More important to the magician’s tools than smoke and mirrors is the simple sleight of hand created by getting people to focus on some red herring while the magician stealthily work just outside the bounds of his audience’s perception.
This is all well and good in the world of “magic” as we are willing participants in the deception—the whole deceptive act is, in fact, a form of great entertainment for many.
But when this deception occurs where it ought not occur—say, in the form of state-sponsored media—we would do well to remain skeptical and look for any possible sleight of hand…and not be so easily distracted and so credulous as to take the man-on-the-stage’s claims at face value.
PBS and NPR often claim they are objective, non-partisan purveyors of news and entertainment. Their defenders may even cite the occasional studies showing that their news programming provides relatively equal times for politicians on “both sides of the aisle”. And they claim that very little of their funding comes from taxpayers (implying, of course, that even if there were a liberal bias across their organizations, it wasn’t like it was costing conservatives too much in the grand scheme of things…so just pipe down you ignorant conservatives!).
To the intellectually torpid and hopelessly partisan, such professions—and purely superficial analytical “evidence”—of integrity and objectivity will suffice. But for the rest of us, this simply will not do.
Instead, let’s look for what’s really going on beneath the words. Let’s look where the real action lies. Let’s, to borrow a phrase, “follow the money.”
A few days ago, House Republicans unveiled a set of decently-sized budget cuts in an effort to demonstrate some horribly-lacking leadership on the dire fiscal crisis the country now finds itself in after six years of Democratic control of Congress (not to mention a half century of Liberal Establishment hegemony). One of those cuts was the defunding of NPR and PBS. That is, the government would no longer subsidize these organizations through their myriad financing channels (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Endowment for the Arts, Department of Education, etc.), and thus these entities would have to sink or float based upon their merits (or lack thereof)…just like any other private business in America.
Now, given NPR’s brass’s constant pooh-poohing of any talk of defunding as a “useless” exercise (since they only receive some purported 2% of their funding from taxpayers, and thus defunding serves no material federal budgetary benefit), you would think that the Republican proposal would be a winning proposition for NPR and PBS because a) losing only 2% of their revenue would be an easy loss to absorb, and b) it would exonerate NPR/PBS of the constant conservative charge of being a liberal “state-run media” outfit, thus allowing them to stay largely outside of the political fray given that they are, according to their own claims, “objective, impartial, and non-partisan”.
Of course, this was not NPR’s reaction to the cuts. In fact, a couple of the cartoon characters from their children’s programming will be accompanying some Democratic congressmen to Capitol Hill today to voice their opposition. (See, e.g., here.)
So, if NPR is worried about losing a purported 2% of their funding that is, by their repeated invocations, “negligible”, I take this to mean that they pull in much more than 2% from taxpayers. How could this be? Wouldn’t someone have called them out on this “2%” number since it started getting bandied about on the heels of the deplorable Juan Williams fiasco?
Well, that’s not such an easy one to answer. Apparently the sources of NPR’s funds are incredibly murky…at best. (See, e.g., here.) Side note: How’s that for “transparency”?
Next, you’ll notice that it was Republicans who proposed axing NPR’s funding, with conservatives—justifiably frustrated for being forced to fund a media outlet that, to their eyes, is but one more means by which to ridicule and marginalize them—cheering it on.
You’ll also notice that it is solely
Democratic congressmen who are pulling in the PBS heartstring-tuggers (i.e., cartoon characters…seriously…the ever-infantile mentality of the left) to protest the funding cuts.
So, if Republicans are unanimous that PBS/NPR funding—regardless of how large or small—is an unnecessary federal expenditure and thus should be eliminated as part of some much-needed and long-overdue fiscal discipline, and it is only Democrats who are insisting that the funding is crucial…might that make one a bit suspicious that there may be some substance to the claims of liberal bias pervasive throughout this news and “children’s programming” (don’t let the double entrende escape ya!) media conglomerate?
No? Still dubious?
Ok, what if I told you that the most far-left President in the history of the United States of America has not only refused to consider cutting funding, but actually just proposed his own budget in which he increased funding for NPR/PBS?
And then what about if NPR issued a public “thank you” to said far-left President for this proposed increase?
Ok, what about MoveOn.org—the nation’s liberals’ “grass-roots” operation that is owned and operated by about the most radically-left leftists—creating a petition to “save NPR” from evil Republican defunding efforts?
Quote (emphasis mine):
“Congress must save NPR and PBS once and for all. Congress should guarantee permanent funding and independence from partisan meddling.”
(The crass Orwellian doublespeak and Statist-media-control messaging in MoveOn’s statement above is a clear indicator of both the desperation of the left, and why they are rightly despised with such passion by anyone with a brain and a conscience.)
What then? What should one conclude when nearly every facet of the hardcore liberal establishment comes out in defense of an opaquely taxpayer-funded news and “children’s programming” media conglom when faced with unanimous conservative desire to remove its public funding?
Is this not seeing the sleight of hand for what it is? Is this not telling of a left-leaning bias—however well concealed, however well removed from public perception—throughout our venerated NPR and PBS programming?
The common wisdom is that you know who your true friends are when the chips are down. Well, for NPR at least, the chips are down; their public funding is on the chopping block. And the only people to come to NPR’s defense are—wholly and solely—leftists.
And you don’t gain leftists’ loyalty by maintaining a strict discipline of political impartiality, do you? No, quite the opposite, in fact.
And so, wouldn’t you agree, that there is perhaps something up the sleeve of those fighting for NPR’s funding that we should be paying more attention to?
I certainly do.
And now I must conclude with this obligatory Jefferson quote:
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
– Thomas Jefferson
Post-60’s journalism “journalism” in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/user/Battlefield315#p/u/2/zF3hbPtCttc
W: I can filter out all the inaccurate stuff.
W: I can use my liberal world-view as a guide. If anything contradicts it, I know it either didn’t really happen, or wasn’t worth reporting.
M: I see a Pulitzer Prize in your future!
Hear about the white politicians in Charlotte, North Carolina who conspired with all—all—of the local hotels and conference centers to prevent the NAACP from gathering and holding a meeting with its supporters anywhere within the city limits? No? Well, that’s because it never happened.
Of course, if it did happen, we’d all hear about it non-stop for months, and we’d have legislation pouring out of Washington to try to prevent any possible future evil, racist, white fascists from trying to suppress anyone’s Constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech ever again. And protests—violent, demagoguing protests by the Liberal Establishment’s ridiculous brownshirts. And imagine the lawsuits! Oh, the lawsuits and sums of damages that Revrum Al, Jesse Jackson, and their merry band of scumbag lawyers could drum up! Lawd, al’mighty!
Now, take the same exact situation, but reverse the races. Oh, and, instead of being a hypothetical situation, this one’s real.
Oh, and one more detail: This is the second year in a row that this has happened (last year by threats of violence, this year courtesy the collusion of local government and business leaders).
How much attention has the media given this real news story of the suppression of the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to peaceable assembly and speech of intelligent, kind, civilized, patriotic Americans? Well, I’m confident that faithful consumers of Soviet-era Pravda the MSM will never have heard of it.
“Local news station WSOC-TV said that Cannon “feared violent opposition to the group’s presence in the Queen City” and quoted him as saying,“We’ve always been about trying to be as inclusive as we possibly can be, and I will tell you when you have extreme groups on any side coming, it should raise a red flag.” [White Nationalist Group Banned From Charlotte Hotel, WSOC-TV, January 27, 2011]
This seems to be an acknowledgement that he is not really worried about violence coming from American Renaissance attendees—given their track record, he had no reason to—but by violent left-wing protesters.
This raises the question: why doesn’t he use his “bully pulpit”, as an as an African American Democrat, to tell these left wing “anti-racist” activists to respect other’s rights?
