See the most relevant 40 minutes of television ever produced. The mix of authoritative voices who refused to be intimidated by political correctness gave us a frank factual analysis that everyone must absorb. This is a defining moment for our culture. It’s a rare conversation these days that supersedes politics.
(Every time I read this, it gets more powerful. B_Imperial)
By: Daniel Greenfield
Posted: 10 Dec 2013 08:49 PM PST
Orwell’s mistake in 1984 was assuming that a totalitarian socialist state would maintain the rigid linguistic conventions of bureaucratic totalitarianism. [Read more…]
– The College Fix – http://www.thecollegefix.com –
After Told He’s Racist, UW-M Student Rejects Further Diversity ‘Training’
Jason Morgan, a University of Wisconsin-Madison student earning his doctorate there, has told his supervisor he objects to the school’s mandated diversity training for teaching assistants (TAs) because leaders of the first session he attended essentially called him – and the whole class – racist.
The letter, sent by email Sept. 22, states all new TAs in the university’s history department are required to attend one orientation session, two training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Morgan, in his letter, called the first of the two diversity sessions, held Friday, “an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, ‘re-education’) entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.”
Below Morgan’s letter has been reproduced in its entirety. Morgan, a College Fix contributor, also sent copies of the letter to various Wisconsin news outlets:
Dear Graduate Director Prof. Kantrowitz,
Please forgive this sudden e-mail. I am writing to you today about the “diversity” training that new teaching assistants (TAs) are required to undergo. In keeping with the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea, I am also blind-copying on this e-mail several journalistic outlets and state government officials, because the taxpayers who support this university deserve to know how their money is being spent.
As you are probably aware, all new TAs in the History Department are required to attend one orientation session, two TA training sessions, and two diversity sessions. Yesterday (Friday, September 20th), we new TAs attended the first of the diversity sessions. To be quite blunt, I was appalled. What we were given, under the rubric of “diversity,” was an avalanche of insinuations, outright accusations, and suffocating political indoctrination (or, as some of the worksheets revealingly put it, “re-education”) entirely unbecoming a university of our stature.
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and students at probably every other public institution of higher education in this country, have long since grown accustomed to incessant leftism. It is in the very air that we breathe. Bascom Hill, for example, is roped off and the university is shut down so that Barack Obama (D), Mark Pocan (D), and Tammy Baldwin (D) can deliver campaign speeches before election day. (The university kindly helped direct student traffic to these campaign events by sending out a mass e-mail encouraging the student body to go to the Barack Obama for President website and click “I’m In for Barack!” in order to attend.) Marxist diatribes denouncing Christianity, Christians, the United States, and conservatives (I am happy to provide as many examples of this as might be required) are assigned as serious scholarship in seminars. The Teaching Assistants Association (TAA)–which sent out mass e-mails, using History Department list-servs, during the attempt to recall Governor Scott Walker, accusing Gov. Walker of, among other things, being “Nero”–is allowed to address TA and graduate student sessions as a “non-partisan organization”. The History Department sponsors a leftist political rally, along with the Socialist Party of Wisconsin, and advertises for the rally via a departmental e-mail (sent, one presumes, using state computers by employees drawing salaries from a state institution). In short, this university finds it convenient to pretend that it is an apolitical entity, but one need not be particularly astute to perceive that the Madison campus is little more than a think tank for the hard left. Even those who wholeheartedly support this political agenda might in all candor admit that the contours of the leftism here are somewhat less than subtle.
At the “diversity” training yesterday, though, even this fig leaf of apoliticism was discarded. In an utterly unprofessional way, the overriding presumption of the session was that the people whom the History Department has chosen to employ as teaching assistants are probably racists. In true “diversity” style, the language in which the presentation was couched was marbled with words like “inclusive”, “respect”, and “justice”. But the tone was unmistakably accusatory and radical. Our facilitator spoke openly of politicizing her classrooms in order to right (take revenge for?) past wrongs. We opened the session with chapter-and-verse quotes from diversity theorists who rehearsed the same tired “power and privilege” cant that so dominates seminar readings and official university hand-wringing over unmet race quotas. Indeed, one mild-mannered Korean woman yesterday felt compelled to insist that she wasn’t a racist. I never imagined that she was, but the atmosphere of the meeting had been so poisoned that even we traditional quarries of the diversity Furies were forced to share our collective guilt with those from continents far across the wine-dark sea.
