Thursday, April 27, 2017

Women and Sex and Love and Marriage

My American Thinker piece this week tried to explain the left's abandonment of the white working class all over the world as comparable to the sexual despoiling of a young woman by a caddish sexual predator: seduction, exploitation, abandonment. One reader wrote me to mention how much women in sexual relations outside marriage suffer from domestic violence.

But this week is full of such talk. There's the liberal fascination with the Hulu adaptation of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale about an America run by the religious right and with Christian magnates refreshing themselves with "handmaids" in addition to their wives. Heather Wilhelm writes that this is pure liberal projection. (Anyway, Christianity has been a big force for monogamy and has notably structured its belief system towards women's spiritual needs).

Then there's the K.C. Johnston and Stuart Taylor book on The Campus Rape Frenzy. About how the Obama administration twisted the Title IX statute into a license to hunt male sexual predators on campus. And how due process is thrown out the window in order to pursue live white males.

Remember the Sexual Revolution that was going to liberate both men and women from their hangups about sex and also smash the patriarchy? So how come that lead to the hook-up culture on campus fueled by half a bottle of vodka per person to be consumed before the evening's frolics?  Gilbert GT. Sewall writes how the hook-up culture works on today's campus.
On campus, if you are a girl, you are declared hot or not. A large number of girls want to be hot. Running with the fun crowd means heavy partying and sex. There can be great emotional blackmail and unrelieved pressure to put out. Young women who don’t get slandered or dropped.
How come the college girls, hot or not, aren't liberated by their sexual liberation?

I guess the thing that annoys me the most is that, after demanding the waving away of all sexual mores, the customs and culture around sex and marriage built up by our forefathers, the left now wants to rebuild the sexual behavior boundaries with the sweet use of government force, only liberal political activists need apply. Really? So rules about sex were a good idea after all?

Well, if you ask me, it is pretty obvious what is needed, given the testimony of my reader about non-marital domestic violence, and the stories about Columbia's Mattress Girl, who clearly pursued her former lover out of her rage that issued from his abandoning her.

Human society needs a culture around sex that moderates the instinctive sexual predatory behavior of males, and honors the love-forever instincts of females.

I'd say that such a culture would make it shameful for a young man to pursue a young woman for sex without making a commitment of fidelity, and utterly foolish for a young woman to consent to sex before obtaining a commitment of fidelity from her lover.

That, of course, is what marriage is all about. It is a declaration of fidelity and commitment made before the world and in particular before the two families in question. So it curbs male sexual predation and helps women secure commitment. What a concept!

Meanwhile the kids have to navigate the storm-tossed waters of the post Sexual Revolution world of college. I am intrigued by the various strategies young people have evolved to avoid the hook-up scene. One of them is homosexuality, male and female. Another is the "friends-with-benefits" notion of sticking with one partner throughout college, recognizing that the partners will likely separate after college. Another is the decision to have nothing to do with the opposite sex and play video games in the basement. Another, that I have seen in a number of young people of my acquaintance, is simply to stick with the same partner right through college and graduate school until careers are set and then get married. How about 30-year-old Jon Ossoff, great white hope of Georgia Democrats, who has been with his current girlfriend for 12 years?

Meanwhile, we have our liberal friends who think they can solve all this with liberal activism and government regulations and social media naming and shaming.

Where do they go to learn to be so foolish?

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Berkeley Riots: What Comes Next?

When I wake up in the early morning these days, I fear civil war. I wonder if the Democrats that, in 2000 and in 2016, refused to concede the election understand this. I doubt if the Antifa in Berkeley do; they are just repeating their lessons in activism back to their teachers.

And so we come to the Berkeley riots.

You can see where the authorities went wrong in Berkeley. It was the failure to use force against the anti-Milo protesters on February 2. The authorities failed to deny the lefty protesters their heckler's veto.

In other words, it is fine to protest, but not if the protesters prevent a speaker opposed to them from speaking.

Why is this? It is not because drowning out your opponent's speech is unfair. It is because threats of force encourage your opponents to use threats of force to make sure that their guy does get to speak.

Which is exactly what has happened at Berkeley. Young male Trump supporters are flocking to Berkeley for the chance to crack the skulls of the "girls and the beta males."

See liberals? That's why it is the job of the police to stop violence.  Period.

If the police do not stop the violent protests of liberals then what? Do they only apply force to red-neck fascists when they have the effrontery to travel to Berkeley to protest? Do they step back and let the protesters fight it out? Do they close down the event and send the protesters home? Do they interpose their bodies between the two opposing sides?

You can see that the right thing to do would have been for the Berkeley authorities to firmly deal with the violence of the first protests in February, and make sure that Milo Yiannopoulos got to speak and that protesters did not succeed in stopping his speech.

But we are past that happy moment now. Now it will take a more robust application of force to put a stop to what liberals used to call the "escalation." (Yeah. Remember back in the Cold War when liberals were all worried about the dangers of escalation?) And if the Berkeley authorities do not put the foot down when Ann Coulter goes to Berkeley on April 28 then it will be harder the next time.

Putting the foot down, liberals, means preventing protesters from blocking Coulter's access to the speaking venue. It means preventing violence between the two forces of protesters. It means preventing hecklers from interrupting Coulter's speech.

It was always going to come to this. The whole liberal activist culture and its sacraments of "protests" and "marches" are lies. There is no need for protests and marches, not when all adults have the vote and when the ruling class pays especial interest to the grievances of women and minorities. And the liberal activist culture depends on the tacit cooperation of the police in allowing a kind of ritual violence of "protest" by liberals. Don't try liberal tactics if you are a conservative.

And street protest works. Politicians tend to wilt when the professional left puts people in the street with protest signs and protest chants. It plays so well on TV.

Recent commentators put the blame for the present situation on President Obama. It is he that transformed his presidential campaign in to Organizing for Action and has trained 30,000 activists in left-wing protest culture.

So what happens next? Does Berkeley shut down the protests and let free speech reign? Or does the left's protest culture notch another win in its belt?

All I know is that back in the 1970s Americans hated the left-wing protests of the "kids," and they voted for Richard Nixon twice. It was only the cunning of the Watergate scandal that put a temporary stop to the conservative revival and elected Jimmy Carter for a single term before the election of Ronald Reagan.

Will history repeat itself? Will the current left-wing outrages build support for President Trump and the Republican Party? Or has the left learned from the failure of the Sixties and raised up a whole generation of lefties with its hegemony over the schools and the colleges?

Nobody knows. But they say that while history doesn't repeat itself, it certainly rhymes.

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

The Fundamental Problem With Government

More and more, I am becoming convinced that the fundamental characteristic of government is that it cannot change its mind, cannot retreat, cannot cut spending. Why is this?

Well, obviously it issues out of the very nature of government, which I define as:
An armed minority, occupying territory and taxing the inhabitants thereof to reward its supporters.
The point of this definition is that it covers every government from a criminal gang in an inner city, to a guerrilla group in the hills, to a modern national welfare state.

Now, as British politician Norman Tebbit argues, it is probably a good idea for a government to do a little more than that. If it has good laws to encourage enterprise, a stable currency, good roads, etc., this enhances its power and keeps the people from forming a head of rebellion.

But the basic thing that every governing class understands is defending its territory, rewarding its supporters, and getting the revenue to fund those two vital tasks.

Notice the basic parameters of this situation. The governing class needs that revenue, else the supporters may start to get restless. But the way to maximize that revenue is to promote a healthy, growing economy that throws off revenue like a dog shaking itself after a swim.

So the sensible thing for a cunning ruling class would be to limit the amount of revenue spent on the supporters, for this one very good reason:

If things go south, then where is the money going to come from to reward the supporters?

Hello Venezuela. Venezuela once had a prosperous economy founded on its oil resources. But the Chávez regime decided to ramp up the rewards to its supporters by looting its oil industry. The policy looked like political gold for a while, and every lefty in the world cited Venezuela as an example of social justice and redistribution.

Yet now Venezuela is a basket case; its population lost an average of 20 pounds each last year, and its economy has dissolved into hyperinflation. What went wrong?

Quite simply, the government promised more to its supporters than it could deliver. One fine day eevil American frackers, no doubt supported by the CIA, flooded the world with cheap oil and natural gas, and the price of oil dropped by 50 percent. Suddenly the Venezuelan government could not afford to reward its supporters as they had become accustomed.

Now if the Venezuelan government had been a business it would have declared bankruptcy, stiffed the shareholders, and paid the bondholders 25 cents on the dollar. And the workers would have found jobs elsewhere and the equipment and factories would have been sold off to other businesses.

But government isn't a business, so the Venezuelan government inflated the money supply, controlled wages and prices, seized businesses, jailed its opponents and armed its supporters and sent them out into the streets.

From this textbook case of national self-immolation you can see that there are three things a government cannot do.

A Government Cannot Admit It Was Wrong. I think this is because the real job of a government is to lead the nation in war, and a war leader cannot admit his doubts and mistakes. He must lead and inspire the nation to work and fight for the inevitable victory. Therefore,

A Government Cannot Change When Things Go Wrong. The basic fact of existence is that it is one thing after another. Whether you are a housewife or a CEO, things go wrong and you have to fix things and apply the lessons learned. But government cannot admit that things have gone wrong, except to blame them of saboteurs and wreckers, and therefore cannot seem to change.

A Government Cannot Cut Spending When Things Go Wrong. Check my definition above. The basic government program, indeed the only program, apart from defending the borders, is to reward the supporters. How can the government cut the rewards to the supporters? Chances are the greedy pigs would start looking for another armed minority to promise them the rewards withdrawn by the present armed minority.

What is the meaning of the three catch-phrases above? They tell us that the only business of government is war. If you are fighting a war then you cannot admit things are going wrong, because then people would start to lose heart and wonder if the war is really worth it. But that would defeat the whole purpose of the war, which is to win it, come what may. Then, if the government cannot admit that its war is going wrong, it cannot admit it when it sensibly changes strategy after the inevitable disasters and reverses of a war. And the government certainly cannot reduce spending on the war and its soldiers, not until the last coin from under the last mattress has been spent on furnishing and supplying the armed forces in the march to victory.

See how this notion tells us that the whole welfare state culture is horribly mistaken?

First, pensions. It is pretty obvious that the current pension model is broken. Our Social Security model was designed in the 1930s when the average life expectancy was 60-something instead of the present 70-something. But it is politically impossible to adapt the program, because people that have paid in all their lives demand the full benefit. Government cannot admit that there is a problem with Social Security, cannot admit it needs to be changed, and cannot bring itself to tell people that their benefits are going to be cut.

Social Security needs to be privatized, so that the pensioning of our senior citizens can constantly change and adapt to new realities. But that won't happen until it is completely broken.

Obviously the same thing applies to health care. The provision of health care is an immensely complicated affair, and obviously needs to constantly adapt as problems arise, and as new technology, new techniques, new understandings about disease and ageing appear. But government is incapable of acting except in response to the needs of organized political interests. And the central issue in any change becomes what to do about the people that might lose their benefits.

In education the notion, over a century ago, was probably to spread literacy. Then it became training factory workers. Today? Yes, just what is the point of today's government education system? Inquiring minds would like to know. But the teachers and administrators demand that we should continue the current system without diminution.

And then welfare. We know that it is a disaster, but the Democrats cannot agree to change it because its recipients and its administrators are their supporters, and the purpose of a government is to reward its supporters.

When the next civilization arises out of the ruins of our own, I hope that its founders will assert that no collective task, except defense, should be assigned to government. Because look what happened to "Western Civilization."

This is not to say that everyone should be "thrown upon the market" without mercy. Not at all. I am just saying that there are plenty of ways to perform "collective" tasks without doing them with government. And I am saying that government is the last place to look if you are searching for mercy.

No doubt, as the #WeBelieve yard sign says, "Kindness is Everything." But Government is Force, and that is all it is.

Monday, April 24, 2017

The Agony of the French White Working Class

Notice the difference between the US and France? In the US the white working class has invaded the Republican Party and the Republicans, courtesy of Trump, have listened to its grievances.

In France the white working class is isolated in the Front National, and it is outside respectable French opinion. So after Round One of the French presidential election the "far-right" Marine Le Pen is isolated and the "moderate" Emmanuel Macron (who is a complete insider having held ministerial posts in the Hollande government) is the fusion candidate that all the other parties are endorsing for the final runoff.

Here is Macron's education:
[He] studied Philosophy at Paris Nanterre University, completed a Master's of Public Affairs at Sciences Po, and graduated from the École nationale d'administration (ENA) in 2004.
It's a shame, and it makes me realize how lucky the US is that all the folks tossed out of the Democratic Party over the years -- Southerners, Christians, pro-family, and now white working class -- were able to find a home without isolating themselves in a fringe party that could be easily marginalized by the establishment. Instead, by the magic of coalition, they have influenced the politicians in their new home to listen to their grievances.

I am trying to conceive of a catch phrase to symbolize the monstrous injustice that the left has perpetrated on the working class, first mobilizing it against the industrial revolution, the very thing that had saved the lower class from the previous centuries of starvation in the wake of the agricultural revolution; then acculturating the workers against embourgeoisement; and finally throwing them away as racist, sexist bigots. It is a Great Injustice to use people in that way, and the worst of it is that the left used the white working as cannon fodder in the left's reactionary movement against the new culture of the market economy in which prices not force is the foundation of society, a reactionary movement against science and common sense and justice that is bound to fail.

The left's culture is a culture of force, but the new post-industrial revolution market culture is a culture of cooperation. The person in the next village, or the next nation, is not your enemy, but your customer or your supplier.

The contribution of the market economy is, of course, in part in innovation, that nobodies can invent new ideas and product and sell them without getting permission from the ruling class.

But I am coming more and more to believe that the real contribution, the elephant in the room that nobody notices, is that the market helps most when things go wrong.

If you are a worker in a dying industry, or a company that can't make a profit, the market tells you in no uncertain terms to raise your game or get out of the game into another one. If you lose your job, or your company goes bankrupt, then you have to change.

But with government when things go wrong the only response is to double down on failure. Workers petition government to force employers to pay them the full amount they had in mind; industry groups lobby the government for subsidies to keep the good times going. And so it goes until the whole thing collapses.

In a company, declining profits soon force the company to abandon money-losing products and services and lay off workers. But when government revenue dries up it is almost impossible to cut spending, because people getting government benefits will riot in the streets rather than agree to a reduction in their benefits. So government has to respond to a reduction in revenue by the cunning of inflation.

Maybe my view is outside the mainstream because my family, going back to at least the late 19th century has been bourgeois and has responded to setbacks by taking its losses and moving on. One set of grandparents were in Russia during the revolution and had to get out with nothing. The other set of grandparents were in Japan in the run-up to World War II and sold their business in 1941ish, presumably at pennies on the dollar, to a Czech Jew. My parents found themselves in India at the time of independence and partition and went back to England, presumably taking quite a loss.

So when things go wrong you can sit where you are and hope that things get better; you can organize and try to force the government to bail you out, Or you can take your losses and start over.

The white working class was taught to believe that government would always be there when something went wrong, that government, in President Obama's words, would "have its back." But government doesn't care about you, it only cares about your vote, and what your vote can do for it.

So the French working class has voted for Marine Le Pen, and is going to go down to defeat in the runoff. And nobody will help the workers to build a new life. Because they are all racists and sexists and bigots.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Why are "College Educated" Whites So Liberal?

If you read the reports on the recent special House elections in Kansas and Georgia, you know you are supposed to believe that Republicans have a real problem with college-educated white voters.

Or if you read about the fall of Bill O'Reilly at FoxNews you learn that his audience was the spawn of FDR, folks that grew up in the 1950s conservative culture in the warm afterglow of the New Deal. Whereas the new generation of "young, cosmopolitan right-wingers" finds O'Reilly rather embarrassing.

Now, according to my reductive Three Peoples theory this all makes sense. Today's Republican Party appeals to the middle, the People of the Responsible Self in between the elite, educated People of the Creative Self, and the subordinate workers and peasants of the People of the Subordinate Self.

But still, as a college-educated voter, I have a bit of a problem believing that my fellow college-educated Americans are that wedded to the Democratic Party. I mean, aren't we educated folks supposed to see behind the conceits of sauntering politicians and bureaucrats of the administrative, regulatory state? Doesn't "creativity" mean the belief in a life of trying and failing, accepting a risk proposition rather than the dull certainties of a salaried, benefited life?

Maybe I think that way because I am not that interested in power. But think about things from the point of view of a youngster on the cusp of college and work. You hesitate about launching into the rough-and-tumble of a business career, and you don't fancy a degree in the making and doing majors, the technology degrees. But if you choose a major in the pure sciences or the humanities you find that your career options are much better if there is a big administrative state that requires trained bureaucrats to opine and judge the actions of the workaday world. Regulatory bureaucracies require lots of economists to evaluate the effects of government policy. And environmentalism has been a godsend to the job prospects of pure sciences like geology, botany, and zoology.

Then there are educated women. It has been observed by Steve Sailer that women used to be much more interested in IT back in the 1950s when Grace Hopper was developing COBOL.
Her COBOL was notoriously verbose, the Chatty Cathy of programming languages, but it got an awful lot of work done. Not surprisingly, lots of women were COBOL programmers. (My wife was one for awhile.)
I'll say! So why aren't women interesting in tech careers any more?
[One] reason women have gotten squeezed out of programming is that government policy has responded to billionaires' demands that computer programming no longer be a middle class career appealing to American women. Instead, it should be a two-tier business with brilliant male programmers making death or glory bids to gain riches in Silicon Valley, while in the lower tier, American women are replaced by South Asian men via the H-1B visa. 
Or rather, that men are fighters and women are lovers, and men are more attracted to the forced march over rough terrain of the high-tech startup.

Then, when we remember that women are now 55-60 percent of college student bodies, we can understand that in the educated elite there is a much higher proportion of people that want a "middle-class career" with lots of jobs for Chatty Cathys that are eager to share and discuss with other Chatty Cathys over coffee that "I can't believe she said that."

In the late election, the trump card for Democrats was the Trump "pussy" conversation revealed as their usual October Surprise. The fact is that middle-class women in America are not to be soiled with locker-room talk, and will take strong action to put a stop to it. Trump's revelations that middle-class women are not above having their pussies patted by powerful alpha-males was not to be endured. What, modern educated women acting like hypergaming working-class secretaries flapping their eyes at their bosses? Not to be endured!

Of course, all political trends in America are presented as the death-knell for Republicans, so it is hard to get a sensible view of things. No doubt educated voters are trending Democratic. But all of a sudden white working class Americans are trending Republican. And what about working-class blacks and Hispanics? How long are they going to voting for a Democratic Party that keeps them in the back of the bus?

It really does make a lot of sense that many college-educated voters would trend Democratic. There are tons of jobs in and around government that require moderately educated workers.

It's a pity, though that the settled science says that big government is death to a free and prosperous society. So I dare say that down the road we will be speaking of educated Americans dying of despair when the administrative state runs out of money.

But how does that explain an educated American like me? Why don't I have a #WeBelieve yard sign out front of my house waving in the liberal Seattle breeze?

Perfectly simple. I didn't get my education at college. I am an "autodidact." Which is Greek for self-educated. I went to university to get an engineering degree and only started my education after leaving school. The result is that I missed getting the proper indoctrination in ruling-class-approved ideas and narratives. The only time I've been back to school in the last 50 years is to take a class each in Aristotle, Plato, Hume, and Kant. That's because I felt I needed to get the official line on each of those philosophers, as a kind of intellectual ballast. As I have written, of the three teachers for those classes, one was a pompous ass, one was a horse's ass, and one was the best teacher I have ever had in my life.

Meanwhile, every educated person should know that civilizations mostly fail because they run out of money; they spend so much on rewarding their supporters that there is nothing left to put food on the table and defend the borders on the Champs Elysées.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

How Little Darlings Get "Hurled" to Cultural Perdition

So here we are in a week that the great white hope of progressives, Jon Ossoff, failed to pick up a GOP seat in Georgia by the cunning trick of being about the only Democrat facing a slew of ambitious Republicans in a "jungle primary" which means that if you get 50% of the vote you win the election without going to a general.

Only he cam in a couple of percentage point short. So that's all right.

Then we have Bill O'Reilly getting run off FoxNews for sexual harassment allegations. I guess that the Murdoch kids are determined to wreck the business that their father put together, as foolish young scions often do.

Note to ambitious young women wanting to make it at CBSNBCABCCNN etc. The sexual harassment gambit will not work for you, because everybody knows that only conservative white men are a problem on the sexual harassment front.

Well, everyone in North Seattle is convinced. #WeBelieve signs and "Hate Has No Home Here" signs are everywhere.

Er... I know what you are saying. Liberals are the biggest haters in America. So the funniest thing since sliced bread is for liberals (and especially gays) to pretend that they have nothing to do with hate.

Actually, the truth is that politics equals hate. Politics is about division, and hate is the way you divide. Liberals live and die by politics, so they must be haters.

But I am thinking of the bigger picture. I am thinking about where Democrats go from here. Because their culture war on everyone that is white and straight just doesn't make sense to the ordinary American that is living outside the yeasty inner-city gentry neighborhoods where only liberals (and conservative spies like me) can afford to live.

Todayt I am mixing together my "little darlings" notion into a major attack on the left and everything it stands for. As you know, my little darlings notion says that if you are presently the little darlings of the ruling class, there is nowhere to go but down, because one fine day the ruing class will get tired of you, or decide they don't need you as their clients. You are like soldiers being marched across Europe in some dynastic war. The day will come when you find yourself sitting abandoned on the route of march. And then...

Well, the first time this happened to the little darlings was reported by Karl Marx when he wrote that "the free proletarians were hurled onto the labour market" when their lords no longer needed them during the agricultural revolution. That, as far as I can see, was back in the 16th century.

That's a good line, Chuck. Let's try it out on the modern era.

In the 1970s, the liberals, who had heretofore loooved the white working class, "hurled them onto the global labor market by importing millions of third world immigrants into the USA." Finally, after 50 years, the white working class realizes that they have been had.

In the 1960s, the liberals, who had heretofore promised to make women the darlings of their politics, "hurled women into the chaos of the sexual revolution," expecting women to indulge in sexual libertinism like men, get careers like men, go into the armed forces like men, oh and also, in between more important matters, bear and raise children. At the present time, women still don't realize that they have been had.

In the 1960s, the liberals, who had paraded as the friends of African Americans, instituted a huge expansion of welfare and affirmative action that has "hurled African Americans into a cultural spiral dive." Poverty is high; educational attainment is pathetic, and low-income African Americans are daily persecuted by the kindly attention of criminal gangs while rich liberal philanthropists like George Soros fund openly racist groups like Black Lives Matter and teach blacks to hate.

Then there are gays and Latinos, the emerging little darlings of the liberals. We don't yet know how and when these groups will get "hurled" in Marx's felicitous phrase. But my little darlings theory says that it is bound to come.

Because politicians and activists do not care about people like you. They only care about your vote.

What they really care about is power: the power to tell you what to think, what to do, and the power to make you pay if you don't.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

The Only Privilege In America is Liberal Privilege

The Lady Marjorie and I were out for a walk yesterday and ran into a former neighbor who now lives in one of those gi-normous block houses, very often with Hardie board siding, and with flat or shed roofs.

He was delighted as how his roof-top solar panels meant that electricity didn't cost him anything. A little later he drove past in his Prius.

Yes, liberals. I understand why the Trump ascension has you all so fit-to-be-tied. Why, that crude idiot might cut the subsidies on your solar panels, and even on your Priuses.

It's comfortable to be a liberal in America. You get to reward yourself with free stuff, all in the name of diversity, or climate, or social justice. The utility pays you 44 cents per Kwh for your intermittent solar power (recently cut by one third in Washington State, apparently) while the utility charges you 11 cents per Kwh for their firm (but climate destroying) 24-7 power. Such a deal for liberals.

Then there is the subsidy on those cool Priuses and electric cars, tax credits amounting to thousands of dollars per car. Such a deal for liberals.

And then there are the special privileges obtained by university teachers and administrators, who basically can't be fired.

And then there are the subsidies for the arts. And then there are all the NGO jobs for the children of wealthy liberals that don't need the money from a real job. Not to mention the legacy places at college.

And so it goes.

Let's look at latest liberal hearthrob Jon Ossoff, the "investigative filmmaker and former congressional aide" who almost made it on Tuesday to be congresscritter from the 6th District in Georgia. From La Wik:
Born in Atlanta, Ossoff was raised by his parents in Northlake, an unincorporated community in Georgia's 6th congressional district.[7] Ossoff's mother Heather Fenton, an Australian immigrant,[1] co-founded NewPower PAC, an organization that works to elect women to local office across Georgia.[8][9] His father, who is of Russian Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish descent, owns a specialist publishing company.[1] Ossoff was raised Jewish.[10] 
Ossoff attended the Paideia School, a small private school in Atlanta.[1] While in high school, he interned for Georgia congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis.[1]
Can you spell "liberal privilege" and connections up the Wazoo? Of course the 30-year-old was selected by the ruling class to run for a special election for Tom Price's congressional seat. He is their kind of guy.

Let's look at Jon's opponent in the June runoff, Karen Handel. La Wik:
Handel was born in Washington, D.C. and grew up in Upper Marlboro, Maryland.[4] After graduating in May 1980 from Frederick Douglass High School in Upper Marlboro,[5][6] Handel attended both Prince George's Community College and The University of Maryland, but did not complete any degree.[7] She then went to work for Hallmark Cards. Later, she served as deputy chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle's wife, Marilyn, where she worked to promote breast cancer awareness and research.[8]
Not quite the perfect life story. Oh, and she has said that she doesn't think that gay parents are quite the best thing for children. In other words, she agrees with American philosopher Harold Gosse, who said many years ago that all children want a mother and a father: their mother and father.

Don't get me wrong. I think that liberals are the nicest people in the world. And some of my best friends are liberals, bless their hearts.

But when you start to think about privilege in America in the spring of 2017, then the first thing you think of is "liberal privilege."

Or you have completely missed the point of Kant and critical theory, like the rest of your liberal friends.