, the desire to all see speech and thought subordinated to a particular mode of speech and thought defined by its ideology, which is corporatist, globalist, progressive, and technocratic. Just take look at the response to “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate” published in Harper’s Magazine.
(Here’s the awesome thing about free speech: you don’t have to agree with J.K. Rowling or anybody else to support it. Indeed, the whole point of free speech is that you defend speech with which you disagree—you demand the protection of speech that you find offensive. Defending speech with which you agree is a different thing. We call that an endorsement. It must be terribly embarrassing to sign on to a letter in defense of free speech only to find out that you don’t actually believe in free speech.)
* * *
The New Left narrative portrays America as having made no progress at all, as if emancipation and civil rights never happened. The United States was forged in a world where slavery and racism were commonplace. Our country freed itself from the monarchy of the British Empire and abolished the slave trade. The British Empire followed suit. Much of the world did not. In the 1860s, the United States fought a civil war to free people from bondage and preserve democratic-republicanism. Three-quarters of a million American men, the vast majority of them white, died so that black people could have rights. White men killed other white men for the sake of black men. Following WWII, the civil rights movement saw black Americans come into those rights. White people were there every step of the way. America is a story of progress. America led the way for the rest of the world. (See The Endless Relitigating of the Past as a Postmodern Condition; Monument Redux: What the Defacers and the Topplers are Really After.)
What I regard as actual forward-leaning values of mankind—humanism, liberalism, scientific-rationalism, secularism—are dismissed by the postmodern left as the values of the white man. His ideology of individualism denies the primacy of group identity, of identity politics, where abstractions supplant concrete persons. He advances free speech because it gives him the power to control the discourse and diminish others. His scientific-rationalism denies the value of nonwestern ways of knowing and its technology is destructive. His secularism denies the right of “a people” to be defined by religious devotion.
Yet the West enshrines these values, allowing group identity, power to control the discourse, nonwestern ways of knowing, and religious devotion. All this is apparent in one short amendment to the United States Constitution: the First Amendment. Antiracism can appear because the advocate can live in a free society—and because the structures the protestors ought to be criticizing find advantage in their regressive attitudes. Alas, the Constitution is a white man’s document. Progressives, who embrace New Left ideology, declare the United States a failed state because they want the state to fail—and they strive to make the future in the image of their ideology. (The Elite Obsession with Race Reveals a Project to Divide the Working Class and Dismantle the American Republic,)
The antiwestern sentiment of the New Left, despite its schizophrenia, has proven useful to the transnational wing of the capitalist class, to the corporatist who strives to replace citizens in a national republic to consumers in a global capitalist order. New Left ideology thus sits comfortably in Sheldon Wolin’s inverted totalitarianism. It dovetails with the social logic of bureaucratic collectivism. Left and right, the people have to stop this. This is what I mean by “late capitalism” in the tagline of my blog—this is the managed decline of the American republic and the diminishment of Western civilization. The purpose of decline and diminishment is the reordering the world system by the reordering of its history, the dismantling of the Westphalian system and denationalization, and the reincorporation of the people into a global corporate neofeudalist system.
The endpoint is that humans across the planet become serfs in a transnational order run by technocrats for the sake of corporate power and profit. From the globalist corporatist standpoint, China’s apparent struggle with the United States for global predominance is not really a struggle between superpowers, but a welcome advance towards a new order of things. The aim is to submerge the individual in an authoritarian, corporatist, technocratic global order sold under cover of progressivism.
* * *
What is happening in the United States presently—the riots and the delegitimization of an American president—must be understood in these terms. I am really merely describing the winding path that brought us to chaos. These are the ideas and developments that have brought us to the crisis in which we now find ourselves.
