I have previously written about the “radical chic” in higher education of faculty members who espouse extremist views in departments purged of conservative, libertarian, or moderate voices. While it is virtually impossible to get departments to seriously consider a mainstream conservative or libertarian, schools like Princeton eagerly hire professors such as Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, who recently delighted a Chicago audience with an unhinged rant against the United States and the concept of a nation-state.
Bill Ayers and Princeton’s Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor appeared at a July 4th event and denounced the country and its anniversary.
Taylor thrilled the crowd by recounting her disgust that a woman gave her child an American flag at the airport. She credited herself by not instantly burning it, but went on to denounce the country and credited the audience for its “F**k the U.S.” attitude.
Notably, Taylor suggested that only fools rally behind the flag or the notion of a nation-state. She clearly believes not just in open borders but rejects the very concept of borders. She repeatedly declared that “borders kill” and suggested that patriotic people are simply dupes.
Bill Ayers is a former professor and one of the founders of the domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was also a member of the group, and both were fugitives for several years. Dohrn is also a professor who has taught at Northwestern University School of Law.
Taylor is a Professor in the Department of African-American Studies at Princeton University. She writes for the New Yorker.
In the Chicago event, Taylor called on others to reject “the idea of loving a nation state, which is what patriotism is.” She repeatedly returned to the theme that borders are “deadly” and “borders kill people.” She explained that we have to erase any borders because they are “a tool of death and destruction.”
Furthermore, she emphasized that the very concept of a nation-state should be the “object of political struggle.”
This reflects the level of intellectual rigor in departments like the one at Princeton. Her writings have been honored by the Marguerite Casey Foundation and Group Health Foundation, the Organization of American Historians, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (which gave her a fellowship).
On one level, the erasure of borders could be viewed as the “withering away of the state” espoused by Friedrich Engels and later by Vladimir Lenin. However, it reads more like the jargonistic narrative common in higher education, where radicals espouse such views without serious challenge from their colleagues.
Even European states that once allowed expanded undocumented migration are now struggling to reverse course due to the high social and security costs. However, academics such as Taylor tell students that we can eradicate any nation-states and live without borders. While most people would expect such views to be espoused by raving lunatics on the subway, Princeton made her a chair professor as the Hughes-Rogers Professor of African American Studies.
Her writings are celebrated for her combination of socialism and identity politics. The gushing articles even include praise for her use of emojis. (“All those cry-laughing yellow orbs betrayed a critic with a sense of humor.”).
Few colleagues or critics feel comfortable noting that views like the eradication of the nation-state or erasure of borders are little more than unsupported, jargon-saturated tripe. There is no effort to push her on what happens to an economy without borders where the country (or whatever will replace the nation-state) is responsible for supporting millions of immigrants.
When you hear young socialists in the Mamdani Administration (including Mamdani himself) speaking of “seizing the means of production,” it is the result of college classes taught by figures like Taylor, who offer little more than shallow sound bites and slogans. They have been told that socialism is a successful economic model despite its utter failure historically. It is a fable told by the uninformed to the unquestioning: unicorn economics, eagerly embraced like a bedtime story.
The alternative is what I have called the “liberty-enhancing economy” that the Framers embraced. The combination of political and economic freedom made this republic the greatest engine of prosperity and human rights in history. That does not mean that we do not have difficult economic and social problems. However, the suggestion that we should embrace socialism and erase borders is properly viewed as perfectly bonkers … outside of higher education.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Well, I’ve never seen no plants grow out of no toilet.
“They have been told that socialism is a successful economic model despite its utter failure historically. It is a fable told by the uninformed to the unquestioning: unicorn economics, eagerly embraced like a bedtime story.”
=====
Homerun JT ⬆️⬆️⬆️ Socialism and communist politics only work for the few at the top….🤮🤮🤮
Stitch
It works for the Party hierarchy and the troops they need to impose tyranny upon their stupefied populous.
Who is to be pitied here? Surely, Princeton University. They will be stuck with her decades after her style become boring and unread,. Surely all her students thinking that dreams will come true, even without a plan or evidence of operational ability. Surely, her colleagues, who will have to live with her noisy presence for years. And surely scholarship, a talent she never understood.
Pity Princeton? On the contrary, I hope that institution, along with its trustees, and its employees, enjoy the abject and catastrophic total failure that they have so richly earned, and that it disappear entirely.
She wants the whole country to have no doors but I guarantee her classroom has a roster, an add/drop deadline, and someone checking who’s allowed in and who isn’t. Try walking into a Princeton lecture hall without being enrolled and see how open that border is.
