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?
Kim Jong-un Approves Of Controlling All Aspects Of News Reporting.
Galloping Marxism is upon us. Freedom of speech, thought, affiliation and information dissemination is under attack from the radicals controlling the levers of government. The Obama Administration is out of control and seeks to gain hegemony over all aspects of American life.
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The FCC selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. This Government wants to control the news that gets reported, this is tyranny pure and simple. Resist Tyranny. Resist the corrupt Obama Administration. We cannot allow the Government to control the news. Resist becoming North Korea.
“The very idea that the Soviet Union was defeated is disinformation in itself.
The Soviet Union changed its name and dropped its façade of Marxism, but it remained the same samoderzhaviye, the historical Russian form of autocracy in which a tsar is running the country with the help of his political police…Russia today is the first intelligence dictatorship in history. It is a brand new form of totalitarianism, which we are not yet familiar with.” – - TheBlaze.com
Left to right: Leon Trotsky, Felix Dzerzhinsky, Lavrenti Beria.
“Lenin, at every passing opportunity, emphasized the absolute necessity of the terror. . . . “We heard such tirades from him a dozen times a day and they were always aimed at some one among those present who was suspected of ‘pacifism.’” – Leon Trotsky, Lenin (1925)
“Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. . . . It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar . . .” – F.A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism” (1949)
Marxism envisions the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” so that there can be no Marxism without violent terror, and self-described communist Jesse Myerson must fail in his attempts to evade this truth.
“Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless — but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea.”
Myerson’s fanciful blather about a “far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian” communism in the future, which would somehow miraculously avoid the monstrous evils of previous communist regimes, signified his own ignorance of history. Myerson’s response, however, is to accuse communism’s opponents of being ignorant: He is knowledgeable and wise; we are McCarthyite fools.
If there is one guy the Obama Administration has really wanted to shut up, it is Dinesh D’Souza. Not only is D’Souza among the most articulate advocates of conservatism out there, he is a particular thorn in Obama’s side due to his own Third World background and the understanding it has given him of Obama’s alarming anti-neocolonialist ideology. No reasonable person watched D’Souza’s 2016: Obama’s America — the second most popular political documentary in US history — and still voted to reelect Obama. That’s what makes his indictment so frightening:
Federal authorities accuse D’Souza of donating more than is legal to the campaign of Wendy Long, who ran in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton but lost to now-Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. …
According to the indictment, D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds. But Gerald Molen, a co-producer of 2016, says the charge is politically motivated.
“In America, we have a long tradition of not doing what is commonly done in too many other countries — criminalizing dissent through the selective enforcement of the law,” Molen tells THR.
That’s the advantage — for our rulers — of passing so many picayune rules and regulations that no one can avoid violating some of them. Byzantine campaign finance restrictions, which are brazen violations of the First Amendment, are a classic example of this form of tyranny.
Molen says D’Souza is being singled out for “an alleged minor violation” in the same way the IRS reportedly targeted conservative Tea Party groups for retribution. …
D’Souza was in San Diego working on his next film and book, each to be called America, when he was informed he was about to be indicted and that he should fly to New York and turn himself in to authorities.
Obviously America is a book and movie the Regime would prefer we neither read nor see. The release probably cannot be stopped at this point, but if D’Souza is sufficiently discredited, fewer will listen to his message. If hyping a few traffic cones could derail Chris Christie, arrest will probably turn D’Souza’s name to mud in the public mind. An added bonus is that he will not be making movies for a while if he ends up in jail.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al. may rally political opposition to Obama, but they do not get at the essence of Obama’s malign ideology the way D’Souza does. They do not make it clear that Obama is destroying America deliberately, and could not be expected to do otherwise. This is why D’Souza in particular had to be taken down.
Molen added: “When American citizens begin to suspect that people are being arrested for alleged minor violations because of their vocal dissent against their elected representatives or rulers, it breeds disrespect and contempt for the law and suspicion of those officials.”
It appears that mutual disrespect, contempt, and suspicion are all that can be expected between Americans and the statists who have been fundamentally transforming our country.
If you don’t like the message, arrest the messenger.
Andrew Cuomo isn’t the only one demanding that those who hold conventional American views on life, liberty, and morality get out of New York. The Big Apple’s new communist mayor seconds the motion:
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio emphatically backed New Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial remarks that “extreme” conservatives — which he defined as being pro-life, second amendment advocates, or supporters of traditional marriage — “have no place in the state of New York.”
“I stand by that 100 percent,” de Blasio told reporters at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. on Thursday.
The leftist radical denounced traditional viewpoints as “extremist.”
De Blasio generously conceded that even non-leftists have a right to free speech…
But exercising that free speech could put you on the wrong side of New York “values,” de Blasio maintained. He concluded that Cuomo “was absolutely right to say what he said.”
