Whiteness IS Violence, and Teaching as Politics and Racism

UMN hosting prof to lecture on ‘the violence of whiteness’


The University of Minnesota has invited a professor dedicated to “dismantling whiteness” to speak next week on how whiteness is an “existential threat” to the United States.

Lisa Anderson-Levy believes that "teaching is a political act," and will discuss ways to "decenter whiteness" at academic institutions.

They are getting closer to admitting that "academic institutions" are NOT about education or even dispassionate research: they are about revolutionary Marxist overhaul using Class and identity warfare.

Children of the Corn: Marx Edition

Nationwide coverage of "survivor" glazed-eyed child-preachers of Marxism has induced the corporate suicides of a number of businesses. It is more than just a trend that businesses which converge - meaning that they become Marxist activists - lean so far to the Left that they ultimately collapse, having offended much of their base customers.

As Iowahawk observed regarding the process of convergence:

1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.

These skin suits are considered heroic by the media, of course.

Prime example of a skin suit is the Broward County Sheriff's Office, which reportedly ordered its deputies to stand down during the shooting by "forming a perimeter". What is the perimeter for, if not to protect the shooter from interference? Broward County is a criminal organization, paid by the Federal Government NOT to arrest beyond quota, child-criminals who are not white: the Affirmative Action for Criminals plan. This is purely a Marxist, identarian, Class War consequence, and the governments - top to bottom - are corrupt, are Marxist, and have the morals of Mao. The Broward County Sheriff gives himself top accolades for this performance.

Making More Marxist Malefactors

VIDEO: Professor tells students to violate U.S. laws, ‘destroy’ white democracy

This is sedition and insurrection, and should quickly be treated as such.

Steve Bannon Thinks That the Democrat Party is Toast

The Democrats have gone full bore Marxist. The central principle of Identity Politics is the separation of the populace into “moral” and “immoral” segments, which are then designated the focal nexus of love, and most significantly, hatred.

The “right side of history” carries the meaning that the arrow of history is always pointed toward inevitable moral improvement; hence there exists an arrow of moral improvement always pointed toward an ultimate utopia. The Democrats assert that their constantly changing morality supersedes the morality of today, that they have progressed beyond common understandings of moral principle. They are the most moral ever, being at the tip of the arrow of history. They are "Progressing" toward utopia, for the entire planet.

An arrow of morality presumes first that morality is not constant, consistent or absolute. Atheism is a primary requirement for enabling this belief. Second then is the belief that the creation of “new” morals is an indicator of moral eliteness, via self-authorized diktat to the moral laggards and common heathen.

Further, it is recognized that democracy and republics are organized around the tyranny of the majority over the minority. And that is where the mechanics of identity politics shines: in gathering all possible minorities under the “protection” of the moral elites, a majority of minorities can topple the previous tyrannical majority into minority status. That explains open borders and the elites’ dance with Muslims. The imported volume of these non-majority populations are thought to be captured by and vote for the moral elites.

The theory depends upon the compliance of these new minorities, and their willingness to be purchased by the promise of free stuff in return for their votes.

Steve Bannon thinks that this Marxist dependency is doomed, because it misunderstands and underestimates both the new minorities and the traditional minorities that have been promised and then ignored by the moral elites.

” He also noted Bannon’s belief that the Democratic Party’s addiction to divisive identity politics may succeed in stirring up much noise on the fringes, but that this very tactic will work against them among the very same minority groups they are using to cause an uprising.

This includes African Americans and Hispanics; both groups have expressed their resentment for the Democratic Party and anger at being used for political gain.

Do African Americans and Hispanics (class designations that don’t acknowledge common principle sets with ALL Americans) actually believe that the Marxists will work tirelessly for their benefit? That belief goes head-on against the Marxist importation of voluminous very cheap labor, the maintenance of welfare ghetto plantations, the insistence upon skin tone diversity but not diversity of thought, the constant attack on traditional Christian-based morality, not to mention the recent illumination of the primary feature of elitist Marxism: constant virulent unhinged hatred, based entirely in assertions of inverted reality (blatant lies and hypocrisies) along with their usual logical incoherencies.

