Skip to content

Category: Political correctness

Elizabeth Warren Has an Independent Challenger: A “Real Indian”

Besides dingbat Elizabeth Warren running for reelection now, there are two other candidates. The Republican is Geoff Diehl, a droolingly anti-immigration, anti-foreigner Trump supporter. Diehl was the Massachusetts chairman for the Trump for President campaign in 2016. But despite his ignorance on immigration, Diehl has been good on taxes, having headed the successful campaign to repeal the gas tax increase that would have been indexed to inflation (but not to deflation!).

But there is an Independent candidate also challenging Pocahontas, Shiva Ayyadurai, who, as far as I have read up to now, actually agrees with Trump and Diehl on the immigration issue, and probably other issues. Ayyadurai is a former Republican who re-registered as an Independent so he could run against Warren and Diehl.

But I think voters in Massachusetts who hate Elizabeth Warren should consider voting for Ayyadurai, because he has the kind of “I don’t care who I offend” attitude in his calling people “racist” and other words targeting those who might disagree with him. He is definitely politically incorrect. And wouldn’t we rather have someone who isn’t afraid of being politically incorrect, rather than the usual mealy-mouthed statist Democretins and Republicrats? He may actually be a dark-skinned version of Donald Trump, if you can imagine that. (I know, that’s politically incorrect, but whatever.)

For instance, Ayyadurai has a campaign bus that has a big poster along the side, stating, “Only a REAL INDIAN Can Defeat the Fake Indian.” The City of Cambridge told him to remove the sign, and he sued the city and took it to court, and he won.

Photo from Shiva for Senate website

Now, in an article today the Boston Globe writes:

Ayyadurai calls Senator Elizabeth Warren a “Fake Indian,” a reference to her controversial claims of Native American heritage. He’s called her a “Racist Demonic Fake Indian.” A “fascist.” A “scumbag” “lawyer-lobbyist.” Geoff Diehl, who won the Republican primary for the race, is a “Fake Trumper,” “Dirty Diehl,” and “a moron.”

His preferred epithet for just about everyone who disagrees with him is “racist.” Warren’s supporters are racist. She is racist, he says, at least in part because — he claims — she said she was Native American to get ahead in her career…

The Republican Party is racist because it “is still so insular that it can’t accept a dark-skinned, independent-minded, accomplished MIT PhD, who started seven successful companies in Massachusetts,” Ayyadurai, who first declared his intention to run for the GOP nomination last year, wrote on his campaign website before switching to run as an independent.

This reporter, The Boston Globe, and the media more broadly are racist for not paying much attention to his candidacy. (Three recent polls showed Ayyadurai with support in the single digits.)

Well, Globe, could his polling numbers be so low because Establishment-biased mainstream media outlets won’t cover his campaign? Ya think? And look at the comments on the article, too. The statists for Warren and Diehl are out there. They don’t seem to get the big picture.

The Globe also notes:

In late May, he freely tossed around the n-word during a podcast that was hosted by someone that People for the American Way, a liberal group, describes as an “open white nationalist.” Ayyadurai was discussing a tweet he sent a few weeks earlier declaring that “we’re all [n-word] on the White Liberal Deep State Reservation! Only when we break free and be Independent of both Establishment parties, are we truly free.”

The Globe article linked to this article on Rightwingwatch.org, in which Ayyadurai elaborated his tweet in context.

(WARNING to snowflakes: The “n-word” is spelled out in the following quote of Ayyadurai only because it’s a QUOTE of someone using that word. Just to be clear. I hope the SPLC censors understand that. I shouldn’t have to even write this disclaimer, it’s so ridiculous!)

So here is Ayyadurai’s explanation of his twitter argument:

“Someone called me a curry nigger, OK? And I’m going to use that word. Let me tell you why I think he said, ‘This guy is a sellout curry Indian nigger.’ So, I tweeted back, ‘We’re all niggers on the white liberal deep state reservation,” he said.