Dissent is still tolerated. Just not dissenters.
A reporter asked if he felt any need to reach out to New Yorkers who don’t share his ideology. De Blasio’s answer was adamant:
“The first point is, we represent our people and Governor Cuomo is right and I believe I’m on firm ground in saying our people, the people in New York State and the people of New York City reject extremists views against a women’s right to choose and in favor of the proliferation of guns in our society. And I stand by that 100 percent.”
Those who take into consideration an inconvenient baby’s right to choose or who are unwilling to relinquish their constitutional rights can expect no quarter in the liberal utopia that is unfolding before us like a giant sinkhole.
Any Americans who have been left behind enemy lines are urged to get out of New York before they start building a wall.
It is beneficial to remind ourselves periodically of the realities in the struggle between Constitutionalism / Capitalism and Marxism-Leninism. It is a continual struggle, whether we acknowledge it or not. And the enemy of America as a constitutional republic with a capitalistic economic system is Marxism-Leninism, whether it be characterized as communism, socialism, progressivism, leftism, statism, or liberalism (in its current state).
Historically, we can consider the birth of the fusion between Marxism and Leninism to be in 1917, when Vladimir Lenin first took power as the leader of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, later to be known as the USSR. Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution that gave the world its first taste of socialism, established as Communism. He transformed the political philosophy of Marxism into his own brand, Marxism-Leninism. Here are a few of his famous quotations 1:
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
“The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.”
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”
“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”
“Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.”
“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.”
“Democracy is indispensable to socialism.”
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”
Joseph Stalin took over leadership of the new USSR after Lenin’s death. He was ruthless in crushing dissent, killing thousands of counter-revolutionaries and political opponents through military actions and political purges. His singular achievement was in killing seven million Ukrainians by starving them to death, a triumph of socialist collective power over political opposition known to history as the Holdomor. These are some of his better-known quotations 1:
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”
“We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?”
“Death solves all problems – no man, no problem.”
“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
“When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use.”
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
“The only real power comes out of a long rifle.”
. It is well-recognized that President Obama’s political philosophy is heavily influenced by Marxism-Leninism, originating primarily through his childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. He has demonstrated through his policy implementation that he believes in a strong centralized government and increasing governmental control over the financial system, media, education, energy, healthcare, private property, where people live, their means of transportation, and how they behave.
His beliefs are reflected in his words:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.” 2
“Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.” 3
“If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” 2
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” 4
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” 5
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” 6
“I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution…” 7
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” 8
“…We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” 9
In a similar vein, Hillary Clinton was immersed in a Marxist environment at an early age. Her senior thesis at Wellesley College was a positive analysis of the dirty political tactics of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, whom she referred to having a “compelling personality” and “exceptional charm.”
To illustrate her political leanings, the following are a sampling of her quotations:
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
“It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.”
“We can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
“We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground.”
“I certainly think the free market has failed.”
“I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched.”
“What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy.”
“I really believe that it takes a village to raise a child. 10“
“I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry… 11“
Isn’t it amazing how little the goals and objectives of Marxism-Leninism have changed over the past 97 years, and how clear they continue to be for those who open their eyes.
For all the attention Obamacare has drawn in recent weeks, few observers have noted that the law is having the unexpected, yet most welcome, effect of transforming scores of millions of Americans, virtually overnight, into generous benefactors of the less fortunate. A real-world example—representative of countless millions of similar situations—will make this crystal clear:
Let’s say that you are a healthy, hardworking 54-year-old single adult in San Francisco earning $45,960 per year—the income level at which federal Obamacare subsidies from your fellow taxpayers are no longer available to help you pay your monthly health-insurance premiums. As a San Francisco resident, you are permitted to choose from among 16 separate Obamacare-compliant insurance plans. Four of these are so-called “Bronze” plans, low-level policies whose average premium will cost you $453 per month, or $5,436 per year. In exchange for those premium payments, a Bronze plan will cover 60% of your medical expenses—that is, after you meet the $5,000 out-of-pocket annual deductible. For this priceless peace of mind, you can thank Obamacare—the Democratic Party’s gift to a grateful America.
Let us contrast your case with that of Joe, another 54-year-old single individual in San Francisco, who happens to be an obese alcoholic and longtime drug abuser with little ambition and no history of ever having held a full-time job for very long. Joe currently earns $15,860 per year, which is just above the income level that would have made him eligible for Medicaid. Because Joe doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, Obamacare stipulates that he must now purchase his own health insurance—thereby proving that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric of conservative naysayers, no one gets an undeserved free ride under Obamacare.
