Category Archives: Political Correctness
Gays are 2.6% of the population, including Lesbians.
Not much to hang a sports league on.
But the motivation is essentially religious. Owners care more about being seen as one of the chosen, the Saved, the special, the “good White” who gloriously saves the downtrodden non-White, or Gay, or Muslim, or what have you, and thus performs the sado-masochistic (credit the tweeter Roissy/Heartiste retweeted) rituals of recycling, yoga, tofu, vegetarianism, jogging, etc. along with “racial cuckoldry” that makes up the religion of Racial Penance and Redemption.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Fantasy versus reality.
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings was sometimes faulted by literary critics for caricaturing the evil orcs as uniformly bad. All of them were as unpleasant to look as they were deadly to encounter. There is not a single good orc or even a reformed orc in the trilogy. The apparent one-dimensional assumption of men, hobbits, dwarves, and elves is that the only good orc is a dead orc. So the absolutist Tolkien tried to teach us about the enduring nature of absolute good and evil. Apparently he did not think that anything from his contemporary experience might allow him to imagine reforming or rehabilitating such fictive folk.
In the 21st century we are often lectured that such simplistic, one-dimensional evil is long gone. A ubiquitous civilization has so permeated the globe that even the worst sorts must absorb some mitigating popular culture from the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, as if the sheer speed of transmitting thoughts ensures their moral improvement.
Even where democracy is absent, the “world community” and a “global consciousness” are such that billions supposedly won’t let Attila, Tamerlane, and Genghis Khan reappear in our postmodern lives. To deal with a Major Hasan, Americans cannot cite his environment as the cause, at least not poverty, racism, religious bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, or any of the more popular –isms and-ologies in our politically correct tool box that we customarily use to excuse and contextualize evil behavior. So exasperated, we shrug and call his murdering “workplace violence” — an apparent understandable psychological condition attributable to the boredom and monotony of the bleak, postmodern office.
But then suddenly along comes the limb-lopping, child-snatching, and mutilating Nigerian-based Boko Haram. What conceivable Dark Age atrocity have they omitted? Not suicide bombing, mass murder, or random torture. They are absolutely unapologetic for their barbarity. They are ready to convert or kill preteens as their mood determines for the crime of being Christian. In response, the Nigerian government is powerless, while the United States is reduced to our first lady holding up Twitter hashtags, begging for the release of the latest batch of girls.
Is the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab worse? It likes the idea that it is premodern. In addition to the usual radical Islamic horrors of beheadings, rape, and mutilation, Al-Shabaab even kills protected elephants, perhaps thousands of them, to saw off tusks and fund their killing spree. They seem to make the medieval Taliban look tame in comparison.
Now we are glued on ISIS, the Mesopotamian killers who are beheading on video streams American journalists, as they murder, rape, and mutilate their way from Syria to central Iraq. One of the beheaders, Jihadi John, has a British accent, and seems to enjoy shocking Westerners with the fact that he is more familiarly savage than his fellow Arabic-speaking masochists. Apparently his family immigrated from the Muslim world to the affluence and freedom of the United Kingdom for a more civilized life so that their pampered son could one day leave it to seek to destroy all that had enabled him — and thereby find “meaning.”
If a British politician demanded to strip Jihadi John and those like him of their passports or an American senator demanded that we not let in any more Tsarnaev-like jihadists, the outcry would be such that the crimes of beheading and blowing up people at a marathon might pale in comparison. Cutting off somebody’s head or blowing off a leg is one thing, but casting aspersions on the Other is quite another.
All of the above might once have been lumped under al-Qaeda affiliates, but now Osama’s remnants apparently find monsters like ISIS too “brutal.” In contrast, Hamas only drives Christians out of Gaza rather than beheads them. It also executes unarmed Palestinians deemed insufficiently loyal. It maims those of rival Palestinian political groups. And it positions girls and boys as shields in places where their well-off elite commanders may well be targeted, rather than kidnap and take them out into the bush.
Although most of the savage violence that is plaguing the world today is the dividend of radical Islamists in Africa, Northern Africa, the Middle East, and, yes, Europe, state players are not immune. Bashar Assad has used the government apparatus of Syria to kill tens of thousands — some, in the manner of his old neighbor Saddam Hussein, through the agency of poison gas. He, too, is immune from an accounting — unless the even more evil ISIS catches up with him.
Europe and the United States are baffled by Vladimir Putin. He was supposed to be “reset” a long time ago. Or he should have at least reread Norman Angell’s The Great Illusion years ago, and learned that in an interconnected financial world, starting a war (like World War I) would be so suicidal a business as to prevent its occurrence. Instead, Putin is following the path of Joseph Stalin in the 1930s, gobbling up borderlands, but for the idea of the greater glory of Mother Russia rather than the Soviet commune. His modus operandi is as predictable as our Western weepy responses. He eyes some new territory. He cites long historical affinities. He points to oppressed Russian speakers. He sends in paramilitaries. And then he talks of annexing only part of some previous Russian land. Obama compares him to a cutup in the back of the classroom or dismisses his actions as macho “shtick.” Putin counters with talk about his nuclear arsenal or taking Kiev. If a journalist smarts off, Putin warns him of castration. If Putin wishes to let off a nuke, he might well do it — if only for the hell of it.
We can stop the roll call of global orcs here, with the assumption that we all know the nature of the lunatic North Korea nuclear regime, what the Iranians are planning for the children of the Holocaust, or who the sinister sort who run Pakistani military intelligence and fund terrorists in Afghanistan are. As state powers, they all have ways of incinerating tens of thousands rather than beheading hundreds.
Evil is ancient, unchanging, and with us always. The more postmodern the West becomes — affluent, leisured, nursed on moral equivalence, utopian pacifism, and multicultural relativism — the more premodern the evil among us seems to arise in nihilistic response, whether it is from the primordial Tsarnaev brothers or Jihadi John. We have invented dozens of new ways to explain away our indifference, our enemies hundreds of new ways of reminding us of our impotence. I suppose we who enjoy the good life don’t want to lose any of it for anything — and will understandably do any amount of appeasing, explaining, and contextualizing to avoid an existential war against the beheaders and mutilators, a fact well-known to our enemies.
The Europeans are shrugging that Ukraine is lost and will soon sigh that the Baltic states are a far-off place not worth risking the coffee shops of Amsterdam to defend. Westerners lament beheadings but then privately mutter that journalists know just what they are getting into when they visit the Middle East. Murdering and abusing a U.S. ambassador on video is not such a big deal anymore and is worth only a second or so mention on Google News.
So we wait behind our suburban Maginot Lines, arguing over our quarter- and half-measure responses, refighting Iraq and Afghanistan as if they were the Somme and Verdun, assured that we can distract ourselves from the horrors abroad with psychodramas about Ferguson, the president’s golfing, his lectures on fairness, and which naked celebrity photo was hacked on the Internet.
Meanwhile the orcs are busy and growing and nearing the ramparts…
Obama Thinks mooslims are Part of Our National Fabric? What a Delusional, Christian Hating, Steaming Piece of Horse Shit!
As Christians Are Purged and Murdered, Obama Stands by the Muslims by Pretending They Helped Build the “Very Fabric” of America
He did say he would “stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The winds couldn’t get much uglier than they are now. Enabled by Obama’s withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, the Islamic State (a.k.a. ISIS) is purging the region of Christians:
Iraqi Christians are begging for help from the civilized world after Mosul, the northern city where they have lived and worshiped for 2,000 years, was purged of non-Muslims by ISIS, the jihadist terror group that claims to have established its own nation in the region.
Assyrian Christians, including Chaldean and Syriac Catholics, Syriac Orthodox and followers of the Assyrian Church of the East have roots in present day Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran that stretch back to the time of Jesus Christ. While they have long been a minority and have faced persecution in the past, they had never been driven completely from their homes as has happened in Mosul under ISIS. When the terror group ordered all to convert to Islam, pay a religious tax or face execution, many chose another option: flight.
Hopelessly outnumbered, they are doomed without a champion to defend them. Their deaths at Muslim hands will not be pleasant ones. Although the Islamophilic liberal media doesn’t like to talk about it, ISIS has been crucifying Christians.
At least France is offering asylum to Christians fleeing ISIS.
Meanwhile, here’s the response from the leader of the most powerful Christian nation. From Obama’s official statement in honor of the Muslim holiday Eid-al-Fitr:
“In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”
Muslims are and have always been a tiny unassimilated minority in American culture. Try to name a widely known American Muslim who has made a positive contribution to this nation, who isn’t a pernicious anti-American radical, or who lived before Louis Farrakhan.
Yet they helped build the very fabric of this nation?
Obama isn’t just an ideologue. He is certifiably delusional.
We do have a history with Islam that goes way back. We went to war with the Muslim Barbary Pirates shortly after our founding. That’s where the reference to “the shores of Tripoli” comes from in the Marines’ Hymn.
The only major Muslim contribution to American history came on September 11, 2001. You may remember it, even if the media doesn’t.
It’s easy to see why 72% of American Muslims approve of Obama, in stark contrast to Christians.
What sort of sickness caused people to vote for this freak only a few years after 9/11?
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
I have a firm belief that some people richly deserve to be punched in the face for their behavior. Such a case might be made for this douche bag that Stacy McCain writes about
We are now in Day Six of the Hobby Lobby hysteria, and the Democrat Party propaganda claim that this Supreme Court decision is a theocratic right-wing assault on women’s rights is so firmly embedded in liberals’ minds that responding to them with facts and logic is a waste of time. Deliberate provocation is more fun, and the liberal reaction to Holly Fisher’s provocation was memorable. A young Floridian named Patrick Ryan Kasprik sent Fisher these Twitter messages:
As might be imagined, Kasprik’s rhetoric inspired a lot of blowback, to which Kasprik responded: “Like most satire, the people on the receiving end really don’t get it.” This is the familiar Liberal Satire Defense:“Hahaha! Stupid wingnuts are too ignorant to comprehend the enlightened nuance of my progressive humor.”
Except (a) we understand it perfectly and (b) it’s not funny.
Now, Patrick can hide behind the “satire” barricade all he likes, he has, BTW deleted his Twitter account because, like most Leftists he cannot take the heat. See, Patrick, Stacy McCain is correct, we get your “satire”, and it is not funny, it is not even mildly amusing frankly. What you posted was vile, cowardly, and shows your level of moral retardation Patrick. Take my opening paragraph for example Patrick. I suggested people like you deserve to get punched in the face. Did that offend you Patrick? Well, silly boy, you just missed my “satire” didn’t you? See, Patrick, you are a delusional little man who typifies Leftist thinking. You believe you are morally justified in wishing a woman was raped, or stoned to death because she dares holds a differing view than you do on abortion. So, you launch into nasty attacks on not only that person but people of faith as well. You might, Patrick, stop and think about the irony of that, but I doubt it, like most Leftists, you are so consumed with rage, and spite that you are incapable of coherent thought. People like you Patrick, are the lowest common denominator aren’t you? You hear something you disagree with and you launch into emotional overdrive. There is no room in your world for critical think Patrick. In fact, you are far more like the Taliban than the young lady you verbally assaulted.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
. In a ruling Wednesday morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office cancelled six federal trademarks for the name of the Washington Redskins.
Currently, federal trademark law does not allow the registration of any names that bring individuals or groups into contempt or disrepute. The PTO cited this rule in their decision regarding the Redskins’ name.
Here are twelve other trademarked names that apparently didn’t come up on anyone’s offense radar.
Figgas over Niggas: This pending trademark seeks to cover a line of “Apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets.” “Niggas,” of course, is a slang version of the word “nigger,” a term considered highly offensive towards black Americans.
Kraut Kap: Another recently-filed trademark, this one for a line of plastic lids. “Kraut” was made famous in World War II as a derogatory term for opposing German soldiers, as well as Germans in general.
Dago Swagg: A label created for a line of clothing. ”Dago” is a corruption of the common name Diego, and is used in English-speaking countries as an offensive term for those of Italian descent, and occasionally people from other Mediterranean countries as well.
Cracka Azz Skateboards: Unsurprisingly, this trademark was taken out for a line of skateboards and longboards, as well as associated clothing such as bandannas. While the USPTO helpfully notes that “The wording ‘cracka azz’ has no meaning in a foreign language,” “cracka” is a slang version of “cracker,” which in this context is a term of derision for whites, used primarily within the black community.
You Can’t Make A Housewife Out Of A Whore: This trademark for T-shirts and hats appears to imply that women involved in prostitution can never transition into the domestic role of a housewife. Such an accusation would certainly “bring them into contempt or disrepute,” the stated reasoning for eliminating the Redskins trademark.
Blanco Basura: A seemingly innocuous phrase, Blanco Basura, rendered into English, is actually the highly offensive slur “white trash.” White trash is a derogatory insult that typically refers to poor, white Americans, who have a penchant for crime and a patent disrespect for authority. Apparently, they thought they could go unnoticed designing a hateful beer.
Home Cookin Biscuit Head: Intentionality, as we well know, is not required in order for something to be highly, highly offensive. They should’ve done their due diligence before designing this logo for the restaurant industry. The term “biscuit head” has its origins in the Korean War, when American GIs picked this unseemly term to describe the shape of Koreans’ heads.
‘teensdoporn.com’: This is a classic example (Safe For Work) of a harmful stereotype used to justify condescension toward teens in the form of countless hours of sex-ed in high school. It wrongfully supposes that all teens are sex-crazed maniacs, who given the chance, will opt for trading their sexuality on a website for fame and fortune.
Gypsy Soule Women Who Live By Their Own Rules: This line of makeup containers and tote bags is a double whammy. “Gypsy” is a term for the itinerant Romani people that derives from the erroneous belief they originated from Egypt, rather than India. In addition, the “Live by their own rules” component hearkens to the common stereotype that Romani routinely ignore the law and engage in criminality.
Mammy Jamia’s: A company going by the name of A & S Cairns Limited has decided to attach its good name to an antebellum slur used to refer to an enslaved black woman who was in charge of household affairs, particularly caring for white children. The product? Frozen fruits and vegetables. Was it really worth it, A &S?
Uppity Negro: Intended to be imprinted on mugs and apparel, this trademark references the frequently used adjective “uppity” to describe blacks who agitated for greater respect and civil rights in the Jim Crow-era South.
All Natural My Dadz Nutz Carmelized Jumbo Redskins: Available at MyDadzNutz.com, this line of savory peanuts is unlikely to run into trouble for applying “redskin” to a line of peanuts. One might argue the two terms describe different things, and so the overlap does not matter, but that hasn’t stopped the old name for Brazil nuts from fading away. Kaffir limes, meanwhile, are a discouraged name in the Oxford Companion to Food, as “kaffir” is a highly offensive term for blacks in South Africa.
Found at TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Posted on | June 15, 2014
Such is the substance of the campus rape “epidemic,” as I explained Wednesday (“Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But George Will’s Column Raped Me”) in rejecting the claim that skepticism toward feminist rhetoric is morally equivalent to rape.
Feminism’s hegemonic dominance within elite academia has been achieved because cowards are easily intimidated by intellectual bullying, but George Will refused to play along with that charade. His reply to a group of Democratic senators is a masterpiece of concision:
Dear Senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Baldwin and Casey: I have received your letter of June 12, and I am puzzled. You say my statistics “fly in the face of everything we know about this issue.” You do not mention which statistics, but those I used come from the Obama administration, and from simple arithmetic involving publicly available reports on campus sexual assaults. The administration asserts that only 12 percent of college sexual assaults are reported. Note well: I did not question this statistic. Rather, I used it. I cited one of the calculations based on it that Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has performed . . . So, I think your complaint is with the conclusion that arithmetic dictates, based on the administration’s statistic. The inescapable conclusion is that another administration statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college is insupportable and might call for tempering your rhetoric about “the scourge of sexual assault.”
The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20?percent.
The arithmetic is indeed “simple,” and the administration’s claims about the prevalence of sexual assault on campus don’t add up. Even if we accept the claim that only 12% of sexual assaults are reported, multiplying the number of reported sexual assaults eight-fold still does not yield a number equal to 20% of female students.
Where did this ginned-up phony rape “epidemic” originate? What is the source of the “one in five women” number? A 2007 Justice Department survey that has been helpfully analyzed by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. Anyone familiar with social science methodology can examine the questions asked in that survey and see that the fundamental problem is how the questions were phrased: Respondents were asked about “unwanted sexual contact” and even attempted “unwanted sexual contact.” In other words, if your boyfriend even tries to do something “unwanted,” you’re a victim.
Perhaps the people who designed that survey did not deliberately bias the results in a way that exaggerated the incidence of “sexual assault.” Perhaps the researchers did not even think about how their survey might be hijacked for political purposes. Perhaps it is, in some sense, ultimately impossible for researchers to quantify in any definitive way the content of people’s sexual experience.
On the other hand, however, feminists have spent the past four decades trying to convince women that male sexuality is inherently violent and oppressive. (How many times must I recommend Daphne Patai’s valuable 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism as an analysis of this troubling phenomenon?) It’s not just deranged radicals — “PIV is always rape, OK?” — who embrace feminism’s demonized view of male sexuality and, when I encounter social science research which appears designed to confirm that view, I am not inclined to accept claims that the methodological flaws of the survey are entirely coincidental. Glenn Kessler comments:
On its Web site, the National Institute of Justice notes . . . that “researchers have been unable to determine the precise incidence of sexual assault on American campuses because the incidence found depends on how the questions are worded and the context of the survey.” It said that two parallel surveys of American college women were conducted in 1997 and came up with very different results, with one survey showing rapes were 11 times higher than the percentage in the other survey. The reason appears to be because of how the questions were worded.
If it is a known fact that the wording of survey questions can affect results in this way – multiplying by a factor of 11 the reports of rape — the reliance on such surveys to generate statistics that are clearly inflated cannot be accepted as a mere coincidence. The conclusion of George Will’s reply to the Democrat senators:
I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do. Which is why I worry about definitions of that category of crime that might, by their breadth, tend to trivialize it. And why I think sexual assault is a felony that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes.
This is the real crux of the problem: University officials have insisted on treating accusations of sexual assault as disciplinary infractions rather than as matters of criminal justice. Why? Because the vast majority of such accusations involve “he said/she said” situations where a felony conviction would almost certainly be impossible.
The Brown University case of Dan Kopin and Lena Sclove may not be typical, but it demonstrates the fundamental problem. No one wishes to minimize the seriousness of sexual assault, but when such an incident is cited as evidence of universities tolerating “brutal rape” on campus, we’ve gone through the looking glass into an alternative reality where words have no fixed meaning.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
From TOMC: http://theothermccain.com/
Avatar director James Cameron isn’t the only one in his family to spew sanctimonious moonbattery regarding the environment:
Former actress and model Suzy Amis-Cameron – James Cameron’s wife – is putting her ducks in line to see that the Carlsbad, Calif.-based school she founded will soon become the first to go completely vegan.
Such a bold move shouldn’t be surprising coming from a school that was established out of a loathing for M&M’s. Amis-Cameron decided to start MUSE School CA in 2005, when she picked up her 4-year-old daughter from school and discovered that the girl had spent the day learning math with colorful, saccharine pellets.
“The school she was going to – that touted itself as an environmental school – was teaching my child to count with M&M’s,” Amis-Cameron tells NPR. “And everything in my life came to a screeching halt.”
You have to be able to put everything else aside to deal with big issues like the environmental incorrectness of certain foods. That includes not only M&Ms, but all meat:
Suzy and James — environmentalist vegans themselves (though James didn’t make that decision until after Avatar) — see plant-based diets as the biggest thing someone can do to reduce his or her footprint. “You can’t really call yourself an environmentalist if you’re still consuming animals,” Amis-Cameron says. “You just can’t.”
Fortunately for her you can live in multiple opulent mansions that run up massive power bills and call yourself an environmentalist — so long as you don’t mind everyone else calling you a hypocrite.
Madam Amis-Cameron will be happy to know that they now make vegan M&Ms.
Look how healthy her righteous veggie diet has made Suzy:
Cameron is even more of a rotter than I thought if he doesn’t force-feed this poor lunatic woman the bacon cheeseburger she so desperately needs.
On a tip from Henry. Hat tip: Breitbart.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
As George Orwell observed,
“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”
Even as progressives consolidate their control of the present, they are using it to remake the past to support the future they intend to inflict. This means obliterating the cultural heritage of the American West, which consists mainly of qualities such as rugged individualism that liberals cannot abide and intend to eradicate.
The glorious chapter in our past that provided so much inspiration for Hollywood during its glory days forms a key component of America’s identity. Therefore, historical figures associated with the Old West must be demonized so as to justify reducing them to unpersons and stuffing them down the memory hole. For future generations, it will be as if they had never existed.
In the current political climate, demonization is easy to accomplish. Simply accuse the person to be erased of holding attitudes toward certain racial groups that in today’s society would be considered politically incorrect. For example, the great Mark Twain, a writer of the West, has been subjected to this treatment; his works will eventually disappear from libraries for including the forbidden N-word.
