Campus Reform has this article on a college writing professor who believes that grading based on quality is racist. So the professor is holding seminars with themes such as “Grading Ain’t Just Grading: Rethinking Writing Assessment Ecologies Towards Antiracist Ends.” (“Ecologies”?) And he wants to “dispense almost completely with judgments of quality when producing course grades.”
Then what’s the point of any grades? What’s the point of tests or term papers? They’re all racist! (And therefore, what’s the point of college, after all?!)
So this is typical of what I’ve been reading about that’s going on all across Amerika, in which the youngins are really being brainwashed from their earliest years to think that everything is racist, and that if some people achieve more or with better accomplishments (i.e. getting better grades based on better use of grammar and a better ability to communicate ideas, facts and study topics, and then their advancing more in society and earning more money, etc., etc.), therefore they are racists.
Well, I’m sure these dumb, irrational college professors are proud of themselves. Look who we have now in Washington as Rulers (and I need not name them here — you know who I’m talking about).
You’ve probably heard about the viral video of the MAGA-hat-wearing Catholic school students supposedly taunting a Native American person at an event in Washington. The media, celebrities and social media were all condemning of the students, and their own school administrators also condemned them.
But it turned out, thanks to the posting of the full almost 2-hour video of the whole thing, that it was other people there who were taunting the students. The students had not done anything wrong. In fact, given that they in fact were the real targets of racist remarks and threats, they handled themselves well.
Tom Woods, who details the entire episode on his blog (so you don’t have to watch the video for nearly two hours), suggests that any parent whose kids find themselves in such a situation should get a lawyer, etc. I totally agree.
But we have the mainstream media who merely repeat propaganda based on a brief video excerpt and make accusations without any checking, without any further investigating.
Besides this episode and the viral nature of false accusations against and smearing of students merely wearing “MAGA” hats, more recently also was the BuzzFeed false accusation of Donald Trump allegedly directing Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.
Apparently the Mueller people publicly disputed BuzzFeed’s claim. But the media were all over the story, without any verification whatsoever.
And of course the recent New York Times story on the FBI’s viewing Trump as a “national security threat,” with the news media and social media eating all that up as well.
In the Times article, as Glenn Greenwald points out, it wasn’t until the ninth paragraph that it states, “No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.”
“No evidence has emerged…”! Hmmm.
But apparently we can’t expect the news media to read that far into an article, so it seems. We really need alternative media now, for “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”
And regarding the Russia-collusions story and the Mueller investigation, I have tried to get the whole story out there, or, the story behind the story, as Larry Glick used to say.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.