Skip to content

Category: Political correctness

On Questioning the Official 9/11 Narrative

One reason why many people dismiss skeptics of the official 9/11 narrative is because many people get their news mostly from mainstream news media, who mostly repeat what government officials tell them, i.e. the news media act as stenographers for the rulers.

Most people tend to not look into these matters further. If the Congress had a commission and “investigated” 9/11, then their conclusions are good enough for me, most people say. And then when others question or challenge the mainstream media and congressional committee’s conclusions, and even bring forth evidence which refutes such conclusions, then those challengers and skeptics are to be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” tinfoil hat wearers, and crackpots. That is the extent to which many people have obedient faith in their rulers and in government investigations of catastrophes that are mainly caused by government’s own actions especially abroad, and by government’s failures.

And that brings me to this extensive article by Elias Davidsson, in which he critiques a HuffPo article aiming to discredit a professor and others’ legitimate questioning of the official 9/11 narrative. The Davidsson article is quite extensive and gives quite a bit detailed information on the “investigation” following 9/11.

Davidsson is also the author of Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence. People with open minds should check these things out.

Muslim Refugee Acquitted of Rape Because of “Cultural” Differences

In France, a Muslim refugee was acquitted of rape of a girl based on a difference in “cultural norms,” according to WND. Now, I don’t like linking to an article involving the anti-Islam wacko Robert Spencer (not to be confused with the racist neo-Nazi wacko Richard Spencer, it’s a different “Spencer”). But no one should be acquitted of rape or any other crime of violence, when there is evidence of proof against the accused. No excuses. If you are someone who doesn’t understand that people have a right to not be raped and that it is immoral and criminal to do that, then tough noogies, in my view. Perhaps a good way for girls and women to protect themselves from rape or any violent assault is to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. This is exactly why women are the ones who should be encouraged to be armed, as they are more vulnerable than males.

Some More Articles

Walter Block clarifies the non-aggression principle (NAP) regarding “disparaging somebody” based on skin color, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.

Robert Wenzel asks, Can ideas be blocked? regarding the Google/thought police crowd.

Jeff Deist interviews Lew Rockwell (both of the Mises Institute) on Rockwell’s life’s work. A transcript. If a video is made available, I would like to post it. (Good discussion, although Lew Rockwell stated that he is glad that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Bureaucrats. Hmm. Who can figure that one out? Oh, well.)

Laurence Vance on what the Republicans could have done while they still had both houses of Congress.

And Shlomo Sand discusses the twisted logic of the Jewish “historic right” to Israel.

The Victimhood Culture

Wendy McElroy writes about the modern “victimhood” culture. The #MeToo movement now says Believe All Women — who accuse men of sexual harassment or assault.

But what about those who are falsely accusing a male of something? For example, the Duke lacrosse case. For example, the university of Virginia case, involving the Rolling Stone reporter. Another example, Tawana Brawley. And those are very high profile cases that we know about. There are many others that have occurred that were not as highly publicized.

And was there the possibility that some of Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers were just making it all up? Should we believe Dr. Ford, even though she seemed quite unbelievable?

Is there ever any justice for those who have been the victims of false accusation? What about the McMartins from the McMartin preschool case? That was quite a fiasco. And what about the Fells Acres Day Care case? It was the prosecutors who were guilty of child abuse, in my view, not the accused teachers.

What about “presumption of innocence”? What if some of the loud women activists are themselves one day falsely accused?

People who are proven to be false accusers, including prosecutors who knowingly withhold evidence that would exonerate the accused, should be convicted of such false accusation, and be given even stricter sentences than what the falsely accused victim would have been sentenced to if convicted.

Another aspect of the victimhood culture that Wendy McElroy writes about is that of group identity, in which if someone is a member of a particular racial group then one is already guilty of … something … and if one is a member of another designated racial group then one is a presumed victim. It doesn’t seem to matter what anyone actually does or says, but what someone’s skin color is, or what someone’s sex or ethnic background is, is what matters. So, in my view, the people advocating for this kind of group identity victimhood are the real racists and sexists.

