Category Archives: Culture Wars
The eradication of Christianity from American culture and history proceeds:
A humanist advocacy group [the American Humanist Association ] has filed a federal lawsuit to remove a cross-shaped World War I memorial in Prince George’s County [Maryland], alleging the display violates the First Amendment.
The First Amendment actually protects religious expression. Next authoritarian moonbats will use the Second Amendment to justify seizing guns.
“We are certainly recommending coming up with a monument inclusive of all religious groups,” said Monica Miller, a lawyer with the association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center.
Yet again we see that in liberal upside-down world, “inclusive” means “exclusive of Christianity.” Counting all the Americans who ever lived, well over 90% have been Christians. Dictating that Christianity can be no more in evidence than hostile alien religions like Islam is the same as excluding it.
The 40-foot-tall concrete memorial was erected in 1925 by the American Legion to commemorate the 49 men of Prince George’s County who died during World War I.
We’ll see if the government they died for will defend their memories by defending the memorial they lie under.
If liberalism prevails, people born today may live in a world where Americans know no more about Christianity — which substantially provided the foundation upon which American civilization was constructed — than they do about Zoroastrianism. Except of course they will know that it was bad.
The more you try to figure out liberals’ dedication to erasing Christianity, the more it will send chills up your spine.
On a tip from Wiggins.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
March 4, 2014 | Author: LAF Editor
Less than 48 hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case, sentencing them to almost certain deportation, the Romeike family has received a reprieve.
The Home School Legal Defense Association confirmed today that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has granted the German homeschooling family “indefinite deferred status,”allowing them to remain in the United States as long as they want.
“This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God,” Michael Farris, the HSLDA attorney representing the family, wrote on the group’s Facebook page.“We also want to thank those of [you] who spoke up on this issue—including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.”
Read the rest here.
Found at: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/
Tracked from RR: http://www.rural-revolution.com/
Because of the Obama Regime’s refusal to enforce immigration law (and refusal to allow states to do so), illegal alien welfare colonists continue to flood the country — driving up crime and unemployment rates, sinking hospitals into bankruptcy, making roads unsafe with reckless drunk driving, and tilting the country’s demographics in the direction of the Third World. But there are some foreigners that the Regime will go to great trouble to expel — namely those who would make a positive contribution to America by reinforcing its traditional values. For example, the Romeikes:
Uwe and Hannelore Romeike came to the United States in 2008 seeking political asylum. They fled their German homeland in the face of religious persecution for homeschooling their children.
They wanted to live in a country where they could raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs.
They came to the right place. That is the very purpose this civilization was founded by the Pilgrims to serve.
Except now America has been fundamentally transformed — into its opposite:
The Romeikes were initially given asylum, but the Obama administration objected – claiming that German laws that outlaw homeschooling do not constitute persecution.
The German laws in question don’t go back as far as America’s tradition of serving as a haven for oppressed Christians. They date back to the Hitler Administration.
The Obama Administration approves of them whole-heartedly:
“The goal in Germany is for an open, pluralistic society,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last year. “Teaching tolerance to children of all backgrounds helps to develop the ability to interact as a fully functioning citizen in Germany.”
“Pluralistic” is libspeak for “ideologically homogeneous.” Forcing all children into government schools, even against their parents’ religious principles, is intended to ensure that everyone comes out thinking the same way — the way the government wants them to think.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Romeike’s appeal – paving the way for the Christian family of eight to be deported.
Once back in Germany, the children will be confiscated and placed in government custody.
Obviously, our own days of legal homeschooling are numbered if authoritarian statists continue to hold sway.
When the situation gets bad enough here that the government actually secures the border because people are sneaking out instead of in, let’s hope other countries show escaping Americans more mercy than the Obama Regime has shown the Romeikes.
On a tip from Stormfax.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
No…this has nothing to do with “separate but equal.” Where in the world is this nonsense coming from?
This is a very tough issue though. This law in Arizona was meant to protect small business owners who do not want to offer their services for homosexual weddings because of their conflicting religious reasons. Lawyers for activist organizations and the ACLU have been filing suits against these small businesses (florists, bakeries, photographers, chapels, etc) in multiple states and activist judges have been ordering them to participate in these weddings against their will or pay fines. Now big business is trying to put the pressure on Arizona to veto the bill because they don’t want the bad PR tied to them. This is tyranny of religious freedom and is just another move of the minority to force artificial change on a free market system that would take care of the problem naturally.
Now, the takeaway is that the gay couples didn’t necessarily file these suits, the lawyers did…”on their behalf.” These small businesses aren’t necessarily turning away gay people just because they’re gay, just their services for homosexual weddings, which these business owners religiously disagree with. In a free market, if a business turns away clients, that’s their loss of revenue. The press (and gay activists) has made this out to be that Arizona businesses have been turning away homosexuals left and right just because they’re homosexuals, which isn’t true at all. And if the bill were to pass, no way would a large percentage of these large corporations pull out these states. I’d love to see the crony panderers at the NFL pull the Super Bowl or American Airlines try to pull out of the state…what a bunch of cowards.
This issue is also more widespread than just Arizona and could affect other states’ reactions. A judge should never have the power to make you offer your products or services to anyone…no matter what the reason is. Would it be fair to force a Catholic minister to perform a nudist wedding? Would it be fair to force a black photographer take photos at a skinhead wedding? Would it be right to force a recovering alcoholic to cater a reception at a bar? Unless you’re judgement is cloudy, the answer to all of these is, “no.” If the business truly is bigoted, then it should fail on its own by customers choosing not to patronize them. It is not discriminating to turn down your services if you do not feel comfortable or morally correct in doing so. That is your real civil right.
However, personally, I think Jan Brewer should veto this bill and come up with better legislation that protects these small businesses and their religious rights while keeping these blood-hungry lawyers away from pilfering them by using phony discrimination as a reason.
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Dartmouth Students Demand Money, Race Quotas, Speech Restrictions, Sensitivity Brainwashing, and More
Here I was thinking of Ivy League colleges as bastions of unmitigated moonbattery. Turns out they are actually hotbeds of racist oppression — but not for long, thanks to liberal rebels:
A group of disgruntled students at Dartmouth College sent an 8-page protest letter to leaders of the Ivy League institution Monday calling for reparations for what they claim is the school’s oppressive and racist atmosphere – and threatened “physical action” if their demands are not met.
The list of demands, written by “concerned Asian, Black, Latin@, Native, Undocumented, Queer, and Differently-Abled students,” include:
• Racial enrollment quotas for Black and Latino students to “at least 10 percent each”
• “Ensure that 47 percent of post-doctoral students are people of color”
• “Ban the use of ‘illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, wetback’ and any racially charged term”
• Mandate cultural competency and sensitivity training for professors
• “Ask staff/faculty to use students’ and employees’ preferred gender pronouns”
• Enroll more students in the country illegally (undocumented students); and provide them free legal assistance and financial aid
• Convert ethnic studies programs into full-fledged departments
• Incorporate into each department at least one queer studies class
• Increase the interdisciplinary academic focus on sexualities
• Enact curricular changes to force students to study social justice and marginalization in depth
• Provide gender-neutral bathrooms in every building on campus
• “Create a policy with serious consequences against hate speech/crimes”
• Create a policy penalizing and discriminating against students who use the Indian mascot
• Require school’s conservative paper give up “Dartmouth” name if they use term “Indian”
At this point, no one could credibly deny that our liberal ruling class predominately features totalitarians who want to use force to impose their bizarre and nauseating ideology on every facet of human existence. I can hardly wait to see how Dartmouth incorporates a class extolling the sanctity of sexual perversion into math and engineering programs — assuming that useful fields of study still exist at top colleges.
The purpose of this grotesque list of demands is to “eradicate systems of oppression as they affect marginalized communities on this campus.” Yet if any groups are oppressed and marginalized on college campuses, it is the groups liberals demand systematic discrimination against: whites, men, normal people, et cetera.
The unnamed students go on to assert that by March 24 – the first day of spring term – Dartmouth administrators must publicly respond to each item raised in the letter with “its exact commitment to each one of its demands” and that reparations that require funds “have a monetary commitment in the 2014-2015 fiscal budget.”
If they don’t get their way, the moonbats “will be forced to physical action.”
Stop snickering. Similarly clownish liberal screwballs were a prominent feature of college campuses in the hippie era. For example, armed black students took over the Naval ROTC offices at Columbia, demanding that it be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” They actually got their way. Today one of them is the Attorney General of the United States. His radical ideology has not perceptibly matured.
The thuggish nuts who drew up the list of demands above will one day hold powerful positions in the federal government. What other kind of job would they be good for?
On a tip from R F. Hat tip: Frontpage Mag.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
You know what’s happening?
Multidirectional, multivariate, multicausal American decline.
Every metric, every signpost, every judicial fiat, every subversive narrative points to the same destination: The drain. The deviants and degenerates and destroyers are as close to the sun now as they’ve ever been. This is their moment. They can feel the warmth of validation. The radiant glow of coerced acceptance. The flare of triumph over human nature. Fat Pride, Femcunt Pride, Freak Pride, Furry Pride, Slut Pride, Anti-White Pride, Gay Pride and now Pantywaist Pride. Pride cometh before the fall. – - Obama’s America: Land Of The Twee, Home Of The Fey
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Blacks Want Everyone to Celebrate Their Heritage, But Whites are Racists if They Celebrate Theirs? WTF?
Micro aggression on wheels
Via The Black Sphere
Georgia officials approved a specialty license plate that features the Confederate battle flag. How long do you think it took for the “civil rights advocates” to end their tea break?
Don’t expect these race pimps to get upset about the black people killing other blacks, when there is a LICENSE PLATE TO PICKET!
The claim is that the license plate is a reminder of slavery, Jim Crow, and the Klan…all DEMOCRAT institutions.
What race-baiting black Liberals want is the complete white-washing of white Southerners’ past. Forget your history, abandon your heritage, because it any part of it is tainted in today’s politically correct world.
The Catholic church had the Crusades, Germany gassed the Jews, and so on. For blacks, no harm no foul, at least not when there are Southerners trying to be proud of their heritage. Not knowing one’s heritage can allow you to create whatever you background choose. It’s convenient for Liberal blacks to forget that Africans were sold into slavery…by other AFRICANS. And nothing has changed. Modern-day slavery black slave owners — black Liberal “leaders” like the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) — are the new Anthony Johnson’s (the first slave owner in America, and he happened to be black).
The CBC sells more blacks into slavery than all the African tribes combined.
Blacks seem to be proud of this heritage of blacks selling other blacks, embracing “African” in front of American, though 99.9 percent of blacks have never been to African and can’t tell you from what tribe they descend.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Hands off our children, Big Brother
Exclusive: Patrice Lewis warns parents of latest ‘evil curriculum’ pushed by government
Below is an except of this article. Read it all at the above Link.
Remember, follow the money. If schools are government-funded, then logically only government-approved attitudes and behaviors will be permitted. Students (and by extension, their families) must be tracked to make sure everyone falls within acceptable boundaries of thought and behavior. Dissenting opinions will be made known to officials, and corrective measures can be taken. I’m beginning to think the Planet Camazotz (with the megalomaniac “IT”) from “A Wrinkle in Time” was astoundingly prescient.
Are you freaked out yet? I know our friends are. That’s why they will soon be homeschooling their youngest son.
I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need to reject government education, if at all possible. It is your duty as a parent to raise children, not zombies. You’re raising the hope of the future, not its doom. It’s time to look outside the jail cell and see what educational alternatives you can find for your kids. Almost anything is better than putting them in prison for eight hours a day.
Don’t forget: Children are the currency of tyrants. You can see the evidence right in front of you. The government already takes too much of your income. Tell it to get its hands off your legacy.
By: Patrice Lewis
Needless to say there are people arguing both sides of the issue, but one comment in particular caught my eye.
This commenter was responding to a mother who pulled her girls from Girl Scouts. He or she didn’t deny any supposed affiliation with Planned Parenthood; rather, he/she seemed to defend Planned Parenthood’s influence on girls. S/he wrote: “So you want to empower your girls by making sure they don’t know anything about sex, birth control or the most important decisions of their lives. Yeah. Ignorance of important topics is _very_ empowering.
