- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Progressive Tribalism Beats The War Drums

I would like fair-minded liberal readers to take a look at this op-ed from The New York Times [1], and consider that this is exactly the kind of left-wing racist rant that drives many of us white people into the arms of the Republican Party — not out of any particular love for the GOP, but out of fear of what this progressive racism would do in power. Alexis Grenell, the author, is a white woman and a Democratic strategist. Here’s the headline on her article. Note well that authors do not choose their headlines. This was written by someone at the Times:

So, that starts well. More:

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol,

“Slit their wrists” … “rivers of blood through the Capitol”. Un-freaking-hinged. These people are working themselves up to doing something violent.

the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end.

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out.

Here, she tears into women who express concern about men being falsely accused of sexual assault:

change_me

But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.

Think about that: Alexis Grenell believes that having a uterus means that women should not be concerned that their sons, brothers, and husbands might be falsely accused of raping a woman, and suffer from the lack of due process.

Think about that.

And here, we get to the heart of the matter:

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. White women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, [2] a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.

That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.

“Patriarchy,” “whiteness” — she’s using these Grievance Studies buzzwords in response to women worried about their flesh-and-blood male relatives being falsely accused. That’s because these men are nothing but abstractions to Grenell.

Again, she returns to hysterically violent language — a language of tribalism:

This blood pact between white men and white women is at issue in the November midterms. President Trump knows it, and at that Tuesday news conference, he signaled to white women to hold the line: “The people that have complained to me about it the most about what’s happening are women. Women are very angry,” he said. “I have men that don’t like it, but I have women that are incensed at what’s going on.”

I’m sure he does “have” them; game girls will defend their privilege to the death.

“To the death”? What does that mean? What could that possibly mean, other than to signal that Alexis Grenell and her people are preparing to do violence to them, and that Alexis Grenell believes that they cannot be persuaded, only defeated, no matter what it takes.

Again: Alexis Grenell is a Democratic Party strategist. The New York Times, the most important newspaper in the world, and the voice of the liberal Establishment, saw fit to publish this racist, sexist call to arms. This is what elite liberalism in America has become.

If I were a person of color, and, following a major conservative political defeat, read an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal headlined “African-Americans, Come Get Your People/They will defend their privilege to the death;”

… and that headline topped an opinion piece calling black people who voted in a way the author didn’t like as “traitors” who profaned a blood sacrifice by the righteous;

… and that op-ed claimed that black people like this cannot be reasoned with, only destroyed, because they will defend their bigoted beliefs “to the death”;

… I would be terrified about what the leaders of the Right had in mind for me and people like me. I don’t care how bad the Democrats might be, I would vote for them without even thinking about it, just to prevent blood-lusting Republicans like the author and the editors who published her from coming anywhere near power.

Wouldn’t you?

Alexis Grenell — who earned her master’s degree in 2015 from an Ivy League school (Columbia) — is the face and the voice of elite liberalism. The Times editors read her savage essay and considered it within the mainstream of commentary, whereas no responsible editor of any serious publication would have published the same kind of rhetoric wielded against people of color.

Rivers of blood … blood pact … gender traitors … defend their privilege to the death. 

This is the language of tribalism. This is blessed by elite liberal gatekeepers, as long as it is wielded by the Righteous Tribe, against the Deplorable Tribe.

Members of the Deplorable Tribe are fools if they fail to notice this, and to respond to it. And you’re a fool if you don’t recognize that you are part of the Deplorable Tribe whether you want to be or not.

I prefer not to be. I prefer to be part of the American tribe, judging people not on the basis of their reproductive organs or the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That’s the America I want to live in. It’s the America that people like Alexis Grenell and the editors of The New York Times want to end.

Useful to get that learned. These people are Jacobins.

UPDATE: I know what you’re going to say. Yes, of course, you can find left-wing crazies everywhere, and right-wing crazies too. What sets this Grenell column apart is that it appeared in The New York Times, the flagship publication of elite liberalism. It has the imprimatur of its editors. That is significant.

UPDATE.2: Good grief. Only Dostoevsky could do justice to these berserkers. [3]

UPDATE.3: A French reader writes:

I know you are fond of Revolutionary analogies, but I think these people are best described as Stalinists – replace “gender” with “class” and Grenell’s is straight from Uncle Joe’s textbook. Modern feminism is very much like communism. Both ideologies have a lot in common. They rely on a similar black-and-white worldview that shuns reform and mandates instead a brutal reversal of existing social hierarchies in favour of the “oppressed” (the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” in one case, and the matriarchy in the other) They’re also all-encompassing systems that inform their followers’s “thinking” not just in the political area but the intellectual, artistic and even personal ones and no deviance can be tolerated. Being a communist or a feminist is being that all the way, just like being a Jet. As a result, both communists and feminists often sound like robots toeing the party line and whose opinions and reactions can be predicted with a high level of accuracy.

How comes this totalitarian mindset resurfaces now in an Anglosphere that so prided itself with being immune to it? Well, it’s all McCarthy’s fault – let me explain. McCarthyism crushed communist subversion in the States (and destroyed lots of innocent lives in the process) but it also made communists martyrs in the eyes of the American Left which thus kept regarding them as “members of the family”. That’s why even today Hollywood keeps lionizing the Ten and stubbornly refuses to make movies that deal with the horrors that happened in communist-led countries (their craving for China’s market doesn’t help either) The result of all that is that the Left hasn’t grown the antibodies that its Western counterparts did with more or less success. Also millenials (sorry to bash them again but they are the driving force behind this) are awfully ignorant of history except as a narrative of oppression. Their embrace of old-school socialism is a case in point: they honestly have no idea that Bernie and Corbyn’s ideas have been tested and have failed repeatedly in the last century and this. Since both movements seem to be converging I worry that Marx’s time may have come — alas — and that the Fall of the Berlin Wall was but an interlude.

So what are we to do? Honestly I don’t know and I’m glad to not be concerned yet. What you Americans would need is a third party that would give a home to moderate conservatives and moderate liberals that want nothing to do with either Trump or Grenell. The problem is, your stupid system doesn’t allow for that. I used to admire it but the recent events have demonstrated that it no longer works, that your institutions are useless at best and toxic at worst, and that your Constitution needs a thorough revision — that won’t happen since the Founders made it almost impossible.