“You see, what the white liberals have done is they have drawn a very nice bounded box of what is racism. So if you use the word ‘nigger’ or if you change the name so you don’t use that word, and if you change the names of things, suddenly you’ve solved racism. You see what I’m saying? And the truth is we’re all niggers on the white liberal deep state reservation,” Ayyadurai said.

He continued, “And that word, we should all embrace and use. And this is why I think we should embrace it, because it goes at the true heart of racism. Racism is not ceremonial things of stopping using words, changing names, it’s addressing the fundamental economic issues, which is we’re all on a plantation of white liberalism, of neo-liberalism, and the epicenter of that is Harvard University.”

In July Ayyadurai was taunting a bunch of Elizabeth Warren fans waiting in line to see one of her events, with a megaphone. He was calling them “racist,” and saying “racist, racist, racist” repeatedly directed at one of them who was wearing a shirt that apparently read, “Liberal” on the front. The good “liberal” pushed the megaphone into Ayyadurai’s face and the “liberal” was arrested for assault.

I guess the “liberal” learned that violence is the way to handle disagreements, as Rand Paul’s deranged neighbor believes, as well as the murderous psychopath who shot at the baseball-playing congressmen and severely injured Rep. Steve Scalise.

Here is Ayyadurai’s video of the incident.

Even if Ayyadurai’s teasing of the “liberal” could have been considered “fightin’ words” and a provocation, I see it more as just teasing, albeit in an obnoxious, amplified way with the megaphone.

But the 74-year-old angry “liberal” received “nine months’ probation and a 10-week anger management course for the assault and battery charge, and a $150 maximum fine and 60 days’ probation for a disorderly conduct charge,” according to the Berkshire Eagle.

Included in his Victim Impact Statement, Ayyadurai wrote,

As someone who loves this country & is running for US SENATE as an Independent candidate, I do not believe VIOLENCE is the answer.

Discourse, speaking to one another, free speech, non-violent civil disobedience & protest, what I learned from Gandhi, the great non-violent leader, who MLK emulated himself after, is what leads to truth and real understanding. This is particularly important for us to be reminded of, yesterday Aug. 15 your honor, was the anniversary of Indian Independence Day.

Violence individually as occurred to me on July 22 or as in Charlottesville a year ago is NOT the answer.

We need discourse & free speech to discuss important issues such as RACE & RACISM, as Americans. For far too in long America, those claiming to fight racism, liberal or otherwise, have monopolized that discourse and have no right to use violence to suppress opposing views.

Yes, freedom of speech is important. But Ayyadurai is not totally consistent on the free speech issue, given that he has sued quite a few people for libel and defamation. Whatever.

And Ayyadurai has sued the University of Massachusetts who is sponsoring debates between Elizabeth Warren and Geoff Diehl that exclude Ayyadurai. On his campaign website, Ayyadurai notes that Independent Massachusetts candidates were allowed to participate in debates in 2010 and 2014. We will see if the court views tax-funded universities who are sponsoring election debates as obligated to include ALL candidates on the ballot in their debates.

Loyola University Professor Walter Block Boycotted by Hysterical Snowflakes

Target Liberty informs us that Loyola University, New Orleans economics professor Walter Block is being boycotted by students, based on their erroneous view that he is “racist” and “sexist,” and based on his being smeared by the New York Times as “pro-slavery.” Walter Block is really anti-slavery, because he is against involuntary labor.

