News of the Week for July 11th, 2021
News of the Week for July 11th, 2021
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
Whether the United States should support friendly foreign governments against more antagonistic tyrants has been a longstanding question, and is relevant today with Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as relevant with many of the same countries and tyrants as I the 1980’s, such as the question of supporting the Contras against the Sandinista regime, which William F. Buckley, Jr. discussed with Riordan Roett and Susan Kaufman Purcell.
Specifically, to the Evanston School District.
Breaking: @SLF_Liberty has filed a discrimination lawsuit against Evanston School District. The school engaged in racial segregation, depicted “whiteness” as a devil, and taught that whites are inherently oppressive.
Read more here: https://t.co/dsLTfPzoLJ
1/6 pic.twitter.com/eevCqUAUGo
— Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism (FAIR) (@fairforall_org) June 30, 2021
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: When your choice isn’t really your choice.
First, a little mood music:

Because toddlers can totes consent to having themselves killed…
“Terminally-ill children between the ages of 1 and 12 will likely be granted access to euthanasia, Health Minister Hugo de Jonge told Parliament on Tuesday. End of life procedures carried out by doctors in the Netherlands were already possible for infants up to one year old, and for children above 12 years old.
“De Jonge said that the termination of life should be possible for ‘a small group of terminally ill children who agonize with no hope, and unbearable suffering.” It will affect between five and ten children per year who suffer “as a result in some cases unnecessarily, for a long time, without any prospect of improvement.’ He stressed ‘the great importance of the best possible care for this group of terminally ill children.’”
![]()
Florida has a new law that restricts participation in sports, aside from co-ed teams, to teams designated by biological sex and not “gender identity”. The law even takes into account medical conditions and allows for sex to be determined by chromosomes, physical aspects, or hormonal aspects, meaning that it is very inclusive of relevant cases, and does not prohibit a “transgender” person from participating but rather just rationally sorts them to the most appropriate team.
However, there are concerns as to how well the law will hold up against a lawsuit brought against it that claims it is discriminatory against “transgender” individuals.
People forget that “gender identity” and “biological sex” are de facto different in the law and practically de jure in academia and increasingly also in society. “Gendered language” such as words like boy, woman, he, hers, &c. are recognized as being associated with “gender identity” and not “biological sex”; that this bill is entitled the “fairness in Women’s Wports Act” could be a problem, then.

The appropriation of the language and the forced “evolution” of the meaning of “woman”, for example, to mean “person with the gender identity of ‘woman’” instead of “biological female” is the greatest tool the transgender lobby has. As much as people want to say that “gender = biological sex”, that argument increasingly already lost.
If you really want to fix this, you exploit the fact that they say that “gender identity” and “biological sex” are not only different things but not considered to even be related, by making it clear that the teams are not divided by “gender identity” but by “biological sex” and eschew gendered language, as much as it may not sound natural to speak that way… and then declare that dividing teams by “gender identity” is discrimination necessarily caused by “irrational animus”.
It seems almost contradictory, and in fact is, that the Woke Left declare that race and gender are “social constructs” while their entire praxis is based on race and gender essentialism. In a way, it is as if the designated enemies (“Whiteness” and “cis-heteronormativity”) “constructed” race and gender thus giving it a magical form and effect, with the only conceived of option to oppose this artificial essence by equal and opposite measure until the form and effect are neutralized and race and gender spontaneously disappear in an immanentized puff of eschaton!

Philosophy professor and Twitter user “Eve Keneinan” puts it into more classical dialectic form:
@benshapiro described the Woke as “race essentialists.”
He’s not wrong, exactly, but in a way, he is. Enough to clarify.
Race essentialism is the THESIS, race non-essentialism is the ANTITHESIS, and what the Woke hold is the SYNTHESIS. They both are and are not essentialists.
— Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن (@EveKeneinan) June 29, 2021
Essences can’t be got rid of by dispelling them.
But yes, they do think than race and racism are *like* a cast spells, which are permanently and autonomously operating.
That’s actually a very accurate way to think about it.
— Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن (@EveKeneinan) June 29, 2021
The CRT position is the Aufhebung of race essentialism and race social constructivism.
They formally hold race to be a social construct, but since human identity itself is constructed by means of race, it functions as an essence, being a prior reality to a person’s being.
— Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن (@EveKeneinan) June 29, 2021
Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
News of the Week for July 3rd, 2021
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
With the rise of the People’s Republic of China abroad and Marxist derived Critical Race Theory domestically, the increasing acceptance of Communism and the decrease in Anti-Communism is glaring. Sadly, this is nothing new, as William F. Buckley, Jr. discusses with Fred Schwarz.
Felonies, unlike almost all misdemeanors, carries penalties that can result in permanent removal of Constitutional rights. While in the United States “hate speech” or expressions of animus against people based on some protected class due to the 1st Amendment still being a thing, criminal enhancements are legal and can even turn a minor misdemeanor into a felony. Case in point: A “burnout” leaving tire marks on the road is a felony when that road is rainbow colored.
“On Monday, Jerich was seen by witnesses, and recorded on a cellphone, doing what appeared to be an intentional ‘burnout’ with his vehicle over the LGBTQ pride crosswalk at the intersection of NE 1st Street and NE 2nd Avenue.
“This caused the vehicle to create significant damage to the streetscape painting.
“‘Kudos to the Delray Beach Police Department for swiftly identifying and arresting this hateful criminal,’ said PBCHRC [Palm Beach County Human Rights Council] President and Founder Rand Hoch. ‘PBCHRC has requested the charges include defacing a memorial — a recently enacted law which would require this crime to be treated as a felony. If convicted of this offense, the perpetrator would be responsible for reimbursing the City of Delray Beach for the cost of repairing the damages in addition the severe penalties for committing a felony’”
Now, motive and animus are indeed things that ought to be considered when it comes to a trial and, if convicted, sentencing. However it becomes concerning when an expression of “H8” basically makes it a completely different crime and even level of crime. The only difference between the two is the expression of “H8” which is in and of itself Constitutionally protected, thus surreptitiously making “H8” speech a crime by hiding it as an “enhancement”.

To make matters worse, the application of such laws laws in regards to “animus” is not content neutral, with “some… more equal than others”. How many statues and memorials in New York were defaced or torn down by mobs in the past year and a half? How many prosecutions didn’t have any enhancement even though the vandals were brimming with racial hatred, assuming the city bothered to prosecute anyone? Yet vandalizing a statue of George Floyd will result in vigorous punishment.