The left is redefining free speech
The United States is one of the strongest bastions of free speech in the world, and perhaps one of the last. Even Europe doesn’t have anything like our protections for free speech, nor does Canada. Both have hate speech laws, for example.
On US campuses in recent years, however, we’ve seen an erosion of the devotion to freedom of speech. It is common to hear assertions that speech that hurts feelings, is bigoted, or is otherwise offensive isn’t just metaphorical “violence” but actual violence.
It’s not just campuses, either. More law professors have been getting into the act as well. Their goal is justice—and by that they don’t mean what used to be meant by the word. They mean social justice or what Thomas Sowell calls cosmic justice (equality of outcome), impossible to create on earth and dangerous to attempt.
But it sounds so good to the left, and they’re just the ones to accomplish it, right?:
“When I was younger, I had more of the standard liberal view of civil liberties,” said Louis Michael Seidman, a law professor at Georgetown. “And I’ve gradually changed my mind about it. What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.”
To the contrary, free speech reinforces and amplifies injustice, Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan, wrote in “The Free Speech Century,” a collection of essays to be published this year.
“Once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful,” she wrote. “Legally, what was, toward the beginning of the 20th century, a shield for radicals, artists and activists, socialists and pacifists, the excluded and the dispossessed, has become a sword for authoritarians, racists and misogynists, Nazis and Klansmen, pornographers and corporations buying elections.”
The left believes that different liberties should be accorded the “powerless” and good (as they define them) compared to the powerful and bad (as they define them). Free speech apparently is one of those differential liberties.
As for Seidman—well, we’ve heard from him before. The following is from a post I wrote about him in 2013, based on an op-ed by him published in the Times:
But author Seidman is a well-known professor of constitutional law at Georgetown, one of the most elite law schools in the nation…
Seidman writes:
As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions…
Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
Read the whole thing if you can stomach it, just for the flavor, and the exposure to the strangely tortured logic (and lack of historical accuracy) of this particular law professor. Seidman not only shows a lack of knowledge (actual? or strategic?) of the true position of most of the Founders regarding slavery, he also expresses the typical leftist position that we should throw away the wisdom of the past (wisdom? how can that be; they’re just a bunch of propertied white guys—just like Seidman, by the way) because we want to do something, and that pesky old white-guy document stands in our way…
As for why the Times decided to publish this piece right now [January 2013], one can only conclude they see the time as ripe for delegitimizing the Constitution in order to further the leftist agenda, and seek to use Seidman’s credentials to make the argument from authority. The ground has been well prepared for this by our president [Obama], the MSM, and our educational system, so their calculations may indeed be correct.
The left keeps testing the waters and waiting for the time to be ripe to destroy our liberties. They must think that anti-Trump sentiment is a good wave to ride in order to attack freedom of speech for those they consider the enemy (not for themselves—of course). Despite the ground having been prepared, particularly by our educational system, I don’t think Americans will buy what they’re selling at this point. I hope I’m right about that.
[NOTE: If you want to read an excellent book that explains how radicals like MacKinnon and Seidman got traction and influence as professors in law schools, read Beyond All Reason. It was published in 1997, which tells you how long ago the phenomenon had taken root.]
Time to haul out that old Humpty Dumpty boilerplate…. (“A word means…”)
Or Orwell’s newspeak…. ( https://genius.com/George-orwell-nineteen-eighty-four-appendix-the-principles-of-newspeak-annotated )
Or maybe just the old adage that some people may be too smart (or intelligent, or brillant—but never wise, never wise) for their own good.
Free speech is dead at most colleges; especially the private schools. The public schools are trying hard, but that damn Constitution keeps getting in their way. I’ve worked in the dead free speech arena for the past 20 years, and it’s frightening even if limited to a 200 acre, undergrad college. As Neo points out, it’s ultimately a tyrannical structure as the elites, usually self-designated, get to decide whose speech is allowable.. If it ever gets a foothold beyond academia, we are in serious trouble.
For a daily dose of what it’s like on campuses just visit campus reform every day. Interesting interview with McAdams, a prof at Marquette who has now been fighting a 4 year battle for his job based on free speech. Very sad.
https://www.campusreform.org
“Bigoteering
Originates with Tim Ferriss, describes tagging someone (or someone’s opinions) as “racist”, “chauvinist” or somethinglikeit-ist in situations where these are not warranted. This is a shoddy manipulation to exploit the stigmas accompanying such labels and force the opponent to spent time and energy explaining “why he/she is not a bigot”.
