More via DAILY WIRE:
JUST THE NEWS notes the jump to #1 of 1984 on Amazon
- Later ages are always surprised by the casual brutality of totalitarian regimes. What those innocent ages neglect is the unshakeable (though misguided) conviction of virtue that animates the totalitarians. The historian John Kekes, writing about Robespierre in City Journal some years ago, touched on the essential point. If we understand Robespierre, “we understand that it is utterly useless to appeal to reason and morality in dealing with ideologues. For they are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and that their enemies are irrational and immoral simply because they are enemies.” That is the position of conservatives in American culture today. (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
Tammy Bruce’s book, “The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds,” was an important salvo in all this. Not the first book, but one of the most relevant for it’s day. Tammy has noted for years the censorship of the Left, one example is an older post:
The tech companies are just emboldened now. That’s all.
I heard about the “Twitterverse” not even allowing a story by the NEW YORK POST to grace their site. When I got home I tried it. And sure enough, the story would not post. So I tried it again early this morning… nope:
I just tried it again this evening. HUGH HEWITT in his first hour played Tucker Carlson and then the President… I also include a call from Detective Tom – as – he asks good questions as usual.
The real story now as well is the idea that Twitter and Facebook can control what they feel is a hoax and what is genuine news. As the NEW YORK POST reasonably asks: “If ‘unreliable’ is the issue, why did social media never block anti-Trump stories?” Indeed… they continue:
The New York Post has published two bombshell stories that raise more questions over whether Joe Biden abused his power as the vice president of the United States for the financial benefit of his family. It’s a made-for-TV tale of foreign business dealings, money, corruption, and power – and the social media gods really, really don’t want you to read it.
Armstrong and Getty play a video showing people trying to stop others from simply getting gas. Then they discuss how work environments are getting 1984’ish… with demand for an almost “Totalitarian” way of thinking (“total thought” – you are no longer an individual).
Here are some links:
- Do You Feel A Sense of Urgency? According to This Study, You Might Be A White Supremacist (TWITCHY)
- Do You Strive For Perfection? You Too Might Be A White Supremacist (TWITCHY)
- Cult Programming In Seattle: The City Is Training White Municipal Employees To Overcome Their “Internalized Racial Superiority” (CITY-JOURNAL)
- The Characteristics Of White Supremacy Culture: From Dismantling Racism: A Workbook for Social Change Groups, by Kenneth Jones and Tema Okun, ChangeWork, 2001 (SJW-WEBSITE)
- What Is White Supremacy? (POWERLINE)
- College Director: “Every White Person in This Country Is Racist” (CAMPUS REFORM)
- More Colleges Implement Mandatory Anti-Racism Courses (CAMPUS REFORM)
Never in American history have politicians been more powerful than they are now.
Earlier today I posted this in response to a friend:
You see, by itself this is no big deal… but combined with the myriad of small and large ruminations (videos removed to “micro-aggressions”), it all adds up to people telling me that each of the single acts I can tell them about are “no big deal.” Never seeing the forest. But a better point comes from Dennis Prager’s article titled, “Our Dress Rehearsal for a Police State“
Big technology companies are using the COVID-19 tragedy to increase their power over the American population.
YouTube censored an upload of mine twice (maybe a third now? (see the RUSH audio here) — and the ONLY reason I can think is that I noted the name of the non-whistleblower in the description. I say non because the statute nowhere forbids a name from being uttered. It merely protects the individual from harassment and firing at work. So legally, the statute does not protect a name from being “revealed.” Here is some quotes by Gregg Jarrett via TIGER DROPPINGS (see also, TWITCHY):
Good and accurate legal analysis of why this whole shitshow is a legal farce. Neither the president nor a call with a foreign leader falls under the ICWBPA act, an act which incidentally does not grant anonymity protection.
nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) is anonymity even mentioned. Nor is it found in Presidential Policy Directive 19, which also provides specific whistleblower protections.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else.
Under this framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements.