That’s the tell. Borders aren’t the problem for people like this. Losing control of the border is the problem, as long as they’re the ones holding it. Her house, her classroom, her tenure committee, all gated. The nation-state just happens to be the one border she doesn’t personally control, so that’s the one that has to go.
Call it what it is. Not a moral stand against borders. A preference for which borders get to exist and who gets to run them.
Try walking into a Princeton lecture hall without being enrolled… ahem…. Princeton is a private institution, one can’t simply wander on campus etc.. just as one can’t walk into your home. Am I right? Of course I am. Your comment is stupid and juvenile.
You just made my point for me. Princeton is private, controlled access, gated, exactly like a home. That’s the whole argument. She treats her own spaces as legitimately controlled and exclusive, but tells the rest of us that doing the same thing at the national level is a “tool of death and destruction.” You’re not disagreeing with me, you’re confirming it and calling it an insult instead.
If controlled access is fine for a private university and fine for a private home, then the principle isn’t “borders are evil.” The principle is “borders are fine as long as they’re mine.” That’s not a gotcha on my end. That’s just what she said, out loud, at a podium.
OLLY,
Well said and you really nailed him!
Olly,
You are still conflating private property with national sovereignty, and the distinction matters. A private university or a private home operates on the principle of ownership and contract law. A national border operates on the principle of state power, human rights, and geopolitical force.
Treating these two completely different things as the same is a massive flaw in logic.Consider a major corporation that uses strict nondisclosure agreements, heavily guarded private data servers, and security guards to protect its trade secrets. That same corporation’s CEO might passionately advocate for the First Amendment and absolute government transparency in public life.
Nobody calls that CEO a hypocrite. We all understand that a private entity protecting its proprietary assets operates under entirely different moral and legal rules than a democratic government regulating public speech.
An academic can absolutely critique the lethal, militarized scale of global nation-state borders without being forced to turn a private campus or her own living room into a public thoroughfare. Defending personal boundaries while questioning systemic state violence isn’t a double standard—it is just understanding the difference between a private citizen and a world superpower.
Olly, you keep getting yourself into circular logic traps all the time.
You argue that because a person controls access to their private home or university campus, they are a hypocrite if they critique the violence of national borders.
When it is pointed out that a private household and a global nation-state are entirely different entities governed by completely different moral rules, you ignore the difference.
You then point right back to the private household and say, “See? It’s a closed space, so a nation must be too.”
You are using a false equivalence to create a logical loop. A private citizen protecting their domicile operates on ownership. A sovereign state projecting military force at a border operates on governance. Pointing out that Princeton has gates does not prove that a nation-state’s border policy is moral; it just proves you are unwilling to step out of your loop to debate the actual realities of state power. One has to do with ownership, the other has to do with governance. Two very different things.
I accused X of circular reasoning and circular logic a few months ago. Now he throws it out to others. Not a single original thought in that head.
I want to write a book, “The Remarkable Education of X.”
Olly, If a private home and a sovereign nation operate on the exact same moral principle of ownership, does that mean you believe a government actually owns the citizens inside its borders the same way a homeowner owns their furniture and property?
Olly, that’s about the stupidest thing I’ve seen you post. Come one. You’re better than that. Really? Comparing national borders with classroom access at a university? Come on.
Taylor’s criticism of borders is rooted in moral disagreement. Not a literal call to open borders without any restrictions. She’s a professor who discusses theories and provocative ideas. Big deal. At least they are just ideas.
The problem is too many conservatives here or MAGAs can’t make the distinction because everything must be literal. Nuance and rhetorical statements are too difficult to understand in the simple minded world of conservatives who prefer things to be simple and easy to understand.
Taylor uses a public rally to provocatively challenge the concept of the nation-state to get the audience to rethink the legitimacy of global borders.
She poses a moral question that is deeply uncomfortable and forces a complex look at global inequality, the conservatives and MAGAs resort to a simpler, literalist distraction to be able to handle it. So sad.
Fair enough, let’s drop the classroom comparison and go straight at the moral argument, since that’s what you say it actually is.
If the claim is “borders kill” as a moral position, that’s not a neutral academic observation, it’s a claim that the concept of controlled entry is itself illegitimate. Fine. Then the question isn’t whether she’s allowed to say it. She is. The question is whether she or anyone applies that moral claim consistently. Nobody’s asking her to man a checkpoint. I’m asking whether the person making the claim organizes any part of her own life on the exact principle she calls deadly when a nation does it. That’s not a literalism problem, that’s a consistency check. If a moral claim only has to hold up when applied to strangers and never to yourself, it’s not really a moral claim. It’s a posture.