The Brainwashed College Punk-Snowflakes

Walter Williams on college indoctrination. The youngins are basically against free speech, except for themselves. They are fragile “snowflakes” yet they are punks at the same time. Many of them shout down speakers they don’t like, and believe that actual physical violence against ideological opponents is acceptable. So, “freedom of speech for me but not for thee” narcissists is what many of the kids are now, along with many of their professors. And the colleges are turning them into stasi by encouraging them to turn someone in to college administration officials or even police for “hate speech,” i.e. dissenting points of views.

Merely Unhinged? Nope. Literally CRAZY? Yup.

The conservatives and nationalists are bad enough, with their anti-immigration and anti-free market ignorance and idiocy, and their mystical “American Exceptionalism” religion. But the people on the left are beyond “unhinged.” Many of the people on the left are literally crazy people now. It’s not just “irrational” and “hysterical,” but demented, deranged, loony-tunes.

Paul Craig Roberts says that the “presstitutes” have abandoned journalism for political activism. But that’s nothing new. Way back in 2009, I wrote, “today’s journalism schools are no longer teaching the students and future news writers and editors and anchors, reporters and producers to seek answers to who, what, why, when, where and how. Now, a career in journalism means being an activist, and a do-gooder. Use your role as a reporter to show what a good thing it is to have everything done by the government, and smear and crush anyone who criticizes that agenda.”

As Roberts made reference to, the “liberal” media are actually getting their fans and fellow Trump-haters to protest the firing of attorney general Jeff Sessions! Rachel Maddcow is leading the charge. They are organizing protests all over the country to defend the racist, fascist drug warrior Sessions, the anti-immigration police statist Sessions, and the thieving corrupt “civil asset forfeiture” crook Jeff Sessions! And they’re doing all this because they HATE Donald Trump! So, they’re beyond “unhinged,” “irrational” and “hysterical” now, these people are just plain NUTS! They are literally crazy people.

At least the anti-immigration idiots on the other side are just ignorant, but not particularly crazy. But the people on the left? And this is thanks in large part to their dumb teachers in the public schools, a.k.a. government schools, and their college professors who, without government tax-thefts and government hand-outs to the colleges, would not be working at colleges and universities. Can you image if the schools and higher education were all run on the free market? We would not have the beyond stupidity we have now. We have a society of psychologically unstable people, thanks to government-controlled education.

The schools and universities are literally brainwashing the young with utter nonsense, made-up mythologies and fanatical dogmas, such as “transgender” in which if someone who is a male but thinks he’s a female is a female and others must be compelled to agree with it. And now someone who is age 69 wants to be legally viewed as 49 because that’s how old he feels.

And the youngins are being brainwashed to obediently follow the acceptable, politically correct ideologies of race-obsession, gender-obsession, sexual perversions and the necessity of intolerance and silencing those who are not on the race-obsessed, gender-obsessed, sexual perversions bandwagon.

Not just intolerance, but the young now seem to be trained to act violently against others. On the college campuses these same people are silencing and shouting down and in some cases physically assaulting those with whom they disagree.

The antifa-like mob who charged Tucker Carlson’s home this week are another example of the craziness. Not only do they want Carlson and other conservatives censored, as has already been the case via Twitter, Facebook and Google, but the deranged lunatics are going to the victims’ homes, harassing their spouses and children, posting their addresses online, and those of the victims’ siblings as well.

As Thomas DiLorenzo wrote on LRC blog,

This of course is just the latest episode in the Bolshevik Left’s attack on free speech, taking their cue from the late German Marxist Herbert Marcuse (a “celebrated” academic after coming to America, naturally), who popularized the notion in commie/Leftist circles back in the ’60s that only “the oppressed” (i.e., fellow Marxists) deserve tolerance and free speech, and “the oppressors” (people like the evil Tucker Carlson, or Yours Truly) do not.

The tactic of appearing at peoples’ homes to terrorize their families is right out of the Obama “community organizing” handbook, inspired by Obama/Hillary Clinton idol and inspiration Saul Alinsky and originally used by the union goon movement, but now part and parcel of Democrat Party strategy in general.

So, going to people’s homes. Carlson’s wife was there and called 911. One of the deranged mobsters was actually attempting to ram the front door and did cause it to crack. Do you think that if “protesters” go to someone’s home and criminally threaten the people inside with an attempted break-in that maybe the ones inside should assume that their lives are really in danger, and should shoot at the marauding invaders? It may have to come to that.