Kit Carson was arguably the personification of the Old West. Taos, New Mexico has the high honor of having been his home. But…
…the name of Kit Carson, the famed scout, explorer, trapper, soldier and Indian agent, will no longer grace Taos’ centerpiece downtown park. The Town Council passed a resolution Tuesday night to change the name to Red Willow Park.
You can guess where this is going. Carson — who lived among Indians but who also fought them — is now regarded as having been insufficiently 21st century in his attitudes and allegiances. Sure enough:
“This is about trying to begin to reconcile the transgressions of the past,” council member Fritz Hahn said Wednesday.
The park, named Kit Carson Park as long as locals can remember, gets its new name from Taos itself. The town’s name is derived from the Tiwa word for red willow. Kit Carson, who died in 1868, is buried in the cemetery at the park.
The council voted 3-1 in favor of the change after a presentation from Linda Yardley, a Native American…
“She feels uncomfortable in the park, which is named after someone who egregiously hurt her people,” said Hahn. “We have got to heal the wreckage of the past, and Kit Carson is part of that.”
By “the wreckage of the past,” he is referring to the establishment of American civilization in the Southwest.
Those of us who feel “uncomfortable” about having our history erased don’t have a voice in the matter. Moonbats call all of the shots these days.
Within a few generations, the only representatives of the 19th century anyone will remember will be the likes of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Maybe Robert E. Lee will be kept around for the Two Minutes Hate.
For liberals, it isn’t enough to import millions of illegal aliens from the Third World to displace us. They feel compelled to eradicate the foundations of our culture, so that it will be as if real Americans had never existed.
Progressives intend for the Culture War to result in total extirpation. That it is why it is absolutely unthinkable that we would let them prevail.
On a tip from Chris W.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
You cannot escape, you will be absorbed!
“weary of multicultural stock photos? well too damn bad!
the cover of every kid’s textbook, every magazine advertisement, every college brochure, every TV commercial, every government pamphlet, urgently, frantically, demands — DEMANDS! — more more more interracial joy. to pass a TV or a newsstand these days is to clinch & grimace. this pathetically desperate Big Brother “lean across the finish line” insistence on the happy human family (of satisfied corporate consumers and forward-looking progressive voters). yet no amount of multicult propaganda (or homosexual propaganda) will make it “normal”, it will always be painfully fake and never real.”
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Bob Copeland, Donald Sterling And The Criminalization Of Private Conversation (For Whites)
Like most Americans (I suspect), I was disappointed by the abrupt resignation of Bob Copeland, the 82 year old part-time Wolfeboro, NH police commissioner who used the “N Word” to describe President Obama to a friend while having a drink at the bar of a local restaurant, thus triggering the latest Political Correctness witch-hunt. At first, Copeland defended himself bravely and it looked like we might get another test of Paul Kersey’s thesis that this whole Ruling Class Show Trial strategy is about to collapse. But apparently the social pressure on Copeland’s family was too great. So Kersey has one winner (Duck Commander Phil Robertson) and two losers (Cliven Bundy and Don Sterling)…plus, of course, the ultimate loser: America. [N.H. police commissioner who used racial slur in reference to Obama resigns, By Wesley Lowery, May 19, 2014]
It’s important to grasp the details of this appalling story.
A woman at a table in the restaurant, Jane O’Toole, overheard Copeland’s remarks and decided to take offense. She even found out who the elderly man was and then contacted the Wolfeboro Police Department to complain about his use of the N-word…in a private conversation.
When Copeland learned of her complaint, he decided to reply by email. He did not deny making the remark and refused to apologize for it:
While I believe the problems associated with minorities in this country are momentous, I am not phobic. My use of derogatory slang in reference to those among them undeserving of respect is no secret. It is the exercise of my 1st Amendment rights… I believe I did use the “N” word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse [sic]. For this I do not apologize – he meets and exceeds my criteria for such.
[Wolfeboro police commissioner under scrutiny for racist comments about Obama, By Sarah Palermo, The Concord Monitor, May 15, 2014]
Everyone knows what Chris Rock means by this distinction. That’s why it gets so many laughs.
Nevertheless, Jane O’Toole didn’t grasp the distinction. So she contacted the New Hampshire Main Stream Media about Copeland’s remarks and they, needless to say, gave the story prominent coverage.
Years ago, the local and national press would have considered reporting on the contents of a private conversation between two elderly men to be both off-limits and absurd. But now, in Obama’s post-America, it is Page One news.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Spend some time with any octogenarian men or women and you can bank on the fact that they will say some inappropriate things, especially if they have had a couple of drinks. We’ll all get there some day; so will Jane O’Toole.
More importantly: President Obama regularly socializes with rap stars who use the N-Word in public all the time. So it’s OK to use the term publicly if you’re black—but it’s a sin to even speak the word privately if you’re white.
Certainly if Bob Copeland was black, Jane O’Toole would never have made an issue out of this.
Is it not a remarkable double standard that blacks are allowed to speak freely in both public and private with no fear of condemnation, but whites must police every word they say lest someone catch a casual remark on their cellphone and post it online? Apparently, in Obama’s post-America, blacks simply enjoy greater political freedom than whites.
What kind of craziness is this?
Wolfeboro, NH is a charming town on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee with a proud history dating back to colonial times. Many longtime residents can trace their roots back generations. My own parents used to live in Wolfeboro and my oldest sister was born there. A few summers ago, when I walked into a golf shop in Wolfeboro, I discovered that the owner had posted a sign on the wide open front door that read: “Sorry. Have to pick up my car at the garage. Be Back Soon. Make Yourself At Home.”
Business owners don’t have that kind of confidence in the more diverse areas of America. That’s what people love so much about Wolfeboro.
In fact, the central antagonist in this most unnecessary drama, Jane O’Toole, only moved to Wolfeboro four months ago—most likely because of the lack of diversity she unconsciously appreciates, but consciously resents. But this is precisely the kind of doublethink that characterizes most racial agitators.
There was actually a town meeting held at the Wolfeboro Public Library to discuss Bob Copeland’s private remark, or rather, the national controversy that Ms. O’Toole instigated over it. From what I can tell, despite MSM claims to the contrary, the turnout for this meeting was not very high. And some of the people there actually had the courage to defend Bob Copeland. Good for them.
True, a handful of blacks live in Wolfeboro, and some of them showed up at the meeting to protest as well. But I suspect that most of them are associated with Brewster Academy, a boarding school located across the street from the town library, and that few of them actually live there full-time. [VDARE.com note: Wikipedia says that Wolfeboro’s population(2000 census) was 6,083, of whom 0.16% were African American, which is <10 people.]
Certainly, Bob Copeland did a poor job of defending himself. You can watch video of him hobbling on his cane as he is confronted by people more than half his age in the parking lot of the public library. . [Video: Police Commissioner Who Called Obama the N-Word Snaps at ‘Skunk’ Reporter as Angry Residents Demand His Resignation, By Dave Urbanksi, The Blaze, May 16, 2014]
My guess is that Copeland suffers from some age-related infirmities of both the body and the mind, making him an easy target for racial grievance mongers
But the point is this: Informing on white people for sins committed in private conversations appears to be a growing trend.
Just recently, 80 year old Donald Sterling’s girlfriend coaxed him into making crude remarks about minorities during a private conversation and illegally recorded them before someone sent them off to TMZ. Now Donald Sterling has been fined $2.5 million and is being forced to sell his franchise for having an inappropriate private conversation.
