Be John Galt

(compliments to JimNorCal for the suggestion.)

What is hate speech?

Hate speech has very little to do with the “N” word or Holocaust denial. Those are the “public presentation” of hate speech. “Hate speech” is a misnomer. It gives you the impression that those who want to criminalize or outlaw hate speech want to get rid of hatred and/or get rid of ALL hate speech. That’s just not true.

Hate Speech is a specific set of speech: things said by “oppressors” which the “oppressed” (or “marginalized”) find objectionable. Here’s a short list: speech that is deemed racist, anti-transgender, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-Muslim. However, there’s more. Factual claims can be considered hate speech, for example: speaking about affirmative action. That can be hate speech because it harms the marginalized’s self-respect. Speaking about immigration, legal or illegal, harms the self-respect of our immigrant communities. Defending traditional views of the family and marriage also harms the dignity of those with non-traditional sexuality.

Even superficially neutral topics like “welfare reform” can be “dog whistles” and thus be considered hate speech. Hate speech theory demands that the marginalized speak out in ways that undermine the oppressor. The oppressor group must shut up. And listen.

Source

A very objective standard by the Classical Liberal framing.

However that is not what is being pushed by BLM, 1619 Project, and others of the Gramsci school of Communist thought.

And one last thing: you also can’t question factual claims about the narratives or mythologies that the marginalized create for themselves. One cannot speak against those even if what you say is factually correct. For example, the New York Times’ 1619 Project is riddled with all errors. But in a hate speech regime, scholars who disagree on the facts, could not actually dispute these things aloud in public because this is a narrative, a sacred narrative of an oppressed, marginalized people.

Now, you may say “Things are great here in America! We have the Matal vs Tom Supreme Court decision. We’re safe. And, it was unanimous.” You’d be wrong to think that. Not only has hate speech spread to Europe, to Canada, to the UN, to Big Tech, to our universities, but there are some precedents already in the law that will be used to chip away at free speech rights. There are two to watch carefully … one is the use of the word “dignity” in sexual liberation cases culminating in Obergefell. There you will see this use of “dignity” that says you have the right to create your own identity. And the law can demand that others respect it. The second obvious place is in anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC already has regulations that certain kinds of speech in workplaces are violations of anti-discrimination laws. Those two legal paths will surely be the method used to take away free speech.

Ibid.

That is some of it. But I want to suggest it goes even deeper. The hate speech drum is being beaten as a tool, not an end in itself. If the Deep Left is successful in this regard then their next step is to seed institutions or create such institutions that determine what is hate speech and who is issuing it. Canada for example is pretty far along that road with the Provincial Councils that Mark Steyn ran afoul of. That and the proposed C16 proposal that would have Federalized in Canadian law the idea of forced speech and the suppression of other forms of speech. Once one can define what can be expressed in the public square then control of nearly everything else is possible. That which cannot be expressed can be utterly destroyed with impunity. (Tip: It is well to note that controlling the public square is what Twitter and Facebook are all about.)

An additional tool that the Left is adept at is the reclassification of speech and thought. The classic definition of racism is the belief in the inferiority of one class based on a physical characteristic; skin color, place of origin, accent, etc. But to the Deep Left the construct is entirely different. Racism is defined as the institutional disparity between classes such that all differences are the result of uneven power dynamics. Its why the 1619 Project states that the Revolutionary War was about support for slavery. Or that science is a tool of oppressors as it forces a hierarchy of process that oppresses those unaccustomed to the process. It is also the primary reason you can’t have reasoned discussion with them. The act of exchange of ideas is racist!

So where do we go from here? Like most of my tests, to the extreme. A proposal should be pushed to its outer limits and beyond. Do they breakdown as the limits induce instability? If so, reconsider the proposal. For the Left that limit is Intersectionality. At what point does the Venn diagram of race, sex, personal pronouns and andinfinitum other tests become so extreme that the only occupant of the space is an individual? At which point their Leftist preference for conformist ideals tend to fall apart. And I might add, isn’t that were we started – that the individual is a minority of one and their rights be protected in law?

Should the Right take them there? We might have to. I dread the process as it will be long an painful. It will be like a cultural version of ‘Waiting for Godot’.

For your consideration along a similar vein –

Haven’t seen the results of this poll? It’s not something CNN or the rest of the media wants to report because it doesn’t fit the agenda that only whites can be racist. Yet as we discussed last week, because people are intimidated and many hide their true feelings, the number of Americans who believe blacks are more racist than whites may be even higher than Rasmussen indicates.

Americans believe blacks are more racist than whites, Hispanics and Asians in this country.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of American Adults think the term “racism” refers to any discrimination by people of one race against another. Just 15% say it refers only to discrimination by white people against minorities. These findings have changed little in surveys for the past several years. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Eighteen percent (18%) say most white Americans are racist. But 25% believe most black Americans are racist. Fifteen percent (15%) think most Hispanic-Americans are racist, while nearly as many (13%) say the same of most Asian-Americans.

Here are a number of other Rasmussen Reports polls from last week, including one that shows more Americans are turning against those who want to de-fund the police.