You can’t have “respect for self” while your self is locked in a cage with no options. You can’t teach “respect for others” if you don’t respect them enough to give them all the facts and let them make their own decisions. And you’re not teaching “faith in God,” either, since you clearly don’t trust God’s gift of free will to them; you’re trying to take it back in case they actually use it.”
Girl Scouts aside, I found this comment astoundingly ignorant on the mechanics of raising children with faith.
By this person’s logic, we should never teach our children anything. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. After all, anything we teach them might interfere with their God-given gift of free will, right? So don’t teach a toddler to control his tantrums. Don’t teach children not to hit. Don’t teach kids to respect their elders. Don’t teach teens to control their hormonal urges. Hey, free will means a free-for-all! Whoo-hoo!
What this person is arguing, of course, is that girls should be encouraged to act out on their sexuality (that’s the eternal interpretation of “letting them make their own decisions”). We’re not talking legal adults here, folks; we’re talking GIRLS who are still MINORS.
Another commenter referred to family values as “medieval morality that revolves around controlling women.” Huh?
Empowering is a buzz word progressives use to encourage girls and women to abandon all moral teachings and rut like animals. But as the mother of teen girls, it makes a lot more sense to empower my daughters to know they must be responsible for their own decisions and that there are consequences to actions.
In another column entitled Shirley Temple’s America is No More, the author wrote: “Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film [Bright Eyes] as Norman Rockwell-ish… What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.”
That’s the difference, apparently. The Miley Cyruses of the world are “empowered.” The Shirley Temples are not. Abortions are empowering. Restraint is not.
I hate to break it to people, but women hold a unique position in society: they are capable of conceiving life. Therefore it behooves them to refrain from activities that result in being forced to make harsh decisions that will cause heartbreak no matter what.
I know feminists would love for women to be just like men, but we’re not. Therefore I will “empower” my girls to understand that they hold the key to their future happiness in their own hands, and they need to make good choices (the essence of a simple life, if you recall) in order to live with as little heartbreak as possible.
Just some thoughts for Valentine’s Day.
One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.
Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.
Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.
The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?
Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”
Meanwhile, in Kansas, the state House of Representatives approved a billintended to impede the March Toward Utopia in the name of “religious liberty,” inspiring an eruption of hyperbole about “vicious discrimination” and “anti-gay segregation.”
“Willkommen, Herr Chamberlain. Welcome to Munich. Today you will cede the Sudetenland. Tomorrow, we’ll demand the world.”
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
The left finally has its Un-American tyranny. So why is it so angry?
Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There’s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.
That anger trickles from the top down. Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right wing conspiracy. A day doesn’t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the “right” will take over America.
The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.
The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.
On the internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He’s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he’s a sexist pig.
Pageviews are the obvious profit motive behind all this and yet it says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn’t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive. But now that it has the power, it can’t stop searching for someone to hate instead.
The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn’t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.
Obama’s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left’s governing style. As with an interracial Cheerios commercial, it cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.
That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn’t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.
For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or any other conservative villain of the month than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against, the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male, than from the things that it is for.
The left’s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.
Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions. Or until some outside force throws a pot of cold water on the quarreling and shrieking acolytes brawling over minor points of doctrine.
The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by The Nation in its article “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars” as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word “Vagina” and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns. This is what the left begins doing when it has free time on its hands. It doesn’t stop fighting. Instead its wars become pettier power struggles over points of doctrine.
When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn’t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it’s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum, its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.
As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from the violent disintegration into its own insanity is the right.
Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn’t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.
The left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its gurus and followers focused on the “real” threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.
Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other as no outsider possibly can.
Hate is the force that gives the left meaning. It isn’t hope that animates its leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature that calls on them to destroy and to kill. That dark side is why the left’s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.
The left finds its identity not in its utopian visions, but in the things and people it wishes to destroy. Only by knowing what they hate, do its followers know who they are.
Kill off religion and what do you have left? The answer can be seen in China. You’re left with materialism and family interests.. Cast off the shackles of the family for individualistic consumerism and you’re left with nothing except materialism as can be seen in any major Western city.
Modern urban man is much too “smart” for religion. At least his own. He wants to add an ethical dimension to life without having to believe in anything except the sense of fairness that he already has, but which he does not realize is not nearly as valid objectively as it is subjectively in his inner emotional reality.
And that is what the left is. It strips away everything except that egotistical sense that things should be run more fairly with predictably unfair results.
Liberalism, and the milder flavors of the left, provide a permission slip for materialism by elevating it through political activism. This is the philosophical purpose of environmentalism’s green label. It tells you that you are a good person for buying something and soothes the moral anxieties of an urban class with no coherent moral system except the need to impose an ethical order on the consumerism that defined their childhood, their adolescence and their adult life.
Those most in need of the moral system of materialism are the descendants of the displaced, whether by immigration to the United States or migration within the United States from rural to urban areas, who have become detached from a large extended family structure that once sustained them.
Their grandparents had already loosened their grip on religion and as the family disintegrated, materialism took its place. Their grandparents worked hard to provide for their children, but the children no longer saw maintaining the family as a moral activity. Sometimes they didn’t even bother with a family. They became lonely individuals looking for a collective. A virtual political family.
Liberalism fills the missing space once inhabited by religion and the family. It provides a moral and ethical system as religion did and the accompanying sense of purpose and its state institutions replace and supplant the family. It does both of these things destructively and badly as its institutions forever try to patch social problems created by the disintegration of the family and its ideas provide too few people with a sense of purpose of a meaningful life.
And yet it isn’t entirely to blame for this state of affairs. The left has actively tried to destroy the family and religion, but the American liberal was until recently less guilty on both charges. His main crime was collaborating with the left while refusing to acknowledge its destructive aims. The process by which the displacement of liberal ideas and their replacement by the ideas of the far left is nearly complete. The American liberal is now an aging relic. In his place is the resentful radical.
The process that led to this state of affairs isn’t the left’s fault either. Even if it’s not for lack of trying. In some ways the left isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem. Its ability to fundamentally transform people is limited. The transformation that has occurred is because of the choices that people have been led into making trading religion and family for a dead end materialism. Those choices evolved organically from the natural direction of society and technology.
And into that empty space, the left came. It dominates because there is nothing else to fill that space. It can only be truly resisted by cultural groups that have maintained hold of family and religion. Without that sense of purpose, there is only the endless baffled retreat of the Republican Party.