Of course these commonsense questions are never asked by the Main Stream Media. In fact, outside of the local Charlotte media and publications like VDARE.com and AlternativeRight, absolutely no one is even mentioning the cancellation of the conference.”
Of course not. The MSM, like any propagandist organ serving at the pleasure of a totalitarian ruling class, employs deception less through outright lies (as it’s tough to save face when caught passing off pure fiction as solid fact; see, e.g., Dan Rather) than they do via amplifying news that fits their agenda, and minimizing—or outright omitting—news that contradicts it or might otherwise give the unwashed masses “dangerous” ideas.
But let’s be clear: This lack of reporting of the egregious oppression of American Renaissance’s rights is not just an example of MSM bias by omission. We also have plenty of examples of outright lies/misinformation. Do a search in Google News on “Jared Taylor” and at least half the headlines come up describing AR as “White Supremacist” or “Anti-Semitic” (e.g., here). Spend just a few minutes on Taylor’s American Renaissance
site and you’ll find no claims of white supremacy in any regard (Taylor himself claims to be a “yellow-supremacist”, repeatedly citing Asians’ perpetual topping of all measures of intellectual achievement), and certainly nothing that could possibly be described as “anti-Semitic” (there are many active Jewish contributors and participants at American Renaissance, Taylor does not differentiate between “white” and “Jewish”, and he is actually hated by neo-Nazi types for this perceived “philo-Semitism”). Beyond this, there is nary a sign of racist language proper—no vulgarity, no slurs, no cruel or unnecessary maligning of any individual or group. What Taylor and his fellow contributors at American Renaissance provide are simply 1) links to [typically local] news stories that “somehow” never find their way onto the national networks or major newspapers, and 2) links to an array of books, articles, and other reference materials that are civil, scholarly, intelligent, empirically-based studies that contradict the Liberal Establishment’s many preposterous and outright deceitful dogmas.
And lastly, this [non-] story serves as a case in point of the MSM’s third method of “information management”: unabashedly insulting and smearing those who present an alternative perspective to the Liberal Orthodoxy. The examples abound, but perhaps none quite capture it so neatly and concisely as this piece by the Charlotte Observer: Free speech covers all, even the primitive.
Don’t believe me? Think I’m running interference for Taylor and American Renaissance, trying to put a happy face on anachronistic racists who threaten all the supposed racial progress we’ve made since Leftists infested every hall of power in American politics and culture? Well, fine—don’t believe me. But while you’re at it, be fair about it and don’t believe the MSM’s version either. Instead, go do your own fact-checking. Like conservatives in general (unlike leftists almost universally), Taylor says what he means and means what he says, and his work is out there for all to see, fully exposed, without any deceit or trickery: www.amren.com. Go there. Go find evidential support for the MSM’s lazy, libelous characterization of “White Supremacism”, of “Anti-Semitism”, of “Racism”, of “Hate”, of “Ignorance”, of “Xenophobia”, of “Primitiveness”, or any other such ad hominem smear.
Now, if you’ve done your homework over at AmRen.com and perhaps a bit on Jared Taylor, reexamine the MSM’s characterization of American Renaissance and/or Jared Taylor (when it bothers to mention either one at all). So…how well does that characterization jibe with what you found during your own research?
All hail our liberal stewards of objective journalism!
It is a fact—as much a fact that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon is not made of cheese—that the MSM has a far-left agenda, and that they drive this agenda with all the devious perfidy of any of the [staggeringly violent] Statist regimes of the past century who sought their rise to—and maintenance of—power via carefully controlling what the people know, what they don’t, and what stays at the forefront of their political thinking (via repetition and emphasis of the establishment’s formulated talking points).
Anyone with their eyes open and a shred of intellectual honesty understands and admits as much. The trouble is the good and honest people out there who have not ventured off the information monopoly of the Fourth Estate Plantation and into the blogosphere where red-blooded Americans—and freedom lovers the planet over—are hacking away, desperately, at the foundation of the Liberal Establishment before it snuffs out yet one more great civilization.
(And, what’s more, this is not just one more great civilization. Like the title of Bill Bennett’s book, America truly is the world’s last, best hope.)
Hear about that shooting in Tucson of US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords? What has been the MSM narrative that, despite ever-mounting evidence against that very narrative, started the moment the bodies fell and continues—though largely abated—to this day? Give yourself a prize if you answered that “radical, right-wing” rhetoric of radical, racist, “overwhelmingly white”, ignorant, violent, bible-thumping, trigger-happy, redneck Tea Partiers—along with Sarah Palin’s cross hairs over Gifford’s district (but not, of course, the DNC’s maps with targets and bulls’ eyes)—were to blame for creating a toxic, vitriolic, violent “climate of hate” that inspired a clearly schizophrenic individual to shoot a bunch of random people. (Including a conservative federal judge—and, incidentally, the only public official killed by the insinuated “right-wing-inspired” killer. By the way, what was that slain conservative judge’s name again? Oh…you don’t know? Why not? If you heard his name mentioned in casual conversation, would you immediately recognize it as belonging to the lone political murder of Jared Loughner? What about for the name “Gabrielle Giffords”—would you recognize that name if brought up randomly? And might the name “Sarah Palin” also come to mind, attached, as it were, as if by some causal link? You may wish to re-read the paragraph above that begins with “It is a fact…”)
So, in this MSM-created miasma of “guilty-before-proven-innocent”, only to be followed by “guilty-despite-being-proven-innocent”, did you hear about the guy who threatened—on camera, during an ABC news episode about the “camaraderie” and “coming together” of the Tucson community after the tragedy—the very life of a Tea Party leader in the audience? (Quote: “You’re dead.“) Hmm? We do still hear talk about “toning down the rhetoric” and engaging in “civil discourse” don’t we? (Which, of course, applies only to Republicans and conservatives and not—not, I repeat—to Democrats and liberals.) Well, what about this story—about a guy clearly driven to his violent hate of a Tea Partier courtesy of the MSM’s obsession with insinuating—if not some outright declaring—that the blame for the murder of six innocent people lie squarely upon those in the quote-unquote “Tea Party”?
What about the rally in Oakland ostensibly held for the same purpose—to honor the Tucson victims and stand in solidarity with the survivors—the one that descended into an anti-white, anti-conservative hate-fest…which the local news obligingly tuned out? That story ring a bell?
Amplify that which fits the agenda, minimize or omit that which detracts from it.
Besides not wanting to put the Liberal Establishment’s foot soldiers (and thus the Liberal Establishment itself) in a bad light, anyone else find it highly coincidental that a local channel in Oakland, the national news network ABC, and who knows how many other local news bureaus that honest citizen journalists may have missed, found it so important to start broadcasting stories specifically about national solidarity with the Tucson shooting victims…right around the time President Obama made his official speech in Tucson…a speech that was literally branded—replete with white & blue (what? no red?) posters and placards and t-shirts and such—with the slogan “Together We Thrive”? Pure coincidence that the MSM seemed to be marching in lock-step with the White House’s message, so much so that they systematically flagrantly dropped any and all evidence that the country was not only not united in grief, but was, in fact, viciously divided thanks to liberals’ immediate attempts the nation over to exploit the tragedy as a means to smear and silence their political opponents?
Again, are journalists there to drive the federal government’s message—even if, as in this case, the message is an entirely appropriate one—or to report the truth—the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—of whatever it is they’re covering?
And between these two poles—between [poorly] surreptitiously advancing the ruling class’s talking points vs. stalwart reporting of the facts, no matter how inconvenient or demoralizing they may be—where do the actions of the MSM consistently lie?