You can call that simple minded. I’d call it the same standard I’d apply to anyone regardless of politics. Say the thing, then see if you live like you believe it.
Olly, by your logic, no one is ever allowed to criticize a broken system while forced to live inside it. An environmentalist who drives a gas car to a climate protest would be a hypocrite. A critic of global capitalism who uses a bank account to buy groceries would just be “posturing.” Living within the mandatory infrastructure of the world as it currently exists while arguing that the world should be organized differently isn’t a moral failure—it is a baseline necessity of rational debate and survival.
You are treating a national border and a personal boundary as if they share the same moral profile, but they don’t. A nation-state’s border is a political construct that restricts human rights, asylum, and economic survival based entirely on the accident of where someone was born. An individual’s personal boundaries—like their front door—are rooted in the universal human right to privacy, consent, and bodily safety. Criticizing a state for weaponizing geographic lines is a completely different ethical conversation than a private citizen protecting their home. One is criticism of state-sanctioned inequality; the other is basic self-preservation.
Ultimately, this “live like you believe it” standard is just a convenient rhetorical deflection.
Why do you assume that a person’s private right to control their own home is the exact same thing as a government’s right to control a massive national border?
Consider a staunch capitalist business owner who fiercely defends private property rights and locks their office doors at night. Yet, that same business owner might passionately advocate for completely open international borders and free trade to allow a fluid global workforce.
This business owner is not a hypocrite. They understand that a private boundary (like a home or business) is based on ownership, whereas a national border is a geopolitical construct run by a government. Opposing state-enforced, militarized lines does not mean you believe individual human beings should have zero personal space or privacy.
“Nuance and rhetorical statements are too difficult to understand in the simple minded world of conservatives who prefer things to be simple and easy to understand.”
Here we have, yet again, the Left’s holier-than-thou premise:
We, the philosopher kings, have a superior power of insight, a special faculty that gives Leftists (and only Leftists) the ability to know the truth and the meaning of (inexplicable) words. The rest of us, the simpletons, are shackled in a dark cave. Ours is “not to question why. Ours is but to do or die.”
For a political movement that claims to reject kings and fascists, it certainly embraces the basic ideology of totalitarianism.
Oops. Forgot to sign in.
Sam, you nailed the pattern. Every time the “nuance” card gets played, watch what it actually does. It doesn’t add nuance to the argument, it removes the other person’s standing to even be in it. “You just can’t understand” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s a way to skip the rebuttal entirely.
That’s the real tell for me. A person confident in their position argues the position. A person who needs you disqualified from the conversation before you finish your sentence usually knows the position doesn’t hold up once someone’s actually allowed to push on it.
Funny thing is, the founding generation built this whole country on the opposite bet, that ordinary people, formed right, are capable of reasoning through hard questions without a credentialed class doing it for them. Nothing about that bet required a PhD. It required formation. The philosopher king routine isn’t confidence. It’s what shows up when that bet gets abandoned.
You claim that appealing to nuance is just a trick to silence ordinary people and protect a weak argument. But look at what your demand for “simple consistency” actually does: it is a purity test designed to disqualify the academic’s position without ever addressing its substance. By insisting that a massive geopolitical system must be judged by the exact same rules as a private citizen’s front door, you are the one shutting down the debate.
You brought up the Founding Fathers and their bet on the reasoning capacity of ordinary people. But the Founders never expected the world to be simple. When they designed the U.S. Constitution, they didn’t rely on a one-size-fits-all household rule. They built a highly complex, nuanced system of federalism, checked powers, and institutional layers. They explicitly recognized that running a sovereign nation requires entirely different structures, tools, and moral considerations than running a private home or a local farm.
Demanding nuance isn’t a “philosopher king routine” meant to lock you out of the conversation. It is an invitation to look at the world as it actually exists. A state holds a monopoly on violence and systemic power; an individual does not. Pretending those two things are identical isn’t a defense of the common man—it is just a convenient excuse to avoid dealing with the vast, messy difference between state power and individual life.
This is more like Turley looking for pearls to clutch instead of acknowledging that this one speech while provocative is just an expression of a view.
Taylor’s work is actually very good. And her point of view may be controversial but not out of the ordinary for an academic. Turley likes to conflate and mischaracterize a lot when dealing with complex subjects. It makes for easy rage bait for his MAGA illiterates and morons. It sells books.