Hat tip: Rasmussen Reports

I worked with a woman whose mother, a white Jewish woman, taught third grade in Detroit Public Schools for decades. She could have taught in the suburbs with far fewer problems and greater success with students achieving more and moving on to college, but she was dedicated.

Julie told us that every student evaluation night her mother would come home in tears as only 3-5 parents would show up. Compare that to suburban or Catholic schools, where some parents have to park several blocks away.

My daughter teaches third grade in a suburban Detroit school. It’s considered the most difficult school in the district. Students either come from 3,000+ sq. ft. homes or are bussed in from a large manufactured housing park in the district. In three years of teaching, she only has had one student whose parent(s) didn’t attend – a Hispanic single mother who didn’t speak English. In spite of the children from poor backgrounds, McGregor Elementary is rated 7 on a scale of 10 (very good) by greatschools.org and has an A rating from Niche. Most of the poor children at McGregor are either poor whites or Hispanic.

By contrast, most (all?) of the children Julie’s mother taught were blacks raised by single mothers, who didn’t finish high school and didn’t really value education.

The New York Times is trying to rewrite America’s history, painting the country as totally racist via Project 1619 . Now the paper is working to blame white parents for the poor performance of black and Hispanic children in public schools. It couldn’t have anything to do with the 77% illegitimacy rate, the fact that only about 15% – 20% of parents care enough to attend student evaluation nights. Like all other minority failures, it’s the fault of whites.

The New York Times announced Thursday it is releasing a new podcast series titled Nice White Parents, about how white parents are preventing black and brown children from succeeding in public schools.

The podcast series, to be released July 30 from Serial Productions, will be available via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Google.

According to the Times, Nice White Parents is “about the 60-year relationship between white parents and the public school down the block.”

Its premise is reportedly that the reason government schools are failing “black and brown kids” is due to powerful “white parents.”

Reporter Chana Joffe-Walt states in an audio clip the basis for the project is research that led her back to New York City in 1963, when optimistic white parents insisted that a new school, intended originally for black and Hispanic children who lived in “the projects,” be built near their neighborhood instead, so that their white children and the minority children could attend school together.

When the school was finally built, however, Joffe-Walt reported the white parents never actually sent their children to the school. In the series, she relates some of the conversations she had with some of the white parents to examine why they failed to follow through with their stated intentions.

This was never clearer than when New Orleans Saints Quarterback Drew Brees issued a seemingly harmless statement that it was wrong not to stand at attention during the playing of the National Anthem.

The entire left attacked Brees in unison – BLM advocates, liberal sports writers, the rest of the liberal media, even some Democratic politicians. Brees was quickly shown the error of his ways and even labeled a racissst. Brees and his wife immediately apologized to every black person in America when they discovered talking about patriotism wasn’t the smartest thing for a white quarterback in a league with 78% black players.

Given the bullying by the left, players have two choices: 1. remain silent (which is becoming more difficult) or 2. go woke.

This doesn’t only apply to athletes, but also common, everyday Americans who aren’t millionaires.

Consider the results of the 2016 election: How was polling off so badly. One possible reason is that many Trump voters were afraid to tell pollsters they supported Trump; they either said they were undecided or were voting for Hillary Clinton. One would think Democrats are more passionate based on bumper stickers. But, who wants to get their keyed or house set on fire?

Self-censorship is on the rise according to a new Cato Institute survey that reports nearly two-thirds of Americans are afraid to share their political views.

A new CATO Institute/YouGov national survey found 62% of Americans say the political climate today prevents them from saying what they believe. This is up several points from 2017 when 58% of Americans said they were afraid to share their political beliefs.

“31% of liberals, 30% of moderates and 34% of conservatives are worried their political views could get them fired or harm their career trajectory,” the CATO survey stated.A recent poll conducted by Politico found that a plurality of Americans believe cancel culture has gone too far.

“There have been shifts across the board, where more people among all political groups feel they are walking on eggshells,” the CATO survey found, adding, “majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) who all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share.­­”

“Strong liberals stand out, however, as the only political group who feel they can express themselves. Nearly 6 in 10 (58%) of staunch liberals feel they can say what they believe,” the CATO survey found.

A majority of centrist liberals, who in 2017 said they could express their views freely, now say they have to self-censor.

According to the CATO survey, self-censorship spans all ethnicities, with 65% of Latino Americans, 64% of white Americans, and 49% of African Americans saying they have political views they are afraid to share.

“This large number from across demographic groups suggests withheld opinions may not simply be radical or fringe perspectives in the process of being socially marginalized. Instead many of these opinions may be shared by a large number of people,” the CATO study concluded.

Political RollerBall

Remember a few years back when the NFL denied the Cowboys permission to have a helmet decal in memory of the five law enforcement officers murdered by the black militant?

The Dallas Cowboys asked the NFL if the team could wear decals honoring the fallen members of the Dallas Police Department and the NFL, unsurprisingly, said no.

When training camp opened in Oxnard, Calif., earlier this offseason, the Cowboys unveiled “Arm in Arm” helmet decals, designed to pay tribute to the men who lost their lives during the downtown Dallas shooting in July, while also symbolically representing the Cowboys support of the community.