Speaking of people being driven to violent acts by the words of politicians and the climate their sycophants create, anyone remember the story about the guy who went on a shooting rampage at Discovery Channel headquarters…because—BECAUSE—in his own words—he was inspired by Al Gore’s fraudulent “documentary”
An Inconvenient Truth? Remember that? Remember all the conservatives on “radical, right-wing” Fox “Faux” News implying that Al Gore, the global “global warming” conspiracy, the socialistic greenies, and the legions of all the above’s useful idiots were to blame for this shooting? Don’t remember that either? That’s because it never happened. See, when one is based in reality, it’s easy to understand that crazy people will do crazy things and draw inspiration from anywhere. We should no more shut-up Al Gore or Sarah Palin or the Tea Partiers than we should censor all movies and images of Jodie Foster because John Hinckley Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan out of his psychotic obsession with the actress. Conservatives get that. Liberals don’t.
Because leftist thinking isn’t based in reality. It’s based in power. And they [leftists] will do and say anything and everything to maintain that power.
I’ll leave with just a few of the more recent gems from our USSA’s state-led MSM:
- Remember those KKK members in full garb standing outside the voting booths during the 2008 Presidential elections, brandishing cudgels and yelling threatening, racial slurs at black voters? Remember all the media attention that received? Remember when multiple members of the Department of Justice resigned in protest because they claimed the DoJ was actively refusing to prosecute white people, instead focusing their efforts on prosecuting blacks and Hispanics instead? Remember when an internal investigation backed up these claims and found the DoJ was, in fact, espousing a race-based agenda regarding pursuing federal prosecutions? Remember? Right; I’ve reversed the races here, so this story has been dutifully swept under the rug.
- Say, recall the endless headlines whenever an anti-abortion extremist murders an extremist abortionist? And what happens when the murderer is an abortionist? Crickets, perhaps?
- I think the MSM forgot to tell the DR about the wonders and strengths of diversity! Dominican crackdown on Haitian migrants sows fear
- Anyone hear about this little tidbit? I’m guessing not.
- MSM devotees, happen to catch this story? Behold the glory of lax immigration policies and open borders!
- And for the win: Just how eager are “journalists” to report anything that helps them to smear the right? Answer: This eager.
“There’s no earthly way of knowing,
Which direction we are going.
There’s no knowing where we’re rowing
Or which way the river’s flowing.
Is it raining?
Is it snowing?
Is a hurricane a-blowing?
Not a speck of light is showing,
So the danger must be growing.
Are the fires of hell a glowing?
Is the grisly reaper mowing?
Yes! The danger must be growing,
For the rowers keep on rowing,
And they’re certainly not showing
Any signs that they are slowing!”
“Wonka, this has gone far enough!”
“Quite right, Sir! STOP THE BOAT!”
To all who have eyes yet are not yet seeing the danger, I beg you, stop the boat!
1965 [Immigration Reform] Hart-Cellar Act removed all those mean, “racist” quotas and let anyone from anywhere in the world immigrate to the US.
Of course, this was the work of liberals.
And conservative detractors at the time were assured by their liberal “friends” that there would be no upsetting of national demographics as a result.
Fast-forward 45 years. The white population of the US has gone from ~90% as of 1965 to 53% as of 2010, and is likely to dip below 50% by 2020.
Which demographics had the most gains since then? Hispanics, followed by blacks.
What else has happened alongside this rise of the black and “Latino” populations, and the fall of the white population?
- Obesity has become an “epidemic”.
- Health care costs have grown exponentially.
- Entitlement costs (myriad welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, earned-income tax credits for low-wage earners, etc.) are bankrupting the country.
- Educational achievement is tanking and, in completely inverse proportion, the cost of education is exploding.
- Confidence in America’s leadership is at an all-time low, corresponding to an all-time low of both the competence and fidelity of said leadership.
- Random, violent, sadistic crime—particularly perpetrated against women and children—has become the norm.
- The rule of law is flagrantly ignored in all of America’s most “diverse” cities.
- Muslims have been free to come into our nation and kill innocent American civilians by the tens, hundreds, and thousands.
- A giant federal police state has been erected to deal with these Muslim immigrants—who since 1965, of course, have been allowed to freely enter the country.
- Americans—and their businesses—are more regulated, more taxed, more policed, and more controlled by their government—i.e., we are less free—than at any other time in the history of the nation.
So, one might conclude that the liberals’ 1965 wet dream of immigration reform has been a complete, catastrophic, total bust, no?
Of course it has. But the Liberal Establishment, which controls the messaging to the populace via the media, academia, and political discourse, would never admit as much and continues to shift blame to the usual suspects: whites, Christians, and conservatives.
So, in light of this, what’s the solution?
Well, on the topic of gun violence, according to this “scientist” and this “scientific periodical”, the answer is simple: Socialism!
Like Homer Simpson said of beer: “Liberalism: The cause of—and solution to—all of life’s problems!”
To paraphrase a witticism from Stephen Colbert (from his otherwise typically only-funny-because-you-desperately-want-it-to-be orgy of insatiable conservative-bashing): Reality is racist.
This is by no means a novel thought, and I’m sure I’m not the first person to write it as such. It’s just that it popped into my head when I read the following headlines in this morning’s USA Today (with the thoughts that sprung to mind below):
“Analysts to seek common denominators and study whether training, resources are sufficient.”
Question: If that “common denominator” turns out to be “black male, 16 – 40”, what then?
Wouldn’t that be racist, and therefore not only verboten but impossible to do anything about in terms of practical policies to protect the lives of police officers?
“Smoking, obesity problems cut three to four years off longevity;
Japan among high-income countries outliving Americans.”
Say, don’t blacks and Latinos have disproportionately higher rates of smoking and obesity?
What if we were to exclude these two demographics from our comparison?
What might those numbers look like?
So I decided to start writing on this only as another attempt to encourage those good and honest—if not also, perhaps, a bit obstinate—”race idealists” to reexamine their axioms.
The fact is, reality is often unpleasant; the truth, ugly. I have no doubt that it is precisely this that has proven instrumental in our nation’s enemies’ ability to manipulate—brainwash even—our overwhelmingly good-hearted and well-intentioned citizenry to do their [our enemies’] self-enriching bidding at our own expense, and to our very detriment.
Those on the left, overwhelmingly, are supremely confident in their apprehension of reality, and therefore it’s a simple syllogism for them to declare any substantive disagreement as a telltale sign that their contester is both stupid and ignorant (if not also evil, for the trifecta). Though I despise this arrogance and wish to avoid it at all costs, on this particular issue I can’t deny the conviction I feel that I—and the many others out there of like mind—are the ones basing our views firmly in reality—upon evidence, reason, scientific consensus, etc.—while it is those who disagree with us that, while not necessarily being stupid or ignorant, are likely adrift in a dogmatic slumber, lulled to sleep by the ceaseless, chanting indoctrination of the Liberal Establishment. (Or, less likely, they are part of the evil, motley conglomerate of enemies of our free, enlightened civilization who are trying their damnedest—like all Marx-inspired ideologues and tyrants before them—to bury or obscure the truth so as to destroy us and our way of life.)
A central tenet of our modern liberal orthodoxy is that all races are created equal. (It should be noted that “equal” here means “equal in ability, aptitude, and attitude“, rather than the nation’s founding documents that use this wording to mean “equal in unalienable rights and application of the law.” Note also that such a distinction should be obvious and thus unnecessary to articulate…were it not for 50 years’ worth of deliberate equivocation and obfuscation by the Liberal Establishment.)
Rather than counter this with my direct refutation (i.e., no, they are not), I’ll instead pose a question:
Imagine you were raised never having heard expressions like “diversity is strength!”; never exposed to the sort of racial pandering so common throughout our news and entertainment media, and our academic, political, and corporate organizations; never heard of “hate speech” or “hate crimes”; never read about officers of the law being accused of “racial profiling”, or of people being victimized for “driving while black”; never suffered discrimination due to the sundry “affirmative action” or diversity initiatives rife throughout the collegiate system, government agencies, public corporations, and private endowments; never lost a promotion, failed to get a job, or were sued due to concerns over “disparate impact.”
Imagine you were raised in a United States of America that was truly [racially] color-blind; an America where the law was applied without regard to race, religion, or sexual orientation; where people trusted each other enough to let the chips fall where they may, and if someone were to cry “disparate impact”, society would unfailingly presume the responsibility lay with the claimant, not the institution so charged; where people were allowed to fail or succeed on their own terms—to keep what they earned, or to live with the consequences if they failed—without elaborate and endless, racially-punitive wealth-transference schemes; where there was no deeply-indoctrinated reflex to dismiss everything and anything that advocates any part of the above hypothetical situation, or so much as implies something even only slightly uncomplimentary of certain races or ethnicities, as “racist”, “nativist”, “xenophobic”, or worse.
In short, imagine you were raised in an America starkly different than the one we inhabit today—one that was still racially, ethnically, religiously, and ideologically diverse, but where these differences were truly treated as superficial and moot, and not exploited for political leverage, extortion, or the intentional destruction of the nation.
Now imagine—in the midst of all of your experiences in this melting pot, but absent the relentlessly repeated mandate that you not allow any negative judgments against non-whites to seep into your thinking (with the caveat being that if you’re criticizing whites, fire away!)—you were asked the following question:
Do you think all races are created equal (in terms of their physical, intellectual, behavioral capacities)?
What would your answer be, based solely upon your experiences and your knowledge of the world—not upon what you were well-trained to respond with when confronted with such unpleasant questions?
Would you honestly say, looking around you, that any race—any population of a people of similar outward appearance and genetic clustering, in large enough number (say, to populate a modern town or city)—has the essentially identical capacity to form an advanced, free, peaceful, prosperous, productive, functional civilization as any other race?
If so, what evidence might you summon to support this claim?
(Note I ask for evidence—not excuses. Evidence, of course, is what stuff like science is made of. Science does not say, “Earth only looks like it’s rotating around the sun because the evil sun had easy access to all sorts of guns, germs, and steel! Anyone not ignorant, stupid, and earthist knows that the sun rotates around the earth!” These are excuses—rhetorical epicycles and deferents devised by the Liberal Clergy, and inculcated in their flock—used to evade the conclusion being highlighted over and over again by the ever-mounting evidence so that one may remain comfortably asleep, their cherished fantasies about the world left undisturbed.)
So what is the point? To discriminate against blacks and Latinos?
That’s a common, reflexive, and completely insincere question used as nothing but a diversionary tactic by race idealists; it does not even warrant a response. However, I will say this: You are an idiot if you think you can judge an individual by the color of his skin…and you are equally an idiot if you think you can’t judge a population by the [predominant] color if its skin.
And the latter half of that statement is the point here—and it’s a critical point: The fate of the United States of America—if not Western Civilization as a whole—lies in our ability to face up to the truth in this matter, regardless of how unpleasant that truth may be.
Look at our immigration policy. Look at birth rates by race and ethnicity. Look at the national demographic trends. And look, again, hard, at what certain racial demographics have made of so many erstwhile brilliant, productive, beautiful cities throughout the nation. And look how consistent this is with the results whenever they’ve aggregated anywhere in the world, at any point in time.
If current demographic trends continue unabated, would one honestly expect this nation to not disintegrate into the same mess of stupidity, torpidity, debauchery, corruption, destitution, violence, and general anarchy of so many of our once-fine cities?
If the answer is “no”, then again I ask: Based on what evidence?
If we do not look to reform many of our domestic and international policies (regarding education, immigration, welfare, healthcare, foreign aid, etc.) now—right now—such that they are based upon reality instead of Liberal Establishment fantasy—what will our posterity ultimately face somewhere down the road if not a “Sophie’s Choice” between ethnic cleansing on one hand, or catastrophic national collapse on the other?
Humbly, gently, I join the chorus of those pleading for those with any love of this country to wake up; to arise from your dogmatic slumber. These voices aren’t tormenting dreams in your head, but those of friends desperately trying to wake you before it’s too late and you’ve—we’ve—lost the day.
“Each day is a little life: every waking and rising a little birth, every fresh morning a little youth, every going to rest and sleep a little death.” (Schopenhauer)
And in this dawning—on this road to Damascus if you will—there is nothing quite so exhilarating and edifying as being present for your own birth; to move yourself out from the darkness and into the light.
And to then grow up and realize that all is not well; rather—far from it—that you have a fight on your hands—a fight for the very survival of your country and, by extension, yourself and your loved ones.
And then perhaps what follows is a set of Kübler-Rossian-like stages: first denial, then anger, then bargaining, then depression…
And then, finally, to accept.
And then to steel yourself.
And then, to fight.
Awhile back, a rather funny story of MA Liberal-douchebag-in-chief, John Kerry, was discovered docking his yacht in Rhode Island so as to avoid Massachusetts slip taxes. Now it appears NYC auditors are interested in putting some heat on Manhattan’s rich and famous for fraudulently claiming to live primarily out of the city: City takes aim at rich, famous like Alec Baldwin, Derek Jeter, who may be fibbing on where they live
This is just the most recent headline involving high-profile, rich, powerful, and incredibly self-important liberals who, in their infinite wisdom and moral superiority, preach the goodness and “social justice” of high taxation as a means of “spreading the wealth”…while at the same time doing everything in their power to limit their tax exposure.
Of course I don’t begrudge them of the latter. Who in their right mind doesn’t want to limit how much of their rightful earnings the government can forcibly take—and then only to egregiously misspend?
The problem—as is so often the problem when dealing with liberals—is that their words lie in direct counterpoint to their actions. They claim the intellectual and moral superiority of some policy—in this case, ever-elevated taxes on those evil “rich people”—and then covertly avoid having to abide by said policy, instead sticking it to the hoi polloi who were either wheedled into agreeing with them, or mercilessly ridiculed for arguing against them.
And ever-increasing taxes is but one of a raft of political ideas that the liberal elite have no problem trumpeting because they know that they have the resources to figure out how to avoid being victimized by it. The rest of us, unfortunately, are seldom so lucky.
As an example, consider “diversity”. Of course, “diversity”, when used by a liberal, means forcibly injecting blacks and Latinos into communities or institutions comprised predominantly of whites. Forced bussing, forced integration of schools, forced funding of low-income or no-income housing in communities deemed “too white”—all of these things have proven immensely catastrophic to the communities, schools, and businesses in which the liberal establishment got its way. But yet the liberal establishment—itself
overwhelmingly white—finds itself comfortably ensconced in gated communities or developments with houses of such astronomical value that they have rendered their communities impervious to the black & brown plagues that they have forced upon middle-class white communities, schools, and businesses the nation over.
And of course the same thing goes for taxes. With ever-more byzantine tax regulations at city, state, and federal levels, one must hire a high-priced accountant—or spend an inordinate amount of one’s own precious time—in order to be able to find all the loopholes and such that allow one to minimize the taxes they owe. Of course, your average middle-class American doesn’t have either the time or the resources to sleuth out all this arcana, and so they ultimately pay more than they would had they had the same resources available to them that the rich and famous have at their disposal.
Again, if liberals are so confident that their policy ideas—e.g., giant government, overbearing regulation, high taxation, “diversity”, etc.—are so wonderful and smart and compassionate, why oh why do high-power liberals do everything in their power to minimize the effects that these supposedly just and magnanimous policies would otherwise impose upon them?
And this is the hallmark difference between liberals and conservatives.
Your average liberal either does not realize or will not admit to the contradiction of what he advocates for vs. what he does in practice, while your average conservative makes every honest effort to say what he means and mean what he says.
There is no guessing what a conservative means when he says, “I want smaller government and lower taxes.” He means: “I want smaller government and lower taxes.” And his actions will often match these words, e.g.: he will vote against an expansion of government (see, e.g., Tea Parties vs. Obamacare), and he will do what he can to shield as much of his income from the voracious maw of Uncle Sam.