However, identity protection is neither provided for, nor contemplated, anywhere in the language.
As I first explained in a column six weeks ago, the so-called “whistleblower” is not a whistleblower at all. The complaint he filed against President Trump does not meet the two requisite conditions set forth in the ICWPA. That is, the alleged wrongful conduct must involve intelligence activity and it must be committed by a member of the intelligence community.
This was meticulously explained in an 11-page opinion by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) when it issued the following opinion: “The president is not a member of the intelligence community, and his communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or other activity aided at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence.”
The OLC opinion made it clear that the complaint by the so-called “whistleblower” regarding Ukraine was so deficient that Congress should never have been notified. The acting director of national intelligence agreed with this assessment. The legal analysis and reasoning was sound.
In our constitutional form of government, the president is a unitary executive. He is not a member of any department or agency – they report to him.
To put it plainly, there is no whistleblower statute that permits an unelected and inferior federal employee to blow the whistle on the president, the most superior officer in the U.S. government.
Article II of the Constitution gives the president sweeping power to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate with leaders of other nations, make requests or solicit information.
The Constitution does not grant the power of review, approval or disapproval to bureaucratic employees. Indeed, the whistleblower law explicitly excludes a complaint involving “differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.”
So what should we call the fake “whistleblower”? It is more accurate to describe him as an undercover informant acting as a Democratic operative who spied on President Trump by gathering hearsay information intended to damage him.
Second, Adam Schiff released his name in a public transcript, as did the Mueller report. Here is a Twitter comment on the matter (NOQ REPORT):
Third, to be a whistleblower he — Eric Ciaramella — would have to have information related to his work. He merely passed along third-hand information… the statute (and the progression of the report up the chain of command ALL found this not to be a statute violate. GREGG JARRETT explains:
He also has DEEP ties to spreading lies about the Trump admin (a lie that Putin called Trump and asked him to fire Comey — um, can anyone say #fakenews?)
Now, China has removed all (I mean ALL — like 1984 stuff) references to South-Park and Winnie the Poo — MIC:
Larry Elder (listen to the first 2-minutes):
… this is getting concerning that FaceBook, Google, and YouTube would scrub mentioning a public, political name.
This was the original description on YouTube:
George Orwell’s fictionalized world where Big Brother reigns supreme is no longer a figment of the imagination, but a prophetic vision of present-day threats. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, explains how and why Big Tech is making Orwell’s 1984 a 21st century reality.
OLDER POST…. (1/2016)
- Why is it that the left loves to rewrite history? My theory is that to them the end justifies the means ironically in history that has led to genocide here and there.
To which I replied, “I agree.” (And I continued, as I am wont-to-do):
Another reason is that history is a giant mirror reflecting their failed paths to equality. From the French Revolution, to segregation and eventually the Civil War, to their terrorist arm of the Party (the KKK), to pouring water and oil into a pot and calling it a “melting pot” (multiculturalism in leftist terms is really segregation all over again). From the Fabian Socialists to Bernie Sander “types,” from the founder of Planned Parenthood having guest columns in her newsletter by NAZI doctors to allowing gender abortions and legislating to make it legal to leave a baby on a table to die from the environment… it is all an embarrassing mirror that they need to change and obfuscate. (And, there is nothing analogous.)
In reading an excellent book, early on there was this nugget:
While Charles and Neil take the “Brave New World” route… I think we can split the horns of the dilemma a bit (so-to-speak) and say yes… a small percentage of dedicated persons (to their faith or ethos) are feeling the boot mentioned in Orwell’s epic tale. From fining people out of business by taking their bank accounts because they refuse to make cakes for celebrations they wish not to support, to $250,000 for people who wish to call people by their real gender.
However, outside of this smaller percentage who is feeling the [sarcasm] equality of State [/sarcasm], there is a much larger percentage who do not want to be bothered as they amuse themselves to death (totalitarian bents ignored in political theories).
They do not want to be bothered by what would have in our history brought people to arms. All they care about is the next text on their iPhone or another round online with friends playing Call of Duty, or who got injured in the last NFL game that impacts the chances of their team winning. THESE people who have replaced worldviews with entertainment will one-day get a rood awakening when their toys are gone.
Liberals — especially — want this amusement to curtail knowing about history so they can get another radical candidate in office who likewise thinks the Constitution is a living/breathing document.
Sorry for the rant… but you got me thinking.
Grad student Lindsay Shepherd of Wilfred Laurier U. was dragged before a kangaroo court for showing a Dr. Jordan Peterson video in class. Demand that Laurier dismiss the Orwellian complaint against her, apologize, and reaffirm its commitment to academic freedom.
HERE is the full audio of the “gender police.”
assiduity (ăsˌĭ-do͞oˈĭ-tē, -dyo͞oˈ-)►
n. Persistent application or diligence; unflagging effort.
n. Constant personal attention and often obsequious solicitude. Often used in the plural.
Or the Washington Post (WaPo) publishing an article on Thursday on how the Russians used American websites to push anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda in the 2016 election. The problem was, however, the the source for their story admitted to lying:
Or how bout when the L.A. Times knew about John Edwards affair while running for President, but kept the story bottled up:
Or NPR’s bias of omission with 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments (CAMERA). Or, as the WASHINGTON TIMES notes, mainstream media outlets advocating certain outcomes:
How bout the medias tendency to not be fair and balanced, thus, guiding public opinion in some way (stories linked in graphics):
Some older examples from ABC, NBC, CBS that include some stats on story imbalances…. as IF they are trying to advocate for something… hmmm:
So all the recent “HUB-BUB” in regards to “fake news” is really an attempt to control the news by corporate news interests. If you do not know WHY this is not a good thing, please read 1984 again. And this bias is not conspiratorial as much as a worldview issue that cause it’s adherents not to lie or conspire about slanting stories as much as a form of group-think. (ALTHOUGH THIS “CONSPIRING” DOES HAPPEN.) Often times this “group-think” is ripped from it’s context to say people are involved in a giant conspiracy.
- The media as a whole is said to be in a giant conspiracy to overthrow America or conservatives by a designed plan.
- No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates truth to them.
- Many people think there is a nefarious cabal of bankers, CFR and Bilderberger types, controlling human affairs on such a level that World Wars were started and guided by these people.
- No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates a border-less society with all being equal… “just ‘some’ more equal than others” (Animal Farm).
- I often hear people mention that “how could scientist all agree then with evolution? Are you saying there is a giant conspiracy? If you are, I am through listening to you, being that you are crazy.” [BTW, one can substitute “climate change” issues with evolution.]
- No… groupthink…
And this is the crux of the matter… No matter if there is a conspiracy or not, the goals are the same. BUT — and this is an important BUT — how one responds and interacts with society is impacted… greatly. In other words if you tell people of these “grand conspiracies” or “meta-narratives” you will not change anyone’s mind but harm your position. However, if you talk about worldviews and group-think, you will impact minds on the matter, thus, fortifying the case trying to made in regards to media bias.
Hugh Hewitt talks about a time he got to speak to a graduating class of journalists at [I think] Columbia University School of Journalism. He asked the crowd some questions and asked them to separate themselves to one side or the other of the auditorium ~ (questions like: are you pro-life or pro-choice?… are you pro 2nd amendment of for gun control? etc., etc.). By the end of the 5-questions, only a handful were left on one side… all the liberal/progressives were packed into one side of the auditorium. His point was to show this graduating class that what they believe now will impact their work, and that they should be aware [self-aware] of their own biases and try to be reporters, not “change” agents.
(Link to Wikileaks emails showing collusion with Hillary and the Media)
Another recent example can be expressed in donations to campaigns. In an excellent article entitled, “Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash: Far fewer making contributions to Donald Trump, analysis shows,” we see the percentages donated from journalists to the Hillary or Trump campaigns: