Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Ongoing Cultural Purge — Livestream, Sunday, June 28, 8 p.m. Eastern

The Ongoing Cultural Purge — Livestream, Sunday, June 28, 8 p.m. Eastern

A chance to discuss what is unfolding before our very eyes: The tearing down of civil society, the mindless trashing of history, the repulsive rhetoric and conduct, the purge of wrongthinkers in academia and the workplace.

On Sunday, June 28, at 8 p.m. Eastern, we will be holding our fourth online virtual event: The Ongoing Cultural Purge.

I will speak for “a while” about many of the things we have been witnessing: the tearing down of civil society, the mindless trashing of history, the repulsive rhetoric and conduct, the purge of wrongthinkers in academia and the workplace. Then we will turn to Q&A.

This is a livestream via Facebook (and possibly YouTube also), and will be live on our website as well. You will be able to ask questions either throught the Facebook ‘chat’ feature or in the comment section. You also can submit questions in advance in the comment section to this post.

We will share the Facebook link via the newsletter on Sunday (sign up here), and you also can come to the website.

Some things to think about between now and then.

And more than anything, this.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


How about Microsoft Teams or even Zoom instead of FaceFuck?

    BiovizierMantrid in reply to Paul. | June 26, 2020 at 1:37 am

    I prefer Assbook, but I concur. There must be another way.

    Grrr8 American in reply to Paul. | June 26, 2020 at 8:56 am

    My understanding is that Zoom is Chinese, so that may entail its own set of issues.

    I refuse to have a Facebook spyware account, nor a Twitter comply-or=be-censored account.

    I avoid anything Google — don’t have an Android phone, don’t use its browser, no longer use Gmail. No voice activated “assistant” in the house. No “smart” apps to dim my lights or unlock my doors. Some YouTube without an account because for now there’s no viable alternative.

    BEWARE of Google now embedding where you don’t know: some auto manufacturers are beginning to use Google software for their NAV and related systems, as are many “smart” TV manufacturers. So you have to shop carefully to avoid Google stuff that is presumably spying on you — and likely listening to everything you say — in your car and while watching TV.

      Off-topic: @Grrr8 American, seems as if the LI readership would benefit from your recommendations for safe email apps, smartphones and other tech items to help us steer clear of Google, China, and other baddies. Please consider making such a list. Thanks!

        Grrr8 American in reply to Rab. | June 26, 2020 at 5:37 pm

        I’m not a tech person. I do know that some are leaving Twitter for Parlet.

        The Android operating system is Google, so phones with that are to be avoided.

        Other than that, one has to check particular products — for instance, I was looking at smart tv’s and Sony had the Google system, while LG did not.

        I saw a press release after an auto show saying the Chrysler-Jeep was going to a Goodle (Android?) system for NAV.

        My suspicion is that Google (like it did with Android to phone manufacturers) is offering manufacturers a “free” or “low cost operating system, so bean-counter management enthusiastically adopts — and then Google has its embedded software spread across all kinds of devices. This allows Google to be more comprehensive with its “surveillance capitalism” and build ever-more detailed dossiers on people.

        If it were just used for targeted marketing, that would be annoying but not that big a deal. But given that Google is very much a political player (Left side) and is enthusiastically manipulating search results and censoring conservative content on YouTube, you have to assume that the dossiers not just could be, but are being used for nefarious purposes.

        Grrr8 American in reply to Rab. | June 26, 2020 at 5:39 pm

        P.S. an iPhone is not Android / Google.

        Also, I use Startmail and Hushmail — they’re not free, but are more privacy oriented and not part of the Google ecosystem.

I note that in every instance where citizens or the authorities actually defend the statutes, businesses or cultural monuments, the same is successful. This leads to the inevitable conclusion, much bolstered by Pelosi today, that the lack of defense is intentional.
Unfortunately, our FBI director plays for the Democrats and is as corrupt as Comey.

    This is becoming a total breakdown of law and order. The police are being taken out of the game. Other than the usual litany of “Molon Labe”, “Come and take them”, etc…, has anyone really thought out how the 2nd Amendment plays out to win? I have been suggesting being a “properly regulated” militia. What does that mean? It means we should be organized in the way our Founding Fathers intended.

    Today, we have “peace officers” who are trained to keep the peace by protecting us from what is happening. But they are undermanned and being hamstrung by our government. But they have never had the OVERWHELMING SUPPORT of the citizens they protect. We need to exploit that and create a blueprint for how OUR civilian police force is used to make us a “well-regulated militia” as a force multiplier.

    Our well-armed citizenry blessed with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people with police and/or military training. The rest of us mostly have level of firearms training. How crazy would it be for police to organize a show of arms in neighborhoods and certain parts of the cities and towns to free them to focus on the tactical parts of engaging the mobs? All it takes is a clear plan with good communication and people willing to do it in a disciplined manner.

    We really need to talk about that. Is the divide between the police and citizens THAT wide that we can’t join forces even when the police have never been more popular? Something is wrong here.

      A big challenge would be communication. You’d probably want to use one of the apps that have end-to-end encryption. You would also need fall-back plans in expectation of the techs cutting you off, and you’d need a mechanism to weed out moles.

        Actually, no. We don’t need apps. I’m a licensed ham radio operator and all you need are a few base stations and hand-helds.

        There are lots of issues to be resolved. Such as how to respond to direct confrontation. The idea is to present such a forbidding deterrent by the sight of armed citizens on top of buildings, guarding access points etc… that the mobs could be channeled into where the police can control things. But what if we are attacked? We need communication levels of command to report movement and make decisions as things develop. That is not complicated.

        But first, we need to get involved with the police. If they aren’t open to citizen involvement, then the door to chaos and civil war is wide open.

        Heck, the “wild west” was tamed by marshalls and local sheriffs who were outnumbered by criminals. But they worked with deputized citizens in posses and other groups. This isn’t a foreign concept. The alternative is breaking up into disorganized mobs of our own. Scary thought.

          ham radio operators in the US: < 0.25%

          smart phone users in the US: ~70%

          just sayin'

          DSHornet in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 26, 2020 at 10:12 am

          Consider using TOR browser if comsec is an issue. The inherent overhead makes it a little slow but a fast computer and high speed internet connection mostly compensate.

          Paul, seriously. You need to think constructively. There are enough chronic naysayers here on these threads.

          First, I am talking about an organized police-led operation not a wild Viking berserker of Rambos. We don’t need everyone nor even many of us to have a handheld. And it doesn’t take many base stations to manage this. The police have this equipment already and many of us do too.

          Second, we would be relying mostly on police communications with field communications only requiring that command center be in touch with field leaders who are WITH their “troops”. Speaking to each other face-to-face counts as communication too.

          Third, if this is done right we won’t be shooting anybody. We would be mostly standing around to occupy our neighborhoods carrying arms conspicuously. Eyes and ears reporting what we see and hear.

          Sure, of course you’re right as always. Pointing out other technology options that are available to hundreds of times more users isn’t constructive. Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out. Good luck.

          txvet2 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 26, 2020 at 5:32 pm

          Pretty much the LAST thing the cops want is a bunch of well-meaning couch potatoes and internet commandos out there running around with guns. This ain’t Dodge City, and you ain’t Bill Hickock.

          @txvet: It would be up to the police to figure out who among us could be helpful. It’s not about flooding the street with gun owners but deploying them, mostly likely where they live, to occupy space and as a show of arms to and demonstrate that the neighborhoods are defended. It’s about deterrence. Not many of us are qualified to conduct operations and that shouldn’t be the objective. Most of us ARE trained to use guns under certain circumstances, just no under police nor military circumstances.

          It would be a limited application of the 2nd amendment that frees up the police to address the key police problems without having to assign officers to cover all of the neighborhoods. Most of us could handle that. You stand on top of your building or in front of your house armed and authorized to engage if threatened. After that, we would be mostly “eyes and ears” informing the police should situations arise.

        rocky71 in reply to Paul. | June 26, 2020 at 7:36 pm

        Indeed, comms is most certainly necessary & capability for each participant would crucial. After more than 30 years & counting in uniformed services the 1 thing that is always being pursued is improved communications. But Gov’t public safety dept’s at any level are unlikely to allow public transmission on their nets. A solution could be a internal comms on an appropriate encrypted freq & a liaison on site with Incident Command. Whether actively engaged or not a potentially fast-paced kinetic environment is NOT the time to be fumbling with accessing an app screen. And if parties are engaged then the only practical method is hands-free receive & lapel mike/PTT earpiece transmit. But the heavy lifting indeed would be coordination with local authorities and legalities. Militias of old were part & parcel of the local community so any acts were through the authority of the governing structure.

          Liaisons. Not everyone needs direct personal communication capability. Only during developing situations that pose an increase in immediate risk for violence would that come into play.

          The entire point of my proposal is to deputize qualified armed citizens to create a broad deterrent and to serve as “eyes and ears” for the police. Once situations evolve and are reported, the police take over to do the dirty work.

          There is much less likelihood of broad-based violence when the police are not spread thin. In fact, it would probably end up being a boring exercise of standing around for hours for most all of us. Effective deterrence is very boring.

      Close The Fed in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 26, 2020 at 10:33 am

      The BIG challenge is IMMUNITY and our lack of it.

      Police can act first, to move people.

      As non-LEO, as far as I’m aware, we as a militia have no statutory authority or immunity, qualified or otherwise.

      No one wants to go out there to get sued, jailed, etc.

        That depends on what the police authorize to do and under what conditions. We aren’t conducting a military assault. We are standing our ground as a DETERRENT to FREE UP THE POLICE. What we could/would do were we confronted/ambushed needs to be discussed with the police who would be informed immediately on any movements.

        This to everyone here who can dream up all kinds of reason why it won’t work. Let’s not be stupid. First explain exactly what you think I am proposing.

          “First explain exactly what you think I am proposing.”

          WTF? You’re the one who first proposes what sounds like an interesting idea, and then when anybody chimes in with comments / suggestions you poo-poo everything they bring up.

          It’s YOUR idea, why don’t YOU explain yourself clearly instead of being a dickhead to anybody who is intrigued by your initial suggestion?

          Pro leadership tip: the way you’re going about this so far is NOT likely to encourage much participation.

          Paul: because your comment says that you don’t understand what I am recommending.

          Now you’ve got me really curious… what do you do for a living?

        Also, we would be guarding our homes covered under the castle doctrine. We would not be acting as police. We would be acting as a deterrent to mobs looking for easy high-impact targets. Mobs would have to break through police barricades to get to us. Those barricades become possible because police are freed up to man them with plenty more available to respond to situations.

        We wouldn’t be beating people up nor shooting them from a distance. They would have to be threatening to kill us by invading the buildings or trying to set them on fire. If we communicate properly, police can be alerted as these threats begin and respond before they get to a tipping point.

        If the police are overwhelmed or simply walk away at the command of a mayor or governor, then we would be back to where we would have been – mobs running riot through our neighborhoods – but this time, we are prepared to defend ourselves. At that point, I wouldn’t care what the law says. It’s a lawless situation. Survival mode. Kill or be killed.

        If the police aren’t with us, why would they even agree to this? This total chaos scenario would be one to work out in advance. If things get that bad, I don’t think lawyers will be much help.

The other night Sarah Hoyt, a contributor over at Instapundit, came up with the perfect term for this rampaging cohort of SJWs – “intellectual eunuchs.” University administrators, politicians, and business leaders are all included in this crowd.

Maoist red guard.

What’s going on right now is a cultural purge that is identical to the cultural purges in China during Mao’s time, Stalin’s time, Pol Pot’s time, and every communist dictator’s time. This is pure communism coming out in the open in the U.S. There is no way around it. No way to rationalize it. It is communism, pure and simple.

    budmania in reply to Guardian79. | June 26, 2020 at 8:44 am

    Exactly right! I’d give you 10 thumbs up if I could.

    Andy in reply to Guardian79. | June 26, 2020 at 2:08 pm

    I believe those were top down purges. Though many of the same characteristics.

    This is a bit uglier, more like the French Revolution. Hence they are eating many of their own.

    The violence is largely contained to urban areas, but the online purge has no boundaries.

    If anyone wanted to fight a dirty war now, get pictures of mid-level Newsome and Inslee staffers- photoshop black face and send it around the internet.

    GatorGuy in reply to Guardian79. | June 28, 2020 at 8:49 am

    If only you were wrong, 79; trouble is, it seems you’re not.

Progressive Culture.

texansamurai | June 26, 2020 at 10:34 am

agree the similarities to mao, pol pot, stalin, et al

however, with one glaring difference: this nonsense is occurring in the midst of the most heavily-armed population in history–there is a lot we can do if needs be–am not advocating violence though ultimately it may be required of us in response to the increasing violence employed against innocent/peaceful citizens by these mobs–weapons are inert by themselves–they require the will and the discipline to used them effectively–we must be prepared–am not the deep thinker like many here but see all this as a ramp-up/trial run of the tactics to be employed by antifa/blm/leftists to interrupt/prevent/suspend our lawful elections this fall–we must be prepared–and believe we must go on offense on every front to preserve our country/our values/our way of life–by kowtowing, by playing defense we do nothing but energize and embolden these terrorists who seek only to burn our country down–we must go on offense and we must be prepared

Close The Fed | June 26, 2020 at 10:54 am

Christopher Caldwell sets out why we have a problem in his book, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties.

To save America, we need to repeal the 1960s civil rights acts. They are regressive rather than progressive. They and the following immigration law changes over decades stripped us of our rights to discriminate against marxist foreigners applying for all manner of things and asa result, we have a lot of marxist foreigners trying to destroy America.

To hear a foreigner rage against the “racism” of America feels bizarre. I mean, they wanted to come here, they love the dollars, they crave the dollars, they get the dollars, and then they shove us in front of a mirror to tell us we should look at ourselves with nothing but shame. Sociopaths….

On a trip, if you find you’ve missed a turn, you don’t keep going 180 degrees from where you need to go. Instead, you turn around to return to the right path. Much of the last 100 years of law have been huge errors.

The federal reserve? owned by whomever owns the member banks, not by the federal govt. If you thought it was, you just haven’t paid attention. The income tax — talk about enabling leviathan. Taking us off the gold standard — killed saving in this country, combined with the fed’s mandate to inflate.

We need to turn around, go back and undo the layers of granite sitting on our backs. Including decoupling with the Chinese. Nixon and Kissinger don’t appear to have understood the Chinese leaders’ minds.

Close The Fed | June 26, 2020 at 11:00 am

More on his observations from

To Caldwell, privatized censorship, also known as political correctness, was:

…an institutional innovation. It grew directly out of civil rights law. Just as affirmative action in universities and corporations had privatized the enforcement of integration, the fear of litigation privatized the suppression of disagreement, or even of speculation. The government would not need to punish directly the people who dissented from its doctrines. Boards of directors and boards of trustees, fearing lawsuits, would do that.

Caldwell is caustic about Ronald Reagan’s legacy:

“Political correctness” was a name for the cultural effects of the basic enforcement powers of civil rights laws…. Reagan had won conservatives over to the idea that “business” was the innocent opposite of overweening “government.” So what were conservatives supposed to do now that businesses were the hammer of civil rights enforcement, in the forefront of advancing both affirmative action and political correctness?

All institutions were now under the purview of the civil rights laws. Aggrieved minorities no one had considered in 1964 had a mysterious set of passwords and procedures that would require government and business to drop everything and respond to their demands.

A question for Prof. Jacobson:

Since a response to the BLM crowd of “ALL lives matter” is now considered racist (how so remains a mystery), another reply might be “What about mine?” It seems that would put them on the spot.

What is your opinion?

a question for consideration, why does higher education continue to add the study of cultural diversity to graduate but fail to add more STEM instruction, that is much more relevant in todays work environment.

The internet has had a lot to do with the psychological paralysis and moral coma we’re experiencing now. People mistake venting on the web for acting. Right now we’re mice grooming in front of the cat.

Question for Jacobson:

Is there a pragmatic end to this? If so how?

The question I want to ask BLM supporters is “which lives DON’T matter?”
If they answer that some lives don’t matter, (say, “racist lives don’t matter,”) and we are all racists for asking this, of course, then why expect racists to feel lives of another color should matter?
If I’m racist, by definition I won’t give a rat’s rear end.
Of course, you are bound to get punched for this.

I like “your life matters” as mentioned by Texansamurai. I guess I’m hoping too that unexpected phrasing could punch enough of a hole to allow an actual thought in.

I graduated from Pascack Hills HS in 1973. I’m confused. Is there anyone here who can tell me what race Cowboys are? Or how calling a team Cowboys is racist?

LukeHandCool | June 27, 2020 at 2:15 pm

You guys always hold these when I’m at work.

This Brit gets it, and he is a pretty liberal guy

    Terence G. Gain in reply to buck61. | June 28, 2020 at 6:46 am

    buck 61

    He’s mostly correct, but for some reasons he claims that
    “we willingly handed over the principles of free speech and expression to right wing bigots”?

    Seriously? When did that happen? The rant is otherwise good but this current imposition of fascism is entirely a Left Wing creation. We on the right welcome free speech. We are the solution to this cancel culture madness which is based on lies and hysteria.

    Professor Jacobson is right. Black Lives Matter is based on a false narrative. Crime statistics show that Blacks kill twice as many Whites as vice versa. BLM is marxist, bigoted and supremacist.

    The problems in the black community are not because of systemic racism. They are self imposed and are a result of the breakdown of the black family caused by well-intentioned welfare policies. The economic postion of Asian-Americans in America completely rebuts the allegation of systemic racism. Success comes from hard work. Ethnic background is not a barrier to hard work. Acceptance of the false narrative of systemic racism is contributing to the lack of economic progress for blacks.

    The situation is so dire that only Black Conservatives can prevent this continuing descent into darkness.

Question, or an area I would like mentioned during the webinar. Not sure if this is more of a Leslie question, or Prof. Jacobson, or both.

4 Years Ago Trump Rally Attendees were assaulted in San Jose CA.

Lawsuit was filed. It just got settled with the city. Due to immunity all they got was an apology and some training for the police.

Nobody has been charged.

Great way to purge wrong think! You are endangering yourself if you attend a Trump Rally in a Blue Area. Orange County had similar issues, at least that was only cars being vandalized.

Questions for Professor Jacobsen – Since it is clear that conservative faculty are being systematically eliminated from our universities based on their political beliefs/affiliation, what can be done to afford them legal protection? Several states have laws prohibiting such discrimination, but I never hear of lawsuits brought by academics using such laws. Why is that?

On the federal level, could Title VII be amended to include political belief/affiliation as a protected class? Could we perhaps find support for such amendment in equal protection principles, and recognition that being free from such discrimination is a fundamental human right, as reflected not only by state laws prohibiting it, but by federal immigration law offering foreigners asylum based on such human rights?