If you like your truth, you can keep it…
From City Journal:
Madison wrote in 1800 that it is to free speech and a free press, despite all their abuses, that “the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity, over error and oppression.” Only out of freewheeling discussion, the unbridled clash of opinion and assertion—including false, disagreeable, and unpopular opinions, Madison believed no less than Mill—can truth ultimately emerge.
Freedom has three fulcrums of rotation: good government, a free press, and reasonable literacy. If any one of those pivot points breaks down, then the apparatus of freedom begins to crumble.
In this day and age all three are under attack, but the free press node is now dysfunctional. The media are now bound and enslaved to a particular polemic and are incapable of self-correction. The cause lies in the innate polarity imparted by modern (socialist) education.
Most people under fifty have never experienced any meme which does not harp upon the tenets of the cultural Marxist religion. Thus to step out from under the red umbrella of fixed ideas into the hailstorm of free thought is just not a feasible option to most people; it is incomprehensible — and very threatening.
I am a racist. I am a racist because I judge people, not by skin colour, but by their actions, and by the extent to which I feel threatened or comfortable with them. Diversity is truly fascinating as long as my wellbeing is not threatened.
I embrace my racism because the cultural Marxists have made it a rite of their religious devotion, and I hate Marxism in all its forms. Otherwise racism would be of no consequence to me, or to anybody else. Little things please little minds. It is very important to cultural Marxists that they should be able to point a finger: to accuse; to condemn the infidel. Racism is a superb verbal hammer with which to beat people into ‘their’ shape. The Marxist definition of racism is multi-dimensional and many faceted, and very difficult to counter. It is easier for me to accept that by Marxist definition I — and just about everybody else with a white skin — am a racist. No matter what I do, will always be a racist.
The idea of racism is actually inconsequential. Before the Holocaust it had no real meaning in the English language. It is an idea that was first established by Nazi propaganda, but only in German. However, its translation into English lies to the credit (or otherwise) of the left, who adopted the fascist idea of ‘racism’ as a politico-religious bulldozer, harping always upon its links to Nazi atrocities whilst ignoring the gross racism of the leftist Holodomor and the purges of Jews in the “Doctors’ Plot”.
Racism is a natural human process, whereby one mixes freely in one’s own cultural group, but is wary in the company of strangers. It has nothing to do with skin colour, and everything to do with polite behaviour. The stranger in the community is obliged to behave politely in the community into which he/she enters voluntarily, especially if said person wishes to become part of that community.
Slaves, too, must eventually adapt, or, on obtaining freedom, return to a community to which they do not feel hostile. Feelings of hostility, whether justified or not, cannot be tolerated within the community without creating instability and resulting in the weakening and the eventual demise of the said community. But this is, of course, the desired outcome for adherents of the Marxist religions.
By submitting to the creed and diktats of racism, we render our community obsolete, and enter into a spiral of increasing submission to an irrelevant abstraction with religious overtones. A free press should be informing us of the subversive nature of the creed of racism. It should be constantly correcting the inconsistent uses of the charge of racism made by religious adherents of the religions of Marxism. An adequate education system would be isolating Marxism because of its historical brutality, instead of evangelizing its gospel of divisiveness and mayhem.
So too with the evils of Islam. It too has a history of mayhem and murder, of intolerance and bestiality, all neatly hidden behind a smile and a lie. A free press would expose the smile as an evil grin, and demonstrate the untruths to be a deceitful façade. But that never happens. And the education system polishes the image to render it beyond the questioning of the curious. Islam has two faces, the Mecca face of peace, and the Medina face of violence. Like the god Janus, the one face is as an innocuous gatekeeper, but unwittingly enter the gate, and it is the hell prison of Bifrons that one enters.
…in demonology Bifrons was a demon, Earl of Hell with six legions of demons (twenty-six for other authors) under his command. He teaches sciences and arts, the virtues of the gems and woods, herbs, and changes corpses from their original grave into other places, sometimes putting magick lights on the graves that seem candles. He appears as a monster, but then changes his shape into that of a man.
The origin of the name is, without any doubt, the Roman god Bifrons (Janus).”
JanusIslam is a snare, a trap for the unwary. Muslims are very quick to show the Mecca mask, the face of the “Religion of Peace” but that is koranically abrogated by its ugly Medina mug. The Medina face is the face of slavery, torture and death to apostates and unbelievers. Moderates are those who show the face of Mecca. The fanatics are more honest — they show the face of Medina, but they are both the faces of Janus, faces made to deceive, and deceit is at the very heart of Islam.
It is Medina that should be taught in schools, but no, it is the Mecca deceit that most people assimilate, and then wonder what they did wrong. They did nothing wrong, but they have been betrayed in the worst possible way.
Truth is a curious and elusive thing. Free speech leaves me free to tell the truth, but also to tell lies, and it is in the discerning of lies that education is pivotal. The free press is free to tell both truth and lies; it is up to me to parse the lies from the truths, and to take responsibility for that process in my life. If I get it wrong, then I apologise, but not for the lie (unless it is of my own making), but for getting it wrong.
