Monthly Archives: January 2022

Content warning: This article discusses transphobia and misogyny.

Controversial U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson has announced that he is no longer a tenured professor at U of T. By 2017, he had stopped teaching courses at U of T, but retained a tenured position.

In an article in the National Post, Peterson explained the reasons for his retirement. He claimed that equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) initiatives at the university created career barriers for supremely trained heterosexual white male graduate students and made faculty positions less of a meritocracy.

Since 2016, Peterson has become a major media figure famous for his conservative political views. He has made a number of high-profile appearances on television and podcasts. He has also published a number of books, a podcast, and some online courses. He has often said that contemporary university departments and society at large are overly influenced by identity politics. This stance has attracted a large number of both supporters and critics.

In a statement to The Varsity, U of T confirmed that Professor Jordan Peterson retired in the fall and now holds the rank of Professor, Emeritus.

Timeline of events

Peterson has long been a controversial figure. In 2016, he posted a series of YouTube videos where he spoke against political correctness and Bill C-16, an amendment to both the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and the Criminal Code, which introduced gender expression and gender identity as protected under the CHRA. The videos were initially reported on by The Varsity in 2016 and drew attention from the media and the world at large, with many students and academics at U of T speaking against Peterson.

Peterson alleged that the bill curbed free speech because it forced people to use certain pronouns for others against their will for example, using the gender-neutral pronoun they for transgender and nonbinary people who prefer it over gendered pronouns like he and she. He continued to publicly denounce the bill for months in television appearances and YouTube videos, which gained significant media attention.

A number of faculty and student groups spoke against Peterson, with hundreds signing an open letter calling on U of T to fire him. Members of the university administration sent a letter to Peterson asking that he respect students pronouns and urged him to stop speaking on the topic on the grounds that using someones incorrect pronouns is a form of discrimination. At the time, Peterson was critical of the letter, describing it as an attempt to silence him.

Protests were held at the university both in support of and against Peterson, including an event called UofT Rally for Free Speech at which Peterson spoke. Reports of multiple threats against trans and nonbinary students on campus followed the protests.

Cassandra Williams vice-president, university affairs of the University Toronto Students Union at the time, and a vocal critic of Peterson said the anti-Peterson protests aimed to call out the university for supporting and enabling people who are causing harm to trans people. Debates were also held on campus discussing the subject of free speech and trans rights.

Since 2016, Petersons profile has extended far beyond the university. His media appearances, debates, and bestselling book, 12 Rules for Life, have created his reputation as a right-leaning public figure and have drawn supporters worldwide. Some of his supporters have harassed and doxxed his critics. He has made vigorous attacks on identity politics, which he often calls postmodern neo-Marxism. Critics have described his various beliefs as transphobic, misogynistic, conspiracy theories, and a dangerous influence on others.

Retirement

In his National Post article, Peterson explained the reason for his retirement. He wrote that he had hoped to be an academic forever but, among other reasons, he was unable to reconcile his beliefs with the appalling ideology of diversity, inclusion and equity at U of T. These facts rendered my job morally untenable, wrote Peterson.

Peterson further claimed that heterosexual, white graduate students who are men face a negligible chance of getting research positions due to the existence of EDI initiatives, and that there arent a sufficient number of qualified candidates that belong to minoritized groups for universities to be able to fill diversity targets.

He also railed against other equity initiatives in higher education, such as mandatory equity training for teaching faculty, which he claimed is ineffective.

In response to Petersons article, a spokesperson for the university pointed to the universitys employment equity reports, which found that between 2019 and 2020, the proportion of appointed faculty who identified as men remained constant.

The spokesperson also highlighted the universitys Statement on Equity, Diversity, and Excellence, which asserts that An equitable and inclusive working and learning environment creates the conditions for our diverse staff and student body to maximize their creativity and their contributions, thereby supporting excellence in all dimensions of the institution.

Criticisms of Petersons claims

In an email to The Varsity, U of T Professor A.W. Peet, who has frequently criticized Peterson and has debated him in a widely seen television appearance in 2016, responded to his claims. They wrote that Peterson was a poisonous presence on campus, pointing to research that has identified Petersons rhetoric as a radicalization pathway for social media users, which has harmed U of Ts reputation.

I am tremendously relieved that he is no longer a professor at UofT. He harmed a lot of members of our community in recent years, including me, wrote Peet.

In an email to The Varsity, U of T Professor Emeritus Ronald de Sousa, who criticized Petersons original comments about Bill C-16 in 2017, also criticized Petersons article, writing that he wrongly portrayed people who are women, racialized, or LGBTQ+ as utterly unqualified.

Over half a century ago, when I was myself appointed to the University of Toronto, heterosexual, white male graduate students such as myself faced virtually no competition, wrote de Sousa. Pointing out that historically, academia has largely been dominated by white, heterosexual men, he mentioned that his graduate universitys policies dictated that no women were to be enrolled. If there simply is not enough qualified BIPOC people in the pipeline, shouldnt we support efforts to change that? wrote de Sousa.

I think [Peterson] should have had the decency to resign sooner, Peet added.

Go here to see the original:

Controversial professor Jordan Peterson retires from tenured position at U of T - Varsity

I am sitting on the front bench in the Oxford Union chamber. Next to me, laptops are open.

Who do you write for?, asks the boy on my left. This boy is my friend for the next hour. We shake our heads at the same things, he thinks my notes about lobsters are funny (he was looking at my laptop screen. Thank God I never broke character).

Im independent, I say.

Okay.

I certainly am independent independent from the world of amateur journalism entirely. The boy on my right is in on the whole thing he saw me come in late and sneak onto the front bench.

Just open your laptop and do an essay or something, says boy-on-the-right.

I oblige, and title a document: Professor Jordan Peterson Oxford Union 25th November 2021. There is excitement in the room, and I am in the world of journalists now. It feels great.

The front rows of the benches ahead of me are for Petersons guests. This is what friend-on-the left and I infer, anyway, since theyre dressed much better than anyone else. Lots of shirts and brogues. I spy a fur hat. I spy

Jordan Peterson. There he is outside the glass door. We have all stood in the cold, in a line, for some considerable time to see this man. But why? A happy boy outside told me that Peterson had been incredibly helpful for him; in fact, I really had the sense that he might have changed his life. But otherwise, the Oxford position seems to be one of curiosity garnished with scepticism. This is certainly my own. Perhaps being a Jordan Peterson stan an overzealous or obsessive fan lacks the sort of nuance that these scholars might purport to possess.

Peterson limps into the room. From the front, he is handsome and thin. His hair is dark grey at the forehead and fades into silver at the collar. He walks up to the platform and there is a standing ovation. I look around and cant see any of the sceptics I met outside they must have transformed into stans. Boy-on-the right joins them. Friend-on-the-left and I stay seated besides, I committed to journalistic neutrality just five minutes ago. There are some booers but theyre nowhere to be seen amongst the standing-stans. I feel very confused.

From the back, Peterson is an old man. At the pub that night someone will remind me of the First Rule for Life: stand up straight with your shoulders back (see 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, 2018). His body is angled, and the way he hunches pushes his frame through his clothes. Something has changed. But, he moves with grace. Jordan Peterson is well dressed and dignified. There is a special elegance in the way he twists his hands as he speaks.

The title of the talk is Imitation of the Divine Ideal, he says, and he tells us about perception, truth, artificial intelligence, the problem of interpretation, cybernetics and robots. I try, but I really cant follow. This isnt the Jordan Peterson I (sort of) know. Ive read the first few chapters of his book, Ive seen the iek debate and Ive watched him own and be owned. Im sure something is different, and this isnt surprising: the Professor has recently overcome a clonazepam addiction and survived a coma, and he now lives by an all-meat diet. Peterson faces the room like a man talking to himself. His gaze hovers at floor-line; the upper chamber is all but invisible. There is an inwardness about the whole address. Richard Dawkins, who is sitting ahead of me, nods along. Some latecomers enter the hall and the bench opposite squeeze up. A girl with perfect hair sits down with the boys in boat shoes.

Peterson tells a story about a child who is scared when he sees a dog on his way to kindergarten. In the first version, he has a panic attack, spurring a lifetime of panic attacks, enabled by what Peterson calls the Oedipal sacrifice of his mother. In the second, the mother tells him to be brave and he walks past the dog to school, and he is fine. Here is some familiar Peterson-style argument I can follow. He talks about metafictional narratives, and I am reminded, with sadness, that I am not a real journalist after all. I make my pretend journalist notes anyway.

He loses me again. Now Peterson is talking about chimpanzees, rats and dogs (lots of dogs). He hasnt mentioned lobsters yet (friend-on-the-left laughs).

Do your controversies overshadow the subtler parts of your work?, someone asks. Peterson pauses for a long second.

No, he says. People always hate when I tell them that, on average, women are shorter than men. Thats not a social construct, and its not controversial: its just a fact.

Everyone laughs, including me. Boy-on-the-right looks up from his computer screen. He shakes his head in disgust. Hes researching for an assignment, and he hasnt listened to a word of the talk. This is his first sign of engagement since the standing ovation (this, being at odds with the rest of his behaviour, leads me to believe that he is deeply confused).

Are you okay?, he asks me.

Yes!;

he thinks I am crying.

I laugh even harder.

Its not that funny, its just absurd.

I know how this goes: we, as (supposedly) rational thinkers, subscribe to the first step of Petersons argument. But now we are on board the Peterson train, and if we stay aboard, we will soon pass under rough skies.

But dont be scared, boy-on-the-right! You should get on the train with us what no one has told you yet is that you can get off wherever you like! Get on with me, and Ill stay with you so long as the sky is flat.

I am not telepathising hard enough, and boy-on-the-right is still staring at his screen. Think about John Stuart Mill, boy-on-the-right! You just cannot be sure that a silenced opinion doesnt contain some element of the truth

Nope.

Were getting to the end of the talk, and finally! Peterson pushes me too far. I climb off the train with friend-on-the-left. We sigh and feel the sweet validation of arriving where we had expected.

What a total waste of an hour, says a girl at the end of the bench. Its true, Peterson was incoherent; but I know much more than I did before, and I am glad. I have been in the belly of the beast, and I have taken its temperature.

I have learnt more about boy-on-the-right than the Imitation of the Divine Ideal: I have seen the people who truly wont listen. Peterson is right about that. Even face-to-face with the enemy, he wont look up from his screen. Why had he even come? He must have been curious like me; and then he must have been afraid. I imagine dead dogmas whizzing around his brain; theyre pastel pink and green because theyre actually Instagram infographics. I know Im right! They are saying. I just dont know why!

Jordan Peterson is burning in a fire of his own making bowing under the pressure of the twenty-four rules he has stacked upon himself. It feels like his career will not continue as before. I think I understand why he believes in God, because he believes in big ideas, and because it all seems to be too much for this man. I do not hate him.

The talk finishes and there is another standing ovation. A head of bright red hair pops up and I recognise the Jordan-Peterson-changed-my-life boy from outside.

I remember a Tweet by bad-bitch Democrat A.O.C (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) from November 2020

Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings [and] photos

and look again at the ambivalent ones cheering all around me.

The students in this room are probably not Trump supporters, but this rhetoric of surveillance has filtered into their consciousness, nonetheless. If A.O.C doesnt scare people out of the wrong ideas, it seems like she just scares them out of expressing them: and I can see that all we have done is force stans to adopt a faade of scepticism. The truth of their feelings has simply been pushed one layer deeper, and all it takes is a round of applause to lift it right up to the surface; the curtain raises for just a moment.

What happens when people are alone, or online? How does suppressed desire express itself then? And what will happen in the polling booth when no one is watching? Many in this room of young men (they make up ninety percent of us) will believe that they are subject to a culture of conformism and hyper-vigilance, and we should diffuse their fears by acknowledging them, not silencing them lest we risk alienating people further (and even pushing them further to the Right). Listening more attentively, and even gently, could invalidate Petersons and A.O.Cs narratives of hostility, and we may find that this is a conflict that we no longer need, and that there is no Culture War without its student soldiers. In some ways, the Jordan-Peterson-spectacle is funny; and we can laugh. But we cannot dismiss these people. Perhaps instead we might look a hunched Professor in the face and ask ourselves: whats it all about?

What do you think youll submit?, asks friend-on-the-left as we close our laptops.

Probably a poem, I say.

Bibliography

@AOC. 6th Nov 2020. Twitter.

Full tweet: Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future

URL: https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1324807776510595078?lang=en

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

For Cherwell, maintaining editorial independence is vital. We are run entirely by and for students. To ensure independence, we receive no funding from the University and are reliant on obtaining other income, such as advertisements. Due to the current global situation, such sources are being limited significantly and we anticipate a tough time ahead for us and fellow student journalists across the country.

So, if you can, please consider donating. We really appreciate any support youre able to provide; itll all go towards helping with our running costs. Even if you can't support us monetarily, please consider sharing articles with friends, families, colleagues - it all helps!

Thank you!

Continued here:

In the belly of Jordan Peterson: Ambivalence in question with the ersatz journalist - Cherwell Online

Prominent conservatives have discovered Hungary and its twenty-first century dictator, Viktor Orbn. This week, Tucker Carlson will be relocating his top-rated show to Hungary, as he did for a week last August, bringing Orbn into the homes of hundreds of thousands of Fox viewers.

Carlson may be the most high-profile conservative to alight on Hungary, but hes far from the first. Christopher Caldwell profiled Orbn in the Claremont Review of Books in 2019; former National Review editor John OSullivan moved to Budapest, where he has run the Danube Institute, a think tank funded by Orbns government, since 2017; the American Conservatives Rod Dreher spent four months last year in Budapest under the auspices of the Danube Institute, largely singing its praises; while a number of others, including Patrick Deneen, Chris DeMuth, Sohrab Ahmari, Yoram Hazony, and Jordan Peterson have made pilgrimages, in several cases meeting with Orbn himself. Early this year, Donald Trump endorsed Orbn for re-election.

Hungarys appeal to the American right is straightforward. Among the worlds leaders, Tucker Carlson pronounced, only Orbn identifies as a Western conservative. He takes pride in standing athwart European Union integration, internationalism, immigration, and wokeism. He champions the Hungarian nation and the Christian West.

While Republican politicians like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley muse that the left hates America and its grand ambition is to deconstruct the United States of America, Hungary suggests another pathone where the right, apparently harnessing popular energies, wields the state against the cultural left, evidenced by Hungarys anti-LGBTQ law and its defunding of gender studies programs in Hungarian universities. For American national conservatives already abandoning small-government positions, Orbn fuels dreams of an American right brandishing the power of the federal government. Others may see in Hungary a hint of integralismthe possibility of a Christian state integrated under the governance of the Catholic Church.

Sometimes Orbnphilia on the American right is accompanied by modest finger-wagging about his corruption or overreach, such as his use of surveillance technology against journalists. But the American right is at minimum anti-anti-Orbn, and frequently celebratory. His admirers contrast his use of Hungarian state power positively with the perceived coercive power of progressivism. If we are going to mount an effective political resistance to the soft totalitarianism taking over our country, writes Dreher,

then we are going to have to have aggressive, competent, national conservative leadership, one that is not averse to intervening in the economy for the sake of the common good. The best example of that now on the world stage is Viktor Orbn.

Despite his obvious enthusiasm, Dreher played somewhat coy when interviewed for an October New York Times magazine article on Orbn and his American admirers. Dreher portrayed his interest in Hungary as intellectual or journalistic, assessing the extent politics can be a bulwark against cultural disintegration, asking what is the cost, and is the cost worth it?

Since these questions coincide with a recent broader curiosity about historic right-wing strongmen, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on the American rights relationship with another dictatorshipa story that has largely been forgotten with the passing of the generations.

For a relative European backwater, Francoist Spain figures prominently in the history of American intellectual conservatism. National Review, the conservative journal of ideas that emerged from both right-wing and Catholic circles in the mid-1950s, reflexively defended both the Franco of the contemporary 1950s and the victory of the Nationalists over the secular Republican government in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.

With their own Spanish-language skills, and with Spains low cost of living, Catholic culture, and right-wing government, important conservative writersL. Brent Bozell, Willmoore Kendall, and Frederick Wilhelmsenlived in Spain during critical periods of intellectual development. Likewise, conservative luminaries William F. Buckley, Jeffrey Hart, James Burnham, Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn, and Russell Kirk all ventured to the dictatorship. Buckleys brother Reid spent fifteen years in Spain writing novels as well as romantic accounts of life in Madrid for National Review under the pseudonym Peter Crumpet.

These intellectuals were never as close to Franco as contemporary conservatives are to Orbn. In fact, hardly born democrats, they frequently called for a restored monarchy to succeed Franco, scoffing at the idea of democracy in Spain.

Nevertheless, there are striking parallels. As with the current relationship with Hungary, the conservative experience of Spain was characterized by celebrations of the Nationalist victory against leftist aggression, anti-anti-Franco apologia, and rethinking conservative dogmas in the shade of Spanish cathedrals.

General Franco is an authentic national hero, William F. Buckley wrote from Spain in 1957. Franco wrested the country from the hands of the visionaries, ideologues, Marxists, and nihilists that were imposing upon her, in the thirties, a regime so grotesque as to do violence to the Spanish soul, to deny, even, Spains historical identity. Unsurprising sentiment from the devout Buckley. But he criticized the Franco regime for outliving its welcome and failing to establish true legitimacy.

National Review walked a careful line of critiquing and justifying Franco, while celebrating the conservative Spanish character and the wartime Nationalists.

The stark terms of the Cold War overshadowed everything. Conservatives understood the Spanish Civil Warthe defining question for Francos legacyas an existential conflict between communism and Christendom. What would have happened had Communism won in Spain? asked one pro-Nationalist writer in National Review, reducing the complex conflict to a binary choice. Another concluded in the mid-1960s that, however much Franco lacked in magnanimity, the Communist coup would mean the merciless, imposed rigidity of another neo-Stalinist state. It was better that Franco won.

Others tightly linked Spanish liberalism with communism. Francis Wilson endorsed the thought of a Spanish rightist intellectual who argued that liberalism inevitably paved the way to communism. Russell Kirk wrote that one cannot really understand the Spanish Civil War without knowing something about liberalism. Numinously, Buckley updated a medieval myth: Rumors in Spain claimed its patron saint, James the Apostle, had manned a Nationalist gun post as the Republican juggernaut sought to relieve the siege of Madrid. Less piously, hardnosed editor Jeffrey Hart in 1966 described Spains Civil War as the prototype of a new style of internationalized civil war that saw Yugoslavia, Greece, Cuba, and Vietnamand American responses to themdivide along the same cultural and intellectual lines.

Likewise, National Review defended Francos Spain from World Opinion (merely the expression of the dogmas of the Libintern, the international apparatus of the Establishment, joked historian Jefferson Davis Futch III). Elsewhere, the magazine cheered Francos foreign minister Fernando Mara Castiellas 1960 visit to America where the Spaniard shot down media critics. NR waved away Castiellas service in the Blue Legiona Spanish volunteer force fighting alongside Nazi Germany in the Second World Waras a disquieting partnership, heaven knows. But, wrote the editors, he acquitted himself well in New York, reminding the press that more than half my generation died in Spain twenty years ago defending the ideas of the Christian Faith in a Civil War which to us was a Crusade.

It wasnt just Francos Spain itself that conservatives lauded, but even glowing depictions of it. Russell Kirk in 1964 depicted the popular Spanish Pavilion at the New York Worlds Fair as a triumph of traditionalism alive in the modern age and a symbol of Liberalisms decay.

More broadly, NR routinely rejected charges of Francoist fascism, touted Spain as a NATO ally, and responded to criticism of the regime. Could Spain catch a break, NR wondered, for the sin of opposing a Communist takeover a quarter century earlier?

Like todays right and Hungary, the conservative mainstream had criticisms of Franco and his government, while remaining anti-anti-Franco. Spain has the most elaborate system of social security outside of New Zealand, chided NRs roving European contributor Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Like Orbn, Franco permitted enormous corruption; the biggest threat to Francos rule was his misgovernment, his laziness, his socialistic paternalism, his indifference not to freedom but to corruption, reported Buckley. The New Conservative Francis Wilson suggested that the Francoist Falange Party had become more Tammany Hall than transformative.

To be sure, these were conservative critiques, focused on Spains economics, foreign policy, and corruption. In 1959, Kuehnelt-Leddihn bemoaned Francos insufficient appreciation of the free economy, calling him rightist in politics but leftist in economics. But NR happily touted Spains economic liberalization and modernizationled by the Catholic conservative lay group Opus Deias its economy boomed in the 1960s, only passingly worrying about the subtle danger of economic growth to the Spanish soul.

Likewise conservatives downplayed Francos repression and the possibility of Spanish democracy. Kuehnelt-Leddihn repeatedly highlighted Spains relative freedom. Franco, personally a pious man, conducted a dictatorship under which anything was possibleshort of anti-Catholicism. Kuehnelt-Leddihn also praised Franco for emancipating women and allowing the masses to achieve a modicum of well-being. On the contrary, as historians have documented, Francos Nationalists considerably reversed womens rights and violently reasserted the viciously unequal oligarchy of pre-Republican Spain. Ultimately, tourism and aid money lifted landless farmers out of poverty under Franco, but that disruption to the ancien economic rgime was hardly intentional.

The next step, more freedom of expression, will come unless the organized Left makes a last, desperate attempt to unbalance the liberalizing process, remarked the aristocratic Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Anti-democratic fears and monarchist sympathies ran through conservatives analysis of Spain from the mid-1950s through the mid-1970s. Would free elections truly benefit the cause of liberty? Or would they set the country backback to 1936? Kuehnelt-Leddihn asked rhetorically. In the traditionalist journal Modern Age, Francis Wilson claimed, It seems impossible to introduce the more extreme form of parliamentary democracy into Spain. Instead, Spain is a monarchy. Another National Review writer concluded that political freedom, American style, is not, in Spain, compatible with order. It is Spains authoritarian monarchists who alone can create order in Spain. In the mid-1970s, Buckley, partly walking back earlier criticism of Franco, claimed to understand the Generalissimos reluctance to give up the dictatorship, and praised how his intuitive grasp of the incompatibility of Spanish culture and John Stuart Mill democracy had tempered his successors.

What American conservative intellectuals thought they understood was the traditionalist heart of the Spanish character. They applauded it against leftism of all kinds. Reid Buckley described how 781 years of uninterrupted fighting for ones land and faith does something to a people. The Spanish became fierce followers of Christ with a racial and religious self-consciousness forged by Moorish domination. He waxed that Spain is an idea, a dream andalwaysa crusade.

In Francoist terms, it was a struggle of Spain against Anti-Spain (language echoed in present-day America by both the Claremont Institute and National Conservatives). In 1961, Lev Lednak acknowledged in National Review that these terms were not conciliatory, and that Francoists overstated the claim all liberals were Reds. But still he concluded the Anti-Spain side destabilized the nation by refusing to accept their defeat. Managing, impressively, to mangle both Spanish and American history, Lednak claimed It isnt that the Spanish victors since the Civil War have behaved so differently from the American victors [in the American Civil War], but that the Spanish vanquished have behaved so differently from the Southerners by not accepting Nationalist victory. In the conservative view, left-wing refusal to pack up and concede all to Franco made democracy untenable in Spain.

National Review and American conservative intellectuals broadly celebrated the Nationalists and sympathetically, if sometimes critically, covered for Franco. They reported Royalist gossip and occasional scoops, including a bizarre claim that President Kennedy met with Spanish dissidents. Conservative sympathy for Francoist Spain was clear not only in how many conservatives lived in or visited Spain, but also in the personnel Buckley published on the subjectlike Sir Arnold Lunn, an English fascist sympathizer and Franco supporter who wrote several articles on Spain for the magazine. But as with Hungary and the American right today, for some of these writers Spain offered much more: a chance to reimagine right-wing politics.

The American Right has shown itself alarmingly nave of conservatism outside the Anglo-Saxon diaspora of Western civilization, noted Detroit native Frederick Fritz Wilhelmsen in National Review in 1966. This sentiment is echoed today as traditionalist conservatives, buffeted by changing social mores and laws, look abroad for something more robust than free markets, originalist jurisprudence, and small government.

Like todays conspicuously Roman Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox, in Drehers case) pro-Orbn crowd, what attracted traditionalists to Spain in the 1960s was, above all, religion. Figures like Wilhelmsen, Francis Wilson, and Buckleys brother-in-law Brent Bozell approved of Spains state-backed religiosity. To Bozell, Spain came to represent an ideal, integral Catholicism; to Wilhelmsen, a tantalizing glimpse of a res publica Christiana.

Catholicism appeared richly embedded in Spain. Francis Wilson, a political scientist at the University of Illinois and convert to the Catholic Church, became fascinated by the commitments of the Latin mindmore profound and its conflicts more demanding than those of Anglo-American conservatives. He admired the rightist thinker Ramiro di Maeztu, co-founder of the far-right monarchist journal Accin Espaola and theorist of Hispanidad, the belief that Catholicism and the Spanish language were the core of a colonizing achievement of historical proportions. Wilson hoped to blend the thick commitments of the Spanish right with the best elements of Anglo-American conservatism.

More romantic than Wilson, Wilhelmsen became enamored of Carlism, what he called the most purely lyrical and militant response to Liberalism that has come out of Catholic Europe. Carlism began as a dynastic dispute among Spains monarchs in the 1830s, but became intertwined with ultratraditionalist politics. Under the slogan Dios, Patria, Fueros, Rey, Carlism was a latent, alternative right to the oligarchic constitutional monarchy. It seemed to have slipped into terminal decline during the early twentieth century before the anti-clericalism of the Spanish Republic revivified it. Tens of thousands of men joined its red-bereted militia, the Requet, especially in northeastern Spain, and received training from Fascist Italy and fought as Nationalist shock troops. The anti-modernist Wilhelmsen took a summer professorship in Pamplona, the heart of Carlist country, and embraced the permanent protest to the Revolution.

Likewise, the politics of Bozell, who was also a convert to Catholicism, transformed in Spain from run-of-the-mill, if hardline, Republican conservatism into something far more mystical. Living by El Escorial, the palace-monastery symbolic of Spanish imperial grandeur, informed Bozells vision of a magnified Christian West. Returning stateside to speak at a Young Americans for Freedom rally at Madison Square Garden in March 1962, Bozell gave a stirringand esotericaddress on Western Civilization to 18,000 conservative youth. He began by proclaiming, We of the Christian West owe our identity to the central fact of historythe entry of God onto the human stage and concluded with an unequivocal defense of colonialism and a call to cleanse the West of secularizing elements and a roll back communism.

Back in Spain two months later, Wilhelmsen took Bozell and his family to an enormous Carlist celebration in Montejurrathe site of a historic battle. Bozells biographer, quoting Bozells wife, notes that this kind of thingsimple peasants with improvised weapons defending their religion and their way of lifealways got Brent and Fritz going. At the celebration, the Requets national secretary celebrated the crusading ideals of the Nationalist alliance between Carlism, the Falange, and Francos army.

Finally, in September, Bozell took part in a foundational debate over the nature of conservatism. Sounding like todays Hungary fans, Bozell doubted whether a libertarian right could be responsive to the root causes of Western disintegration. At best, freedom was a secondary principle to something greater.

Bozell dismissed libertarian claims that virtuous acts only counted if they were freely chosen. To demonstrate, he contrasted American and Spanish divorce laws, sarcastically suggesting that Spains traditions interfered with freedom, but that American divorce laws should also be made freer, the stigma removed and divorces financially subsidized to maximize moral heroism. Instead, Bozell wanted to establish temporal conditions conducive to human virtuethat is, to build a Christian civilization. This meant families, schools, and the government were subject to a public orthodoxy patterned on a transcendent order.

At the time, Bozells long essay seemed to some seemed like a possible framework for intellectual conservatism. It became very much a minority report. Bozell rightly perceived modern conservatism invariably consists in borrowing from the libertarians their principles and programs, and from the traditionalists the divine imprimatur.

Against this tendency, he and Wilhelmsen founded a traditionalist Catholic journal, Triumph. They began hosting a summer school in Spain for American students bored with Western education, and founded a small youth movementthe Sons of Thunderwho wore Carlist uniforms and protested abortion clinics.

Bozells pronouncements became increasingly radical. American conservatism had failed with Goldwater in 1964, he charged. Conservatism and liberalism were fundamentally the same, and politics would not survive the death of God. Hence, Bozell predicted, conservatives would swell the ranks of a proto-fascist reaction to the collapse of secular liberalism. Bozell even rejected his earlier view the West was a Christian society. He prayed instead for a Politics of the Poor, combining economic redistribution with Christian cultural orthodoxy, cautioning there were no short cuts to making a new Christendom.

Admittedly a poor politician, Bozell alienated friends and allies, becoming estranged from the American right as his health failed. He faded into relative obscurity. (One of his sons, L. Brent Bozell III, hewed closer to the conservative mainstream as a Conservatism, Inc. career apparatchik. His son, in turn, Brent Bozell IV, has been charged for his involvement in January 6.)

Francos conservative defenders fell prey to many myths. He was repressive; Spain successfully democratized after his death, while the institutional prestige of the Church collapsed. The Spanish Republic had been anti-clerical, but the government sought to moderate against opposition and prevent anti-clerical violence. Instead, the catastrophist right instigated violence to destabilize the Republic. Francos conduct in Spains Civil War, which began as a right-wing coup, was not heroic but brutal and methodical and supported by Mussolini and Hitler. They overstated the crimes of the Republicans, and buried the far greater crimes of the Nationalists, and misunderstood the role of the Soviet Union.

The fact that American conservatives were willing to overlook all this in a sympathetic strongman should give todays Hungary enthusiasts pause.

The parallels are inexact, of course. Franco was a twentieth-century dictator, Orbn is a twenty-first, with all that entails. The Cold War-footing of the 1960s distorted judgement. Notwithstanding what talk radio might say, Spanish communism and modern progressivism are not the same. Yet the right-wingand especially traditionalisttemptation toward dictatorship remains.

Deep down, Rod Dreher knows the answer to the question he poseswhat is the cost of using politics as a bulwark? As he put it in response to his Catholic integralist critics, If outward obedience to the law was sufficient to guarantee a Christian society, Spanish Catholicism wouldnt have collapsed shortly after Franco died in 1975.

Traditionalism is the most fantastical of right-wing outlooks. How can one force an imagined past into reality? Spainand conservative enthusiasm for itteaches that state-imposed traditionalism is a mirage. It is at best utopian, and more likely, repressive and self-defeating. Todays admirers of Orbns Hungary should take note.

Read the original post:

Long Before Hungary, the Right Was Fixated on Another Country - The Bulwark

George Lopez

Most venues are still following COVID-19 guidelines, including reduced capacity, social distancing and masks. Several shows require proof of the vaccine or a negative test.

FRIDAY

Elton John: Pop icon returns for two shows. 7 p.m. Friday and Saturday at Toyota Center, 1510 Polk; 866-446-8849.

George Lopez: Comedy superstar. 8 p.m. at Smart Financial Centre at Sugar Land, 18111 Lexington, Sugar Land; 281-207-6278.

Pecos Hank: Roots. 7 p.m. at McGonigels Mucky Duck, 2425 Norfolk; 713-528-5999.

Max Flinn: Country. 9:30 p.m. at McGonigels Mucky Duck, 2425 Norfolk; 713-528-5999.

Robert DeLong : House. 7:30 p.m. at House of Blues, 1204 Caroline; 888-402-5837.

Kalo and Brown Sugar: Rolling Stones tribute. 9 p.m. at the Continental Club, 3700 Main; 713-529-9899.

Dale Watson: Country. 8:30 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Big Barn, 25911 Interstate 45 N., The Woodlands; 281-367-3774.

James Kennedy: Vanderpump Rules star. 10 p.m. at Rise Rooftop, 2600 Travis; 832-767-0513.

The Meteors: Punk. 7:30 p.m. at Warehouse Live, 813 St. Emanuel; 713-225-5483.

Shake Russell: Americana. 8 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Breakfast, BBQ and Whiskey Bar, 2626-B Research Forest, The Woodlands; 832-823-4414.

Mahalo, Zookeeper and Party With Ray: House. 10 p.m. at Stereo Live, 6400 Richmond; 832-251-9600.

Ishi: Dance-pop. 8 p.m. at White Oak Music Hall, upstairs, 2915 N. Main; 713-237-0370.

The Garden: Rock. 8 p.m. at White Oak Music Hall, downstairs, 2915 N. Main; 713-237-0370.

SATURDAY

Borgeous: House. 10 p.m. at Stereo Live, 6400 Richmond; 832-251-9600.

Oak Ridge Boys: Country. 7:30 p.m. Saturday and Sunday at the Grand 1894 Opera House, 2020 Postoffice, Galveston; 409-765-1894.

The War on Drugs: Rock. 7 p.m. at White Oak Music Hall Lawn, 2915 N. Main; 713-237-0370.

Samantha Fish: Blues. 8 p.m. at The Heights Theater, 339 W. 19th; 214-272-8346.

El Ten Eleven: Post-rock. 7 p.m. at White Oak Music Hall, upstairs, 2915 N. Main; 713-237-0370.

Southern Slang: Rock. 9 p.m. at the Continental Club, 3700 Main; 713-529-9899.

Sebastian Leger: House. 10 p.m. at Rise Rooftop, 2600 Travis; 832-767-0513.

Kym Warner and Warren Hood: Americana. 7 p.m. at McGonigels Mucky Duck, 2425 Norfolk; 713-528-5999.

Opie Hendrix: Pop/rock. 9:30 p.m. at McGonigels Mucky Duck, 2425 Norfolk; 713-528-5999.

Kristen Kelly: Country. 8 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Breakfast, BBQ and Whiskey Bar, 2626-B Research Forest, The Woodlands; 832-823-4414.

Phil Vassar: Acoustic country. 8:30 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Big Barn, 25911 Interstate 45 N., The Woodlands; 281-367-3774.

MONDAY

Current Joys: Singer-songwriter. 7 p.m. at White Oak Music Hall, upstairs, 2915 N. Main; 713-237-0370.

Gene Watson: Country. 7 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Big Barn, 25911 Interstate 45 N., The Woodlands; 281-367-3774.

TUESDAY

Giulia Millanta and Amanda Pascali: Singer-songwriters. 7 p.m. at McGonigels Mucky Duck, 2425 Norfolk; 713-528-5999.

Martin Barre: Fifty years of Jethro Tull. 8:30 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Big Barn, 25911 Interstate 45 N., The Woodlands; 281-367-3774.

Fit for an Autopsy: Deathcore. 6:30 p.m. at Warehouse Live, 813 St. Emanuel; 713-225-5483.

WEDNESDAY

Sports: Dream pop. 8 p.m. at Warehouse Live, 813 St. Emanuel; 713-225-5483.

THURSDAY

Beetle: Beatles covers. 7 p.m. at the Continental Club, 3700 Main; 713-529-9899.

Dr. Jordan Peterson: Author/lecturer. 7:30 p.m. at Bayou Music Center, 520 Texas; 713-230-1600.

Kurt Travis: Rock. 6 p.m. at White Oak Music Hall, upstairs, 2915 N. Main; 713-237-0370.

Jordi Baizan: Singer-songwriter. 7 p.m. at McGonigels Mucky Duck, 2425 Norfolk; 713-528-5999.

10 Years: Metal. 7 p.m. at Rise Rooftop, 2600 Travis; 832-767-0513.

Statesboro Revue: Country. 8 p.m. at the Dosey Doe Breakfast, BBQ and Whiskey Bar, 2626-B Research Forest, The Woodlands; 832-823-4414.

Bijou, Nostaglix and Michael Sparks: House. 10 p.m. at Stereo Live, 6400 Richmond; 832-251-9600.

joey.guerra@chron.com

Joey Guerra is the music critic for the Houston Chronicle. He also covers various aspects of pop culture. He has reviewed hundreds of concerts and interviewed hundreds of celebrities, from Justin Bieber to Dolly Parton to Beyonce. He's appeared as a regular correspondent on Fox26 and was head judge and director of the Pride Superstar singing competition for a decade. He has been named journalist of the year multiple times by both OutSmart Magazine and the FACE Awards. He also covers various aspects of pop culture, including the local drag scene and "RuPaul's Drag Race."

More:

Elton John, George Lopez and the top 35+ shows in Houston - Houston Chronicle

Dave Ramsey, a personal finance expert for Christians, came under fire last week. On his radio show The Ramsey Show he spent some time arguing that Christian landlords are not at fault if tenants become unable to afford rent:

Okay, I own rental property, single family homes, among many other properties that we own. And if I raised my rent to be market rate that does not make me a bad Christian. I did not displace the person out of that house if they can no longer afford it.

Many accused Ramsey of engaging in mental gymnastics to avoid his moral responsibility to his tenants:

As a Christian interested in economics, Ramseys comments and the surrounding controversy piqued my interest. Ive never been a Dave Ramsey follower. I wont get into particular disagreements I have, but, put simply, I dont believe his money management philosophy will lead to the best financial results for many. At the same time, I dont deny his program has been helpful to some.

But, disagreements on personal finance aside, is Ramsey right or wrong here? Are critics correct or are they reaching? As with most answers, some nuance is required here.

First, lets begin with what the critics have right. Even though changes in supply and demand lead to changes in market prices, individual business owners are free to charge different prices. An owner need not passively set prices where everyone else does.

Second, the Bible does tell Christians be charitable and help the poor. At this point it needs to be stated that the Bible, and the words of Jesus in particular, is often twisted when it comes to matters of money. But even with this in mind, its unambiguous that the Bible calls giving a righteous act. Consider 1 John 3:17 which says, But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

So are Christian landlords called to be charitable to their tenants? I think the answer is a pretty straightforward yes. In that sense, I believe some criticism of the above statement is warranted.

Its imaginable that a Christian landlord could be generous and keep prices lower than the market price to help the destitute. In fact, in the context of the full video, Ramsey does explain situations where hes made exceptions to help his tenants on a case-by-case basis. And there are likely many cases where this would be the loving thing to do.

At the same time, Ramseys statement about market forces cant be ignored. Consider a market for housing that experiences a sudden increase in demand. When demand increases for housing, people are willing to pay more for it. This drives the price of housing up and makes it more profitable to rent houses. But the story doesnt end here.

Those higher profits draw more suppliers into the housing market. When there are more people providing housing, the cost of providing housing goes up.

To see why, consider the cost of a landlord repairing an HVAC system. When the amount of landlords is relatively small, they dont have much competition hiring HVAC repairmen. In this case, the price is low.

When a larger quantity of rental suppliers (landlords) enter the housing market, however, there is more competition to hire contractors to come fix HVAC systems. With this increased competition, the price of HVAC repair is bid up. In other words, an increase in the demand for housing causes an increase in demand for contractors which increases the cost of being a landlord.

HVAC repair is only one example. All of the factors used in running a housing rental business increase in demand and price as more landlords enter. And so long as landlords can make a profit by entering the rental market, they will enter. This drives up costs until all the profits created by the increase in demand dry up. At the new, higher price, the economic profit tends to zero.

Notice what this means for a landlord who doesnt raise prices. If rental companies charging higher prices are tending toward zero profit, maintaining a lower price means tending toward a loss. The housing is being rented for the same price, but now the cost is higher. This means losses.

If a landlord had lower costs than competitors, the business may still be able to operate profitably. But the higher the market price goes relative to the price the landlord charges, the closer the landlord is to making a loss, everything else held constant.

The result of the logic is clear. If the price of housing goes up and a landlord chooses not to increase the rent, there is some point where they will start making a loss.

At this point critics may say, so what? After all, charity means you lose wealth right? I agree with this too. If we expected people to be materially better off from charity, wed all be giving to get rich quick.

But heres the final problem. Losses arent sustainable forever. If a landlord freezes rent today, and prices and costs continue to increase, at some point the landlord will go out of business.

And a Christian cant be generous with tenants if they dont have a business to produce wealth in the first place.

Heres where critics get into really weird territory. Christians involved in any kind of business can always be charitable to the point of going out of business. Christian grocery store? Give away all your food for free. Christian school? Hire the best teachers and don't charge any tuition. Christian landlord? Buy more houses and let people stay in them for free. If you arent out of money, you can always donate more.

This logical conclusion seems unambiguously bad. If Christian businesses are obligated to give until they go out of business, there wont be Christian businesses. And if there arent Christian businesses, there wont be any more charity from Christian businesses.

My claim isnt that Christian business-people should never be generous. As I already stated, I believe they should. But ignoring market forces entirely only guarantees there wont be Christian businesses.

This logic extends into our personal lives too. Once your LLC is out of business, you still have personal wealth to give away. And here we come to a final conclusion.

Unless your interpretation of the Bible is that you have to maintain zero worldly possessions, you recognize implicitly that some amount of charity in the present is imprudent, if for no other reason than it will prevent future charity or fulfillment of obligations (to family for example).

If your standard is never having earthly possessions, you have a consistent criticism of Ramsey, though Im unsure how youre reading this article without any possessions.

Charging below market price is effectively giving money to charity. You make a loss, and in exchange someone is better off. Christians can choose to do this. In many cases I believe we are called to. But perpetual losses mean you will run out of money. Market changes can be ignored, but their consequences cannot.

So if Christians are called to give, but they arent called to give everything in the immediate present, when are we called to give our wealth away and to whom? Should a landlord forgive the rent of a fourth tenant even if it means going out of business in a year and forsaking the other three getting a break? How much savings should landlords with family have on hand?

There isnt a flowchart to answer all these questions. The details of specific circumstances are where the answers lie. However, I think Christians are given a straightforward rule of thumb. Our security should be found in Christ, not in the things of this world. If the decision to not be charitable at a particular time is based on our desire for things of the world, our heart is in the wrong place.

If charity is forgone because Christians believe their resources can be better stewarded for the love of God and others elsewhere, we have a different story.

Its possible that Ramseys own philosophy is to give to charity mainly outside of his business. Should someone diminish their giving to one cause in order to be able to accept losses in their business? The less income you have, the less you can give, after all. Again, I think the answer here depends on the situation.

Im not sure if Ramsey does this or not. I dont know his finances. But this manner of giving isnt uncommon for capitalists in the US, as it lines up well with the fact that the US has been the most charitable country in the world for a decade now.

My guess is that, on balance, most Christians in and outside of business could be more generous. No one is without sin. But pretending like market forces are irrelevant to our decisions as stewards doesnt help others or our mission any more than ignoring the laws of physics helps our ability to aid someone whos falling out of a building.

See more here:

Was Dave Ramsey Right or Wrong about the Responsibilities (or Lack Thereof) of Christian Capitalists? | Peter Jacobsen - Foundation for Economic...

On Wednesday, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided new research showing that, during the recent Delta wave, individuals who had previously contracted COVID-19 had more protection against the virus than those who had been vaccinated.

Before the Delta variant, Covid-19 vaccination resulted in better protection against a subsequent infection than surviving a previous infection, CDC epidemiologist Benjamin Silk told the Wall Street Journal. When looking at the summer and fall of 2021, when Delta became predominant in this country, however, surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection.

Both vaccinated individuals and those who had recovered from the virus showed significant defense, scientists added. (The CDC released its findings to reporters, but its research was not yet available online as of Thursday morning.)

Previous research suggests receiving vaccination after a COVID infection can offer additional protection against the virus.

Recent research, the Mayo Clinic says, suggests that people who got COVID-19 in 2020 and then received mRNA vaccines produce very high levels of antibodies that are likely effective against current and, possibly, future variants. Some scientists call this hybrid immunity.

The findings are significant and dovetail with recent scientific research out of Israel that showed previous infection from COVID-19 conferred longer-lasting and more robust protection than vaccines against the Delta variant.

Following the Israel study, prominent scientists argued that the fact that natural immunity offered more protection than vaccines made mandatory vaccination unscientific and unethical.

Prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical, wrote Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist and biostatistician.

The CDCs findings were released days after the Supreme Court ruled that President Joe Bidens vaccinate-or-test requirement for businesses with more than 100 employees was unconstitutional.

The high courts decision prompted some businesses, including Starbucks, to scrap their vaccine mandates for employees.

"We respect the Court's ruling and will comply," John Culver, COO and group president for North America at Starbucks, told employees on Tuesday.

Despite the protection offered by previous COVID infection, many public officials and countries have been reluctant to recognize natural immunity.

Novak Djokovic, the worlds top-ranked tennis player, recently had his visa seized by Australian authorities when he arrived (unvaccinated) to play in the Australian Open, even though he was initially granted a medical exemption because of a recent COVID infection. Meanwhile, Austrias conservative government recently announced it will make vaccination compulsory for adults, who will face steep finesup to 3600 eurosif they fail to comply, even if they have already had the virus.

In the United States, universities have been inclined to expel students not considered fully vaccinated, which in some cases reportedly includes students whove had multiple vaccine shots, have previously had COVID, and have received a medical exemption from a physician.

Recent evidence, however, suggests the reluctance to treat individuals whove had COVID as fully vaccinated may be waning. The NCAA, for example, recently announced in its winter guidelines that athletes who previously had COVID will be considered fully vaccinated if the infection took place within three months.

The CDCs announcement that previous infection offered more protection than vaccination against the Delta variant is likely to fuel calls to end vaccine mandates, particularly for individuals whove already been infected.

Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

Stanford Epidemiologist Says COVID Vaccination Is Primarily a Matter of Personal Health, Not Public Health

Stunning New Study Undercuts the Case for Vaccine Mandates

The Case for Vaccine MandatesRefuted

Why GoFundMe Deleted This Grieving Fathers Fundraiser After His Sons Death

See the rest here:

CDC: Natural Immunity Offered Stronger Protection Against COVID Than Vaccines During Delta Wave | Jon Miltimore - Foundation for Economic Education