George Wallace was of a similar mentality to those anti-freedom mobs, but in some ways Wallace had the “fighting back” attitude backwards. Wallace said, “when we get to be the president and some anarchist lies down in front of our car, it will be the last car he’ll ever lie down in front of,” and he probably was serious. Except he was the thug who was being protested. He wasn’t someone who just spoke his ignorant mind (like Carlson), but was a public official who wanted to impose his anti-freedom ideas onto others. In those times, protesters really were protesting government thuggery.

George Wallace actually was a “racist.” As governor and Presidential candidate he wanted to have a governmentally-imposed segregated society, at the expense of private property and freedom of association, and including not allowing black students to enroll in public, taxpayer-funded schools and universities. But in the 1960s and ’70s did the protesters go to George Wallace’s home and try to break into his front door? Nope. Although he was shot and paralyzed by a wacko loony-tunes, not particularly by someone who expressed opinions about racism or politics.

But now, the “anti-racists” are just brainwashed with race-obsession ideology. Their protests are now irrational and fanatical. They are going to the home of a TV news host and threatening violence? He’s not even a government official.

And while “protesters” accuse Tucker Carlson of being a “Nazi,” a “racist” and a “hater,” he is the one who actually has political opponents, minorities and controversial figures on his TV show and interviews them to hear what they have to say. But the fanatical crazies on the left only want to SILENCE! their opponents. (Who’s the real “Nazi” now, hmmm?)

And many of these crazy, unhinged hysterical fanatics really believe that Donald Trump is also a “racist,” and a “Nazi,” because they don’t even know what those words really mean, or what Donald Trump’s actual views are, because they don’t read, or pay attention to the news. They are just hysterical.

The hysterical loony-tunes don’t know that Trump supports transgender bathroom laws, affirmative action laws, and favors single payer healthcare and “taxing the rich”  because he himself is an ignoramus just as they are. And you would think that these people on the left would support Trump and his love of eminent domain (government theft of private property), given how much they love the government being empowered to steal private property from others. But I digress.

Anyway, so these people on the left are not only very ignorant and irrational now, but also very dangerous and threatening. They do not seem to understand that their right to free speech (but not violence) is protected, but they also have to respect other people’s right to free speech.

Violence should never be tolerated. Can you imagine all the marches and protests that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had during the 1960s, if all those people went to the homes of “racists” (who actually were racists at the time, like George Wallace) and threatened them, such as the politicians who were passing Jim Crow-type of laws, and so on?

But now with so many of the young people being trained to act hysterically and violently by irrational high school teachers, college professors, news media activists and social justice warriors, they go after TV news people like Tucker Carlson, but they don’t criticize or protest the CIA, Pentacon, the DEA and IRS (i.e. actual criminals working within government violence), and they are protesting the firing of Jeff Sessions, the very racist government thug they should WANT to be fired! Nutsos!

Why the “Civil Rights” Act Should Not Apply to Private Property

In my unusually long recent post on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice,” I included some comments on the LGBT “civil rights” issues, such as the bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and the transgender bathroom intrusions. And even though that post was a follow-up on an earlier post, I now have this follow-up on the “enslavements of socialism and social justice” post.

Regarding the Christian bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, I wrote that because the business is privately owned the owners have a right to serve or to not serve prospective customers. That’s a part of property rights. And I wrote that the couple being refused service taking the bakers to court and suing them can be considered an enslavement of the bakers, because the prospective customer is using force or coercion to make the businessperson provide something involuntarily. Some people react to my writing that in a negative way, but the actual truth about some things does bother some people.

People have a right that’s a part of property rights to associate with or do business with anyone they want to, as long as it’s voluntary. No coercion is allowed in a civilized society, because using force or coercion against someone is … uncivilized. Laurence Vance explains it all very well in this article and this article. All people, private citizens or businesspeople, have a right to discriminate for or against anyone else, for any reason they have, based on ignorance, prejudice, race, gender, political views, any reason whatsoever. It’s not just to do with freedom of association and property rights, but freedom of thought and conscience as well.

No one has a “civil right” to be served by someone else. No one has a “civil right” to access private property. There are no such “rights.”