Naturally, the NFL won’t let them wear the decals during the regular season.

“Everyone has to be uniform with the league and the other 31 teams,” Jerry Jones said Wednesday. “We respect their decision.”

Fast forward to 2020:

The NFL’s 1,700-plus players will likely be invited to wear helmet decals bearing the names or initials of police violence victims and systemic racism, sources told Front Office Sports.

The league office is working with the NFL Players Association to compile a list of names in time for the start of the regular seasons, which is currently scheduled to begin on September 10, said sources. The players will provide the names.

However, these on-uniform tributes would likely only appear on helmets, not jerseys, as previously thought, said sources.

George Floyd, Breonna Taylor. Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and Tamir Rice are just some of the people who are expected to be mentioned on the individual tribute decals.

The decision to wear or not wear decals will be up to individual NFL players, according to Steve Wyche, senior correspondent for NFL Network. The tributes could range from African American victims of racism to police officers slain in the line of duty.

“You might have one team with 15 different decals,” noted Wyche.

The NFL is making a statement to the world: Black lives matter (if they are killed by cops); cops’ lives really don’t really matter. The NFL is throwing a bone to fans by including fallen police officers, not that many players will choose to honor them.

Now, other sports are following the NFL and NBA’s lead. NASCAR has banned Confederate flags and wearables and now Major League Baseball has gone totally woke.

Now for my favorite graphic:

The NBA going along with Black Lives Matter actually makes financial sense. It’s fan base is comprised of leftist Democrats. But, the NFL, MLB and NASCAR?

Like NASCAR, MLB game attendance and TV viewership has been declining in recent years. The average cost to take a family of four to an MLB game last year was $234. For Charley/Charlene Lunchbucket who makes $20/hour after taxes and other deductions, that means he/she has to work a day and a half to watch millionaires play a child’s game and foist political views on the fans.

Protesting athletes are even worse than woke Hollywood personalities. They are pushing their views on you during their performance. Matt Damon may be a flaming a-hole but at least he isn’t pushing his views on movie goers at the start of a movie.

This year’s athletes protesting will make protest of the past seem mild by comparison. How long will it be before Charley/Charlene Lunchbucket decide take a knee on pampered millionaire athletes, some of whom make more for a single time at bat than they make in a year?

Hat tip: Dallas News.com, https://frntofficesport.com/ and forbes.com

The Boston Red Sox “take a knee.”

They say history seldom repeats but often rhymes to the new times in old clothing. Well the events that unfolded in Portland last night had a familiar ring to it.

Insurgents tore down the perimeter fence, set fires and engaged federal agents in attempting to break into the Federal Court House downtown. There was also looting of several stores in the general vicinity.

A JayHawker named John Brown did essentially the same thing, only he was successful in his break-in. Then as now it required the engagement of federal officials in the form of troops to quell the insurrection. Make no mistake, this is an insurrection, not some peaceful protest gone bad again. One does not do a protest at night; the lighting is poor for the camera crews you wish to impress. No this was an attempt to acquire the court house expecting that a skeleton crew of Feds would be inside.

I continue with the insurrection theme for another reason. The Democrats up and down the political chain are in on it. –

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) has soured at the federal government’s intervention, claiming that the involvement is “making the situation much more dangerous.”

He recently signed a letter with the mayors of Atlanta, Chicago, D.C., Seattle, and Kansas City against federal intervention in their cities.

“The President is attacking progressive cities with a classic ‘divide and conquer’ tactic,” Wheeler said.

“We must not fall prey to this. Nationwide, we must stand together for peace and for reform against those who would oppose it,” he added.

here

Both Durkan and Seattle City Council member Lisa Herbold suggested that the destruction will be material for President Donald Trump, who allowed for nameless federal troops to make arrests in Portland over the weekend.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday he welcomed the rage of protesters as long as they are peaceful, but he denounced unnamed groups of anarchists and others who used the demonstrations to tag graffiti on buildings, burn banks, shatter store windows and run off with armloads of goods.

“The looting, the violence, the threats against fellow human beings: That has no place in this state and in this nation,” Newsom said. “Those that want to express themselves and have: Thank you. God bless you. Keep doing it. Your rage is real, express it so that we can hear it, let’s not let others drown out that rage.”

here

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded President Donald Trump late Saturday that the United States is “not a banana republic,” and she refused to let protesters in Portland be used as “props” in his political games.

Pelosi joined several top Oregon lawmakers in criticizing Trump administration and top federal agencies for placing faceless “stormtroopers” in Portland to quell weeks of ongoing racial injustice protests. The Democratic House leader condemned the “one-sided violence” from Department of Homeland Security agents and accused the president of utilizing “secret police” in American streets.

here

The insurrection is supported by one party – Democrats. We have essentially 3 States sympathetic to a cause that is contra to the Federalist structure of the USA. This is supported by the mayors, governors and member of Congress to these States – California, Oregon, Washington.

John Brown was snuffed out but set history in motion. It appears we are reaching the same apex, only I don’t think we will be as lucky as our precursor when all is said and done.