It is hardly surprising that any of us hectorees would feel thusly. For example, in one of the handouts that our facilitator asked us to read (“Detour-Spotting: for white anti-racists,” by joan olsson [sic]), we learned things like, “As white infants we were fed a pabulum of racist propaganda,” “…there was no escaping the daily racist propaganda,” and, perhaps most even-handed of all, “Racism continues in the name of all white people.” Perhaps the Korean woman did not read carefully enough to realize that only white people (all of them, in fact) are racist. Nevertheless, in a manner stunningly redolent of “self-criticism” during the Cultural Revolution in communist China, the implication of the entire session was that everyone was suspect, and everyone had some explaining to do.
You have always been very kind to me, Prof. Kantrowitz, so it pains me to ask you this, but is this really what the History Department thinks of me? Is this what you think of me? I am not sure who selected the readings or crafted the itinerary for the diversity session, but, as they must have done so with the full sanction of the History Department, one can only conclude that the Department agrees with such wild accusations, and supports them. Am I to understand that this is how the white people who work in this Department are viewed? If so, I cannot help but wonder why in the world the Department hired any of us in the first place. Would not anyone be better?
There is one further issue. At the end of yesterday’s diversity “re-education,” we were told that our next session would include a presentation on “Trans Students”. At that coming session, according to the handout we were given, we will learn how to let students ‘choose their own pronouns’, how to correct other students who mistakenly use the wrong pronouns, and how to ask people which pronouns they prefer (“I use the pronouns he/him/his. I want to make sure I address you correctly. What pronouns do you use?”). Also on the agenda for next week are “important trans struggles, as well as those of the intersexed and other gender-variant communities,” “stand[ing] up to the rules of gender,” and a very helpful glossary of related terms and acronyms, to wit: “Trans”: for those who “identify along the gender-variant spectrum,” and “Genderqueer”: “for those who consider their gender outside the binary gender system”. I hasten to reiterate that I am quoting from diversity handouts; I am not making any of this up.
Please allow me to be quite frank. My job, which I love, is to teach students Japanese history. This week, for example, I have been busy explaining the intricacies of the Genpei War (1180-1185), during which time Japan underwent a transition from an earlier, imperial-rule system under regents and cloistered emperors to a medieval, feudal system run by warriors and estate managers. It is an honor and a great joy to teach students the history of Japan. I take my job very seriously, and I look forward to coming to work each day.
It is most certainly not my job, though, to cheer along anyone, student or otherwise, in their psychological confusion. I am not in graduate school to learn how to encourage poor souls in their sexual experimentation, nor am I receiving generous stipends of taxpayer monies from the good people of the Great State of Wisconsin to play along with fantasies or accommodate public cross-dressing. To all and sundry alike I explicate, as best I can, such things as the clash between the Taira and the Minamoto, the rise of the Kamakura shogunate, and the decline of the imperial house in twelfth-century Japan. Everyone is welcome in my classroom, but, whether directly or indirectly, I will not implicate myself in my students’ fetishes, whatever those might be. What they do on their own time is their business; I will not be a party to it. I am exercising my right here to say, “Enough is enough.” One grows used to being thought a snarling racist–after all, others’ opinions are not my affair–but one draws the line at assisting students in their private proclivities. That is a bridge too far, and one that I, at least, will not cross.
I regret that this leaves us in an awkward situation. After having been accused of virulent racism and, now, assured that I will next learn how to parse the taxonomy of “Genderqueers”, I am afraid that I will disappoint those who expect me to attend any further diversity sessions. When a Virginia-based research firm came to campus a couple of years ago to present findings from their study of campus diversity, then-Diversity Officer Damon Williams sent a gaggle of shouting, sign-waving undergraduates to the meeting, disrupting the proceedings so badly that the meeting was cancelled. In a final break with such so-called “diversity”, I will not be storming your office or shouting into a megaphone outside your window. Instead, I respectfully inform you hereby that I am disinclined to join in any more mandatory radicalism. I have, thank God, many more important things to do. I also request that diversity training be made optional for all TAs, effective immediately. In my humble opinion, neither the Department nor the university has any right to subject anyone to such intellectual tyranny.
Thank you for your patience in reading this long e-mail.
Article printed from The College Fix: http://www.thecollegefix.comURL to article: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/14698/URLs in this post:
 CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thecollegefix
 @CollegeFix: http://www.twitter.com/collegefix
Copyright © 2012 The College Fix. All rights reserved.
Polite debate is no longer the accepted norm in our society. The liberal left is not tolerating divergent opinions, they want them eliminated. Outrageous labels, personal threats, and even violence have escalated during what used to be polite discourse and disagreements of opinion. [Read more…]
As more people learn the embarrassing truth about Obama’s lack of credentials, the traditional liberal media keeps doubling and redoubling down on their last refuge—the claim that it’s all racism. Every voice counter to their prevailing politically correct gestalt is racist. Every criticism of multicultural thought, racism. If politics is the last refuge of a scoundrel, racism is surely the last refuge of a politician.
What an insult. Racism, racism, racism. Everywhere you look, racism. We’re all racists. We can’t think, we can’t see facts, we can’t reason, we can’t form conclusions. Half the country, basically all the non-leftists in the country, are now classed by the liberal media as mindless racists.
So this is the new big lie. Obama, the narcissistic most important person in America forever, has the Left totally invested in him. In this game, they’re “all in.” But Obama not only deflated the American dollar, he deflated whatever real reasons the Left may have once held to legitimately support him. The chips they had in this game became worthless, and they have no hole cards. So it’s pound the table and scream racism, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, cover your ears with your hands and mouth “na na na na na….” Were this an old west barroom they’d have their six guns out and blazing.
Peter Boyles is correct. We’re witnessing the self-destruction of the American media. They’re de-legitimizing themselves, there doesn’t appear to be any way of slowing them down, and they’re not going quietly into that good night. Looks like it’s going to get a lot messier before it’s over.
In the long run, the destruction of the American traditional media will become the bigger story. The most important narcissist of all time will be seen as only one catalyst in that fundamental change — which is certainly not the change he had hoped for.
“Every year regulatory compliance costs U.S. businesses $1.75 Trillion. That would be enough to hire 43 Million workers.”
See this short youtube video at Episode Two: Economic Freedom in America Today.
Regulation is not only a Federal problem. Regulation is pernicious, at every level of government. Today Elbert County has a clear choice whether or not to greatly expand our county’s regulatory reach into energy development matters it knows next to nothing about.
At the county level the force of regulation is imposed through zoning law. Our county’s Community and Development Services department works every day to write, refine, expand, detail and enforce their ubiquitous vision of a perfectable society. They want to save this land and this county from its people because, essentially, they don’t trust the people.
They think they are wise stewards who, with a third-party steward’s interest, have a more valuable right to forecefully impose their vision about a sound local economy, than the stakeholders and property holders in the county have in doing so for themselves.
Zoning regulators think that by stopping people from the pursuit of economic activity, they serve a higher purpose of preservation of our local world. This of course begs questions of preservation for what? For who? For when? And for why?
Of course they have answers for all of these questions. The answers are myths — myths consisting of more tenuous myths in a great pyramid of “smart,” sustainable, no-growth, enviro-jihad mythology.
The future beneficiaries of county zoning and regulation don’t exist. They are a myth–not real–and unless you’re a believer, not even foreseeable. The great probability is they will never come to exist because future unforseen circumstances will change everything long before these present day socio and eco myths can ever be tested, long after they are forgotten in favor of some future mythology as yet unkown.
Man took matters that used to be in God’s domain and invested them in Gaia, the environment and universe-trekking aliens. That’s what humans do at the margins of their knowledge where observation ends and speculation begins–we create mythologies–myths that we love. And then we create the legalities to enforce those mythologies.
Regulatory zealots consider this sort of talk heresy. They believe that the forced perfectibility of man and the environment is actually possible. Just as the power that was – the Church – once defended Ptolemy’s geocentric universe against the heresy of Copernicus, so too the regulatory powers of today know, without a shadow of doubt, that they know best, and that they can sufficiently describe, legislate, and enforce a set of rules to govern our behavior, for our own best interest.
To even imagine they could succeed at such a task is a pinnacle of hubris. When has an authoritarian process ever led to a best outcome for its subjects? When have a small minority of minds ever created the economic output of a diverse population acting in their own interests? The regulatory model cannot succeed.
Regulation makes inevitable change much more costly. The regulatory parties in government who do this to us have no personal skin in the game–only myths and the iron fist–a deadly combination. Ironically, the regulatory mission of governing progressives is about the most regressive thing they could do.
If we can’t stop creating mythologies, at least we should learn to stop legalizing them.
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On June 16, 2011 @ 12:20 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
On Memorial Day weekend, there were riots in Charlotte, Rochester, Nashville, Miami, Myrtle Beach and Boston. Last Friday, fighting broke out at Brighton Beach in New York City, where five people were shot and a young girl was killed. Flash mobs have been attacking people in Chicago on the streets and on public buses. The common thread? All of the mobs were black youths — and there’s been a concerted effort by the media to ignore that reality. [Read more…]
From: Mountain States Legal Foundation – Perry Pendley
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:27 AM
Subject: Opportunity to battle Obama’s attempt to invalidate Arizona’s illegal immigration statue
I want to tell you of a unique opportunity to participate in the battle by Arizona, assisted by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), against attempts by the Obama Administration to invalidate Arizona’s illegal immigration statute, S.B. 1070.
On Monday, November 1, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Savings Time, C-SPAN will broadcast LIVE, oral arguments before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Arizona. The three judges include: Richard Paez (appointed by Bill Clinton), John Noonan (appointed by Ronald Reagan), and Carlos Bea (appointed by George W. Bush).
I will be watching. If you watch, I would be interested in learning what you think. [Read more…]
The PC movement attempts the legal and militant suppression of views that depart from a belief in diversity for its own sake. Apparently in itself, diversity is not a sufficiently compelling goal that attracts people to uphold it. For diversity to succeed, history must be revised to show diversity and multiculturalism as preferred outcomes. When historical events did not result in a more multicultural outcome, if discussed at all, it is only in terms of vilification, racism, and evil. The more common tactic is to simply forget to mention events in history that do not support the diversity theme.
Political correctness is often compared to the orthodoxy of the medieval church in its suppression of Galileo, but this analogy fails. The church was the dominant orthodoxy with a long history, and it was resisting the tide of current events. The church was an entrenched power attempting to suppress new knowledge in order to preserve its station. Political correctness is new thinking, unsupported by the totality of history, that seeks to suppress old knowledge in order to take power for its own adherents.
So in the case of the church, it was suppression to retain power; in the case of PC, it’s suppression to take power. Both are wrong, but one at least had the stability and weight of history behind it. And with that historical foundation came the potential for orderly change. PC has no such potential. It can only be revolutionary and this is proved each time it’s progenitors revise history.
Most importantly, revolutions against an organic state of affairs have never worked out very well for the societies subjected to them. The prospects for political correctness are no better.
The veiled threats against the Comedy Central show’s creators should be taken very seriously. Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
‘South Park” is hilarious, right? Not any more.
Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also “featured” the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.
For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone “will probably end up” like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing “Submission,” a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.
There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here’s Mr. Amrikee’s perspective: “It’s not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome,” he told Foxnews.com. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It’s just the reality.” He’s also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh’s body.
According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their “outrage” merits little attention.
This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.
Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.
The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.
Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn’t include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.
So how worried should the creators of “South Park” be about the “marginal figures” who now threaten them? Very. In essence, Mr. Amrikee’s posting is an informal fatwa. Here’s how it works:
There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard’s home in January carrying an axe and a knife.
Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the “offense” may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?
The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C., curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.
Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That’s a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.
One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend “South Park,” producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.
Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the “South Park” episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.
Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.
In “South Park,” this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.
Despots do not accept the autonomy of the literary imagination. Freedom of the imagination, dangerous to them, is related to the independence of the soul. This independence is not peculiar to artists, it is common to all human beings.
In the U.S., we were protected in the past by a sense of humor. In the days of Mark Twain, of Mr. Dooley and H. L. Mencken, we were still able to kid ourselves. Mencken’s wicked jokes on Boobus Americanus — his term for the average man — had a salutary influence on the discussion of public questions and on public behavior. Sometimes crude, openly prejudiced but often very funny, he banged away at the professors, the politicians and the Jim Crow South. But fanatics and demagogues had far less influence in those pre-sensitive days. Child gangsters did not then kill the kids who “dissed” them.
Righteousness and rage threaten the independence of our souls.
Rage is now brilliantly prestigious. Rage, the reverse of bourgeois prudence, is a luxury. Rage is distinguished, it is a patrician passion. The rage of rappers and rioters takes as its premise the majority’s admission of guilt for past and present injustices, and counts on the admiration of the repressed for the emotional power of the uninhibited and “justly” angry. Rage can also be manipulative; it can be an instrument of censorship and despotism.
As a onetime anthropologist, I know a taboo when I see one. Open discussion of many major public questions has for some time now been taboo.
We can’t open our mouths without being denounced as racists, misogynists, supremacists, imperialists or fascists.
As for the media, they stand ready to trash anyone so designated.
Saul Bellow, professor of literature at Boston University, won the Nobel Prize in 1976.
It’s “Jihadis” Mr. President, not “alleged suspects.” The terrorists are warriors for Islam: “And we will continue in this path, Allah willing, until we reach our goal so that religion is all Allah’s.”
Mr. President, your political correctness will get people killed. You’re not going to win the war by wealthy jihadis with constitutional due process. You’re just enabling and encouraging them.
Their statement: [Read more…]
Back on September 25th, a few thousand Muslims gathered on Capitol Hill, a number well short of the 50,000 the event planners were shooting for and hoping for.
An ACT! for America team, led by two of our Florida chapter leaders, was on hand for the event, and was able to interview a number of the Muslims who attended.
All three of these videos are now available for public viewing, and we encourage you to view them and pass this email on to others. For if a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth 10,000.
[T]he moral destruction of communism was worse because the confusion between common morality and communist morality remains deep rooted. With the latter hiding behind the former, it is parasitical and polluting, using common morality to spread its contagion. Here is a recent example: in the discussions that followed the publication of The Black Book of Communism, an editorial writer at the French communist newspaper L’Humanite’ announced on television that 85 million deaths did not in any way tarnish the communist ideal. They represented only a very unfortunate deviation. After Auschwitz, he continued, one can no longer be a Nazi, but one can remain a communist after the Soviet camps. This man, who spoke in good conscience, did not realize at all that he had just articulated his own most fatal condemnation. He could not see that the communist idea had so perverted the principles of reality and morality that it could indeed outlive 85 million corpses, whereas the Nazi idea had succombed under its dead. He thought he had spoken as a great and decent man, idealistic and uncompromising, without realizing that he had uttered a monstrosity. Communism is more perverse than Nazism because it does not ask man consciously to take the moral step of the criminal, and because it uses the spirit of justice and goodness that abounds throughout the earth to spread evil over all the earth. Each communist experience begins anew in innocence.
Alain Besancon, A Century of Horrors, 2007.