Liberalism appeals more to the middle class and the upper class because it is a religion of materialism. It makes very little sense to those who don’t have material things. The underclass might embrace the harsher populism of the left, but shows little interest in its larger collectivist philosophy. The underclass is losing family and religion at a faster rate than the upper class, but it clings to what it has and finds meaning in it. It may be nakedly materialistic, but it doesn’t believe that it is too smart for religion or too individualistic for family. It has many flaws, but arrogance isn’t one of them.
Ennobling consumerism is a difficult task. The left doesn’t come anywhere close to succeeding at it. Instead it makes it more expensive and raises the entry barriers for everything by working to eliminate cheap food, cheap household goods and cheap everything. It’s a class issue.
Why does the left really hate Walmart? It doesn’t really have a lot to do with unions and has a lot to do with class. Walmart’s crime is industrial. It’s the crime of the factory and the supermarket and every means of mass production and consumption. It makes cheap products too readily available to the masses. Liberals like to believe that they oppose consumerism, but what they really want to do is raise the entry levels to the lifestyle. Liberal consumerism is all about upselling ethics.
When tangible goods become too easy to produce, you add value through intangibles. The fair trade food tastes the same as non-fair trade food. Organic, a category with a debatable meaning, doesn’t really provide that much more value. And environmental labels are worth very little. And yet the average product at Whole Foods is covered in so many “ethical liberal” labels that it’s hard to figure out what it even is.
Intangible value is all about class. And class is all about creating barriers to entry.
Liberalism has become a revolt against the middle class that its grandparents struggled to reach, a rejection of their “materialism” while substituting the “ethical materialism” of liberalism in its place that envisions a much smaller upper and middle class that derives its wealth and power not from hard work in the private sector, but highly profitable social justice volunteerism in the public sector.
An American Dream of universal prosperity has been pitted against the left’s dream of a benevolent feudal system in which the few will be very well paid to oversee the income equality of the many.
The left’s private argument against the American Dream is that it’s little more than Walmart. And to some degree they’re right. Easy availability of the necessities of life does not lead to a meaningful life. But the easy contempt that the left has for it shows its basic inability to understand how important these things are and how hard they were to come by for most of human history.
Salt was once a precious commodity. Today it sells for pennies a pound. The ability to light the darkness meant the difference between studying at night and living in ignorance. Today a light bulb goes for a quarter. At least it did until the left banned them. And electricity, the left also keeps raising the price of that. Few of the post-apocalyptic fantasies spilling out of Hollywood really describe what would happen if the people manufacturing them were thrown back before the industrial revolution..
Progress has made a good life materially possible, but it has also displaced and damaged the social mechanisms that make a good life socially possible. We have easy access to technology and streets full of vicious illiterate thugs. We can discuss anything with anyone, but we live in a society that values few things worth discussing. We have mass production, but not mass character.
For all its feigned populism, such elitist critiques of society are not foreign to the left. The left’s elitist critiques differ in some regards, but they are on the same basic wavelength as those of the social conservative. And its solution is to promote what it considers social progress by reversing or slowing down industrial, commercial and technological progress. The environmental movement is only the latest ideological incarnation of this philosophy which strives to slow down the rate of progress.
That’s not a solution to the problem. It is the problem.
The left cannot escape its own materialism. Its attempts at adding an ethical dimension to materialism fail because its ethical dimension is still materialistic. Its pathetic efforts at injecting pastiches of Third World and minority spirituality into its politics to provide the illusion of a spiritual dimension are hollow and racist. The left cannot fill its own hole, because it is the hole.
Like Islam, it provides something for people to believe in, but the thing it provides is the compulsion to find meaning by forcibly remaking other people’s lives in a perpetual revolution which becomes its own purpose.
The left can’t replace family or religion. Its social solutions are alien and artificial. They fix nothing and damage everything. Their appeal is to those who are arrogant and starved for meaning, who want religion without religion and family without family only to discover that they are not enough.
The Bright Are Too White
Another jewel of degradation gleaming in the wan light of witlessness:
A school (should I say “school”?) in Brooklyn, more than two-thirds of whose students are black or Hispanic, has abolished its (I mean “it’s”) advanced courses for the intelligent. Why this salubrious excision? Why, because too many of the students therein are white. That is, classes for the intelligent contain the intelligent. My god. This cancer must be corrected lest it spread. Fred Reed — The Soul of a Curmudgeon
The indoctrination of innocent children with progressives’ unspeakably vile sexual ideology has encountered pushback in an unlikely place — liberal Hawaii:
State Rep. Bob McDermott, who enrolled his eight children in Hawaii’s public schools, doesn’t want his 11-year-old son exposed to a controversial taxpayer-funded sex education program.
That program is taught in 12 public schools across the state, and the Hawaii Department of Education is planning to expand the curriculum to others. …
The 10-hour program, called Pono Choices (pono is a Hawaiian word that translates to “the right way”), is designed for youth aged 11 to 13. It has been taught to 1,700 Hawaii middle school children through an $800,000 pilot program.
McDermott said the program is “medically inaccurate” and not biology based, and that it teaches children about topics such as anal sex, sex with multiple partners and how to put on a condom — using a cucumber or wooden replica of a penis.
Only Big Government could manage to waste $800,000 of other people’s money telling little kids about the glories of anal sex.
Kudos to McDermott, who has produced a report entitled “The Pono Choices Curriculum: Sexualizing the Innocent.”
“The program normalizes a homosexual lifestyle and anal sex, while failing to warn students of the extreme dangers of anal sex; it references multiple sex partners, while failing to inform students about the health benefits of monogamy; it fails to warn students about the ineffectiveness of condoms against HPV, herpes, and anal sex; and fails to educate students on the stages of human reproduction,” McDermott said, providing Hawaii Reporter with an early copy of his report.
“Any talk of anal sex — which the curriculum does frequently — is instinctively repulsive for pre-pubescent children. Additionally, calling the anus a genital — as Pono Choices does — is just plain medically wrong,” McDermott said.
Uh oh. I think we have a thought criminal on our hands. Doesn’t McDermott realize that thousands of years of history and even biology itself have been overturned by liberal decree, and that homosexuality is now officially normal? Acknowledging that anal sex is instinctively repulsive is hurtful to those for whom indulging in this instinctively repulsive activity comprises the cornerstone of personal identity.