Dr. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor was not awarded a chaired professorship at Princeton or a Guggenheim Fellowship for “unhinged rants”. She received them for highly rigorous historical scholarship. Her book Race for Profit: How Banks and the Real Estate Industry Undermined Black Homeownership was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History and won the Freedom Scholars Award. It is a deeply researched economic history of federal housing policy, not “jargon-saturated tripe.”
Extensive sociological research (such as studies by sociologists Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse) shows that the political imbalance in academia is primarily due to self-selection. Liberal-leaning individuals are statistically far more likely to pursue low-paying, multi-year Ph.D. paths in the humanities and social sciences. In contrast, conservative-leaning individuals disproportionately choose higher-paying, private-sector careers in business, corporate law, finance, and engineering.
Conservatives are not being “purged”. They choose to not be in academia when they can get more money in the private sector. It’s a choice, not a forced ejection from academia.
Turley’s claim that radical left-wing scholars operate ‘without serious challenge from their colleagues’ misunderstands the brutal nature of academic peer review and tenure. He should know. Academic culture is notoriously combative, and radical theories face intense structural pushback from mainstream liberal and centrist faculty members daily. You know that pesky thing he loves to promote….the free exchange of ideas and different points of view.
The very thingTurley criticizes—academic tenure—was designed to protect faculty from being fired for holding unpopular or radical views. It protects conservative professors writing original originalists briefs just as much as it protects leftist professors criticizing the nation-state.
This goes to show Turley just likes to post these mischaracterizations into something they are not just to rage-bait MAGA illiterates and morons more content on conspiracy theories and leftist bashing than real intellectual debate.
This is more of George ranting. Nothing specific, just another meltdown, a ranter obsessed by a man he can’t be. You see folks, George, is part of the lunatic fringe, seeing conspiracies in everything. Just not the one in his head.
george
Taylor’s work is actually very good. And her point of view may be controversial but not out of the ordinary for an academic
______________________________
Base on who george. Fools like yourself or all the far leftist.
Actually, this goes to show you that you too fall for the rants. The DEI got hold of everyone and the damage it has cause went far beyond the good it sought. This too has led many into rants that now are trying to take over NYC politics and it is spreading. When you don’t hold the values of the Constitution it is the first shot for insurrection and civil unrest — which is going across the nation. Logic and a moral compass has been deteriorating on the left and soon – even the once ‘left’ voices are being considered antiquated. Gone will be Schumer and Jefferies because they will give into the extreme voices to hold onto power — but it will not work. They will be steamrolled by their own party because they didn’t stand to defend the moderate voices of the majority of Dems.
Everything has its extremes and that is what we’re seeing now. Will they succeed — maybe with voices like yours. I would not like my grandkids to go to Princeton because I want them to be thinkers with the benefit of hearing opposing views. Princeton will become an antiquated institution and fund raising will slow down because the new generation of takers will not support them. And the ‘old times’ – yes with money — have had enough! Money talks so we will see what happens to Princeton in the future.
“Taylor’s work is actually very good. And her point of view may be controversial but not out of the ordinary for an academic.”
And therein lies the problem. These “academics” are the ones that are indoctrinating our youth and have been doing it for at least 3 generations.
Is it a wonder the “highly educated” are the most ardent supporters of the Democrats, their socialist policies and their little hidden contempt for our institutions.
“. . . this one speech . . .”
Among many. (Or do you also have memory problems?)
The woman has a Masters and PhD in African American studies. I can see how this is ideal training for “deep research” into real estate and banking practices.
Possibly more than a little confirmation bias came into play.
The fact that she has won awards for scholarship says a lot more about these institutions then the good professor.
Academic disciplines are not rigid silos. Scholars in African American studies routinely use quantitative data, archival research, and institutional analysis to study the tangible, economic history of the United States.
Her work on real estate and banking practices is judged by peer-reviewed institutions based on the hard evidence, data sets, and historical records she presents, not the name on her diploma. If her scholarship is flawed, point to the errors in her data. Attacking her credentials instead of her evidence doesn’t prove she is biased—it just shows you don’t have a factual rebuttal to her research.
Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar, the Mongols and the Huns also did not believe in borders. They believed in war and conquest. Borders are protected zealously to prevent the struggles for power that we call wars.
did not believe in borders…. now, what a stupid comment. How do you know that. Spoke to those guys recently. In your head, I suppose.
In the socialist, borderless paradise envisioned by Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, I wonder if those who write her paychecks ever think about letting her know that by far the lion’s share of the money contributed to Yale’s huge endowment (the income from which pays her salary) comes from very wealthy individuals and organizations. True, the university has many smaller donors but added together they make up a very, very small part of the total contributions. It is easy for someone with a regular paycheck guaranteed by tenure with no apparent limitations on behavior to call for the destruction of that which makes her career possible. Why not put Yale’s money where Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor’s mouth is? Allow her salary to come only from donations made by those who have crossed the border illegally or who are low income workers, and divide that amount among all of those professors who applauded her so vigorously. Then she might be worth listening to.
Instead of Yale it should be Princeton but they all are the same it seems.
Think Diego Rivera. Commies have no problem taking money and mocking the people who supplied that money. It’s all part of the cause, la Revolución.
I agree that she, and her followers and colleagues, should move to another country. Why do they want to change ours? There is a lot of room in Canada and Cuba needs their beliefs to repair all the poverty there.
She can’t move anywhere in the world and be without borders… Oh wait Antarctica doesn’t have borders, Bingo that the place for these folks.
“She can’t move anywhere in the world and be without borders”
Maybe someone should suggest to her that the afterlife is reputed by some to be borderless…
Come On Man! The name of Professor Whacky says it all!! The He/She/It/They/Them/Whatever has a hard on for HATING the racist, supremist, misogynistic patriarchy that is the ONLY Democracy that would let IT do IT’s own thing!!! And of course modern ChiTown also indicates the land of IDIOCY! Well just gotta let whack jobs be Unicorns!!! Haha.
Lah-de-dah. Welcome to another day in the leftist land of hatered for all things bright and beautiful.
Dear Mr. Turley, I agree with whimsicalmama. It is my hope that this “professor” will be sent packing to North Korea. They would enjoy her so much!!
Agreed and Dohrn and Ayers should be sent back to prison for their role in the Weathermen terror group killings and bombings of the 60’s. Another Predator Bill Clinton, terrorist pardon.
HEY GOP…end all Federal Aid to colleges!
Stop rewarding democrat who hate America
End all! My, how do you figure on doing that? Gawd, you are so stupid.
You know she obtained her position in a pseudo academic discipline based on traits unrelated to any intellectual achievement She is another vacuous indoctrinator at a prestigious university who rose through academia mastering the snake oil of their debased ideology. I just received my alumni magazine from U of Penn extolling the brilliance of a PhD student in Musicology who cannot read music and whose dissertation topic is “Cassette Tapes” That is what passes for research in the the liberal arts academy in elite universities
One of her books argues that banks and the real estate industry have destroyed black home ownership. It would have been helpful to see links to criticism by economic historians of her methods and conclusions. Much of Thomas Sowell’s work has focused on the misuse of economic data to score ideological points.
But a rant against her speech at a rally is not enough to discredit her scholarship, in my view. Poor it may be, but this article does not provide any evidence.
After Mugabe seized the white farms in Zimbabwe, famine followed. Why do communists think if they seize the means of production everything will be okey dokey? People that sign the back of a paycheck haven’t a clue of what the person that signs the front of the check knows. When people who are not qualified to run a lemonade stand, get elected to public office and have to run things they blame their failures on others. Maybe the comrade needs to spend their holidays picking potatoes?
“Why do communists think if they seize the means of production everything will be okey dokey?”
Communists for decades have argued that their theory is perfect, the ideal. That communism’s failings — famine, censorship, secret police — are all caused by bad people. That they just need some fresh faces — like the one in NYC with the smile of an assassin.
Sam
Just ask the farmers under Stalin…. If any survived.
These people know that their theories will work if they just kill enough people. Stalin what 30 million, Mao 80 million. That wasn’t quite enough, but hey let’s just keep trying.
Unchecked, unpublicized high school and university instructors and the administrators who hire them with no counter balance are responsible.
There is accountability written into the first amendment. It is the free press – which includes all of us – who can report and tell the world what individuals an dorganizations say and do with their sacred freedom of speech.
I can’t believe that Prof Turley can’t think and argue at a higher level than this. He writes like his audience has an IQ of 85, and I bet that is because that is his assessment.
Strangely, the Founding Fathers put few protections for property in the Constitution, and I doubt that was a mistake. We could vote ourselves into socialism with no problem. A hybrid system is probably much better, allowing wealth to accumulate once everyone has a basic level of support. But a democratic change towards socialism will be the inevitable result if the wealthy refuse to share. They use crony capitalism and non-productive financial games to gain a large part of their wealth and that WILL be rolled back. Hopefully they are smart enough to allow that to be done peacefully.
The standards completely change. It is ok to attack countries to secure their wealth, but it is not ok for people to fight for resources within their own country? Violence is wrong unless it serves you? Lawfare is wrong unless it is against YOUR enemies? Extreme speech is only wrong when it is addressed to the powerful? The MAGA movement has lost all intellectual grounding.
Speaking of a sub-85 IQ:
“. . . the Founding Fathers put few protections for property in the Constitution . . .” “We could vote ourselves into socialism with no problem.”
The Constitution is not a comprehensive list of rights. It is not a charter granting permissions to the individual. It is a check and a limit on the power of government. Government can do that only which the Constitution expressly permits.
If you understood the nature and purpose of our Constitution, your observation would be:
The Founders did not grant government any power to realize the socialist dream of seizing private property. (And that includes 5A.)
So, a radical, lesbian raised by radicalized parents says that she hates the US. Tell me why she lives in the US? If she hates it so much, why not move to some nation that shares her hatred of us. She can hate us at a distance and not be sucking her livelihood from the US taxpayers through the use of taxpayer funding for her university seat.
This is the same mindset as those that complain that the government is not doing enough for the poor while they have millions in the bank and reap the benefits that this country provides them. Cheap talk and pandering to make themselves look good and a part of the elite class. This was on full view with the “movie stars” 4th of July’s propaganda hate Trump response.
To the rest of the population, they would be appear more sincere and taken seriously if they put their own money where their mouth says the government (taxpayers) should.
While the likes of Bezos, Musk, Trump, Swift and others in that $ circle provide jobs, services and products, I feel that they could do more with their personal $. There is a great need for mental health, veteran’s services, homelessness, parks and open spaces. Do they really need that $500 million boat? Why not support a veteran’s village. After all the veteran’s of America have enabled this country and their businesses to succeed.
Ideally, as held by most of the founding father, charity and care for the needed and support for community needs such as hospitals, schools, care for the indigent and elderly would be the purview of the more prosperous in that community. With the adoption by some of the progressive ideology of the perfectibility of man via government fiat, there was a movement away from community support and the insertion of government support especially with FDR’s new deal (a socialist movement that began our movement towards total government control of our lives and it reached its high water mark with the dem passed great society of LBJ that gave us the government leviathan of the welfare state). Now the common answer to a problem is screamed from the prog/left “more government programs to solve our problems” when, in reality, that approach only compounds the problems down the road. Why should current billionaires donate their money when they are already taxed by governments for that very purpose. The difference is now, with elected officials pandering to the “takers” those very takers now determine where tax money goes to a great extent rather than where the rich donating to their own personal vision of aid to the needy. We wandered off the track set by our founding fathers when we allowed socialism/communism/progressivism to take hold.
“With the adoption by some of the progressive ideology of the perfectibility of man *via government fiat* . . .” (emphasis added)
Thank you for that qualification. *Via government force* is precisely how socialists and communists corrupt the concept of man’s perfectibility.
It’s time to help these Commies decide it’s best for their health to remove themselves out of our country.
I remember when the “F” word was considered so very inappropriate that only the most uneducated and boorish of people would use the word in public–never a lady (especially!) or a gentleman. Now there’s not a day goes by when I don’t see it in print–or hear it. The gasps when encountering that terrible word aren’t heard very often anymore, I’m afraid, but it doesn’t make the “F” word any less uncivilized than it’s always been. The Princeton professor and the crowd she lauded should be ashamed of herself and itself.
Boy you get to the heart of the matter.
Her type is so entitled and self-possessed that the concept of shame has no meaning to them since they disregard/detest the very civilization that prohibits the use of profanity by a civilized society where there is a common agreed upon moral core. This is the result of the inculcation of the malodorous concept of multiculturalism – the greatest reason that cultures fail.
Re: “Her type is so entitled and self-possessed ..” The classic hubris besotted, self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing tenured academic with a pension and who knows what else riding upon retirement, book royalties, honors and awards who bites the hand that feeds her. As so many others of that ilk, she offers up the usual cautionary tale told by an idiot, full of sound a fury, signifying nothing.
Liberals hate everything, but mostly the self.
What a deep analysis! And you hate words? arguments? reasons? thinking in general?
Self loathing on steroids!
“Self loathing on steroids!”
And yet, they never seem to be capable of implementing the obvious solution to that ailment. Maybe some research should done to help them find a way to overcome the emotional obstacles preventing that from happening.