Unified Grievance Theory

Intersectionality, (noun)
in·​ter·​sec·​tion·​al·​i·​ty | \ ˌin-tər-ˌsek-shə-ˈna-lə-tē

1. Selective, tribal conflation of every conceivable human grievance.
2. Creative categorization and augmentation of one’s victimhood credentials.

Example (links omitted):

“The physics professor who argued “white empiricism” somehow creates a “barrier” to black women trying to enter the sciences field recently went on a Twitter rant about the recent antisemitic attacks in New York City.

Ultimately, those attacks are the fault of white gentiles, the University of New Hampshire’s Chanda Prescod-Weinstein claimed.”

According to Campus Reform, on her now-protected Twitter account (archived version is here) Prescod-Weinstein wrote on New Year’s Eve that antisemitism in the US historically has been “a white Christian problem,” and anti-Jewish feelings expressed by blacks are due to the “influence of white gentiles.”

Further, the prof wrote that people demanding black leaders speak out against antisemitism are “probably a garden variety racist[s].”

“White Jews adopted whiteness as a social praxis and harmed Black people in the process,” Prescod-Weinstein said. “Some Black people have problematically blamed Jewishness for it.”

Let’s see if I get this: “White Jews” culturally appropriated antisemitism from “White Gentiles” so as to deny agency to blacks. Some blacks, then, can be racist? I’ve been assured by many Professors sharing Prescod-Weinstein’s sense of things that that isn’t possible.

Speaking of speaking out and garden variety anti-semites, Al “Crown Heights riot” Sharpton, Louis “Satanic Jews” Farrakhan, Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson, Ilhan “Benjamins” Omar, and Linda “Stop humanizing Jews” Sarsour go unmentioned. Maybe toning down their agency – i.e., just refrain from fomenting antisemitism – would be enough? Did these leaders-of-color also witlessly absorb their antisemitism from white gentiles? Even so, do they have some responsibility for spreading it?

Professor Prescod-Weinstein is very well qualified to speak her epistemological conclusions to racial, ethnic, religious, sex, and gender intersectionality questions:

I proudly hail from the east Los Angeles neighborhood of El Sereno. The 63rd Black American woman* to earn a Ph.D. in physics, I am a descendant of Afro-Caribbean and Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants.
[link]

I am a proudly out and was a founding member of the American Astronomical Society Committee for Sexual-Orientation and Gender Minorities in Astronomy (SGMA), where I served as an executive member for six years.
[link]

She checks off more victimhood boxes than most. She has a PhD in physics. She enjoys a visible internet presence – writing dozens of articles for Medium. For example: Intersectionality as a Blueprint for Postcolonial Scientific Community Building

One wonders how she is allowed any agency as a gay, black, female of Jewish descent. Her example is inversely proportional to her theory.

John Kerry, belatedly, proven right

Qasem Soleimani, deceased commander of the Quds Force (Iran’s amalgam of the CIA and Navy Seals), a division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – designated as a terrorist organization last year – has a long history of conducting war against the United States.

He helped plan the attack on our Benghazi diplomatic facilities. He armed dozens of militia groups enabling them to kill hundreds of Americans. He was responsible for the Dec. 27th attack near Kirkuk that killed an American contractor. He organized the recent attack on the American embassy (i.e., American soil) in Baghdad by Quds Force proxy Kata’ib Hezbollah; who raised their flags on its walls.

He had been sanctioned by the previous administration in 2011:
Flashback: Obama Sanctioned Soleimani for Attempted Terror Attack in Washington, DC

“Under Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, Soleimani was to be removed from international sanctions after eight years, though then-Secretary of State John Kerry promised that sanctions against Soleimani would be in place “forever.””

Now, John Kerry is right. If not about the sanctions he was thinking about.

Soleimani was traveling when he died after a very short illness.

Our Maim Scream Media is describing Soleimani as a “revered figure” and a “war hero.” One Progressive wag suggested Soleimani’s demise was like the killing of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Captain America “all in one.”

This person was referring to the sentiments of Iranians, most of whom, au contraire, are glad the asshole is in pieces. Still, I can’t help but consider that promoting such concern over a terrorist is like the Confederate press favorably noting the North’s mourning of Lincoln’s assassination, the British press happily detailing celebrations of Washington’s victories, and the Red Skull posting excerpts of Captain America’s eulogy on his blog.

So, the parallel with the American press is accurate.

Congruent with malice

On Dec 12th, I pointed out that there are only two ways to interpret the FBI’s egregious… Wait, egregious implies a degree of obviousness the FBI never intended – so odious? nefarious? actions documented in Inspector General Horowitz’ report:

[T]he FBI’s persistent prevarication may lead many to recall Ian Fleming: ”Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.

IG Horowitz had to use a different standard: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.

I noted some of the report’s detail which one might use to decide between those alternatives. Here is a simpler version from Attorney General William Barr speaking to NBC News’ Justice(?) Correspondent Pete Williams:

PETE WILLIAMS: I just wonder, though, about the — what the FBI would say, I think here, is, OK, so they opened an investigation. Nobody was ever charged. They were concerned about possible Russian meddling in the — in the election.

Why not open this investigation? What’s the harm? You’ve said intrusive means. So what — what is your concern about the fact that they did this?

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I think the big picture is this, from day one — remember, they say, OK, we’re not going to — go to talk to the campaign. We’re going to put people in there, wire them up and have these conversations with people involved in the campaign, because that way we’ll get the truth.

From the very first day of this investigation, which was July 31, 2016, all the way to its end, September 2017, there was not one incriminatory bit of evidence to come in. It was all exculpatory. The people that they were taping denied any involvement with Russia. Denied the very specific facts that the FBI was — was relying on.

So what happens? The FBI ignores it, presses ahead, withholds that information from the court, withholds critical exculpatory information from the court while it gets an electronic surveillance warrant.

It also withholds from the court clear cut evidence that the dossier that they ultimately relied on to get the FISA warrant was a complete sham. They — they — they hid information about the lack of reliability, even when they went the first time for the warrant. But — but in January, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says, I never told — I never told Steele this stuff. And — and — and — and this was all speculation. And I have zero information to support this stuff.

At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president and the — well into his administration, after the case collapsed.

But here, to me, is the damning thing. They not only didn’t tell the court that what they had been relying on was — was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, well, we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful. But they don’t inform the court that what they’re truthful about is that the dossier is — is false.

So that’s hard to explain. And I — the core statement, in my opinion, by the IG, is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily explained. And I think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. I think it’s premature now to reach a judgment on that, but I think that further work has to be done, and that’s what Durham is doing.

Incompetence and malice are not mutually exclusive. Did malice merely provide the FBI an extended opportunity for incompetence?

Does the distinction even matter when the consequence of incompetence and stupidity is congruent with malice? Is it better that those entrusted to uphold the law are incompetent, and deliberate about it?

Thought crime

Gerald Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee report on the constitutional grounds for impeachment says in part (page 6):

Fourth, we address whether the House must accept at face value President Trump’s claim that his motives were not corrupt. In short, no. When the House probes a President’s state of mind, its mandate is to find the facts. That means evaluating the President’s account of his motives to see if it rings true. The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate. Where the House discovers persuasive evidence of corrupt wrongdoing, it is entitled to rely upon that evidence to impeach.

If there were “persuasive evidence of corrupt wrong-doing,” why is it necessary to claim to read the President’s mind?

“[W]hether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate” is the very same thing the report calls persuasive evidence. And it was the Democrat’s forgone conclusion before Donald Trump was even inaugurated. The impeachment articles are tautological.

Here is Nadler’s justification for impeachment translated, ‘The President’s real reasons are those we divine from the speculations of rabidly partisan witnesses, ignorant of any actual evidence by their own admission, in hearings we called based on a hearsay complaint we solicited from an anonymous political operative formerly employed by the Obama administration.’

Let’s pause briefly to recall that the push for impeachment began the day after the 2016 election, and was able to hit the ground running because of the conduct of the Obama administration. The FBI is not alone in the Obama administration’s abuse of power, let’s recall the tea party and Lois Lerner IRS, lies about “Fast & Furious” gun running, the unmasking and leaking to intimidate opponents of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the entrapment and persecution of Michael Flynn by hiding exculpatory evidence, and much else.

Apparently reading Barack Obama’s mind was more difficult for Nadler than reading Trump’s. This feat of telepathic legerdemain is in marked contrast to the report on FBI misconduct by DOJ Inspector General Horowitz.

James Comey’s declaration of vindication notwithstanding, Horowitz did not say there was no political bias in the FBI’s inappropriate handling of FISA requests. As he testified, while he couldn’t prove it, he couldn’t rule it out:

QUESTION: “Can you say it wasn’t because of political bias?”

HOROWITZ: “On, on decisions regarding those FISA matters, I do not know their state of mind.”

Minds are not to be read. Thought crime is out of bounds.

Horowitz did savage the FBI for using Christopher Steele’s dossier as the primary tool to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. He quotes the FBI admitting that ‘the dossier’ was the “single source” (p. 132) justification given to the FISA court. The FBI knew this dossier was nothing but gossip, that its author was virulently biased, and that it had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Those are all political considerations. Which the IG felt had to be ignored.

Horowitz did, however, conclude that Operation Crossfire Hurricane just barely managed to stay above the abysmally low boundaries required to start an investigation (predication): Which is – “articulable facts.” Here’s an articulation of the fact used to start the investigation: “Christopher Steele wrote a report alleging Donald Trump was a Russian agent.” It is a fact and I just articulated it.

So the lines of predication are as easy to avoid as the lines painted on a tennis court. Horowitz could not identify blatant political bias because it wasn’t written into official FBI memos.

But, whatever judgment one might make about the predication, one has to wonder about the continuing and widespread falsification of evidence in pursuit of a connection between Trump and Russia. One has to give full benefit of the doubt to the FBI’s disgraced lead investigator in both the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the Donald Trump Russian collusion – Peter Strzok – to conclude no political motivation could be found in virulent opposition to the President found in texts with his like minded DOJ lawyer paramour. One would also need to accept his smirking attitude under House questioning as normal human behavior. If that doesn’t say “Nyah, nyah. You can’t prove my bias affected my work,” nothing could.

One then has to wonder, given the venue and seriousness, whether Strzok is familiar with the term “self control.” With his career on the line, his public, self-righteous arrogance is incandescent. What is he capable of in private? So, to consider FBI bias – as an agency – one would have to wonder about how his colleagues handled this if they were unbiased, since he wasn’t shy about his hatred for Trump. Then you’d probably wonder about Comey’s deliberately truncated briefing of the President on the dossier.

All this must have occurred to IG Horowitz. He had to wonder about motivations (“state of mind”) after the FBI started the investigation, and he had a lot more to go on than Chairman Nadler.

After initiation of the investigation, Horowitz also has to accommodate the FBI’s dogged pursuit of a case it knew to be non-existent, using ‘evidence’ it knew to be tainted – not least because the FBI had tainted it. A brief recap:

In the summer of 2016 an application for a FISA warrant on Carter Page is turned down. It is approved in October when the “Steele dossier” is included to justify the wiretap application. The FBI will later lie that the dossier was a tiny part of the renewed FISA application.

That FISA warrant, which was reauthorized three times, contained false and misleading information about Page. It omitted that his Russian contacts had long been known to a government agency who regularly debriefed him; it overstated the government’s confidence in Steele and his dossier; it never mentioned that Page claimed he and Paul Manafort had “literally never met;” and it did not reveal exculpatory information FISA rules required to be submitted. Very similar to what was done to Mike Flynn, by the same pemople.

IG Horowitz, in testimony to Nadler’s committee:

QUESTION: “Christopher Steele, is it fair to say that he had a political bias against Donald Trump?”

HOROWITZ: “He, given who he was paid for, there was a bias that needed to be disclosed to the court.”

If Steele was politically motivated, does hiding him from the court inherit that bias? “Fruit of the poisoned tree?”

And the FBI’s persistent prevarication may lead many to recall Ian Fleming: ”Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action.

IG Horowitz had to use a different standard: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence.

Horowitz could not justify referral for criminal prosecution those who withheld exculpatory evidence from the FISA court and used unverified information written by a spook they knew was unreliable. Who, moreover, was paid by the Clinton campaign to write it. Horowitz could not absolutely prove partisan bias despite the FBI’s inability to verify the basis of the request to that court for extraordinary surveillance of American citizens in an attempt to remove a sitting President. This is a case where minds didn’t need to meld.

Chairman Nadler, on the other hand, would have no case at all without his telepathic powers.

Maybe it wasn’t malice. Maybe it was incompetence and stupidity. I’ll wait for Durham’s investigation.

They make fun of me, too

Business Insider has a glacial news day. Still needs clicks.

This was published the day after Speaker Pelosi said she had asked the six Democrat committee chairmen investigating Trump to draft articles of impeachment:
Trump’s salt and pepper shakers tower over everyone else’s. Obama, Bush, and Clinton used the same size shakers as their guests.

You’d think they could have saved the salt and pepper jokes for later, in case Biden and Kamala end up as nominees. And they shouldn’t even attempt competition with the Babylon Bee.

In addition to the extended headline – clearly intended to compare Trump unfavorably to Obama, Bush, and Clinton – BI speculates that “it could also be another power move, alongside his fierce handshakes and bulky suits.”

And nothing about eating dogs, mispronouncing nuclear, or creative uses for cigars. Sad.

They can’t even perpetrate a hit job properly. They couldn’t find anybody to interview who’d contend larger salt and pepper shakers are compensation for the size of Trump’s penis? Couldn’t somehow extrapolate to a dinner of fried chicken, collard greens and watermelon for Texas Rep Al Green? And where was Pamela Karlan when she was needed for more hysterical riffing on Baron’s name?

I admit I feel sympathetic to the President. I have, at bare minimum, two similar quirks. These two are not exhaustive, they just come to mind immediately and unbidden.

1- My wife and I own some high quality, yet everyday, stainless-steel-ware she favors. From a purely visual esthetic standpoint, she’s right. Functionally, not so much.

This is the default guest silverware (sorry, everyone), unless we trust them enough to bring out the actual silverware AND we’re having a State dinner. This happens rarely anymore.

I vastly prefer a set of older, cheaper, thinner, more utilitarian eating utensils. These are kept in a separate drawer from the ‘good’ everyday cutlery. To demonstrate, I suppose, that when I reach into ‘that drawer’ my Philistine tastes do not represent the refinement of the rest of the household. That would be my wife.

Oh, there are jokes and chuckles from the rest of the family about it, too. When they gather to eat my turkey, for example, it’s been unaccountably described as ‘baby silverware,’ though most humans under the age of twelve can’t even lift the ‘good’ set, nor fit a supposed teaspoon in their mouth if they did manage it.

This, even though I keep my silence when they reach for the grinder containing pink Himalayan ‘sea salt.’

2- If I get a pepper shaker (usually this is in a restaurant, since I know which domestic pepper dispensers actually dispense) that delivers only a few flakes every minute even with violent shaking, I unscrew the top so I can get a heaping teaspoon or so on my cottage cheese before the Universe succumbs to entropy.

As a guest at someone’s home, I carefully consider my relationship to my hosts, but unscrewing the top in such cases is not unheard of. I have a reputation for it.

IAC. You might, if you were BI, speculate that I prefer thinner eating utensils because I’m trying to demonstrate humility to my guests, or that I use a lot of pepper as a power tripping display of my macho masculine toxicity. Or, that we couldn’t afford a whole set of the ‘good’ kind.

Well, BI would be wrong. I don’t like my wife’s favored silverware because it’s very handle heavy, tending to balance poorly on the edge of a plate. To get it to balance, the handle has to be shoved into the mashed potatoes, and the business end of the tablespoon is just slightly too wide to be effective at the speed with which I wish to engage my piehole.

As to pepper… on some foods I just like what many consider an overdose. Cottage cheese, for example, is pretty bland and, to my lingual papillae it has some mysterious property that neutralizes the taste of pepper. You need a lot.

I can’t speak to Trump’s fierce handshakes or, necessarily, to bulky suits. I find the dominance handshake pathetic, and I wouldn’t notice whether a suit was bulky. The ‘necessarily’ because I have owned suits which fashion neutral, friendly male observers have described as “horse blankets.” I do not dispute this comparison. In fact, I rather liked it.

President Trump may have similar reasons for his salt and pepper shakers, his hair style, and his skin tone. So? Let’s impeach him.