Censorship Isn’t Funny; But Censors Are

Censorship isn’t funny. But censors ARE. Think about the mentality of a person who wants censorship. It’s absurd.

“Let’s get Donald Trump off Twitter. When he’s gone, he can’t incite violence and hatred anymore.”

Donald Trump doesn’t incite hatred or violence, of course. He celebrates freedom and decries socialism. But that’s not the point. The point is: Censors think people’s minds will change when they no longer have the ability to speak.

Censors ignore that Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh and anyone with a strong point-of-view exists because THEY SAY THINGS THAT MANY PEOPLE AGREE WITH, AND LIKE TO HEAR.

Censors reverse cause-and-effect. They think Donald Trump supporters exist because Donald Trump exists. It’s the other way around. Donald Trump exists because there are people who agree with him, and they’re constantly looking for a voice.

Censors tend to only talk to one another. It makes them gullible and naive. It leads them to think that if you can just obliterate something from their minds, it will go away. Kind of like a three-year-old, when you play “peek-a-boo.” The censor, like the three-year-old, thinks you disappear when you stop talking, and when the censor covers his eyes.

If censorship worked, there never would have been an Age of Reason and Enlightment, which followed the repressed Middle Ages. Without an Age of Reason and Enlightment, there would have been no resurgence of Aristotle, no John Locke and therefore no Thomas Jefferson or James Madison to create a civilization and a republic based on rights, for a time.

Censorship fails as badly as socialism fails. The fools who think ideas can be WISHED into or out of existence are the same fools who think that prosperity, wealth and technology can be WISHED into existence.

Shutting up Donald Trump will not change the minds of people who like what he says. Neither would impeaching him 50 times, jailing him or killing him. All of these things just make 75 million people like him more.

Donald Trump was saying things that for years, millions of Americans wished a presidential candidate or President would say — and mean. That desire — whatever you think of it — cannot disappear merely because you stifle their leader. If anything, the desire will grow stronger.

Look how intense the feelings of Donald Trump opponents grew during the Trump years. Those feelings culminated in months-long rioting by people, like Black Lives Matter, who shared their views, and whom the police were not permitted to arrest when they burned down businesses, homes and police stations. Donald Trump did not censor them, but they felt censored merely by his existence. And look how angry they became. What makes them think it won’t happen in reverse?

When you repress the ideas, views and feelings of people, those ideas, views and feelings do not go away. They intensify.

Censors are playing with fire. It’s not funny. But the way they smugly congratulate themselves and each other for what they’re doing … well, that’s quite hilarious.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Fascistbook Strikes Again

Facebook has announced that it will remove all content that mentions “Stop the Steal,” a phrase in reference to the 2020 U.S. presidential election that is popular among supporters of President Donald Trump.

Somebody has to give Facebook a psychology 101 lesson: WHEN YOU CUT OFF THE ABILITY TO SPEAK OR COMMUNICATE, YOU FOSTER MORE RAGE, NOT LESS. I guess it’s not really violence they’re worried about; it’s dissenting opinion.

In the words of Solzhenitsyn, a famous Soviet dissident: “Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.”

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Parler is Gone — And With It, All Remaining Dissension

Parler gone. Take a moment of silence. THIS is what civil war — and dictatorship — look like in the former American republic.

The moment we say somebody’s IDEAS forced someone else to be violent is the moment we have abandoned free speech. When we start pretending that someone’s choice to be violent isn’t a choice, we blame the ideas we dislike as an excuse to silence those ideas. “Incitement” to violence is the claim dictators make — not because they care about anyone’s safety; but because they care about CONTROL.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Ultimate Betrayal

Western Christians commemorate Jan. 6 as Epiphany, the day Jesus Christ became known to the world through the Three Wise Men, according to tradition. One definition of “epiphany,” per the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure.”

So the timing was perfect for Americans to receive just such a powerful revelation about their government. It is a revelation both nauseating and frightening.

What is that revelation? The people Americans elected and trusted to run their government are incorrigibly and irredeemably corrupt.

Congress certified Joe Biden as President in the dead of night Jan. 7 with the rest of Washington, D.C. under curfew and despite massive evidence of electoral fraud in his favor.

Congress thus wrote the latest act of a two-month drama that featured judges in starring roles. Those judges – including Supreme Court justices — arbitrarily used technicalities to deny President Donald Trump the chance to make his legal case as an aggrieved party victimized by fraud.