Like you, Joe can choose from among 16 separate plans that are available to San Francisco residents. But unlike you, he is eligible to receive federal government subsidies—money that other, wealthier Americans, such as you, magnanimously “contribute” toward the healthcare expenses of financially “disadvantaged” individuals. If he selects one of the four Bronze plans (whose average monthly premium is $453), Joe qualifies for $452 in average monthly subsidies—meaning that, regardless of which Bronze plan he chooses, he will pay a monthly premium of exactly $1. You read that correctly. The very same healthcare plan that would cost you $453 per month, is available to Joe for $1 per month—i.e., the cost of three oatmeal-raisin cookies at your local Subway sandwich shop. Over the course of a year, you will pay a total of $5,436 in policy premiums, while Joe, who sadly failed to qualify for free healthcare through Medicaid, will pay his own fair share of $12. This is all in the interest of social justice, you understand. And please, don’t even think about whispering that Obamacare might be some sort of “wealth redistribution” scheme, lest you expose yourself as a petulant reactionary who doesn’t give a damn about sick people.
Oh, imagine what a wonderful world it would be if we could somehow transfer this same brand of Obamacare-style fairness to realms other than health insurance. In such a utopia, for example, the $25,000 new automobile that you purchase would cost a deserving soul like Joe just $55. Your $100 nightly fee at a motel would be 45 cents for Joe. And the $25 hardcover book you purchase at Barnes & Noble would set Joe back about a nickel. What’s that, you say? These items aren’t life-and-death necessities, like medical care, and thus don’t serve as useful analogies? Good point! Let’s stick with real necessities, such as food and housing: The same load of groceries that costs you $250 would cost Joe 55 cents. Your $1,200-per-month rent or mortgage payment would be available to Joe for about $2.65 a month. And the $250,000 home you seek to buy could be Joe’s for about $552. Yes, we’re talking about a veritable paradise of fairness!
But let’s return, for a moment, to the subject of healthcare in the here-and-now. Suppose you decide to opt for something substantially better than the aforementioned Bronze plan. As a resident of San Francisco, you can also choose from among four separate Silver plans, which each pay 70% of your medical costs (after a $2,000 annual deductible) and have an average monthly premium of $614. For Joe, these same four plans are available for an average of $38 per month—thanks to the marvelous, magical subsidies that are built into Obamacare. In fact, one of the Silver plans in particular would cost Joe just twenty nickels per month—a darned fair deal for someone needing healthcare, wouldn’t you say? And again, try not to view the disparity between your fee and Joe’s fee as some form of “wealth redistribution,” but rather as an opportunity for you to cultivate the fiscal virtue that our president terms “neighborliness,” whereby those who are “sitting pretty”—like you—extend a helping hand to the “less fortunate”—like Joe. Yes indeed, think about how deliriously happy you’re making good-ol’ Joe!
Now, if you’re feeling somewhat bold and are inclined to seek out even better coverage, you might opt to enroll in one of San Francisco’s four Gold insurance plans, which pay 80% of your medical costs (with no deductibles) and have an average monthly premium of $752. For Joe, the average cost of such a policy is $166 per month.
And then there are the top-of-the-line policies—the four Platinum plans—which will pay 90% of your medical expenses and will cost you, on average, $843 in monthly premiums. For Joe, by contrast, the cost of these plans will run about $258 a month.
So, let’s review: Joe can have the very best coverage available—the type of Platinum plan that our revered overlords in Washington have carefully secured for themselves—for roughly half the cost that you must pay for the most meager, bare-bones, low-end Bronze coverage in existence. Or, alternatively, he can have:
a Gold plan for about one-third of what you pay for the Bronze;
a Silver plan for one-twelfth of what you pay for the Bronze; or
his own Bronze plan for less than four-tenths of 1 percent of what you pay for the same plan.
And why is Joe able to do all this? Because you, my generous comrade, are largely buying his plan for him. Hooray for you! Hooray for advancing the vision that our president so eloquently laid bare just one month ago, when he identified the eradication of “inequality” as the motive that “drives everything I do in this office.” Ain’t it wonderful to be part of such a grand crusade?
And in case you seek additional cause for celebration, rest assured that Obamacare imposes the same type of fairness and equity on family plans as it does on individual plans. For instance, a 54-year-old San Francisco couple with two grown children (ages 19 and 20) living at home—and with a $94,200 household income (the income level at which subsidies are no longer available)—can enroll in a bare-bones Bronze family plan (with an annual deductible of $10,000) for an average monthly premium of $1,175. Meanwhile, an identically structured San Francisco family whose household income is $32,500—just above the level that would have qualified them for Medicaid—can obtain a Bronze plan for precisely $4 per month. Yes, the same plan that costs $14,100 per year for the first family, costs $48 per year for the second family.
The four Silver family plans, meanwhile, have an average monthly premium of $1,593 for the first family, and $81 per month for the second family. Annual outlays would be $19,116 for the first family, vs. $729 for the second family.
