Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

WE DISSENT: The Claremont Independent speaks out against progressive fascism

original article: We Dissent
November 13, 2015 by The Claremont Independent Editorial Board

The student protests that have swept through Claremont McKenna College (CMC) over the past few days—and the ensuing fallout—have made us disappointed in many of those involved.

First, former Dean Mary Spellman. We are sorry that your career had to end this way, as the email in contention was a clear case of good intentions being overlooked because of poor phrasing. However, we are disappointed in you as well. We are disappointed that you allowed a group of angry students to bully you into resignation. We are disappointed that you taught Claremont students that reacting with emotion and anger will force the administration to act. We are disappointed that when two students chose to go on a hunger strike until you resigned, you didn’t simply say, “so what?” If they want to starve themselves, that’s fine—you don’t owe them your job. We are disappointed that you and President Chodosh put up with students yelling and swearing at you for an hour. You could have made this a productive dialogue, but instead you humored the students and allowed them to get caught up in the furor.

Above all, we are disappointed that you and President Chodosh weren’t brave enough to come to the defense of a student who wastold she was “derailing” because her opinions regarding racism didn’t align with those of the mob around her. Nor were you brave enough to point out that these protesters were perfectly happy to use this student to further their own agenda, but turned on her as soon as they realized she wasn’t supporting their narrative. These protesters were asking you to protect your students, but you didn’t even defend the one who needed to be protected right in front of you.

Second, President Chodosh. We were disappointed to see you idly stand by and watch students berate, curse at, and attack Dean Spellman for being a “racist.” For someone who preaches about “leadership” and “personal and social responsibility,” your actions are particularly disappointing. You let your colleague, someone who has been helping your administration for the past three years and the college for six years, be publicly mocked and humiliated. Why? Because you were afraid. You were afraid that students would also mock and humiliate you if you defended Dean Spellman, so you let her be thrown under the bus. You were so afraid that it only took you five minutes to flip-flop on their demand for a temporary “safe space” on campus. Your fear-driven action (or lack thereof) only further reinforced the fear among the student body to speak out against this movement. We needed your leadership more than ever this week, and you failed us miserably.

Third, ASCMC President Will Su. As the representative of CMC’s entire student body, we are disappointed in you for the manner in which you called for the resignation of junior class president Kris Brackmann and for so quickly caving in to the demands of a few students without consulting the student body as a whole. If you truly cared about representing all of CMC’s interests, you would have at the very least solicited opinions from outside of the movement and your Executive Board. You have shut down any room for debate among the student body with your full endorsement of this movement and its demands, failing to give concerned students an opportunity to speak. We are disappointed that you did not allow for any time for reflection before making your quick executive decisions to announce a student-wide endorsement of this movement and to grant these students a temporary “safe space” in the ASCMC offices.

To our fellow Claremont students, we are disappointed in you as well. We are ashamed of you for trying to end someone’s career over a poorly worded email. This is not a political statement––this is a person’s livelihood that you so carelessly sought to destroy. We are disappointed that you chose to scream and swear at your administrators. That is not how adults solve problems, and your behavior reflects poorly on all of us here in Claremont. This is not who we are and this is not how we conduct ourselves, but this is the image of us that has now reached the national stage.

We are disappointed in your demands. If you want to take a class in “ethnic, racial, and sexuality theory,” feel free to take one, but don’t force such an ideologically driven course on all CMC students. If the dearth of such courses at CMC bothers you, maybe you should have chosen a different school. If students chose to attend Caltech and then complained about the lack of literature classes, that’s on them. And though it wouldn’t hurt to have a more diverse faculty, the demand that CMC increase the number of minority faculty members either rests on the assumption that CMC has a history of discriminating against qualified professors of color, or, more realistically, it advocates for the hiring of less qualified faculty based simply on the fact that they belong to marginalized groups. A hiring practice of this sort would not benefit any CMC students, yourselves included.

We are disappointed in the fact that your movement has successfully managed to convince its members that anyone who dissents does so not for intelligent reasons, but due to moral failure or maliciousness. We are disappointed that you’ve used phrases like “silence is violence” to not only demonize those who oppose you, but all who are not actively supporting you. We are most disappointed, however, in the rhetoric surrounding “safe spaces.” College is the last place that should be a safe space. We come here to learn about views that differ from our own, and if we aren’t made to feel uncomfortable by these ideas, then perhaps we aren’t venturing far enough outside of our comfort zone. We would be doing ourselves a disservice to ignore viewpoints solely on the grounds that they may make us uncomfortable, and we would not be preparing ourselves to cope well with adversity in the future. Dealing with ideas that make us uncomfortable is an important part of growing as students and as people, and your ideas will inhibit opportunities for that growth.

We are adults, and we need to be mature enough to take ownership of and responsibility for our feelings, rather than demanding that those around us cater to our individual needs. The hypocrisy of advocating for “safe spaces” while creating an incredibly unsafe space for President Chodosh, former Dean Spellman, the student who was “derailing,” and the news media representatives who were verbally abused unfortunately seemed to soar over many of your heads.

Lastly, we are disappointed in students like ourselves, who were scared into silence. We are not racist for having different opinions. We are not immoral because we don’t buy the flawed rhetoric of a spiteful movement. We are not evil because we don’t want this movement to tear across our campuses completely unchecked.

We are no longer afraid to be voices of dissent.

bullies, bureaucracy, corruption, culture, education, extremism, free speech, freedom, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, power, progressive, public policy, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: bullies, bureaucracy, corruption, culture, education, extremism, free speech, freedom, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, power, progressive, public policy, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

A Truly Honest Leftist Says Our Incomes Are the “Rightful Property” of Government

original article: A Truly Honest Leftist Says Our Incomes Are the “Rightful Property” of Government
September 21, 2015 by Dan Mitchell

In a perverse way, I admire leftists who openly express their desire for bigger government and less liberty.

That’s why I (sort of) applauded when Matthew Yglesias wrote in favor of confiscatory tax rates while admitting the government wouldn’t generate any revenue.

And I gave Katrina vanden Heuvel credit for openly admitting her desire to redefine “freedom” so that it means a claim on other people’s income and property.

Both are proposing horrible policy, of course, but at least they’re honest about their goals and motivations. Unlike politicians, they’re not trying to disguise their intentions behind poll-tested platitudes.

We can now add another person to our list of honest leftists. The new leader of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, Jeremy Corbyn, is a British version of Bernie Sanders, except he really is a socialist who believes in government ownership and control of business. And the chief economic adviser to Corbyn is Richard Murphy.

And, as reported by the U.K.-based Sun, Mr. Murphy openly says everyone’s income belongs to government.

Chartered accountant Richard Murphy, 57, is the brains behind the “Corbynomics” strategy of renationalisation, higher taxes and printing millions of pounds in “new” money. …his bizarre ideas have already sparked fears among Britain’s top economic experts… One of Murphy’s strategies was revealed in August 2014… The dad-of-two claimed taxpayers’ money was NOT their own – and was instead the state’s “rightful property”. Murphy said: “I would suggest that we don’t as such pay taxes. The funds that they represent are, I suggest, in fact the property of the state.”

To be fair, sometimes people mangle their words. To cite one hypothetical example, accidentally omitting a  word like “not” might totally change the meaning of a sentence and give a journalist an opportunity to make a speaker look foolish.

So maybe Mr. Murphy didn’t really mean to say that the government has first claim on everyone’s income.

But if you continue reading, it becomes apparent that he really does believe that government is daddy and the rest of us are children who may be lucky enough to get some allowance.

“…if we give the state the power to define what we can own, how we can own it and, to a very large degree, what we can do with it – and we do – then I would argue that we also give the state the right to say that some part of what we earn or own is actually its rightful property and that we have no choice but pay that tax owed as the quid pro quo of the benefit we enjoy from living in community. Murphy went on: “Well let me inform you that there is no such thing as ‘taxpayers’ money’: it is the government’s money to do what it will with in accordance with the mandate it has been given and for which it will have to account.

Wow, this truly gives us a window into the soul of statism.

Though let’s be fair to Murphy. He’s simply stating that untrammeled majoritarianism is a moral basis for public policy, even if it means 51 percent of the population ravages 49 percent of the population. And that’s an accurate description of how economic policy works in the United States ever since the Supreme Court decided to toss out the Constitution’s limits on the power of the federal government.

Moreover, Murphy’s view is basically reflected inthe “tax expenditure” concept used in Washington and the “state aid” concept in the European Union.

None of this justifies Murphy’s poisonous ideology. Instead, I’m simply making the grim point that statists already have achieved some of their goals.

But maybe it will be easier to counter further attacks on economic liberty now that Murphy has openly said what his side wants.

P.S. There are two types of honest leftists. Richard Murphy, like Matt Yglesias and Katrina vanden Heuvel, are honest in that they openly state what they really believe, even when it exposes their radical agenda.

Some other folks on the left have a better type of honesty. They’re willing to admit when there is a contradiction between statist ideology and real-world results. Just look at what Justin Cronin and Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about gun control and whatNicholas Kristof wrote about government-created dependency.

bullies, communism, corruption, economics, elitism, extremism, government, greed, ideology, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, politics, power, progressive, socialism

Filed under: bullies, communism, corruption, economics, elitism, extremism, government, greed, ideology, left wing, liberalism, marxism, nanny state, politics, power, progressive, socialism

The Mirage of a Classless Society – shifting power is not the same as equalizing it

original article: The Mirage of a Classless Society
April 15, 2015 by SAMUEL GOLDMAN

Modern liberalism isn’t about challenging hierarchy; it’s about establishing rule by liberal meritocrats.

In a recent post, Paul Krugman reiterated his view that conservative critics of the welfare state are petty authoritarians. Citing Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind, Krugman explains:

It’s fundamentally about challenging or sustaining traditional hierarchy. The actual lineup of positions on social and economic issues doesn’t make sense if you assume that conservatives are, as they claim, defenders of personal liberty on all fronts. But it makes perfect sense if you suppose that conservatism is instead about preserving traditional forms of authority: employers over workers, patriarchs over families. A strong social safety net undermines the first, because it empowers workers to demand more or quit; permissive social policy undermines the second in obvious ways.

In contrast to conservatism, Krugman argues:

…modern liberalism is in some sense the obverse — it is about creating a society that is more fluid as well as fairer. We all like to laugh at the war-on-Christmas types, right-wing blowhards who fulminate about the liberal plot to destroy family values. We like to point out that a country like France, with maternity leave, aid to new mothers, and more, is a lot more family-friendly than rat-race America. But if “family values” actually means traditional structures of authority, then there’s a grain of truth in the accusation. Both social insurance and civil rights are solvents that dissolve some of the restraints that hold people in place, be they unhappy workers or unhappy spouses. And that’s part of why people like me support them.

I’ve written about Robin’s widely-misunderstood argument in the past. But Krugman’s post is a good opportunity to revisit and summarize my critique. In short, Robin is right that classic conservative theorists were defenders of  economic, social, and political hierarchy against modern liberation movements. But he misunderstands the basis of the position.

The conservative position has never been simply that a hierarchical society is better than an egalitarian one. It’s that an egalitarian society is impossible. Every society includes rulers and ruled. The central question of politics, therefore, is not whether some will command while others obey. It’s who gives the orders.

Radical leftists understand this. That’s why Lenin’s “who, whom?” question became an unofficial motto of Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks promised that a classless society would one day emerge. In the meantime, however, they were open and enthusiastic practitioners of power politics.

Modern liberals find this vision upsetting. So they pretend that their policies are about reducing inequality and promoting freedom rather than empowering some people at the expense of others. They associate inequality with wealth and freedom with liberation from religion and family. So they assume that a society in which rich people, churches, and fathers have less power is ipso facto freer and more equal.

Notice how Krugman’s hostility to these traditional hierarchies blinds him to other kinds of inequality. He praises France because social insurance and stronger protections for employees make it easier for mothers and workers to stand up to patriarchs and bosses. Do they really make France “fairer and more fluid”? In cultural terms, perhaps. But not politically or even economically.

The defining feature of French life is that the welfare and regulatory state Krugman admires is administered by graduates of elite educational institutions. These aristocrats of the universities and civil service are geographically concentrated in Paris and anecdotally quite “inbred.” France is not a class society in the Marxist sense. But it could be described with only minimal exaggeration as an ENAligarchy.

Krugman doesn’t see the énarques as a ruling class that need to be knocked down a peg because their authority isn’t traditional. They wield power over other people’s lives because they got good grades, not because they have a lot of money or are heads of households or leaders of religious communities. But academic meritocracyis not the same thing as a fluid and fairer society. It’s certainly no fairer that some people are lucky enough to be smart than that others are good at making a fortune.

And France is no star when it comes to economic mobility. According to a review of the literature by the economist Miles Corak, France joins the U.S. and the UK as the Western countries with the least intergenerational mobility. Krugman also doesn’t mention that France is a very good place to have a job, but not so hospitable to people looking for work. That’s especially a problem for young people who didn’t go to the best schools.

There are serious arguments in favor of rule by a highly-trained administrative class within a moderately redistributive capitalist economy. Those arguments were a crucial source of the modern liberalism that Krugman endorses, and have recently been reiterated by Frank Fukuyama. What modern liberals really want, however, isn’t freedom or equality—terms that have no meaning before it’s determined for what and by whom they will be enjoyed. As conservatives have long understood, it’s a society in which people like themselves and their favored constituencies have more power while the old elites of property, church, and family have less.

culture, ideology, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, power, progressive

Filed under: culture, ideology, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, power, progressive

What happened to feminism? Narrative trumps reality

original article: Joyce Trebilcot Award Nominee
April 7, 2015 by Robert Stacy McCain

Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig (@ebruenig) “grew up in Dallas in a predictably right-wing household, and as a high school kid, had some pretty right-wing ‘opinions’ of my own that I parroted from my folks”:

Then, I volunteered to teach Sunday school to kindergarteners at my church. I became very troubled by the notion that I might unintentionally mislead them about the Bible due to my lack of firsthand knowledge (I’d only read the bits and pieces most people have) and so I committed myself to reading it on my own. I’ve heard this process turns some people into atheists; it turned me into a hardcore leftist.

Tip: Beware of young people who speak disrespectfully of their parents.

Yet who am I to judge Elizabeth Bruenig? My adolescence was spent in a noisy haze of Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and whatever drugs I could get my hands on which, considering that my best friend was a dealer, was quite a lot. There was no Internet back then, however, so you’ll find no Facebook photos of my youthful antics, nor was it possible, circa 1976, for a long-haired teenage rock-and-roll hoodlum to “log on” and spew his precocious opinions out there for the entire world to share.

One suspects that the “right-wing” Stoker family of Arlington, Texas, is rather affluent, so that their daughter had the financial resources to attend Brandeis University (annual tuition $47,833) where she graduated in 2013 and was awarded a Marshall Scholarship. She went from conservative Methodism to dabbling in Quakerism to “social justice” Catholicism in a few short years and married Matt Bruenig, who writes for the progressive think tank Demos. Mr. Bruenig graduated summa cum laude from the University of Oklahoma and then went to Boston University Law School. He describes himself thus:

My writing is informed by a leftist political perspective that draws upon a diverse set of historical and contemporary leftist intellectuals. In particular, the various theories of egalitarian distributive justice that began with John Rawls have had the most influence on me.

Matt Bruenig probably never read Friedrich Hayek’s The Mirage of Social Justice, a thorough refutation of Rawlsian egalitarianism, but then again, when did any liberal ever read Hayek?

All of that, however, is just background I came across while trying to figure out, “Who the hell is this idiot Elizabeth Bruenig?” Her take on theRolling Stone UVA rape hoax raises this question:

Yes, there were an absurd number of mistakes in Rolling Stone’s journalistic method, but like most events ostensibly about ethics in journalism, the kernel of the controversy is about politics, not journalism.
The politics, of course, inform the journalism. For better or worse (almost certainly worse), rape is a contested political property, and campus rape is its pinnacle. During last year’s ballyhoo over California’s campus affirmative consent law, the contingencies for and against split down the aisle: The left and center-left supported it, while the right and far-right opposed it.

(We pause to note that, in Mrs. Bruenig’s political universe “the left” is a Guardian column by Jessica Valenti, “the center-left” is a Vox column by Ezra Klein, “the right” is a Reason column by Robert Carle and the “far right” is a Federalist column by . . . Robert Carle. So I guess Robert Carle is a spectrum all to himself. But never mind that . . .)

More importantly, similar political groupings tend to form around controversial cases. When Cathy Young reported skeptically on the case of Emma Sulkowicz, the Columbia undergraduate whose mattress-hefting protest made national news, Jezebel’s Erin Gloria Ryan called her out, and anti-feminist finger-waggers at the misleadingly titled American Thinker feted her insight. What accounts for the political polarization in rape journalism, which is presumably odious to everyone, regardless of political orientation?

