Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Dec 13, 2015, 01:36 PM
Number of posts: 13,423

Journal Archives

Will Elizabeth Warrens Woman of Color Sham Come Back to Haunt Her?

The Pallid Excuses of Harvard Law’s First ‘Woman of Color’

As I noted yesterday afternoon, back in 1997, Harvard Law School was touting Elizabeth Warren as their first “woman of color” law professor. A year earlier, the law school had told the Harvard Crimson, in response to claims that the faculty wasn’t diverse enough, that “although the conventional wisdom among students and faculty is that the Law School faculty includes no minority women, Chmura said Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren is Native American.” A year later, a Harvard Crimson editorial declared, “Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.”

This was consistent throughout Warren’s career. As Benny Johnson noted, “Warren self-identified as a ‘Native American’ in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of law professors in every edition printed between 1986 -1995.”

A 2005 report from the University of Pennsylvania’s Minority Equity Committee referred to Warren as a minority award winner.

Back in 2012, Warren initially claimed she didn’t know the schools were referring to her that way, which is extremely unlikely. This would mean that Warren wasn’t following the debate about minority representation at the law school back in the 1990s and that she didn’t realize the law school was citing her as an example of minority representation.

But then a few weeks later she said she “provided that information to the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.” As we now know, Warren is anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American, and does not meet the criteria of “Native American” under anyone’s definition but her own.

So leftists defending Liawatha Warren, do you still stand by your claims that Warren never benefited professionally from her so-called Native American heritage claims?

Sound familiar today?

"We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language that inspires hate, revulsion and scorn toward those who disagree with us."

"Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic… constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind."

V. Lenin

"Not ‘equal’ but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality… Given this situation, I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors."

" would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc."

H. Marcuse

Repressive Tolerance

Get the Sed. A. Gives

Pearls before swing - World Police

The Practice of Ritual Defamation

How values, opinions and beliefs are controlled in democratic societies.

Laird Wilcox

"Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing or neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so as to discourage similar independence and "insensitivity" or non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of a special interest group, and in that it consists of several characteristic elements.

Ritual Defamation is not ritualistic because it follows any prescribed religious or mystical doctrine, nor is it embraced in any particular document or scripture. Rather, it is ritualistic because it follows a predictable, stereotyped pattern which embraces a number of elements, as in a ritual.

The elements of a Ritual Defamation are these:

In a ritual defamation the victim must have violated a particular taboo in some way, usually by expressing or identifying with a forbidden attitude, opinion or belief. It is not necessary that he "do" anything about it or undertake any particular course of action, only that he engage in some form of communication or expression.
The method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the character of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory challenge to the particular attitudes, opinions or beliefs expressed or implied. Character assassination is its primary tool.

An important rule in ritual defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion of its merits, and to consider the evidence that may support it, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to avoid. The primary goal of a ritual defamation is censorship and repression.
The victim is often somebody in the public eye - someone who is vulnerable to public opinion - although perhaps in a very modest way. It could be a schoolteacher, writer, businessman, minor official, or merely an outspoken citizen. Visibility enhances vulnerability to ritual defamation.

An attempt, often successful, is made to involve others in the defamation. In the case of a public official, other public officials will be urged to denounce the offender. In the case of a student, other students will be called upon, and so on.

In order for a ritual defamation to be effective, the victim must be dehumanized to the extent that he becomes identical with the offending attitude, opinion or belief, and in a manner which distorts it to the point where it appears at its most extreme. For example, a victim who is defamed as a "subversive" will be identified with the worst images of subversion, such as espionage, terrorism or treason. A victim defamed as a "pervert" will be identified with the worst images of perversion, including child molestation and rape. A victim defamed as a "racist" or "anti-Semitic" will be identified with the worst images of racism or anti-Semitism, such as lynchings or gas chambers.

Also to be successful, a ritual defamation must bring pressure and humiliation on the victim from every quarter, including family and friends. If the victim has school children, they may be taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse publicity. If they are employed, they may be fired from their job. If the victim belongs to clubs or associations, other members may be urged to expel them.