American leftists will ridicule their comparison to communists, however, in moral relativity, in masking harmful policies under good intentions, and in denial over their policies’ historical failures, leftists and communists are a distinction without a difference. [Read more…]
The psychological state of the militant is distinguished by his fanatical investment in the system. This central vision reorganizes his entire intellectual and perceptual field, all the way to the periphery. Language is transformed: it is no longer used to communicate or express, but to conceal a contrived continuity between the system and reality. Ideological language is charged with the magical role of forcing reality to conform to a particular vision of the world. It is a liturgical language for which every utterance points to its speaker’s adherence to the system, and it summons the interlocutor to adhere as well. Code words thus constitute threats and figures of power.It is not possible to remain intelligent under the spell of ideology.
The most obvious sign that ideological insanity is artificial is that it is reversible: when the pressure ceases and circumstances change, one gets out all at once, as if from a dream. But it is a waking dream–one that does not block motility and maintains a certain apparently rational coherence. Outside the affected area, which is the superior part of the mind in a healthy person–the part that articulates religion, philosophy, and the “governing ideas of reason,” as Kant would say–the comprehensive functions seem intact but focused on and enslaved by the surreal object. When one wakes, one’s mind is empty; one’s life and knowledge must be entirely relearned.
Alain Besancon, A Century of Horrors, 2007.
The Republican mistake of the 2008 election was to embrace a portion of the left’s ideological insanity to bring in moderates, which ended up ratcheting the debate to the left. Whoever concluded that Republicans could score by giving the ball to the opposition should be fired. [Read more…]
We now have brewing an epic battle that will determine the relative importance of three different groups: Jews, Muslims and Mexicans.
You see, in the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism, when the interests of different identity groups conflict, the arbiters of political correctness must decide which group has the most victim cred. That’s how such disputes are settled: to the victim go the spoils. [Read more…]
IT is amusing to see how a man in a passion lets the truth escape him. The London Times, which has constantly striven to represent the rebellion as the noble effort of an oppressed people to recover and defend their liberties, and has with perfect success falsified every fact in the history of the war, unguardedly tells the naked truth in a late article written under the consciousness of the extremity of the rebel cause.
It is speaking of the project of arming the slaves at the South, and the Times innocently remarks: ” The South has no reason to doubt that the negro will fight just as bravely in support of the cause of slavery, which is the cause of his master, as he will in the cause of liberty.” And it adds of its particular friends the rebels : ” The man who would submit without a murmur to the impressment of his horses or his crops, may very likely shrink back with a species of superstitious horror from the attempt of his own Government [at Richmond] to deprive him of those very slaves for whom he has already fought a long and desperate war.”
This is as it should be. The Times confesses that this insurrection is an effort to save slavery; and the paper whose asserted pride it is to defend “fair play”—the representative of the aristocratic governing class of England deliberately supports as a manly assertion of an undoubted right the armed effort of a body of men to overthrow a Government, which they do not pretend has ever wronged them, merely for the sake of preserving slavery. Does any really intelligent and thoughtful Englishman wonder that his country is detested by all other nations when he sees that its leading journal, holding a position which no other paper holds in any other country, is guilty of such a crime against human nature and civil society?
We do not for a moment forget the sympathy and generous service of our friends in England who, understanding this war, truly appreciate and despise the course of the Times and its adherents. But the fact of which we speak will help explain to them the indignation which they hear so often breathed against England. They may he very sure that if the mine owners any where in England should revolt against the British Government for the sole purpose of more surely imbruting the unhappy miners, no American statesman in office would applaud their insurrection as the founding of a nation, as Mr. GLADSTONE said of this rebellion ; and if any leading newspaper here, clearly recognizing the object of the insurrection, vehemently supported it, it would be overwhelmed with the derision and wrath of the great body of the people.
“A 70 percent illegitimacy rate in black America, an incarceration and crime rate seven times that of white America, a 50 percent dropout rate in many urban high schools, African-American graduates reading and computing on average at eighth-grade levels. And about these problems what is the black leadership doing?