Which brings me to the “Civil Rights” Act of 1964, which repealed and prohibited government laws segregating people by race (“Jim Crow” laws), and outlawed government-imposed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That anti-discrimination law applied to all government-run operations such as the schools, parks, city buses and subways, and so on.

In my view, as long as we have a “publicly-owned” government ruling over all of us, then of course that government (or those governments, in the case of city and state governments), its bureaucrats and enforcers may not discriminate against any citizen based on those kinds of subjective, arbitrary factors. A “publicly-owned” government belongs to the public, which consists of everyone in the public. It does not belong to the bureaucrats in charge or their goon enforcers. So of course this Act should have outlawed such discrimination.

But the Act also outlawed discrimination on privately-owned premises such as restaurants, hotels, cafeterias, movie theaters, concert halls, etc. that were referred to as “public accommodations,” but are nevertheless privately owned and exist mostly on private property. The “Civil Rights” Act of 1964 and subsequent Amendments should NOT have applied to ANY privately owned business, function, place of worship, and other facility that is not owned by the government.

The social activists have eviscerated private property and private property rights, which are the last vestige of a free society and civilization. The social activists began their crusade against private property with the whole progressive movement. In the 19th Century with their intrusions into education by getting local governments to usurp the function of educating children away from parents and neighborhoods, imposed mandates, compulsory attendance laws. They continued with getting local or state governments involved in marriage, in which prior to those times the idea of a government-mandated marriage license would have been seen as absurd.

The social activists then imposed the income tax. Your earnings are no longer “yours,” but from then onward your earnings first belong to the gubmint who will then allow you to have whatever the bureaucrats determine you are allowed to have. Slave.

FDR imposed further intrusions, usurpations, wealth tax-thefts with all the New Deal, “Social Security,” and then LBJ with Medicare and Medicaid, and the aforementioned “Civil Rights” Act.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the institutionalized envy which is what socialism is all about. Some people are making use of their talents and abilities and making a living independently, or are successful with a large company, and the envious don’t like that. There seems to have been this impulse to use the armed force of government to take away from people who are successful. And if that’s not enough, use the armed force of government to intrude into their businesses and property.

Anyway, now that sexual orientation and gender identity have been added to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin among the list of aspects we may not discriminate against, we now have gay and lesbian couples intentionally suing private businesspeople not for those plaintiffs to get their just service that they demand from the businesses (even though most of the plaintiffs were nevertheless able to find someone else to bake their cakes or photograph their weddings), but to exact revenge on their victims who didn’t want to associate with them or do business with them. And who do not accept their particular lifestyles. Narcissists, as I was writing in that earlier post.

Could the people concerned about being discriminated against based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, have foreseen that sexual orientation or gender identity would be added to the list? I think not, because why didn’t they include them at that time? And why stop at sexual orientation and gender identity? I’m sure that, given how the social activism movement on the left has become militant in their attempts to push their non-conforming, odd or deviant lifestyles down the throats of others, they will get legislators to add “lifestyle” or some similar word to “race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity,” and so on.

Recent laws also affect private therapists or counselors who are forbidden by law to even discuss “conversion therapy” with gender confused clients who actually want to try to become accepting of their actual gender. So freedom of speech is now being affected by these “civil rights” laws. So is the idea of common decency.

Private properties and businesses who are forbidden to discriminate were initially hotels, restaurants, i.e. actual “public accommodations,” that now include small businesses such as bakeries, florists or photographers, and practitioners such as psychotherapists and other doctors are now affected. Even churches are included. “Houses of worship” are in the list of “public accommodations.” Did people in 1964 see ahead as to where that would all lead to?

But where is all this leading to? If small businesses, a professional’s private practice or “houses of worship” are considered “public accommodations,” then how far away from actual public accommodations such as hotels will the social activists use their new legal powers to impose onto others? Will it eventually include people’s homes?

Remember, there is a difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” “Civil rights” laws should repeal any and all government laws or policies in which the government is discriminating against people. But not private citizens, whether their discrimination is in their personal lives or their economic lives.

But now with “civil rights,” the social activists have proclaimed a “civil right” to access someone else’s private property and a “civil right” to demand to be served by someone else, involuntarily. So with this bunch of stuff, actual civil liberties have been eviscerated as well as private property rights and common decency.

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?