Those who refuse to say “This is true” must fall to those who will.
Hey, Paris, how’s that assimilation thing going for you? Come to think of it, this was an attempt at assimilation, only the other way around. I wonder if this related to Hollande’s decision to close it borders? Closed borders? Isn’t that un-Christian? Incidentally, be sure to avoid the No-True-Muslim fallacy: “The Islamic State claims responsibility for Paris attacks“.
But I think we can agree that “climate change” is still the biggest threat we face.
This headlined showed about six hours before attack: “Obama On Widening ISIS Threat: ‘We Have Contained Them’.”
Looks like the standard progressive blame throwing has already begun at The Guardian, in softened form. I’d guess it’ll take a full forty-eight hours before we see reports hinting Marie Le Pen’s National Front is a bad influence, etc. Meanwhile, others are blaming…”Bloomberg group mourns Paris dead as ‘victims of gun violence’.” Idiocy knows no bounds.
— RT (@RT_com) November 14, 2015
Berlin or Munich next? Or New Orleans? “Syrian refugees beginning to arrive in New Orleans.”
I wrote the college material before the Paris attack and was going to leave it out, until I saw this tweet. (But there were many, many more.) If you can’t see it, it reads “Interesting how the news reports are covering the Paris terrorist attacks but said nothing about the terrorist attack at #Mizzou.” She meant the poop backward swastika (which is Buddhist?).
— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) November 14, 2015
Here follows the original material.
We saw yesterday that in the tumult of the 1960s many college administrators and professors were supportive of student demands to dismantle Western culture. We also saw, or should have seen, that this is also true of the “protests” of today.
There are many articles deriding the “special snowflakes” which are the children attending university these days, and while these are all correct in reportage—these adult-children are unhinged deluded ignorant hate-filled hyper-sensitive enemies-of-reality soft-heads—they’re largely wrong about cause. For few to none of these uneducated brutes would start waving their arms around and screeching had they not been encouraged to do so by the culture which surrounds them. This culture was already corrupt in their homes, at their high schools, and in the classrooms of the universities themselves.
You don’t see a lot of, say, material engineering or solid-state physics majors or those studying subjects which demand continuous contact with (unforgiving) reality at these rallies, and you’re not likely to find a great deal of professors in those fields, either. The reason is obvious: these students and professors are on the whole more intelligent, meaning they are less likely to be duped by the absurdities which drive (let us call them) the motivated.
Which is something you’re not supposed to say.
It’s not that some very intelligent folks aren’t leading the Tolerance Brigade, knowing full well the truth of the matter but desirous of power, it’s only that the bulk of the crowd could stand to crack open a few books instead of daydreaming of cracking open a few skulls.
You don’t think violence is on their minds? Here’s a fun item that will correct that mistake. “Amherst Students Protest ‘Free Speech,’ Demand ‘Training’ for Offenders“.
A group calling themselves the Amherst Uprising listed 11 demands they want enacted by next Wednesday. Among them is a demand that President Biddy Martin issue a statement saying that Amherst does “not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted the ‘All Lives Matter’ posters, and the ‘Free Speech’ posters.”
The latter posters called the principle of free speech the “true victim” of the protests at the University of Missouri.
Going further, the students demand the people behind “free speech” fliers be required to go through a disciplinary process as well as “extensive training for racial and cultural competency.”
Which is to say, reeducation camps. At Amherst, which is already solidly progressive. Yet students there say the school is “steeped in racism.” Steeped.
“We want to stress that any action taken by Amherst College to address the demands made will not erase the fact that it exists within a larger system of oppression,” Sharline Dominguez, Cristina Rey, and Carolina Vergara wrote in a blog post apologizing for not discussing their actions with other activists. “We believe that we will not be free until this larger system is deconstructed.”
The leaders, administrators, professors, and students, really do believe the theory that non-whites cannot be racist. They really have convinced themselves, contrary to all evidence, that are embedded in systems which are so tainted with racism and other -isms that only systemic revolution can bring the cleansing they desire. We haven’t seen on-campus violence yet, but I’m guessing we’ll see an incident where a diverse student bashes a non-diverse student on the head with his “Tolerance Now!” sign, and where the assailant will suffer no ill consequences for his actions. It happened before.
Solution? Largely none. Oh, you can keep yourself and your children from the most hate-filled places, but that’s about it. The fear of being called a “racist” is too potent; it guarantees the compliance of administrators.
It isn’t only schools. This curious item from Ms Magazine shows just how far fear of reality has encroached. “Women in Combat? Let’s Reframe the Debate“. In his favor, the author hates war and would love to see its permanent absence. But he has the idea the military is a jobs program, rich with benefits and educational opportunities. While this is true, it is incidental.
The male who wrote the article is anxious non-males be seen as physically equal to males, especially in combat. Reality says no. But he cites as part of his evidence a poll which shows “76 percent of Americans favoring the integration of women into combat roles.” This is just the corrosive effect of democracy that too often insists truth is defined by vote. There are standards to be met for persons to be soldiers. He would weaken these in the name of Equality, hinting that lowered physical standards are “actually safer for everyone”. I think the gentleman realizes in these words that women are on average less capable, but he seeks to leverage the lowered standards to argue we should not go to war because, of course, we would be less capable of prosecuting a war.