The uprising in America is premised on a false narrative with these features, all of which grow out of the derangement of New Left thought, which has permeated our institutions, public and private (see The New Left’s War on Imaginary Structures of Oppression in Order to Hide the Real Ones): the United States and the West suffer persist systemic racism; whites are a privileged class that systematically oppresses blacks (all whites are racist); blacks are victims of lethal police force out of proportion with their representation in the population; blacks are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and imprisoned relatively independent of the criminal activity in which they are involved.
The narrative of systemic racism, of which the antipolice sentiment is an expression, is not just a feature of progressive activists and the Democratic Party. It has been taken up by globalists in the Republican Party who are increasing out of favor with the Republican Party under the influence of nationalist populism (The Myth of Systemic Racism in Lethal Police-Civilian Encounters).
In a recent issue of USA Today, this headline appears: “‘How do we end systemic racism?’: George W. Bush says George Floyd’s death reveals America’s ‘tragic failures’.” The former president, the man who led the United States into an illegal war and occupation of Iraq and authorized the torture of prisoners of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, is quoted as saying, “It remains a shocking failure that many African Americans, especially young African American men, are harassed and threatened in their own country.”
Using Bush and others as examples, the media points to the bipartisan character of antiracism as proof of its validity. But if we are going to take as evidence for the claim that America suffers from systemic racism, and that this phenomenon is manifest in patterns found in the enforcement of law and order, then the claims of racial bias in the law and order apparatus needs to be specified. Ecumenical proclamations do not substitute for facts and objective analysis. Specifying these finds the thesis wanting of evidence. But when I have raised these studies over against media sensationalism about disparities without context, the pushback I receive from progressive antiracist types always fall back on the sensationalized media stories, as if I am unfamiliar with them—or the science that demolishes them.
I recognize that the facts can be stunning. The public has been told over and over again, for years and years, that protests and riots are justified because police are racist—because America is racist. A recent poll found a majority of Americans agreeing that burning down a Minneapolis police precinct building was a justified response George Floyd’s death. COVID-19 did not scare me at all (read my blogs on this). But a majority of Americans believing that burning down police precincts is justified? That scares the hell out of me. A lot of precinct buildings have detention cells in them. What if people had been in there? What about the evidence rooms? What about the rape kits? It’s not just that people have been fed a false narrative. They have been primed to fail to think rationally.
People have invested so much in the belief that the United States is marked by systemic racism that they cannot deal with reality. But truth has its own integrity. Postmodernists are wrong—truth does not care what you believe. Facts matter and it is a dereliction of duty of any rational and honest person to fail to present the facts upon which policy and action are made and taken when he knows these facts. Black Lives Matter and its white allies do not argue from facts. They operate, in the spirit of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, via bullying, hectoring, mobbing, ostracization, and shaming. This is their mythology. And it’s irrational and dangerous.
The paradox of our time is that a theory that is ostensibly opposed to racism is the major source of racism in the current period. It operates on the same false premise as racism, namely that skin color determines our thought, behavior, and moral worth. In both cases, it is the capitalist class that wields the narrative for its collective self-interests.
The truth is that black people are little more than pawns to progressives, their humanity erased for political advantage, only advantageous voices selected for airing. As Glenn Loury and John McWhorter tell us in the video below, the marginalization of black intellectuals is not a matter of quality of scholarship, but political. Conservative black scholars must make their work perfect to pass the gatekeepers and reviewed. Leftwing scholarship supportive of corporatist goals enjoys an easy path to prominence, despite it shoddy character. Biden, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi—the political establishment take black people for granted (Democrats Pander While Managing America’s Decline). In the progressive view (the liberal-structuralist view, as Cornel West famously labeled it), the perpetrators of crime are robots driven by the systemic racism of whiteness. Marionettes dancing on strings.
The Unraveling | Glenn Loury & John McWhorter
Inconvenient victims don’t matter because they interfere with the America-bashing and cop-bashing narrative. It doesn’t matter to progressives that children sleep in bathtubs at night so they aren’t struck by stray bullets from gangs. The dozens of people who died in Chicago over the last several weekends aren’t even a footnote in the progressive political playbook. Why? Because they were black people killed by other black people. Because the violence is occurring in cities run by progressives. (Progressives, Poverty, and Police: The Left Blames the Wrong Actors; “If They Cared.” Confronting the Denial of Crime and Violence in American Cities).
That’s one level. At another level, a higher level, progressives are doing the work of the globalist fraction of the capitalist class. They are preparing the republic for failure for corporate takeover. They want the nation to collapse. Not just because they hate America. With America’s collapse, the working class will lose the republican machinery that enables it to curtail the system of corporate control.
* * *
We live in a post-factual society founded on a postmodern epistemology of truth. This is how elites have prepared the collapse. Across the nation, across Europe, university students are indoctrinated in cultural and diversity programming that trash their culture and their persons. Not only undergraduates, but graduate students, teaching assistants, teachers. They go on become high school teachers and so on. They teach the Howard Zinn version of America—not simply that America has never been great, but that American can never be great.
The cultural revolution, an expression of totalitarianism, has permeated the institutions of Western society. It envelopes them. This is why inconvenient facts are unseen or even dismissed as oppressive. All of the studies on crime and punishment I cite, all of the statistics I present—these don’t matter because truth doesn’t matter in the postmodern condition.
At a recent LinkedIn conference “racist comments” were highlighted. The press reported the controversy without questioning whether what was said was actually racist. That these observations and statements of equal justice would be considered racist is astonishing. Frightening, frankly. This attitude explains the enthusiasm among progressives for violence against society’s institutions and Western values—and against persons. Here’s a sampling:
“As a non-minority, all this talk makes me feel like I am supposed to feel guilty of my skin color. I feel like I should let someone less qualified fill my position. Is that ok? It appears that I am a prisoner of my birth. This is not what Martin Luther King Jr. would have wanted for anyone.”
“I believe giving any racial group privilege over others in a zero sum game would not get any support by others. Any thoughts on hurting others while giving privileges with the rosy name called diversity?”
“Blacks kill blacks at 50 times the rate that whites kill blacks. Usually it is the result of gang violence in the inner city. Where is the outcry?”
“This tragic incident that happened to George Floyd happened exactly the same to Tony Timpa (white man) by Dallas cops in 2016, and no one seemed to care then. There were no out cry for justice in his case. Why? Should we not want justice for all?”
This is a major problem confronting us as we struggle to save western civilization and the institutions of the enlightenment from global corporatism: the post-factual culture. We live in a world dominated by manufactured victimhood. We live under the thumb of a grievance industry. We’re expected to admit that we are what they say we are. If we don’t, then we prove them right. They can gaslight us because they have power they deny they have. (See Cult Programming in Seattle.)
Culture study programs are not programs that study culture. They are programs of cultural socialization, of indoctrination. They teach people to hate themselves and then emotionally blackmail them. They tell them they are racist and doubly so if they object. They prepare our youth for a life of work in the bureaucratic collective, to be cogs in a machine fed a virtual life by the culture industry. The establishment has prepared and disseminate what Orwell called “newspeak,” a radical project that shrinks the vocabulary, replacing it with terms and slogans that manufacture a reality. They mean to change the way we think by changing the way we talk.
All this we must refuse and resist. This is what needs rebelling against. These programs teach a story of oppressor-oppressed, perpetrator-victim, racist-antiracist, fascist-antifascist, with the goal of creating resentment and hostility, of ramping up conflicts between the myriad of often imagined divisions that they amplify and manufacture, disrupting the legitimacy of institutions that work for the common man and women, the citizens the corporations wish were subjects—proles—by destroying our faith in them. The mean to undermine our solidarity. Everything is determined by partisan ideology. People dismiss facts and ideas because Breitbart and Bannon and Scruton know them. That’s not thinking for yourself.
The political and cultural right has been right about so much of this because they aren’t in the academic and culture industry bubble. Standing on the outside gives them a good view of the rot. Their politics aren’t correct, of course, but that has nothing to do with the correctness of their interpretation of the forces that are threatening Western civilization. Put another way, while the right does get things wrong, they don’t often get things entirely wrong. They talk about cultural Marxism. And while I don’t, because I appreciate the Frankfurt School, there is definitely something to the argument that neo-Marxism carries the potential for danger in practice. It is, in its own way, illiberal.
* * *
I am taking leftism to task from a Marxist standpoint. If you hear in my arguments rightwing ideology you are not putting any effort into listening to what I am saying. I am a libertarian Marxist, a left-libertarian, a democratic socialist. I am as committed to that standpoint as I have ever been because the trajectory of history confirms its validity.
Marxists are not a monolith bunch. I have long opposed the deformation of Marxian thought by the ideas of the New Left. My regret is in not publicly taking up this position sooner. But if I fail to stand up for the rational side of historical materialism, those who are deforming it will have an easier time of it and we will move further away from enjoying the class solidarity we need to build a broad-based worker movement. We cannot proceed with the socialist struggle if we are fractured by identity politics. Identity politics has a source. Its source is in the corruption of leftist thought. A major part of that source is Mao Zedong thought. We have to root it out.
We are being denationalized for the sake of transnational capitalism and dividing us racially is a key strategy in the globalization project. We are being distracted. It’s time to refocus on the problem of social class and how identitarian politics is being used to perpetuate class power. It’s time to return to a truly emancipatory politics.
* * *
Here I am talking about this dynamic and electoral choice.
There’s a meme circulating that assumes that those who believe masks are stifling also claim that masks don’t prevent the transmission of SARs-CoV-2. It’s one of the myriad of mocking memes designed to shame and marginalize those whom the meme-makers think are conservative and therefore stupid. I am not going to share the meme. I’m sure you have seen it.
I must admit, I don’t see anybody making these claims together or, for that matter, the same person making these claims sequentially. Maybe they do and I miss it. But if they did, would they be wrong?
On the first part, has anybody ever been under a blanket? Felt stifled? I bet you have. (By stifled I mean not being able to breathe properly, not being suffocated.) Ever experienced a roaring headache at a slumber party while hiding from the parents? Ever been performing oral sex and have had to open up a side vent to keep going? Why, even when it’s really cold, do we cover our bodies but keep our heads out from under the blanket?
Answer: to breathe.
On the second part, is it possible for a virus to get us under a blanket? Or through a niqab or burka? Yes. Obviously some air gets in or you would suffocate. If some air gets in, then viruses, which are tiny, can get in.
That’s the other thing the meme assumes—that if a person is stifled then the virus is stifled. Stop and think about that for a second. Are you saying that airflow is either/or? Either the air is flowing full volume or the air is completely choked off? Or is it our experience that airflow can be restricted but not choked off and still stifle the breather?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the whole point of masks is to reduce airflow. What would be the point otherwise? mask scolds readily admit this. I see the photos from these aerosol studies everywhere. What do they demonstrate? Restricted airflow.
Plastic bags tightly tied around one’s neck are probably very effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Why? Because little air gets in. Sleeping bags aren’t body bags. Etc. So we use breathable masks, so we don’t suffocate the user—while restricting the user’s airflow. I suppose we could all wear NASA spacesuits. I think only some students would find that fun. It will terrify and alienate others. But who’s paying for it?
Image from Max Siedentopf’s exhibit How-To Survive A Deadly Global Virus. Readers of magazine Dezeen were highly offended and accused Siedentopf of “spreading misinformation.” Apparently Dezeen readers don’t get satire. Cancel culture has identified humor as dangerous.
Don’t like common sense? Here’s a review of the scientific evidence about masks by physicist Denis G. Rancourt. Despite having published more than 100 articles in scientific journals on physics and environmental science, you have probably never heard of Rancourt. He was dismissed from the University of Ottawa for presuming that academic freedom gave him the right to experiment with grading schemes.