And Dr. Block responds to those hysterical students in this article, responding to their accusation of being “pro-slavery”:

What about slavery? My reputation in this regard is based on an interview with the New York Times. I was trying to explain libertarianism to them. I emphasized that voluntarism was crucially important to the NAP. Rape and ordinary sexual intercourse may look alike, but one is voluntary, the other is not. The same with a punch in the nose. It is legitimate in the boxing ring since both parties consented, but not otherwise. It is the same with slavery. If someone (an adult) assents to it, slavery is legitimate. Actual slavery, of course, was not voluntary, since the victim did not agree to any such thing. It was therefore evil and pernicious. Why might a person volunteer to become a slave? One possibility, extreme masochism (don’t knock this; our Jesuit tradition recommends toleration). Another, to save his child’s life. My son, God forbid, has an illness the cure of which would cost $5 million. I’m poor. If someone offers me that amount of money to become his slave, I’d willingly sell myself to him, since I value my son’s life more than my own freedom.

And in response to the students who want to boycott Walter Block and his classes at Loyola University, Robert Wenzel at the aforementioned Target Liberty writes:

The students boycotting Dr. Block will never do anything impressive on the intellectual front. They will be moved by the intellectual fads of the day. They will be anti-plastic straw today, and who knows, maybe pro-butt tattoos tomorrow. They are in an important way insignificant. The student that takes Dr, Block’s class to challenge him or learn from him is taking the first step toward deep thought, independent thought and maybe original thought. This will be the type of person that may make an intellectual contribution down the road.

Walter Block is considered by some to be a radical libertarian. He believes in the non-aggression principle. So, he’s not really radical. In my view, violence is radical. I’m sure that those who actually do have an open mind will check out some of Walter Block’s publications, which include these:

Defending the Undefendable

The Case for Discrimination

Building Blocks for Liberty

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

Elizabeth Warren’s Unwarranted Wage

Labor Relations, Unions and Collective Bargaining: A Political Economic Analysis

Is There a Human Right to Medical Insurance?

Defending the Undefendable II

Other Walter Block Publications

More recently, on the LewRockwell.com blog David Gordon of the Mises Institute congratulates Walter Block on his 100th peer-reviewed journal article he has co-authored with students (not including all the ones he has done alone or with other authors). And Tom Woods does a podcast with Dr. Block on his recent milestone, and lists those 100 papers.

The Modern Irrational “Women’s Rights” Movement That Has Nothing to Do with Women’s Rights

And everything to do with seizing control over the lives of others, and silencing and tormenting innocent people.

Paul Craig Roberts has a column about the modern irrational feminist movement, that goes against common sense and decency. The grammatically correct use of the word “rape” has caused a football coach to be disciplined, while a female college professor wants all males to be tortured and killed but her “freedom of speech” is protected by her university’s diversity commissars. And Roberts gets into the phenomenon of false accusation in Amerika now, and refers to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

I have written quite a bit about all this irrationality and injustice being inflicted by “social justice (sic) warriors” against innocent white people, males and white males. It is especially the hysterical feminazis that are very worrisome. So Roberts’s column reminded me of some of my own past pieces on these subjects.

For instance, in ‘Libertarianism and Privilege,’ Harvard Hypocrites, and the Supreme Court, I wrote:

And just how valid is this “male privilege” stuff now anyway, given the anti-male discrimination, oppression and feminization of America, especially in the schools?

The female-dominated government schools have been banning dodge ball, omitting recess play time, and suspending or arresting little boys who draw pictures of a gun, as well as putting the kids on psychiatric drugs to repress their independence. By college the helicopter moms call their boys every night and argue with the professors over the boys’ grades.

And then there’s the college dorm and classroom “Two Minutes Hate” against males (and white people), the initiation ritual called “Tunnel of Oppression.” Here, the white students are indoctrinated to believe how privileged they are and what “racists” they are because they are white. And the male students are told about the “rape culture,” in which they inherently have the guilt of a rapist, simply because they are male.

Yes, this is the mentality today in what is considered “academics.” The more serious offenses perpetrated by these asinine academic activists include attempts to expel or convict young men of “rape” that actually isn’t rape according to the traditional legal definition, and in fact when, as libertarian feminists have noted, there is no such thing as a “rape culture” in the first place.