Note that it is the true victims of racism that are insulted by virtue-peddling bigoteers.”
–Nicholas Taleb
https://medium.com/incerto/pedophrasty-bigoteering-and-other-modern-scams-c84bd70a29e8
Virtue Nazis strikes again attempting to brainwashing young people into believing their alternative reality with their clever language and cultural Deceptstruction.
As they say at Instapundit, “They will hate the new rules when applied to them.”
They had a link the other day to a black man who was arrested and called the police ‘Nazis’ and they charged him with Hate Speech on top of the other charges.
Then, they actually interviewed someone from the ACLU: “That’s not what those laws were meant for.”
Hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahaha!!!
Hahahahahaha!!!
One of the reasons the United States is “the strongest bastion of free speech” in the world is because only the people of the United States have the Second Amendment.
We have too many people who have grown up in bubbles and have no life experiences that contradict this garbage.
Some idiots are even going after Laura Ingalls Wilder now. I am so glad I grew up in a different world.
The left really has no intellectual or moral game. And though they squeal ever louder, they await the blows of a redounding judgment which is justified on their own de-constructive principles.
The mistake the left still makes is to imagine that having snipped the bonds of tradition and past categories, there remains some kind of invisible moral connection, a “social contract” or compact that exists between citizens (or denizens) on this landmass) apart from the formal political agreement we call the Constitution. Or as mistakes go, to imagine that non-leftists can be persuaded that there is one, when, and after, the non-leftists have already seen where taking leftist metaphysics and anthropology seriously leads.
The tenuousness of all this, and ultimate insufficiency of it, is why, of course, they are always pimping solidarity and utilitarianism, as if these hopefully unexamined constructs can withstand critical analysis.
Talk about flogging a dead horse and expecting it to get up and pull your cart. The term “social compact” merits nothing more than a shrug everywhere other than in Canada. We all know perfectly well that utilitarianism cannot demonstrate its own premisses. And “solidarity” is just another in-the-air term they have stolen from one place or another and tried to re-purpose emotively.
Thus grasping for further rhetorical straws, they more recently dredged up a notion dear to the bow tie historians of the New Deal era, and began to slaver over that empty and now equally hollowed out term, “nation”, or maybe it’s “Nation! ta da!” as if it were a Popsicle in the mouth of a lunatic on a 100 degree day.
But, when one considers that the left long ago abandoned any pretense of adhering to natural law and natural right principles, or the notion of right reason, and that they have deconstructed [so they aver] all social relations into mere power relations, there is not much else for them to resort to, or upon the back of which they can recommend the continued toleration of their presence: other than to shout empty slogans and to loudly quote black letter laws which they usually ignore – whatever it is that the black letter law happens to be that day … precedent being what has become and now is.
Knowing full well what they have done to “precedent”, they do see the danger looming.
Thus, coming up next in the rhetorical parade, watch the left begin fellating “stare decisis” on their “Respect for Law” float, as if their next heroin fix depended on it.
No. Won’t work. Throw away the Constitution, and the organisms of the left instantly lose whatever peer status this document formally granted them. And as they themselves admit in the final reduction to no deeper roots to interpersonal comity than the writing on this parchment, or that found following in the collected statues and decisions which gain their only legitimacy from that parchment, they lose all.
Dear, leftist. Chop off the Constitution and you chop away the only branch you have to safely sit on. It’s the context in which your life is tolerated. You have no other. Unless that is, you really are bigger and stronger and can shoot straighter than those persons whose life energies it is you wish to appropriate in the name of your neuroses.
But, that is probably not the case.
They should be careful wishing for cosmic justice. That kind of justice won’t leave the Left’s pedovores and pedo gate evil alone.
“Bigoteering … Originates with Tim Ferriss …
Ferriss is a brainy entrepreneur who has also written entertaining self-help books which draw upon cutting-edge tech. He’s a kick to read. I had good results with his “The 4-Hour Body” book.
Ferriss has been based in Silicon Valley for years but in 2017 ditched it all for Austin, Texas because of the “intellectual smugness” and “closed-mindedness masquerading as opened-mindedness” in the Valley.
I’m not sure how much of an improvement Austin will be, but the Bay Area and Silicon Valley have become exactly as Ferriss says. I was happy to hear someone at his level say that.