This, in a nutshell, is the exquisite beauty of Obamacare: It is redistribution … er, um, er … It is neighborliness on a scale never before seen in this country. And many millions of Americans are poised to reap its glorious benefits! As a form of shorthand, you can simply refer to these fortunate millions as “Democrats,” in honor of the party of benefactors that is, at this very moment, purchasing their eternal political allegiance with your dollars. Take pride in the fact that this wonderful arrangement is but one aspect of the “fundamental transformation” of America that our president is so faithfully pursuing, true to his word. At its essence, it is an arrangement designed to take from certain individuals according to their ability to pay, while giving to other individuals according to their need—a profoundly neat and elegant formula if ever there was one. It almost makes you wonder if anyone else has ever thought of anything like it before.
 A central principle of Marxism, popularized by Karl Marx himself, is this: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
The end of free speech will not necessarily come when there are soldiers in the streets, secret police in the alleyways and a mustachioed man screaming at you on a television set that can’t be turned off no matter how hard you turn the knob or click the buttons.
Some of these things certainly existed in totalitarian countries. But they were there to sweep up the hardened dissenters who refused to be silenced. The vast majority of citizens did not have bugged phones or men in trench-coats following them around.
That was what their friends and neighbors were for.
The first line of offense by a totalitarian society against freedom of speech is crowdsourced to the people in the streets. It begins with the imposition of a social norm, escalates to punishments for violating that norm and concludes with gulags and firing squads.
No secret police force is large enough to spy on everyone all the time. Nor does it need to. That is what informers are for. Some of the informers are committed fanatics. Others do it because they accept whatever they are told. And the worst do it for the pleasure of destroying someone else using the power of the law.
Whatever their varying motives, ideology or malice, such people become even more dangerous in groups where they become a morality mob.
The Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell’s 1984 is repeated on a regular basis in our society today with hysterical lynchings like those of of Justine Sacco; one of a long list of disposable victims of opportunity. The Two Minutes Hate was a Pavlovian exercise to stimulate the hate reflex. Modern counterparts like #hasjustinelandedyet with its overt malice are the genuine thing.
The process by which these ugly events happen has a good deal in common with any other form of mob violence. There are familiar elements from Shirley Jackson’s disturbing story, “The Lottery”. There is a ritual aspect to the whole thing. The crowd knows what is coming. Like many rapists and murderers, it derives pleasure from a victim who does not yet know what is about to happen and eagerly anticipates the moment of shocked revelation when that will change.
“When is Justine landing?” they whisper eagerly to each other. Sadism is no good if the victim doesn’t know what is being done to her. The anticipation sharpens their appetite for the revelation.
Behind it all is a moral structure. The crowd in the Two Minutes Hate does not randomly lash out. The very name with its time limit is a demonstration of civilization. For two minutes they will become hateful animals in reaction to a profound ideological offense. And then they will turn the outrage machine off.
Anyone can be a mob, but they are a morality mob. They do horrible things because the ends, such as fighting racism, justify the means. They hate for two minutes and then go back to their daily lives.
Structure maintains the illusion of morality. Like The Lottery, it has to pretend that it isn’t random so that the participants can make believe that they are doing this for some nobler reason than the primal joy of bashing another human being’s head in with a rock.
Modern social media is The Lottery. You type things into it. You type them in when you’re sober or drunk. When you’re on top of the world or miserably depressed. You tweet and get retweeted. You like and are liked in turn. The sentiments you express move beyond your close circles of family and friends.
Sometimes you win the lottery and become famous. Your Twitter feed gets turned into a CBS sitcom. Other times you lose the lottery and your equally stupid tweet gets you picked to be stoned to death.
Each time you participate in the global mass of the internet, you are pulling a ticket out of the lottery. And even if you don’t participate, a crazy lesbian waitress can tell the world that you refused to give her a tip, a former friend or lover can make your letter, stripped of context, go viral and what passes for reporters in the new media looking for pageviews can make you a target to fill a daily quota.
The Internet is going crazy for, the headlines on the same sites that create the frenzy say. The Internet is exploding. The Internet lashed out. The Internet lynched someone. But it’s not the internet. It’s the cowardly individuals in the morality mob hiding behind their collective malice in a hashtag who want to hurt someone from the physical and moral safety of the mob.
The morality mob is attracted to pettiness. It rarely takes on big things because it knows its own weakness. A morality mob is a bully without the courage and it needs easy targets that it knows it can hurt. It attacks individuals for minor social offenses. It targets them for perceived sins against their social consensus, but it is truly animated by the perception that its targets violate these norms because they are elitist, because they view themselves as special and above the rules that apply to everyone.
The modern internet morality mob began in China. A country that is not only Communist, but a place where sticking your head out is its own crime. The Chinese version of the Ugly Duckling story doesn’t end with the duckling turning into a swan, but being eaten because he was only a foolish duck who had the ridiculous idea that he was a swan.
“It was just the latest example of a growing phenomenon the Chinese call Internet hunting, in which morality lessons are administered by online throngs and where anonymous Web users come together to investigate others and mete out punishment for offenses real and imagined.” That is how the New York Timesdescribed it in 2006.
The phenomenon has since spread to America, but it predictably enough began in a collectivist society ruled by the iron hand of the Communist Party.
Totalitarianism relies on harnessing the darker emotions in the human catalog; fear, sadism, hate, contempt and the sense of power that derives from causing harm to another beneath the mask of the self-righteous inquistioner whose moral authority allows him to both inflict and enjoy the torment.
Beneath these responses is a deeper sense of helplessness and insecurity. The anonymous mass of society has become even more chokingly cramped and anonymous on the internet than in the biggest twentieth century cities. For some of the uglier faces in the crowd, the only way to feel real is to hurt someone. And their leftist ringleaders know exactly how the game is played.
The morality mobs on the internet are mostly of the left. That is because the left is better at organization and rhetoric. It also holds the commanding heights of social morality dictating what behaviors are acceptable and which are not.
Morality mobs crowdsource the left’s values enforcement. While its activist groups concern themselves with Phil Robertson, its morality mobs band together to target ordinary people. The organized left can make examples out of famous people while the ad-hoc left can make examples out of ordinary people by making their morality mob lynchings go viral.
The left responded to criticism of its actions in the Phil Robertson case by arguing that they are not violating the First Amendment. And they aren’t. Directly. Though indirectly their entire culture of activism and the promotion of their values is funded by the government. But free speech can be structurally suppressed without ever officially involving the authorities in the dirty work.
If the outcome is the end of free speech, then the details of how it got that way become academic. If instead of a top-down solution, the actual death of free speech involves a mid-level intervention by an oligarchy of media and new media outlets, activist groups and fearful businesses banding together to make free speech impossible while the authorities go on smiling and insisting that speech is still free; then the destination is the same. Only the road we took to get there will have changed.
The First Amendment was not just a legal safeguard against government abuses, but a statement that an open society is best. The letter of the law protects the people from government intervention, but the spirit of the law is an argument for an open society in which the freedom to worship, to speak and to protest against the government make all our freedoms possible.
The left aspires to a society in which dissent is suppressed. And a society without dissent is totalitarian whether it is ruled by the hateful mob of the Two Minutes Hate or by Big Brother.
Posted byDaniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
(Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Orwell’s mistake in 1984 was assuming that a totalitarian socialist state would maintain the rigid linguistic conventions of bureaucratic totalitarianism. That future commissars and fuhrers would insist on everyone talking like office clerks picking out words from a coded manual of procedures.
It was an understandable mistake though. Orwell had seen 1948. But he hadn’t seen 1984. Liberal Newspeak is the hybrid product of advertising, academia and bureaucracy. It takes ideas from creative leftists, rinses them in conformity, uses techniques from the ad world to make them as safe as possible and then shoves them down everyone’s throat.
Newspeak’s objective was to enforce linguistic schizophrenia as a means of subdividing personalities, killing rational thought and making opposition into a form of madness. Liberal Newspeak’s is less ambitious. It settles for muddling your brain. Like modern advertising, its goal is to make you feel comfortable without actually telling you anything.
Liberal Newspeak is the chirpy announcer in a drug commercial soothingly telling you about all the fatal side effects while on screen couples have romantic picnics and go whitewater rafting. That is the job of most of the news media. Forget outliers like MSNBC which caters to a self-consciously prog crowd. The media’s real job is to be that announcer telling you that if you vote liberal, your taxes will go up, your job will go to China and you will die, without getting you upset about the terrible news.
The dictionary of Liberal Newspeak is full of empty and meaningless words. Community, Care, Access, Sharing, Concern, Affordability, Options, Communication, Listening, Engage, Innovating and a thousand others like it are wedged into sentences. Entire pages can be written almost entirely in these words without a single note of meaning intruding on the proceedings.
It’s not that these words don’t have meanings. It’s that their meanings have been rendered meaningless. The techniques of advertising have been used to pluck up words that people once felt comfortable with and wrap them around the agendas of the liberal bureaucracy.
Community is a perfect example. It was the perfect word to hijack because it once seemed to mean the dignified independence and interdependence of small town life. A community had structure. It had values. But in Liberal Newspeak, a “community” is a recognized identity group or concern group. It means a distinct population that has to be managed or rewarded or addressed in some way.
But Community is also a mandate. We are all expected to be part of communities. Community has become the opposite of individualism. It has come to mean the conformity of identity groups and unelected activists who mandate the behavior of entire identity groups. The virtual community is not a legal entity. It holds no elections or referendums. Its leadership is chosen for it from outside. Liberal Newspeak is concerned with making people safe while telling them absolutely nothing. It’s a new language that conveys reassurance rather than meaning. Its totem words are almost pre-verbal in that they mean nothing except “You are safe” and “We are taking care of you.”