Once he obtained a copy [with some difficulty] and reviewed it with his staff attorney and others, McDermott felt the curriculum fails to inform children of the exponentially increased risks [of sexually transmitted diseases, some lethal] of male on male anal sex.
“Such omission renders the entire document questionable at best and agenda-driven social engineering at worst,” McDermott said.
But spreading AIDS, hepatitis, syphilis, et cetera is a small price to pay to advance the homosexualization of America, which must be crucial to our country’s well-being or the liberal establishment wouldn’t place so much emphasis on it.
“The curriculum treats sexual activity before the age of 14 as a viable choice, despite the state sexual assault law, which puts the age of consent at 16,” McDermott said.
First you change the culture through indoctrination. Then you change the laws. Cultural Marxists seized control of education and the media long ago, but even now are still consolidating control of the government.
On a tip from Dean D.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
DEATH WISH At Forty: Are We Allowed To “Notice” Race NOW?
In contrast to Obama’s America, where Hollywood, television, and the Main Stream Media are working overtime to promote false consciousness about crime in America (just watch an episode of Law & Order or remember what the producer of COPS said about wanting to show only reversing the ratio of white and minority criminals (“I do that intentionally because I do not want to contribute to negative stereotypes”) this movie packed a powerful reminder: no matter how much incessant propaganda tries to make people believe a lie, one perfectly-packaged dose of truth is enough to make it all go away.
That movie: Death Wish. To celebrate the 40th anniversary of its theatrical release, a special edition Blu Ray version was released today (February 4). [Purchase here and direct a commission to VDARE.com at no cost to you!] Never has the response of the Charles Bronson character (named, by an amazing coincidence, Paul Kersey) to the rape-murder of his wife and rape-mental ruin of his daughter looked better.
Based on a novel by Brian Garfield (interestingly, its protagonist was named Paul Benjamin and was Jewish), Death Wish spawned four sequels. But it was the compelling manner in which the original movie portrayed Bronson’s actions as justified that frightened Ebert. He said:
There’s never any question of injustice, because the crimes are attempted right there before our eyes. And then Bronson becomes judge and jury—and executioner.
No doubt this was exactly why the great Murray Rothbard praised the movie so much:
Death Wish is a superb movie, the best hero-and-vengeance picture since Dirty Harry. Bronson, an architect whose young family has been destroyed by muggers, drops his namby-pamby left-liberalism, and begins to pack a gun, defending himself brilliantly and uncompromisingly against a series of muggers who infest New York City. Yet he never kills the innocent, or commits excesses. Naturally, even though he is only defending himself against assault, the police, who have failed to go after the muggers and who acknowledge the fall in the crime rate due to Bronson’s activities, devote their resources to pursuing him instead of the criminals who terrorize New York. It is a great and heroic picture, a picture demonstrating one man’s successful fight for justice.
As might be expected, Death Wish has been subjected to hysterical attacks by the left-liberal critics who acknowledge the power and technical qualities of the picture, which they proceed to denounce for its “fascist ideology” (self-defense by victims against crimes) and its “pornography of violence” (in a just cause).
Don’t miss Death Wish; it says more about the “urban problem” than a dozen “message” documentaries, and it helps bring back heroism to the movies.
August 1974 issue of The Libertarian Forum
One line of dialogue in Death Wish cuts to the heart of America’s crime dilemma. While Bronson’s character is at a dinner party in New York City, he overhears a conversation between two guests about his vigilante actions:
Man: I’ll tell you one thing: the guy’s a racist. You notice he kills more Blacks than Whites.
Woman: Oh, for Pete’s sake, Harry. More Blacks are muggers than Whites. What do you want to do–increase the proportion of White muggers, so we’ll have racial equality among muggers?
Roger Ebert balked at the movie’s depicting New York City
…like one of those bloody future cities in science-fiction novels about anarchy in the twenty-first century. Literally every shadow holds a mugger; every subway train harbors a killer; the park is a breeding ground for crime.
But as the 1970s drew on, New York City did indeed become a place where “anarchy” reigned, along with all the ills Ebert brushed aside.
Fast forward to 2014: Those demographic groups behind Rothbard’s “urban problem” in New York City now have a true friend in Mayor Bill de Blasio.
And, with the repudiation of Rudy Giuliani’s reforms, it will again become a city with the increasingly “bloody future” that Ebert whined about Death Wish’s depicting.
Today, New York City is 33 percent white, 25.5 black, 28.6 Hispanic, and 12.7% Asian.
When Death Wish came out (1974), New York was 62.95 white, 21.13 percent black, and 16. percent Hispanic.
Only 30 years prior to that, the city was 91.97 percent white.
The record shows that 1.3 percent (2008), 1.4 percent (2009), 1.4 (2010), 2.5 (2011), and 2.4 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings (defined as any crime where the victim is struck with a bullet) in New York City were white.
During that same time, 78.3 percent (2008), 79.8 percent (2009), 74.2 (2010), 72.5 (2011), and 78.2 (2012), of the arrested suspects in shootings were black.
And during that same time, 18.3 percent (2008), 19.9 percent (2009), 23.3 (2010), 23.9 (2011), and 18.9 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings were Hispanic.
In short: forty years after Death Wish, almost all gun crime in New York City is non-white.
How about murder victims/suspects?
- Blacks were 61.72 percent of murder victims and 58.3 percent of murder suspects.
- Hispanics were 26.2 percent of murder victims and 32.78 percent of murder suspects.
- Whites were 7.84 percent of murder victims and 6.08 percent of murder suspects.
In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 91.08 percent of murder suspects in New York City.
How about rape victims/suspects over the same period?
- Blacks were 39.34 percent of rape victims and 51.42 percent of rape suspects.
- Hispanics were 38.44 percent of rape victims and 35 percent of rape suspects.
- Whites were 16.64 percent of rape victims and 9.28 percent of rape suspects.
In short: Between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 86.42 percent of rape suspects in New York City.
- Blacks were 31.6 percent of robbery victims and 71.02 percent of rape suspects.
- Hispanics were 37.46 percent of robbery victims and 23.32 percent of rape suspects.
- Whites were 18.04 percent of robbery victims and 4.32 percent of rape suspects.
In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 94.34 percent of robbery suspects in New York City.
Ebert was right to label Bronson’s Death Wish “scary,” but he was wrong about why. The fact that, despite all the anti-gun propaganda in school, the MSM, and Hollywood/TV, that this film resonated so deeply proves that Andrew Breitbart was right when he said: “Politics is downstream from culture.”
The subversive essence of Death Wish wasn’t that Bronson’s character went out and killed muggers, seeking revenge.
It’s that one scene from the dinner party, when the racial reality of crime in New York City is repudiated—a powerful reminder that “noticing” is the true crime in modern America.
Because when you “notice,” and pattern recognition develops obvious truths—justifying, for example “Stop and Frisk”—it becomes apparent why, as the black and Hispanic population of New York City becomes greater, the white American population becomes less.
But this bit of dialogue between Kersey and the young husband of his destroyed daughter puts that white flight in a grim perspective:
Paul Kersey: Nothing to do but cut and run, huh? What else? What about the old American social custom of self-defense? If the police don’t defend us, maybe we ought to do it ourselves.
Jack Toby: We’re not pioneers anymore, Dad.
Paul Kersey: What are we, Jack?
Jack Toby: What do you mean?
Paul Kersey: I mean, if we’re not pioneers, what have we become? What do you call people who, when they’re faced with a condition or fear, do nothing about it, they just run and hide?
Jack Toby: Civilized?
Paul Kersey: No.
2014 America is a less civilized place—precisely because we have been cutting and running in the forty years since Death Wish came out.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
(Emphasis mine. ZTW)
I have to disagree. Chris Christie has been anointed by the oligarchy and is now, in fact, establishing himself as an oligarch. He is their boy. He isn’t going anywhere. EVERYTHING is forgotten within 36 hours. That is the news cycle. Chris Christie could eat a baby on the front steps of the New Jersey governor’s mansion and it would be shrugged off. Think about it. When was the last time any member of the oligarchy suffered ANY adverse consequences for ANY crime? Do you remember that Eric Holder was formally held in Contempt of Congress years ago for non-cooperation in the Fast and Furious inquiries? Do you remember how everyone was saying that Hillary Clinton was “done” in the wake of the Benghazi murders of which she is a direct co-conspirator? Hillary Clinton is now, as I said years ago, the universally-assumed 2016 candidate. Rand Paul has sold out the so-called “conservative right” more times than I can count, and EVERY TIME it is all forgotten within literally a matter of hours BY THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT. I tweeted yesterday a piece about how Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who both ascended to power by winning primaries against incumbents, told Hannity that they would NOT support non-incumbent Rethuglican candidates. Yup. You know, like Lindsay Graham or Mitch McConnell, two of the most revolting, amoral fiends in Washington. It’s all a sickening charade, people. This business of not remembering or being able to synthesize a dataset that is more than 36 hours old is why I hold out no hope. As long as psychopath X waves the “team flag” everyone’s still on board.
5. In the same vein, here is a video of a group of employees of a small business being shown how ObamaCare is going to send their insurance premiums and deductibles through the roof. One lady’s goes up to over $1300 per month and her deductible doubles. This is absolutely no surprise, because SIMPLE COMMON SENSE tells us that a system that mandates that people with pre-existing conditions be allowed into a risk pool AFTER the adverse risk event has already occurred, is a system that will see premiums explode parabolically before the entire system implodes upon itself. How is this a surprise? Does no one actually understand on even the most basic level what insurance is? Apparently not. But what I really want to point out is the glassy-eyed reaction of the people. I see not a hint of outrage, refusal to comply, nothing. The people in question you can tell are NOT making six figures, and yet they all seem perfectly resigned to paying the equivalent of an above-median mortgage payment for HEALTH INSURANCE, while having their deductibles double. Shrug. Nothing I can do about it. Oh well.
I look at that and am chilled to the bone, because I realize that it is going to take horrors on a level that many of us can not now imagine possible in the western world to wake people up and get them to the point of actually resisting this crap on any level. The feedback that is being given to the oligarchy is that of total capitulation, and thus the green-light to proceed with and escalate the theft and tyranny – and believe me, the oligarchs are watching the non-reaction reaction of the masses VERY closely, and they are very, very pleased. It isn’t the oligarchs that I fear per se. It is the glassy-eyed apathy and intellectual and moral sloth of the broad citizenry that is the source of night-sweat terror for me.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Topsy turvey world, ain’t it?
Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”
In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.
The law on religious sensibilities was approved in the wake of a protest in Moscow’s largest cathedral by a female punk rock group, Pussy Riot. State-run television said the group’s “demonic” protest was funded by “some Americans.” Russia’s newfound embrace of traditional values has prompted a rise in Orthodox vigilantism. Extreme groups such as the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers, an ultraconservative faction who adopted a slogan “Orthodoxy or Death,” are gaining prominence.
It was not that long ago that the United States was accusing Russia for being a “godless nation.”
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Anarchy and Chaos in The Ukraine – It Could Happen Here – But Will Americans Actually Stand Up Against Our Commie Government?
Pics found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
Posted on | January 22, 2014
My brother Kirby called this afternoon and began the conversation by saying, “You know if that kid in Florida kills himself . . .”
Yeah, they’ll blame me.
Volunteer Official Scapegoat™ of the Hate Olympics.
Someone has to be the conservative who notices things you’re not supposed to notice and says things you’re not supposed to say.
The chief qualifications for this gig are (a) scorn for popularity and (b) disregard for the short-term goals of the Republican Party. If your goal is to become the Popular Person Embraced by the Official GOP, you can never speak the kind of truth that makes people uncomfortable, you can never risk anything in a fight, and you are ultimately doomed to a defensive strategy of retreat.
Glenn Beck said on his Monday show that anti-gay people “have no place in this country.” . . . “Anybody within the sound of my voice that hates a gay person because they’re gay, you have no place calling yourself a fan of mine,” Beck said. “You have no place in this country.” Beck has spoken out in support of gay marriage several times before. Earlier in January, he voiced his opposition against Russia’s anti-gay laws and announced that he would stand by the LGBT advocacy group GLAAD in their fight against “hetero-fascism.” “You are not a fan of mine — you have no friendship here — if you hate people because they’re gay,” Beck also added. “You have no place claiming that you’re a fan of this show. . . . If that’s who you are, I don’t want to have anything to do with you.”
Of course, the problem with Beck’s rhetoric here is that it conflates political opposition to a certain policy agenda (or religious objections to homosexual behavior) with “hate,” which is an assertion so absurd that I hesitate to dignify it with a response.
Look, my religious beliefs condemn premarital sex and re-marriage after divorce. Do I “hate” people who don’t live up to those biblical standards of behavior? No one has ever accused me of such a hate, because there is no recognized Promiscuity Lobby trying to mobilize an identity politics constituency to vote Democrat by labeling Republicans a hate group on such a basis. Once you get past the irrational bullying tactics of the Left and look at the actual data, you recognize that the gay agenda represents an effort to re-order social norms on behalf of an extremely small (but quite vocal and well-funded) minority:
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual. Far from underestimating the ranks of gay people because of homophobia, these figures included a substantial number of people who remained deeply closeted, such as a quarter of the bisexuals. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual.
So the LGBT coalition encompasses 3.5 percent of the population, max, to whom the other 96.5 percent are expected to kowtow?
Never has such a large majority dog been so easily wagged by such a small minority tail, led by radicals who habitually impugn all opposition in the most vituperative language imaginable. Dana Pico at First Street Journal notes the implicit insistence “that homosexual relationships are just as good, just as wholesome, just as normal, as heterosexual ones,” i.e., compulsory approval. As I explained more than five years ago (“Gay Rights, Gay Rage,” The American Spectator, Nov. 17, 2008), those who speak of homosexuality in the language of “rights” are not about liberty, but rather about equality in the most radical sense and, as Richard Weaver famously warned, Ideas Have Consequences.
This is how we reach the point at which people believe they have the “right” to make you bake them a lesbian wedding cake. This is how we reach the point where no one is supposed to object to teenage boys getting paid for a six-way “bareback orgy” on video.
Do you think this kind of stuff is worth discussing? “You have no place in this country.” Ace says Glenn Beck is now “all about attempting to get TimeWarner and ComCast to pick up his cable channel.”
Yeah, because MSNBC needs more competition.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Here is how the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are applied in government schools, now that they are run almost exclusively by liberals:
The parents of a 6-year-old girl said their daughter was humiliated when a teacher interrupted the child’s one-minute speech and told her to sit down because she’s “not allowed to talk about the Bible in school,” attorneys for the California family allege.
The little rebel not only mentioned the Bible in school, but brazenly linked Christmas to Christ.
The incident occurred Dec. 19 inside a first grade classroom at Helen Hunt-Jackson Elementary School in Temecula, Calif. The previous day the teacher instructed boys and girls to find something at home that represented a family Christmas tradition. They were supposed to bring the item to school and share the item in a classroom presentation.
Brynn Williams decided to bring the Star of Bethlehem that adorned the top of her family’s Christmas tree. She also worked on a one minute presentation to explain that her family’s tradition is to remember the birth of Jesus at Christmas time.
“Our Christmas tradition is to put a star on top of our tree,” the little girl said. “The star is named the Star of Bethlehem. The three kings followed the star to find baby Jesus, the Savior of the world.”
That is as far as she got before her thought crime was abruptly ended by the teacher, who barked, “Stop right there! Go take your seat.” Brynn was the only student not allowed to finish her presentation.
After Brynn had completed the March of Shame back to her seat, the teacher proclaimed to the other students that she had done wrong by referring to the Bible.
Just a rogue teacher, right? Wrong. The whole system is rogue, as Brynn’s mother discovered.
“The principal confirmed that Brynn’s teacher did the appropriate thing by stopping her mid-presentation and there are specific education codes that protect the school,” [Gina] Williams said.
The principal then asked Brynn, who had tears in her eyes, to come into her office and deliver the same presentation that was censored in the classroom. Afterwards, the principal stood by her decision.
The reason: authorities had a duty “to protect the other students from being offended by Brynn’s presentation.” According to liberal ideology, the Christian religion is offensive.
Obviously this sort of humiliation will have a powerful effect on a child. Gramscians infiltrated and eventually came to totally dominate education for the same reasons they took over the media — to establish cultural hegemony. What they are doing with their power can only be described as cultural genocide.
From this same Temecula Valley Unified School District:
Last October, a seventh grade student was publicly ridiculed by a teacher for reading the Bible. The classroom assignment had been to read a non-fiction book. The teacher told the student in front of the class that the Bible was fiction and refused to give him credit for the assignment.
If our liberal overlords succeed in eradicating Christianity by brainwashing children at public expense, they will replace it with pure, unadulterated moonbattery, consisting of authoritarian statism, collectivism, racial self-hatred, sexual perversion, and all the rest of the diseased delusions and repugnant moral deformities that make up the liberal mindset. There will be nothing about our culture that any reasonable person will be able to respect.
But by then it won’t be our culture anymore, and all reasonable people will have learned to keep their mouths shut until they can find a way to escape.
On tips from Artfldr and Dr. 9.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
As if it were not already clear that the Hard Left deliberately uses Hollywood as a hammer to pound society into the shape it desires, prominent producer Harvey Weinstein removes any doubt:
Weinstein announced for the first time on Howard Stern’s radio show that he is making a full feature drama to try to destroy the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Stern asked Mr. Weinstein on Wednesday whether he owned a gun. The Hollywood heavyweight replied that he did not and never would.
A nice follow-up question would be whether Weinstein’s bodyguards own guns, but let’s not ask too much of Howard Stern.
Then Weinstein unveiled his plan of attack against the NRA, which he resents for defending the Second Amendment against authoritarians.
“I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard,” he said. “I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”
The shock jock asked whether the film was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”
The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gun stocks — I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”
They really do believe they can program our attitudes, like drovers maneuvering mindless cattle toward the stockyard — and why shouldn’t they believe it? Weinstein is an influential guy.
The chairman of the Weinstein Co. (formerly Miramax) is one of President Obama’s biggest fundraisers. He brought in more than $500,000 from his Hollywood friends for the president’s re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2012.
Even the clownish King of All Media seemed to choke on Weinstein’s hypocrisy:
Mr. Stern pointed out the inconsistencies in Mr. Weinstein’s earlier comments about a project about Jews defending themselves during the Holocaust. The producer replied that the justification for using a gun is “when you’re marching a half of a million people into Auschwitz.”
Mr. Weinstein does not seem to know that the Nazis were able to confiscate the guns that the Jewish people owned based on Germany’s government registry.
Also, the producer said he would have used a gun to stop from going to a concentration camp if he “found a gun, and if that was happening to my people.”
Apparently the group he defines as “my people” does not refer to the American public at large, who are to be left defenseless according to his plans for us.
On tips from Sean C, Stormfax, and |.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Our Israeli correspondent MC takes a look at the battle being waged to control the dictionary, especially where political and social matters are concerned.
Weaponizing Language by MC
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
From Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
The pen, so we are told, is mightier than the sword, and thus we became victims. Victims of a war waged not in the land masses or the oceans, but in the dictionary.
‘Gay’, ‘pansy’ and ‘fairy’, for example have been hijacked at some time or other to redefine homosexuality, in doing so, the “love that dare not speak its name” has spoken several of its names, and thereby trivialised itself by using language out of the nursery. There is nothing ‘gay’ about same sex-relationships that I am aware of — they seem to have more than their fair share of relationship stresses and strains without the benefits of real parenthood.
But these neologisms seem innocuous when we look at how the word ‘freedom’ has been vandalised. Freedom used to be about taking responsibility for one’s own actions; but not now, we have, for example, freedom of religion — except where Islam is concerned; it is more important not to ‘offend’ Muslims by having a Christmas tree than it is to preserve freedom. We have freedom of speech — except when it is homophobic. We have freedom of information — except where the President’s social security number is concerned.
The word ‘fascist’ has always been difficult to define because it describes the particular aspirations of an Italian neo-communist party to identify with its ancient Roman roots. The fasci, the bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe, were a common link with the past. It is a symbol of absolute power and appears throughout the modern western world. What, however, does ‘fascist’ mean, in modern parlance? It is an epithet used against anybody who does not agree with left liberal/communist doctrines.
‘Religion’ is an interesting for being a word that is in stasis. It should describe any unprovable concept around which humans assemble and promote as truth. Somehow the ‘religions’ based upon ‘science’ have escaped from the bondage of the religious stereotype. The word ‘science’ has also been redefined in recent times. It no longer means ‘knowledge’; its definition has been narrowed to ‘knowledge of the physical world’. Thus socialism, a totally abstract concept, but with its basis on ‘social science’, wriggles free from being described as a religion whilst all the time hiding behind the façade of unproven pseudo-scientific social theory. In economics, Mr. Micawber gave us a very sane definition of the ‘science’ of economics. The rest of it is just religious belief and faith in miracles.
‘Fundamentalism’ has come to be associated with extremes of violence, yet fundamentalist Christian sects, for example, are not, on the whole, physically violent. Fundamentalist Islam is very violent, so much so that it has given new meaning to the word.
Fundamentalist Christians are those who go back to the Bible. Fundamentalist Muslims go back to the Koran. The Bible is essentially benign; the Koran is essentially violent. Get the picture?
The political redefinition of the word has been designed to ‘mix’ the two, the violent and the non-violent, in order to demonise Christianity and tar it with the violence-tainted Koranic brush. At the same time, it is intended to justify a preference for ‘moderate’ Islam, whatever that is — ‘moderate’, is that something that has been ‘moderated’? By whom, may we ask in the case of Islam?
The word ‘offended’ has not so much changed its meaning as had its meaning amplified. To be ‘offended’ is now comparable with being physically wounded. It is here that we begin to see how words have been weaponized. Whilst sticks and stones may break my bones, calling me names now ‘hurts’ me even more.
Yet there are caveats here: the victim must be a member of a defined ‘victim groups’. So calling Jews ‘apes and pigs’ is acceptable because it is in the Koran, whereas calling Islam a religion of violence is not acceptable, because — although provably true — Islam is a major victim group, so truth must be subordinate to political convenience.
‘Truth’ therefore suffers. It is no longer tied to the eternal truths of creation as we know it. Truth becomes the ‘opinion’ of the great and the good. Telling the truth now becomes fraught with danger; one must tell only the ‘convenient’ truth. Likewise the ‘lie’ is now not a lie until the great and the good deem it to be a lie.
“You can still keep your old plan” (but subject to our new rules). Lie, what lie? So unemployment is going down because we now only count those looking for work as ‘unemployed’ and by changing the meaning of the word we can ‘verify’ the lie.
“Soros praised the “Republican establishment” for “fighting back” against the Tea Party, who he referred to as a ‘coalition of religious and market fundamentalists.’”
Note the interesting use of weaponized words here; religious, fundamentalists, market and fighting back. What has the “Tea Party” done to the GOP that could warrant “fighting back”, I wonder? Why should the GOP be directed by an avowed socialist to ‘fight back’ against non-violent and reasonably like-minded conservatives?
Could it be that Republicans are no longer conservative?
The objective of weaponizing words is to nuke real dialogue. In an ideal world, the Tea Party would state its causes and complaints. Their concerns would be discussed in the media and generally aired to see if they have relevance and add value. The “fight back” is not about coming up with counter-arguments, it is about suppression of the Tea Party, which thus avoids the need for a counter-argument.
The word ‘racist’ became was the Little Boy of weaponized words. The term ‘racist’ actually holds very little realistic meaning, but it was the first word in the language to be equipped with a ‘colour’ bludgeon in order to stun and beat down any discussion of problems with non-white minorities, or to clobber valid criticisms of white-African presidents and their un-American administrations.
A weaponized word is designed to kill a simple honest conversation, and in doing so, to stop the flow of information and understanding. People with evil intentions do not like free dialogue, and they will think long and hard how to stop the free flow of opinion and information which is so dangerous to them. They amass an arsenal of verbal hand grenades with which they can fragment the unwary and so win the moral high ground.
This is especially true when a biased mass media — which is a relatively new phenomenon — is very much the most effective delivery system of the weaponized word. It provides a constant barrage of these weasel words, each one sinking deep into the fabric of our psyche — unless, that is, we are forewarned, and thus clad in the Kevlar of foreknowledge.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/weaponizing-language/#more-32327