And nearly everyone in the MSM and beyond seems to accept that the virtual criminalization of private conversations is entirely appropriate.
It is now perfectly respectable to make an example of a white person if they make an impolite remark about another race in private—and it doesn’t matter if they are friends, relatives, strangers, or even the elderly.
Incidentally, Mitt Romney owns a palatial lakefront estate in Wolfeboro where he remains a familiar presence. You can often see him with his large extended family getting ice cream on a summer evening downtown. But in case you need a further reminder of why Mitt Romney was not elected to the White House, he recently joined the chorus calling for Bob Copeland’s resignation: “The vile epithet used and confirmed by the commissioner has no place in our community,” said Romney loftily. [Romney Rips NH Officials ‘Vile Epithet, By Matt Stout, The Boston Herald, May 17, 2014]
Bob Copeland, a Navy veteran and longtime resident of Wolfeboro where his wife was born, will probably spend his few remaining years behind closed doors out of fear of running into people like Jane O’Toole.
Hannah Arendt defined totalitarianism as the drive to control the inner life of private individuals. And Arendt argued that totalitarianism does not actually depend on government control, but on a “volunteer espionage network” of private individuals who strive to intimidate their fellow citizens into conformity with the party line. In a recent speech, Michelle Obama actually encouraged this: “Maybe that starts simply in your own family, when grandpa tells that off-colored joke at Thanksgiving, or you’ve got an aunt [that] talks about ‘those people…’” [Michelle Obama Would Like Students to Monitor Family Members for Racial Insensitivity, by Pete Kasperowicz, The Blaze, May. 19, 2014]
Thus in Bertolt Brecht’s short play, The Spy, [PDF] a mother and father are enjoying a Sunday lunch with their son during which the parents make some critical remarks about the Nazi regime. After lunch, the son leaves and the parents inadvertently learn that he has gone to attend a mandatory Hitler Youth meeting. For the rest of the afternoon, they both anguish over the prospect that their own son will report them to the authorities for expressing a thought-crime against the regime.
Incredibly, Brecht’s nightmare is becoming a reality in Obama’s post-America.
Matthew Richer (email him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.
by Doug Hagin
There’s a movement sweeping across college campuses according to the New York Times that should give anyone interested in the classics of Western canon, and potentially academic freedom itself, pause: students have been advocating for so-called “trigger warnings” to be placed on college reading materials.
What are “trigger warnings?” The Times describes them as:
“explicit alerts that the material they [students] are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans…The term “trigger warning” has its genesis on the Internet. Feminist blogs and forums have used the term for more than a decade to signal that readers, particularly victims of sexual abuse, might want to avoid certain articles or pictures online.”
To give a sense as to how such warnings would be applied, the Times cited a draft guide from Oberlin College that would have required professors to put warnings in their syllabi:
“The guide said they [professors] should flag anything that might “disrupt a student’s learning” and “cause trauma,” including anything that would suggest the inferiority of anyone who is transgender (a form of discrimination known as cissexism) or who uses a wheelchair (or ableism).
“Be aware of racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ableism, and other issues of privilege and oppression,” the guide said. “Realize that all forms of violence are traumatic, and that your students have lives before and outside your classroom, experiences you may not expect or understand.” For example, it said, while “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe — a novel set in colonial-era Nigeria — is a “triumph of literature that everyone in the world should read,” it could ‘trigger readers who have experienced racism, colonialism, religious persecution, violence, suicide and more.’”
Hyper Sensitivity Syndrome! And of course this type of idiocy will be used to ban certain books/films/speakers, etc.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/#
Let’s just cut to the chase. We’ve all read this script before.
If you do anything less than fall to your knees weeping tears of jubilation that a man who is sexually attracted to men was picked to play a game for a living — you’re a homophobe.
It doesn’t really matter why you aren’t joining in the celebration, or why you aren’t using words like ‘historic’ and ‘revolutionary’ to describe a scenario where a homosexual fellow plays a sport with some other fellows, and is paid handsomely and applauded loudly for doing so.
It doesn’t matter what reasoning you provide, or what sort of logic you employ, when attempting to explain why Michael Sam’s likeness shouldn’t necessarily be etched into Mount Rushmore just because he took it upon himself to alert the media of his sexual habits a few months before being selected in the 7th round of the NFL Draft.
It doesn’t matter what you say when trying to articulate why the President of the United States of America probably doesn’t need to release an official White House statement to congratulate someone for being gay and athletic.
It doesn’t matter. None of it matters. Nothing is acceptable but complete and total adherence to the prevailing cultural dogma. You are only allowed to think a certain way about these kinds of things. Any thought, or statement, or phrase, or utterance that deviates from the zeitgeist by even the slightest degree will earn you the label of homophobic bigot, and that’s just all there is to it.
So, while I’m not a bigot, and while I’m not ‘homophobic,’ and while I generally carry about my day very much unconcerned with the sexual proclivities of football players from Missouri, I nonetheless feel the need to be a voice of reason amidst this whole spectacularly ridiculous charade. Therefore, I will be called a bigot, because that’s how America has been trained to react to anyone who questions popular opinion.
It is easy to dismiss the NBA booting noted jerk Donald Sterling as good riddance to bad rubbish isn’t it? I mean no one, and I mean no one is defending this old fool and his foolish, deplorable words, or his taste in skanks, I mean mistresses. So, a bigot shoots off his mouth, and his fellow owners choose to throw him under the bus, fine right? Well, maybe not. What happens when an NBA owner, or an owner in the NHL, NFL, or MLB, or coach, or GM are “outed” for some other thought crime. Let’s say the individual is found to support traditional marriage, or tighter border security, or to oppose abortion, or affirmative action? How far are we from the day when those are found to be views that are just not welcome in our hyper sensitive society? Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid has already asked the NFL to go after Redskins owner Daniel Snyder because he refuses to change the teams name. The Congressional Black Caucus wants sports leagues to crack down on any owner that is “racially insensitive”. Ask the former Mozilla CEO about his situation. So, get ready folks, get ready to have a new thought police that will decide who gets to own, or run what in America. I will allow Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks to give us a final thought
A day earlier, however, Cuban — while criticizing Sterling’s comments as “obviously bigoted, obviously racist” — called it “damn scary” that a precedent could be set.
“Regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we’re taking something somebody said in their home and we’re trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that’s not the United States of America,” Cuban said. “I don’t want to be part of that.”
There are those that will say that as long as the government is not coming after people for words they say, then our right to free speech is untouched. But, at a certain point we are soon going to be living in a nation where we have the freedom to speak, but might be to afraid to use it. A nation with defacto speech codes barring certain thoughts from being expressed, then, maybe a nation with speech codes dictating that we MUST express certain views or else. In short, a nation where anyone stepping out of line will be subjected to bullying, intimidation, and thuggery. A nation where expressing yourself on Twitter, Facebook, or your personal blog, or even in a private conversation might cost you your livelihood.
From TDG : http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
What Cliven Bundy Said was Quite Clear – Blacks were Slaves to Cotton, now They Are Slaves to the Democratic Party. Slaves all the Same.
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who has been at the center of one of those periodic heartland standoffs that totally baffle and enrage the American elite, is now the also the center of an all-too-typical American elite Politically Correct
hysteria about, you guessed it, “racism.”
Bundy, in Robert E. Lee’s wonderful phrase, is not a professional soldier but a citizen who has taken up arms for his country, and he may yet be mau maued into performing the usual pointless ritual grovel, but as pointed out here by Paul Kersey at the time of the Paula Deen hysteria, this stuff is wearing very thin. (Kersey was proved right by the subsequent Duck Dynasty hysteria, when alpha duck Phil Robertson simply faced down the Cultural Marxist mob).
More importantly, as I said at greater length last fall, unless the extraordinary power of this “racism” smear is faced and discredited, American immigration patriots cannot begin to reclaim their country.
Needless to say, the putative professionals who have been supporting, or at least profiting, from Bundy are now running for the hills. [SeeA List of Cliven Bundy's Supporters, Now That We Know He's a Pro-Slavery Racist, by Arit John, Abby Olsheiser, TheWire.com, April 24, 2014]. This emphatically includes Senator Rand Paul, who is quoted continuing his ignominious slide into self-defeating left-libertarianism by intoning piously that “His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him.”
(One remarkable exception: Arizona state Sen. Kelli Ward wrote in an e-mail to The Washington Post:
Apparently he has some thoughts that aren’t shared by many Americans. He is free to think and speak as he chooses (even if it may offend) and we are free to listen (or not) and form our own opinions. I am thankful for our amazing Constitution and the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech — if I don’t agree, I don’t seek to silence or shame the speaker or to paint his associates with the broad brush of collective condemnation.
Rand Paul and other Republican leaders back away from Bundy, By Jaime Fuller, Washington Post, April 24, 2014.
(Ward did add that she “disagrees with Bundy’s statements to the [New York Times]” But she pioneered here an impregnable line of defense that the all the Republican Party’s high-priced consultants apparently couldn’t come up with.)
There are only two points to be made about this ridiculous witch hunt:
- Cliven Bundy’s other views are utterly irrelevant to his dispute with the Federal Bureau of Land Management.
VDARE.com has not previously commented on the Bundy vs. BLM story because of our single-minded focus on immigration and the National Question. For what it’s worth, my own cursory reading suggests Bundy may well be legally in the wrong, arguably on technicalities, but the federal reaction was extraordinary and further evidence of the disturbing brutalization of U.S. law enforcement, which combines paradoxically with its abject collapse in other areas i.e. border security. After Ruby Ridge and Waco, nothing can be ruled out.
Nevertheless, Bundy’s comments about blacks are completely irrelevant to the legal and moral issues raised by his dispute with the federal government. There is absolutely no reason why the people who supported him before should not go on supporting him now—except, of course, cowardice and stupidity.
To give an historical parallel: during World War I, the campaign to save the Irish nationalist Sir Roger Casement from execution for conspiring to have Germany arm what ultimately became the Easter Rising was derailed by leaked evidence that he was a promiscuous pederast. Strictly speaking, of course, Casement’s sexuality was irrelevant to the question of whether or not he should be hanged for treason. But at that time, it was decisive.
- What EXACTLY is wrong with what Cliven Bundy said anyway?
Here is his entire statement, as lovingly recorded by the New York Times’ Adam Nagourney [A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side, April 23, 2014]:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Rich Lowry [Send him mail] Editor of the post-purge National Review, eager to burnish his credentials as a house-broken MSM Token Conservative, says “This is so stupid and noxious it isn’t really worth rebutting.”
But, of course it’s not, as the links helpfully added by VDARE.com show—if you actually think, as oppose to emoting (and, in Lowry’s case, truckling). It makes a series of factual
From VDare: http://vdare.com/
Conservatives, libertarians, Classical Liberals!
Come one! Come all! And get your Raaaaacism ID Card!
It will cost you nothing for the honor of you being shown for what you are!
Over at Protein Wisdom, Darleen Click has published a brief post that succinctly dissects and demolishes the campaign by the Left [with help from Useful Idiot Quislings supposedly on the Right] to Balkanize this country through an unrelenting campaign of real and actual False Consciousness [not the fantasy Marxist version].
Very few posts are truly deserving of ‘must-read’ status, although many are labeled as such, but Darleen’s is one of them.
What we are being fundamentally changed to is a racial spoils system, where individuals must cling to a group identity in order to be “authentic” and socially acceptable. And the group Rulers will be solely in charge of defining the correct thought systems for the members.
It is through such a spoils system [as with all spoils systems since at least the days of Rome] that the Left In America can kill two birds with one stone, as it were. By splitting people up by race, by making them think they have little worth unless they identify with a race-based group:
1) they can more easily reward such relatively small groups with bribes and, therefore, control them because said groups will become dependent vassals of the supplier; and
2) they can help along their scheme to sow Chaos in American Society by destroying the idea of an American Identity in favor of identity by racial group [ie: 'Balkanization'], a Chaotic state that will make it easier for the Left to corral the people eventually under the white-knighted beacons of Order…and Control.
I’ve used many terms to describe this system before, including ‘vile’, ‘disgusting’, and wretched, but, what it is above all, is Evil.
From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Cleveland Indian fans should be saddened to learn that the beloved Chief Wahoo is on his way out, having been designated as politically incorrect by liberals who revel in their ability to ban anything they please on any foolish pretext. In cowardly response to moonbat tantrums, the cheerful cartoon Indian is getting replaced by a boring block C as the team’s primary logo.
Chief Wahoo isn’t going away. At least not yet. He’ll still have a home on the Indians’ jersey sleeves.
But the Chief is well on his way to the reservation. From there he will vanish entirely, rendering our culture just a little more drab, and a little more monochromatically politically correct.
For now Chief Wahoo is still on the home caps too…
In that sense, the impact of the logo redesignations would be more symbolic than practical.
But symbolism matters, especially when discussing Chief Wahoo…
[T]he logo redesignations would have ripple effects because media outlets — including “SportsCenter” and newspapers — would start using the block-C, instead of Wahoo, as their visual shorthand for the team.
Wahoo set off on his Trail of Tears a few years ago:
The franchise removed Wahoo from its road cap in 2011 and from its home batting helmet in 2013. At last summer’s All-Star Game FanFest — a merch-fest where teams generally slap all their logos on every product imaginable — Wahoo was nowhere to be found. Go to the Indians’ website and you’ll find the block-C near the top of the home page with Wahoo less prominently used. Several reporters have noted that the block-C has a much larger presence than Wahoo at the team’s spring training facility too.
The priggish liberals at ESPN unsurprisingly want the Chief banned immediately on the grounds that “ethnic caricatures such as Wahoo are harder and harder to defend in a modern, diverse society.” Next they will demand the team change its name.
Why should anyone care what logo is on the hat of a dying city’s baseball team? Because every time the totalitarian Left takes an inch, they move on to take the next inch. No matter how absurd the battles are, if normal Americans keep losing them, we will wake up one day soon to find our culture no longer exists.
On a tip from Shawn R.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Political Correctness run Amuck. No More “Appropriating” Another Ethnic Group’s “Artistic” Expression. What…Are You Crazy? That is, Of Course, RAAAACIST!
What would Salon think of an article called, ‘Why I can’t stand Asian musicians who play Beethoven’?
Women I have confronted about this have said, “But I have been dancing for 15 years! This is something I have built a huge community on.” These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm. To them, I can only say, I’m sure there are people who have been unwittingly racist for 15 years. It’s not too late. Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.
From Memorandum: http://www.memeorandum.com/
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
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/
The Unfortunately Innate Nature of Intelligence
By: Fred Reed
(Excerpts from the article)
Human races are subspecies of Homo sapiens (sic), just as basset hounds and Chihuahuas are subspecies of dog. The breeds of neither are precise genetic categories: In the words of the heroic John Derbyshire, genetically “what you see is a continuum with some pretty sharp clines.” Yet the genetic commonalities are sufficient to be obvious: At a glance one can distinguish between a Japanese and a Norwegian, or a Siberian wolf hound and a dachshund…
Here we should note the dual modes of viewing intelligence, specifically Normal Mode and Racial Mode.
In Normal Mode, we all know what we mean by intelligence, and we all recognize that people vary greatly in how much of it they have. If John could read classical Greek at age three and graduated in mathematics from CalTech at fifteen, we would all agree that he was bright. If I said at a cocktail party, “Whoa! That gal Therese is smarter than five whips wired in parallel. Anybody got her phone number?” no one would tell me that I was a bigot or that Therese had exactly the same intelligence as everyone else. Rather they would say that I Just knew a good thing when I saw it.
In Group Mode, everything changes according to the group being discussed. If I said that Jews were smart, and adduced all manner of achievements over the centuries, no one would deny it. Similarly for the Chinese. If I said however that Australian aborigines were inferior in IQ, I would be told as follows: Intelligence does not exist; it is a social construct; it is culturally determined; it can’t be measured; it has no genetic basis; the tests are biased; lack of achievement is caused by discrimination, or institutional racism running through Australian society, or geographic considerations. Whereas if I said that Italians were of low intelligence the response would be to produce counter evidence, in the case of the aborigines it would be to give all manner of reasons why there was no counter evidence…
Read the entire article here: http://fredoneverything.net/Bowser.shtml
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Police State Superbowl
Above, Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning (left); Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson (right).
Today, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks football franchises will participate in the 48th playing of the National Football League’s Super Bowl.
Would even one of the fans then sitting in the Los Angeles Coliseum have believed that the same venue would see the US national soccer team booed in favor of the Mexican —or that a Los Angeles Times columnist would praise this development? [Again, it's red, white and boo, By Bill Plaschke, June 26, 2011]
Would even one fan believe that an elite academic institution, Stanford University, would not only willingly abandon the teaching of Western Civilization course required of all freshmen (“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go…”—Jesse Jackson), but consider Richard Sherman’s worthy of admission despite his low SAT score just because he runs an above-average 40 time?
How could you convince those fans, who had casually strolled into a stadium with almost no security, that to enter Super Bowl 48, they’d be subjected to an invasive search of their person, presumed a potentially terrorist threat until deemed innocent and worthy to enter the stadium?
More than 30 federal agencies, 100 law enforcement agencies, 700 state troopers, 3,000 private security officers, snipers hidden on among the crowd, US Army Black Hawk attack helicopters enforcing a 10-mile “no fly zone” around the stadium, and US Air Force F-16s on emergency stand-by will protect this XLVIII playing of the Super Bowl.
The America of 1967, when the first Super Bowl was played, was 90 percent white, bursting with social capital and upward mobility for its citizens. But, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act and the simultaneous collapse of immigration enforcement, the America of 2014 is a country where the majority of births are non-white, the middle class is shrinking—and the state of social capital is devastatingly summed up by the Police State measures required to ensure the safety of a football game.
Fans with tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl can’t even tailgate outside MetLife Stadium. [No tailgating at Super Bowl, By Jane McManus, ESPN, December 9, 2013] You can’t even walk to the stadium, with the NFL devising “Fan Express Zones” (at a cost $51 per ride), where you can board a bus and be shuttled to and from the Broncos-Seahawks game. [You Can’t Walk to the Super Bowl Because You Are the NFL’s Personal ATM, By Sean Conboy, Sports Illustrated, January 28, 2014]
What would one of those 1967 fans have thought if they’d be able to see Super Bowl 48? (Mind you, the number of black players on the field in that first game resembles the number of white players on the field in today’s game.)
You don’t have to be InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones to understand something is seriously wrong, as police state measures are implemented not just in the NFL and at the Super Bowl, but across all of America. [NFL wants pat-downs from ankles up at all stadiums, USA Today, September 15 2011]
Jones, whose webzine is one of the fastest growing media organizations precisely because so many Americans are becoming increasingly worried about their freedoms, has called for a boycott of the NFL, arguing that the league’s TSA-style security at stadiums is just another way of conditioning fans to accept the encroaching police state. [NFL Faces National Protest, Infowars.com, December 4, 2013]
Purses and backpacks have been banned from games, with the Department of Homeland Security providing a stamp of approval for the NFL’s safety measures. [NFL Bans Purses and Backpacks, Limits Fans to One Gallon-Sized Baggie, By Zenon Evans, Reason, August 6, 2013]
Jones noted, in announcing his decision to call for a boycott of the NFL, that the league vetoed a Super Bowl commercial by rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense:
The company’s “offensive” ad depicts a former marine arriving home to greet his wife and child, accompanied by a voice over stating, “no one has the right to tell me how to defend them.”
The ad supposedly violates the NFL’s advertising guidelines, which bar ads featuring “firearms, ammunition or other weapons,” even though the ad doesn’t actually show any of the above, aside from an illustration of their popular DDM4 rifle featured below Daniel Defense’s logo.
[National Movement to Boycott NFL Launched: Pro-Obamacare NFL launches war on Second Amendment, InfoWars.com, December 4, 2013]
How could you tell the America of John Wayne that, one day, several U.S. states would be waging war with the 2nd Amendment and that the NFL—with Bob Costas of NBC’s Football Night in America leading the way—would be an active participant?
Some fear the NFL’s Police-State measures amount to something far more pernicious: The NFL’s Role In the Coming Martial Law, By Dave Hodges, Lew Rockwell.com, December 10, 2013]
But 2014 America is radically different from 1967 America precisely because of the racial composition of the country. With such drastic changes, the social capital that once held the country together is in short supply. And with such changes come consequences.
What was it The Economist just published about diversity? Something about the downside of diversity based on research on “ambient cultural disharmony” by Roy Y.J .Chua, of Harvard Business School, I believe:
Tension between people over matters of culture, he says, can pollute the wider environment and reduce “multicultural creativity”, meaning people’s ability to see non-obvious connections between ideas from different cultures. “Ambient cultural disharmony” persuades people to give up on making such connections because they conclude that it is not worth the trouble.
The downside of diversity, January 21, 2014]
The security measures required at Super Bowl 48 are a metaphor for the changes in America. A Police State is required to keep the peace in—to paraphrase Chua—the “polluted wider environment created by tension between people over matters of culture”?