And in On the Neurotically Fragile Always-Offended Nudniks, I wrote:

On college campuses, conservative speakers are either shouted down or just banned from campus entirely. That’s nothing new, of course. But more recently, some college campuses are issuing letters urging “civility.” To them, unfortunately, being “civil” means being politically correct. Frankly, the new “civility” really is the stifling of diversity and free expression.

Some colleges are banning the utterances of certain words or phrases, such as the word “freshman” at Elon University. As the College Fix notes, the reason Elon is replacing the word “freshman” with “first year” is because, according to the university’s director of “Inclusive Community Well-Being,” the word “freshman” may imply a hierarchy and may refer to some students as younger and less experienced, and could cause the younger students to be targeted for sexual violence. (I am Not. Making. This. Up.)

So “freshman” implies the younger students, but that word’s replacement, “first year,” does not?

Apparently, if someone uses the word “rape” in such a nonchalant or insensitive manner, such an utterance trivializes that act of sexual violence, and for those who happened to have been victims they feel re-traumatized when hearing certain words and phrases. Such language “triggers” terrible, painful emotions and fear. This has been happening to non-victims as well. But many people are just neurotically over-sensitive now, in my view.

Just what is it with the thin-skinned people now that their merely hearing someone happening to say certain words or phrases — not directed at them, mind you, just happening to be spoken — causes someone to be re-traumatized? If that’s the case, then it is they who may need some further counseling to resolve some issues that they may have, rather than censoring, silencing and stifling someone else’s mere verbal expression, regardless how silly, immature or rude such an expression might be.

I’m sorry if I sound extremely insensitive here, but, seriously, we really have to pussyfoot around and censor ourselves verbally these days, just to protect the overly-sensitive feelings of someone whose fragile being may be harmed emotionally in some way.

In fact, that situation has become so absurd that a male college student, who happened to resemble a rape victim’s assailant, was actually banned from campus and prevented from getting to his classes, and so on. Need I add any further comment to that? (I think not.)

But I wonder how many people who have not been the victims of sexual assault are nevertheless joining in and saying that they, too, feel traumatized by others’ utterances of certain words or phrases? Or are the younger generations now being so indoctrinated to believe that they feel traumatized because that’s the “correct” or socially acceptable reaction that they should be having? Just asking.

And in A Society Perverted by Orwellian Newspeak, Hypersensitivity, and Lack of Clarity, I wrote:

And then there was the young lady who testified before a congressional panel on the issue of mandatory insurance coverage for contraception. That was to show the rest of the world that “feminism” now means women being dependent on others to subsidize their lifestyles rather than standing on their own two feet and budgeting their own priorities.

a recent survey asked 1,058 teens and young adults various questions under the subject of sexual violence, and, according to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the results showed that 10% of the youths admitted to committing an act of sexual violence, and 5% had “attempted or completed rape.”

However, as Prof. Volokh explained, because of the misleading wording and inaccurate definitions of “rape” and “sexual violence” in the survey,  “… 80% of the reported ‘rape[s]’ involved neither force nor the threat of force, and 59% involved only ‘guilt’ or ‘arguing and pressuring victim,’ with no use of force, threat of force, or even alcohol.”

So the results of this survey claiming that more teens are violent now are not examples of America’s decline, given the wildly exaggerated numbers. What is an example of America’s decline is the lack of communication and reading comprehension amongst the teens, and the survey researchers as well.

So there are two problems here, in my view: one, that more recent laws may be reflecting the confused public on what actual acts are and what they are not; and two, that as the culture and literacy have declined in America, so has the idea of personal responsibility. Innocent people may be getting arrested and in some cases convicted for “crimes” which aren’t crimes, and there are false “victims” who don’t want to take responsibility for their decisions or their inability to say “no.”

I want to know what is it with parents these days who are raising such irrational, dependent and irresponsible people? What happened in my generation, or has it really been a gradual thing over time? A century of progressivism has culminated in all this? Can it be reversed?