Free Speech is Dangerous!!!
Freedom endangers everyone!!!
Salon embraces the Obama-way and blames free speech (on the part of the right-wing) as the cause of the murders in Paris.
Now, they need to find some Americans who dangerously exercised their right to free speech and arrest them in the middle of the night like the last time.
Showing posts with label Liberal Fascism - 2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Fascism - 2015. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
Normal Manifesto!
Arise people who provide stability and order and children...
...you have nothing to lose but your guilt-imposed chains.
Tyler Durden writes:
//And so, here are my solutions, which must be enacted by individuals in their daily lives regardless of the potential backlash. Do you have leftist leaning friends or family members? It doesn’t matter. Are you employed in a workplace crawling with social justice ideologues? Stop seeing them as part of the equation because they do not matter. Worried about losing a relationship if you make a stand? Say good riddance. This is what must be done by free thinkers if they are to counter and reverse the collectivist nightmare of cultural Marxism.
Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.
Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurism. Cultural Marxists are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?
Realize there is no such thing as white privilege or male privilege: In reality, there is only institutionalized “privilege” for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males. When confronted with such claims, demand to see proof of such privilege. Invariably, you will get a long list of first world problems and complaints backed by nothing but easily debunked talking points and misrepresented statistics. People should not feel guilty for being born the way they are, and this includes us “white male devils.”
Demand facts to back claims: Cultural Marxists tend to argue on the basis of opinion rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return. Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.
Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here). I agree. In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to THEM as well. They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I enjoy "privilege" while they do not. This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.
Let cultural Marxists know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled to have teir feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt cultural Marxists feel over private gun ownership, their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?
Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights: Collectivism’s ultimate propaganda message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism. Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.//
Read the whole thing.
Arise people who provide stability and order and children...
...you have nothing to lose but your guilt-imposed chains.
Tyler Durden writes:
//And so, here are my solutions, which must be enacted by individuals in their daily lives regardless of the potential backlash. Do you have leftist leaning friends or family members? It doesn’t matter. Are you employed in a workplace crawling with social justice ideologues? Stop seeing them as part of the equation because they do not matter. Worried about losing a relationship if you make a stand? Say good riddance. This is what must be done by free thinkers if they are to counter and reverse the collectivist nightmare of cultural Marxism.
Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.
Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurism. Cultural Marxists are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?
Realize there is no such thing as white privilege or male privilege: In reality, there is only institutionalized “privilege” for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males. When confronted with such claims, demand to see proof of such privilege. Invariably, you will get a long list of first world problems and complaints backed by nothing but easily debunked talking points and misrepresented statistics. People should not feel guilty for being born the way they are, and this includes us “white male devils.”
Demand facts to back claims: Cultural Marxists tend to argue on the basis of opinion rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return. Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.
Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here). I agree. In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to THEM as well. They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I enjoy "privilege" while they do not. This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.
Let cultural Marxists know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled to have teir feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt cultural Marxists feel over private gun ownership, their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?
Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights: Collectivism’s ultimate propaganda message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism. Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.//
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Welcome to Civilization 3.0...
...where the transgressive, in your face, speak truth to power, question everything, open-minded, tolerant, young left can't stand the idea of someone taking the "wrong" side.
//Irony alert. A student group at Williams College called “Uncomfortable Learning” that asked a conservative female author to speak on campus reportedly rescinded that invitation because – wait for it – students were too uncomfortable over the prospect of her speech.
Yes, the whole point of the “Uncomfortable Learning” group was to bring conversations to the elite private campus that ran against the grain of its left-leaning atmosphere. But the controversial speaker, author and cultural critic Suzanne Venker, explained in an op-ed for Fox News that she was disinvited because, she was told, her pending arrival was “stirring a lot of angry reactions among students on campus.”
Venker – author of “The War on Men,” wrote she had been prepping for her speech for two months, and had planned to “talk about feminism, but from a different perspective than the one students are used to hearing. I was going to tell them why feminism fails. (Hint: because it denies the existence of biology and teaches that equality means sameness, which is a losing proposition when it comes to planning a life—particularly if that life includes marriage and family.)”
Inside Higher Ed reports the title of the talk was to be “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails,” but one student complaint over the speech had stated: “When you bring a misogynistic, white supremacist men’s rights activist to campus in the name of ‘dialogue’ and ‘the other side,’ you are not only causing actual mental, social, psychological and physical harm to students, but you are also — paying — for the continued dispersal of violent ideologies that kill our black and brown (trans) femme sisters … you are dipping your hands in their blood …”//
...where the transgressive, in your face, speak truth to power, question everything, open-minded, tolerant, young left can't stand the idea of someone taking the "wrong" side.
//Irony alert. A student group at Williams College called “Uncomfortable Learning” that asked a conservative female author to speak on campus reportedly rescinded that invitation because – wait for it – students were too uncomfortable over the prospect of her speech.
Yes, the whole point of the “Uncomfortable Learning” group was to bring conversations to the elite private campus that ran against the grain of its left-leaning atmosphere. But the controversial speaker, author and cultural critic Suzanne Venker, explained in an op-ed for Fox News that she was disinvited because, she was told, her pending arrival was “stirring a lot of angry reactions among students on campus.”
Venker – author of “The War on Men,” wrote she had been prepping for her speech for two months, and had planned to “talk about feminism, but from a different perspective than the one students are used to hearing. I was going to tell them why feminism fails. (Hint: because it denies the existence of biology and teaches that equality means sameness, which is a losing proposition when it comes to planning a life—particularly if that life includes marriage and family.)”
Inside Higher Ed reports the title of the talk was to be “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails,” but one student complaint over the speech had stated: “When you bring a misogynistic, white supremacist men’s rights activist to campus in the name of ‘dialogue’ and ‘the other side,’ you are not only causing actual mental, social, psychological and physical harm to students, but you are also — paying — for the continued dispersal of violent ideologies that kill our black and brown (trans) femme sisters … you are dipping your hands in their blood …”//
Monday, May 04, 2015
Prediction....
....There will be no movies in 50 years about this Hollywood Blacklist.
//My concern is not with Mr. Downey, who hardly needs my help. My concern is with the temper of our age. Have we really gotten to the point where someone who makes a remark about how his drug addiction and its personal, legal, and penitential (in the sense of penitentiary) aftermath led him to rethink a few things about “liberalism” can follow him around for years and lead to a concerted attempt to “out” him as one of those evil conservatives?
Of course we have.
In the event, Mr. Downey gamely tried to deflect the political hectoring by denying that he even knows what a “liberal” really is. Only when the questions turned to his previous drug use and got frankly creepy did he decide it was time to leave. Provided he does not choose to add to his previous sins (his remark about not being a liberal and his friendship with Mel Gibson—who helped him overcome his drug addiction seem chief among these sins) there is no reason Mr. Downey’s career should not continue to flourish. He is, after all, a very talented and “bankable” actor. But he will occasionally be reminded of these sins, lest he relapse and, perhaps, in case the next activist reporter sees the chance to succeed in “outing” him as one of those intolerant “right-wingers.” Mr. Downey is a big enough star to survive a few errors, but he had best not relapse into heresy if he wants to continue working in the People’s Republic of Hollywood.
In a sense none of this is surprising. Given the ouster of a would-be chief at Mozilla for a private campaign donation, the busting of tenure for a Marquette professor who dared call out an overbearing, intolerant teacher, and the attempted destruction of businesses from the giant Chick-Fil-A to the tiny Memories Pizza, not to mention the potential firing of any California judge who dares violate the standards of professionalism by (gasp!) serving with the Boy Scouts, we can only marvel at the tolerance of Hollywood for Mr. Downey. Well, at least we should be thankful that, for now at least, Iron Man has kept his job. As for the rest of us, we would be foolish to expect tolerance for our own deviations from the Progressive party line.//
....There will be no movies in 50 years about this Hollywood Blacklist.
//My concern is not with Mr. Downey, who hardly needs my help. My concern is with the temper of our age. Have we really gotten to the point where someone who makes a remark about how his drug addiction and its personal, legal, and penitential (in the sense of penitentiary) aftermath led him to rethink a few things about “liberalism” can follow him around for years and lead to a concerted attempt to “out” him as one of those evil conservatives?
Of course we have.
In the event, Mr. Downey gamely tried to deflect the political hectoring by denying that he even knows what a “liberal” really is. Only when the questions turned to his previous drug use and got frankly creepy did he decide it was time to leave. Provided he does not choose to add to his previous sins (his remark about not being a liberal and his friendship with Mel Gibson—who helped him overcome his drug addiction seem chief among these sins) there is no reason Mr. Downey’s career should not continue to flourish. He is, after all, a very talented and “bankable” actor. But he will occasionally be reminded of these sins, lest he relapse and, perhaps, in case the next activist reporter sees the chance to succeed in “outing” him as one of those intolerant “right-wingers.” Mr. Downey is a big enough star to survive a few errors, but he had best not relapse into heresy if he wants to continue working in the People’s Republic of Hollywood.
In a sense none of this is surprising. Given the ouster of a would-be chief at Mozilla for a private campaign donation, the busting of tenure for a Marquette professor who dared call out an overbearing, intolerant teacher, and the attempted destruction of businesses from the giant Chick-Fil-A to the tiny Memories Pizza, not to mention the potential firing of any California judge who dares violate the standards of professionalism by (gasp!) serving with the Boy Scouts, we can only marvel at the tolerance of Hollywood for Mr. Downey. Well, at least we should be thankful that, for now at least, Iron Man has kept his job. As for the rest of us, we would be foolish to expect tolerance for our own deviations from the Progressive party line.//
Thursday, April 23, 2015
The plan for Progressive Fascism.
Step 1 - Mock the only news outlet that might cover Progressive Fascism.
Step 2 - Implement Progressive Fascism in a news black-out.
Now we know why Fox has been on the leftwing hit list for over a decade.
Step 1 - Mock the only news outlet that might cover Progressive Fascism.
Step 2 - Implement Progressive Fascism in a news black-out.
Now we know why Fox has been on the leftwing hit list for over a decade.
Secret police raids in Wisconsin targeted conservatives whose only crime seems to have been donating to conservative causes. Yet, the story, first reported in National Review, has been ignored by the networks. It was only Fox News that highlighted the story on Wednesday. Correspondent Trace Gallagher explained how Wisconsin's John Doe investigation allowed prosecutors to go after conservative groups, such as the Wisconsin Club for Growth. Then, it expanded to supporters.
Appearing on The Kelly File, Gallagher recounted, "Cindy Archer among them says late one night she was jolted awake by what she thought was a home invasion. It turned out to be a police raid. More than a dozen police officers holding a battering ram, yelling and pounding on her door. She said she was trying to calm down her dogs and get dressed with her body in full view of police. When she opened the door, she kept begging them not to shoot her dogs."
Release the dogs of law!!!
This could be a good development, and one in my wheelhouse:
//The Supreme Court is also being asked to consider the propriety of the Seventh Circuit’s alternative ruling that a viable First Amendment claim cannot be grounded in an assertion of retaliatory, bad faith investigation– a question the Supreme Court has unfortunately punted since its obscure footnote 9 in Hartman v. Moore (2006). Since Hartman, five federal appellate courts have disagreed with the Seventh Circuit, and concluded that any retaliatory investigation that would deter a reasonable person from exercising his First Amendment rights is, in fact, actionable. And this is as it should be: just consider the IRS scandal, in which the agency has targeted tea party groups for investigation and scrutiny, all in an attempt to chill those groups’ First Amendment activities. Retaliatory investigation is the quintessential abuse of government power, and it must be actionable lest John Doe-type investigations become a model for intimidating those who dare to participate in the political process.
If the Supreme Court cares about vigorously defending the First Amendment–and recent cases have suggested it does– the O’Keefe case warrants review, to set the record straight about abstention in federal civil rights cases, and to close the gaping First Amendment loophole (disallowing retaliatory claims) endorsed by the 7th Circuit.//
Given our "Everyone commits three crimes a day" justice system, we need a change in law that prevents ideologically driven prosecutors from targeting people to prosecute.
This could be a good development, and one in my wheelhouse:
//The Supreme Court is also being asked to consider the propriety of the Seventh Circuit’s alternative ruling that a viable First Amendment claim cannot be grounded in an assertion of retaliatory, bad faith investigation– a question the Supreme Court has unfortunately punted since its obscure footnote 9 in Hartman v. Moore (2006). Since Hartman, five federal appellate courts have disagreed with the Seventh Circuit, and concluded that any retaliatory investigation that would deter a reasonable person from exercising his First Amendment rights is, in fact, actionable. And this is as it should be: just consider the IRS scandal, in which the agency has targeted tea party groups for investigation and scrutiny, all in an attempt to chill those groups’ First Amendment activities. Retaliatory investigation is the quintessential abuse of government power, and it must be actionable lest John Doe-type investigations become a model for intimidating those who dare to participate in the political process.
If the Supreme Court cares about vigorously defending the First Amendment–and recent cases have suggested it does– the O’Keefe case warrants review, to set the record straight about abstention in federal civil rights cases, and to close the gaping First Amendment loophole (disallowing retaliatory claims) endorsed by the 7th Circuit.//
Given our "Everyone commits three crimes a day" justice system, we need a change in law that prevents ideologically driven prosecutors from targeting people to prosecute.
One problem with the partisan use of criminal law - other than that the injustice and the fact that it the tactic of totalitarianism - is that it engenders suspicion about the justice system across the board...
...and, maybe, for good reason:
//SADLY, THIS IS NEWS: Iowa Man Found Not Guilty Of Rape For Having Sex With Wife.
But I wonder if this isn’t the key bit: “Rayhons served 18 years as a Republican member of the Iowa House. He withdrew from the race for another term shortly before he was charged last year.” Related: “Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a Democrat.” Note that Miller’s office tried to move the trial somewhere else, where there were fewer Republicans in the jury pool. Given the prosecutorial misbehavior we’ve seen in Wisconsin, this makes me suspicious. Has anyone asked Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller why this very unusual prosecution was brought, and if politics had anything to do with it?//
I was mentally "ho-humming" when I read the headline - operating on the assumption that there must have been a bona fide reason for the prosecution - but now I'm wondering.
...and, maybe, for good reason:
//SADLY, THIS IS NEWS: Iowa Man Found Not Guilty Of Rape For Having Sex With Wife.
But I wonder if this isn’t the key bit: “Rayhons served 18 years as a Republican member of the Iowa House. He withdrew from the race for another term shortly before he was charged last year.” Related: “Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is a Democrat.” Note that Miller’s office tried to move the trial somewhere else, where there were fewer Republicans in the jury pool. Given the prosecutorial misbehavior we’ve seen in Wisconsin, this makes me suspicious. Has anyone asked Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller why this very unusual prosecution was brought, and if politics had anything to do with it?//
I was mentally "ho-humming" when I read the headline - operating on the assumption that there must have been a bona fide reason for the prosecution - but now I'm wondering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
