Kidnapping:
The crime of unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or
Fraud,
or seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to
carry that person away at a later time.
Criminality
is the modus operandi of the Left.
Stalin in his early Bolshevik days robbed banks to help finance the Leninist
power grap. Later when in full-satrapy the
Great Oarsman stepped up his game to mass-murder (by the tens of millions),
ethnic cleansing and war crimes. The
resume of any A-list Marx-inspired chieftain you care to name – Lenin, Mao,
Castro, Pol Pot – will be a document of extensive criminality.
American
Bolshevik, Bill Ayers in the early 1970s busied himself with bombing public
buildings. His spouse, Bernardine Dohrn, was a capo in the Weather Underground,
a Marxist, terrorist cell that bombed police stations and advocated killing
“pigs”, aka policemen. She remained on the FBI’s most wanted list for three years. In that same era the Red Army Faction (Rote
Armee Fraktion, aka, the Baader-Meinhof Gang,
in Germany and the Red Brigade (Brigate Rosse) in Italy bombed, kidnapped and
murdered their way across central and southern Europe.
Bill Ayers, as noted in Wikopedia,
now passes himself off as “an American elementary
education theorist” which suggests that the meanings
of the words “education” and “theorist” have been mutilated beyond recognition.
Unlike some other infamous American criminals like John Dillinger, Baby Face
Nelson and Bonnie and Clyde, the Pentagon bomber managed to coast into a comfortable
retirement as a “professor” from
the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers).
Bernardine Dohrn from
1991 to 2013 was a Clinical Associate Professor
of Law at the Children and Family Justice Center
at Northwestern University School of Law.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn). So much for the old saw, “crime doesn’t pay”
– tenured sinecures, hobnobbing with future U.S. Presidents, and basking in the
glow of ex-radical celebrity-hood are the perks for leftwing terrorist seniors.
And so with at least a hundred years
of criminality embedded in the molecular structure of left-wing politicking and
governance, the pathetic grand finale of
the 2016 Democrat primary for the White House should not have been a
surprise. It turned out to be a rigged
contest between a simple-minded Marxist crackpot like Bernie Sanders, who
captured the affection and votes of millions of (particularly young) Americans,
and a corrupt, colorless harridan who promised to turn the U.S. into a
Peronist-style dictatorship where the rule of law gives way to the 3-Cs of
Clintonism, corruption, collusion and coercion.
Her campaign, in the crudest, reductionist terms, was a constantly
expanding quest for “clients” who in exchange for their votes get more of the
government favors and loot she will dole out. She referred to the bribes she offers
as “investments.”
The descent of American politics
into an abyss inhabited by the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al
Sharpton and Black Lives Matter thugs is made possible in part by the
corruption of language. The left resorts
to what I call, “wordnapping”, seizing and detaining a word and distorting its
meaning to serve as a propaganda tool.
It is now possible to compile a dictionary of words that the left has
stripped of their clear, original meanings and are now used exclusively to
smear opposition and eliminate dissent. Below, a few of the hostages they have taken.
Racism: Racism was once simple, clear and
straight forward. A racist was anyone
who believed that members of his race were superior to those of a different
race. The left, however, in a
consummation of Orwellian-style word corruption, has now turned the meaning
upside down: “racism” for the left is the recalcitrance of white, European-descendant
peoples to acknowledge their unique moral inferiority, i.e. their continuing
responsibility for the oppression and exploitation of “people of color” and their
refusal to atone for “white privilege”, the vehicle and cause of the continuing
pathologies that plague the black community.
To be racist today is to be a white person who is reluctant to engage in
the ethno-masochism that is de rigueur in the universities and popular culture. From “Yes, All White People are Racists and
Let’s Do Something about It”, here is the typical braying from one of the many
race baiters, a shakedown laced with the usual strains of condescension, calumny
and abuse.
What if Americans changed the way they talk about race?
What if white people tried to confront their own shortcomings, and
accepted that the default presumption should probably be "implicitly
racist"? Maybe then, whites would start
to work harder, collectively and individually, to show their alliance
with (and acceptance of) people of color — through their words, their
actions, and their deeds. After all, wouldn't it be better to live in a
world where white people made a constant, concerted effort to
overcome implicit racism? Particularly when it lurks within themselves. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/yes-all-white-people-are-racists-now-lets-do-something-about-it
It should be fairly obvious from
this that what we used to understand as “racism” is now a main staple of black
“activism” and its extortionist methods.
(See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-left-masters-of-extortio.html)
“Racism” is the left’s greatest
agit-prop triumph of our time, one that even a master of “the big lie” like
Joseph Goebbels would be proud to own.
It is increasingly difficult to remember what a “racist” used to be before
the invention of “micro-aggressions”, the professionalization of race hustling
and the reign of the “diversity” inquisitors. Racism the left wants us to
believe has burrowed into every crevice of American society. Which means that its
pervasiveness and insidiousness must be comprehended through the mediation of self-appointed
experts who unfold its complex taxonomy and illustrate its constantly expanding
mutations: “structural racism”, “systemic racism”, “institutional racism”,
“individual racism”, “environmental racism”, “economic racism” “covert racism”,
“subtle racism”, etc., ad infinitum. Zeba Blay in a Huffington Post article jumps off the deep end with 11 kinds of
racism including such gems as “free speech racists”, “hipster racists” and
“voyeuristic racists”, an indication that the word no longer possesses any
recognizable boundaries and that those who make a living charging others with it should not be
taken seriously, or taken very seriously as twenty-first century versions of Der Stürmer publisher, Julius Streicher, the raging Nazi anti-Semite hanged by the Allies after WWII.