I’m not a lawyer, but long ago when I was working on a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, I was encouraged to take a number of pre-law courses, which I did and found very interesting. Somewhere along in there someone mentioned in passing that a Constitutional Law background did not teach about the Constitution, it’s background and value but rather about how to get around the precepts of the Constitution. Whenever I hear about someone being a “Constitutional Scholar” or “Professor” now I think of that and it is invariably true.
Wisdom, common sense, and truth exist independently of these “intellectual” tortured arguments. I have faith truth will prevail. But I’m not willing to be silent in the meantime.
It’s funny how Catharine MacKinnon sneaks her own bete noire, pornographers, into the standard roster of the left’s pariahs. The people who fought to have “Ulysses” and “Lady’s Chatterley’s Lover” published would have been shocked to learn that they were in the same league as Nazis and Klansmen.
To give a McLuhanist analysis, the medium is the message in that the propaganda media are being displaced by the long form public square discussions on the ‘intellectual dark web’. Peterson has already said that he wants to ‘solve the accreditation problem.’ He is clearly thinking online university. Since the brick and mortars are selling overpriced indoctrination outside of STEM, I think Peterson should set up an independent online accreditation agency and run them out of business. The Web has proven to be a place that serious intellectuals have gathered much like similar people of their times gathered at the University of Paris in the mid 12th century. The current crop are by no means just on the right, notably the Weinstein brothers, they are simply intellectually honest and the indoctrinators and propagandists are not. In the end that will tell.
The ‘intellectuals’ may be as as smart as they dream, but they lack wisdom and common sense. They live in a self reinforced bubble. Where the rubber meets the road, where sweat brings home the bacon, they know nothing. Go ahead and start CW2, you will starve to death before it is over.
expat Says:
July 2nd, 2018 at 5:42 pm
We have too many people who have grown up in bubbles and have no life experiences that contradict this garbage.
Some idiots are even going after Laura Ingalls Wilder now. I am so glad I grew up in a different world.
* * *
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/library-association-removes-laura-ingalls-wilder-from-book-award/
http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/01/the-new-york-times-beclowns-itself-with-fake-news-about-free-speech/
“n an opinion article posing as a news story, The New York Times launches an illiberal and wrongheaded attack on free speech. At least we know where they stand.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/uc-berkeley-settles-first-amendment-lawsuit-with-young-americans-for-liberty
“As part of a settlement, UC Berkeley has agreed to make revisions to its policy that prohibit discrimination against student organizations based on their mission statements, purpose statements, uniqueness statements, and other viewpoints expressed in their application to become a registered student organization.
Moreover, the school agreed to pay $8,250 jointly to Young Americans for Liberty at UC Berkeley and Alliance Defending Freedom, which filed the lawsuit, as part of the settlement.
The lawsuit came after the YAL chapter on campus was denied recognition on account of seeming too similar to another pro-liberty student group on campus, the Mercury News reported in December.
“However, the administration has recognized multiple progressive student organizations with similar mission statements. As a result, the YAL chapter could not reserve spaces, invite speakers, or access the funds designated for student organizations that every student pays into,” a YAF press release on Monday stated.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/first-amendment-donald-trump-journalist-attacks/
“The First Amendment Is Not the ‘Be Nice to Journalists Act of 1791’”
Do you mean like now, all of a sudden?
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm
I love you, neo. But some of us have been on the lookout for this all our lives.
Steve57,
Good point!
What seems to be happening now is that ‘shy Trump voters’ are also speaking out.
It will take historians 100 years from now to determine what the exact tipping point was. When the vast middle class in the US collectively decided that they were fed up being lied to by the leftists.
Igude:
What you say about alternative accreditation is the way to go. Rather than a frontal assault on the institutions taken over by the left, simply supplant them.
They mean social justice…
history repeats cause the people in it are looking for sameness that never exists, as their modernity, clothing changes, and all that hides the common context (which won before, and will win over and over if we do not learn and we havent)
-=-=-=-=-=-
Social Justice was an antisemitic American Roman Catholic periodical published by Father Charles Coughlin during the late 1930s and early 1940s
-=-=-=-=-=-
Once we got used to the largest class of communists, knowing, unknowing, even people from lists, changing the language, why wouldnt we let them do the same otherwise? PLEASE ANSWER? is it because we refused to admit which is the largest group of communists changing things?
Only a diamond can grind a diamond…
from manhole covers to: A Feminist Redefinition of Rape and Sexual Assault: Historical Foundations and Change
they redefined language… no?
they redefined the family…no?
they redefined education… no?
they redefined things to change legal outcomes… no?
they redefined men… no?
they redefined women… no?
they redefined what a right is… no?
Redefinition and Reconceptualization: Feminist Projects in
Epistemology
https://fphil.uniba.sk/fileadmin/fif/katedry_pracoviska/oc/crs/Publikacie/Studie/farkasova-redefinition.pdf
-=-=-=-=-=-
just so you know where to look for all the language and thought changes that have made any inroads to everything, are from…
USA TODAY…
A feminist glossary because we didn’t all major in gender studies
Hostile sexism: The one most people think about. Openly insulting, objectifying and degrading women.
Benevolent sexism: Less obvious. Kind of seems like a compliment, even though it’s rooted in men’s feelings of superiority. It’s when men say women are worthy of their protection (off the sinking boat first) or that they’re more nurturing than men (therefore should raise children). It’s restrictive.
Internalized sexism: When the belief in women’s inferiority becomes part of one’s own worldview and self-concept.
Misogynoir: Misogyny directed toward black women.
Cisgender: A term used to describe a person whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth.
that last one is actually fun… why?
cause all the real women of color are now angry that CIS feminism of the white woman is white supremecy!!! and you know what will eventually happen to them!!
TERF: The acronym for “trans exclusionary radical feminists,” referring to feminists who are transphobic.
SWERF: Stands for “sex worker exclusionary radical feminists,” referring to feminists who say prostitution oppresses women.
Gender fluidity: Not identifying with a single, fixed gender.
Non-binary: An umbrella term for people who don’t identify as female/male or woman/man.
Women of color: A political term to unite women from marginalized communities of color who have experienced oppression. It could include women of African, Asian, Latin or Native American descent.
Victim-blaming: When the victim of a crime or harmful act is held fully or partially responsible for it. If you hear someone questioning what a victim could have done to prevent a crime, that’s victim-blaming, and it makes it harder for people to come forward and report abuse. Groups working to eradicate abuse and sexual assault are clear: No woman is guilty for violence committed by a man. [even on her behalf! cause women are permanent victims… ]
Male gaze: A way of looking at the world through a masculine lens that views women as sexual objects. [she knows what your thinking even when she doesnt!]
Privilege: The idea that some people in society are advantaged over others.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
According to R.M. Whitney, writing in 1924, “The most colossal conspiracy against the United States … was unearthed at Bridgman, Michigan, on August 22, 1922, when the secret convention of the Communist Party of America was raided by the Michigan Constabulary….” What was discovered back then has been entirely forgotten today. The Michigan Constabulary found two barrels “full of documentary proof of the [communist] conspiracy….” The discovery also included the names of prominent people who were giving money to the communist cause. There were instructions from Moscow on methods of underground organization, subversion and infiltration – for the purpose of overthrowing the United States Government.
The documents recovered by the Michigan Constabulary proved that the Communist Party in the United States was directed by Lenin and Trotsky in Moscow. In those days the Communist Party hid itself behind the Workers Party of America, including many pro-socialist affiliates like the African Blood Brotherhood, the Jewish Socialist Federation and the Workers’ Council of the United States.
Eventually, the Workers Party changed its name to the Communist Party, USA. According to Whitney, all legal socialist activity of the Workers Party was then “supported by the illegal branches of the Communist Party.”
He added that “the agents of the Communists are working secretly, through ‘legal’ bodies, in labor circles, in society, in professional groups, in the Army and Navy, in Congress, in the schools and colleges of the country, in banks and business concerns, among the farmers, in the motion picture industry – in fact, in nearly every walk of life.” R.M. Whitney, Reds in America (1924, Beckwith Press)
-=-=-=-
I find it funny that despite all these changes, from free speech, the family, revolutionary educaiont and on and on..
you refuse to accept your being communized…
and it only waiting for you the old people to die out
they have whole treatises on this point
they only have to apply pressure generation to generation
why would people who cant undersatnd animals and genetics and all that stuff, even understand what domesticating processes are..
very funny…
in a universal cosmic way…
this is just as hillarious…
The American Left has some curious ideas about what constitutes proper parenting.
