You Have to Read This Letter

  New York father pulls his daughter out of Brearley with a message to the whole school. Is the dam starting to break?

Bari Weiss Apr 16 1,478 534

I was planning to publish a roundup today of the many thoughtful responses to Paul Rossi’s essay. I’m going to save that post for Sunday, because I was just sent this letter that has my jaw on the floor. It was written by a Brearley parent named Andrew Gutmann.

If you don’t know about Brearley, it’s a private all-girls school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It costs $54,000 a year and prospective families apparently have to take an “anti-racism pledge” to be considered for admission. (In the course of my reporting for this piece I spoke to a few Brearley parents.)

Gutmann chose to pull his daughter, who has been in the school since kindergarten, and sent this missive to all 600 or so families in the school earlier this week. Among the lines:

If Brearley’s administration was truly concerned about so-called “equity,” it would be discussing the cessation of admissions preferences for legacies, siblings, and those families with especially deep pockets. If the administration was genuinely serious about “diversity,” it would not insist on the indoctrination of its students, and their families, to a single mindset, most reminiscent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

I’m pasting the whole thing below.

Read More: If you hate bullshit, you'll surely enjoy it

(with thanks to the Maverick Philosopher)

Related:

DM: 'This is not a rich person issue, this is not a NYC issue, this is an American issue': Parent and teacher who spoke out against 'woke' antiracist doctrine in their expensive NY private schools warn it is infecting all US schools

Liberalism, Realpolitik and How It Is That People Murder One Another By the Million, But Feel Badly About Doing So

In his latest work "On China," Henry Kissinger provides a concise definition of realpolitik: most wars result, he says, from a failure by one or more of the parties to a dispute to understand the underlying power relationships.

Or more explicitly, every state is prepared to rob, pillage, rape, enslave or utterly destroy any other state, its people, treasures, and institutions, whenever a profitable opportunity occurs.

This is the fundamental characteristic of human society. Throughout human existence, men have lived as members of a tribe, a clan, a nation or an empire. It was the conflict among groups during the early stages of human development, when groups were small, that drove the development of human language and intelligence.

Tribes with leaders of exceptional intelligence, energy and charisma tended to outwit or outfight their neighbors, and thus had the best chance of survival and expansion. Because the tribal leader fathered a disproportionate number of a tribe's progeny, his intellectual attributes tended to be perpetuated and spread through the creation of colonies to occupying the territory of defeated rivals.

This mode of existence required a dual code of behavior: within the tribe, honesty, kindness and mutual aid; among tribes, relentless treachery, brutality and exploitation.

Hence, today, as rivals for the U.S. Presidency compete for inter-tribal psychopathic cred, we repeatedly hear that "all options are on the table," i.e., we'll nuke anyone, if we can get away with it.

In times past, this state of affairs was generally accepted as both right and natural. All foreigners were evil bastards to be mugged whenever possible.

Today, as the money power seeks to create a global system in which mankind will be divided between a ruling set, and a mass of subordinate and essentially domesticated humans to be bred, culled, and brainwashed as best serves the elite, inter-tribal denigration is harmful to the smooth running of the empire. Hence tribal loyalties are condemned as racism.

Anti-racism is now a project to destroy every national, racial, cultural and religious heritage: the destruction to be carried out, as necessary, with nukes, napalm, anti-personnel mines and toxic gases.

Here is the fly in the smooth unguent of liberal morality: to be anti-racist, we must destroy all those who seek to preserve their own race; to be pro-diversity, we must destroy all diversity by mongrelizing the World's human population; to show religious tolerance we must be intolerant of all who believe theirs to be the true faith.

Somehow, even through the miasma of self-congratulatory humbug that engulfs the liberal mind, something about this seems, well, not quite morally sound.