God bless America. She will need it.

245 Comments (Open | Close)

245 Comments To "Progressive Tribalism Beats The War Drums"

#1 Comment By Bob Loblaw On October 8, 2018 @ 1:30 pm

“The update is the entire point. It’s not that you don’t find racism, or sexism, or evil, or crazy on the right or anywhere else. It’s that the racism, sexism, bigotry and general cries for a police state over democracy on the Left are coming from the places of highest influence and power in our nation. These aren’t people holed up in some log cabin in the foothills of Montana behind a barbed wire fence with a shotgun and beef jerky. They are scholars, lawyers, politicians, journalists and celebrities who shape the course of a society saying these things are good, desired, and the goal.”

As opposed to the current occupant of the White House?

#2 Comment By Doug Allen On October 8, 2018 @ 1:41 pm

I think what we’re really seeing from the radicalized American left are echoes of Nazi Germany. America’s radicalized left portrays whiteness much as Hitler and his propagandists portrayed Jews and Jewishness.

Just as Hitler portrayed Jews as being responsible for all the miseries of the German people, American’s radicalized left and its ’news’ and media organs are seeking to portray white people as responsible for every ill and misery both in the nation itself, and within their own often unhappy personal lives. Just as Hitler and Nazi propaganda made Jews the scapegoat for the difficult situation Germany faced under the very harsh conditions of the Versailles Treaty and the global depression of the 1930’s.

To the radical left, it was inconceivable that Judge Kavanaugh (as well as Leland Keyser and Mark Judge) could possibly have been telling the truth. He is both white and male, and the radical left believes its own propaganda. Stories need not be tested for veracity and sensibility when the accused is, by his race and gender, is a priori guilty.

As it was in Nazi Germany, so it may well become in 21st century America. Spoiled and well propagandized children have now reached adulthood. They believe the politically correct history, racism and sexism that they’ve been taught. And, being often spoiled and over-indulged, they feel very much entitled to have their Orwellian wishes granted.

At least those of us who are white won’t be required to wear the modern equivalent of Stars of David. Our whiteness serves the Stars of David targeting purpose, except for those who, like Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren, are good at pretending to be some politically correct thing that they are not.

#3 Comment By Fran Macadam On October 8, 2018 @ 1:52 pm

“We have devolved to an ancient state where every person is for themselves, where cooperation and charity are weaknesses to be exploited, where competition is the first priority, and winning at all costs the first commitment.”

It’s not impossible to make the choice not to go along with this. It’s difficult for the individual to actually resist successfully, but only the individual can resist.

Thankfully, all things are possible in Christ who strengthens me to do so. Even when the consequences are rejection, loss of job, financial difficulties and the disapprobation of society.

#4 Comment By Jefferson Smith On October 8, 2018 @ 1:56 pm

[NFR: There was no doubt at all that Charles Macklin was stealing that car. None. There was no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, unless you count her claim as evidence. I understand why you can’t see that, but I trust that others’ eyes aren’t so clouded by ideology. — RD]

OMG! The plain meaning of common words has been abandoned, but I’m the one whose eyes are supposedly “clouded by ideology.”

Of course Ford’s claims are evidence. She gave them under oath and they were subject to cross-examination. Eyewitness testimony is received in courts as evidence every single day in every county and state and this great nation. Victim testimony too. Particularly in sexual assault cases, that’s often all or most of the evidence there is, because sexual assaults usually happen in private.

I mean, really — you’ve never been on jury duty? You’ve never watched even one cop or courtroom show? The courts routinely have people testify to stuff. That IS taking evidence. There’s even a thing called a “witness stand” specifically for this purpose.

Charitable soul that I am, I’d like to assume you must obviously know all this, and that it’s just sloppy phrasing: you’ve confused the questions of what is evidence and what is “dispositive” evidence. But even that doesn’t really explain it, because in fact, witness or victim testimony sometimes is accepted as dispositive. Juries convict on the basis of it every single day. Further, we’ve been seeing a similar willful forgetting of the usual meaning of at least one other word, “corroboration.” There was certainly corroboration for Ford’s claims in the normal meaning of that term as used by cops and courts all over the country. Kavanaugh’s own calendar, to name just one instance, corroborated the existence of parties like the one Ford described at about the right time, and in a normal case would be seen as especially powerful corroboration because it belonged to the defendant himself and the accuser had no way of knowing it existed.

Hey, you want to believe Kavanaugh and disbelieve Ford, fine, but this attitude on the right that the ordinary processes of criminal law are some kind of shocking, outrageous new discovery, because they temporarily became politically inconvenient, is just ludicrous. And it’s especially weird coming from people who regularly complain about abuses of words and language. Yes, let’s please not abuse the English language, OK? (It’s the only one some of us have got.) There was evidence in this case and there was corroboration, and the White House and GOP knew it, which is why they first resisted an FBI investigation and then took pains to limit and control it rather than let FBI investigators themselves make those calls.

(And you know who else knows it? Brett Kavanaugh. He’s a lawyer and a judge. I’ll bet it would not be hard to find opinions and legal memoranda he’s written that acknowledge victim testimony as “evidence” and in other ways use words in their normal sense, as I’m doing and the righties here are suddenly refusing to do.)

As to the Macklin comparison, of course it follows that if ordinary citizens can prevent any crime they think is underway by killing the perp, then Christine Blasey — if her memories are basically right — would have been at least equally justified in pulling a gun and pumping a clip into young Mr. Kavanaugh. Simple solution to that moral anguish over what to make of a 53-year-old Supreme Court nominee’s youthful mistakes, because he never would have made it any closer to age 53 or the Supreme Court than Charles Macklin will. Which presumably would have been fine, yes? Of course, the rest of us also therefore wouldn’t know it had ever happened — but on the plus side, maybe Christine would have got some nice, frameable award certificate from the NRA or something, instead of just a bunch of insults and threats.

#5 Comment By Fran Macadam On October 8, 2018 @ 2:05 pm

“It’s even curiouser when you consider that, like McConnell or Grassley, Schumer’s the worst thing anyone can possibly be these days: an old white guy.”

In the eyes of whom? Influential Jewish people aren’t considering themselves “white” in the sense of being ethnic European gentiles, but themselves a victimized and aggrieved minority at the hands of “whites” – their shorthand for the Deplorables.

Not having been victimized at the hands of America’s resident ethnic minorities, they view controlling and deposing those Deplorables as a necessary act of self protection, or, less charitably, self-advancement. It is a form of tribalism and a common cause with minorities is a useful alliance for those purposes. Anything that weakens or lessens “white” America is therefore good insurance. If they can be replaced, even better.

In the end, the old divide and conquer strategy.

#6 Comment By Zgler On October 8, 2018 @ 2:07 pm

The Grenell article is trash. I can say that as an old-school feminist.

It doesn’t make me want to defend Kavanaugh (a entitled preppy who lied transparently under Senate questioning) or even less Trump (an admitted sexual predator). I’m not worried about my son either. He doesn’t get drunk and boast about having sex with girls.

#7 Comment By Jefferson Smith On October 8, 2018 @ 2:09 pm

@Ben H:

This Kavanaugh thing has really made this obscene hate come out of the dark and into the light. The same Senator – Feinstein – who a few months ago was joining with Bernie Sanders and Al Franken in a horrifyingly bigoted attack on Catholic Judge Amy Barrett was the major Senate player behind the false charges thrown at Kavanaugh. The lawyers behind the Ford allegations (who also created the 3rd false allegations behind the scenes) were also Jewish and the public justification for the use of dishonest tactics was the non-vote on Merrick Garland (a Jewish man) back in 2016, something that had nothing whatsoever to do with Brett Kavanaugh.

Yeah, that’s a good point about the…. wait. Ben. Ben? Like “Benjamin”? Like “the tribe of Benjamin”? Uh oh.

#8 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 8, 2018 @ 2:55 pm

Zgler sums it up very nicely.

One thing that is lost to outside observers is that probably 95%+ of the city is totally unaffected by these events, and most people don’t even know they’ve occurred.

Useful perspective.

Jefferson Smith’s exposition on evidence is, as far as all the reading I’ve done in a law library, which is quite a lot, quite accurate. The only point worth noting is that juries are entirely free to believe, or disbelieve, any given witness, who may or may not be telling the truth, and may or may not be deemed credible by the jury. I too found the calendars to be rather strong corroborative evidence.

As for Macklin… there was considerable conflict as to whether he was driving toward or away from the officer. Being a thief does not per se make one liable to summary execution. Its true that by the “stand your ground” rule Ford would have been justified in shooting whoever had hustled her into a room and was trying to remove her clothes. What we don’t know today is WHETHER she in fact had that justification then. She couldn’t shoot him for it now. If she had had a gun then (quite a stretch I know) we would have a better idea now whether Kavanaugh was engaged in sexual assault upon her, or not, or if not him, who was.

#9 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 8, 2018 @ 3:02 pm

Fran loves cherries. Fran picks them from the posts of others, and makes a nice cherry jelly to sweeten the Fran Agenda for World Peace (and making everyone a Christian).

We should all become just like Fran, and the world would become a perfect place.

Stop quoting my posts, Fran. From now on, when you do I will ask Rod to delete them. You ignore context, and I’m sick of being willfully misrepresented by you.

#10 Comment By json On October 8, 2018 @ 3:03 pm

“this is exactly the kind of left-wing racist rant that drives many of us white people into the arms of the Republican Party”

Rod, the Republican party is already the party of white people, just look at party registration and exit polls on election days. Especially in California, it is known as the party of white men. So what difference does any kind of liberal rant make? The Republican party would still be predominantly white because the Republican party is the party they can rely on to put brakes on any kind of progress in civil rights and minority economic/political gains. Just admit it.

#11 Comment By Erdrick On October 8, 2018 @ 3:43 pm

Cavin says:
October 7, 2018 at 11:35 pm
I’ll follow up my earlier comment with a further, but related, thought. I think we’re going through something of a political rearrangement right now, and shifting from a two-tribe order to a three-tribe order. That movement gets a bit lost because we still operate with a two-party political system. The three tribes in this thee-tribe order are:

Reactionaries, comprised mainly of white people who adhere to some variant of white nationalism and/or conservative Christianity.

Progressives, comprised mainly of feminists and racial minorities.

Pragmatists, comprised mainly of educated, white-collar knowledge workers who operate with a more neoliberal, cosmopolitan outlook.

I think you vastly overestimate the numbers of your so-called Pragmatists. There are many Progressive “educated white-collar knowledge workers,” and, although certainly a minority, there are also plenty of educated, white collar Reactionaries. We tend not to be as vocal in mixed settings, but we’re there. A technocratic, Bloombergist centrist party targeting your “Pragmatists” might get a bare majority of the upper-middle to lower-upper classes, but it would be lucky to pull in 15% of the vote overall.

In fact, from my perch I have seen the Kavanaugh episode help to radicalize the more conventional economic Conservatives. Some of my colleagues are from the same prep school milieu as Kavanaugh. They’re Republicans, but are more like your Pragmatists than your Reactionaries. But their eyes have been opened a bit with the left’s reaction to Kavanaugh. They’re genuinely outraged. The left has been giving us Reactionaries some monied and connected allies.

#12 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On October 8, 2018 @ 4:06 pm

witness or victim testimony sometimes is accepted as dispositive. Juries convict on the basis of it every single day. Jefferson Smith

And in other trials, victim testimony is rejected by juries and grand juries, such as when there is contradictory testimony from other witnesses or when there is evidence that the alleged victim is lying. See the Tawana Brawley “rape” fabrication.

[4]

In the case of Christine Ford, even her lifelong friend Leland Keyser, who *Ford* said would back up her story, has contradicted key elements of Ford’s story. For example, she says she has never met Kavanaugh. Furthermore, Keyser has recently told the FBI that allies of Ford have been pressuring her to change her story.

Why don’t you believe Leland Keyser, a woman who is talking about sexual assault? I thought you guys always believed women?

There was certainly corroboration for Ford’s claims.. Kavanaugh’s own calendar, to name just one instance, corroborated the existence of parties like the one Ford described at about the right time, and in a normal case would be seen as especially powerful corroboration because it belonged to the defendant himself and the accuser had no way of knowing it existed.

One could just as easily argue that since no one other than Kavanaugh (and may be his immediate family) knew about the calendar, the fact that Kavanaugh gave investigators his calendar on his own suggests that there is nothing on the calendar that incriminates him.

Even Ford’s lawyers do not claim that the party in question is listed on the calendar, so if you have some information they don’t, you should contact them or Michael Avenatti immediately.

[5]

#13 Comment By Mark B. On October 8, 2018 @ 4:21 pm

@ Fran Macadam

You are aware that you laid out in your post the classic form of the anti-Semitic myth of the Jew as the intrigant fifth column divider?

Exploiting and manipulating minority grudges, harming society as a whole and all out of self-interest and insurance policy.

I mean, you do know that this is TAC and not Der Stürmer?

#14 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 8, 2018 @ 4:28 pm

The French reader doesn’t really get it.

So what are we to do? Honestly I don’t know and I’m glad to not be concerned yet. What you Americans would need is a third party that would give a home to moderate conservatives and moderate liberals that want nothing to do with either Trump or Grenell. The problem is, your stupid system doesn’t allow for that. I used to admire it but the recent events have demonstrated that it no longer works, that your institutions are useless at best and toxic at worst, and that your Constitution needs a thorough revision — that won’t happen since the Founders made it almost impossible.

The intentions of our nation’s founders are not completely clear, but some of them are discernable from our Constitution. The key concept is checks and balances, and while I can immediately agree that our institutions have never been close to the ideals expressed by the founders in their writings, it has always worked and continues to work.

The difference anecdotal, not systemic. The founders were attempting to mitigate the corruption inherent in monarchy and religious tyranny. Everything they established derives from that.

The mitigation was imperfect, but some scholars would argue that was by design. They made it “almost impossible” to change things because that was and is the primary danger of a pure democracy. Hoi polloi are fickle. They change with the wind, and as quickly. Forcing them to elect representatives, and to do so over a period of years, at the least slows down changes.

The rest was and is endemic to the structure of the union of states. State sovereignty remains a priority, and one can reasonably argue for both sides of it. Those arguments have a forum. It’s the federal court system with the Supreme Court at its apex. Most people in the U.S. are aware only of the high-profile arguments; people in other countries especially so. The courts don’t just hear those cases, which are exceedingly rare. The federal-state interface is under constant legal review.

A pure democracy is an open door to revolution. A republic has barriers against it, but is still vulnerable to revolution from within. All it takes is a group of dedicated and coordinated elected officials to decide to see their authority in the same light as monarchs saw it, and act accordingly.

The Trump administration and its supporters in the House and Senate fit that description. That is why I’ve posted recently that the members of both chambers are in violation of their oaths of office, and so too are Trump, Pence and members of the Cabinet. Uphold and defend the Constitution is a clear and exact phrase. Past presidents, including Obama and very much including F.D. Roosevelt, all have use the “executive order” to bypass and event subvert the Constitution. They got away with it, sometimes in very egregious ways, but no administration has been so consistently monarchic in its behavior as the Trump administration demonstrates almost daily.

Our system is not broken. It is being ignored by the very people responsible for upholding and defending it.

#15 Comment By Thrice A Viking On October 8, 2018 @ 4:31 pm

Janwaar Bibi, there’s nothing wrong with being anxious about Islam, given its teachings. But that makes it a reasonable fear, not a phobia.

#16 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On October 8, 2018 @ 5:30 pm

Of course Ford’s claims are evidence. She gave them under oath and they were subject to cross-examination.

Accepting witness as evidence after 30 years is folly. Including for Church abuses. Including for war crimes.

#17 Comment By cka2nd On October 8, 2018 @ 6:01 pm

Regarding the comments and suggestions about methods of protecting churches, it’s a pity none of them appear to have been in place when Dr. George Tiller was shot in the head and killed by an anti-abortion zealot while he was acting as an usher during services at his church.

FYI, Netflix will be airing “22 July” beginning October 10. It’s a three-part docudrama about far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik attacks on July 22, 2011 that killed 77 Norwegians, most of them Social Democratic teenagers attending a summer camp. If ever there was a left-wing argument AGAINST gun control, that day is the day to point to.

#18 Comment By Jefferson Smith On October 8, 2018 @ 7:18 pm

Janwaar Bibi:

I thought you guys always believed women?

I’ve never argued that, so I’m not part of whatever “guys” you have in mind there.

@Giuseppe Scalas:

Accepting witness as evidence after 30 years is folly. Including for Church abuses.

I agree that you should at least want corroboration. At the same time, how much credence to lend a given claim, when all the evidence is weighed and compared, depends on the purpose for which you’re taking evidence in the first place. In a criminal trial, the burden is properly on the accusers / prosecutors and set quite high (“beyond a reasonable doubt”), and there are lots of rules about what can and can’t be admitted as evidence. In civil cases and some other proceedings, the burden may still be on the accuser but it’s set lower, and some of the rules may be a bit looser. In a job interview, the burden is about as low as it gets — and is on the candidate, who’s supposed to be demonstrating his or her fitness and trustworthiness, particularly when it’s a position of high public trust. The folly in that case is imagining that a guy wailing and crying and issuing threats like Kavanaugh did is fit to be a justice of the Supreme Court.

But anyway, my comment wasn’t aimed at re-litigating those hearings. I think the general answer to questions about the specifics of the evidence in the Kavanaugh case is that the White House and Senate Republicans were clearly not confident about it themselves, and that’s why they tried to avoid involving the FBI, then wouldn’t let it pursue certain leads and won’t make its findings public. But my point was just that the words “evidence” and “corroboration” have well-worn, standard meanings, and in that light, sentences like “There was no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Ford, unless you count her claim as evidence” (above), or “She has no corroboration” (Sept. 26), are just bizarre. It would be enough to say you don’t believe the evidence or don’t find it sufficient for the purpose; if you go further and try to re-define the words themselves, it suggests that — how shall I put this — you know very well the thing is there, but your eyes are “clouded by ideology” so you’re looking for ways not to see it.

#19 Comment By Jefferson Smith On October 8, 2018 @ 7:42 pm

As for Macklin… there was considerable conflict as to whether he was driving toward or away from the officer. Being a thief does not per se make one liable to summary execution.

Right, well, his sister was calling for further investigation, IIRC, which might have cleared that up. I would also note this: It’s a different case, but Officer Van Dyke was convicted Friday of the second-degree murder of Laquan Macdonald, also in Chicago. His defense was that he had to pump 16 bullets into the kid because of some kind of threatening move or gesture. That seems logically to be what anyone accused of a fatal shooting is going to say: “I was in danger, I had no choice.” Maybe it’s true, maybe not; it certainly shouldn’t be automatically believed. The bad news for Van Dyke was that in his case, there was video. The good news: He was cleared of official misconduct, so maybe that will knock a couple of years off the decades to which he’s likely to be sentenced.

#20 Comment By Glaivester On October 8, 2018 @ 8:16 pm

What is so odd about this essay is that when I read it on the NYT website, I presumed she was a woman of color, because I’ve only them use that type of rhetoric, “white women, come get your people.”…
It is as though she doesn’t see herself as being a member of her own tribe… her tribe is the feminist sisterhood, and her white sisters who won’t stand with her are the problem.

Actually, I think the issue is that when she said “white women,” she meant “white Gentile women.”

#21 Comment By Glaivester On October 8, 2018 @ 8:44 pm

You are aware that you laid out in your post the classic form of the anti-Semitic myth of the Jew as the intrigant[?] fifth column divider?

In the case of Chuck Schumer, the myth is completely accurate.

Exploiting and manipulating minority grudges, harming society as a whole and all out of self-interest and insurance policy.

I think the people who are in the most influential positions in what could be seen as the “Jewish establishment” tend to resemble this description. Jews who see themselves as defenders of western civilization (Mark Levin, David Horowitz, Stephen Miller) tend to be seen by the establishment as traitors or otherwise freaks.

I don’t think most Jews really feel this way nor is this behavior helpful to the rank-and-file Jews. However, most of them support the establishment because it represented them in the past and is sort of what they have.

Put another way, I think that American Judaism is a lot like the Republican Party in the 1990s and 2000s. It’s just that their leadership has not yet done enough stupid things to tick the rank-and-file off enough for a Trump-like revolution.

Off course, Bret Stephens’ recent column on Kavanaugh provokes hope of a realignment….

#22 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 8, 2018 @ 10:08 pm

If ever there was a left-wing argument AGAINST gun control, that day is the day to point to.

See also, Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out edited by Don B. Kates, Jr., with a foreward by Senator Frank Church, D-Idaho. One of the chapters outlines that if you are being chased by the Ku Klux Klan, you either hope you can outrun them, or, if armed, you duck into the nearest trees, and open fire. The Klansmen immediately disperse, because they are not into putting their life on the line for much of anything, only bullying helpless victims whom they outnumber.

Accepting witness as evidence after 30 years is folly.

It is not folly, it carries less weight. There is a difference. In a criminal or even a civil trial, it is established law in America that the jury determines how much weight to give it. That is because, as the late Justice Antonin Scalia pithily pointed out, the framers of our constitution were not willing to leave such decisions up to administrators and judges.

What you Americans would need is a third party that would give a home to moderate conservatives and moderate liberals that want nothing to do with either Trump or Grenell. The problem is, your stupid system doesn’t allow for that.

Constitutionally, our system didn’t provide for parties at all. They “just grew.” For over 100 years, there was nothing sacrosanct about Two Parties. There were generally two, but they came and went, and sometimes there were three, or even four. Where today are the Federalists, the Whigs, the American Party (know nothings)? But as things settled into a new groove after the Civil War, the Democrats, a faction that traced itself back to the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson and Madison, and the Republicans, who knew how a third party can emerge and knock a couple of previous parties out of existence, reached an agreement that the Peoples Party, the Socialist Party, the Progressive Party (when the term “progressive” had a bit of meaning) should not be allowed to emerge. By statute, not by constitutional mandate, they instituted the Two Party System and raised substantial barriers to any other party or independent candidate getting on the ballot. Then they added the weight of several generations of assumed wisdom.

It can be jettisoned without a constitutional amendment, but it would take some sustained effort, but people who didn’t wake up just last year.

#23 Comment By Erin M. On October 8, 2018 @ 11:16 pm

First_Deacon,
Please reread my post with care (sorry if that sounds condescending, I don’t mean it that way). I am very clear in what I write that I don’t know what the solutions are, and that I believe fully in due process.

All I want, at this juncture, is for people to see the problem and care about it. Really care. I think many conservatives hear “we need to address this” and assume that I mean “believe all women, out with due process.” And that is simply not true. If there were a genuine, bipartisan national project to address sexual assault in this country, one that was driven by passion and by shame that assault is so widespread in our country and that women are generally unable to get justice, and that was determined to do better, then 90% of the anger that many women/people currently feel would evaporate. The anger comes from feeling that we don’t matter, that no one’s listening or cares. Or that it’s just part of women’s lot in life and too bad so sad.

In the case of Ford, I don’t think her testimony would be enough to convict or judge guilt. But I do think that it was and should have been enough to put a real halt on the proceedings and have a proper investigation. (Which is not what happened). And while I think reasonable people can disagree on this one, I think that with so many people in this country convinced that he was guilty, he should have been withdrawn (setting aside the many other reasons he should have been withdrawn, not related to the Ford case). Were he innocent then that would be very unfair to him personally, but the good of the body politic and the perceived legitimacy of the supreme court is more important than professional fairness to one man.

One more thing. Please consider your words. When you say “men guilty of being young and stupid decades ago,” it sounds like you are saying that what happened to Ford (regardless of who did it to her), was not very serious. I want you to imagine that you are a vulnerable 16 year old and that a man that outweighs you by 50 or 100 pounds does to you, what Ford said happened to her. Would you call that assailant merely “guilty of being young and stupid”? Please think about that.