The only reason — the only reason – for those authorities’ behavior was their own contempt for Trump.

The implications are stunning, and go far beyond any one man or Presidential election. Now, every American — regardless of race, creed, class, gender or any other category — can become a target for the capricious disregard of due process if that American is unpopular with the powers-that-be.

Americans have seen this before. They saw it in Judge Emmet Sullivan’s unprofessional behavior during Gen. Michael Flynn’s trial. They see it now in the lockdowns and mandates issued solely by executive fiat and based on medical quackery, despite scientific evidence showing that masks and social distancing create more harm than good.

But the events of Jan. 6 in Washington drained the last remaining drops of formaldehyde from the nation’s political corpse.

As Congress met to decide Biden’s fate, as Trump rallied thousands of supporters to demand a fair hearing, several protesters breached Capitol security. As a result, Congress had to be recessed and Congressional offices evacuated.

Many entered without resistance because Capitol security — which Congress directly oversees — allowed them to enter. Protesters walked through passages marked by security cords and acted with carte blanche in the empty building.

Regardless of who these protesters were or what cause they represented, people with local experience believe the episode was an inside job — especially given the heavy security normally protecting the Capitol.

“My dad worked for both DOD and Homeland Security,” Chris James tweeted. “You can’t just take over a federal building, and do what we saw today without some help from the inside. This was orchestrated by members of the Senate and members of the capital police.”

“Cosign,” Lisa Edouard tweeted in response to a different comment. “Worked on the Hill. I barely remembered where my Member’s hideaway was located. Total inside job.”

If it was an inside job, it had its desired effect.

At 2:40 p.m., about two hours after the incident started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser ordered a 12-hour curfew starting at 6 p.m. The overwhelming majority of Trump’s supporters dispersed without incident.

At 6:55 p.m., Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, announced Congress would continue certification. At 8:10 p.m., Sen. Mitch McConnell announced the Senate resumed debate.

Conducting such activity during a curfew meant that not only legislators received special dispensations. So did their staff members, security guards, journalists and any required support personnel.

Besides, the Constitution does not demand that Congress certify a Presidential election in one day. The situation warranted an audit, regardless of any protesters’ behavior.

Though the Electoral Count Act requires Congress to start tabulating electoral votes on Jan. 6, the counting “need not end that day,” said Michael Thorning, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s associate director.

“The statute recognizes that this process could be lengthy and imagines the process could take in excess of five days in some cases,” Thorning said. “The statute does not provide a deadline to complete the counting but requires that the joint session not be dissolved until then and until the results are announced. Even if the counting went beyond January 20th, when a president and vice president’s term would end, the presidential line of succession would be activated.”

But once Congress reconvened, several Republicans who planned to challenge electors from six states where fraud dramatically influenced the results announced that they changed their minds. Only electors from Arizona and Pennsylvania received challenges, and Congress rejected both challenges decisively.

Under such conditions did Congress certify Biden as the winner at 3:41 a.m. Jan. 7.

But reporters failed to examine the suspicious circumstances surrounding Biden’s certification. Instead, they followed the lead of many officials and blamed Trump for supposedly inciting violence.

Reporters also failed to note two disturbing similarities. It was also in the dead of night when Biden received a sudden vertical spike in votes during the Presidential election. The two Democratic candidates in Georgia’s Senate runoff Jan. 5 also received similar nocturnal spikes.

Such extended subterfuge proves Trump’s assertions about the “deep state” and its allies in the boardroom, the newsroom and the classroom.

Americans now can see that this collection of politicians, bureaucrats and judges is an entitled, professionally-inbred caste of grifters who will suck money and power from lobbyists, foreign nations, corporations, foundations and anything else — and try to preserve their privilege at all costs.

If doing so means sabotaging the Constitution or enslaving their fellow Americans, so be it.

That point became even more apparent immediately after Biden’s certification. Congressional leaders desperately want to remove Trump through impeachment or the 25th Amendment, and to prevent him from seeking office again. Social media corporations rushed frantically to de-platform Trump and his supporters, and suppress any views that contradict the prevailing narrative.

Why the panic? Because the powers-that-be fear that Trump will use any information he might have to expose and destroy them.

The next move is Trump’s. What he might do remains unclear. But one thing is certain:

Unless radical surgery is performed — and soon — the metastasizing cancer of unfettered corruption will kill the American republic.