It appears to me that the Marxists don’t actually hate individuals. They hate that which certain individuals represent, which is a threat to their self-image and worldview. To consider that they might actually not be the uber-menchen, the most evolved and superior of humans, is not to be entertained, period. The result of such an attack on the uber-menchen is a focused effort to destroy, completely and with finality, the source of the attack. This effort (and desire) to destroy is called “Social Justice”.

The west and its civilization is at logger-heads with “Social Justice”. There is no commonality visible between the arrogance of the Narcisisstic Marxist Social Justice Camp and the Constitutional Law and Civil Liberty Camp.

Marxists tolerate only their own and through (mandatory) hatred encourage the destruction of the Constitutional Camp. They have removed themselves completely from civility. That would be OK, except that they preach and practice domination and demolition. The new Cultural Marxists are beyond communists; they are totalitarian wannabes in the same sense as Lenin: they wish to destroy and eradicate all opposition. That includes the western civilization which opposes them.

The irony in the dilemma which the West now faces is that our demise, the continual erosion of a democratic, intellectual meritocracy, is by and large spurred on by the very people that our system was created to protect.

Feminists, both female and male, cry daily for more of the same poison which infects us. More illegal and unscreened immigration. More tolerance of philosophies which are intolerant themselves. More invitations for an enemy created by a corrupt and immoral government to ignore our borders and live among us.

More cries for moral nihilism, the repression of speech (one of the cornerstones of their own suffrage) and the denial of fundamental biological reality.

More cries for the denial of basic math and the continuance of government-sponsored bread and circuses. More of everything which our civilization cannot sustain. More of everything which rots us from the core.

Are You White? Ah. Too Bad.

'White shaming' is new rage on college campuses
It's all about 'deconstructing whiteness,' the 'construct of whiteness,' the 'ignorance of whiteness'

And it is largely whites tearing down whites, interestingly enough. The first example given this time is "Queer" (her term). Nobody would deconstruct Queerness or the ignorance of Queerness, at least not on a public campus.

There's even a book out warning white males:

No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination
Mar 14, 2017
by Scott Greer

Trump Defects?

Donald Trump:

”I want to applaud the many protestors in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!”

Since Trump is using the NewSpeak of the Left (perhaps not even knowing it), he has realigned himself away from defensive White Rights, and into Antifa support and anti-white racism which engulfs the entire American Left. He wants the country to calm itself – and it cannot, so it won’t. He should stick with the truth of the situation, not cozy up to the racists and hate mongers which inhabit the Marxist Left.

If he meant to defect, then the Left has won the war in advance, in toto.

Marxism, when under government support, will not be suppressed. See Venezuela.

Woman Who Destroyed Statue is Pro-Slavery - In North Korea

Of Course She Is:

Woman Who Destroyed Durham Confederate Statue Is A Pro-North Korea Marxist

One of the activists who toppled a Confederate statue in Durham, N.C., on Monday night is a member of an extreme leftist group that supports the totalitarian regime in North Korea and wants to abolish capitalism.

Taqiyah Thompson, a student at North Carolina Central University, was arrested Tuesday following a press conference in which she defended the actions of the demonstrators and equated police officers to Confederate soldiers and Ku Klux Klan members.

“I did the right thing,” she said. “Everyone who was there — the people did the right thing. The people will continue to keep making the right choices until every Confederate statue is gone, until white supremacy is gone. That statue is where it belongs. It needs to be in the garbage.”

Thompson is a member of the Worker’s World Party (WWP), a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist group originally formed in 1959 as a hard-line offshoot of the more moderate Socialist Workers Party. In addition to supporting a wide range of far-left causes, the group also defends the North Korean regime of dictator Kim Jong-un against alleged U.S. imperialism.

Marxists are all very disturbed.