#24 Comment By Erin M. On October 8, 2018 @ 11:17 pm

@Franklin Evans and a few others. Thank you. I needed to say what I said, and I am grateful for your kind words. Thanks for listening.

#25 Comment By Anon On October 8, 2018 @ 11:21 pm

Can’t help but to comment on the “1 out of 5” statistic. To those who scoff at the one in five statistics let me hypothetically illustrate how it could be. A few assumptions are made to simplify the math only to make a point.

Assume a group of 100 women. Then let’s take the 20 year interval of their lives when they are most attractive, 16 to 36. Then assume in each of those years, one woman out of the group of 100 was sexually assaulted, and not the same woman. At the end of the twenty year period, twenty women out of 100 were assaulted. That is 1 out of 5.

What may be different is women are publicly sharing their experience in the MeToo movement.

As a side note, the perp need only be one guy acting out but once a year.

#26 Comment By Erin M. On October 8, 2018 @ 11:30 pm

Here she wants you in particular to hear her out, but that is hard when it appears she’s using flawed statistics to argue in bad faith.

It’s ungentlemanly to assume bad faith. I went to the CDC and used their statistics, because rape statistics are not my personal area of expertise. If that’s bad faith then so be it.

The CDC stats may or many not be correct. What is true is that sexual assault and rape are normal, common experiences. Much, much more common than you likely believe. I don’t care if the real stat is one in five or one in ten or whatever it is. An upsetting and unacceptable number of my women friends and family members have been raped or seriously assaulted. Instead of quibbling about numbers, please try to understand the problem.

And do I believe it *could* be 1 in 5 (in their lifetime)? Well, the number shocked me initially too, but then I started counting and doing the math in my personal life. And yeah, I think it could be true. And I’m in a relatively low-risk demographic. Thinking that 1 in 5 women you know have or will experience something as awful as this is a deeply unpleasant thing to think about and deal with. But rape and sexual assault, as I said, are common and normal experiences. The women you know just don’t talk to you (or most people they know) about it.

#27 Comment By grumpy realist On October 9, 2018 @ 12:28 am

Maybe we should take a lesson from history and start arming our girl-children with stilettos and other such pointy objects. And teach them to use them when groped. Remember when “working girls” regularly used hatpins to dissuade “mashers”?

A nice scientific jab to the balls would be appropriate. Of course, in “Stand Your Ground” states, we could be even more lethal.

#28 Comment By Rob G On October 9, 2018 @ 7:23 am

“Regarding the comments and suggestions about methods of protecting churches, it’s a pity none of them appear to have been in place when Dr. George Tiller was shot in the head and killed by an anti-abortion zealot while he was acting as an usher during services at his church.”

The millstone that is most likely around Tiller’s neck currently is undoubtedly far more distressing to him.

#29 Comment By First_Deacon On October 9, 2018 @ 8:25 am

” I believe fully in due process… All I want, at this juncture, is for people to see the problem and care about it”

Fine, you’ve said it clearly here. I’m not going to argue about the statistics, I could accept 1 in 5 over a lifetime figure, depending on how the assault term is defined. And a much lower figure is still unacceptable. But honestly, because I am a conservative Christian, you will not want to hear what I have to say (do you think we are in favor of the drinking and hook up culture that facilitates whatever happened to Ms Ford and many others?)

If those who are angry about Kavanaugh and the general lack of justice towards the victims of sexual assault could agree, as you have, that whatever solution there may be, due process is paramount and collateral damage to the innocent is not acceptable, that would help quite a bit getting your concerns heard.

As for Kavanaugh, what I think doesn’t matter because it’s a done deal. I wish enough Republicans had gotten cold feet to stop the process, that would have shifted the anger in a different direction at least. Now it’s just going to get worse, particularly since Trump enjoys poking the bear.

#30 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 9, 2018 @ 10:50 am

Anon makes a good case for one in five. I can’t say that I know for a fact one in five women I know personally have been raped, but I know enough who have posted #MeToo# or have been close enough to tell me about something that happened long ago, to take it as a plausible figure.

Grumpy is mostly correct, but, we will then have the problem of the woman who just wants to kill a man, who will cry ‘attempted rape’ after the fact to get off at trial. A careful set of evidentiary standards is needed. We all sympathize with the sweet young thing horribly set upon by a lustful, entitled, cad, who puts him out of his misery… but in real life, we don’t always know that that is the precise nature of either the lady with the weapon, or the deceased male.

#31 Comment By Henry Clemens On October 9, 2018 @ 11:38 am

I passed the Janwaar Bibi blog post to several friends since it thought it a useful contribution. I still think were I an Egyptian Copt I would be pleased to see it posted, but one friend with great experience in the Muslim world provided some corrective views as follows:

Does the West really have the high ground when it comes to violent, supremacist belief systems?  I’m thinking of the status of Jews in medieval Europe or even the Europe of the 1930-40s.  Spain of the Reconquista or during the Inquisition, maybe even under Franco.  When Christian chauvinism combines with the profit motive, it gets worse.  The Triangle trade in slaves represented a violent, supremacist belief system on  the part of all parties except perhaps the slaves themselves.  King Leopold II and the Congo Free State implemented a particularly violent belief system confident in their own superiority.  Northern Ireland for the last century and England and Scotland before then were rife with religiously-based violence. What belief system made us think it was right to invade Iraq?  We tell ourselves we have evolved yet with the least lapse in vigilance we see swastikas sprayed on cultural centers and schools. Tiki torches and police who claim to be so frightened they have no choice but to pump bullets into black people. 

I lived much of my adult life among Muslims. I am not drawn to their religion.  If I chafed, though, it was more from being female and foreign than from not being Muslim. When you consider the modern history of the Middle East and South Asia from the Muslims’ perspective, I think they are remarkably tolerant of Europeans and Americans. While we understand that history differently and assign blame to their leaders more than to our own, at the end of the day they bear a disproportionate share of the consequences of our unhappy interactions.  