Joseph Hippolito, frontpagemagazine

The “War on Terrorism” Comes Home

Last week’s massive social media purges – starting with President Trump’s permanent ban from Twitter and other outlets – was shocking and chilling, particularly to those of us who value free expression and the free exchange of ideas. The justifications given for the silencing of wide swaths of public opinion made no sense and the process was anything but transparent. Nowhere in President Trump’s two “offending” Tweets, for example, was a call for violence expressed explicitly or implicitly. It was a classic example of sentence first, verdict later.

Many Americans viewed this assault on social media accounts as a liberal or Democrat attack on conservatives and Republicans, but they are missing the point. The narrowing of allowable opinion in the virtual public square is no conspiracy against conservatives. As progressives like Glenn Greenwald have pointed out, this is a wider assault on any opinion that veers from the acceptable parameters of the mainstream elite, which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Yes, this is partly an attempt to erase the Trump movement from the pages of history, but it is also an attempt to silence any criticism of the emerging political consensus in the coming Biden era that may come from progressive or antiwar circles.

After all, a look at Biden’s incoming “experts” shows that they will be the same failed neoconservative interventionists who gave us weekly kill lists, endless drone attacks and coups overseas, and even US government killing of American citizens abroad. Progressives who complain about this “back to the future” foreign policy are also sure to find their voices silenced.

Those who continue to argue that the social media companies are purely private ventures acting independent of US government interests are ignoring reality. The corporatist merger of “private” US social media companies with US government foreign policy goals has a long history and is deeply steeped in the hyper-interventionism of the Obama/Biden era.

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas. Whether it was ongoing regime change attempts against Iran, the 2009 coup in Honduras, the disastrous US-led coup in Ukraine, “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Syria and Libya, and so many more, the big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.

In short, US government elites have been partnering with “Big Tech” overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of “soft power” in the service of Washington’s hard power has come home to roost.

So what is to be done? Even pro-free speech alternative social media outlets are under attack from the Big Tech/government Leviathan. There are no easy solutions. But we must think back to the dissidents in the era of Soviet tyranny. They had no Internet. They had no social media. They had no ability to communicate with thousands and millions of like-minded, freedom lovers. Yet they used incredible creativity in the face of incredible adversity to continue pushing their ideas. Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government – can stop an idea whose time has come. And Liberty is that idea. We must move forward with creativity and confidence!

Ron Paul

Rules for Revolutionaries in the 21st Century

Since George Floyd’s death, events seem to be spiraling out of control. For weeks, Americans were bombarded, almost on a daily basis, with reports of large protests in major cities, accompanied by rioting, looting, burning, assaults, and even murders.

Observing these events unfold, average U.S. citizens, watching TV from the purported safety of their home, might be bewildered by these transformative events, the purpose of which is nothing less than a “re-imagining” of America. To better understand exactly what is happening, let’s take a cue from my 21st Century Revolutionary Handbook. There are ten rules to explain what the radical left is planning.

#1: Inertia is fatal to a revolutionary movement.

The overtures of the late 60s movement are eerily similar to what is happening today. The problem for leftists was that, back then, the revolution centered around the anti-Vietnam War Movement. Once peace came, the revolution’s impetus died out. The 2008 Occupy Wall St Movement had the zeal, but cold winter months in New York were not conducive to this type of protest.

The lesson: choose your cause carefully. Today’s cause célèbre is “systemic racism” and its offshoots. Racism can be recycled perpetually. Recently, for example, the Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, declared racism to be a public health crisis.

#2: Do not identify your ideology by name, nor state exactly what you will do after you are in power. Speak only in vague generalities and use simple two- or three-word phrases the public can identify with.

Terms such as “Socialist,” “Communist” or “Marxist” generally have a negative connotation and, while millennials like them, the population at large does not. Do not look to antagonize ordinary Americans more than is necessary. The revolution will need its army of “useful idiots” for the future.

Instead, use terms such as “progressive” or “social justice warrior” to describe yourself. These are far less threatening to the average American. Fidel Castro initially identified himself as a “humanist.” Only after he felt secure in his new position did he announce to the world: “I am a Marxist Leninist.”

#3: The revolution must get control over mass media and the education system.

Truth is defined by whatever the revolution says it is, and anyone who dares speak out is immediately silenced. Only information advancing the revolutionary cause may be heard and taught. Once the revolution gains control over mass media, it controls all the information that is disseminated, and once the revolution gains control over the education system, it controls the future.

