In an ongoing effort to deflect attention away from the possible inspirations of the Arizona shooter, the left has yet again presented a coordinated accusation towards Sarah Palin, conservative talk radio, and the Tea Party. However I can’t recall one instance to date where it’s been determined someone on right has committed a violent act inspired by a conservative pundit.
But why let reality spoil a good liberal talking point?
Over the years, however, we’ve seen political violence and it’s almost always committed by young people on the left. Whether we’re talking demonstrations at political party conventions, World Trade Organization and/or G8 summits, we usually see the same types congregate: young people in bandanas or skull caps covering their faces who routinely destroy public and private property under the guise of their right to assemble and speak freely.
While no organized Tea Party event has resulted in mass arrests and property damage, it’s the right that’s been smeared as the violent “crazies”. But why are young people so prone to political violence and who’s putting them up to it? The very people who aren’t dumb enough to be present at a political rally where damage and arrests may occur: the radical professoriate.
Granted, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin can reach a large audience, but when they (or their message) become annoying you can change the channel. You can walk with no repercussions. Young people don’t have those options when sitting in front of a liberal teacher who either tells his them Bush’s “tones” was like Hitler’s or people trapped in the burning Twin Towers are “little Eichmanns” who basically had the horrific death coming.
We have young people who curiously go from politically-ignorant one summer to hardcore activists who put themselves between Israeli Army bulldozers and Hamas hideouts. Is this the normal thinking of a young person or were they worked up into a frenzy by a teacher that more than has the common sense to place their own bodies between construction equipment and buildings?
We now have politicians who want to make it illegal for a private citizen to threaten a lawmaker (which I thought it already was), yet it was okay for then-Senator Barack Obama to tell his millions of young followers to crash the sites of those who opposed him, “push back” and get in our faces.
I would consider that violent speech considering what would happen to me if I attempted to “push back” or get in the face of the president. Personally, I can’t recall an instance where a conservative told his or her followers to flood the sites of opposition while they routinely do that to ours.
Sarah Palin’s website was hacked by the punk son of a state legislator and it’s easy to understand why the left sought leniency for him. He was probably indoctrinated by the same liberal academics who teach the virtues of civil disobedience and “by any means necessary”. While still under some kind of investigation, I think we’ll one day find that the young people behind the shutdown of corporate websites hostile to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are probably college students whose grades (thus their futures) were dependent on staying in the good graces of professors who can be quite vindictive towards those who stray off message.
While the ratio of conservative-to-liberal teachers is very low, the instances of students documenting abuse by conservatives is almost non-existent, but we routinely see press reports of students who sat through America-hating, Bush and Republican-bashing, socialism-praising presentations by professors who believe that starting the day off with a good breakfast is only second to reading the New York Times.
So it’s not surprising that a good number of young people see above-it-all Jon Stewart as a real newsman and can recite liberal talking points ad nauseum. It’s also not surprising to see just how angry and vile they can get when presented with a view they don’t agree with or lack the intellectual ammunition to rebut. They resort to disrespect, profanity and if they weren’t hiding behind online anonymity, perhaps violence.
Young people today act out in ways older Americans never would to adults back in the day. Today’s young people are taught that their political opponents are intellectual inferiors and they do things “smarter”. Today’s young people are taught that all opposition to their superior reasoning is to be shouted down, thus all that “free speech” bullshit they’re taught has qualifications they alone determine.
So let’s not get all shocked when young people commit horrendous acts of violence and destruction. Whether we’re talking about Jared Loughners or the Earth Liberation Front, we’re dealing with people who are acting on what they were taught; not by Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin but by heartless, radical progressive teachers who eagerly offer up sacrificial students who come and go yearly.
The media has never looked at who indoctrinates young people to disrupt political gatherings (on both sides) or infiltrate web forums with the primary intent of insulting those whose views differ with theirs. But take a good look at who shoots up campuses and supermarkets. We’re not talking about older people with subscriptions to Beck and Limbaugh. We’re talking about the youth who are later found to be college educated with the “Communist Manifesto” and “Earth in the Balance” on their bookshelves.
Take a look at the radical professors and see who’s really placing the bulleyes on their opposition.
If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazis liked to say, “of blood and soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.
–Viktor Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy
Of Blood and Soil
Many College professors abuse their supposed roles to incite and manipulate the natural rebelliousness of teenagers from their parents. They become the anti-parent. They are opposed to the religion of the parents, the values of the parent, the culture of the parent. The still evolving childish minds think they escaped their parents’ control when they embrace the counter cultural controls of their new parent substitutes. Their error is that their new parents do not have their best interests at heart. They have a political agenda which would sacrifice these children for their quasi-god to acheive their quasi-religious Heaven substitute, the Utopia of their god, Karl Marx. The values of these Cretin professors are the anti-values of hate for your parents, hate your parents’ lives, hate for your country; hate your own race if white and hate white, if another color. These Professors are abusers of older children who want to think they’re adults.
Anarchists for Palin won’t exist because she isn’t the anti parent. Palin is the prototype American mother, Rosie the Riveter moves to Alaska and into politics.
Anarchy is the natural ally of a progressive philosophy. It is the confrontational wing of a body which demands “Reform Now” and seeks instant gratification. The more progressive the philosophy, the more predisposed to violence it will become. The more progressive the philosophy, the greater compromise of individual dignity it will demand. In all realizations of progressive philosophies, dissent will not be tolerated and will be quelled by those who are intent to preserve or create their empire.
The challenge in distinguishing between progressive systems, is which came first, the action or reaction.
Thank you, Bob. The American conservative ideology represents the compromise between absolute liberty and totalitarianism. For too long, conservatives have remained passive and overly tolerant of the progressive totalitarians that walk among us. For the time being, with a majority of Americans that still believe in individual dignity, we should remain tolerant, but we must respond to the actions and words of progressive actors who seek to subvert our nation and her citizens.
Tallyman:
Marx merely resurrected the oldest cult which adheres to collectivist principles (typically through coercion) and repackaged them to appeal to people in the modern era. We know that at least several thousand years earlier, the Greek philosophers were debating the merits of individual dignity vs a collectivist representation of sentient beings. We also know that the old systems (including empire, kingdom, communism, socialism, etc.) were actually progressive realizations of collectivist philosophy, which served mainly to empower and enrich an elite class and their supporters. Today’s exploitation of race, class, etc., are merely a variation on a theme which has transcended time and space.
There is a place for universal social policies as the exception. There is no need, and it is destructive of individual dignity and human spirit, for socialism to be the rule. The anarchist wing of the various progressive movements should be considered a criminal enterprise when they resort to subversion of our Creator-given rights and Constitutionally affirmed liberties.
There is a fine line that divides tolerance and submission. Each of us have the right, and are required, to decide where that line is placed. If our decision is wrong, or late, then history will repeat itself.
n.n. It’s the immature human flaw of the need for direction from prophet, a parent, a professor, Marx, etc., which is not corrected until full mental maturity is reached. This what Professors exploit. Progressives are like domesticated dogs, in that they never reach the adult maturity and independence of a wolf and remain like domesticated dogs loyal to their masters.
The flaw goes back past the Greeks, to an inherent human delusion of the need for a King, as recorded in the written record, c. 1030 B.C., of the Prophet Samuel; 1 Samuel 8
5. … Give us a king to judge us like all the other nations have.”
6. Samuel was displeased with their request and went to the Lord for guidance.
7. “Do everything they say to you,” the Lord replied, “for it is me they are rejecting, not you. They don’t want me to be their king any longer. (Just like the college student rejects the parent)
9. Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about the way a king will reign over them.”
11. “This is how a king will reign over you,” Samuel said. “The king will draft your sons and assign them to his chariots and his charioteers, making them run before his chariots.
12. … some will be forced to plow in his fields and harvest his crops, and some will make his weapons and chariot equipment
13. The king will take your daughters from you …
14. He will take away the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his own officials.
15. He will take a tenth of your grain and your grape harvest and distribute it among his officers and attendants. (That percentage has risen greatly in three thousand years)
17. …you will be his slaves. (drones, anarchists, moonbats, trained haters, etc.)
18. When that day comes, you will beg for relief …., but then the Lord will not help you.”
22. and the Lord replied, “Do as they say, and give them a king.”