As an adherent of Judeo-Christianity, I have an obligation to seek out truth and expose lies. As Eve confessed, “I was deceived by the serpent,” whilst Adam accused, “She did it, the woman that You gave me.” To those who leave Judeo-Christianity behind, and adopt a religion of moral relativity, then truth becomes whatever they want it to be.
Marx and Mohammed both abandoned truth as inessential to their cause, in so doing they institutionalized lying, mainly because the ends justify the means. Yahovah has no civic objective. He therefore has no ends that He needs to justify, so truth is as He created it. His objective is that I personally (along with everybody else) should seek and understand His truths. It is not by ‘works of (self) righteousness’ that I am justified; so He, and I, have nothing to prove by lying.
If I adopt Marxism or Islam, I then have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of my fellow men that I am a good disciple, for it is they who judge me in the here and now. If I deviate, I die. I am therefore no longer enabled to parse the truth from the lie. How do I demonstrate my fidelity? I kill, torture, violate and defame; I call people ‘racist’ or ‘kuffar’, and if conditions are right, I strike at their necks with a sword or rope. That I am living a lie is of no consequence. The Utopia to which my lies entitle me is enough.
Unfortunately, even if I am the best of disciples, I have no guarantee that this Utopia is not also a lie. Be it ‘equality and social justice’ (with a little bit more of each for me as a reward for my own lies), or more virgins and catamites and wine than I can handle. Each of these can be a delusion, because neither Marx nor Mohammed esteemed truth as of any consequence. But “Yahovah is not a man that He should lie.” (Numbers 23 v 19).
What do we do to restore our freedom of speech? We tell the truth to the best of our ability and likewise expose the lies and deceits. Truth has an uncanny ability to come to the forefront. It is after all the distillation of creation, and whoever or whatever is responsible for creation at the same time defined truth, because truth and creation are the same thing.
Only through freedom of speech can the truth be voiced, which is why those who want us to believe their lies hate free speech.
Free speech is our only safeguard against tyranny, and suppression of free speech is the prime object of all tyrants.
If you like your truth, you can keep it…
As Bill Moyers said:
A free press is one where it’s okay to state the conclusion you’re led to by the evidence. One reason I’m in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn’t play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats & Republicans, liberals & conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.
3 THOUGHTS ON “IF YOU LIKE YOUR TRUTH, YOU CAN KEEP IT”
Nimrod on August 29, 2015 at 11:36 pm said:
The term “racist” is now just a synonym for reactionary or counter-revolutionary. That is, anything that opposes Marxism. It no longer has anything at all to do with race.
I am anti-Marxist which means that I will get called “racist” by neo-Marxists because they know that terms like “reactionary” or “counter-revolutionary” will just get laughed at. Similarly, Muslims will call anyone who is anti-Islam a “racist” becaus they know that terms like “kafir” will just get laughed at as well.
Nemesis on August 29, 2015 at 11:37 pm said:
A good article! “In the age of deceit the telling of Truth becomes revolutionary.” – George Orwell.
acuara on August 30, 2015 at 12:44 am said:
and the Truth shall set you free, of all the lies, myths and deceptions that chain you. MC and I both know Who the Truth is and I will leave it at that.
BTW, What Nimrod and MC refer to is called “projection” in logic, which is the act of the person projecting themselves upon you so that you are now the scoundrel that they in fact are, and they are the good responsible person that you are. When called on this behavior, the projector’s response is what is often referred to as a “cop-out.”
Monday, August 31, 2015
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Coddling of the American Mind
Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Last December, Jeannie Suk wrote in an online article for The New Yorker about law students asking her fellow professors at Harvard not to teach rape law—or, in one case, even use the word violate (as in “that violates the law”) lest it cause students distress. In February, Laura Kipnis, a professor at Northwestern University, wrote an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Educationdescribing a new campus politics of sexual paranoia—and was then subjected to a long investigation after students who were offended by the article and by a tweet she’d sent filed Title IX complaints against her. In June, a professor protecting himself with a pseudonym wrote an essay for Vox describing how gingerly he now has to teach. “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me,” the headline said. A number of popular comedians, including Chris Rock, have stopped performing on college campuses (see Caitlin Flanagan’s article in this month’s issue). Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke.
Some recent campus actions border on the surreal. In April, at Brandeis University, the Asian American student association sought to raise awareness of microaggressions against Asians through an installation on the steps of an academic hall. The installation gave examples of microaggressions such as “Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” and “I’m colorblind! I don’t see race.” But a backlash arose among other Asian American students, who felt that the display itself was a microaggression. The association removed the installation, and its president wrote an e-mail to the entire student body apologizing to anyone who was “triggered or hurt by the content of the microaggressions.”
This new climate is slowly being institutionalized, and is affecting what can be said in the classroom, even as a basis for discussion. During the 2014–15 school year, for instance, the deans and department chairs at the 10 University of California system schools were presented by administrators at faculty leader-training sessions with examples of microaggressions. The list of offensive statements included: “America is the land of opportunity” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”
The press has typically described these developments as a resurgence of political correctness. That’s partly right, although there are important differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the 1980s and ’90s. That movement sought to restrict speech (specifically hate speech aimed at marginalized groups), but it also challenged the literary, philosophical, and historical canon, seeking to widen it by including more-diverse perspectives. The current movement is largely about emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness.