Category Archives: Ethics

On Motherhood

Debt, Ethics, Family, Gender, Kids, Morality

Via LinkedIn (where you can join me, too):

On being a mother: A little long, but still achingly poignant. Every single mother can identify:

Related reading is “Are you My Mother?”

Emily Wilson, a classicist, offers these insights:

“There is a deeply rooted idea in our culture that mothers, far more than fathers, are responsible not just for picking up the toys and changing the nappies, but also for how the child turns out in the end, for good or ill.”

Ms. Wilson’s conclusion:

“Mothers are all different, because they are all human. The good enough mother is one who gives her child what it needs to grow up. The good enough child is one who manages to grow up, and in doing so, is able to recognize her mother’s humanity.”

 

The Future of Medicine in America: Whites Go To The Back Of The Proverbial Bus

America, Britain, COVID-19, Criminal Injustice, Ethics, Morality, Race, Racism, The West

In Britain, where the image appended originates, “authorities are getting the vaccine to their elderly as quickly as they can.” As dysfunctional and perfidious as Albion certainly is, there doesn’t seem to be any debate over the urgent need to protect the vulnerable elderly. It’s what a civilized society does.

The future of medicine in America is somewhat different. The “idea” is not to get too fixated on the old, who are dying of the China Virus. After all, America’s elderly are overwhelmingly white and hence privileged.

That is the immoral non sequitur coming from the nation’s ethicists. Non sequitur why? Because, from the fact that one is old, it doesn’t follow that one is white and privileged. Moreover, from the moral point of view, determining who shall live and who shall die based on race is indeed eugenics. Tucker Carlson called it out courageously .

Apparently, in America, eugenics practiced against whites by other whites emulating God is morally redeemable.

In America The Radical, those chosen to apply ethics to questions of public policy are morally and intellectually bankrupt. Profoundly so. One Harald Schmidt (whatever happened to the spelling of “Harold”? Too white, as in grammatical?) has advised the CDC that,

“Older populations are whiter. [sic] Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already have more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

As others have pointed out, the discrimination is not even based on empirical evidence (see “Essential workers should get coronavirus vaccine before the elderly, experts tell NYT“):

“…he’s wrong—Asians and Hispanics have greatest life expectancy in US,” wrote Christina Hoff Sommers. According to data compiled by worldlifeexpectancy.com from the CDC and NIH, Asian Americans have a life expectancy of 86.67 and Hispanic Americans, 82.89. White Americans have a life expectancy of 79.12.

Writes Tucker Carlson:

But in this country, a panel of ideologues at the CDC has decided that the elderly should not be at the front of the line. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has made a different determination, and the reasoning is simple: Old people in this country are too White to save. They even put it in writing.

Last month, the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee unanimously approved recommendations from a doctor called Kathleen Dooling. According to her presentation, it is true that more lives would be saved if the elderly receive priority access to the vaccine. But here’s the problem: “Racial and ethnic minority groups [are] under-represented [sic] among adults” age 65 and older. Therefore, the elderly should not be a top priority.

According to the CDC panel, another group, those officially classified as “non-healthcare essential workers”, should get the vaccine first. Why is that? Because “racial and ethnic minority groups [are] disproportionately represented in many essential industries.”

In other words, it’s entirely racial. They’re making the decision based on race. Kathleen Dooling’s presentation concluded that doling out life-saving medicine on the basis of skin color would “mitigate health inequities.” Of course it would kill people, and she effectively concedes that. But the people it would kill come from a disfavored race, so it’s not a big deal.

It’s been a very long time since anyone close to what we would consider the mainstream has endorsed eugenics, but that’s exactly what this is. Earlier this month, The New York Times, supposedly our greatest newspaper, interviewed Harald Schmidt, a leading expert on medical ethics and vaccination at the University of Pennsylvania.

Here’s how Harald Schmidt advised the CDC: “Older populations are whiter. [sic] Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already have more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit.”

This anti-white pathology emanates from American academics. The dishonorable Harald Schmidt should be stripped of his “ethicist” honorific. Institutions that teach such ethics as Harald espouses ought to be discredited, certainly not attended.

Schmidt is an anti-white activist. And, I’d urge Mr. Carlson to vaporize less about the “identity politics that divides us.” For, as I’ve argued, “It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics”:

Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media call it “identity politics.” “The left is playing identity politics.”
Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. For, blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky. Hence, anti-white politics or animus.