Only four years ago the media disseminated a number of stories about government intervention against “irresponsible” parents. In August 2104, a Florida mother who let her seven-year-old son walk less than half a mile from their home to a park to play was charged with child neglect. A 46-year-old single mother working as a McDonald’s shift manager spent 17 days in jail for allowing her nine-year-old daughter to play unsupervised at a nearby park. And a year later in Maryland, a couple who let their two children, ages 10 and six, walk home alone from a neighborhood park were “found responsible for unsubstantiated child neglect” according to the state’s Child Protective Services.
basically anything means whatever they want it to mean when they want it to mean something or nothing, because they are the head of the body politic and are charged with thinking, you get to obey
which is why domesticating people is the point.. (before you say no, before you call up morals, remember this is human beings your talking about, and most of the world is despotic seeing the people as a resource, a human resource but a resource to be used up)
you only have to look up the steps necessary for such a thing and then imagine, how would you get cows too smart to agree to being cows, to love being cows?
no one can deny the enormous contributions that animal domestication has made to the advancement of humankind.
Including the egyptians… the romans… the greeks… the american south… the com mun ists… ALL WANTED DOMESTICATED SERVILE HUMAN POPULATIONS TO USE not rule over, to use…
and anyone take a look at the process of domestication of a species and see what games the progressives choose in their redefining how you think?
The author Stephen Budiansky argues that it is a perfectly natural process that provides advantages to both humans and animals. Budiansky subscribes to the theory that animals actually chose domestication, preferring the reliable comfort of captivity to the harsh wild. He also points out that there are some species that we have, or could have, saved from extinction by domesticating them.
-=-=-
See? mankind will be better off when the majority of the species is no longer a set of individuals but is a tribe/herd and thinks the way the rulers/owners want them to think about anything they want… including how to think about sex, family, etc..
anyone try to put the pieces together into a cogent whole?
c’mon? you all chit chat like crazy… you see the parts..
but what about the idea what is for them is not for me?
so what is it that they have been pushing?
the DOMESTICATION OF MAN
or rather
The Domestication of Man: The Social Implications of Darwin
or rather
Anmal Farm?
or rather
Eloi and Morlocks?
or rather
Egyptians and Jews
or rather
Islam and its subjects
or rather
Romans and their Slaves
or rather
Chinese and their gay senechals and concubines
or rather
democrats and the deep south
or rather
stalin and the captured states
or rather
napoleon and his own people
or rather
or rather
or rather
see a common thread? they all suffer a problem? how to make their people tow the line they want and have less free will… how and what would you select as the turning points of domestication vs freedom?
? dumb them down, easier to trick
? change the language
? control what they think or allowed to think, use big cows to scare little cows… let the farmer disenfranchise the bulls to exit
? get rid of troublesome rebellious masculinity
uplift obeyance as a form of liberation (the cause)
neuter, emasculate, defenders of the individual
? turn womenkind into a herd of same thinkers who will regiment the herd, homogenize it, using judas goats…
? get them to want to live in a harem of cows and not have toxic men around… put the herd in a pen, have them rely on the bulls that run things to be equal, like farm factory beef.
? promote mixing as a way to homogenize
? get the cows to be upset they may succeed and have more and instead have the cows get all upset till all cows have nothing
? cause selective breeding of the population, negating the most adventurous able and those with drive (get women into college they dont have kids, destroy the reserve of intelligence), and promote with their income people with less drive, less smarts
? tell them genetics for them doesnt apply, that way they can never look at the changes to the species under class going on by demographic democide manipulations…
you only have to look it up and then ask, what would be done to make humans this way, who would be their main targets (Those who are most free? most wanting of it and fighting for it? those that refuse to change because they follow god, not the farmer?
??????????????????????????
How Animal Domestication Works – Animals | HowStuffWorks
https://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/animal-domestication.htm
allow me a bit of leeway in the wording:
thats just a bit of word change from an article on domestication..
i started with Budiansky, because this is how you lead women, from freedom which is hard, describiong their free lives as a “happy gulag”, and then mobilizing them to domesticate themselves for the cause of mankind (a few of mankind actually)…
its incomprhensible to good people
its always the same, so its easy to recognize, and that list of things above is what you learn first, so that you cant see it… ie. if you educate a dodo, they become smar enough to get away, if you make the dodo stupid, they stand there easy prey – a victim class bred to be used and even know they are the victim class…
if only farmer stalin knew…
so to hide it, you have to teach humans that genetics dont matter any more. that humans no longer follow darwin… that they are not important.. you have to do this with the women especially so that they do not want THEIR children over OTHER children…
sound familar? it should… its the whole feminist bs trip..
every point is about controlling womens fertiliey by other means
and so, the farmer gets to choose the winnersand losers
the cows let them too, happy to serve the masters over the bulls
all bent up on the point of using this process to make super people
when we still recognized it works..
why not use it to make dumber, less able, servile underclass?
how would you do that?
well, you have to some how kill off the smart ones..
which groups are the smartest? which groups did the socialists target?
which group controls that part of things, men or women?
YESTERDAY: the smart woman married to a smart man she chose, used to have a few smart kids that would outcompete individually against other womens kids.. often family was involved in this process because family served and spends resources on itself and so, bad blood leads to bad outcomes not just for the one sire, but for the family
TODAY: the smart women do not marry, they barely have kids, they in fact, barely select their mates (unless they are part of the uberclass who will rule they get different kinds of education which most cows dont know about!!!! see dalton school as an example)… they work hard, have few kids, get high paying high tax jobs to fund the state, displace the bulls, and fund the higher rates of birth of the lesser able. one group and that set of traits grows, the other group declines… but you have to hide the decline and that can be seen in demographics, so import people – but not more smart people, you just spend 50 years trashing them…
make them very proud of their accompishments…
This is how humans domesticate animals — so much so that wolves eventually become a different animal, gentle enough to keep in the home. Or, sheep yield more wool. Or, horses let us ride them.
Or women no longer are indivudually special and get to spend time with the child, she is dropping the puppy, and off to work for the state like a happy cow… no husband demands, and she can let some ‘lesser’ woman take care of her kid… why would she care no one as good as her does that? she is taught… from very early age what to think, how to think, etc
Jared Diamond writes that humans have succeeded in truly domesticating only 14 animal species out of about 148 candidates. He proposes that for humans to domesticate an animal species, the species usually satisfies these criteria:
lets see how many of these items the left wants to change among the people…
The right diet: Picky eaters have always made life difficult for their mothers, so one can imagine the frustrations involved in keeping up an animal with picky tastes. [ah, so no more meat? vegetarian? where we make vegitable fake meat and we are even more like cows than before?]
Fast growth rate: The species must grow at a fast rate for herders and farmers to yield a timely return on the investment of raising it. [this one aint gonna change… other than you can put poor workers to work without college and such and the leaders get all kinds of special schools… so the growth rate is in thinking not biological]
Friendly disposition: Vicious animals by definition don’t usually like it when humans attempt to bring them into captivity and won’t let humans handle them. [women are more friendly, docile, servile,, especially when there is nothing bheind them supporting them with a promise of action on their behalf!!!! toxic masculinity must be stopped… gay men are great!! metrosexuals are so, what, independent and wiling to fight? ]
Easy breeding: If the animal refuses to breed under the conditions human captors can provide, then obviously, its period under human control is short-lived. [now this one was tough. you had to get the women to give up their modesty, their famiklies and just about rut with any old bull given the chance… without lower class women becomeing sluts to the point of having babies without wanting them, how could you breed people? ]
Respect a social hierarchy: In the wild, if the animals form social structures in which they all follow a dominant member, then humans can establish themselves as leader-of-the-pack. [collectivism, and all that… including listening to feminist leaders over others… ie. women are suggestible, men not so much… as madison ave]
Won’t panic: Many animals freak out when they are restrained, kept in fences or perceive a threat. Cows, on the other hand, remain fairly complaisant and unflappable despite these conditions, making them easier to domesticate. [modern women fear the open.. they want their own spaces… you know, safe spaces? cows love safe spaces!!!]
given there is more than 7 pages of this kind of thing
and i am already long enough to be cut and missed
thats that
happy 4th
Boston College psychology professor emeritus Peter Gray, author of “Free to Learn,” has little use for a mindset revealed by a Reason/Rupe poll. It showed that 68% of parents believe it should be illegal for kids nine years old and under to play at a park unsupervised, and 43% of parents believe the same prohibition should apply to 12-year-olds.
Gray asserts, “I doubt there has ever been a human culture, anywhere, anytime, that underestimates children’s abilities more than we North Americans do today.”
???????????
What does matter? Over-protected and over-indulged children “become adults who see no problem censoring people with whom they don’t agree, seeking segregation from others who are too different from themselves to bother relating to, and asserting that they are the best of the best in all things,” Berman asserts.
“In other words, we could be raising a generation of Big Brother-loving powder puff despots.” [cattle, chattel, underclass, servile, domesticated!!!]
Given this context, it remains rather remarkable how sanguine many of those same parents — abetted by the Leftmedia, the Democrat Party and immigration activist groups — remain with regard to the flood of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) dispersed throughout the United States in recent years.
In 2014, when that flood was dubbed the “border surge” by the same Leftmedia, columnist Victor Davis Hanson posed a telling question. “What sort of callous parents simply send their children as pawns northward without escort, in selfish hopes of soon winning for themselves either remittances or eventual passage to the U.S?” he wondered.
[the kind that know if they make it, get sympathy, the law says you can invite and sponser all your near relatives… ie. you hav emore chance sending your kid, then getting a visa on a parents sponser to move permanently]
The Left doesn’t even like to see a sub community calling itself Flat Earthers, that had a recent convention in Raleigh South Carolina I think. And another one in Colorado soon enough.
There are also branches in Britain. This isn’t the Flat Earth Society Hussein boy mentioned, but something that came out of the internet sub communities, similar to the Alt Right from PUA and Alpha Game and various other things (gaming).
So these people don’t steal money from the public to fund themselves, unlike the Left’s serial killer happy boys at Planned Profit. But they don’t want to allow these people to do anything, because it is unsightly.
That is their version of free speech. You are only free to express yourself if the Left approves it. If the Sun God approves it, you can exist and be alive. Be grateful Slaves of America.
UnArtfldgr Says:
July 3rd, 2018 at 10:17 am
I don’t know who that is whether it is Art or not, but the formatting is a nice touch. In other words, I must have changed world lines ala steins;gate.
“Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution.” — Siedman December 2012
“What I have come to see is that it’s a mistake to think of free speech as an effective means to accomplish a more just society.” — Siedman July 2018
And this idiot teaches Constitutional Law?
It’s the usual thing with totalitarians.
Whether they are Islamist, or Leftist, the totalitarianism is what eventually comes out.
And their mantra is: “Democracy is like a train. You ride it until you get where you want to be, then you hop off.”
Now, being totalitarians, they are constantly confusing terms. “Democracy” is not what they are really talking about. They are talking about the American Experiment In Liberty, which is more properly termed “Natural-Law-Based Constitutional Federal Democratic Republicanism.”
(But, I suppose “NLBCFDR” doesn’t have much of a ring to it.)
Anyway, the left today is finding out that “Democracy,” so-defined, isn’t doing quite what they wanted, as fast as they wanted.
They think the train is rolling “backwards,” (by which they mean: away from 20th-century centralized authoritarianism coupled to sexual libertinism). So, naturally, they want to hop off, find a new ride.
But even if it were rolling “forwards,” they would want to hop off eventually, just like Erdogan in Turkey. Elections got him into office; now he’s stacking the deck to make sure they can’t remove him from office. Democracy got him to his stop, then he hopped off.
All that loud support for “Democracy” (defined however), in the end, is pure sham. They don’t want “Democracy,” whether American, Athenian, or otherwise.
No. What they most desire, at heart, is the power to compel others’ behavior and minds to agree with whatever they happen to believe is just and true, today.
(It’ll be different tomorrow. Tomorrow they’ll compel everyone to believe some other damned thing.)
That is why they turn so quickly on persons who agree with them, but who refuse to use mental compulsion (propaganda) or physical compulsion (lawfare or legislation) against others. Mere agreement with the “How Things Ought To Be” propositions is not enough for the left; they also require you to be anxious to compel others.
Like I said: It’s the usual thing with totalitarians.
Extreme polarization of society beyond the ability of some leftists to tolerate it is at the root of their willingness to ditch the 1st Amendment. In a marriage it would be called irreconcilable differences.
Matt Damon moving his family to another country is a logical step. His motive appears to be strongly influenced by Howard Zinn’s postmodern view of power struggles among groups, some of which Zinn saw as malicious. Projecting malice exacerbates polarization.
On a deeper and personal level, polarization (especially the kind created by identity politics) results from identification with objects of perception. Rabbi Ted Falcon suggests that perception (awareness itself) is a more appropriate center of identity. Moving to that center is done by meditating.
I recently went to a play in Greenwich Village, attended by a bunch of aging Commies/liberal asshats, and me: about a Russian poet who’d been persecuted by Stalin [Akhamatova]. Husband shot by Bolshevik firing squad, son imprisoned in the Gulag for 18 years…. poet impoverished and in perpetual danger.
The old Lefties in the audience were thrilled and quivering, little gasps here and there, and I knew they were all huffing the glue of TDS, imaging themselves in her shoes, heroically resisting … Donald Trump!
Sure enough, in the Q&A afterwards, the playwright and audience all identified with Akhmatova: ENTIRELY MISSING the HUGE fact that Stalin was one of THEM. “Deranged” is not too strong a term for these folks. If Akhmatova were alive, she would scorn them and shout, “YOU are the Bolsheviks, not the refuseniks!!!”
Sheesh. It really is a species of insanity. The woman sitting next to me has a giant poster of Chairman Mao [50 million victims] in her son’s room — and she didn’t get it.
Redefining: No Republicans or conservatives allowed.
I wonder if unArtfldgr has a goatee like Evil Spock?
That is why they turn so quickly on persons who agree with them, but who refuse to use mental compulsion (propaganda) or physical compulsion (lawfare or legislation) against others. Mere agreement with the “How Things Ought To Be” propositions is not enough for the left; they also require you to be anxious to compel others.
People will most likely be surprised that as more people fight these totalitarians, the more people will come to adopt the same methods just to survive.
They will be surprised but they will feel they have little choice but to learn from their enemies. That is how darkness converts light into darkness.
Mao and Stalin produced generations of slaves that thought Stalin pappa and chairman Mao were the good guys. Are we supposed to nuke all of them? Then what, whe nthe Left corrupts the heart of America. Nuke America too?
Fractal Rabbit Says:
July 2nd, 2018 at 5:24 pm
As they say at Instapundit, “They will hate the new rules when applied to them.”
* * *
Instapundit attributes the saying to Kurt Schlichter here, but it doesn’t really matter who said it first, because it is certainly true – and they have been warned about that for years.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/287236/
I couldn’t find Kurt actually saying this in so many words, but this article is what he is talking about.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/13/shoving-alinskys-rules-for-radicals-right-back-in-the-lefts-ugly-face-n2284892
“That is how darkness converts light into darkness.” – ymarsakar
Tuvea Says:
July 3rd, 2018 at 7:46 am
It will take historians 100 years from now to determine what the exact tipping point was. When the vast middle class in the US collectively decided that they were fed up being lied to by the leftists.
parker Says:
July 3rd, 2018 at 12:08 am
The ‘intellectuals’ may be as as smart as they dream, but they lack wisdom and common sense. … Go ahead and start CW2, you will starve to death before it is over.
Dennis Says:
July 2nd, 2018 at 8:40 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but long ago when I was working on a Master’s Degree in Public Administration, I was encouraged to take a number of pre-law courses, which I did and found very interesting. Somewhere along in there someone mentioned in passing that a Constitutional Law background did not teach about the Constitution, it’s background and value but rather about how to get around the precepts of the Constitution. Whenever I hear about someone being a “Constitutional Scholar” or “Professor” now I think of that and it is invariably true.
Fractal Rabbit Says:
July 2nd, 2018 at 5:24 pm
As they say at Instapundit, “They will hate the new rules when applied to them.”
https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2018/07/03/if-were-nazis-expect-more-violence-n2496661?utm_campaign=rightrailsticky3
“ecause of the ever-descending moral and intellectual state of the mainstream news media, there has been no outcry against the leftists who call President Donald Trump and all Americans who support him Nazis. Indeed, members of the media now regularly do so.
Without that outcry, this labeling will only increase; and this steadily increasing drumbeat of hysteria is likely to lead to one result: violence against conservatives.
…
The New York Times recently reported that left-wing intellectuals regret the historic liberal defense of free speech. There is no question that if the left were to have its way, many, if not most, conservative opinions would be legally banned and those expressing them arrested.
I pray violence does not erupt in America. But if, God forbid, it does, let’s be clear it was the left that started it, just as surely as the South’s firing at Fort Sumter started the first Civil War.”