Dr. Bernstein has a four part series on the topic in Capitalism Magazine:
Graphic: Covid Nazis
Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body Autonomy
Mark Dolan has made some excellent observations in his commentary, “Novak Djokovic has won the argument, game set, and match“:
Keypoints:
- Djokovic is a twofold hero…for a “brave battle he didn’t have to fight, he is a global standard-bearer for bodily autonomy.”
- large parts of Australia have effectively become a police state
- Djokovic willingly relinquished trophies as a matter of principle.
- “How ironic that Australia should be the home of a kangaroo court.”
- Zero Covid, lockdown policy has failed
- the vaccine, whilst fantastic at preventing severe illness and death, has to be a matter of personal choice.
Related: Novak Djokovic: Deported for ‘Thought Crimes’ in Austrailia
Novak Djokovic: Deported for ‘Thought Crimes’ in Australia
The number one tennis player in the world, and reigning Australian Open champion, Novak Djokovic, was deported for the ‘thought-crime’ of being a symbol of those who opposed dystopian vaccine mandates.
According to the WSJ:
“Australia’s decision to cancel tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa for a second time was driven by fear that letting him stay could foster antivaccine sentiment during a surge in Covid-19 cases, court documents show. Immigration minister Alex Hawke didn’t dispute Djokovic’s claim of a medical exemption from rules that travelers to Australia must be vaccinated against Covid-19, according to documents made public Saturday. Hawke, who canceled Djokovic’s visa on Friday, said allowing the player to stay could sway some Australians against getting vaccinated.”
[…] “Djokovic’s lawyer Nick Wood argued in a late-night court hearing on Friday that Hawke’s reasoning was flawed because he hadn’t considered that Djokovic’s deportation could have an impact on antivaccine sentiment.”
[…] “Hawke didn’t refute Djokovic’s contention that he posed a negligible health risk, documents showed. Djokovic has said his Covid-19 infection in December confers similar protection to a vaccine, the documents said.” [Australia Feared Letting Novak Djokovic Stay Would Fuel Antivaccine Sentiment, Stuart Condie, 15 Jan 2022″]
It is instructive to note that Djokovic was not finally deported for an invalid medical exemption (the Australian federal government ended up not questioning that validity in the final hearing), nor that he was a physical threat to others (as he tested negative for COVID), nor that he was unvaccinated (as he has “natural immunity” from previous COVID infections which exempts him from the vaccination).
Djokovic was deported because he may be seen as a symbol for “anti-vaccination sentiment” by the Federal government, according to Mr. Hawke, and that under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act he has the legal power to cancel the visa held by Djokovic “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.”
Comments Mr. Hawke:
“Mr Djokovic is such a person of influence and status. Having regard to the matters set out above regarding Mr Djokovic’s conduct after receiving a positive COVID-19 result, his publicly stated views, as well as his unvaccinated status, I consider that his ongoing presence in Australia may encourage other people to disregard or act inconsistently with public health advice and polices in Australia.”
“In addition, I consider that Mr Djokovic’s ongoing presence in Australia may lead to an increase in anti-vaccination sentiment generated in the Australian community, potentially leading to an increase in civil unrest of the kind previously experienced in Australia with rallies and protests which may themselves be a source of community transmission.”
“These matters go to the very preservation of life and health of many members of the general community and further are crucial to the maintaining the health system in Australia, which is facing increasing strain in the current circumstances of the pandemic.”
(Note that in Australia’s population of those age 16 and over, more than 90 percent have been double vaccinated.)
***
This brings to my mind these wise words by Rav Arora:
“Honesty, nuance, and compassion are especially needed when it comes to personal health choices. We are only born with one body and we must make medically informed decisions at our own volition without governmental coercion or political pressure.”
Apparently not in the fascist state of Australia.
***
Avi Yemini has an excellent breakdown of the context surrounding his unjust deportation:
Novak Djokovic was NOT deported for being unvaxxed.
The immigration minister conceded the tennis star had a VALID exemption. Hawke deported Djokovic because he deemed Novak's PRESENCE in the country a threat of spreading DISSENT.
Aussies will eventually look back in shame. pic.twitter.com/DJP7AYRb39
— Avi Yemini (@OzraeliAvi) January 16, 2022
Related: Novak Djokovic: Global Standard Bearer for Body Autonomy
Adam Mossoff: Google’s Intellectual Property Theft Problem
Writes Adam Mossoff, in Big Tech has an IP piracy problem:
Years ago, Big Tech companies like Google decided that they profit more by stealing smaller companies’ intellectual property than buying or licensing it. Google, Apple, Samsung and others — with cash reserves in the tens, even hundreds, of billions of dollars — do not sweat legal fees, court costs or even damages they might have to pay for this theft. Google has a reported $142 billion in cash in the bank. This is far beyond what most companies make in total annual profits.
Big Tech thus takes what it wants. It then uses scorched-earth litigation tactics to beat up on complaining IP owners. It drags out litigation over many years and imposes massive litigation costs on IP owners seeking justice. Many IP owners don’t even file a lawsuit. They know it is ruinous and self-defeating to try to protect what is rightfully theirs.
Simply put, Big Tech benefits from stealing IP. The legal costs and potential damages, if ever issued after years of litigation, are paltry by comparison.
A few companies have fought back, and the results confirm this predatory infringement practice. The story of Google’s abuse of Sonos is one of the more telling ones.
Image: Pixabay
Individual Rights: Paul Hseih Makes The Case Against Government Vax Mandates
In “Not Everyone Wants To Be Vaccinated. I’m OK With That“, Dr. Paul Hseih (who voluntarily chose to be vaccinated) writes:
For the record, I do not support making the vaccine legally mandatory. You have a right to decide what goes into your body. That’s one of the core principles of medical ethics – and of individual rights. As a corollary, others have the right to decide whether or how to interact with you in person, based on your decisions. A private business may choose to only allow vaccinated people to attend their indoor events, or a private employer may set vaccination as a condition for any in-person work with others. They also have that right.
And of course, everyone has a free speech right to encourage (or discourage) others to becoming vaccinated. Those who wish others to be vaccinated can make their best possible case in favor of the vaccine; those who oppose it can do likewise.
Paul Hseih also makes an interesting point, that just as the principle of individual rights means that private businesses (individuals) can require vaccination as a condition of employment (and association), they can also do the reverse:
For example, one private school in Florida is reportedly requiring that teachers not be vaccinated as a condition of employment, citing safety concerns. This is their right, and this is the flip side of a school’s right to require vaccination as a condition of employment. Similarly, media personality Joe Rogan has publicly encouraged young people not to get vaccinated. I don’t agree with these positions, but I respect their rights to express their views – and the rights of others to offer their best counterarguments (which many are doing.)
Ultimately, if the purpose of a vaccination campaign is to help the country return to “normal,” then a crucial part of that normal is a respect for individual rights and personal medical autonomy.
What about the case for vax mandates in legitimate government organizations, such as the police, military, and courts? That is a thorny issue, I lean on the side that the state can require such vaccines as a condition of employment, especially, in the case of the military (which is voluntary) to protect them from enemy viral attacks. (There could also be exemptions for those with natural immunity.)
Does Capitalism Have a Future?
Leftists utterly control American intellectual culture. They hate capitalism, seek to destroy it and replace it with socialism. Indeed they move regressively toward Communism. Does capitalism have a future? Mark Da Cunha, editor and publisher of Capitalism Magazine, joins Andrew Bernstein and Bosch Fawstin to discuss this critical question.
Binswanger: All Regulation is Over-Regulation
Conservatives complain about “over-regulation,” but all governmental regulation—regulation as such—is destructive and evil. Ayn Rand wrote that the premise of regulation is “the concept that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent by the permissive rubber stamp of a commissar or a Gauleiter.” Dr. Binswanger will argue that government must have “probable cause” before it can use force against someone—and he will discuss how this applies not only to business activity, but also to immigration, “public health” and gun ownership. Recorded live as part of The Objectivist Conference on August 31, 2021.
Ghate & Bayer: Roe vs Wade and the Right to Abortion
Philosophers Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer have a timely discussion on Roe vs Wade and the right to abortion.
Topics covered include:
- A brief history of abortion jurisprudence since Roe v. Wade;
- Ayn Rand’s view of Roe and her support for abortion rights;
- Why abortion rights are not grounded in a right to privacy;
- Why activities don’t need to be concretely enumerated to be protected by fundamental rights;
- Why we need abstract principles to state fundamental legal principles;
- Why conservative sympathy for the reversal of Lochner v. New York implies a presumption in favor of government power;
- Whether the potential to feel pain is the basis of rights;
- How Roe v. Wade tries to balance competing interests, not to protect rights;
- Why regarding life as sacred from conception is a baseless religious viewpoint;
- Why it’s arbitrary to regard viability as the limit for justifiable abortion;
- Whether religion or judicial philosophy motivates Justice Thomas;
- Whether “individual responsibility” means a woman who chooses to have sex should carry a pregnancy to term;
- The Supreme Court Justices’ unphilosophical approach.
Mentioned in the discussion are Leonard Peikoff’s essay “Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life,” Ben Bayer’s essays “Ayn Rand’s Radical Case for Abortion Rights” and “Science without Philosophy Can’t Resolve Abortion Debate,” and Tom Bowden’s “Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution.”
Crawford: Lessons for Inventors from the Wright Brothers
Jason Crawford with Garry Tan on how the Wright brothers invented the airplane, and lessons for inventors and founders today: passion, iteration, first-principles thinking, and choosing the right time to launch.
An Open Letter to Elizabeth Warren on Natural Gas Prices
Senator Warren blamed natural gas CEOs for rising prices. Here’s how I would respond if I were them.
Dear Senator Warren,
Today, 12/7, is the deadline you gave natural gas CEOs to respond to your letter blaming them for rising natural gas prices—which you are in fact to blame for. Here’s how proud gas CEOs would answer you if they were not afraid of your political wrath.
Sincerely,
Alex Epstein
Energy expert
Founder and President, Center for Industrial Progress Author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future
Creator of EnergyTalkingPoints.com
Tweet this | Email this
Dear Senator Warren,
In your letter you claim “concern about rising natural gas prices,” which you attribute to my and other “energy companies’ corporate greed.”
But if you want to avoid unnecessarily high gas prices, you must recognize that they are your fault, not ours.
There are three basic facts that explain unnecessarily high natural gas prices:
- Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “greed.”
- America has an effectively unlimited supply of gas.
- You and other anti-gas politicians have artificially restricted the supply of gas.
Fact 1: Prices are determined by supply and demand, not “greed.”
If we could control natural gas prices in our favor, why didn’t we do so during unprofitable 2015-20? Our profits are determined by a) the market price for our product and b) our efficiency.1
When prices go up, it is crucial that companies can profit for two reasons.
- We earned our profit through efficiency.
- Profits motivate and make possible investment, which lowers long-term prices.
Your railing against our profits is unjust and shortsighted.
Fact 2: America has an effectively unlimited supply of gas
Thanks to the shale revolution, aka “fracking,” which you have tried to ban, the US has enough natural gas to supply us and other nations for decades just with current technology—and for centuries with future technology.2
The only thing that can stop our industry from producing low-cost natural gas for America and the world—including the billions of poor people whose lives we improve—is politicians who coercively restrict our otherwise limitless ability to produce low-cost natural gas.
Fact 3: You and other anti-gas politicians have artificially restricted the supply of gas
When you and other anti-gas politicians place draconian restrictions on natural gas production and transport, and threaten to do far worse, supply goes down and prices go up.
The number one bottleneck to lower gas prices is a lack of pipelines and export facilities to transport natural gas from where it is drilled to markets throughout the US and around the world. You have contributed to this problem by avidly opposing pipelines and export facilities.3
Another major cause of unnecessarily high gas prices is a lack of investment in natural gas, caused by political threats to the future of natural gas. No one has threatened the future of natural gas more than you. You have even talked about imprisoning executives of our industry!4
The worst imaginable thing that could happen for natural gas prices is to ban fracking–which is a crucial technology for almost 80% of American natural gas. Yet you have advocated a policy of “ban fracking—everywhere.” Do you now see what a catastrophe this would be?5
Senator Warren, I am deeply disappointed that rather than doing the right thing and addressing your role in unnecessarily high natural gas prices, you are instead denying it and advocating a policy that will make things far worse: further restricting natural gas transport.
I must also add that your call to prevent the export of natural gas during a global energy crisis is particularly harmful. The American natural gas industry is, for millions of poor people around the world, their greatest hope to be able to heat their homes this winter.
Senator Warren, you owe the American public and our industry an apology for 1) your numerous actions to drive up the price of natural gas, 2) your denial of responsibility, and 3) your unjust attack on an industry that sustains billions of lives.
Sincerely,
A Proud Gas Producer
You can read the letter in PDF form here and in talking point form here.
Here’s the Twitter version of my letter. If you use Twitter, please share it with Senator Warren (@SenWarren). If enough people bring attention to this letter there’s a good chance Senator Warren will feel compelled to respond.
References
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration – Natural Gas Prices https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
2 “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere.” https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690
“Most of the production increases since 2005 are the result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, notably in shale, sandstone, carbonate, and other tight geologic formations.”
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2020, U.S. dry shale gas production was about 26.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and equal to about 79% of total U.S. dry natural gas production in 2020.” https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=907&t=8
https://www.energy.gov/fecm/science-innovation/oil-gas-research/methane-hydrate
3 https://detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/26/elizabeth-warren-calls-line-5-shutdown/4885611002/
https://www.enbridge.com/~/media/Enb/Documents/Factsheets/FS_Without_Line5_econ_impact.pdf
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-and-warren-to-reintroduce-legislation-to-block-infrastructure-used-to-export-americas-natural-gas
4 https://grist.org/article/elizabeth-warrens-new-plan-would-jail-lying-fossil-fuel-executives/
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/fighting-corporate-perjury-2346950a08b8
5 “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking —everywhere.” https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that in 2020, U.S. dry shale gas production was about 26.3 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), and equal to about 79% of total U.S. dry natural gas production in 2020.” https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=907&t=8
Briley: Andrew Bernstein on The Threat of Race War
Philosopher Aaron Briley interviews Dr. Andrew Bernstein, philosopher and author of Heroes, Legends, Champions: Why Heroism Matters, about the rise of two destructive ideologies, how racism is making a cultural comeback, and what he thinks is the antidote to this ominous trend.
American collectivists/socialists are pushing the country toward race war.
America’s Coming Race War: The Contemporary American Left Embraces Racism (Part 2 of 4)
The contemporary hatred openly unleashed by the Marxist Left against whites–especially males–is eye-opening.
America’s Coming Race War: Post Modernism’s Monster Children The “Alt-Right” (Part 3 of 4)
Post-Modernism literally gave the most educated members of the generally ignorant white supremacist movement an au courant philosophy to intellectually bolster their racist beliefs.
America’s Coming Race War: Embracing Individualism Can Reverse The Racist Trend (Part 4 of 4)
We, the human race, must recognize the truth of–and embrace–the principle of color-blind individualism.
Milgram: When and How Ayn Rand Embraced the Term ‘Capitalism’
Ayn Rand scholar and professor of literature, Shoshana Milgram, writes on “‘Capitalism’: When and How Ayn Rand Embraced the Term (Pt. 1)” (2021 Dec 1, New Ideal):
Capitalism, wrote Ayn Rand, is “the only system geared to the life of a rational being.” She was an outspoken, enthusiastic, uncompromising advocate of capitalism, a self-described “radical for capitalism.” Her 1957 best seller, the novel Atlas Shrugged, celebrates production and business. She is known for eloquent articles on the topic (e.g., “America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business”), many of them collected in the 1966 volume Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
But at what age did she first come to view business itself positively? When did she recognize free enterprise as not only an efficient economic system, but as the only moral political system? When did she begin to make salient use of the term “capitalism” and think of it as naming her political ideal? The present article is a biographical answer. I begin with her youth, continue through her university education and her early Russian publications, cross the Atlantic with her to the United States, follow her reading and writing about individualism in politics, and examine the advocacy in her private and public writing of the principles of free enterprise — and the appearance there of the word “capitalism.”
Steve Koonin: Is There a Climate Emergency?
“The climate is the most complex system on Earth. Is it really possible to project with any precision what it will be like 20, 40, or even 100 years from now? Steve Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration, challenges the confident assumptions of climate alarmists.“
Harry Binswanger on Why Libertarianism is Doomed To Fail
#WhereIsPengShuai?
Writes Stephen Wade on the disappearance of former Wimbledon and French Open Single’s champion, Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai, after publicly stating she was raped by a senior Communist Party official, “IOC call with Chinese tennis star Peng raises more questions“:
Peng is just one of a number of Chinese businesspeople, activists and ordinary people who have disappeared in recent years after criticizing party figures or in crackdowns on corruption or pro-democracy and labor rights campaigns.
While the ruling Communist Party is quick to blot out any criticism, that this time it came from an athlete made it especially sensitive. State media celebrate athletes’ victories as proof the party is making China strong — and the party is vigilant about making sure they cannot use their prominence and public appeal to erode its image.
The tennis star accused a former member of the Communist Party’s ruling Standing Committee, Zhang Gaoli, of sexual assault in a social media post that was removed quickly.
She wrote in part: “I know that to you, vice minister Zhang Gaoli, a person of high status and power, you’ve said you’re not afraid. With your intelligence, you certainly will deny it or you can even use it against me, you can dismiss it without a care. Even if I’m destroying myself, like throwing an egg against a rock, or a moth flying into a flame, I will still speak out the truth about us.”
Concerns about the censoring of her post and her subsequent disappearance from public view grew into a furor, drawing comments from tennis greats like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Naomi Osaka, Serena Williams, and Martina Navratilova.
[…]
The WTA is the first sports body to defiantly stand up to China’s financial clout — in what many see as a sharp contrast to the IOC, which says its policy is “quiet diplomacy.”
“The statements make the IOC complicit in the Chinese authority’s malicious propaganda and lack of care for basic human rights and justice,” Global Athlete, a lobby group for athletes, said in a statement.
“The IOC showed a complete disregard for allegations of sexual violence and abuse against athletes,” the statement said. “By taking a nonchalant approach to Peng Shuai’s disappearance and by refusing to mention her serious allegations of sexual assault, IOC President Thomas Bach and the IOC Athletes’ Commission demonstrate an abhorrent indifference to sexual violence and the well-being of female athletes.”
Writes the NY Times in an opinion column:
Like so many victims of China’s repressive system, Ms. Peng has done nothing other than to seek redress for a wrong. Yet the very straightforwardness of her plight inevitably leads to fundamental questions about China’s fitness to host a global sporting event that purports to follow an Olympic ideal of building a better world through sport.
I am devastated and shocked to hear about the news of my peer, Peng Shuai. I hope she is safe and found as soon as possible. This must be investigated and we must not stay silent. Sending love to her and her family during this incredibly difficult time. #whereispengshuai pic.twitter.com/GZG3zLTSC6
— Serena Williams (@serenawilliams) November 18, 2021
CNN Reports the News: Sara Sidner on the Kyle Rittenhouse Not Guilty Verdict
Once upon a time, CNN was the world’s leading news organization. Times have changed, as the once admired news organization, is referred to as the leading source of “fake news,” and perhaps deservedly so. Such is not the case of CNN Senior News Correspondent Sara Sidner who regards the reporting of facts as the only means of ascertaining the truth. Sadly the same cannot be said of some of CNN’s editorialists and reporters who apparently are ignorant of their own news coverage.
SIDNER: …We learned a lot of things in this trial that we should sort of go over. And I was just kind of reviewing some of the things that we learned in the trial that were not necessarily public knowledge before that. One, there has been a lot of talk, especially by politicians, about where Rittenhouse was the night of this shooting. And it turned out he was already in Kenosha, that he had family here, including his father, that the gun was here in Kenosha. He did not bring that over state lines. It turned out during this trial that we learned that the gun that he had a hold of, he actually could legally possess, according to the judge, and according to the law here, because of the measurements of the gun. Had it been shorter and a short-barreled gun, then it would have been illegal. But because it wasn’t, the judge said that that needed to be thrown out. And, indeed, that charge of a minor in possession of a gun illegally was thrown out in this case, the jury only looking at those who were injured, those who are endangered and those who were killed the night in August that Rittenhouse ended up shooting people.
We also learned that he was working here that night, that he had stayed over that night here. ….
…. we did learn a lot of things from that video because it was very clear what was going on. There was a video of Rosenbaum chasing after Kyle Rittenhouse during this time when he had his gun.
And at one point Rittenhouse levels his gun at Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum continues towards him. And as he gets close to Kyle Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse fires his gun several times. We learned also in the trial that he was hit four times. And, obviously, this is an AR-style rifle that has the capability of firing very quickly.
….we heard from Gaige Grosskreutz. And that — this was a pivotal moment in the trial, hearing from the one defendant who was shot, but survived Kyle Rittenhouse shooting at him.
And he said that — when asked whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse shot at him when his hands were up, he said no. And then he was asked by the defense, did you point your gun at Kyle Rittenhouse, and then he said shot you? And he said, correct.
[13:25:01] That was a big moment for the jury, for sure, because that could be self-defense.
….When you go through each one. Anthony Huber, who was who was also shot before Grosskreutz, he had a skateboard. And he attempted and you can see on the video hitting Kyle Rittenhouse.
….the jury clearly thought that, in this case, after Kyle Rittenhouse tripped and fell and turned his gun and people started coming at him, that he was only defending his own life or from great bodily harm.
….This has been a political football, if you will. It has been — the right has looked at Kyle Rittenhouse this whole time as a hero. The left often or the far left has looked at Kyle Rittenhouse as a devil.
….And it is pretty clear that people are sticking to their side. But they were not in this court. And many folks did not watch this trial. We did. We were in court watching every second of it. And the jury looked at all of the evidence.
….And so it seems that, in this case, yes, Gaige Grosskreutz was an important witness, but the video seemed to be the star in this case, because the video shows you exactly what happened that night…
…There is so much vitriol that is out there right now on all sides of this. Depending on where you stand, and what you believe. One of the things, I think, that a lot of people who are making some of these very strong statements, some of them, which are factually incorrect. They didn’t watch the trial and they didn’t look at the same evidence that the jury looked at.
Weiss on the Outright Lies About Kyle Rittenhouse
Bari Weiss dismisses the lies by the Democrats and their press in The Media’s Verdict on Kyle Rittenhouse:
Writes Weiss:
- There was zero evidence that Rittenhouse was connected to white supremacist groups at the time of the shooting.
- In addition to having a job in Kenosha, Rittenhouse testified that much of his family lived there: his father, his grandma, his aunt and uncle, and his cousins.
- Kyle Rittenhouse did not travel to Kenosha to oppose protesters. He testified under oath that he had traveled to Kenosha for his job the night before the shootings, and was staying at a friend’s house.
- Rittenhouse didn’t bring the gun to Kenosha. The gun was purchased for Rittenhouse months earlier by a friend and stored in Kenosha at the home of that friend’s stepfather, as then-17-year-old Rittenhouse was too young to purchase it. Under Wisconsin law, 17-year-olds are prohibited from carrying rifles only if they are short-barreled. The weapon Rittenhouse was carrying was not short-barreled. Which is why, during closing arguments, the court threw out the charge.
- [T]here’s no clear indication that Rittenhouse sought to kill anyone. What we know is that he showed up with a first aid kit and an AR-15-style rifle. Video evidence, and Rittenhouse’s own testimony, indicates that he offered medical assistance to protestors and ran with a fire extinguisher to try to put out fires—and that later, after being pursued, he killed two people, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and severely wounded a third. Both video evidence and the only living person that Rittenhouse shot that night, Gaige Grosskreutz, undermined the idea that Rittenhouse was simply an aggressor looking for a fight. During cross examination Grosskreutz acknowledged that Rittenhouse shot him only after Grosskreutz had pointed his own gun at Rittenhouse.
Immanuel Kant and the Roots of Critical Race Theory
Princeton University professor Allen C. Guelzo, comments on the foundations of CRT in an AEI podcast: as a “reaction against the Enlightenment and against the confidence that scientific reason could discover the answers to things”:
….Kant was appalled at the irreligious conclusions to which reason had driven the Enlightenment. He was determined to find a way around Enlightenment religious lack of faith. So he says, what can we know for certain? Well, if we rely strictly on reason, we discover that reason only works on what our physical senses tell us, and that’s not much. Reason can’t penetrate into the essence of things. Some other tool was needed to reach what he called the thing in itself. So, to brush back the influence of reason, Kant develops a critique of reason, a critical theory, if you will.
….when you see how little reason can penetrate to the real lessons of things and you awake to a new reality. And that reality is that reason has blinded you. That is critical theory…
… critical theory set off a chain reaction of romantic investigations for non-rational explanations of reality.
….some of those non-rational explanations took a form of nationalism. That’s what you find in the philosophy of Georg Hegel. Some of them took the form of out-and-out racism. … Above all, you find non-rational explanations of reality based on economic class, and that is Karl Marx.
…And you might think that economics functions as what Adam Smith called a natural instinct to truck and barter. But in reality, it’s governed by the oppressive relations of class. Especially in the hands of Marx, critical theory uncovers the activity, not of employers and employees, but of an oppressor class and an oppressed class.
And the payoff?
…it promises an emotional burst of revelation and indignation. It allows you not so much to understand because remember, understanding is a function of reason, it allows you to denounce. It allows you to replace the question, is what I know true with a different question, whose interests does this question serve?
…. If the only purpose of questions is to serve the interests of a dominant or oppressive class, then no question that you ask about the truth of a situation or the truth of an event or the truth of a proposition, none of that kind of questioning about truth has any meaning. And any answer you come up with, which doesn’t speak in terms of some hidden structure of oppression, can simply be dismissed as part of the structure of oppression.
Marc A. Thiessen writes in the Washington Post on “The danger of critical race theory”:
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, authors of “Critical Race Theory: An Introduction,” state that “critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.”
….Ibram X. Kendi, one of CRT’s leading advocates, openly declares: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
This is the opposite of what the civil rights movement stood for. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did not argue that America was systemically racist; he argued that racism was un-American.
By dispensing with the reason the only solution is violence:
“… If your critical race theory is impervious to questioning and evidence, then fine: I will retreat into my critical race theory and it too will be impervious to evidence and the questioning. At which point then the only solution becomes violence.”