Symmetrically, there apparently will be plenty of seats available (“18,000 Super Bowl Seats Still Available”) for the 48th version of the game as well, now that the US is an increasingly heterogeneous empire, with a Police State required to hold it together.
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.
FOund at Western Rifle Shooters Association
One of the most crucial duties of universities is to preserve and pass on our cultural heritage, for we can only reach new heights if we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. Unfortunately, this conflicts with liberal ideology, which dictates that anything that does not support political correctness as it is currently defined is at best irrelevant and most likely ideologically unclean. Heather Mac Donald does not exaggerate when she writes that the corruption of the English program at UCLA “is part of a momentous shift that bears on our relationship to the past — and to civilization itself”:
Until 2011, students majoring in English at UCLA had to take one course in Chaucer, two in Shakespeare, and one in Milton — the cornerstones of English literature. Following a revolt of the junior faculty, however, during which it was announced that Shakespeare was part of the “Empire,” UCLA junked these individual author requirements. It replaced them with a mandate that all English majors take a total of three courses in the following four areas: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies; genre studies, interdisciplinary studies, and critical theory; or creative writing.
In other words, the UCLA faculty was now officially indifferent to whether an English major had ever read a word of Chaucer, Milton or Shakespeare, but the department was determined to expose students, according to the course catalog, to “alternative rubrics of gender, sexuality, race, and class.”
Such defenestrations have happened elsewhere, and long before 2011. But the UCLA coup was particularly significant because the school’s English department was one of the last champions of the historically informed study of great literature, uncorrupted by an ideological overlay. Precisely for that reason, it was the most popular English major in the country, enrolling a whopping 1,400 undergraduates.
Instead of studying the great minds of the past, students will be brainwashed with shallow left-wind psychobabble that has no enduring value.
UCLA’s undergraduates can take courses in Women of Color in the U.S.; Women and Gender in the Caribbean; Chicana Feminism; Studies in Queer Literatures and Cultures; and Feminist and Queer Theory.
Imagine anyone a hundred years ago or a hundred years in the future giving a thin dime for any of that crap.
This is the mentality liberal educrats eagerly pander to:
[A] Columbia University undergraduate … had been required by the school’s core curriculum to study Mozart. She happens to be black, but her views are widely shared, to borrow a phrase, “across gender, sexuality, race and class.”
“Why did I have to listen in music humanities to this Mozart?” she groused in a discussion of the curriculum reported by David Denby in “Great Books,” his 1997 account of re-enrolling in Columbia’s core curriculum. “My problem with the core is that it upholds the premises of white supremacy and racism. It’s a racist core. Who is this Mozart, this Haydn, these superior white men? There are no women, no people of color.” These are not the idiosyncratic thoughts of one disgruntled student; they represent the dominant ideology in the humanities today.
According to political correctness, a savage beating a hollow log with a bone is of equal value to Mozart at his most majestic — or rather of greater value, because Mozart was white and therefore presumably a racist.
Explaining the value of Western Civilization to liberal ideologues would be like explaining to termites why they should not chew their way through the last remaining volume of Shakespeare — except that termites aren’t actively hostile to Shakespeare and everything he represents. Yet we have entrusted the preservation of our civilization to these people.
Griping about Mozart and ignoring Shakespeare will not be the last step. Totalitarian ideologies like political correctness cannot permit anything to exist that challenges them by suggesting alternative viewpoints. Remember the centuries-old Buddhist statues Muslims destroyed in Afghanistan? The same mentality might well be applied to Mozart, Shakespeare, and all the other hated dead white males who bequeathed to us the greatest civilization that ever existed. They might disappear from history, the way disfavored party members were erased from photographs under Stalin.
On a tip from Varla.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
As John Hawkins correctly notes,
It’s incredibly refreshing to have someone under attack by the Left’s political correctness police who’s willing to stand firm instead of whimpering and hiding in a corner because he wants to make it all go away.
Hawkins is referring to Phil Robertson, who instead of licking the hand of the degeneracy-promoting liberal fascists who control television, has stood firm by his conventional values. The same applies to Mark Steyn. After being publicly chastised by his editor for siding with Robertson against the pink Nazis at GLAAD who have been attempting to destroy him for his decency, Steyn doubled down:
Having leaned on A&E to suspend their biggest star, GLAAD has now moved on to Stage Two:
“We believe the next step is to use this as an opportunity for Phil to sit down with gay families in Louisiana and learn about their lives and the values they share,” the spokesman said.
Actually, “the next step” is for you thugs to push off and stop targeting, threatening and making demands of those who happen to disagree with you. Personally, I think this would be a wonderful opportunity for the GLAAD executive board to sit down with half-a-dozen firebreathing imams and learn about their values, but, unlike the Commissars of the Bureau of Conformity Enforcement, I accord even condescending little ticks like the one above the freedom to arrange his own social calendar.
As for the editor who publicly denounced him, namely Jason Lee Steorts, Steyn writes:
It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”. I’m not inclined to euphemize intimidation and bullying as a lively exchange of ideas – “the use of speech to criticize other speech”, as Mr Steorts absurdly dignifies it. So do excuse me if I skip to the men’s room during his patronizing disquisition on the distinction between “state coercion” and “cultural coercion”. I’m well aware of that, thank you. In the early days of my free-speech battles in Canada, my friend Ezra Levant used a particular word to me: “de-normalize”. Our enemies didn’t particularly care whether they won in court. Whatever the verdict, they’d succeed in “de-normalizing” us — that’s to say, putting us beyond the pale of polite society and mainstream culture. “De-normalizing” is the business GLAAD and the other enforcers are in. You’ll recall Paula Deen’s accuser eventually lost in court — but the verdict came too late for Ms Deen’s book deal, and TV show, and endorsement contracts.
National Review has played a role in denormalizing in the past. Ostensibly a conservative publication, it serves the liberal establishment of which it is part by providing a phony opposition (much like the GOP), while restricting what conservatives are allowed to say.
Readers will recall that when John Derbyshire made certain undeniably accurate racial observations in a separate publication, he was promptly fired by National Review’s Thought Cop in Chief Rich Lowry for stepping outside the bounds of political correctness.
I’ve been wondering how long a sincere and gutsy guy like Steyn would last at NR, considering that he stood firm and won against the PC totalitarians who tried to gag him in Canada. Looks like we are about to find out:
I am sorry my editor at NR does not grasp the stakes. Indeed, he seems inclined to “normalize” what GLAAD is doing. But, if he truly finds my “derogatory language” offensive, I’d rather he just indefinitely suspend me than twist himself into a soggy pretzel of ambivalent inertia trying to avoid the central point — that a society where lives are ruined over an aside because some identity-group don decides it must be so is ugly and profoundly illiberal. As to his kind but belated and conditional pledge to join me on the barricades, I had enough of that level of passionate support up in Canada to know that, when the call to arms comes, there will always be some “derogatory” or “puerile” expression that it will be more important to tut over. So thanks for the offer, but I don’t think you’d be much use, would you?
Wow. As Bill Clinton would say, Steors had better put some ice on that.
Given the right conditions, a few sparks of boldness have been known set off major conflagrations. If Robertson and Steyn can stand up to the corrupt establishment, so can the rest of us.
On tips from Varla and Rob Banks.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/