#4: All the apparatus of the state: the ministries, civil service, justice system, military, and law enforcement must be brought under control.

This rule is simple. Whatever the revolution cannot control could eventually be used against it. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all dealt with the problem of possible anti-revolutionary activists through purges aimed at crushing all potential opposition, which extended even to family members. Stalin allegedly remarked that it was fine if innocents were punished along with the guilty, because “that sends an even stronger message.”

#5: All vestiges of the old must be destroyed in order to build the new. This includes all history, traditions, culture, and iconography that cannot be made to conform to the new ideals.

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

In the late 1950s, Mao unleashed the cultural revolution on China. It repudiated what Mao called the “four olds”: old ideas, customs, habits, and culture. Estimates vary as to the number of people killed but it was most certainly in the millions. Coming as it did after the disastrous policies of the “Great Leap Forward,” China was left an economic and cultural wasteland.

#6: Conventional ideas about religion and family are anathema to a revolutionary movement.

Absolute loyalty to the revolution must come first; this extends to one’s family. Children are encouraged to inform on their parents if they hear anything that can be interpreted as “counter-revolutionary. Organized religion must also go. The revolution cannot have loyalty to God supersede loyalty to the state.

#7: The revolution can only succeed in times of extreme economic, political, and social unrest.

This is an important point. A generally content, gainfully employed, and prosperous populace is not likely to support a revolutionary movement aimed at overthrowing the government, party, or individual that has provided these benefits. For the revolution to be successful, the population must be brought low and kept in a state of abject misery. Years ago, former White House Chief of Staff and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Activist/actress Jane Fonda brought this up when she noted: “COVID is God’s gift to the left.”

#8: Ultimate victory in the revolution will go to that segment of the revolutionary body that is the best organized, best financed, and most ideologically dedicated.

A revolutionary movement can be composed of many divergent groups, each of which has a peeve with the central government. In our country we have, among others, minorities, LGBTQ, and feminists all rubbing shoulders with liberals, socialists, anarchists, globalists, Islamists, and hardcore Marxist revolutionaries. The last group is the best organized and funded. They are completely devoted to the “righteousness” of their ideology and even have their own para-military group – Antifa. Their goal is the complete destruction of the American political and economic system.

#9: You don’t need a majority to force your will on an entire population.

Most people assume that any revolution must have popular support to succeed. This may have been true in some cases, but not all. The Bolsheviks swept into power in Russia in Nov 1917 with a simple slogan: “Peace, Land, Bread.” Although one cannot be certain of the precise number of hardcore committed Communists among the masses of disaffected citizenry, it would have been comparatively small. The Nazis, for their part, never got more than 38% of the popular vote.

#10: After victory, the revolution will turn in directions not initially anticipated.

In addition to exacting revenge on their opponents, revolutions usually turn on many of the very people who were their most ardent supporters. One only must look at Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives,” Stalin’s “Gulag Archipeligo, and Mao’s “Cultural Revolution, for examples.

Some of the above rules already apply to America; others will soon. There is no doubt that as a society we have made enormous strides in the last half-century, yet we are still struggling to come to grips with our past.

Sixty years ago, electing an African-American with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama to the highest office of the land would have been impossible. The same is true about the minorities and women now seated in the House, Senate, and even Vice President-elect’s position.

Do we now throw all that away and adopt the failed economic and political system of our former Cold War adversaries? I hope not.

There is no perfect economic or political system, but there are systems that generally work better for more people than others. As imperfect as it is, capitalism works better than communism. Capitalist systems encourage innovation, individualism, personal responsibility, and independence.

Marxist systems mandate conformity of ideas, thought, belief, and speech. As always, they admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-charges, and in the final analysis, double down on their ideology. Whatever our many problems, allowing the left to implement the Rules for Revolutionaries, overthrowing our entire system, is not the answer.

As for the revolution itself, George Bernard Shaw stated it best when he wrote: ”Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.”

Caren Besner is a retired teacher who has written articles published by American Thinker, Sun-Sentinel, Dr Swier, News With Views, The Front Page, The Published Reporter, Washington Examiner, The Algemeiner, Jewish Journal, Independent Sentinel, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, San Diego Jewish World, The Times of Israel, The Moderate Voice, IsraPost, The Jewish Voice, Joo Tube, The Florida Veteran, and others.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/twentyfirst_century_rules_for_revolutionaries.html#ixzz6jAJQs3qp
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/twentyfirst_century_rules_for_revolutionaries.html#ixzz6jAJ9W4n6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Statement From Parler

Sunday (tomorrow) at midnight Amazon will be shutting off all of our servers in an attempt to completely remove free speech off the internet. There is the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch. We prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products.

We will try our best to move to a new provider right now as we have many competing for our business, however Amazon, Google and Apple purposefully did this as a coordinated effort knowing our options would be limited and knowing this would inflict the most damage right as President Trump was banned from the tech companies.

This was a coordinated attack by the tech giants to kill competition in the market place. We were too successful too fast. You can expect the war on competition and free speech to continue, but don’t count us out.

Silence Will Be The Next Hate Crime

Attacking so-called “hate speech” has proven an effective Trojan horse technique by BLM and Antifa social justice warriors, who have incorporated Critical Race Theory (CRT) into their pernicious plans to dismantle the Constitution. After all, who wants to defend hate speech? But connecting the jurisprudential dots reveals that the whiter-than-snow “cause” of inner-city black suffering is the battering ram to bypass the very liberties that nurtured the abolitionist and Civil Rights movements. Might this chaos extend even to the point of criminalizing silence as hate speech?

CRT does not hide its plans. Quoting Audre Lorde, BLM brazenly declares:

For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.

Note that “genuine change” means attacking good police, burning black businesses, and physically assaulting people whose ideas you don’t wish to hear. Actions speak louder than words: “genuine change” means destruction, not healing; hate, not love; dictatorship.

United States Supreme Court precedents hold that Nazis rightfully assemble on state land, and the KKK has a right to preach its hate on public streets. These are classic liberal court cases, a product of the once-tolerant left. Yet today’s far left says the First Amendment is an instrument of oppression, not liberty:

CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the First Amendment[.] … [I]nstead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law[.] … [S]ome speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech.

This slippery slope eviscerates the First Amendment: the issue in Skokie was whether government may ban speech by Nazis that Jews (including actual Holocaust survivors) found deeply traumatizing. The Court held that “feelings” are not a standard to proscribe speech.

CRT “scholars” seek to splice a host-killing new gene into America’s constitutional DNA, to alter that standard of “speech that incites violence” to “speech that makes snowflakes melt.” If speech is “viewed in terms of the harm it causes,” what harms are inflicted to others’ Constitutional liberties if their speech is prohibited because of the potential subjective insult to the hearer — as with, say, Confederate flags, or religious scriptures, or the misapplication of evolving pronouns? Next up are “microaggressions” and the crime of silence.

The left abuses the very free speech protections it seeks to destroy, telling others their “silence is violence” (silence as hate speech!). Meanwhile, BLM and Antifa employ violence-inciting speech that is not protected by existing law (see, e.g., Brandenburg: speech is not protected if it is “likely … to incite imminent lawless action”). In fact, Facebook has censored conservative free speech that would be shielded under existing precedent while advancing unprotected incitement-to-violence speech by BLM and Antifa. Here is revealed the “brave new speech world” of CRT.

Critical Race Theorists wish to eviscerate the Constitution and replace it with…something undefined:

Unlike traditional civil rights … critical race theory questions the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law[.] … Only aggressive, color-conscious efforts to change the way things are will do much to ameliorate misery[.] … [H]ate speech, which targets mainly minorities, gays, lesbians, and other outsiders, is almost always tolerated, while speech that offends the interests of empowered groups finds a ready exception in First Amendment law.

But this is patently false. Consider the now-common “R” word — “racist” — employed routinely by the left to attack “empowered groups,” who have no “ready exception” as defense. No evidence necessary. Destroying character and attacking someone at the deepest level. Isn’t that hate speech?

Some say wishing someone Merry Christmas is “devastating hate speech, but excoriating opponents as racist is fair game. This is CRT in practice, just as it is socialism in practice: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”

Vermont’s capital city spearheaded a Black Lives Matter” mural which was painted on the street with almost no notice, at state expense, under the initiative of a sole councilor. When a group of citizens sought to add a “Liberty and Justice for All” statement and American flag, these public officials exhibited CRT in action:

Citing a legal opinion obtained from the city’s attorney, [Mayor] Watson said the council could comfortably deny [the] request, suggesting the Black Lives Matter mural it permitted to proceed could be viewed as “government speech” — negating the First Amendment argument advanced[.] … Watson said she believed it would be inappropriate to paint the image of the American flag on a city street.

