Moderates United

What if the motto of all politicans was “Above all else, do no harm.”?  What if the bias was in favor of conservatism and gradualism, and a firm insistence on reconciling policy outcome with intent, honestly?

Over and over in Obama’s early years we heard “we have to do SOMETHING”.  We have to pass the “stimulus”,  we have to pass Obamacare, we have to do this or that or the other, because it is a CRISIS.

Self evidently, the use of the word crisis, and the drumming up of hysteria generally, is a tactic cynical power mongers use to get and keep power.  Induce fear, and use it to do something with good “optics”, like “health care reform”.  Then for good measure accuse anyone who objects of “fear mongering”.

What if doctors took as their motto “Above all else, do SOMETHING”.  We can imagine conversations like “well, ma’am, I”m not sure what’s wrong, but I have these samples sitting around. Take them.  It might do something.  If it doesn’t work or makes things worse, I don’t want to know.  Not my problem.  I did something.”

They don’t have the word “interoception” yet in Dictionary.com .  It is relatively new, I think; certainly relatively new as something of clinical importance in optimized mental and emotional and physical health.  It is introspection, but at the physiological level.  It is feeling inward.  It is not seeing how you feel about how you feel–that is introspection–but rather FEELING how you feel, at a primary level.

In the lengthy quote I posted yesterday, they commented that what your mother does not mirror, becomes difficult for you to express in yourself.  What you are wanting is the feeling of being comforted, protected, nurtured, recognized as individual, rewarded for initiative and learning.  The process of growth for the wounded is remembering it is still possible to feel what they feel.  It is not too late.  There is a layer of muck and habit, but feelings never disappear, nor does the possibility of feelings, except of course in cases of gross organic defects, which do not afflict most of us.

Thus, when you are feeling what you feel, when you are undergoing conscious interoception as a growth process, you are self parenting.  You are doing for yourself–I am doing for myself–what my mother failed to do.

And it seems to me that trying to do this in a clinical setting is almost inherently problematic and unhealthy.  The idea is that as a physiologically mature adult you enter into a different relationship with your parent using the therapist as a substitute, and that you do this without touch, without constant contact, without leaving, at the end of the day, the relationship as other than pay for service.  This seems absurd to me.  Parents don’t charge by the hour, and they are not forbidden from touching you, or at least forced to undergo lengthy classes on the ethics of touch.

And the therapist IS NOT YOUR PARENT.  I can’t see how it could even be healthy on their side either.  Personally, I have regressed in therapy, but there was nothing the therapist could really do with it.  It was needed–I had to know this was there, in order to deal with it intelligently–but it would be easy to spend a small fortune and be barely better, even with a good, well trained, sincere therapist.

To my mind, quiet interoception is the only way forward.  This is the essence of Kum Nye.  And what is interesting about Kum Nye relative to similar practices presented by trauma therapists, is that it explicitly incorporates both physical nervous energy, and more subtle, spiritual energy.  The two are clearly related.

I visualize it as a series of locks you coax into opening, to allow new energies to flow.

Actually, I would add that group celebrations of all sorts are likely useful as well.  In America, we don’t celebrate very well.  At least white Americans.  Large groups dancing, drumming, singing: all that is very healing.

Feelings want crystallization.  We want to have a reason to feel the way we do, and as social animals innately wired for connection and mirroring, we want ways to conform.  We all have these needs.

Leftism crystallizes the need for social connection among those who cannot accept traditional ways, such as nationalism, or religion.  As a principle form of social belonging, it becomes vitally important in and of itself.  The ideas are not what matter, but their uniformity: their reliable uniformity among otherwise differing groups.

This is the main reason that such stupidity endures.  Certainly, it is reinforced by cynical psychopaths.  But they are tapping into a latent psychological need, one which is expanded greatly by continual attacks on all other potential sources of belonging.

The human race is in an odd place.  It is quite true that tribalisms of various sorts can and often have led to violence.  But the problem has not been solved.  Leftism is more violent than most traditional forms of tribalism.  It didn’t fix anything, and made many things worse.

I was sitting in a bar yesterday, pondering trauma, pondering the need to fight, to attack, to interact with others through aggression, and I saw armies forming.  That is where people always went: to war.  You start with a need to connect through violence, and then you find a reason, and you say the reason created the violence, when it was the other way around.

Self evidently, I am no pacifist, and not willing to say violence is never justified, or that we do not need our soldiers.  But I do think it worth recognizing on a macro level how these things work.

And on a related, but very tangential note, I was pondering an episode in Fallout 3.  You get locked into  a Virtual Reality device, which mimics a typical American suburb, with psychotically happy music playing continually, and everyone nice, except for this mean little girl in the middle playground, on a street with houses on all sides.  You tell her you want out, and she starts giving you tasks.  The first task is to make a kid cry.  They give you speech options, and the most obvious one is to tell him that his parents are getting divorced and it is his fault.

This was to me what I might call a Milgram moment.  What reaction could and should a normal person have?  It is “only” a video game, but as David Grossman pointed out, such games can and do teach real behaviors.  I balked.  I got on the walk through, and found out there was an alternative way out.  What I read was that after you bully little Billy, or whatever his name was, you have to kill each of the adults in the space, none of whom are mean or aggressive in any way.  You then find out the little girl is really a German scientist who finds sadism amusing, you find your father, who was a dog, and the game progresses.

Here is the thing: most of these games are on the internet.  It would be a simple task to build an algorithm to gather data on the decision patterns of the kids (and adults like me) playing these games.  You could build a good psychological template for their suitability as little Nazis,. or their willingness to submit to tyranny, and do so across large populations, as meta-data.

It is of course impossible for people on the outside to know what decisions are being made by who and why; to know who is planning what.  But I do think it worth fearing extremely wealthy people pursuing radical agendas.

If it wasn’t clear, my post before last explains most of what we call “evil”.  It is not a metaphysical question, or need not be.  With evil we are dealing with an organism pushed past its breaking point, nothing more, nothing less.

This is a powerful idea, in my view.

I don’t know why I’ve never put this together before, but left wing media, by creating a false sense of reality, creates a following sense of what is “normal” and what is fringe.  In my own view, most of the whole fucking country is crazy.  9/11 was a vast conspiracy.  We elected twice a man who is likely the illegitimate child of a Communist pornographer, and whose books were ghost-written.  This seems to be the truth.  I am well educated, well read, intelligent, and even if I have major emotional issues, I have learned to manage them when I am doing thought work.  All they do is predispose me to paranoia.  As I keep saying, that doesn’t mean those ideas are wrong. I think a great deal of paranoia is in order.  Hillary should have been indicted, and everyone knows it.  At a minimum her Security Clearance should have been permanently revoked, and they couldn’t even manage that.

Here is the thing: by shaping reality, they create an incentive system in favor of their reality.  Corporations will not put their dollars on anything controversial, because they risk getting branded with it, and losing customers.  This is likely part of the reason Glenn Beck lost his job.  He landed quite nicely, but the dirty tricks campaign likely did work.

Alex Jones at Infowars (btw check out this great rant by Paul Joseph Watson: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCittVh8imKanO_5KohzDbpg ) has to sell Male Vitality, and coffee, and other products he more or less just remarkets under his brand.  Why?  You think Proctor and Gamble is going to let any of their names get seen with him?

So if you toe the left wing line, you can get money.  You stay in business.  If you don’t, then your business, if it is a traditional media business, does not.  Absent the internet, I truly believe we would be living in a dictatorship now.  They haven’t stopped Drudge and Infowars, and Breitbart, yet.

But people have to go to these places, places they are told are “hate filled”.  They do not show up on the TV.

I am not saying all this particularly well, but hopefully you get the point.

There is this saying, “you’re not alone”.  I read in the comments of “Rock and Roll Suicide” that that song has saved lives.  I believe this.

The truth is that many people are lost and alone in many respects.  Primitive trauma isolates them from their own emotions, and makes connection very hard.  That is my issue.

But what I want to communicate, like Bowie did, is that people like me, and perhaps like you, exist in large numbers, and this thought is comforting, to me at least.  None of us are alone in the sense that we can learn to take care of ourselves, to open slowly, and eventually walk in the sunlight with others.  There is firm reason for hope.

Infants who live in secure relationships learn to communicate not only their frustrations and distress but also their emerging selves–their interests, preferences, and goals.  Receiving a sympathetic response cushions infants (and adults) against extreme levels of frightened arousal.  But if your caregiver ignores your needs, or resents your very existence, you learn to anticipate rejection and withdrawal.  You cope as well as you can by blocking out your mother’s hostility or neglect and act as if it doesn’t matter, but your body is likely to remain in a state of high alert, prepared to ward off blows, deprivation, or abandonment.  Dissociation means simultaneously knowing and not knowing. 

Bowlby wrote: ‘What cannot be communicated to the [m]other [both mother and other] cannot be communicated to the self.’  If you cannot tolerate what you know or feel what you feel, the only option is denial and dissociation.” [page 123]

Another lengthy and perhaps useful quote/story:

In the early 1980’s my colleague Karlen Lyons-Ruth, a Harvard attachment researcher, began to videotape face-to-face interactions between mothers and their infants at six months, twelve months and eighteen months.  She taped them again when the children were five years old and once more when they were seven or eight.  All were from high risk families: 100 percent met federal poverty guidelines, and almost half the mothers were single parents. 

Disorganized attachment showed up in two different ways. One group of mothers seemed to be too preoccupied with their own issues to attend to their infants.  They were often intrusive and hostile; they alternated between rejecting their infants and acting as if they expected them to respond to their needs.  Another group of mothers seemed helpless and fearful. They often came across as sweet or fragile, but they didn’t how to be the adult in the relationship and seemed to want their children to comfort them.  They failed to greet their children after having been away and did not pick them up when the children were distressed.  The mothers didn’t seem to be doing these things deliberately–they simply didn’t know how to be attuned to their kids and respond to their cues and thus failed to comfort and reassure them.  The hostile/intrusive mothers were more likely to have childhood histories of physical abuse and/or witnessing domestic violence, while the withdrawn/dependent mothers were more likely to have histories of sexual abuse or parental loss (but not physical abuse). 

I have often wondered how parents come to abuse their kids.  After all, raising healthy offspring is at the very core of our human sense of purpose and meaning.  What could drive parents to deliberately hurt or neglect their children?  Karlen’s research provided me with one answer: watching her videos, I could see the children becoming more and more inconsolable, sullen, or resistant to their misattuned mothers.  At the same time, the mothers became increasingly frustrated, defeated, and helpless in their interactions.  Once the mother comes to see the child not as her partner in an attuned relationship but as a frustrating, enraging, disconnected stranger, the stage is set for subsequent abuse. 

About eighteen years later, when these kids were around twenty years old, Lyons-Ruth did a follow-up study to see how they were coping.  Infants with seriously disrupted emotional communication patterns with these mothers at eighteen months grew up to become young adults with an unstable sense of self, self-damaging impulsivity (including excessive spending, promiscuous sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating), inappropriate and intense anger, and recurrent suicidal behavior. 

Karlen and her colleagues had expected that hostile/instrusive behavior on the part of the mothers would be the most poweful predictor of mental instability in their adult children, but they discovered otherwise.  Emotional withdrawal hd the most profound and long lasting impact.   Emotional distance and role reversal (in which mothers expected the kids to look after them) were specifically linked to aggressive behavior against self and others in the young adults.

In other words, it seems to be human nature to prefer to be hated than to be ignored. It may literally be the case–in fact I would say it IS the case–that Hitler and the Third Reich, and Lenin and the global catastrophe of Communism, were the results of too many mothers ignoring their infants.  Lenin and Hitler, certainly, but all their followers as well.

And I cannot but think of the ghettos.  This is a continual theme with me, because in the midst of prosperity we have many people living in hell.  They create it themselves, in large measure, but this is not best regarded as a moral failing.  It should be regarded as what it is: the natural result of unnatural conditions.

Teenage mothers, who themselves grew up in emotionally unstable homes, are not able to attune with their infants, and they have many life stresses on top of simply dealing with a child.  The boy children tend to grow up angry and confused, and the girls grow both angry and docile, and confused.

Rap music, much of which feels demonic to me, is the natural music for a people where this sort of thing is common.  It both expresses rage, and counters depression and helplessness.  But it is not healthy.  It is not calming.  It is not harmonious.

From a public policy perspective it is hard to know what to do.  I don’t know what to do.  I will meditate on it.  But it does seem obvious that we need to hold the politicians to account who USE empty promises to secure and keep power accountable for their treachery to the cause of human betterment, and genuine progress.

We suspected but did not know much of this until the past couple decades.  The study referenced could not have been published earlier than about 2000.  The book I am referencing did not come out until 2014.

What we are truly getting to is an understanding of human nature.  In my own view, all the philosophies in the world cannot equate the knowledge one can find in ones own body about how to live.

And it does seem to me that many of the most demonic ideas–Communism, Fascism, religious fanaticism–come from people who learned to hate before they could speak, and who never in their lives realized it.

And a discussion of Feminism is relevant too.  It used to be a common phrase to say “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”. One has to ask how attachment patterns changed when women in large numbers started working outside the home, when careerism and their sense of self became conflated, when mothering became denigrated.

Again, the people who advance the radical ideas are not humanitarians.  They are anti-Humanist, because they hate themselves and bring the world along with it.  The nature of mind and self is that you first feel, then explain.  What I have called “Rosebud” moments always have, and will continue to determine the course of human history.

What we call morality is simply an ex post facto explanation of emotional health.  No amount of explaining can reorder a disorganized self, and no explaining is needed where order is present.

Primitive simplicity is animals acting like animals.  Wolves do not eat their own, and they care for one another.  Our current global task is becoming spiritual, thinking, animals.

There is this saying, “you’re not alone”.  I read in the comments of “Rock and Roll Suicide” that that song has saved lives.  I believe this.

The truth is that many people are lost and alone in many respects.  Primitive trauma isolates them from their own emotions, and makes connection very hard.  That is my issue.

But what I want to communicate, like Bowie did, is that people like me, and perhaps like you, exist in large numbers, and this thought is comforting, to me at least.  None of us are alone in the sense that we can learn to take care of ourselves, to open slowly, and eventually walk in the sunlight with others.  There is firm reason for hope.

Infants who live in secure relationships learn to communicate not only their frustrations and distress but also their emerging selves–their interests, preferences, and goals.  Receiving a sympathetic response cushions infants (and adults) against extreme levels of frightened arousal.  But if your caregiver ignores your needs, or resents your very existence, you learn to anticipate rejection and withdrawal.  You cope as well as you can by blocking out your mother’s hostility or neglect and act as if it doesn’t matter, but your body is likely to remain in a state of high alert, prepared to ward off blows, deprivation, or abandonment.  Dissociation means simultaneously knowing and not knowing. 

Bowlby wrote: ‘What cannot be communicated to the [m]other [both mother and other] cannot be communicated to the self.’  If you cannot tolerate what you know or feel what you feel, the only option is denial and dissociation.” [page 123]

Another lengthy and perhaps useful quote/story:

In the early 1980’s my colleague Karlen Lyons-Ruth, a Harvard attachment researcher, began to videotape face-to-face interactions between mothers and their infants at six months, twelve months and eighteen months.  She taped them again when the children were five years old and once more when they were seven or eight.  All were from high risk families: 100 percent met federal poverty guidelines, and almost half the mothers were single parents. 

Disorganized attachment showed up in two different ways. One group of mothers seemed to be too preoccupied with their own issues to attend to their infants.  They were often intrusive and hostile; they alternated between rejecting their infants and acting as if they expected them to respond to their needs.  Another group of mothers seemed helpless and fearful. They often came across as sweet or fragile, but they didn’t how to be the adult in the relationship and seemed to want their children to comfort them.  They failed to greet their children after having been away and did not pick them up when the children were distressed.  The mothers didn’t seem to be doing these things deliberately–they simply didn’t know how to be attuned to their kids and respond to their cues and thus failed to comfort and reassure them.  The hostile/intrusive mothers were more likely to have childhood histories of physical abuse and/or witnessing domestic violence, while the withdrawn/dependent mothers were more likely to have histories of sexual abuse or parental loss (but not physical abuse). 

I have often wondered how parents come to abuse their kids.  After all, raising healthy offspring is at the very core of our human sense of purpose and meaning.  What could drive parents to deliberately hurt or neglect their children?  Karlen’s research provided me with one answer: watching her videos, I could see the children becoming more and more inconsolable, sullen, or resistant to their misattuned mothers.  At the same time, the mothers became increasingly frustrated, defeated, and helpless in their interactions.  Once the mother comes to see the child not as her partner in an attuned relationship but as a frustrating, enraging, disconnected stranger, the stage is set for subsequent abuse. 

About eighteen years later, when these kids were around twenty years old, Lyons-Ruth did a follow-up study to see how they were coping.  Infants with seriously disrupted emotional communication patterns with these mothers at eighteen months grew up to become young adults with an unstable sense of self, self-damaging impulsivity (including excessive spending, promiscuous sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, and binge eating), inappropriate and intense anger, and recurrent suicidal behavior. 

Karlen and her colleagues had expected that hostile/instrusive behavior on the part of the mothers would be the most poweful predictor of mental instability in their adult children, but they discovered otherwise.  Emotional withdrawal hd the most profound and long lasting impact.   Emotional distance and role reversal (in which mothers expected the kids to look after them) were specifically linked to aggressive behavior against self and others in the young adults.

In other words, it seems to be human nature to prefer to be hated than to be ignored. It may literally be the case–in fact I would say it IS the case–that Hitler and the Third Reich, and Lenin and the global catastrophe of Communism, were the results of too many mothers ignoring their infants.  Lenin and Hitler, certainly, but all their followers as well.

And I cannot but think of the ghettos.  This is a continual theme with me, because in the midst of prosperity we have many people living in hell.  They create it themselves, in large measure, but this is not best regarded as a moral failing.  It should be regarded as what it is: the natural result of unnatural conditions.

Teenage mothers, who themselves grew up in emotionally unstable homes, are not able to attune with their infants, and they have many life stresses on top of simply dealing with a child.  The boy children tend to grow up angry and confused, and the girls grow both angry and docile, and confused.

Rap music, much of which feels demonic to me, is the natural music for a people where this sort of thing is common.  It both expresses rage, and counters depression and helplessness.  But it is not healthy.  It is not calming.  It is not harmonious.

From a public policy perspective it is hard to know what to do.  I don’t know what to do.  I will meditate on it.  But it does seem obvious that we need to hold the politicians who USE empty promises to secure and keep power accountable for their treachery to the cause of human betterment, and genuine progress.

We suspected but did not know much of this until the past couple decades.  The study referenced could not have been published earlier than about 2000.  The book I am referencing did not come out until 2014.

What we are truly getting to is an understanding of human nature.  In my own view, all the philosophies in the world cannot equal the knowledge one can find in ones own body about how to live.

And it does seem to me that many of the most demonic ideas–Communism, Fascism, religious fanaticism–come from people who learned to hate before they could speak, and who never in their lives realized it.

And a discussion of Feminism is relevant too.  It used to be a common phrase to say “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”. One has to ask how attachment patterns changed when women in large numbers started working outside the home, when careerism and their sense of self became conflated, when mothering became denigrated.

Again, the people who advance the radical ideas are not humanitarians.  They are anti-Humanist, because they hate themselves and bring the world along with it.  The nature of mind and self is that you first feel, then explain.  What I have called “Rosebud” moments always have, and will continue to determine the course of human history.

What we call morality is simply an ex post facto explanation of emotional health.  No amount of explaining can reorder a disorganized self, and no explaining is needed where order is present.

Primitive simplicity is animals acting like animals.  Wolves do not eat their own, and they care for one another.  Our current global task is becoming spiritual, thinking, animals.

I am in the final stages of my healing.  The continuous hyperarousal is largely gone, although it keeps rearing its head.

And a key symptom of healing, I see, is beginning to realize what was always there, but I couldn’t name it, couldn’t see it.  Imagine if Jupiter were to somehow disappear from sight.  As we learned about gravity and the universe, we would begin to infer it was there, based on its effects, but it would be another thing entirely to SEE it with our eyes.

We all live in oceans–Finding Nemo and Dory were interesting metaphors, for me–and things float down from out of sight sometimes. It floated down to me today how often I reached out to my father in my youth for support and reassurance and guidance, and “fathering”, and how completely he rejected me.  And how I ignored it and rationalized it, and pretended it didn’t matter.

This pretending, itself, becomes a symptom, that of dissociation.  As I read about trauma, I realize how my difficulty in connecting to a sustained purpose is all part of the package.

And I realize that the only sustained emotionally nurturing relationship I have had in my life has been the one I built with my children.  And even that is based on the healing nature of giving.  I don’t take from them, the way my parents took from me.

Giving and taking are like breathing: a healthy life needs both.  Giving, only, is compulsive.  It is emotionally unhealthy. Much of Christianity is unhealthy in its basic principles.  That is why Christians took over the world, all in the name of Love.

And I wonder, how the fuck am I mostly sane?  I wonder that about many of us.  My wounds and history are not unique, and of course a great many people have it much, much worse.  The only bottom of the pit is actual death.

And I feel, and sense, that underlying everything, there is a love which is made available to all of us.  It is in the fabric of the universe, just like anger and hate, but much more powerful.  No explanation of survival is needed.

And this love is vastly larger than anything any human could ever offer in any event.  Human love is just a pale shadow compared to it.

I say this partly intellectually, but partly from actual understanding.  That is what it is now my task to focus on.  One day soon my nights will stop being hells, permanently.

I watched a video in the past day or so with an interview with a computer programmer who claims to have written a program to rig elections.  This seems like an obvious evolution for the Democrats.  It is a more efficient “vote early, vote often”, which has always been their stock in trade, at least in big cities.

I read the Virginia Governor has more or less declared himself dictator, and that even though the Courts have told him it is illegal, he wants to restore voting rights to enough people to possibly swing Virginia.

I read ICE is busing illegals all around the country.  Why around the country?  Well, it would seem obvious to me that Democrats draw maps and demographics, and do the math about where they are just a little bit short.  Why wouldn’t they be busing illegals to places where they want to swing the vote?  Why wouldn’t they be precise?

The whole thing is a giant game to them.  It is not an effort to use the power of ideas to improve human life.  It is a set of practical problems, to which Machiavellian solutions are used often.  Lying, cheating and stealing are their stock in trade.  True or not as to whether he actually said it, the attitude attributed to James Carville is plainly accurate:

Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to
do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became
an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do
is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole
cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard
workers and convince them that they should support social programs that
were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little
fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic
operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats
that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the
truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it
is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think
whatever I want them to.”

Unbelievably, the Democrats just nominated someone who has plainly committed more crimes than Richard Nixon.  Unbelievably, the DNC chair had to step down for gross ethical violations–and voter fraud, in important respects–and was immediately put on the payroll of the Hillary campaign, which she chaired in 2008.

Here is the point of this post: Trump needs to fight HARD to ensure a fair election.  He needs to demand paper ballots which can be recounted.  He needs an army of observers, particularly in places like Philadelphia.  He needs to demand that the votes of felons in Virginia not be counted.  He needs to demand that reasonable protections be in place to ensure illegal immigrants are not voting.  He needs to watch these amoral assholes like a hawk, and FIGHT them wherever there is the slightest appearance of impropriety.

I said in Facebook post the other day that this election is going to be a knife fight in a phone booth.  You need a brawler for that, somebody not afraid of some bare knuckles boxing, not afraid to get dirty.  You need someone who likes combat, and who thrives on it.  That is Trump.  That is why he is and always was the ONLY logical nominee.

Even if I had been able to get Rand Paul, he never would have stood a chance.  He doesn’t have the Big Money, and never would have gotten it, since it comes with a price tag he would not have been willing to pay.

https://youtu.be/Y021WAdUlW8

Here is the Firing Line segment again.

As I watch this all the way through, I realize how thoroughly the Left has dominated the American political narrative for the past 50 years.  It is ASTONISHING to me to see that Sowell had solid solutions, based upon a non-patronizing view of blacks, based on a sense of black potential arising from his own experience and how ARROGANT and racist this left wing woman is, who focuses relentlessly on the idea that uneducated black parents can’t be trusted with educational choices because they are too fucking stupid to pick correctly.

This is where we remain today, except that blacks have had another 35 years of shitty schools and following substandard opportunities and lives because the fucking Democrats and their teachers union backers have prevented sanity and decency on this issue.

Economically, Sowell deals effectively with virtually every Leftist talking point.