Any explanation the victim may offer, including the claim of being misunderstood, is considered irrelevant. To claim truth as a defense for a politically incorrect value, opinion or belief is interpreted as defiance and only compounds the problem. Ritual defamation is often not necessarily an issue of being wrong or incorrect but rather of "insensitivity" and failing to observe social taboos.

An interesting aspect of ritual defamation as a practice is its universality. It is not specific to any value, opinion or belief or to any group or subculture. It may be used for or against any political, ethnic, national or religious group. It may, for example, by anti-Semites against Jews, or by Jews against anti-Semites; by rightists against leftists or by leftists against rightists, and so on.

The power of ritual defamation lies entirely in its capacity to intimidate and terrorize. It embraces some elements of primitive superstitious belief, as in a "curse" or "hex." It plays into the subconscious fear most people have of being abandoned or rejected by the tribe or by society and being cut off from social and psychological support systems.

The weakness of ritual defamation lies in its tendency toward overkill and in its obvious maliciousness. Occasionally a ritual defamation will fail because of poor planning and failure to correctly judge the vulnerability of the victim or because its viciousness inadvertently generates sympathy.

It’s important to recognize and identify the patterns of a ritual defamation. Like all propaganda and disinformation campaigns it is accomplished primarily through the manipulation of words and symbols. It is not used to persuade, but to punish. Although it may have cognitive elements, its thrust is primarily emotional. Ritual Defamation is used to hurt, to intimidate, to destroy, and to persecute, and to avoid the dialogue, debate and discussion upon which a free society depends. On those grounds it must be opposed no matter who tries to justify its use."

Let's cut the bullshit and summarize where things stand.

Between the liberals here who are too stupid to understand due process and why the FBI doesn't have jurisdiction to investigate alleged local sex crimes and supposed Trump supporters who are certain the GOP will cave completely in the face of these accusations, let's actually discuss directly the story thus far.

Judge Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump on July 9th. The confirmation hearing began the beginning of September and concluded on September 7th. During his confirmation hearing, he spent more than 31 hours answering questions. He then spent time answering further questions in a follow-up session. A week later he answered 1200 questions put to him in writing, more than all other SCOTUS nominees combined.

We watched Harris lie and try and trip Kavanaugh up in weird ways. We saw liberal activists of all variety disrupt the hearings. We watched a Spartacus moment with Booker. We watched delay tactics. The hearing concluded with no allegations of any sexual improprieties.

Only after the hearing did DiFi begin her smear campaign. A letter was sent to a California Rep by Ford even before Trump was nominated. Ford claimed to not want to go public yet she traveled in three days to MD for a polygraph and was interviewed by the Washington Post thereafter.

Ford's lawyer has made outrageous demands including opening an FBI investigation which derailed the confirmation vote last week. A hearing was set for Monday. Only Kavanaugh participated in the preparation which included phone conference calls with staffers, written hearing statements, and agreeing to the Monday hearing.

Over the weekend, we watched more delaying tactics while the Democrats got together more accusations. For the last three days these have been emerging. We are up to five now and the hearing is supposed to start tomorrow morning.

When we examine these accusations we note that all of those involved are surprisingly Democrats and mostly activists to boot. Wow! What a coincidence. Avennati is now involved as is McCabe's lawyer.

But here is the deal. All of these accusation are starting to fall apart. The problem is that the damage may already be done.

Ford has no evidence, no specific memories, and no witnesses.

Ramirez has no evidence, drunken hazy memories, and no witnesses.

Swetnick also has no evidence, drunken hazy memories, and no witnesses. She claims that as a college student she attended 10 underage drinking parties that all led to gang rapes. Yet apparently none of these ever led to a police report. This woman has had a restraining order put in place by an ex-boyfriend and a previous sexual harassment suit that involved Katz, Ford's lawyer. *Correction - thanks Charlie Mike*

The fourth incident was provided by the mother of a woman whose friend claims she saw her friend assaulted by Kavanaugh. So we are talking hearsay of hearsay of hearsay.