That is what gibberish like, “We are improving access options for all community interest groups” or “We are striving to innovate while listening to everyone’s concerns” means. Daily life has become filled with meaningless pats on the head like that, which dedicated liberal newspeakers spew up like newborns. This empty babble says nothing. It’s the hum of the beehive. The signal that keeps all the drones headed in the same direction.
Unlike Newspeak, Liberal Newspeak doesn’t engage in any showy inversions of meaning. Those are the games that intellectuals play and above the ground level at which most Liberal Newspeak chatter takes place, there are mountains of academic jargon that work hard to invert meanings and ideas. But like the brilliant inventions of engineers, these rarely make it down to the ground level.
Liberal Newspeak isn’t the work of the engineers of the left, but its marketers. It doesn’t bother with frontal attacks on language. Instead it reframes everything in comforting language while teaching you to use the appropriate terms that change the context completely. It owes less of its perversity to Marxism than it does to Madison Avenue. The language that was used to convince millions to buy junk that was bad for them or that they didn’t need is used to convince them to buy liberalism.
While the implications of Liberal Newspeak are ominous, its tones aren’t. It deliberately embraces the feminine side of language. It strives to be comforting, nurturing and soothing. It never tells you anything directly. Instead it makes you read everything between the lines. It rarely answers questions. Instead its answers indirectly explain to you why you shouldn’t even be asking the questions.
Liberal Newspeak is a language of preemption. It preempts questions and ideas. Its terminology is so vague that specific questions require a convoluted assemblage of words. The more specific the question, the more convoluted the sentence, until asking even a simple question is like trying to make a wish with a genie. And then the sheer amount of words makes the meaning impermeable.
You can’t think in Liberal Newspeak. You can only feel good or bad, angry or self-satisfied. There is no room for thoughts, only feelings. You can feel guilty in Liberal Newspeak. You can be outraged, self-righteous or concerned. But you can’t weigh one idea against another because it isn’t a language of ideas. It’s a vocabulary of emotional cues that could just as easily be taught to a smart animal.
Liberals policies go awry so often in part because Liberal Newspeak makes propaganda easy, but practical planning very difficult. The language they use is designed to make people comfortable with uncomfortable things, but descends into meaningless waves of bureaucratese when discussing any specifics. That is the difference between marketing ObamaCare and making ObamaCare work.
It’s easy enough to put up a glowing website full of smiling people talking about affordability, access, sharing, concern and care. But it takes more practical communications skills to make that website work. Obama’s CMS built a whole television studio to sell ObamaCare, but kept tinkering with the website specifications until the last minute and tried to manage integration with disastrous results.
Liberal Newspeak excels at telling the uninformed that everything will be fine when the government takes care of them. But project communications in Liberal Newspeak that prattle endlessly about access and relevance and community and integrity may look like a plan to the newspeakers, but is a tremendous waste of everyone’s time and resources.
Newspeaker bureaucrats think that they’re planning when they write memos about engagement and access, when what they are really doing is maintaining conformity in the same way that the Soviet and Red Chinese engineers constantly discussing Lenin and Mao as inspirations for their work.
Communist Newspeak however wasn’t a language, it was a series of formal statements of allegiance. Once those were gotten out of the way, it was possible to talk brass tacks. But there are no brass tacks or sharp corners allowed in Liberal Newspeak. No one ever gets to the point except when attacking Republicans. The point is an attack on the integrity of the group, its accessibility, engagement and innovative listening status. Once you get to the point, the hum of the drones no longer has a purpose. Liberal Newspeak is full of terms about listening, engaging and sharing, but it’s a closed loop. It’s language as a command and control mechanism for establishing conformity. There is no room for debate in Liberal Newspeak. Arguments are settled with emotional resorts to the dominant political agendas of the day. There is no way to disprove anything in Liberal Newspeak. All you can do is denounce your opponent’s lack of ideological conformity while claiming that your experience gives you special insight into the form of oppression that the political agenda is meant to solve.
The empty words are signals like the noises that birds and animals in the forest make. They establish identity, rather than ideas. A Liberal Newspeak discussion is more likely to be about identities, racial, gender, sexual, than about anything tangible. Like two moose meeting in the north or two sparrows chirping on a power line, the only communication that really happens is an assertion of identity.
The “security” of Liberal Newspeak comes from that sense of mutual identity through conformity. Everyone has access, community and shares their concerns which are all about conformity. It’s an unbroken loop of reassuring gibberish punctuated by bursts of anger at outsiders who are not part of the hive and don’t understand how important community access and engaged listening really are.
Newspeak was concerned with the manipulation of meaning, while Liberal Newspeak is concerned only with emotional cues tied to identity. It doesn’t replace meaning, it displaces it. It has emotions, but no ideas. It is the noise that takes the place of the signal and the hum that ends a conversation. Its purpose is to take an individualistic culture where ideas were proven through adversarial contests of the intellect and reduce it to a conformity that promises safety in exchange for never thinking again.
The first question from President Mandela was: “So, Mr. Hammond what were you doing in the years of struggle?”
“I was fighting people like you, sir.” I answered.
Nelson Mandela laughed and reached out his hand saying: “I’m so pleased to meet an honest white man! Every other white has told me how they always supported me and opposed apartheid. I wondered how the National Party stayed in power for over 40 years!”
“Well, Mr. President, make no mistake, I was not fighting for apartheid. I was fighting against communism and against terrorism.”
At this the president declared that “apartheid was the greatest evil in history of the world.”
“I cannot agree Mr. President, that prize has to go to your friends and supporters, the communists. Secular humanist, communist regimes have killed well over 160 Million people during the 20 th Century. That’s not 160 Million people killed in war by invading armies. That’s 160 Million people killed by their own governments: secular, socialist states.” (…)
And so the conversation went. At one point Nelson Mandela expressed his surprise that we wanted to “restrict the rights of women” by opposing abortion. I responded: “Mr. President you are questioning the Christianity of people who 40 years ago justified apartheid. I tell you, sir, it will not be 40 years from now and people will question your humanity for legalising abortion. (…)
At the end of the hour, Nelson Mandela stood up and told us that we could now take our pictures. I did not mean to be rude, but we honestly hadn’t even thought about that: “No thank you,” I said. He turned mouth agape in apparent shock. Perhaps we were the first delegation to meet with him who didn’t want to have pictures taken with him. I then hastened to add: “But, we would like to pray for you.”
“No! No! That’s very private and personal.” I pretended not to hear and put a hand on one shoulder while Rev. Soon Zevenster placed his hand on the other shoulder. We prayed that the Lord would not grant Mr. Mandela any peace until he did what he knew what was right…”
Guess what happened next?
Hammond handed Mandela a book by Dr. James Kennedy and they parted on friendly terms, Mandela assuring Hammond that he would was always responsive to the concerns of his constituents. “However,” said Hammond, “the next week senior investigators of his Revenue Service began a 7 year Audit of our mission and family!”
>> Posted by Blazing Catfur : http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/
Maybe if it had been committed by the Duke lacrosse team, you would have heard of this atrocity by now, but it happened five years ago in another country. Amanda Marcotte probably didn’t notice:
Jamie Paterson, 17: “I was lying down and I could hear them undoing the TV and then throwing it across and then something fell on me. I thought it was the TV, but it was my mother. And then I looked up. And then they dragged her away again and the carpet was covered in blood. They kept saying to my father, ‘We are going to kill you, we are going to kill you now.’ . . . Alan Paterson (her father): “She was bargaining her flute, she was bargaining her [school] badge. She was doing it, almost knowing what was going to happen to her was almost inevitable.” Jamie: “He said to me ‘I’m HIV positive. But you’re young, I don’t want to ruin your life. So if you could just give me gold. I want gold, money and I want your gun.’I said to him, ‘We don’t have it.’ He hit me around the head and said, ‘No, you have a gun, don’t lie to me.’” Bronwyn Paterson (her mother): “They started to fight over her and I knew she was going to be raped.” Jamie: “And then he took me into the bathroom and locked me in and raped me there.”
During the 1950s Mandela was banned, arrested and imprisoned for challenging apartheid . . . and, following the 1960 banning of the ANC, he went underground . . .
During this time, he and other ANC leaders formed its armed wing — Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK). . . .
That “armed wing” carried out terror attacks at shopping centers, movie theaters and other civilian targets . . .
And when Mandela was arrested, the authorities claimed to have uncovered “210,000 hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminium powder and 1 ton of black powder.”
Governments around the world, such as the ones in the U.S. and Great Britain, placed the ANC on their terror lists, along with the PLO, the IRA and the FLQ.
You really should read the whole thing at PJ Media, because it explains how the violent terrorist Nelson Mandela got an image makeover with the help of liberal celebrities in America and England who jumped aboard the anti-apartheid crusade when it became a fashionable cause in the late 1980s. None of those celebrities live in South Africa, of course, and none of them gave a damn about the epidemic of violent crime that has afflicted South Africa in recent years, an epidemic of which Jamie Paterson and her family were victims.
Some conservatives are like a dog that’s been kicked a few times and flinches at a gesture — this is especially true on the subject ofRAAAAACISM! — and, as I said late night, “many conservatives are so intimidated by the enormous prestige of liberalism that it takes a stern contempt for mere popularity to speak unpleasant truths.” Nobody wants to be excluded from polite society, or to show up on a left-wing “kill map” for gay psychos with a Chik-fil-A rage.
Except maybe for the people who got killed or raped.