Unlike Bill Cosby, the heroic Holder was virtually mute. Rather, he is upset that “on Saturdays and Sundays” we don’t go to church or hang out together. But why are the free associations of Americans, of whatever creed or color, any of Eric Holder or Big Brother’s business?
Having insulted us, perhaps Holder will start doing his own sworn duty. For one area where he has a lead role is enforcing the nation’s laws — in particular, the U.S. immigration laws.”
The real cowards in America are the ones who condone predatory redistribution of the American dream, not the ones who figure out how to make or do something productive, stay employed, live within the bounds of the law, stay married, pay taxes, raise kids in a two-parent home, pay their mortgage, and hold up their end of the American social contract.
It’s the ones who join the mob to prey on those productive souls.
Take it all away. Stop enabling progressive predators. “God Bless the child that’s got his own.”
Read it and weep.
With smug indifference, Candidate Sward dismisses all questions in her bid for higher office about “social issues” as “irrelevant.” Before even hearing the question, her answer is “irrelevant.” Talk about dictatorial hubris.
The left turned our county commission into a battleground where every issue, no matter how trivial, devolves into Gaia’s last stand in Elbert County — a huge “social issue.”
But don’t ask don’t tell Ms. Sward, as if there’s any doubt about which way she’ll jump on the question, and as if we should not know.
by a student at Harvard Divinity School, 1989
Oppressors: White male heterosexuals
Bias: Basing scholarship on reason and evidence
Patriarchal models: Objectivity, logic, rational discourse, mathematics, science, the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, family values, motherhood and apple pie
Politically aware: Politically far-left
Being divisive: Deviating from the beliefs of the politically aware (see politically aware); synonymous with being hostile
Liberal arts education: Political indoctrination
Guilt: Feeling bad about your genes, but not about your actions
Women and men: The forces of good and evil in the dualism of gender (see gender)
Diversity: The gathering together of as large a group as possible of discontents, deviants and social misfits while excluding, suppressing and bashing conservatives, Republicans, evangelicals, adherents of historical religions, serious students and anyone resistant to indoctrination
Sensitivity: Being deferential toward and extraordinarily circumspect around those included in diversity while gratuitously attacking those excluded from diversity (see diversity)
Greater diversity: Doing a better job of weeding out those excluded from diversity (see diversity)
Being exclusive: Providing equal opportunity and equal protection under the law, regardless of race or sex
Hermeneutics/Deconstructionism: Interpreting texts from the perspective of gender (see gender) with a rationalization by anyone with a French name
Victims: All those not fitting the definition of oppressor (see oppressors) and officially recognized far-left groups; does not include refugees from leftist totalitarian countries, such as Vietnamese boat people, Cuban immigrants, etc.
Sexism: The discrimination against and stereotyping of women or the failure to discriminate against and stereotype men
Racism: The belief held by white oppressors (see oppressors) that their race is superior to that of non-white victims (see Victims) or the failure to apologize for one’s own race if that race should be white; term is not applicable to non-whites
Moderates: The Sandinistas, Castro, Lenin, Mao, Hillary Clinton and all those who are politically aware (see politically aware)
Ultra-conservatives/the far right: All those to the right of moderates (see moderates)
Leftists: The empty set; exist only in the rhetoric of ultra-conservatives (see ultra-conservatives)
Inclusive language: An ostentatious form of new speak which seeks to remove the generic use of ‘man’ and ‘he’ (along with common sense and eloquence) from the language, e.g. “What are persons, that thou art mindful of her/him? and the child of persons, that thou doest care for him/her?”
Censorship: A good thing when done by politically aware (see poltically unaware), e.g. punishing owners of baseball teams for alleged comments made during private conversations; a bad thing when done by ultra-conservatives (see ultra-conservatives).
Iconoclasm: 1. An activity self-righteously pursued by the politically aware; 2. an activity considered criminal when the icons of the politically aware are involved (see politically aware)
Iconoclast: One who can dish it out but can’t take it