Creating the Enemy Necessary for Three-Class Marxism

From Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit:

Linda Sarsour Says Jake Tapper Is A White Nationalist.

You want to make “white nationalism” a real thing? Keep calling everybody you disagree with a “white nationalist.”

Creating the White Nationalist: It's all the rage now amongst the Hate Mongers of the world: Leftists. It is now a thought/skin crime to be a) loyal to your country; b) white. What the Left wants is a) abject loyalty ONLY to amorphous "Progress" AND their denigration du jour; b) global mongrelization except for them.

As Glenn says elsewhere, "that's how you get more Trump".

Marxism, Antifa, and Utopian Fundamentalism

It is not uncommon for a Leftist (Atheist by definition) to deny the existence of objective morality and yet still claim the moral high ground and moral superiority to ancient moral codes which have been in place for millennia (the exception being Islam, which can do no wrong). The AtheoLefist moral code is purely pragmatism and personal proclivity which is put in place at the convenience of the individual.

Not only can the individual's moral code change at a moment's notice, it can also change based solely upon the person being addressed. This has been made nakedly obvious with the advent of the successful revolution of the Deplorables in the elections of 2016. It seems impossible not to observe daily the hatred and foulness of the language of the AtheoLeft, yet accompanied by the attendant moral hyperventilation of a self-evident presupposition of moral authority vested totally in AtheoLeftism.

Leftism is thus a fundamentalist religion. It incorporates personal moral authority to make moral judgment in the social Darwinists who must, morally of course, drive humanity in the perpetual progress toward values-free, total equalitarian, hive-think and top-down social/political/economic control of the New Man. In other words, progress toward communist utopia.

The 20th Century communist utopias which actually came forcefully to fruition are ignored due to their mass-murders, genocides, population control through internal purges, failures to feed populations which starved, political prisons, political assassinations and other discomfiting facts which always accompany dictatorships. Communism, say the professors, has never been really tried.

Well, Marxist class war in pursuit of violently enforced communes certainly has been tried.

The current AtheoLeft is true to superficial equalities, those of skin color (but not cis-white), sex/gender (but not cis-male), sexual preference (but not cis-hetero-), and NOT equalities of thought, moralities, or first principles. BadThink is punished, and the new KKK quasi-terrorist arm of the AtheoLeft is the black-masked Antifa enforcer band of political thought thugs. The analogy to the KKK is astonishing, right down to the masked, anonymous, burning and destruction, and attempts to instill fear through violence. It's all in service to the bigotry of denying the validity and rights of those who they hate. For the AtheoLeft, such violence and hatred is moral, even morally required, in order to preserve the march of progress toward the communist dictatorships of utopia.

Each communist experiment of the recent historical past had its equivalent of the KKK/Antifa. Whether they were KKK, Brown Shirts, Red Army, Cultural Revolutionaries, Shining Path, Sandinistas, or just communist mountain guerrilla rebels, they are all the same: genocidal killers in pursuit of utopia, which they will control. Some have even been elected, only to ultimately set the troops on the now starving electorate. In their essence, they all are the same: morally endowed to enforce utopia, even with the blood of the populace.

The AtheoLeft is the fundamentalist religion of utopia through violence and conquest.

Purported Antifa Pamphlet, purging the white race by eradicating the white children in a necessary eugenic genocide, to enable utopia:

The Good, The Bad, and ...

...the stupid. The maleducation of the masses did not produce mere ignoranti; it produced the enstupidification of entire generations.

The Case for Evil
Captain Capitalism; Rantings and tirades of a frustrated economist.

RTWT There.
In case you are confused by the terminology, it maps thus to western Marxism:

The bad = the self-anointed messiah class: saviors of the universe.
The stupid = maleducated, easily gulled and dependent Victimhood Class.
The good = the Othered Class, aka Oppressor Class, Deplorables, Bitter Clingers, Fly-overs, Whites, esp. white males.

Here's a taste:

If you dare to help out the stupid, tell them the truth, or try to get them to wake up, you run the risk of losing your job, getting doxed, or having your entire career and life ruined, simply because you want to "be good." Donglegate, Brendan Eich, and the Orwellian nightmare that corporate America is becoming is not only proof the bad are winning, but shows just how pervasive and successful the bad have become.

The simple question is, is it worth it?

Morality and religious reasons aside, take a cold, secular look at humanity and ask yourself why not be bad? Not that bad or evil itself has merit, but does the stupid in society deserve the good? And not only does the stupid deserve the good, but with their idiocy, ungratefulness, and outright hatred for the good, does not the stupid deserve the bad in spades?

It is here you almost have to reluctantly admit that "the bad" was right all along. Of course, I argue the bad is bad because they're lazy and have no moral compass, accidentally choosing the right path. But from a practical, functional view it not only pays to be bad, but it is precisely what the stupid deserve. In this case, you almost have to applaud and respect the democrat party, feminists, academia, the psychology industry, and all the other "bad" institutions for the James-Bond-Villain-level global domination plan they've pulled off. And since the stupid is not only all for being the victim to these plans, but hates any good person that tries to help them, even going so for as to ruin these good Samaritans' lives, I cannot help but conclude:

It's good to be bad.

If a wife is going to cheat on her husband, you do yourself no favors refusing to sleep with her. You simply pass up free sex because she's going to cheat anyway. Might as well be the guy to bang her, because it's not going to change the outcome.

If a minority is going to vote for a democrat because of the free gibmedats, he's going to vote for the democrat no matter what. You simply pass up a cushy public office position running as a republican. His poverty is guaranteed regardless, so you might as well lie to him, run as a democrat, and get your government check as well.

If a 20 year old girl is going major in social justice, you're only going to piss her off telling her her dreams are stupid and she should major in engineering. Ergo, push her along and encourage her to ruin her life. You'll not only get on her good side (be you a parent or a boyfriend), but again, she was condemned to major in social justice anyway.

And all my contesting and fighting against the approval of bad loans during the run up to the housing bubble did absolutely nothing to stop it. I would quite literally be a million dollars richer had I just played ball, and NOTHING, NOT ONE THING would be different.

And before you start claiming that any of the above would be immoral and unethical, realize being moral or ethical would have no effect on ANY of the outcomes above. The only difference is whether you profited off of it in the end, delivering the lies the stupid so richly deserve, and were condemned to believe.

It is here I make the argument that for those of us who are "the good," we need to really sit and contemplate the consequences for being so. I know some of you have children and therefore have a vested interest in doing what you can to make the future brighter for them. I know some of you have religious reasons that would prevent you from taking such a Machiavellian approach to humanity. But as I've alluded to in my podcasts before, I am very lucky to make a living as a purveyor of truth. It took two decades and a life of hell to scratch out this morsel of business, but I am incredibly thankful for it and we do a lot of GENUINE good. But the day it goes away, the day the stupid and/or the bad make it illegal, ban channels, ban sites, etc. etc., is the day they leave me no choice. And if Oprah, the democrat party, bankster scum, and academia are any indication, that day is going to be a very profitable one for me indeed because I will aggressively sell the poison and lies the sheep so desperately crave. Just be aware, that day might be coming for you too. And it'd be best if you knew there was a moral case for evil.

Don't Ignore. Don't Smile Patronizingly. Don't Glance Away.

'Glaring' Joins 'No Eye Contact' as Possibly Racist Behavior

Actually it's racist just having a face while on the same planet with the perpetually aggrieved. Sooo, what would happen if all of us racist-because-of-our-paleness just got off the planet? What would happen then? Marxism just won't work without their official Oppressors. And they'd starve if left to their own.

ISIS in Louisiana?

Vox Day juxtaposes two events, separated by half the Earth, that demonstrate the bigotry which infests the hateful Left.

In Iraq, ISIS destroys artifacts from the 7th century BC. Religious bigotry.

In Louisiana, the Left destroys historical artifacts of a century and a half ago. Racial bigotry.

Both acts represent the intent to abolish the history which the aggressors don't like. In the west, many statues and named structures have been stripped in order to soothe the sensibilities of Leftists who want just their own views represented, and history to start with themselves.

It is important to remove any cohering influences from a society which you wish to conquer. History of the west has been removed from universities for decades now. Many millennials demonstrate little to no knowledge of their heritage, or the cultural development of the society which now coddles them, and makes them into quivering, weeping but demanding, irascible parasites.

By perpetuating their ignorance of historical and philosophical history, this population becomes ripened for utopian theories without any knowledge of the history of such theories or their actual outcomes in just the ten decades. Although prosperous and spoiled, they become incensed at manufactured perceptions of oppression, without knowing what actual oppression looks like. In a sense, they are programmed into Marxism, without ever hearing the name, Karl Marx.

The antifa crowd is a cult movement. The cult has no concept of fascism, which they charge against those attempting free speech. They are the cult of Marx, and culture warfare in pursuit of domination.

The removal of history from culture is a Hate Crime. It should be treated as a Hate Crime... against Humanity.

In Louisiana, the bigotry of the Left matches the bigotry of ISIS.

[HT: Vox Day]

This Will Fix Everything

The point is to take the wealth, of course.

Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?
This redistribution of the world’s wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth.

So we'll just vote that wealth to ourselves; we deserve it. Because: Victimhood Class Marxism.

"Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa's biggest cities.

If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world's parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world's wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.

This redistribution of the world's wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country's land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world's population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world's assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world's population.

It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world. Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.

It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.

It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.

Some may argue that this is unfair. Let's be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid."
Shelley Garland
MA Philosophy Student
Shelley Garland is an activist and a feminist and is currently completing an MA degree in philosophy. When she’s not gagging at South Africa’s unique brand of rainbow politics, she’s working on ways to smash the patriarchy.

White men didn't use capitalism to create wealth; white men just up and stole it from blacks, who had it first. It's all in the New History Books we just wrote.

Prof With the Answer

Professor: ‘Trump Must Hang,’ Republicans Should Be Executed For Each Immigrant Deported

A history professor at California State University, Fresno, appears to have advocated for the death of President Donald Trump on Twitter.

Tweets from an account purportedly operated by Professor Lars Maischak call for Trump to “hang” in order to “save American democracy,” and say the only “cure” for racist people is a bullet to their head. The account is not verified, although the bio and interactions between the user and other Twitter users indicate it belongs to the professor.

“To save American democracy, Trump must hang,” Professor Lars Maischak appears to have tweeted in February. “The sooner and the higher, the better. #TheResistance #DeathToFascism.”

You'd think that a history professor would know the difference between a republic and a fascist state. I'm not certain that he does, but if he does, then he is going with the false flag of "anti-fascism" by using fascism himself. On the other hand, he might just be a total Marxist Class Warrior who labels people by identity in order to enable their destruction. Eliminationist fascism and eliminationist Marxism are indistinguishable: both want to kill everyone who is not them.

Sure, send your kid to this place for history instruction.

The American Left of the '70s and '80s: Thousands of Bombings and Domestic Terrorism

Terrorists and killers like Ayers and Dohrn have only profited from their terrorism in that era. The Leftist MSM has placed all of that history in the memory hole, possibly because today's journalists weren't even alive at the time, but also because they share the cultural marxism of those terror groups. Cultural marxism has gone mainstream.

There is documentation of those American Leftist Terrorist hate killings, in a book which is reviewed here: Days of Rage:

"Here is Burrough’s account of the SLA’s professed goals: “It sought to abolish prisons, marriage, and rent while attacking ‘racism, sexism, ageism, capitalism, fascism, individualism, possessiveness, competitiveness and all other institutions that have sustained capitalism.'” Plus ça change…

The groups whose story Burrough tells conducted a campaign that included thousands of bombings and many horrible murders, yet most have been entirely forgotten. Why? In his epilogue, Burrough gives the penultimate word to Joseph Connor. On his ninth birthday Connor lost his father in the 1975 bombing of the Fraunces Tavern by the FALN in New York City. Burrough notes that “what truly drives [Connor] ‘mental’ is the notion that modern terrorism on U.S. soil dates only far aback as the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. ‘That gets me every time,’ he says. ‘To think that America thinks none of this ever happened, that it’s not ever remembered, it’s astounding to me. You know, I blame the media. The media was more than happy to let all this go. These were not the kinds of terrorists the liberal media wanted us to remember, because they share a lot of the same values. They were terrorists. They were just the wrong brand. My father was murdered by the wrong politics. So they were let off the hook. That what we’re left with today, a soft view of these people, when they were as hardened as anybody. They were just terrorists. Flat-out terrorists.'”

• Burrough also notes that Bill Clinton pardoned 16 of the 18 FALN terrorists convicted in the group’s two bombing campaigns; the other two convicted FALN members rejected Clinton’s offer of pardon. Debra Burlingame condemned these “terror pardons” in a superb 2008 Wall Street Journal column. Kudos to Bryan Burrough for remembering these events in a book that makes it more difficult for us to forget again."

Read it all THERE or buy the book.

Marxism; A Completely Subsumed Subset of Atheism

Phoenix provides this link from marxists.org:

Why Marxists Are Atheists

Another View of the Three-Class Marxist System, Focused on Free Speech

Oh, Good, It’s 2016 and We’re Arguing About Whether Marxism Works
By Jonathan Chait

The problem with Marxism, I argue, lies in its class-based model of economic rights. Liberalism believes in political rights for everybody, regardless of the content of their ideas. Marxists believe political rights belong only to those arguing on behalf of the oppressed — i.e., people who agree with Marxists.

Zimmer begins by insisting that self-described Marxist regimes such as the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, North Korea, etc., all of whose leaders were immersed in Marxist thought, were not real Marxists at all. (Zimmer: “[T]hese authoritarian monstrosities had virtually nothing to do with [what] Marx himself said or did.”)

Zimmer proceeds to explain why the liberal idea that everybody should enjoy the same right to express their political idea is a failure, and lays out the Marxist concept of what free speech should really mean:

Marxists value free speech because they are committed to building a society where all can decide matters of public concern democratically, as genuine equals. Thus, the Marxist has a consistent way of explaining why speech that aims to dominate or marginalize others should be challenged rather than protected: it is contrary to the very values animating our commitment to free speech in the first place. …

This explains why, to quote Jelani Cobb, “the freedom to offend the powerful is not equivalent to the freedom to bully the relatively disempowered.” It also provides a principled, consistent basis for opposing and disrupting the public acts of openly racist organizations that seek to subordinate, harm, scapegoat or marginalize others. …

[T]he (socialist) goal of cooperating and governing public life together as full equals gives us a principled criterion for deciding which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t.

Zimmer is articulating the standard left-wing critique of political liberalism, and all illiberal left-wing ideologies, Marxist and otherwise, follow the same basic structure. These critiques reject the liberal notion of free speech as a positive good enjoyed by all citizens. They categorize political ideas as being made on behalf of either the oppressor class or the oppressed class. (Traditional Marxism defines these classes in economic terms; more modern variants replace or add race and gender identities.) From that premise, they proceed to their conclusion that political advocacy on behalf of the oppressed enhances freedom, and political advocacy on behalf of the oppressor diminishes it.

It does not take much imagination to draw a link between this idea and the Gulag. The gap between Marxist political theory and the observed behavior of Marxist regimes is tissue-thin. Their theory of free speech gives license to any party identifying itself as the authentic representative of the oppressed to shut down all opposition (which, by definition, opposes the rights of the oppressed). When Marxists reserve for themselves the right to decide “which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t,” the result of the deliberation is perfectly obvious.

In the contemporary United States, these ideas are confined by the fact that only in certain communities (like college campuses) does the illiberal left have the power to implement its vision, and even there it is constrained by the U.S. Constitution. If illiberal ideas were to gain more power, the scale of their abuses would widen.

It is obvious that Marxism is totalitarian while claiming to be "full equals" with... whom? In their own statements, only those who agree with them may speak freely... if then. The rules are fluid and subject to change, as we see here in the USA on a daily basis.

This is another Leftist self-aggrandizing contradiction, claiming unity on the one hand, but providing protection for only their own monolithic thought, and punishment for Badthink.

Sarkeesian, SJW-KKK, and the Gods of the Copybook Headings

This video is eminently worthy of the time invested. If you can, pass it along.

Mascot Politics

There is a very interesting discussion of Thomas Sowell's "Mascot Politics" article over at VFR. There are some very interesting comments in the thread below the article.

My personal current observation is that most of the liberal (AtheoLeftist Messiah) mascots (Victimhood Class) are as enabled as they want to be. Women, blacks, homosexuals (LGBTQDPNODFBKJDD) all are both a) not persecuted and b) free to do whatever they want... as well as enabled by Affirmative Action at every turn in their lives. If they want to be a part of successful living, they can be. And that is the reason for the invention of the microagression, white privilege, Black Lives Matter, and other tools for Leftist combat. The old oppressed classes are not oppressed in real life.

These newly fabricated "oppressions" are invisible, except to the SJW who makes the charge, usually against someone s/he doesn't like. It's not real racism, it's just that you have white skin, and that is offensive because it implies, no it proves that you belong to the wrong class: the Oppressor Class. Same with sexism: you don't have a "real" vagina.

No overt action of racist/sexist nature is required for racism/sexism to be charged. No panicky apology and genuflection can save the Oppressor Class individual from approbation and denigration, even overt attacks on employment, organization membership or status as student.

The total invisibility of the microaggression is a master stroke as a last ditch effort to maintain the three class marxist system of socio-political progressivism, dominated by the self-anointed Goods, the virtuous, (in a universe which contains neither good nor virtue). The Messiahs absolutely MUST have victims to save, or else Messiahism is trivial.

When I grew up, there were indeed highly visible class distinctions. Due to Democrat Jim Crow segregation, the blacks all lived "over there". They had their own schools, which taught them very little, certainly not personal hygiene or speaking American English. Segregation was the tool which the Democrats used to oppress and restrain blacks. The Republican Civil Rights laws (yes plural: laws) were essential at that time. But that was 2.6 generations ago, plenty of time for equalizing the rights of minorities to join the pursuit of the American Dream - and many did do just that.

But that damaged the Democrat - Leftist ability to claim oppression; they lost much of their Victimhood class. So they had to make "oppression" stuff up, and that is the thrust of the Democrat - AtheoLeftist - Progressive - Messiah movement, ever since. That explains the false campus rape panic, the "open season on black youth" panic, and the AGW panic. Without those (false) crises, the Messiahs have no traction, no raison d'etre.

And that is why Obama has just declared that AGW is the Hugest, Dangerousest, Super-Scariest threat that there is. Certainly not any form of Islam; Islam is firmly entrenched in the Victimhood Class, and therefore cannot possibly produce any offense or oppression, because of its class membership. Just as blacks cannot be racist and women cannot be sexist.

It's all easily understood, if it is observed through marxist class theory. Otherwise it appears chaotic and irrational.

Update:
Here's an example, where Arab Palestinians are the Victimhood Group and the Israelis are the Oppressors:

How The New York Times whitewashes Palestinian terror

Narrative always trumps truth.

Redistribution in Leftist USA

Heritage: The Redistributive State — The Allocation Of Government Benefits, Services, And Taxes In The United States

Money quote:

"The analysis finds that the lowest three income quintiles are in fiscal deficit, while the two highest income quintiles are in surplus. Overall, there was a transfer of roughly $1 trillion in economic resources from the top 40 percent of households to the bottom 60 percent. This sum represents about 9.5 percent of total national income in 2004."