Are Muslims intolerant in conflict situations?  Yes. How is that different from any other religion?  

Globalization means we have to contend with the unintended consequences of our own international actions as well as those of the migrations prompted by the abysmal, even atrocious behavior of Muslims’ own leaders. I think Europe is headed for demographic trouble and is ill-prepared for it because of persisting, yet outdated, notions of social and ethnic homogeneity.  For us in the U.S., Muslims may just become another element in our dyspeptic melting pot. 

Our liberal democracy is fraying but not because American Muslims are challenging our legal traditions and political culture.  Trump and his cultists are the ones undermining our foundations. 

#32 Comment By phre On October 9, 2018 @ 11:48 am

I agree tribalism is a major problem. But it was the right, Limbaugh in particular, that really started popularizing the tribalism that is now such a problem.

#33 Comment By cka2nd On October 9, 2018 @ 11:53 am

grumpy realist says: “Maybe we should take a lesson from history and start arming our girl-children with stilettos and other such pointy objects. And teach them to use them when groped. Remember when ‘working girls’ regularly used hatpins to dissuade ‘mashers’?

I once purchased an antique evening “clutch” for one of my nieces to take with her when she went dancing, and specifically recommended it to her for its utility in dissuading “mashers,” as one entire side of it was made of either bone or a very hard plastic facsimile.

Regarding hat pins, I think there were even efforts to outlaw them as they had proven to be an extremely effective method of self-defense.

#34 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 9, 2018 @ 12:41 pm

First_Deacon,

I certainly don’t speak for Erin M. I do wonder if she’d agree with my response to what you have to say which Erin might not like.

Citing the “hook-up” culture is reasonable, but it carries a contradictory implication: that the behavior of young adults is sourced in the behavior of minors. I offer a different angle.

What happened to Dr. Ford when she was 15 years old was the result of parental failure. Illegal drinking was involved, and I can only assume it happened because the party (as so many are) was unchaperoned to any degree. The culture in play there was a culture which would ostracize a minor attending the party informing adults (or worse, calling the police) about underage drinking laws being violated.

I suggest it should start and end there. Changing the culture is like relocating a small mountain with a teaspoon. At some point we need to get down to that basic level and charge parents with dereliction of responsibility.

On a personal note, I would face down any parent who having clear evidence of a son or daughter being drunk, fails to file a police report. I would face down said son or daughter and inform them that they can learn from this mistake — the lesson including appearing in court as a defendant, etc., should that be valid — or they can face all of the consequences on their own. I would face down said daughter and inform her that she can learn the lesson that same way, or she can learn it later as a victim of sexual assault or rape. I would pray she wouldn’t have to learn the lesson that way, but in the end I am not my daughter or son and I cannot own their behavior and its consequences.

The other aspect of our culture is the notion that things which don’t effect us do not constitute a real risk to us. Once burned, twice shy is the cliche that comes to mind. It is (or should be) a hallmark of raising children, teaching them to acknowledge bad decision, face the consequences and learn from them. For those children who become adults never learning that lesson, they jump eagerly into the hook-up culture, never caring about what could happen until it does happen, and bearing the scars from it. It rises to the society-at-large level. We “define” crisis management as waiting for a crisis to happen, then trying to manage it. We denigrate money spent on preparation and training. We applaud our first responders, but too often fall silent over whey they are needed in many cases — someone was negligent, or cut corners to get a better profit. The limo crash in upstate NY is a good example of that.

#35 Comment By Rob G On October 9, 2018 @ 2:14 pm

“I agree tribalism is a major problem. But it was the right, Limbaugh in particular, that really started popularizing the tribalism that is now such a problem.”

I wonder….does anyone on the left-liberal/progressive side ever do anything wrong? Other than not being progressive enough, I mean.

#36 Comment By CW On October 9, 2018 @ 2:36 pm

Alexis Grenell on Twitter: “”I’m a loudmouthed lesbian, which means …

It took all of 1 minute to find out what ails this “person”….

He/she/it suffers from that special self loathing that pervades the “feminist” movement.

Feminism is NOT by and for ordinary heterosexual women – and the more traditional the woman – the more enmity she earns from the self hating contingent of ugly, gender confused, undesirables.

You’ll notice that lesbians only out themselves under certain circumstances. When appealing to “ordinary” women, they feign inclusion …

This creature is lost –

#37 Comment By Franklin Evans On October 9, 2018 @ 4:49 pm

Rob, the ubiquitous evidence is that no one is capable of controlling their egos and admitting to being or doing wrong.

CW, your leap to demonize a fellow human being opens valid speculation about your particular form of self-loathing.

Comment threads on this and many similar topics bring the dehumanization zealots out of their lairs, and many of them clearly delight in doing it. What, I wonder, does that say about them?

#38 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On October 9, 2018 @ 8:27 pm

Siarlys & Jefferson Smith

I understand very well the concept of “corroboration” and of trial by jury. However, I deem accepting witness after 30 years as completely unreasonable, given how the human mind works. The case of Dr. Ford is emblematic. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that she’s not willingly lying, she has done what’s very common for human beings, even with respect to what should have been a very traumatic event, that is, an attempted rape: in trying to reconstruct the events and the circumstances under considerable outer pressure, looking at the different testimonies she released, we see almost a graphical progression of her reconstructing not a memory, but a theory of how thing may have happened, that more or less fitted the fragments she recalled. This is what people do: they will create a narrative and call it a recollection.

#39 Comment By Austin On October 10, 2018 @ 5:44 am

This is probably a good enough outcome in terms of appointing a judge (and I think there oughtn’t have been the public “testimonies” nor the excessively nominal “investigation”).

But surely far more significant is that colleges and universities should abolish and outlaw the fraternities.

Persons considered for future appointment (from now on) to positions of responsibility should not have had fraternity connections.

In “my day” it was the “conservative social forces” – our teachers – that groomed us to disrespect the personal boundaries of others. This was reinforced daily on television. Later, part of the Catholic church joined in (retreat leaders and some parish clergy).

#40 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On October 10, 2018 @ 12:32 pm

@ Henry Clemens
I wrote a long response to your post but it seems to have disappeared into the ether so let me summarize it.