Gatekeepers like suppressing Rancourt’s arguments. This article was banned from ResearchGate on June 3, 2020 after it had reached 400 K reads. That’s why I am having to share the article from this source provided above. Get it while you can. Here’s the letter Jospeh Hickey and Denis Rancourt of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association wrote the WHO about masks.
Where do these desperate shaming memes come from? They come from a pathological desire to force everybody to do something. People who make these arguments have control issues. It’s like the desire to make everybody agree with one’s opinion about systemic racism by getting dissenters in trouble. Only racists would deny systemic racism, right? Cancel them. So if you don’t want to wear a mask you must be a fascist wing nut. Ironic, no?
This psychological need has many sources. Neither common sense nor science are among them.
So there are studies claiming a protective function. I agree: science is important. So what about the studies that do not find this protective function? What about not rigidly determining questions of personal freedom on the basis of selected science?
All the studies show masks work, I am told. Which studies? Which scientists? Whose scientists? The scientists who told us that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective and dangerous?
If you want to wear a mask, then wear a mask. But please stop trying to force everybody to be like you, to live in the world you think you control. At least stop claiming you believe in autonomy and freedom and human dignity if you think it’s appropriate for the government to force people to wear masks (or stay in their house, etc.).
“What would have us do?” That’s a question I get all the time. Thanks for asking. Here’s my recommendation: If you see me without a mask, and that bothers you, stay away from me. Or, if I am forced to wear a sign that indicates disease (like a mask), then stay away from me. Treat me like a disease vector if you want to operate on that level of fear and paranoia. I won’t be offended. I really won’t. I promise. It’s weird, but there are lots of things in life that are weird and I am a tolerant man.
There are viruses. They kill some people. This is the way it has always been. It is the way it will always be. COVID-19 isn’t novel in that sense. A virus may get you sooner or later. If it makes you feel better to wear a mask, then I have no desire to make you go about your life with a naked face. It may be important for you to project your (quasi) religious identity. I’m a proponent of religious liberty.
If you fear me because I am a man and therefore statistically more likely to commit violence, what can I do about it? I can only point out that this reaction is irrational. But I am not going to lord your fear over you. So don’t lord your fear over me.
It’s not that I don’t care about you when I don’t wear a mask. The problem is that you don’t care about me when you force me to wear one.
After blogging about COVID-19 early on (my first blog on the subject was late March), I, for the most part, moved on to other things because I risked repeating myself and because the Black Lives Matter hysteria seemed a more pressing topic on which to focus. After all, the problems with the societal reaction to SARS-CoV-2 were clear early on. It just took somebody to make others aware of them, I believed. I always hold out hope that people are susceptible to facts and reason. It’s why I write in a scientific fashion, a practice for which I am oddly criticized. I am, above all, an educator. However, several posts on my Facebook newsfeed and continuing establishment news media distortion inspire me to return to the subject. It seems that ignorance of the obvious and resistance to scientific thinking are stubborn things. The facts only strength the argument I have made all along.
First, there is puzzlement—if even acknowledged—that Covid-19 seems to be killing far fewer of the people it infects. If you remember, back in April and May, there were as many as 3,000 deaths per day. This produced a high case fatality rate (CFR), which the media used to scare the public. (I wrote extensively on the moral panic in the spring. (See, for example, Viruses, Agendas, and Moral Panics and When a Virus Goes Viral.) The number of daily deaths is now closer to 600. Yes, there is a rise in hospitalization and deaths in a few states, but by CDC standards, the daily number of deaths looks to be on track to fall below epidemic levels. What explains this?
It may be that the virus is mutating into a less lethal form. While viruses may not technically be alive, they are subject to the principles of natural selection. When copying themselves, virus make errors scientists call mutations. Some mutations make viruses more lethal, while others make viruses less lethal. Evolutionary pressure favors those variations that are less lethal, since the more lethal variations are less successful in spreading and thus reproducing themselves over space and time. To put it simply, the more lethal strains die out. Hence, there are more people with the virus but fewer people dying from it.
Another possibility is that, in the early days, when testing was a far lower levels than it is today, the virus was much more widespread than it is now but authorities were not detecting its actual extent. This is why the infection fatality rate (IFR) is more useful metric than than the CFR (Asking Critical Comparative Questions About the Coronavirus Pandemic; We Should Stop Citing the Case-Lethality Rate for COVID-19—or Start Using it for Influenza). The IFR is determined with extrapolations based on inferential techniques. As we see with other viral patterns, which are far worse in the winter and spring and then drop off with warmer weather, the virus is may be fading, but aggressive testing keeps the number of cases high.
Diagnostic testing for the coronavirus has risen significantly, with more than 600,000 tests administered each day in the United States. In contrast, there were 100,000 tests per day in early spring. This represents a six-fold increase in testing over the course of the pandemic. Despite the media spin that this does not explain the rise in cases, John Hopkins Center for Health Security reports that increased testing is identifying many more infected individuals with mild or no symptoms (as I reported this spring, most of those who are infected have mild to no symptoms). This rise in the number of identified cases drives down the overall proportion of COVID-19 deaths.
Here’s how to think about this. If COVID-19 remains as lethal as before, then it must follow that there were many more cases than authorities were detecting (there still are). The decline in deaths per day is five-fold. That is a significant number. If the number of cases were actually rising, which is the evidence marshaled by the media and the naysayers against reopening the economy and schools, and if COVID-19 were just as lethal as it was in the spring, then the death rate would go up, not down. So either there were far more cases than were detected or the virus is becoming less lethal.
Of course, all of these things can be simultaneously true; they are not mutually exclusive possibilities. It is possible that there were far more cases than were detected early on, cases are on the rise due to reopening the economy, and the virus is less lethal than it was early on. However, all that is good news. It means that the virus was never as lethal as we thought (because there were always many more cases that were detected) and that more people are acquiring antibodies. (See Future Containment of COVID-19: Have Authorities Done the Right Thing?) This is the reason why the media has stopped talking about deaths and focuses instead on the gross number of rising cases.
Not wanting to talk about deaths directly also explains why the media spends very little time telling the public about how earlier intervention and new therapeutics and practices are saving lives. The medical industry is now more familiar with the virus and is doing a better job of treating it. However, if the media isn’t going to talk about declining deaths amid allegedly rising cases, in order to leave the impression that deaths are going up because cases are going up, then they aren’t going to report the medical success story.
The media frame is clearly resistant to presenting any positive news about COVID-19 for the purposes of keeping alive the moral panic they’re using to diminish the president and marginalize populist resistant to authoritarian control, for which the virus is used as a pretext.
Another probable factor in the decline of COVID-19 deaths is that the demographic profile of the virus is changing. It is shifting towards younger people. Because the virus is relatively harmless to healthy adults, a proportional shift towards younger and healthier population groups will to some degree reduce the overall rate of death. This is particularly good news in that it means that healthy Americans are developing immunity to a virus that is likely, as are other viruses, to come back in the fall. It also may signal that authorities are doing a better job in protecting those in longterm care facilities—or, grimly, those most likely to die already have.
Stanford University’s disease prevention chairman, John P. A. Ioannidis reports, “There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus.” The studies “suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases.” That means that actual cases are 15-30 times greater than documented cases. Ioannis also reports, “For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05%-0.3%.”
With this in mind, why is it even a question as to whether teachers and students go back to school in the fall? I have heard the complaint that a significant proportion of teachers are in the age group imperiled by the virus (we should keep in mind that more than half of all deaths among the elderly have occurred in long-term care facilities, which distorts the actual threat to those active in the teaching profession). Moreover, it is noted that there are others who have immunocompromised systems and other health conditions (such as obesity) that make the virus more lethal for them. However, influenza and others viruses present the same threat to these populations (vaccines, which only cover some strains and are highly variable in their efficacy, at best moderate this effect, not negate it). Indeed, influenza is far more dangerous to children than SARS-CoV-2. Yet the fact that it has never before been the policy concerning other serious biological threats to these populations to move to online instruction or wear masks and shields and practice social distancing rarely occurs to anybody.
In other words, many in the public are reacting to COVID-19 in a way they do not and have not responded to comparable threats. The public is overreacting and the overreaction has harmed the economy and education, and will continue to do so if we continue to operate on fear instead of reason. Tragically, people perceive COVID-19 differently than influenza because the authorities and the establishment media have terrified them with corpses, pushing a frightening narrative that COVID-19 is uniquely deadly while ignoring the IFR that shows that it isn’t. Remember, the authorities and establishment media know better. They are lying about this.
Now that cases are rising mainly because of testing, while deaths are falling both absolutely and relatively, the news media dwell on cases and not deaths. They are substituting cases for deaths because the numbers are larger and scarier. After months of scare mongering, it’s time the American public push back and demand that we return to a normal life.
* * *
The New York Times wrote a nasty piece on Sweden’s experience with COVID-19. It was based on perceptions of Sweden by surrounding Scandinavian countries. An objective examination of the demographics of COVID-19 deaths, as well as the character of institutional integrity, suggests that the problem in Sweden is not their approach to SARS-CoV-2 but other factors, for example an aging population. More than one in twenty Swedes is beyond the standard retirement age of 65, a number higher than in Denmark and much higher than in Norway, and Sweden is a much larger country.
Most COVID-19 deaths have occurred in a very small proportion of the population. Those 70 years of age and older account for 88.9 percent of deaths. Moreover, more than half of them were in long-term care facilities. Of the 5,420 total deaths as of July 3, only 9 people below the age of 30 have died from the virus in Sweden. As the research indicates, most of those who die young have comorbidities, such as a compromised immune system. They are at risk from other viruses, as well. The case fatality rate of those under the age of 70 is less than 1 percent in Sweden. Applying a bottom end factor of 15, the infection fatality rate is 0.05% for those under the age of 70. For all age groups, a conservative estimate of infection fatality race is half of 1 percent.
This virus is comparable to influenza in its lethality. No country stops society on account of the flu. While death is tragic (albeit inevitable), the statistics do not suggest the more restrictive approach other countries have taken would have been markedly better. Sweden has performed better than Great Britain and Spain, to take two notable examples of countries with restrictive policies. Moreover, Sweden’s approach is likely the only viable long-term approach to SARS-CoV-2 if societies want to avoid economic calamity and its consequences, for example diminishment of the material capability of supporting the health care sector.
Beyond the demographics of age, two factors stand out:
First, Sweden’s neoliberal approach to health and welfare has been more aggressive than other countries. High quality healthcare is increasingly difficult to come by in Sweden. The system is rationed, with restrictive access and long waiting times. There is a tradition in Sweden of stalling until patients are quite sick. There are chronic shortages of medical personnel. As a result, a large proportion of those who died from COVID-19 died outside ICU. The effects of neoliberalism are particularly felt in long-term care facilities. While most elderly care is funded taxes and government grants, an increasing number of municipalities are privatizing elderly care. Shortfalls in care in private long-term care facilities is well-known in Sweden.
Second, Sweden’s health and welfare systems have been severely strained by a large immigrant population heavily dependent on government resources. Other Scandinavian countries have not been nearly as generous to immigrants as has Sweden. The Swedish government has responded by reducing immigration, but the damage done to its systems of health and welfare systems (as well as public safety) will be felt for a long time.
freedom and reason 