Having exposed this horror, a logical extension of the institutionalization of progressivism and the Critical Race Theory rot, it would be immensely helpful if the courageous Mr. Carlson and the timid conservative commentariat dropped the “identity politics” fig-leaf in favor of “anti-white politics”:

Undergirding the factional identity politics so roundly condemned is a practiced anti-whiteness.  Hispanic, LGBT, plutocrat and feminist: All would concur. The road to their political salvation is in collaborating to extinguish “white dominant culture.” —ilana mercer

DC, Sewer-Rat Briefs: And They Say We Deplorables Are The Jerks

Democrats, Donald Trump, Elections, Ethics, Left-Liberalism, Media, Politics, Republicans

He’s eloquent, dour, ruthless; the embodiment of the Yankee, Radical Republicanism of the Reconstruction era. Lincoln Project founder Steve Schmidt is a GOPer establishmentarian who led a coalition to help elect Joe Biden!! Here he is, a DC sewer rat if ever there was one,  reaching out on Twitter to AOC, to show her his empathy for working-class men and women. Neither AOC or he has ever belonged to that class of Americans.

Schmidt, who has since defected to the Democrat Party, the Other Party of Treason, is the face of zeal. He even looks as fanatical as the Republicans pictured in “The Radical Republicans:  The ANTIFA of 1865.”

Former McCain aide Steve Schmidt: Trump's 'impairment is chilling' | TheHill
The thread that runs through TV debates among Schmidt and his ilk is the failure of the Grand Old Party (GOP) to stand up to Donald Trump. Unmentioned are the 74 million people, the Depolrables, who empower President Trump. These solipsistic, TV degenerates have simply disappeared or cancelled 74 million voters.

Bush-era operative Nicolle Wallace, now an anchor on MSNBC—thanks to the revolving door that is the DC-media-industrial complex—has not stopped castigating the GOP for standing by Trump. She seems oblivious to the fact that Trump is a conduit—he represents tens of millions of voting Americans, many of whom are to the right of him politically.

Another MSNBC regular, Donny Deutsch, a lefty business-cum-media man, hollered that “there are 50 million jerks in this country. We’re just going to have to accept it,” he yelled. Deutsch had found a way to dismiss Trump voters, having, at least, acknowledged we exist.

Ana Navaro (who’s had a dossier on my blog for years) is a deeply stupid woman and a former shill for Jeb Bush. Known for siring (see picture)—and


surrounding himself with—stupid women, John McCain had once employed the gaseous Navaro as his consultant. In addition to being a plain idiot, Navarro is a Republican identity politics activist (read anti-white activist), whose one line during the tumultuous Trump presidency and, in particular, in the lame-duck phase, has been to repeat that GOPers are afraid of the Trump tweets. That’s what goes for “analysis” on the American idiot’s lantern.

Trump’s base of supporters does not exist to the haughty bitch, Navarro.

Margaret Hoover’s media and political jobs have been a function of her cute looks and John Avlon [CNN] Salary, Wife, Children, Height, Education
her family name (she’s the great-granddaughter of the 31st U.S. President). Hoover’s only other merit is that she’s not at all a bad interviewer on PBS’s “Firing Line.”

Appearing on CNN alone or with her Democrat sidekick, husband John Avlon, this progressive Republican has also been disgorging the same single line of “thought” for months, if not years:

“This ends not well for the GOP.  There will be a backlash for the GOP [for standing by Trump and his base and denying the election result.]” A backlash with who, Ms. Hoover? The intellectual and moral sink hole to which you and your friends belong? Funny thing: I thought a leader was supposed to listen to his constituents.

Avlon chimed in at the same time with this banality:

“Republicans should be moved by the national interest, not the party’s interests.” Like the Democrats, presumably.

Hoover at least did hint at the mammoth, not mere elephant, that’s in the room: that angry, 74-million strong base. So far, the Republicans are nervous about The Base. But for how long?

 

NEW COLUMN: Is Israel Racist? A Reply To An Anti-Semitic Writer (Part 2)

America, Ethics, Israel, Justice, Multiculturalism, Nationalism, Nationhood, Political Philosophy, Racism, The West

NEW COLUMN: “Is Israel Racist? A Reply To An Anti-Semitic Writer (Part 2),” also “Exclusivity is Not Racism,” on American Greatness, in which it becomes obvious that Israel is not structurally racist—and that “Jews are to be faulted only to the extent that they deny to other nations the rights they claim for the Jewish ethno-state. …

…there is a strong case to be made—based not on ethnic hate—against any Jew, left or right, who rejects the ‘Right of Return’ to Israel proper of every self-styled Palestinian refugee, yet, at the same time, champions a global right of return to the U.S. for citizens of the world. …

… Oblivious to the logical and moral contradictions inherent in their special pleading—some Jews work toward rightist political prescriptions for Israelis; but leftist prescriptions for Americans.

These Jews insist that Israel is for the Jews, but America is for the World.

Any Jew who practices this ethical contradiction must be condemned, for promoting for England, America and Europe the national incoherence and multicultural morass he rejects for Israel.

The new column is on Townhall.com, WND, and the Unz Review , and American Greatness.

Dedicated to my father, Rabbi Ben Isaacson, son of South Africa, who passed away on December 7, 2020, in his beloved South Africa.

READ Part 1: An Anti-Semite Asks & Is Answered: Is Israel Racist? (Part 1)