Thinking themselves untouchable through their “government speech” contrivance, these public officials openly condemned any “government speech” other than theirs:

I’m not against the concept of “liberty and justice for all,” I think it’s a great aspirational statement, but right now it’s a farce in America[.] … It’s maybe something to aspire to, but until we can recognize that Black lives matter, I don’t think “liberty and justice for all’ is alive and well in America.”

Our laws call this “content discrimination.” But the principles of our Constitution are a farce to Councilor Casey:

I don’t think there’s any center with racism[.] … I’m not interested in meeting somebody in the center, as a sign of unity, if they don’t believe Black Lives Matter[.]

That’s right — it’s his way or the highway (only you can’t paint on his federal highway turf for his personal expression of “government speech”).

A 2017 poll revealed that 71% of Americans “believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have. … [Twenty-eight percent] instead believe that political correctness has done more to help people avoid offending others.” Connor Casey’s dictatorial political correctness intrudes itself unconstitutionally to “avoid offending others,” while he spews ignorant and offensive speech while sitting as an elected official.

With free speech, such fatuous edicts will die the death of all vain elitist imaginings. Foreshadowing today’s dispute, Justice Douglas opined in Brandenberg (quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Gitlow v. New York):

If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.

That is, the Critical Race Theorists and BLM should dominate America, if their ideas hold sway in the free exchange of ideas. Their toxic ideology cannot withstand even cavalier scrutiny, though, which is why dissent is verboten.

Critical Race Theory and BLM activists depend on silencing opposition in order to install their “social-warrior dictatorship.” These ideologies demand that their voices be paramount, displacing anachronistic concepts of universal liberty and equality as unachievable and intolerable, so that they can “beat the master at his own game” — use the freedoms Americans prize against them. Voices (faiths?) that disagree will be silenced as hateful. White silence is targeted as evidence of imputed racism, itself violent hate speech that must be criminally sanctioned, or elicit reeducation.

Welcome to Amerika.

Do not go quietly into that dark night…

John Klar, American Thinker

Thanks to Biden Voters, California Government Censorship Coming to All of America

A preview of what’s coming nationally. And you can forget the Supreme Court. The totalitarian premise: Any speech that threatens the authority of the presiding government is DANGEROUS and therefore must be silenced and punished.

Daniel Greenfield, from Front Page online:

“Report misinformation,” a flier from California’s Office of Election Cybersecurity blares. Social media users are urged to report “misleading” materials to the Secretary of State’s office.

A government office created by California Democrats is monitoring hashtags, classifying political speech it opposes by “threat level”, taking screenshots of posts, and then storing the information indefinitely, before reporting the offending speech to social media companies for censorship.

“Election Security is our number one priority,” the Office claims.”

The Biden regime (it’s NOT an administration; it’s not a President; it’s a REGIME) will be partnering with social media giants, telling them of posts to be removed. Donald Trump’s removal from Facebook and Twitter was the opening shot. Government-directed censorship is already happening in California, and it will now go national. Don’t be so sure about running to Parler or a social media company started by Trump. The Biden regime WILL go after them. Remember the friends, family and neighbors who voted for this. This was YOUR freedom. And THEY stole it. I don’t know about you; but I do not plan on forgiving them.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

“Great Spirits” versus “Useful Idiots”By NORA DIMITROVA CLINTON

How was I to resolve the irreconcilable dilemma between my passionate love for scholarship and my gut-wrenching disappointment with those American intellectuals who condoned communist crimes?

Excerpted from the author’s book, Quarantine Reflections across Two Worlds.

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another: and this is the only check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know.” – Benjamin Franklin, “Silence Dogood, No. 8, 9 July 1722”

I got my Ph.D. and then my first job as a classics research associate. It was a golden time: I got married, my son was born, and I had an attractive job writing scholarly books and articles and teaching classical languages. I was even fortunate to co-establish a charitable foundation with my husband and provide a modicum of help to my beloved country of birth.

After the completion of my research appointment, whose bliss had endured for seven years, I started applying for professorial positions. I sent but a handful of applications, only for opportunities that truly interested me. Although classics departments had been somewhat spared from turning into ideological conveyor belts promoting modernized Marxist dogmas and penalizing dissenters, a growing contingent of classicists taught unproven subjective theories at the expense of good old-fashioned training in facts, documents, and languages. I had no passion for disseminating such theories, having published extensively in the field of ancient documents on stone.