Recently President Obama, presumably
after perusing the pages of abstruse genetics journals, announced that “racism
is a part of our DNA.” By “our DNA” I
assume he means the DNA of the descendants of white slave owners. Not clear is whether those “white folks”, as
he likes to refer to that inferior race, whose ancestors were not slave owners
are likewise contaminated by this moral blight, and, by having a white mother,
whether his DNA is implicated. Perhaps further research in genetics will
clarify this.
Twenty-first century “racism”
emulates twentieth-century “fascism” – it has become a word empty of specific
meaning, used to condemn a critic as, well … a very bad person. In its routine applications, “racism” is the
favorite big club of today’s social justice warriors, to beat up on whatever
opposition they encounter in their efforts to limit free speech, rationalize
and defend minority criminality and destroy traditional American
institutions. “Racism” is a broad brush
assault, perhaps unique in its smearing capacity in that, unlike with other
kinds of allegations of moral or legal culpability, once charged, there is no
way to demonstrate that you are not a
racist. It is possible to prove that you are not a liar, a fool, a rapist, a
robber, and a plagiarist; you can never effectively dispute the claim that you
are a racist. No protest or evidence
counts. Name one person who has ever been successful in doing it? Being a racist now is sort of like it was to
have “cooties” back when you were in fifth grade. There was no remedy for the mysterious virus
of cooties and you were deemed infected because someone decided that they didn’t
like you.
Hate: “Hatred” is another favored smear
of leftwing propagandists, one they employ to remain immune from criticism. “Hatred”
for them is the not the usual word one uses to describe that visceral often
irrational emotion of loathing one may feel toward someone or some group. “Hatred” for the left means disapproval.
Nothing less than affirmation and approval for their programs and policies for the 21st century utopianists can
only mean hatred. If you object to gay
marriage, you hate gays. If you oppose
affirmative action, you hate black people. If you favor lower taxes, you hate
the government. If you support the
deportation of illegals, you hate Mexicans. Leftist opponents are not reasonable or
considerate, not individuals who have a different, arguable view or perspective
about a controversial issue. They are
morally defective, irrational, purple-faced “haters”. Republicans are now routinely pilloried as
“haters” in contrast to Democrats who are all about compassion.
The persistent hate smear in contemporary leftist politics,
however, should be understood as a stunning display of psychological projection. When it comes to frothing-at-the-mouth
emissions of visceral loathing and detestation for those of different political
persuasion no one can match an aggrieved leftist. Here is New Republic writer, Jonathon Chait, completely unhinged, when
having to think about George W. Bush.
“I hate
President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among
the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at
that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too…. And, while most people who meet Bush claim to
like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him
even more…. There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who
have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice, or describe his
existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/67136/mad-about-you
During the Presidency of George W.
Bush, writers from the “party of compassion” were offering their readership these
models of dispassionate political discourse:
The
I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why Dubya Is Wrong About Absolutely Everything
(The "I Hate" Series,
2004, Clint Willis, editor);
The I Hate Dick Cheney,
John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice... Reader: Behind the Bush Cabal's
War on America (The “I Hate Series, 2004, Clint Willis,
editor);
The I Hate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage... Reader: The Hideous Truth About America's Ugliest Conservatives (The "I Hate" Series, 2004, Clint Willis, editor)
Hatred
for the entire field of Republican, conservative scumbags in 2004 was so
popular with Democrat readers, that a publisher series was dedicated to poring
out scorn and contempt. But as we are
constantly reminded, the Republicans are the party of hatred – as Chait or one
of his colleagues might say, following the lead of Groucho Marx: "Who are you going to believe, me or
your own eyes?"
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/grouchomar128465.html
Intolerance: to continue with the practice of
psychological projection, leftists love to talk about how intolerant their
critics and opponents are on the right.
Once again, a word has been wrenched from it moorings and turned into
reflexively-used smear. “Intolerance” in
its corrupted usage mirrors “hatred”.
Anything less than affirmation and enthusiasm for the leftist-defined
march of “progress” makes one into a knuckle-dragging bigot. Recall Presidential candidate, Barack Obama’s
condescending sneer in 2008 about those “white folks” who “get
bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like
them….” Of course! The only reason why a white, rural voter
would not vote for a black Marxist demagogue who mocks and demeans them is
racial bigotry. No other possibilities
exist.
The
problem is that the practice of toleration is a tricky business. A genuinely
tolerant person is someone who, even though he finds the beliefs, perspectives
and life-style of another objectionable, treats that person in a way that
conveys basic human respect and a live-and-let-live attitude. No one has to be tolerant around people he
esteems and approves of: it is only required for someone who confronts people
who he in some way or aspect disapproves of, an accommodation of sorts,
peaceful coexistence. Of course, no one
is or should be tolerant of everything and everyone, and finding those
boundaries is what makes toleration such a tricky affair. The irony that seems to complete escape the
leftists is that they disapprove of conservatives and Republicans (see Jonathan
Chait above) but cannot tolerate them. President
Obama and Hillary Clinton refer to them as their “enemies”. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3439-obama-calls-his-critics-enemies You do not tolerate your enemies, you
eliminate or destroy them whenever you can.
Intolerance is the inevitable stance of leftist ideology because
leftists, believing that they are uniquely virtuous and enlightened, view their
competitors for power as corrupt and heartless, atavists submerged in bigotry and ignorance.
In
doing battle with our enemies, “the left” it is extremely important to know
their “dictionary”, to recognize their subversion of language. This will help us to resist the intimidation,
refute the falsehoods and expose the hypocrisy.