And the last one is supposedly a rape by both Judge and Kavanaugh on a boat off RI in 1985 and it appears that the man making the claim is a liberal activist who believes Trump is the parasite infesting the White House. Breaking news suggests he may be completely recanting his story.

That any liberal on here believes this shows just how craven the left have become. This is a Soviet style kangaroo court borking a decent and honest man who has been a public servant for decades, undergone six FBI background checks including a security clearance for work at the Bush White House, and was set to be confirmed until this 11th hour bullshit started.

I predict that a few more accusations are likely to emerge in the next 12 hours. They will be as flimsy as all the others with few facts, zero evidence, no police reports, no corroborating witnesses, and they will all be Democrat activist women. Finally they will all be from decades ago which means even if there was a potential crime, SOL's will likely be past.

I expect there is about a 10% chance that Ford will show tomorrow. I expect her lawyer at the last minute to claim that all of these women must be heard after an FBI investigation is concluded. Her client will delay testifying until such time as this is complete.

After all, what's the rush right? It is not like mid-terms are less than six weeks away. It is not like the SCOTUS season starts on October 1st. It is not like the GOP will push him through and he still loses the vote due to two women - Collins and Mukowski who side with sex over ethics. It is not like conservatives will potentially punish the GOP for the Democrat's actions and thereby allow the Democrats to possibly gain a majority in the Senate. And it is not like they would then use that to lame duck President Trump and tank all future legislative initiatives that he puts forth. The robust economic growth we have all been experiencing will dry on the vine just so Democrats can gain some electoral control and abuse it unwisely.

So let's cut the bullshit. The facts are the facts. This is not some vile drunk sex offender who escaped scrutiny for decades and hid from the FBI not once but six times. This is a good man being destroyed so the Democrats can continue their soft coup. Liberals have increasingly demonstrated with this that due process and the rule of law are irrelevant now. The accused must now prove his innocence in Kafkaesque fashion. And that decades old vague accusations are enough to tank a man's professional and familial life.

The sick irony is that Kavanaugh is not an Originalist. He is a conservative cut out of the same swing vote cloth that gave us Kennedy whom he is to replace. He will not overturn Roe v. Wade (even though he should) and he won't overturn Obergefell (even though he should). I would have much preferred Barrett but now, I will defend Kavanaugh with facts and truth against smears and lies.

Dershowitz: Ford's Request is an 'anti-American concept'.

Ingraham: Trump's trade triumph

Soros Role in Social Media Censorship Revealed in Leaked Document

Social media censorship is here and out in the open, and it has become clear that the major tech companies are working together to shut down and silence members of the free press for political reasons. Of course, this has everything to do with Donald Trump being in office, and whether you support him or not, what is being lost in the effort to depose him will eventually affect everyone.

Censorship is not the American way, and while people today may think that the ‘other’ side is dead wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to speak up, it takes a special kind of influence to achieve the level of social media and platform banning that we’ve seen in recent weeks.

It turns out, according to a leaked 49 page document, that this special influence may be none other than George Soros himself, the world’s wealthiest liberal political agitator. Soros has long been known to exert influence, via his immense personal wealth, at the grass-roots level of many political struggles around the world.

“A confidential, 49-page memo for defeating Trump by working with the major social-media platforms to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news” was presented in January 2017 by Media Matters founder David Brock at a retreat in Florida with about 100 donors, the Washington Free Beacon reported at the time.

The document obtained by The Free Beacon states that Media Matters and other Soros funded groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”

The full confidential memo, which reads like a subversive political manifesto, was written by American liberal political activist and author, David Brock, also the founder of Media Matters for America.

Entitled, Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action, and composed in early 2017, it lays out the Democratic plan to oppose Trump’s presidency at all costs by waging a daily media war, and we have been feeling the results of this strategy since Trump took office, and after nearly two years as president, the media landscape is in utter chaos, and the population is more divided than it has been since the American civil war.

Regarding Soros, he is a known financier of Media Matters, of which he has supported since 2010 in an overt effort to counter news organizations like Fox News. Soros has developed the reputation of being the world’s leading agit-prop bankroller.

“Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast. I am supporting Media Matters in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy.” ~George Soros

The effort to censor social media began in earnest with the election of Trump which saw the rollout of the term ‘fake news,’ and the Brock memo clearly outlines how this plan was intended to bring about the resulting censorship we see today.

From the Brock memo:

Futhermore, the memo discusses how big tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter (all of which are openly censoring user accounts today) will be recruited and called upon to collude with the Soros and Brock agenda in order to manipulate the political landscape.

Collusion between Media Matters and social media platforms runs rather deep, as noted by WND:

The document claims Media Matters and far-left groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”

“The earlier we can identify a fake news story, the more effectively we can quash it,” the memo states. “With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”

Final Thoughts

Again, if open censorship of American independent media is allowed to take root, everyone will suffer in the long run. While politics may seem like the biggest game in town, above this spectacle are the values and traditions that have made this country worth living in. Once this is gone, America will be totally unrecognizable, and billionaires like Soros will be become our de facto kings and lords.

About the Author

Isaac Davis is a staff writer for and Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and of a voluntary society. He is an avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, here.

This article (Soros’ Role in Social Media Censorship Revealed in Leaked Document) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Isaac Davis and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

I'm blaming Brother Sun & Sister Moon

Do you remember the sappy film about St Francis called Brother Sun, Sister Moon?

Its all about St Francis. The movie was made in the late 60’s and directed by the native of Florence, Franco Zefferelli. Zeffirelli himself is a homosexual, and has been accused several times of being a predator, and the film oozes a kind of sumptuous, Botticelli-esque eroticism.

Here’s the deal about the movie: it portrays St Francis as the proto-flower child of the 1960s. 1968 was the year that marks the sexual revolution, and Brother Sun Sister Moon was a deliberate propaganda piece for the hippie movement.

While St Francis is not portrayed as a homosexual he is certainly portrayed as a sissy. He is forever gazing beautifully at the flowers and birds, and running through fields of wild flowers seen through a soft focus lens with that drippy song by Donovan being crooned in the background. The scene where he strips naked has a creepy homoerotic mood to it, and the whole thing drips with 1960s summer of love sentimentality. Drugs were a big deal and I guess its no mistake that the flowers in the field are poppies.

Of course I don’t really blame one movie for all the rot we’re experiencing now, and the movie has some of good stuff in it, but Brother Sun, Sister Moon illustrates a feminization of Catholicism that took place at the same time. Sissy St Francis in Zeffirelli’s movie was repeated by sissy Jesus in his Jesus of Nazareth TV series a few years later. Both films helped to cement a vision of the Christian faith that was already gaining popularity:

Not militant Christianity, but milquetoast Christianity.

It was fake Franciscanism, and the same fake, sentimental Catholicism is everywhere now.

Let’s face it. This kind of sentimental, unrealistic, romanticized soft focus religion appeals to ditzy women and effeminate men. No wonder so many of the post-1968 priests were sentimental and spineless.

Don’t you still hear this today in a lot of American Catholicism? There is a kind of mambsy pambsy weakness to the preaching and teaching. I heard an Archbishop preach earlier this week and in the midst of this crisis he gave a lily livered homily about being nice to everyone–especially little children and “some things have happened this summer that have made us feel sad.”

It was pathetic.

Does this have anything to do with the sex abuse scandals? Sure. Look at the statistics. The problem of sex abuse had always been around, but there was a huge surge in the 1970s and 80s. Why was that? Because along with the sentimentalized version of sissy Jesus Catholicism went a moral laxity. If feelings were everything, then it was okay to go with your feelings, and if your feelings were for teenaged boys, then that temptation was yielded to. Sentimental romanticism is always hand in hand with decadence.

Copyright © 2018 Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »