Kids are being treated like babies for even longer stretches. When Jonathan Haidt, co-author of The Coddling of the American Mind, gives lectures, he often asks audience members born before 1982 to shout out what age they were first allowed to leave the house on their own. Many in the crowd answer eight, seven, or even six. (Personally, I shout "Five!")
Then, skipping the mishmash of Generation X, he asks everyone born after 1995 to answer the same question, and most of the millennials respond in the 10-13 age range. "The effect is always huge," says Haidt, a co-founder with me of Let Grow, the nonprofit dedicated to making childhood independence easy, normal, and legal.
This article relies on some generalizations, so we need to be careful. Chemistry majors are probably much different than graduates in the social sciences. And every student should be judges on his or her own merits, not on the Zeitgeist of their school.
That said, I'm now wondering whether corporations are changing their views on the plusses and minuses of hiring ivy league graduates. Here's an excerpt from R.R.Reno's article: "Why I Stopped Hiring Ivy League Graduates." The author is concerned that ivy league graduates have been "socialized to panic over pseudocrises." Here's an excerpt:
Haverford is a progressive hothouse. If students can be traumatized by “insensitivity” on that leafy campus, then they’re unlikely to function as effective team members in an organization that has to deal with everyday realities. And in any event, I don’t want to hire someone who makes inflammatory accusations at the drop of a hat.
Student activists don’t represent the majority of students. But I find myself wondering about the silent acquiescence of most students. They allow themselves to be cowed by charges of racism and other sins. I sympathize. The atmosphere of intimidation in elite higher education is intense. But I don’t want to hire a person well-practiced in remaining silent when it costs something to speak up.
Full disclosure: I have been doubly vaccinated with the Modern Vaccine. I have trusted ubiquitous assertions by government and health care providers, that the vaccines are safe. I knew that the vaccines were extraordinary quick to market. I wondered about their safety, but I considered the COVID virus itself to be a much greater risk. I am extremely concerned about the existence of COVID and the devastation it has caused, medical and economic. I am extremely concerned about the potential emergence of variants and COVID.
Also, I have long been suspicious about the effects of tribal affinities on the free flow of information (on many topics). On topics related to the pandemic, there have been major reversals by medical authorities in the past 1 1/2 years that concern me. Some of these relate to the alleged efficacy (and non-efficacy) of mask-wearing, where government mandates were issued in the absence of controlled studies. I am also aware that we have seen very little in the way of data regarding adverse side effects regarding the general population, as well as populations of adolescents and immune-compromised and pregnant individuals. It is also apparent that the misinformation relating to the wearing of masks could be motivated by an inclination to downplay vaccine-related deaths (in order to encourage people to get the vaccines on a nationwide basis).
It is in this context that I am sharing the following materials. I have no medical expertise. I find the following information intriguing. I hope that this information (which has possibly been suppressed) is further developed in the public sphere. Here is the basis for my concerns, a discussion hosted by Brett Weinstein, who has a long history of fearlessly discussing topics that run counter "preferred" public narratives.
The guests suggest that we need an honest conversation regarding use of the the COVID vaccines regarding certain populations where there is natural immunity (children, young teenagers and those who have already had COVID) and where there is alarming data (pregnant women). They also advocate that we badly need honest national dialogue regarding the promising data based on the prophylactic use of repurposed Ivermectin.
Here are two key points made during this deeply engaging discussion:
Point 1. An ongoing course of Ivermectin, long-shown to be a safe drug, is fantastically effective in protecting people from COVID. Brett notes that he and his wife Heather were not vaccinated, but have chosen to use Ivermectin prophylactically. Brett and the guests argue that where a safe alternative to the vaccines is available, this information should be available. The guests are convinced, based on discussed evidence, that Ivermectin is a potentially a "miracle drug" that should be widely repurposed and made available to the public. They are gravely concerned that discussions regarding Ivermectin have been suppressed on the Internet, for social and financial motives they discuss.
Today, I spotted these graphs regarding Ivermectin usage in India. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information in this June 1, 2021 article by Justus R. Hope, a doctor, but it is eye-popping and compels me to know more:
Another excerpt from this article:
A 97% decline in Delhi cases with Ivermectin is decisive - period. It represents the last word in an epic struggle to save lives and preserve human rights. This graph symbolizes the victory of reason over corruption, good over evil, and right over wrong. It is as significant as David’s victory over Goliath. It is an absolute vindication of Ivermectin and early outpatient treatment. It is a clear refutation of the WHO, FDA, NIH, and CDC's policies of "wait at home until you turn blue" before you get treatment.
Point 2. On the vaccine side, the guests express concern that there are significant adverse side-effects to the COVID vaccines that are not being discussed widely. In fact, the information is being suppressed, the group strongly suggests, because it doesn't fit the ongoing narrative that the COVID vaccines are "safe." Further, the data regarding adverse side effects is not systematically being collected, much less discussed. The conversation suggests that the VAERS database (voluntary reports) significantly under-reports incidents. Data suggest that the rate of deaths so far from the COVID vaccines in the U.S. might be in the range of 5,000-20,000, the lower end which is greater than the number of deaths from all other vaccines in the U.S. over the past 70 years. For further information on this point, consider Steve Kirsch's recent article at TrialSiteNews, where you will see many details on which he based his concerns in the above video: "Should You Get Vaccinated." The guests also argue that silicon valley is actively suppressing youtube videos and other information. Adverse vaccine-related bloodwork seems to resemble the bloodwork of those who have COVID. The biggest alarm here, the guests agree, is the lack of an alarm.
Here are a few excerpts:
However, based on what I now know about the vaccine side effects, current COVID rates, and the success rate of early treatment protocols, the answer I would give today to anyone asking me for advice as to whether to take any of the current vaccines would be, “Just say NO.”
The current vaccines are particularly contraindicated if you have already been infected with COVID or are under age 20. For these people, I would say “NO! NO! NO!”
In this article, I will explain what I have learned since I was vaccinated that totally changed my mind. You will learn how these vaccines work and the shortcuts that led to the mistakes that were made. You will understand why there are so many side effects and why these are so varied and why they usually happen within 30 days of vaccination. You will understand why kids are having heart issues (for which there is no treatment), and temporarily losing their sight, and ability to talk. You will understand why as many as 3% may be severely disabled by the vaccine.
What I find deeply disturbing is the lack of transparency on how dangerous the current COVID vaccines are. Healthy people could end up dead or permanently disabled at a rate that is “off the charts” compared with any other vaccine in our history. Look at the death report in our government’s official Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) summarized in the tweet below. This is the most deadly vaccine we’ve ever made by a long shot. That’s why they have to give you incentives to get vaccinated. They need to vaccinate everyone BEFORE people read this article or watch this video of Dr. Peter McCullough explaining clearly why the current COVID vaccines are unsafe and completely unnecessary for our children.
82% miscarriage rate in first 20 weeks (10% is the normal rate). It is baffling that the CDC says the vaccine is safe for pregnant women when it is so clear that this is not the case. For example, one our family friends is a victim of this. She miscarried at 25 weeks and is having an abortion on 6/9/21. She had her first shot 7 weeks ago, and her second shot 4 weeks ago. The baby had severe bleeding of the brain and other disfigurements. Her gynecologist had never seen anything like that before in her life. They called in a specialist who said it was probably a genetic defect (because everyone buys into the narrative that the vaccine is safe it is always ruled out as a possible cause). No VAERS report. No CDC report. Yet the doctors I’ve talked to say that it is over 99% certain it was the vaccine. The family doesn’t want an autopsy for fear that their daughter will find out it was the vaccine. This is a perfect example of how these horrible side effects just never get reported anywhere.
I invite you to listen to the detailed conversation in the video above. I'm writing this as I watch the live discussion. I will update with more after I finish viewing the entire video . . .
[June 12 2021 two updates]
I love this exchange between Steve Kirsch and hundreds of Youtube Subscribers who told him that they appreciated his passion and his message but warned him that his manners were rude and that he was getting in the way of his own message.
Christopher Rufo has been working overtime to expose critical race theory to the sunlight (and see here). CRT is being taught in many schools, including posh private K-12 schools, and it is a very good thing that Rufo has provoked conversations on the content of CRT curricula and training (in schools, government offices and businesses). I agree with many of Rufo's concerns and I appreciate the hard work he has done to make CRT concepts understandable to the many people who are intimidated by CRT rhetoric. As I have discussed many times at this website, CRT is divisive, causing people to lose trust in each other, causing unnecessary suspicions, and failing to promote human flourishing in any meaningful way. I've argued that the end game for CRT is the massively dysfunctional social atmosphere at Evergreen State College. Though I applaud the publication of the Briefing Book, I disagree with Rufo on his enthusiasm for legislative solutions he promotes.
Rufo has recently published a "Critical Race Theory Briefing Book" to help people understand what is currently being peddled under the tents of "antiracism" and "critical race theory." People are starting to speak up about their concerns with CRT (e.g., this recent statement by a public school teacher), but we need to help more people to understand the racecraft being peddled by CRT, and Rufo's Briefing Book will be helpful in that regard. He obtains much of his material from original sources--the Briefing Book is filled with quotes from critical race writers. He has also boiled down these principles into readable nuggets. In doing this, Rufo will be helping many parents, students and employees to understand CRT, which is permeated with vague concepts and familiar-looking words that CRT uses to mean the opposite of their common meanings.
Here is Rufo's definition of "Critical Race Theory, which appears at the beginning of his Briefing Book:
Critical race theory is an academic discipline that holds that the United States is a nation founded on white supremacy and oppression, and that these forces are still at the root of our society. Critical race theorists believe that American institutions, such as the Constitution and legal system, preach freedom and equality, but are mere “camouflages” for naked racial domination. They believe that racism is a constant, universal condition: it simply becomes more subtle, sophisticated, and insidious over the course of history. In simple terms, critical race theory reformulates the old Marxist dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed, replacing the class categories of bourgeoisie and proletariat with the identity categories of White and Black. But the basic conclusion is the same: in order to liberate man, society must be fundamentally transformed through moral, economic, and political revolution.
Another key concept of CRT is "Whiteness." Here is how critical race advocates commonly explain "whiteness," (this is another excerpt from the Briefing Book:
Race essentialism: Critical race theory reduces individuals to the quasi-metaphysical categories of “Blackness” and “Whiteness,” then loads those categories with value connotations—positive traits are attributed to “Blackness” and negative traits are attributed to “Whiteness.” Although some critical race theorists formally reject race essentialism, functionally, they often use these categories as malicious labels that erase individual identities.
“Whiteness is dynamic, relational, and operating at all times and on myriad levels. These processes and practices include basic rights, values, beliefs, perspectives and experiences purported to be commonly shared by all but which are actually only consistently afforded to white people.” Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility.”
“Whiteness is an invisible veil that cloaks its racist deleterious effects through individuals, organizations, and society. The result is that White people are allowed to enjoy the benefits that accrue to them by virtue of their skin color. Thus, Whiteness, White supremacy, and White privilege are three interlocking forces that disguise racism so it may allow White people to oppress and harm persons of color while maintaining their individual and collective advantage and innocence.” Derald Sue, “The Invisible Whiteness of Being.”
“Whiteness by its very definition and operation as a key element of white supremacy kills; it is mental and physical terrorism. To end the white terrorism that is directed at racially oppressed people here and in other nations, it is essential that self-identified whites and their whiteness collaborators among the racially oppressed confront their white problem head-on, unencumbered by racial comfort.” Johnny Williams in the Hartford Courant.
All whites are racist: Critical race theorists argue explicitly that “all white people are racist” and perpetuate systems of white supremacy and systemic racism. This concept is deeply related to race essentialism—whites, including small children, cannot escape from being racist.
“All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” Barbara Applebaum, Being White, Being Good.
“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility.
“According to studies, babies at two to three years old, start internalizing racist ideas, start discerning and making decisions based on racist ideas … We’re allowing our society to raise them to be racist.” Ibram Kendi on KING5 News.
Are these the types of things you want your schools to teach your children? Are you willing to draw a thick line to tell the Woke movement no? In my view, the excerpts above are racist and destructive ideas that are incompatible with the teachings of Martin Luther King. That is why you will not see CRT advocates discussing MLK, by the way. This is Rufo's opinion too. Where I disagree with Rufo is on how to best oppose the rapid spread of CRT.
One of the world's most respected publications in psychoanalysis, the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (JAPA) offers insightful and broad-based original articles, ground-breaking research, thoughtful plenary addresses, in-depth panel reports, perceptive commentaries, plus much more. Included in each issue is the esteemed JAPA Review of Books, which provides comprehensive reviews and essays on recent notable literature. . . . Published bimonthly, this peer-reviewed publication is an invaluable resource for psychoanalysts, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and other mental health professionals.
What kinds of articles might you find in the current issue of this prestigious journal? Consider this one:
On Having Whiteness
Donald Moss
First Published May 27, 2021 Research Article Find in PubMed
https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651211008507
Abstract
Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.
Who is Donald Moss? Here's some information: "Donald Moss is a psychoanalyst with more than 40 years’ experience in private practice in New York City and a member of the San Francisco Center for Psychoanalysis."
As I read the abstract, I wondered whether there were many psychoanalysts in modern times. That's when I found an article titled: "Is Psychoanalysis Still Relevant to Psychiatry?" My gut yelled, "No!" But I read on and found this passage:
Psychoanalysis is a theory of psychopathology and a treatment for mental disorders.Fifty years ago, this paradigm had great influence on the teaching and practice of psychiatry. Today, psychoanalysis has been marginalized and is struggling to survive in a hostile academic and clinical environment. This raises the question as to whether the paradigm is still relevant in psychiatric science and practice.
The JAPA article is yet more evidence that CRT/Wokeness is a religion, not merely like a religion, as argued by John McWhorter.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