(Here I’m going to intrude the simple answer to her question. What accounts for this “political polarization” is that feminists and their allies in the Democrat-Media Complex decided that pushing the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria would be a winning issue and, when it turned out that the actual facts about rape contradicted their narrative, they simply refused to quit. The Left’s stubborn insistence on “winning” this issue, despite having neither evidence nor logic on their side, accounts 100% for the aforesaid “polarization.” But now brace yourself for Mrs. Bruenig’s coup-de-main of feminist irrationality . . .)

The left tends to view oppression as something that operates within systems, sometimes in clearly identifiable structural biases, and other times in subtle but persistent ways. . . . Making sense of oppression, therefore, requires looking at entire systems of oppression, not just specific instances or behaviors.
The right, on the other hand, tends to understand politics on the individual level, which fits in neatly with a general obsession with the capital-i Individual. Thus, the right tends to pore over the specific details of high-profile cases like those of Trayvon Martin andMichael Brown, concluding that if those particular situations were embattled by complications or mitigating factors, then the phenomena they’re meant to represent must not be real either. And if a few highly publicized rapes turn out to be murkier than first represented, then rape itself is not a crisis, just a regrettable and rare anomaly. . . . It isn’t great reasoning, but it is very appealing on a sub-intellectual level.

Read the whole thing. This astounding claim — that an insistence on factsin journalism “isn’t great reasoning,” compounded with the insulting epithet “sub-intellectual” — has made this hitherto obscure young woman suddenly semi-notorious. Mrs. Bruenig has now made herself such an infamous fool as to deserve her own Twitchy article and even Instapundit felt the need to mock her. While it is not necessary to do a point-by-point rebuttal of her absurdity, let’s ask whether Mrs. Bruenig believes that female students at the University of Virginia (or at any other U.S. campus) are victims of a “system of oppression”? Is it not rather the case that university students in the United States are among the most fortunate and affluent people in the entire world?

As for whether the incidence of rape on college campuses is a “crisis,” I’ll quote my own American Spectator column from Monday:

Rolling Stone was grossly negligent, but this has been true of the entire profession of mainstream journalism in dealing with the claims made by feminists about the “rape epidemic” on America’s college and university campuses. These claims are as fictional as Jackie’s imaginary boyfriend “Haven Monahan.”
According to the Department of Justice, the incidence of sexual assault in the United States has declined significantly in the past two decades, down 64 percent from 1995 to 2010 and remaining stable at that lower rate. Feminists and their political allies, including both President Obama and Vice President Biden, have repeatedly claimed that 1-in-5 female college students are victims of sexual assault. However, according to DOJ statistics, “the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5).” And, in fact, female college students are less likely to be raped than are females of the same age who don’t attend college. Feminists have fomented a fictitious crisis because, as Wendy McElroy has explained, “Political careers, administrative jobs, government grants, book and lecture contracts are just some of vast financial benefits that rest upon continuing the ‘rape culture’ crusade on campus.”

Every rape is a tragedy, but no one is arguing otherwise. What happened — the original cause of “the political polarization in rape journalism” that Mrs. Bruenig decries — is that feminists who craved money and power enlisted the assistance of Democrat politicians and liberal journalists to advance a deliberate deceit. They falsely asserted that there was an “epidemic” of sexual assault on U.S. campuses and employed “Statistical Voodoo and Elastic Definitions” (i.e., the bogus 1-in-5 statistic) as “evidence” of this non-existent epidemic. When the falsehood of these statistical claims were exposed, feminists doubled down, calling their critics “rape apologists.” Meanwhile, a number of cases came to light where male students were being denied their due process rights in campus disciplinary tribunals that found these students “responsible” for alleged sexual assault under circumstances where no criminal charge was ever made. Even a courtroom acquittal — a not-guilty verdict — was insufficient to protect male students from being expelled or suspended simply because they had been accused. In any “he-said/she-said” dispute, it seemed that the only thing that mattered was what she said. Despite what appeared to be a set of campus policies heavily tilted against any male student accused of sexual assault, however, feminists were claiming that the system wasn’t tilted far enough against males.

America’s university campuses were in the grip of a “rape culture,” we were told, and administrators were turning a blind eye to this horrific rampage of sexual violence. Anyone who expressed doubt about these extraordinary assertions was denounced as a “misogynist” and, at a time when this feminist campaign was being waged in increasingly strident language, Rolling Stone published Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s lurid tale of Jackie being brutally gang-raped at the Phi Kappa Psi house.

JACKIE LIED. THE STORY WAS FALSE.

THERE IS NO ‘RAPE EPIDEMIC,’ PERIOD.

These two things are related, you see. If you are a journalist trying to prove the existence of an “epidemic” that does not actually exist, it is not really an accident when the anecdote by which you “prove” your case turns out to be a hoax. Thus, I am nominating Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig for the inaugural Joyce Trebilcot Award for Bad Feminist Arguments.

This award is named in honor the late (and indisputably crazy) lesbian feminist, Professor Joyce Trebilcot. In addition to authoring the 1994 book Dyke Ideas and co-founding the department of Women’s Studies at Washington University in St. Louis, Professor Trebilcot wrote the influential 1974 treatise “Sex Roles: The Argument From Nature,” a landmark work of lunatic feminism. Presuming to address the question of whether male/female sex roles are justified by “natural psychological differences between the sexes,” Professor Trebilcot in effect answered, “So what?” The question to be asked was not “what women and men naturally are, but what kind of society is morally justifiable,” Professor Trebilcot argued. “In order to answer this question, we must appeal to the notions of justice, equality, and liberty. It is these moral concepts, not the empirical issue of sex differences, which should have pride of place in the philosophical discussion of sex roles.”

To translate this into the simplest possible terms: “Facts be damned.”

A deliberate indifference to facts in service to a devotion to egalitarian theory is the philosophical foundation of feminist insanity.

Although I’m sure there will be many other deserving competitors for this year’s Joyce Trebilcot Award, Elizabeth Bruenig has made a strong early bid to capture this prestigious honor.

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, education, feminism, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, power, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, education, feminism, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, justice, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, power, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal, victimization

Nobel Prize winner: man has forgotten God

February 13, 2015 by BILL FEDERER

“Man has forgotten God; that is why this has happened” was Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s response when questioned about the decline of modern culture.

Solzhenitsyn continued: “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’ Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’”

This echoed another Russian author, Dostoevsky, in whose book, “The Brothers Karamazov,” the character Ivan Karamazov contended that if there is no God, “everything is permitted.”

It is also similar to Nazi leader Hans Frank who remarked during his conviction at the Nuremberg Trials, Aug. 31, 1945: “At the beginning of our way we did not suspect that our turning away from God could have such disastrous deadly consequences and that we would necessarily become more and more deeply involved in guilt. At that time we could not have known that so much loyalty and willingness to sacrifice on the part of the German people could have been so badly directed by us. Thus, by turning away from God, we were overthrown and had to perish. It was not because of technical deficiencies and unfortunate circumstances alone that we lost the war, nor was it misfortune and treason. Before all, God pronounced and executed judgment on Hitler and the system which we served with minds far from God. Therefore, may our people, too, be called back from the road on which Hitler – and we with him –have led them. I beg of our people not to continue in this direction, be it even a single step; because Hitler’s road was the way without God, the way of turning from Christ, and, in the last analysis, the way of political foolishness, the way of disaster, and the way of death. His path became more and more that of a frightful adventurer without conscience or honesty, as I know today at the end of this Trial. We call upon the German people, whose rulers we were, to return from this road which, according to the law and justice of God, had to lead us and our system into disaster and which will lead everyone into disaster who tries to walk on it, or continue on it, everywhere in the whole world.”

In February 1945, Solzhenitsyn was arrested for writing politically incorrect comments against Joseph Stalin. He was imprisoned for eight years, as he described in his autobiographical lecture, printed in the Nobel Foundation’s publication, Les Prix Nobel, 1971: “I was arrested on the grounds of what the censorship had found in my correspondence with a school friend, mainly because of certain disrespectful remarks about Stalin, although we referred to him in disguised terms. A further basis for the ‘charge’ were drafts of stories and reflections which had been found in my map case.”

Stalin said: “Crisis alone permitted the authorities to demand – and obtain – total submission and all the necessary sacrifices from its citizens.”

President Franklin Roosevelt told the Delegates of the American Youth Congress, Feb. 10, 1940: “The Soviet Union … is run by a dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world.”

Stalin controlled citizens through “fear and food.”

The people were kept in constant fear that government agencies would falsely accuse them and cart them away in the night, and the people were kept in a continual shortage of food, so they could not have the resources to rebel. Stalin engineered a famine in his war against the kulaks that killed millions.

Richard Pipes commented on the absolute power of Russia’s Josef Stalin in his book, “Communism: A History” (Random House, 2001): “To break the resistance of the peasants in the Ukraine, the North Caucasus, and the Kazakhstan, Stalin inflicted on these areas in 1932-33 an artificial famine, shipping out all the food from entire districts and deploying the army to prevent the starving peasants from migrating in search of nourishment. It is estimated that between 6 and 7 million people perished in this man-made catastrophe.”

Pipes continued: “Stalin’s regime needed another crisis … as Fidel Castro, the leader of Communist Cuba, would explain. … ‘The revolution needs the enemy. … The revolution needs for its development its antithesis.’ … And if enemies were lacking, they had to be fabricated.”

Richard Pipes continued: “In 1934, a prominent Bolshevik, Sergei Kirov, the party boss of Lenningrad, was assassinated under mysterious conditions … evidence points to Stalin. … Kirov was gaining too much popularity in party ranks for Stalin’s comfort. His assassination brought Stalin two advantages: it rid him of a potential rival and provided a rationale for instigating a vast campaign against alleged anti-Soviet conspirators. … Purges of the 1930′s were a terror campaign that in indiscriminate ferocity and number of victims had no parallel in world history. … Authorities … beat them until they confess to their crimes they have not committed.”

Stalin’s terror campaign was similar to the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, led by Robespierre, head of the “Committee of Public Safety.”

In a speech titled “The Terror Justified,” Robespierre told the National Assembly, Feb. 5, 1794: “Lead … the enemies of the people by terror. … Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, but the communist government did not allow him to leave the country to accept it.

Solzhenitsyn began publishing The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, and in response to international pressure, the Soviet Union expelled him on Feb. 13, 1974.

The following year in Washington, D.C., Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned: “I … call upon America to be more careful … because they are trying to weaken you … to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the face of this fearful threat – one that has never been seen before in the history of the world.”

original article: ‘Man has forgotten God; that is why this has happened’

abuse, atheism, communism, corruption, culture, government, ideology, intolerance, nanny state, oppression, politics, power, religion

Filed under: abuse, atheism, communism, corruption, culture, government, ideology, intolerance, nanny state, oppression, politics, power, religion

Coming to a school near you? 10-year-olds required to use birth control.

While organizations such as the United Nations promote sexual options for children in Europe and the U.K., many Third World countries oppose having those values forced on them.

In the United Kingdom, girls as young as ten years old are being injected with long-term contraceptive implants at the expense of taxpayers. Brian Clowes of Human Life International tells OneNewsNow while the health impact on little girls isn’t known, manufacturers do list side effects for adults.

“You can see a list of more than 50 major side effects,” he says. “Everything from deep vein thrombosis, blood clots, death, growing hair all over the body, and so on. I just find it ridiculous. We’re against steroid use in sports but we’re willing to pump our little ten-year-old girls full of steroids like this.

The United Nations and groups associated with it are pushing the agenda even further.

“They’re [essentially] saying Kids have the right to sex education, and if we’re going to educate them about sex, of course then we have to give them condoms, we have to give them birth control without their parents knowing about it,’” he remarks. “And then they turn around and say But this won’t increase sexual behavior. And that is as stupid as saying we will give kids the keys to the car, but it won’t increase driving behavior.”

The program has been spread throughout much of Europe and also into Third World countries, where moral values are much more in line with the Bible than in Europe and the United States. Clowes says many of those countries are tired of having conflicting sexual and moral values pushed on them.

original article: U.K. equips 10-year-olds with long-term birth control
January 29, 2015 by Charlie Butts

abuse, biology, bureaucracy, children, education, elitism, extremism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, politics, power, progressive, public policy

Filed under: abuse, biology, bureaucracy, children, education, elitism, extremism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, politics, power, progressive, public policy

University officials threaten students passing out U.S. Constitution

University officials threaten students passing out U.S. Constitution
October 14, 2014 by Kaitlyn Schallhorn

University officials threatened to call the police and disciplinary action against students who were passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution at Southern Oregon University (SOU) last week.

A group of four students at SOU handed out copies of the Constitution on campus Tuesday while collecting signatures to end the university’s restrictive speech policies, which limit free speech to an area that totals less than one percent of campus. While doing so, the students were approached multiple times by school administrators and campus police who all asked the students to move to a different area of campus.

“We encountered wild accusations that because the event was affiliated with SCC, there was legitimate fear for the imminent danger of students on campus.”   

“I would very much like you to leave, if you would, please, because the students have the right to be able to come by here without you guys, you know, invading their space and asking them to do something,” Tim Robitz, director of university housing, can be heard telling the students in an exclusive video obtained byCampus Reform.

School administrators threatened to call the police on the students when the group did not leave. One of the students in attendance told Campus Reform that some administrators resorted to “personal attacks” and threatened disciplinary action.

“We have our free speech zone. I understand that you may not like it, but that’s where it is,” Allyson Beck, SOU’s family housing coordinator, told the students in the video.

WATCH: Officials confront pro-Second Amendment students

The four students are affiliated with Students for Concealed Carry (SCC), a nonpartisan student organization that advocates for concealed carry rights on college campuses.

“We encountered wild accusations that because the event was affiliated with SCC, there was legitimate fear for the imminent danger of students on campus,” SCC member Stephanie Keaveney told Campus Reform after the incident. “Administrators accused us of causing an immediate panic for the safety of students in the face of gun violence, or the promotion of such.”

Campus police did inform the group that they had received a complaint from another student who said he felt uncomfortable, although members of SCC told Campus Reform that not a single student complained to them.

“[S]tudents on this campus were in no way framing themselves to be a legitimate threat to safety or inciting unlawful behavior,” Keaveney said. “This action was only related to SCC in that its members on this campus believe in order to fight for our second amendment rights; we must first be free to exercise our first amendment rights.”

Besides asking the group to move to the designated free speech zone, SOU officials asked the students to make sure they were explaining to their peers why the free speech zone exists in the first place.

“Well I just think if you’re going to ask someone to sign a petition, it’s always helpful if you’re explaining both sides of the petition–why the policy exists is certainly useful as opposed to saying ‘we want this,” Robitz can be heard telling the students in the video.

While Robitz did tell the students he would be willing to sit down and have a conversation about SOU’s speech policies, but that “doesn’t necessarily mean [he] supports doing it.”

“If you’re asking me if I support it, I don’t think I could say yes or no at this point because clearly there’s a number of reasons why it exists and I think we need to look at all those–good, bad, and indifferent–because it’s not just about the free speech of students,” Robitz told the students in the video. “When you open it up to free speech that means anyone anywhere can come on here and do that and that might create some other challenges for this campus that we’re not prepared to manage.”

Students were handing out the free Constitutions in what SOU considers a “residential area” because of its close proximity to residence halls. The four students didn’t have a table and stayed on a sidewalk which led to a main road.

“Caging students in censorship zones flies in the face of the First Amendment and undermines the reason for education,” David Hacker, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, toldCampus Reform. “Colleges and universities are and should be the marketplace of ideas, and the Constitution protects the speech rights of everyone, not just groups or students that a few university officials personally choose.”

Keaveney confirmed to Campus Reform that city police never approached the student group or asked them to leave. She also said that so far the university hasn’t taken any action against the students despite the threats to the contrary.

“While it is lawful for the university to maintain policies prohibiting activities which genuinely disrupt the educational process, restricting speech as acutely as SOU has by instituting and upholding the free speech zone is grossly more broad than necessary to ensure the educational process is not interrupted,” she said.

Neither Beck nor Robitz responded to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

A university spokesperson did confirm to Campus Reform that the incident took place but did not say if the students would be further disciplined.

Another view of the incident: 

UPDATE: In an email Tuesday afternoon, SOU confirmed to Campus Reform that it has no plans to further discipline the students.

original article: University officials threaten students passing out U.S. Constitution

abuse, bias, bullies, censorship, constitution, education, free speech, freedom, government, gun rights, left wing, liberalism, oppression, power, progressive

Filed under: abuse, bias, bullies, censorship, constitution, education, free speech, freedom, government, gun rights, left wing, liberalism, oppression, power, progressive

Pages

Categories

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728