From Theo Spark
Morales’ hoax is a blip in the larger pattern of faked hate crimes. Bigotry is the witch hunt of the modern Salem and progressive witch hunters are just as careless about facts and evidence. Now as then, the goal is to stamp out an attitude and a cultural threat, rather than to enforce the law, and that leads inevitably to the entire tawdry parade of hysterical denunciations and moral panic.
But what is behind this need to manufacture intolerance?
The left built up its replacement for class warfare around identity politics. Though we take most of these identities, including the racial trinity and homosexuality, for granted, they are really modern artificial constructs that define how people should define themselves, rather than accepting them as they are.
Strangely enough, racial and sexual identities were more nuanced centuries ago than they are today where the “one drop rule” now goes completely unchallenged in matters of race and equally so in matters of sexual orientation. Anyone who can be claimed on any grounds by the victim group, must be identified with them or face accusations of false consciousness.
We are less willing to contemplate biracial and bisexual today than we were a century ago. Instead leftist collectivism demands that everyone be either one thing or another. Everyone is divided into categories of victim and oppressor. Just as no one can be both on both sides of the class struggle; so too the left rejects the idea of being on both sides of the victim line in race or sexual orientation.
On Seinfeld, Jerry’s dentist joined Judaism for the jokes. Leftists are joining native tribes for the victimhood. Meanwhile they’re defining those identities solely in terms of victimhood.
The absurdity of people lining up to be victims has led to the proliferation of fake Indians, like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill in the United States, and white aborigines in Australia. The fake indigenous tribal has little in the way of a genetic or cultural connection to any native people; but chooses to trade in his or her white identity, at least temporarily, to enhance their leftist politics.
They are engaging in a fraud much bigger than a forged receipt; but they are doing it for the same reasons.
An identity defined in terms of victimhood needs fresh injections of oppression to sustain its existence. Those African-Americans who define “blackness” not in terms of positive values but in terms of negative values, need white racism, the real thing or the fake one, to remind them of who they are. And the same holds true for other oppressed minorities who define themselves not by their culture or values; but by their resentments.
Intolerance has become identity. If you define your minority identity on the left’s terms, then if you aren’t being oppressed, you aren’t real. And if you constantly read accounts about other black people or other gay people being discriminated against and those experiences don’t match yours; you begin to wonder if something isn’t wrong with you. If maybe you aren’t an authentic member of the group.
There are two ways out of this intellectual trap; either recognizing that an identity need not be based on a sense of persecution or becoming “creative” about finding new forms of persecution.
It’s easy to mock Dayna Morales for forging a receipt snub. If only she had learned about critical race theory, she would have been able to denounce the family in question for their privilege. Instead of faking a receipt, she would have been able to express her internal need for persecution in the political language of the left.
Dayna only forged a single receipt. Obama spent five years in the White House forging phony racism accusations to protect him on every issue from the economy to ObamaCare.
The left’s need for victimization means that increasing levels of tolerance actually lead to escalating confrontations with these manufacturers of intolerance. The assertion that all white people are innately racist because of their privilege is one such response to increasing tolerance. By claiming that whiteness itself is racist, the left gets back to political identity, rather than actual discrimination, as the source of conflict and redefines even the most tolerant university multicultural spaces as racist.
The manufacturers of intolerance, whether they’re tenured academics like Ward Churchill, professional politicians like Barack Obama or angry waitresses like Dayna Morales, respond to tolerance with provocations. Their goal is to elicit evidence of intolerance to sustain their political identity. The more tolerance they encounter, the more they escalate their provocations.
Their goal is not a tolerant society. It’s not a multiracial society or a post-racial society. It is a society perpetually at war over identity politics. That conflict is what gives them power.
Tolerance provokes them by challenging their identity as members in good standing of the officially oppressed. Being accepted insults the entire basis of their identity. Schizophrenics experience the discontinuity between the real world and the distorted world in their heads as threatening. Likewise the left, which insists on racism, reacts with paranoia to any talk that the country has become more tolerant. Their political schizophrenia is unable to accept America as it is. Instead they are bent on seeing the bigoted country that they experience inside their own heads.