But when a liberal says, for example, “Higher taxes are only fair. Social justice!”, what he means is more likely than not: “F*** anyone who doesn’t have the means to [legally or illegally] evade taxes as effectively as I can!”
Think also of the shrill cries for amnesty of millions of illegal Latino immigrants (overwhelmingly from Mexico) by the liberal establishment. When a conservative says, “We should seal our borders, enforce our laws, and reexamine our immigration policies,” he means: “We should seal our borders, enforce our laws, and reexamine our immigration policies.” And if asked why, he will presumably articulate the grave dangers posed to the welfare of the nation resulting from a giant, porous border allowing anyone to enter the country, completely unchecked; a willful disregard of—if not more often outright contempt for—the nation’s laws; and an immigration policy that essentially turns our generous welfare benefits into giant magnets that attract the absolute scum of the earth. Of course, such considerations will be dismissed as “racist”, “nativist”, and “xenophobic”, and the person expressing those considerations will be given no voice whatsoever in the national media (save serving as a foil for lampooning by the likes of Colbert or the cast of The Daily Show)—and he will likely be shunned from society, have to worry about his keeping his job (let alone friends), and will more than likely be physically threatened.
But opposite this common sense is the cry for amnesty by the liberal establishment—and always—always—in the name of compassion and human rights. This rallying cry is, of course, nothing but pure emotion; but behind the importunateness and oft-violent protests of the pro-amnesty crowd you will find any number of hidden agendas with concrete goals—goals that are, of course, completely at odds with the purported intentions:
“This is a great way to stick it to the gringos and reclaim lost Mexican territory.”
“This is a great way to weaken all-powerful America—via turning it into another violent, impoverished, anarchic hell-hole like Mexico and much of the rest of Central and South America!”
“This is a great way to get essentially slave labor to cook my food, clean my mansion, tend to my yachts, and drive me around in my limos so I can spread the Good News to the unwashed masses about the virtues of [them] living like cavemen so as to save the environment!”
“This is a great way to create a permanent, mammoth underclass who will always vote Democrat—and thus keep us in power—since all we ever do is promise to give blacks and Latinos free sh*t from cradle to grave—and all on the backs of evil whitey!”
Look at so many of the liberals in Congress. Hell, look at President Obama. Look how quickly they change their tune—radically change their tune—when the popularity of their political philosophies suddenly plummet after crashing against that unmovable wall known as Reality. From a man who spent twenty-some years listening to a preacher who rabidly demonized whitey and literally cursed this great nation; from a man who has more than once equivocated about American exceptionalism; from a man who is the first President of the US to bow before foreign dignitaries—including the world’s tyrants; from a man who spent two years apologizing to the world—to our allies and enemies alike—for the country that saved their skin or had the courage to stand up to their evil; from a man whose own wife openly stated that she was only proud of her country once her husband was voted—by white majorities—into this position of ultimate power; from this man who encouraged a congregation of Latino voters to “punish your enemies”—referring to his [ceaselessly characterized as] “overwhelmingly white” political opponents; from this man who, without any evidence whatsoever, called white police officers “stupid” for arresting his temper-tantrum-throwing/Harvard Professor/race hustler friend Louis “Skip” Gates; from this man who described his own grandmother derogatorily as “a typical white woman“; from this man who had admitted to wanting to embrace Marxist economic policies of “spreading the wealth around” and has pursued a radical leftist agenda since his first days in office, against the repeatedly-expressed will of the voters—from this man—from this undeniably anti-Capitalist, anti-American, anti-white man—we are (reportedly) going hear a State of the Union address expounding upon the greatness that is America, and inspiring words from liberal arch-villain Ronald Reagan? Really? Who amongst the sane and honest and intelligent could possibly buy this?
Such a complete about-face betrays, to anyone watching, the completely Machiavellian instincts of Obama and his ilk. This version of liberalism—”modern liberalism” as I often refer to it—is completely, horribly wrong. There is nothing good to say about it. And certainly one of the central pillars of its essence is the duplicitousness it creates in its adherents. Hypocrisy doesn’t even begin to cover it. These are power-vultures, with a cadre of the easily-led in tow. They have no principles, no morals, no patriotism, no love of God or country or mankind. They love themselves; they love their money; they love their power; and they love their position, high above the rest of us—scolding us, bossing us, mocking us, robbing us, toying with us. And they will spin in whatever direction is necessary—say whatever must be said, feign whatever must be feigned—in order to maintain their grip on this power and prestige.
And the sudden—and, not coincidentally, contemporaneous to the start of a conservative House of Representatives—call for “civility” and “bipartisanship” after 8 years of nonstop “Someone shoot monkeyboy BusHitler in the head!” followed by two years of “Teabaggers are radical racist KKK Nazi evil-mongers!”—is just the latest indicator of the absolute vacuum of morality, self-awareness, and integrity that defines those on the left.
This is not hypocrisy. This is a lethal social, cultural, and political disease in desperate need of a cure. And cure it we must, lest the following words from a comment left on American Renaissance prove true:
“Every (white) teacher I know dejectedly says the same thing: America is finished. The rest of the public, and some overly-optimistic posters here, don’t realize it. Come work in the trenches with us, with the children who will be the majority in this land in less than 20 years.”
– Comment by Jay, in response to the news article Oakland 2nd Graders Reportedly Engage in Sex Acts, Teacher Suspended
Personally, I don’t believe we’re done yet, but I do believe we’re it. Either we pull this nation back from the precipice, or we watch it disintegrate, ignominiously, into the dustbin of history—while the cretins at the top of the Liberal Establishment’s food chain make off with the plunder, not unlike the Bolsheviks in post-revolutionary Russia.
“I hope that I don’t have to write about this issue any more, I find it so disgusting.”
– Dennis Mangan
Amen. Unless the left can find some way to make their politicking of this tragedy even more despicable (and, trust me, if anyone can find a way to do just that, it’d be liberals), I should hope this will be the last time I’ll find myself on this topic.
What we learned about the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner:
- His favorite books, as listed on his YouTube and MySpace pages, included Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, and Barrie’s Peter Pan.
- High school friends described him as “liberal”, “far left”, and a “pothead”.
- More recent friends described him as completely oblivious to politics, news, or other current events—not watching TV, reading newspapers, and certainly not listening to “talk radio” (i.e., Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, Savage, etc.).
- He was a registered Independent…and did not vote in the 2010 mid-term elections.
- He apparently was an adherent of wild conspiracy theories encapsulated in the film “Zeitgeist“, which advanced, amongst other things, “trutherism” (i.e., the contention that George Bush and an international cabal of Zionist bankers blew up the Twin Towers and pinned the blame on innocent Muslims).
- He seemed to have developed his grudge against Giffords when she failed to adequately answer (by his crazy standards) a completely insane question of his…in 2007 (i.e., before anyone knew of Sarah Palin, long before the Tea Parties came into existence, and during the time when anti-Bush/anti-Cheney hysteria was at a fever pitch).
- He was clearly psychotic to anyone unfortunate enough to be around him for even a brief period of time.
- He had multiple contacts with the law due to his erratic and unpredictable behavior.
- He was kicked out of college for his psychotic behavior and subsequent concern for the safety of students and faculty—some of whom had written of their expectations of him eventually going on a shooting rampage—and would not be allowed to return until he sought professional help.
- His teachers, friends, acquaintances, etc., all described him as being completely out of touch with reality, existing purely in a world of his own.
- His paranoid delusions about government mind control (via the use of grammar—so I guess a tinfoil hat wouldn’t help); his delusions of grandeur (he, alone, could see the truth via his dreaming and proper grammar while everyone else was “illiterate”); his inability to articulate coherent thoughts (as evidenced by his nonsensical YouTube videos and other writings); his wildly disproportionate and violent fixation on Giffords for what was probably not even a mild slight; his reportedly frequent “drifting off” in mid-sentence or thought and being “in another world” (think of reports of Socrates’s frequent and abrupt catatonia); and his obsession with “conscience [sic] dreaming” as perhaps indicative of auditory (Socrates’s “Daemonion”) and/or visual hallucinations—what does this suggest even to the lay person with only the slightest awareness of mental illnesses? Textbook paranoid schizophrenia, no? (Note that this speculative diagnosis has been buoyed by Harvard-educated psychiatrist Dr. Charles Krauthammer’s identical admittedly speculative assessment.)
What we learned about the propaganda wing of the Liberal Establishment:
“People are dead, and the first thing they have to do is go to politics. No wonder the country hates the media.”
– Pat Caddell, Red Eye
“What you’re seeing at that moment is a TV camera crew, which had been filming Roy Wilson’s speech for possible use as a soundbite in that evening’s news broadcast, realizing that the guy was going off-message — so they simply switched off the camera’s photo lights and stopped filming him because his speech no longer fit the media’s predetermined narrative. They went to the vigil to report on a ‘respectful’ event, and by golly they were going to bring back a report about a ‘respectful’ event, regardless of what actually occurred. That’s how subtle media bias can be — simply switching off the camera when inconvenient things start happening.”
– “Zombie”, Word-salad of Hate at Oakland Vigil for Tucson Victims
“Again, why would World News opt to omit all this [ed.: i.e., that the recipient of the unequivocal death threat made by one of Loughner’s shooting victims was the head of Arizona Tea Party]?
“Might it have gone counter to Muir’s contentions that this was a community that has really come together? ‘No matter what side they’re from, they want consensus.’
“This also wouldn’t fit with Amanpour’s claim, ‘It’s absolutely remarkable, and that’s what has impressed so many people, how the community has reacted, how they’ve bonded, how they want to go forward, and how even though there are still differences of political opinion, today we saw them wanting to carry on an honest dialogue as they said, but a reasonable and rational one.’
“A man issuing a death threat to a Tea Partier is hardly a picture of a reasonable and rational dialogue, is it?
“On the other hand, if Fuller was the Tea Party member, and Humphries was the shooting survivor, do you think ABC would have been concerned about presenting a unified community, or would this report focused extensively on a conservative making such a death threat?
“Seems a metaphysical certitude the latter would have been the case.”
– Noel Sheppard, ABC World News Reports Threat at its Tucson Town Hall, Omits it Was Made to a Tea Partier
“In the wake of the Fort Hood massacre in November 2009, the editorial board of the New York Times urged:
“>> ‘In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East.’
“Yet for some reason, that sense of caution was strangely absent in today’s editorial on the tragic shooting in Arizona:
“>> ‘It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.'”
– Philip Klein, A Study in Contrasts: NYT on Ft. Hood and Arizona Shootings
“Shamefully and sadly, the media would have covered his horrific assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) and slaying and maiming of innocent Arizonans in a more responsible manner. They would have called for restraint and not violated the journalistic tenet of not assuming anything, a tenet they purportedly (and often facetiously sanctimoniously) claim to hold dear.”
– Tony Lee, What If Jared Loughner Was Muslim?
“‘It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans Islam or Tea Party members Muslims. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans Muslims and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.’ Would the New York Times ever have published that version?”
– Andy Levy, Redeye
“Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.”
– Charles Krauthammer, Massacre, followed by libel
“At this point, there is simply no sound reason to believe this deranged young man was fired up by ‘toxic’ or ‘eliminationist’ conservative rhetoric from Michele Bachmann or whomever. Why are we even having this conversation? It’s nuts. It’s offensive. Is there any, you know, evidence that political rhetoric is now more vitriolic or incendiary than usual? Maybe there is, but I know of none. A feeling in Mr Krugman’s gut doesn’t cut it. Doesn’t it seem at least as likely that a 22-year-old would be inspired to an act of high-profile atrocity by violent video games or films? As far as I know there’s no evidence of that, either.”
– W. W., Krugman’s toxic rhetoric
“No, Krugman is both stupid and evil. That a complete tool like Krugman could dare to formulate something like his ‘new rule’ (reference number three above) after insinuating that anyone who doesn’t believe in socialism and massive Keynesian money printing is a Nazi takes hubris to a whole new level. When will the NY Times stop publishing this loose cannon?”
– Dennis Mangan, More Hate
“In the matter of self-serving, bitter, calculated cynicism, there wouldn’t seem to be much left to prove against the Times. Judging by what I’ve heard from my fellow conservatives, the issue is decided. The New York Times is a worthless, truthless, vicious institution. But I disagree. I think things are worse than that.”
– P. J. O’Rourke, The Times Loses It – Sense and nonsense about Tucson.
“In other words, the media’s need to ‘get the witch’ was so strong, that it overpowered even their need to report the basic facts of the case. Everyone was talking about Sarah Palin’s ‘target’ map, but no one even knew the victims’ names. (And to make matters worse, Sarah Palin is now getting death threats.) Seriously, shame on you guys in the press. If you all want your ‘new tone’, then you need to man up, suck it up and apologize first–otherwise, all of your pleas to ‘end the divisive rhetoric’ will sound insincere. Like Mr. Blow said, you can’t claim the moral ground while standing in quick sand. Your ‘by any means necessary’ approach has failed.”
– Susannah Fleetwood, 4 Reasons Why the MSM Botched the Tucson Massacre, and Why they Owe the Victims and Sarah Palin an Apology
“And don’t forget Omar ‘I killed the racists’ Thornton, who clearly believed that workplace discipline was a manifestation of the racism that the liberals and the MSM accuse whites of constantly, and thought that whites deserved to die for it. (HT: The Cold Equations on that one.)The writer of the linked article excuses feelings of sympathy for the murderers Thornton and Ferguson on the grounds that every black knows what it’s like to experience racism, therefore in some sense the murders were justified.”
– Dennis Mangan, The Progressive Climate of Hate
“What this moment does teach is that the media scolds have a clear agenda, and that agenda puts a big target on conservative backs — analogy intended — and in pursuit of that agenda, the media will consistently miss opportunities to wisely keep quiet.”
– Ed Morrissey, The media misses a good opportunity to keep quiet
“Decent people simply do not ascribe motivation to a psychopath like Loughner unless that motivation is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I can’t tell you how angry this makes me. Far-left loons have attacked me in vile ways for years. I have to have security around the clock. Has The New York Times ever said a word about that?
“Some of my colleagues here at Fox News and on talk radio are faced with the exact same situation.
“There comes a point in a free society when citizens have to acknowledge the truth or see their country dissipate.
“The New York Times, MSNBC, Paul Krugman and others are furious that their far-left vision is falling apart, so they are using a terrible tragedy, using it to attack their perceived political enemies. That’s what this is all about: the failure of the far-left agenda. Because the loons are furious, they are now accusing people of being accessories to murder. How despicable is that?”
– Bill O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Factor
What we learned about the governmental wing of the Liberal Establishment
“This afternoon [Democratic Vermont Senator Bernie] Sanders sent out a fundraising appeal, seeking to raise money to fight Republicans and other ‘right-wing reactionaries’ responsible for the climate that led to the shooting.”
– Stephen F. Hayes, Sanders Fundraises Off Arizona Murders
“The repeal effort will presumably begin moving forward again next week, and the debate will no doubt be more restrained than might have been the case before Tucson. The Republicans will certainly be less aggressive in their rhetoric. The Democrats will, in turn, see this as weakness and attempt to exploit the gesture, just as they have exploited Tucson. They will brand as ‘vitriolic’ every floor speech in favor of repeal and repeatedly demand that the GOP water down its agenda.”
– David Catron, Some Vitriolic Rhetoric About Repeal
“Much of the broadcast and print coverage over the weekend was devoted to decrying the state of political discourse, despite its tenuous connection to the shootings. Politico immediately ran several stories putting the shooter and his rampage in a political context, including one quoting a Democratic strategist — anonymously — arguing that this was a golden opportunity to ‘pin this on the tea partiers.’ This, just 24 hours after Giffords was gravely wounded. Where’s the outrage?”
– Josh Kraushaar, Stop the Blame Game
“Obama thus cut the ground out from under those exploiting the massacre and attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to smear and exact retribution for the crushing repudiation they suffered on Nov. 2.”
– Patrick J. Buchanan, Is Obama Leaving the Left Behind?
“Unfortunately, this is not the first time we have seen this type of reaction. The meme that opponents of Obama are crazy and dangerous has been an explicit Democratic Party campaign strategy for over two years. Here is just a partial list of events in which the left-wing and Democratic Party media operation has immediately blamed right-wing rhetoric, only to be proven wrong when the facts finally came out: Bill Sparkman, Amy Bishop, The Fort Hood Shooter, The IRS Plane Crasher, The Cabbie Stabbing, and The Pentagon Shooter.
“The facts will come out about the shooting and murder by Loughner. Until then, we’ll be subjected to the sickness of people who seek to use the crime to their political advantage and who will worry about the facts later on, if ever.”
– “Legal Insurrection”, Two Sicknesses On Display in Arizona
“Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”
– NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, speculating—without any evidence whatsoever—that the attempted bombing of Times Square in May of 2010 was the work of some average Joe American citizen (aka, a Tea Partier), the likes of whom were seen protesting—en masse, in town halls meetings throughout the country—the Democrats’ against-the-will-of-the-people/by-any-means-necessary effort to pass Obamacare. Of course, the would-be bomber turned out to be a Muslim looking to kill as many innocent civilians as possible, all in the service of Allah. After the facts were in, Bloomberg offered no apology for his completely unwarranted and irresponsible maligning of Obamacare opponents—but he did go on to council the perpetually-non-violent-yet-perpetually-smeared-as-violent “everyday Americans” to not stereotype or target Muslims—despite the fact, of course, that Muslims seem to perpetually target said “everyday Americans”.
“When our politicians and media loudmouths act like fools and zealots, they should be held responsible for being fools and zealots. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the darkness that always waits to swallow up the unstable and the lost.”
– Ross Douthat, United in Horror
What we learned about the law-enforcement wing of the Liberal Establishment
“The judge sees Dupnik, the man Politico identifies as ‘the liberal sheriff,’ disgracefully using his time in the tragedy’s spotlight not to do his job but gain publicity by helping the liberal media exploit the killings by a ‘nut’ to exploit a liberal political agenda — gliding over the hard news fact that the only constitutional officer to die in the attack was a conservative Republican.“
– Jeffrey Lord, Federal Judge: Liberal Sheriff, Media Exploiting Attack
“Unsubstantiated accusations from an authority figure do not ‘validate’ the irresponsible claims of conservative culpability; they merely echo them. Unless he has seen evidence he is not sharing with the public, Dupnik was little more than Markos Moulitsas with a badge.”
– Stephen F. Hayes, Sometimes A Tragedy Is Just A Tragedy
“Because in point of actual fact the truth is the OPPOSITE of what Dupnik asserts, and startlingly so. Think about it. Limbaugh has been on the air for twenty-two years. He has been espousing a point of view with passion and emphasis to millions of people five days a week. He has been frank in exposing the shortcomings of the opposing view. Yet not one single act of violence during that time has ever been attributed to a person identified as one of his regular listeners. NOT ONE SINGLE ACT!”
– Jay D. Homnick, Quite the Opposite
“At this point, we just don’t know whether Sheriff Dupnik missed (or deliberately passed up) an opportunity to prosecute Jared Lee Loughner for criminal threats, possibly preventing a tragedy.
“And we just don’t know whether that is the reason that Dupnik has been thrilling cynical lefties with his brazen partisan politicization of the Giffords shooting.
“But regardless of whether the evidence is there, recent events certainly raise the issue of whether local law enforcement officials in this country spew partisan nonsense to divert people’s attention from their own failings.”
– Patterico, While We’re Raising Questions — I Have a Few About Sheriff Dupnik
What we learned about the foot soldiers of the Liberal Establishment
“Is there anything quite so demented as a white liberal? The level of hate expressed for Sarah Palin seems to be not only a manifestation of self-hatred – but of the incredible smallness of their minds. They’re incapable of saying anything other than conservatives in general and Palin in particular should die.”
– Dennis Mangan, More Hate
“The novelist Ayelet Waldman asked me on Twitter to inform her of the occasions on which I had denounced violent rhetoric only an hour after she had demanded of the House speaker, ‘Crying yet, you sc–bag?’ and referred to the ‘evil political hackery of the RNC.’ She is, she wrote, ‘a Jew with a sense of history,’ though evidently that sense of history lasts approximately the time it takes to write a tweet.
Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos, the most important figure in the leftist blogosphere, made himself notorious in 2004 for greeting the murder of four private contractors by Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah with the words ‘screw them.’ He greeted the news of Saturday’s massacre with the words ‘F—ing American Taliban,’ echoing the title of his own recent book.”
– John Podhoretz, The rush to blame
“Liberals who have crusaded to keep madmen running loose in America have also campaigned to abolish the death penalty, so that innocent victims can be killed, but their killers can’t. Liberals have also advanced an absolutist theory of First Amendment rights that protects pornographers, Marxist revolutionaries, and Islamic clerics who advocate jihad. The only speech that liberals ever want to restrict is the speech of those who point out the errors of liberalism. Any conservative would be denounced for ‘hate speech’ if he borrowed the words of President Obama’s former pastor and declared that what happened in Tucson on Saturday was liberalism’s “chickens coming home to roost.” But liberals can’t gain any political advantage by blaming Jared Loughner and they never accept any responsibility themselves, so liberalism’s eternal hunt for scapegoats will continue.”
– Robert Stacy McCain, The Victim and His Victims
“Thus, in practice, the proposed suppression of free speech is not about tone, but viewpoint. It is nothing less than a naked power play by those in the business of manufacturing consent to a center-left agenda, using the shop-worn gimmicks of “Fake, But Accurate” and the “Neutral Story Line.” If that means dressing up ghouls in nice clothes and exploiting the murder of a nine-year-old girl… well, that’s just the cost of doing business.”
– Karl, Don’t think of an elephant: Giffords, ghouls and gimmicks
“Supposedly respectable political groups followed suit: ‘It is fair to say — in today’s political climate, and given today’s political rhetoric — that many have contributed to the building levels of vitriol in our political discourse that have surely contributed to the atmosphere in which this event transpired,’ said a statement issued by the leaders of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Fair? How so, and on what evidence is this string of flimsy assumptions based? Shame on them.”
– Jennifer Rubin, The Arizona Tragedy
“…I can’t get over the contrast between the left straining to politicize him and the parade of friends insisting that they simply never knew Loughner to be political (apart from his Trutherism and unspecified ‘frustration’ with Bush).”
– “AllahPundit”, WaPo: Loughner was a registered independent, didn’t vote this year
“The Left’s online accusation orgy initially drained time and attention from the courage, character, and grace of those affected by or involved in the tragedy. But the genuine response to crisis exposed the shallowness of the Left’s reaction and more.”
– Robert M. Goldberg, Tucson and the Left’s Online Orgy of Accusation
“The grief and empathy barely had time to inspire cogent response before being replaced by rage against the paranoid leftist attacks on Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and, by extension, all conservatives. Normal human feelings, the sorts of admirable feelings that drew Americans together after 9/11 and that drew volunteers from around the country to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, were defecated upon by the sowers of discord who would portray political opponents as accessories to mass murder. The desperate urge is to strike back at these calumnious and viciously mendacious attacks, to escalate the conflict in a way that will make the leftist thugs crawl under the nastiest, most vermin-infested rock imaginable. But rather than escalate the language, the imperative is to elevate it. Can we give any voice to the angel who sits on the shoulder that is, quite naturally, on the right?”
– Quin Hillyer, Let’s Try a Better Response
“And as long as liberals want to believe that Sarah Palin bears responsibility for the murder of six people and for the attempted murder of Congresswoman Giffords, then there is no hope for elevation of our public discourse.”
– Aaron Goldstein, The Dismissal of Sarah Palin
“Question: In the spirit of unity and thriving, will all the prog cities and counties that declared economic war on Arizona over SB1070 repeal their boycotts now?”
– Michelle Malkin, Branding the Tucson massacre: “Together We Thrive” in white and blue
“Do you truly desire a more civil tone to our energetic discourse? If so, you must honestly confront what you’ve seen this week: a carefully designed and packaged narrative, whose goal was to silence conservatives by smearing them as accomplices to murder. The people responsible for producing and sustaining that narrative are hatemongers – there is no more appropriate word – and they are liberals. They had a hundred chances to back off, and they did not. They deliberate injected one of the most divisive toxins ever formulated into our national bloodstream.”
– John Hayward, The Great Disqualification – A week of media malpractice comes to an unhappy end.
“Let us hope that Dean is the last gasp of the generation of liberals whose default position in any argument is to indict opponents as racists. This McCarthyism of the left – devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data – is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.”
– George Will, The charlatans’ response to the Tucson tragedy
“They will not be running in 2012 against a cookie-cutter liberal. For while Sen. Obama may have compiled a voting record to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders’, this, recall, is a fellow who voted ‘present’ over 100 times on controversial issues in the Illinois Senate.
This is no true believer. This is a survivor. This is a fellow with an almost Nixonian capacity for maneuver.”
– Patrick J. Buchanan, Is Obama Leaving the Left Behind?
“Our country would be better served if, instead of accusing each other of moral culpability for these crimes, politicians and media joined to demand that Loughner be denied the fame (or infamy) he sought, and that he receive the same swift justice as Giuseppe Zangara.”
– Patrick J. Buchanan, Poisonous Politics
“This line of argument is itself an attack on democratic discourse, and it is amazing that it even needs to be rebutted. Taking such an argument seriously will only encourage more crazy people to believe they can trigger a national soul-searching if they shoot at a political target. We should denounce the murders and the murderer, rather than doing him the honor of suggesting that his violence flows in any explainable fashion from democratic debate.”
– Wall Street Journal Editorial, Murder in Tucson – Jared Loughner’s sickness is not the product of politics.
She came into the world on 9/11 and then at nine years old she leaves it all on this terrible day.
But we wouldn’t take it back – any of the nine years we had with her.
It was all worth it.
…[W]e still believe in this country.
– John Green, father of nine-year-old Christina-Taylor who was born on September 11th, 2001, and was murdered on January 8th, 2011.
The plague of constantly “unexpected” bad economic news coming out seemingly every other week for the past two years and catching supposed economic “experts” completely by surprise seems to have metastasized into a different field—that of psychology. (Imagine those in “hard sciences”, such as physics, chemistry, engineering, etc., got things so completely wrong so consistently as their peers in the “soft sciences”—economics, sociology, psychology, etc. Reminds me of [personal hero] Dr. Alan Sokal, physics professor at NYU, and his 1996 paper entitled “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”. Ah, good times…)
Headline from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41022931/ns/health-behavior/
Young people crave self-esteem more than sex
Researchers surprised that college students prefer compliments over other pleasures
So, after two generations of kids raised on “spirit awards” (“social justice!”), with the obsessive-compulsively, “fixing”-what-ain’t-broke progressives in society seeking to eliminate all notions of competition and the resulting “anachronisms” like success (“greed!”) and failure (“mean!”), and focusing solely on boosting kids’ self-esteem (“because, unlike conservatives, we
care!“), researchers are surprised to find that these kids are obsessed with…self-esteem?
Yes…shocking. Who on earth would have seen that coming?
And, of course, let’s not forget why self-esteem was stressed by progressives as the cure-all for society’s ills…because, we were promised, our superiorly brilliant, compassionate, caring progressives would finally solve that seemingly intractable problem of low aptitude, low academic success, low employment, and ridiculously high crime rates of black “youth”!
So…how’d that all work out?
For the heck of it, here are some quotes to add a little color to yet another liberal/progressive/leftist Utopian scheme and its attendant unanticipated—and typically horrendous—consequences…
“Bushman added that there is a fine line between self-esteem and narcissism. Over the top self-esteem becomes narcissism.”
– Brad Bushman, Professor of Communication and Psychology, Ohio State University
“Every society reproduces its culture — its norms, its underlying assumptions, its modes of organizing experience — in the individual, in the form of personality.
To live for the moment is the prevailing passion — to live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity.
The narcissist divides society into two groups: the rich, great, and famous on the one hand and the common herd on the other. Narcissistic patients, according to Kernburg, ‘are afraid of not belonging to the company of the great, rich, and powerful, and of belonging instead to the ”mediocre”, by which they mean the worthless and despicable rather than ”average” in the ordinary sense of the term.’ They worship heroes only to turn against them when their heroes disappoint them.”
– Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations
“How can this be a surprise? Raising children used to be about teaching them to be independent. We wanted children to grow up confident because they knew they could achieve. Within the past generation or two, it became all about raising their self esteem. It makes absolutely no sense to criticize the younger generation for learning the lesson we’ve been teaching them.”
– There Goes The Neighborhood, Commenter at Hot Air
“The interdependence between celebrities and the media is a dangerous bargain. The more a celebrity attracts the attention of the media, the more famous he or she becomes. The more dysfunctionally the celebrity behaves, the more interest he or she generates from the tabloids. The more the audience finds out, the more we want to know. And the cost of it all – to the vulnerable celebrities on one side of the mirror, and the impressionable viewers on the other – is impossible to estimate.”
– Dr. Drew Pinsky, The Mirror Effect: How Celebrity Narcissism Is Seducing America
“Criminologists distinguish between serial killers like Bundy, whose crimes occur one at a time and who try hard to avoid capture, and mass killers like Cho. But the central role of narcissism plainly connects them. Only a narcissist could decide that his alienation should be underlined in the blood of strangers.
There’s a telling moment in Michael Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine, in which singer Marilyn Manson dismisses the idea that listening to his lyrics contributed to the disintegration of Harris and Klebold. What the Columbine killers needed, Manson suggests, was for someone to listen to them. This is the narcissist’s view of narcissism: everything would be fine if only he received more attention. The real problem can be found in the killer’s mirror.”
– David von Drehle, “It’s All About Him“, Time Magazine
“Might our various safety net programs, such as welfare and food stamps, serve to infantilize their recipients, breeding a sense of entitlement, followed by narcissism, followed by a descent into crime? The ‘Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act’ did not happen in a vacuum, of course. And it should be common sense that giving people other people’s money for not doing anything is going to create problems. And studies have borne this out, such as the research done by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill of Baruch College in their work ‘Underclass Behaviors in the United States: Measurement and Analysis of Determinants,’ which found a 117% increase in crime corresponding to a 50% increase in AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children)/Food Stamps.”
– Arma Virumque, “More on ‘The Tipping Point’: Broken Windows (& a Little Heresy)”
“As even the rich lose the sense of place and historical continuity, the subjective feeling of ‘entitlement’, which takes inherited advantages for granted, gives way to what clinicians call ‘narcissistic entitlement’ — grandiose illusions, inner emptiness.”
– Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations
“Gimme more self esteem Big Government, or I’m gonna burn it down.
I think we’ve found the Loughner’s political ideology.”
– Saltysam, Commenter on HotAir