Finally, a dream job opened up at Berkeley for a tenure-track professorship of epigraphy—the study of writing on hard surfaces. I was invited for an interview and then to deliver a lecture—a delightful experience in a breathtaking paradise on Earth, which beckoned, sun-kissed, luscious, and laid-back, even in January. I ended up being a runner-up for the job, which in retrospect was a blessing in disguise.

While my academic hosts wined and dined me as a promising job candidate, for which I felt most obliged, they invariably took me to the Freedom of Speech Café, where I received a powerful dose of anti-American sentiment. I love and admire America, and this made my blood boil. I politely underscored that freedom of speech was a privilege this country had continually enjoyed; if socialist intellectuals wanted to experience its real absence, they should relocate to a communist country.

How was I to resolve the irreconcilable dilemma between my passionate love for scholarship and my gut-wrenching disappointment with those American intellectuals who condoned communist crimes? My parents had been academics, and I had dreamed of becoming one myself since the age of six. At that age, I wrote my first “dissertation,” which consisted of a title page; ten pages with educational illustrations

I meticulously drew and redrew, accompanied by detailed captions; and a judicious conclusion. The impetus had come from my beloved mother’s Ph.D. dissertation, which she defended at that time. Her example inspired me to produce a dissertation of my own, a term I childishly assumed derived from the word for dessert, since it served as the crowning achievement, the cherry on top of someone’s doctorate. I grew up with a profound sense of admiration for all those “great spirits,” who, according to Einstein’s prophetic adage, “always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” I felt incredibly blessed, at all academic institutions I attended, to have learned from such great spirits, who regarded facts as sacrosanct, while encouraging free thought and curiosity. To them I owe eternal thanks.

How different these honorable scholars and scientists were from the cookie-cutter proponents of pro-communist dogma and anti-American platitudes, who had replaced objective knowledge with ignorant propaganda. While constructive criticism of one’s government stimulates democracy, the Marxist intellectuals at Western universities engage in a destructive rewriting of history that defies the principles of scholarship.

Were these the same duty-bound Americans in whom millions of Eastern Europeans placed their hope of deliverance— that they will “tear down this wall” one day, gallop in on white horses, and rescue us from Big Brother? In 1986, Ivailo Petrov published Wolf Hunt, a profound and intrepid portrayal of the communist persecution of Bulgarian peasants, who lost their land, livestock, livelihood, and often lives. One of the novel’s main characters utters the wishful prophesy that the Americans will come: “If they don’t come in our time, then they’ll come in our children’s or our grandchildren’s time. This world wasn’t created yesterday, it has its way of doing things. What was again will be.” [1] Among Bulgarian dissidents, these words assumed a life of their own, repeated from mouth to mouth—whispered at first, then timidly voiced, and at last boldly proclaimed. My disillusionment with mainstream intelligentsia continued to intensify. One professor I knew, who earned a six-figure salary, was an unabashed self-proclaimed communist, who enjoyed a luxurious house with acres of majestic pines and an emerald pond. He incessantly directed invectives at the United States and sang “The Internationale” at his bon-vivant soirees, after distributing gaudy pink brochures with this dreadful anthem’s lyrics to his unfortunate guests.

The French have fittingly labeled this phenomenon “left caviar” or “champagne socialism.” Just think of George Bernard Shaw, who shamelessly propagated eugenics and genocide, offered to assist Hitler and Mussolini, and lauded Stalin’s extermination camps as though they were a quaint holiday arrangement of voluntary duration. Even more eloquent is the term “useful idiots,” allegedly coined by Lenin to describe Western intellectuals and journalists who were sympathetic to the communist regime, yet despised by its leadership for their naiveté, while being ruthlessly used by it to manipulate free-world media and impressionable young minds. I kept arguing with useful idiots, to the point of painful exasperation, and finally relinquished a successful academic career, appalled by their hypocrisy and ingratitude.

My education and the noble minds who sought to impart their wisdom to me will always be a part of my soul. I never regretted my decision to bid farewell to academia, or rather, what has become of it, and set sail on uncharted seas that guided me to a new vocational harbor I now treasure every day—but let this be the subject of another book.

Read Quarantine Reflections across Two Worlds by Nora Clinton.