The Gospel of Saint Nelson does not merely omit the long-ago victims of ANC terrorism, but also manages to ignore the ultra-violent reality of contemporary South Africa, “The Rape Capital of the World.”
It’s not me, the Evil Right-Wing Racist, who’s saying this, it’s South Africans themselves, and most of the victims of South Africa’s world-historic rape rampage are black, as are their rapists.
And hey, let’s talk about murder: In 2011, the murder rate in South Africa was 31.9 per 100,000. The U.S. rate is 4.7 per 100,000.
How is it that all these liberals on MSNBC who wring their hands and blame the NRA for the horrible murder rate in America don’t blink an eye in praising the wonderful post-apartheid government of South Africa, where the murder rate is six times as high?
In 1991, at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic, the U.S. murder rate was only 9.8 per 100,000 — less than a third of the murder rate in South Africa today. Mexico, wracked by drug cartel violence, managed to get its murder rate down to 22 per 100,000 last year.
Three years ago, a government study of South Africa’s crime problemdescribed several factors, including ”a subculture of violence and criminality” and “problems of inefficiency and corruption” in the criminal justice system. Gosh, that sounds kind of like . . .
OK, so South Africa is 40 percent less dangerous than Detroit, but that’s small comfort to the 15,000 or so South Africans who are murdered every year. This crime epidemic is why many South Africans live in gated communities protected by private security forces, but this was not enough to protect university professor Alan Paterson and his family when they were attacked at their home in Sandton, an affluent suburb of Johannesburg.
Diana Thomson’s life was changed forever on the stormy night eight years ago when her son Mike was stabbed and shot repeatedly as he fought for his life, while trying to protect his wife and little children in their Johannesburg home. . . .
He, his wife Lorna and their three children aged between seven and 11, were at home on Thursday, September 27 2007 as a wild storm dumped so much water into the swimming pool that it began to overflow.
Mike went out to backwash the pool when he saw four men hiding in the corner of his courtyard.
He shouted and Lorna heard the crack of a handgun amidst the thunder. It was a shot going into Mike’s torso. He was a big, strong man who was running a karate school with his brother Allan, and he continued to fight the gang, sustaining 14 stab wounds before another shot killed him.
The gang moved into the house where Lorna and her children were tied up and threatened with death before the robbers fled in a waiting car.
In the robbery of Pastor Neil Rischbieter, his wife Carol and two other women were raped and his elderly parents terrorised for three hours. . . .
On December 17, five men broke into Rischbieter’s Buccleuch home — where he and his wife Carol throw swimming parties for children from a nearby shelter.
Neil’s parents, Joey and Noel, and a woman renting a cottage also live on the property. On the night, the tenant had three friends over, including another woman in her 20s.
The gang tied up their victims and rounded them up in Joey and Noel’s cottage.
Carol was brought to the cottage but then marched back to the house. Her assailant tried to force her into the bathroom, but she refused, and he raped her in the bedroom.
“I was praying for him and his forgiveness,” she said.
“I told him: ‘You don’t need to do this. You don’t know how much Jesus loves you. Jesus will forgive you’.”
The young tenant and her friend were also raped and one of their male friends was beaten by the robbers after he slipped out of the phone cords used to tie him up.
“They enjoyed every bit of the attack. It was brutal.” . . .
[T]he robbers pistol-whipped [Paterson's wife] and then stabbed her in the back of the head and neck with a pair of scissors.
“All the time they kept shouting at her: ‘You f***ing white bitch.’ “
And, in case you forgot, 17-year-old Jamie Paterson got raped:
At least 28% of South African schoolgirls are HIV positive compared with 4% of boys because “sugar daddies” are exploiting them, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has said.
He said 94,000 schoolgirls also fell pregnant in 2011, and 77,000 had abortions at state facilities, The Sowetan newspaper reports.
About 10% of South Africans are living with HIV, official statistics show. . . .
Last year more than 260,000 people with AIDS died — almost half the figure of all those who died in the country.
World’s Most Interesting Man Always Reads Zion’s Trumpet
Pamela Geller’s Must Read New Book
Should You Care? Let’s Ask The Give A Damn Meter!
"Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician." - General George S. Patton
Speak The Truth
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
And The Darkness Did Not Comprehend The Light
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Who Will Stand In The Gap?
30And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
The Midnight Watch and Warning
The Watchman and His Message
1 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, speak to the children of your people, and say to them: ‘When I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from their territory and make him their watchman, 3 when he sees the sword coming upon the land, if he blows the trumpet and warns the people, 4 then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be on his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, but did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But he who takes warning will save his life. 6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’
7 “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me
Social Network Quick Links
We have had several requests to add social network links, especially Facebook, to our posts so that you can easily share them. We have added this feature. Just click on the post heading link and it will pull up the post in a seperate window where you may choose the destination. Thanks for reading The Trumpet. ZTW