Paranoid schizophrenics manufacture things to be paranoid about. Identity politics manufactures its own illusory bigotries. The schizophrenic Two Americas of liberals are really the America that exists and the hateful cartoon of it that they draw in their own heads, depict in movies, scrawl into articles and broadcast on television.
Liberals claim to want a better America, but they reject it at every turn. Their cynicism even poisons what should have been their triumphs.
Obama’s victory was an opportunity for healing and unity. Even many Republicans cheered his inauguration, but liberals rejected the gift that Americans were giving and instead doubled down. Racism became their response to everything. Now every week brings another editorial accusing skeptics of government health care of being the new Confederacy. The New York Times even ran an op-ed describing a new Mason-Dixon line composed of states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
As disappointing at this behavior was to many, it was an inevitable as that forged receipt. The left derives its purpose from defending the oppressed and doling out social justice. If racism were gone, it would have to find a new reason to justify its existence. It had to go through that once when class warfare imploded under the pressure of American prosperity. It isn’t about to go searching for a substitute for the racial tensions it manufactures.
The dominant political identity groups have responded to growing tolerance in the United States by defining intolerance down or provoking intolerant responses through aggressive publicity stunts. If the stunts don’t bring out disgust and anger that they can work with, then they will simply invent intolerance wholesale by claiming that bigotry isn’t an act or a word, but an innate attitude that lurks buried deep within the majority group. And that the only healing can come when the majority rejects its own identity and joins a minority group.
Beyond the community organizers, the academics and the political hacks who feed off that hatred are the millions of Americans who have not only unknowingly swallowed their dogma, but who have built entire identities around that sense of insecurity and oppression. These people are driven to organically manufacture intolerance because it defines who they are.
The left has dumped millions of Americans into this shadowy world where they have no positive reason for existing, only a negative one of defying some phantom establishment of patriarchy and some nebulous idea of white privilege.
Wearing chips on their shoulders they seek to provoke the confrontations that give them meaning and when their anger is met with tolerance, they manufacture intolerance with forged receipts, with accusations of white privilege, with fake hate crimes and phony accusations of racism.
It’s a short distance from Dayna Morales forging a receipt to get some money and attention to Barack Obama faking accusations of racism to win a political fight and score another term.
The advantage to being a dreadful awful ghastly racist like Paul Weston, Chairman of Liberty GB, is that you can say things that most people don’t even dare think about:
A civilization is defined not by its physical location but by the people who live there. When the homes of Western Civilization — Europe, North America, Australia — are populated predominantly by Third Worlders, Western Civilization will cease to exist in these places. With nowhere to live, the civilization that brought us everything from the Roman Empire to da Vinci to Mozart to the US Constitution to flight to men walking on the moon will die.
This is fine with the liberals in charge, who are driving the importation of millions upon millions from the Third World with welfare incentives financed by overtaxing the very population they are eradicating. Their treason is on a scale that defies comprehension.
The demographic trend cannot be reversed until the political situation has been reversed.
On a tip from DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
• 11.22.13 11:54 am
When the relentlessly annoying Keith Olbermann was suspended for being a liberal who supports Democrats,conservative Bill Kristol came out and said, “Hold on. I hate that piece of shit but that’s SUPER fucked up” (I’m paraphrasing). That’s the way it is with the Archie Bunkers of the world. If you outlawed homosexuality tomorrow,
all the “progressives” would run and hide while Arch would say, “Oh goddamnit, now I gotta go defend queers” and he’d start a militia that fought the army and helped gays hide in basements. When self-indulgent shitbag Alec Baldwin was fired for being vulgar, everyone with an ounce of dignity said, “Goddamnit.”
I’m no fan of Alec Baldwin but firing a guy for swearing at someone after they threaten his family is fucking gay. The paps surrounded his wife and child as they always do so he lost his temper and called one a “cocksucking faggot.” I’m pretty sure it’s legal in Texas to pull out a shotgun when your family is perceived to be in imminent danger. I don’t know about you but I’d rather be accused of blowing someone than have my head blown off. Alas, we live in the Northeast where everyone is expected to act like aristocrats even when they’re being attacked by savages.
The right seized this opportunity to give the left a taste of their own medicine. They pounced on Baldwin and demanded he be hoisted on his own petard. The left complied, claiming, “Alec Baldwin was attacking our families.” I don’t enjoy seeing retards on petards, because I hate petards. It’s fair for conservatives to use this outburst to showcase the left’s hypocrisy, but demanding apologies and insisting people lose their job is everything that’s wrong with the liberal ethos. Ann Coulter agrees. “This was just a curse word” she told Bill Hoffman at Newsmax, “It was like using the f-word and, frankly, a lot of these paparazzi photographers deserve it.” Coulter understands the difference between exposing hypocrisy and participating in it. You don’t demand apologies. You fight back. When the Perpetually Offended crowd demanded she apologize for saying “retard” she said, “screw them.”
Though language policing is a liberal disease the right also talks a lot about how we should talk. When everyone thought Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, many conservatives were angry at him. “He shouldn’t have stooped to that level” they said, “it cheapens the whole discussion.” Fuck that. She went to a Catholic school and wanted to have sex before marriage. In that context, that’s exactly what she is (and he never even said that). “How you should talk” is the root of political correctness. “Oh, it’s not ‘African American’” they say with their pinky in the air, “It’s ‘person of color’.” Actually, it’s “black” you patronizing prick.
All this talk of keeping a stiff upper lip sounds downright un-American to me. I’m from Canada where centuries of Scotch/Irish culture mean everyone talks like they’re drunk. If a man walks into a bar with a burn on his face, we say, “Holy fuck guy, what happened to your face?” It’s a British trait to pretend nothing’s unusual. Didn’t America kick out the British almost a quarter of a millenium ago? They didn’t do it lining up and taking fire, either. They did it by rolling up their sleeves, jumping out of trees, and fighting dirty. That’s the kind of spirit that made me immigrate here in the first place.
The Democrats are winning the culture war because they’re fighting dirty. Let’s punch them in the fucking face. I’m not saying you come into a debate calling everyone a bunch of cocksuckers but if four professors are smirking and guffawing at your points and calling your references, “fantasy studies,” come back with, “fucking idiot.”
William F Buckley had many great moments but the scene he is most lionized for is the 1968 TV appearance when, after Gore Vidal bitchily called him a Nazi many times, Bill bounced back with, “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered.” He didn’t demand an apology or insist Vidal be fired. He called him a queer and threatened to knock him out. Can we get back to that please? What’s so great about being civil? It doesn’t work. Many lament the prominence of cutthroat campaigns and attack ads but they’re the best way to get the dirt on both party’s candidates. Brawling is the American way. You can still wear a suit and feel strongly about family values. You can still be a God-fearing, pro-life traditionalist, but stop being so fucking polite to assholes.
ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE
From Street Carnage: http://streetcarnage.com/blog/the-case-for-vulgarity/
Found at American Digest
This incredible bulwark of stupidity and laziness seems to endlessly combine themes of leisure wear and graphic-designed sweat shop fabrics.
Gone are the mens’ suit, leather boots, fine tailored hats and coats, detailed dresses for women, or sartorial standards of any kind. The youth are half naked and in a perpetual cycle of hippy revolution against an unseen sexually conservative oppressor that does not exist. Prevailing cyclical modern themes are garish colours, sweat pants, t-shirts, oft inspired by an endlessly repeating phenomenon of slutty pop stars based upon the model of the careless, free-wheeling whore perpetually giving the finger to a patriarchal history. Modern Art: An Artful Swindle
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
How to make sense of the insanity prevailing at public libraries regarding the practice of allowing degenerates to watch hardcore pornography on the taxpayer dollar in front of small children?
On November 18, a large group of people assembled to have their say at the Orland Park [Illinois] Public Library’s board meeting. Most were there because of the library’s policy that allows unfiltered access to any kind of porn or illegal material (including child porn). Not only concerned citizens showed up: three representatives from the American Library Association (ALA) and the president of the Illinois Library Association (ILA) were also there.
The two ALA lawyers who spoke (despite the library’s own policy of only allowing one speaker per group) defended the library’s decision to offer unfiltered access while never mentioning the specifics of what that really means: access to bestiality, identity theft, pedophiles accessing children online via chat rooms, and much more.
Many people have asked how is it possible that public libraries defend men watching porn near children as if the library is some sort of adult theater without dark curtains or an age limit.
The short answer is that the ALA appears to be dominated by moonbats like its councilor at large Mark Rosenzweig. From an email he shared with an ALA listserv group:
The more progessive [sic] wing of the profession should intelligently counter the “erotophobia [sic]‘. The worst thing in life, even for a kid, is NOT exposure to the image of naked people, or even people screwing, blowing, licking, humping, having sex with animals, etc. (except, for legal-and perhaps ethical-reasons, child erotica, so ill-defined that it can include the work of the world-renowned photopher [sic] Sally Mann.) … attempts to contain the curiosity of kids is bad for children. But so-called pornography? WHERE DOES IT RATE? nowhere…
The long answer:
Rosenzweig is also director of the Reference Center for Marxist Studies. His cavalier attitude about exposing children to sex makes more sense now. Fellow Marxist Antonio Gramsci believed that creating the ultimate state required the takeover of “mediating institutions” that would separate an individual from the power of the all-knowing government. These institutions are better known as family and religion. Marxists seek to redefine the culture to gain political power. What better way to capture the undeveloped minds of the young than with pornography that separates them from their families and their religions?
Remember the list of communist objectives that was entered into the Congressional Record in 1963? Here’s item #25:
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
Back in 1963, it didn’t occur to commies that they would one day manage to rot our society to the point of promoting it in public libraries.
On tips from IslandLifer and RF.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
GENEVA — Iran and six major powers agreed early Sunday on an historic deal that freezes key parts of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief on some economic sanctions, diplomats confirmed.
We need not know anything about the details of this “historic deal” to know that it is absolutely worthless. The Islamic Republic of Iran has no respect for law, and cannot be expected to honor any promise it makes, except for its long-avowed purpose to annihilate Israel, to destroy “the Great Satan” and otherwise to carry out its violent worldwide revolutionary jihad against the West.
All the Iranian dictatorship seeks to accomplish by negotiation with the West is to anesthetize its enemies, to render opposition impotent by means of treaties that will postpone the inevitable confrontation until Iran has become stronger and we have become weaker.
Any “deal” with Iran is necessarily a bad deal, and the double guarantee of a bad deal is that it was approved by the Obama administration, which is “historic” only as a monument to incompetence with few parallels in human experience.
“The practical way of looking at things . . . may serve well enough in ordinary, normal times. But our times are not ‘normal’ in the good old Victorian sense, and never will be again. . . . These men, even Halifax, were essentially middle-class, not aristocrats. They did not have the hereditary sense of the security of the state, unlike Churchill, Eden, the Cecils. Nor did they have the toughness of the 18th-century aristocracy. They came at the end of the ascendancy of the Victorian middle-class, deeply affected as that was by high-mindedness and humbug. They all talked, in one form or another, the language of disingenuousness and cant: it was second nature to them — so different from Churchill. . . . It meant that they failed to see what was true, until too late, when it was simply a question of survival.”
– A.L. Rowse, Appeasement: A Study in Political Decline, 1933-39
UPDATE: All that is necessary to understand what is wrong with this agreement is to quote what Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Iran’s government-controlled media: “All plots hatched by the Zionist regime to stop the nuclear agreement have failed.”
Ah, “the Zionist regime”!
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/