We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The response demonstrates why it needed to happen

The launch of Turning Point UK felt to me like an important moment.

Douglas Murray agrees:

Earlier this week I made the usual mistake of looking at Twitter and saw that ‘Turning Point’ was trending. This is unusual in Britain. Turning Point is a very successful organisation set up in the US to counter the dominance of left-wing views on campus. It turned out to be trending because of the launch of Turning Point UK this week. In essence the response to the launch of Turning Point demonstrated the need to launch Turning Point in the UK.

This is also how I now feel about the Brexit vote. The response to that also explains why it needed to happen.

17 comments to The response demonstrates why it needed to happen

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Let’s hope it makes a difference. I am sure there are lots of students who are fed up with the crap going on. I have felt for some time that the pendulum is swinging. The popularity of people such as Jordan Peterson, to give one example, is proof of that.

  • bobby b

    The rise of such organizations is important mostly because it gives people a moral permission to think and voice thoughts that leftist pop culture has successfully made into something beyond the Pale.

    In an era in which it has become racist and “far-right” to believe that national borders ought to exist, this is a long-needed permission.

    The “cucks” so frequently referred to in America are simply those people who have completely bought into the movement that keeps true honest thoughts from being expressed because they are impolite. But we all “cuck out” at some point on that impolite continuum. Many of us will now support the value of borders even in the face of being called racist, but most of us won’t follow the scientific data concerning race and IQ – that’s still too impolite and so a bridge too far.

    Turning Point, like several other orgs, seeks simply to quash the “shut up, you can’t say that!” impulse in our social conversation.

  • pete

    If it is too influential it’ll probably be designated as hate speech and removed from Twitter.

  • Derek Buxton

    Let us hope it thrives, we need something of that ilk here, urgently!

  • mila s

    I think this Quillette article sums up Charlie Kirk and his organization.

  • mila s, February 14, 2019 at 12:54 pm, in some parts the article seems over-harsh – for example, to protest the ‘safe spaces’ idea by appearing in diapers may or may not be an effective way to mock it on a modern university campus but it hardly matches the take-me-seriously silliness of safe spaces themselves. The misattribution of the quote to Orwell is a mistake I would not make, but Kirk has company in it, and this fathering of the quote on a well-known name is just a recent case of a phenomenon that has enhanced the reputation of Churchill and Kipling – and many undeserving past lefties.

    On the other hand, when the author quotes Mr Kirk as saying that

    American founders “struggled to find a better way to govern than…the anarchy of [France’s] bloody Reign of Terror,”

    he certainly provides evidence that Kirk has spent more time protesting against the universities’ destruction of western civ courses than in personally pursuing extramural remedies for their absence.

  • Paul Marks

    I still thimk is no effective substitute for having pro liberty academics – if most universities remain in the hands of the left (with hardly any pro “capitalist” academics allowed) then they will remain forces for evil (yes – evil) in the world.

    However, “Turning Point” is clearly a good thing – and the efforts of the Guardian (and the rest of the Frankfurt School cretins) to present a black woman, Candace Owens, as a Nazi are disgusting.

    Race and sex are NOT “social constructs” – Candace Owens does not become a white man because she supports capitalism, Candace Owens remains a black woman. And the Guardian are trying to SMEAR A BLACK WOMAN.

    As for the American Founding Fathers – they were split on the French Revolution. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both witnessed what was happening in France – John Adams like the practical New England farmer and practicing lawyer that he was, accepted the evidence of his own eyes (that the French Revolution was about robbery and murder), but Thomas Jefferson remained intoxicated – accepting the high flown French speeches and “liberty” as if they meant something real. In spite of the fact that, as a Virginia landowner, an American version of the French Revolution would have had a man like Thomas Jefferson as among its VICTIMS.

    Of course as President Thomas Jefferson dramatically reduced taxation (getting rid of all INTERNAL Federal taxes) and was a great respecter of private property – but I do not think he ever uttered the three little words “I was wrong” about the French Revolution.

  • Paul Marks

    The Q article does not say much – other than sneering at grammatical mistakes and other such (if someone attacks your grammar it means they have no counter argument to what you have said, so they just sneer at the WAY you have said it). It does say that Mr Kirk has mistakenly attributed a quote to “George Orwell” (Erik Blair) – but it does not say what this quote is. I have read the Q article twice now – and I can not see the quote they are attacking, why do they think this proverb (whatever it is) is wrong.

    I am reminded of those cretins (and they are cretins) who think the old proverb “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” is answered by saying “Edmund Burke never said that” – as if Mr Burke not using those exact words means the statement is wrong.

    As for the confrontation with the leftist rabbi – I think I remember that, and (if it is the confrontation I think it was) the leftist was clearly the aggressor.

    As for the American Founding Fathers grappling for a way to govern better than the mass murder and robbery of the French Revolution – THEY DID.

    Both the George Washington Administration (both terms) and the John Adams Administration (only one term) grappled with a way of governing a Republic in such a way that it would not fall into the blood soaked chaos of the French Reign of Terror – we know that because they said so.

    What has a “Google Search” got to do with anything? And what conservative would use a far left search engine such as Google anyway.

  • Paul Marks

    If someone has a counter argument or alternative strategy they will present it.

    If they have no counter argument and no alternative plan – then they will attack what colour ink you have used, or the grammar in the argument you have presented.

  • If they have no counter argument and no alternative plan – then they will attack what colour ink you have used, or the grammar in the argument you have presented.

    The twitter equivalent when the IEA or TPA calls for lower taxes and less regulation is “Who funds you?” … which is a clear admission they are desperate to change the subject as they don’t think they can win the argument 😆

  • Runcie Balspune

    I am in two minds as to whether the rise of libertarian-lite activists like Turning Point are a possible cause or just an effect.

    The battle over liberalism has long been dominated by leftists, not because “right wing” politics is principally socially authoritarian but it does attract that model, and leftists traditionally champion social liberalism.

    However, leftists have started two rather unpleasant strategies, one is to ally themselves with particularly nasty forms of religious ideologies with extreme tendencies towards social authoritarianism, and the other is to accommodate the perpetually offended, these have the obvious and pronounced effect of limiting the social liberty for the rest of us. Both of these have the side effect of damaging the social liberty credentials of the leftists far more than anyone on the right of politics and it is beginning to notice.

    At the very least, Turning Point is somewhere for the disenfranchised to be welcomed, and perhaps broadcasting the message of libertarianism is a way of demonstrating that the socially liberal can feel just as at home.

  • Sam

    most of us won’t follow the scientific data concerning race and IQ – that’s still too impolite and so a bridge too far.

    For my part, it’s not impolite so much as irrelevant considering all inter-personal relations are with individuals and government policy should not discriminate against groups (though of course it does).

    Besides, it’s not as if high-IQ people are any better company than others. If anything it’s an inverse relationship. And most of us will never be in the position of choosing between two differently colored but otherwise perfectly equal rocket surgeon candidates, so, politely, who gives a fuck about group IQ anyway?

  • Zerren Yeoville

    A piece which recently appeared on BrexitCentral about the organization ‘Students For Brexit’ makes a very similar point about the response demonstrating the need:

    “The seeds of Students For Brexit were sown following a university debate: a student audience – when anonymously polled – voted 42% in favour of Brexit, yet when I asked the 42% to raise their hands, hardly anyone proceeded to do so. That’s when it hit me that pro-Brexit students were either embarrassed, or fearful to admit that they supported Brexit.”

  • Paul Marks

    Thank you TDK – thank you.

    People round here know what I think about “links” – fine if you want to link to a long article or a book, but if you just have something short to say – SAY IT, do not give a “link” to somewhere else.

    If you are going to attack a proverb – then state the proverb and explain why it is wrong.

    “The further society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it” – is clearly CORRECT.

    The fact that the proverb is CORRECT is the real reason that the Q. article does not state it – and just uses ABUSE “hoary old proverb”.

    The writer of the Q. article may regard himself as great conservative – but what actually USE is he.

    The left are destroying the West – weaponizing the “education” system to try and create a generation of “Social Justice” creatures fanatically determined to utterly exterminate the West – and what does he do? He attacks his own side.

    The “Turning Point” people may have all sorts of things wrong with them, but they know who the enemy is – and they fight the enemy of the liberty and property (the enemy of the West).

    As for race and sex – and I.Q.

    Candice Owens is black and female – and I guess that she has a very high I.Q.

    I am white and male – my IQ is zero, as I do not see the point of the questions and (therefore) do not answer them.

    For me to make an effort to answer a question that question must first interest me.

  • bobby b

    ” . . . so, politely, who gives a fuck about group IQ anyway?”

    You forgot to call me a racist for mentioning the subject. 😀

    And, in response to your specific question, lots of people apparently do.

    Some think it ought to be considered as we explore how best to bring some third-world countries into prosperity. Others think it can be used in prejudging the guy sitting next to them.

    For myself, I agree with your points, as does Bell Curve author Charles Murray. The data is out there, but it seldom means what people think it means.

    But simply dismissing the subject with a “who gives a fuck” means that all of the very good points about the significance of the data remain unspoken, too, which means we allow it to be misused by those who derive unsupported conclusions from it.

    If Murray wasn’t globally PNG’ed, he could publicly articulate the proper interpretation of his data and help the conversation’s accuracy. He can’t, because the entire subject is taboo. And by making it taboo, it means we can’t correct the improper impressions that people have from it.

    Once again, good speech would be the best antidote to bad speech, but we don’t allow that good speech to happen – “who the fuck cares?” – so the bad speech just hangs out there unanswered.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Wot’s-‘is-name Haier and J. Peterson seem to have their hair on fire about IQ. And the latter has said stuff to the effect that it’s awful that there is (per his statement) such a large number of people who are too stupid to hold jobs, as more and more jobs require higher intelligence, and the ones that don’t are increasingly done by automatons.

    Of course, at best “group IQ” is an unfortunate form of shortspeak for the idea of the “average” IQ (which isn’t necessarily a meaningful concept anyway) of a particular group.

    I’m not so sure I have a lot of confidence in stats purporting to show that, say, sub-Saharan Africans have lower IQ’s (if one can somehow screen out patterns and modes of thought that depend a good deal on cultural background). If they’re so dumb, where do Nigerian airline and fighter pilots come from?