Islam gives non-Muslims like me three choices: convert to Islam, accept subjugation as dhimmis, or be killed. I loathe any belief system that gives me those choices.

Calling non-Muslims Islamophobic for disliking Islam is like calling Jews Germanophobic for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Hitler’s Nuremberg laws. In fact if you read the Nuremberg laws, you will see more than passing resemblance to the sharia laws on dhimmitude.

About Europe and Spaniards in 1492: I assume you are not suggesting that I should be enthusiastic about being treated like garbage by Muslims because Spaniards in 1492 would also have treated me like garbage. I reserve the right to loathe both groups, and if ever meet a Spaniard from 1492, I promise to say that to his face.

#41 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 10, 2018 @ 12:57 pm

I understand very well the concept of “corroboration” and of trial by jury. However, I deem accepting witness after 30 years as completely unreasonable, given how the human mind works.

If you were on a jury, and if an attorney for one side or another didn’t “thank and excuse” you with one of their peremptory challenges, that would be something you could share with your eleven fellow jurors. But it wouldn’t bar the witness from offering testimony.

Its quite possible that Dr. Ford has a muddled memory of a real event. It is well documented that survivors of traumatic events, not limited to criminal events, sometimes have very clear memories in which a few details are false, including faces and identities of those present. Its also possible she knew exactly who tried to rape her, and the memory remained clear over thirty years.

I wonder….does anyone on the left-liberal/progressive side ever do anything wrong?

Sure. They react. They run in fear of their own shadow from the talk show hosts of the right wing, and then compensate with emotional displays that do them no credit. Its not all about Supreme Court appointments either. When the GOP took control of the WI legislature in 2010, the Dems who fell were by and large people in top leadership circles. They had expressed blatant cowardice about passing a sensible local voter option for funding transit, because they were afraid if they did anything of substance before the election it would be held against them. ‘First we have to win the election, then we can try to get something done.’ So they caved, and they lost, and they deserved to lose. Oh, and one in the state senate was in bed with a Pay Day Loan lobbyist — perhaps literally, although that was never fully established.

#42 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 10, 2018 @ 4:55 pm

Calling non-Muslims Islamophobic for disliking Islam is like calling Jews Germanophobic for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Hitler’s Nuremberg laws.

Actually Janwaar, it is a significant problem that people refer to “Germans” when they mean “Nazis.” There is a difference. Successive generations of Germans are not going to put up with being told they are personally responsible for the atrocities of the Third Reich, 1933-1945. Just like, I don’t hold you responsible for the most atrocious trial balloons floated by the Baratiya Janata party, nor, for that matter, do I presume that all voters for that party adhere to those trial balloons. (A lot of people just thought BJ would do a better job with the economy, didn’t they?)

There are lots of ways to interpret Islam, and lots of examples in history of Muslim rulers following one or another interpretation. I don’t consider my local Muslim friends responsible for the Caliph of Raqqa and his acolytes.

#43 Comment By Jefferson Smith On October 10, 2018 @ 10:22 pm

@Giuseppe:

Testimony about events far in the past has the problems that you say. Rejecting it flatly on that basis, though, would mean finding Theodore McCarrick innocent of the charge that forced his resignation from the College of Cardinals. If I understand correctly, that was a charge of abuse of a teenager nearly 50 years in the past (allegedly continuing for two decades, i.e. until 30 years in the past, still a long time ago, when the now 62-year-old victim was in his 30s). As far as I know, that testimony has never been given under oath or subject to cross-examination, as Ford’s was. It’s just a claim. McCarrick, like Kavanaugh (again, AFAIK), has not conceded that it’s true.

And yet the position we’ve seen repeatedly expressed on this blog and by most of its commentators is that it’s just obviously true that McCarrick abused a minor. They’ve also treated a grand jury report compiling similar untested, unlitigated claims like that one as gospel truth, if I may coin a phrase. Then, suddenly, they turn around and declare that actual testimony given in public and under oath isn’t even “evidence” at all. What I’m objecting to is the absurd incoherence and obvious double standards.

#44 Comment By Janwaar Bibi On October 10, 2018 @ 11:20 pm

There are lots of ways to interpret Islam, and lots of examples in history of Muslim rulers following one or another interpretation. I don’t consider my local Muslim friends responsible for the Caliph of Raqqa and his acolytes.

A criticism of a belief system is not a personal attack on people who hold those beliefs. Since you cannot defend the system of dhimmitude in Islam, you bring up your Muslim friends as a straw man.

#45 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 11, 2018 @ 12:19 pm

A criticism of a belief system is not a personal attack on people who hold those beliefs. Since you cannot defend the system of dhimmitude in Islam, you bring up your Muslim friends as a straw man.

What errant sophistry — since we’re exchanging epithets now. We’ve all been around the mulberry bush of pointing out how harrowing the practical implications of certain Christian and Jewish doctrines and scriptures can be. How do you criticize “a belief system” without assessing the impact it has on the actual behavior of those who believe? And if it has a variety of different fruits, there must be something more than the mere “belief system” at work.

I don’t pretend to defend dhimmitude in Islam. Its a feudal institution, and I come from a long line of serfs. If I respect the Peasants Revolt of 1381 in England, I must also condemn the subjection of anyone in any feudal polity to dhimmitude.

But the “spiritual” dimensions are greatly over-rated. When the initial conquest of large portions of the Byzantine and Persian empires took place, Mohammed was dead, and the Rashidun Caliphs pretty much took charge of an intact imperial administration, and continued to run it for their own benefit. Islam, at that point, was the religion of the Arabs, not a universal religion for all peoples (whatever Mohammed may have intended). Dhimmitude was a variation on the traditional role of any subject people in a feudal or other empire — to do the hard work and pay taxes to subsidize the ruling class.

For a time, conversion to Islam was discouraged (although many desired it to lower their tax burden), because rulers never desire to reduce their tax base.

Whatever efforts are being made to revive the concept of “dhimmitude” today are ahistorical anachronisms by people who seek to graft their own predelicitons onto an archaic institution that no longer has its original social, economic, historical, political, or spiritual context.