The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: May 2018

Magna Carta In the Dustbin

Prime Minister Theresa May has said “phooey” on the Magna Carta and
British liberties and ordered the arrest of Tommy Robinson on a specious charge
of “disturbing the peace.” He was live streaming a report on the trial of a group
of Muslim “groomer” rapists outside a Leeds courthouse, out of earshot of the judge,
the defendants, lawyers and jurors – technically not even on the courthouse
property – when a bevy of policemen swooped in and arrested him.

The
knights of the Crescent Table at work

Mark
Steyn
writes:
On Friday, Robinson was live-streaming
(from his telephone) outside Leeds Crown Court where last week’s Grooming Gang
of the Week were on trial for “grooming” – the useless euphemism for
industrial-scale child gang rape and sex slavery by large numbers of Muslim men
with the active connivance (as I pointed out to the Sky guys) of every organ of
the state: social workers, police, politicians. Oh, and also the media….
Tommy
Robinson, a journalist for Rebel Media, was
arrested, detained, taken to another courthouse, judged, sentenced, and taken
to Hull Prison, all within a matter of minutes. Not only that, but the judge
who sentenced him to  thirteen months in
prison, decreed a blanket
news blackout
on his arrest and also on the trial of the grooming gang.
Newspapers and their Internet sites that had reported the body-snatching were
obliged to “scrub” their stories, under penalty of law if they did not.
                                         
Robinson was
taken with the governmentjudicial tool of a “bill of
attainder,”
which one legal site site defines as:
Definition: A legislative act that
singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
A
special legislative enactment that imposes a death sentence without a judicial trial
upon a particular person or class of persons suspected of committing serious offenses,
such as
Treason
or a felony.
A bill of attainder
is prohibited by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution because it deprives
the person or persons singled out for punishment of the safeguards of a trial
by jury.
A bill of
attainder does not necessarily entail a death sentence.  In Robinson’s case, it just means “disappearing”
from public sight, as dissidents did in Argentina and Chile in the last century.
Steyn wrote:
So on Friday
he was outside the Crown Court in Leeds. He was not demonstrating, or accosting
or chanting, or much speaking. He was just pointing his mobile phone upon the
scene from a distance. Within minutes, seven coppers showed up in whatever they
use instead of a Black Maria these days, tossed him inside it and drove off. In
other words, these were not “investigating officers” called to the
scene: They showed up with the intent to take him away. Within hours, he was
tried, convicted and gaoled – at HM Prison Hull, a Category B chokey, or one
level below maximum security. The judge in the case, one Geoffrey Marson, spent
all of four minutes on trying, convicting and sentencing Robinson. It is not
clear whether that leisurely tribunal included his order expressly forbidding
any
report on these proceedings
” (the case is Regina vs Yaxley-Lennon
because that’s Robinson’s real name).
Robinson’s “trial”
was more like a military “drum head
trial than a civilian trial. Frankly, the prohibition of all news about his
arrest does not even constitute a “D-notice,”
but rather a plain case of classic railroading to get rid of someone likely to
shed light on the forty years of Muslim grooming and the Shania enslaving of
British girls and children in a vast prostitution ring about which the government
had done little or nothing.  
This is why
Britain needs a Constitution like our own, complete with a First Amendment and
with a prohibition of bills of attainder. Robinson was initially charged with “disturbing
the peace.” However, the street on which Robinson was pacing outside the
courthouse was virtually empty; it was indeed, empty and peaceful, until the
cops showed up. No noisy mob of Muslims was there demonstrating and threatening
to kill or injure him or any passersby. There weren’t even any supporters
cheering him on.
What part of
the Magna Carta does Theresa May snort at while clutching to power as she sells
out Britain and Brexit? There are two clauses in it which May has put in her personal
memory hole
:  
(38) In future no official shall place
a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible
witnesses to the truth of it.
(39) No free man shall be seized or
imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or
deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against
him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by
the law of the land.
This is not
what Robinson was afforded.
The Magna
Carta over the centuries produced Parliament (from the 25 Barons who
arm-twisted King John into signing it) and common law. There is a lot in the
document that concerns the issues of his time and which are completely foreign
to modern minds.
And so May
has just snapped her fingers at the principles. Doubtless all the civil servants,
corrupt police and social “servants” in her train have applauded her and
breathed sighs of relief.

Perfidious Albion

To
read the
headlines, you
would think that Britain was still fighting for her life: defending its shores
from German U-boats, launching the RAF to repel the Luftwaffe, and London
subjected to regular bombings by V-1, V-2 rockets and flocks of Messerschmitts and Dorniers. As far back as
WWI, British newspapers were given what were called “D Notices” by the War Ministry
about what news about the war effort could not be published to prevent the
enemy from gleaning information about Britain’s plans and capabilities.
But it’s not the 1940s. It’s May, 2018. Britain has
slid down the slippery slope to out-and-ought censorship, or to Sharia, the
subjugation of Muslims and non-Muslims to Islamic law in which one
can criticize Islam
usually on pain of death. The current, outstanding
instance in this case has been the arrest, sentencing, and jailing yesterday
(May 25) of Tommy Robinson for
doing nothing, but for “disturbing the peace,” by reporting the outcome of a
trial of Muslim groomers
outside the Leeds courthouse. There was no mob of Muslims near him threatening
to attack him or shout him down; only the police. It was the police who were
disturbing the peace by shutting Robinson up, preventing us from hearing what
he had to say, and hauling him away in a van, to court to be charged and
booked, and then to prison.
It’s as though the government believed that Robinson
was about to reveal Britain’s plans to repel the Huns – or the Muslims – or
rather, reveal Theresa May’s plans  to admit
more Muslims
into the country. What little of his broadcast outside the
courthouse we heard contained little or nothing about the verdict on the
groomers. He did not have time except to say what was occurring in the
courthouse, before he was surrounded by over half a dozen policemen and shut
down. His silencing amounted to that old-fashioned D-Notice with restrictions
imposed on the story of Robinson’s arrest. 
One can’t discuss what happened (at least not in Britain) without
risking committing a “crime.”  
He was sentenced to thirteen months, as of today.
It is Prime Minister Theresa May and her government
waging war on Britain’s citizens to force them to accept and inure themselves
to all the primitive practices and the savagery of Islam, from rape, to female
genital mutilation, to the forced marriage of under-aged girls to older men, to
prayers in the street and public places, to “respecting” such cultural “diversity”
as the norm, and to punish anyone with fines and/or prison who objects, to
smear such a person with the one-size-fits-all “racist” label. In Britain and
in other Western countries – particularly Germany, Sweden, Norway – Muslims are
a “protected” class, protected against criticism and “diversity”
discrimination.
What else may have been going on – perhaps stemming
from Robinson’s parole from his last arrest – remains in the murk. To speculate
about what lies beneath the surface, is to talk about it, and the law prohibits
talking about it. According to the British law, It is a question also of
whether or not Robinson was on courthouse property and thus – somehow –  prejudicing the verdict on the groomers  (British law, part 5.6, Reporting
Restrictions in the Criminal
Courts,
April 15, 2015, Unauthorized Reporting of Court Proceedings). There may be some
valid justification for such a restriction. The terms that disturb me the most,
however, are authorized and unauthorized. By whom? Or by what?
Were Britain in a shooting war, such a restriction
could be justified. But it is not in a shooting war. It is an ideological war
it – and the West – is engaged in, between civilization vs. barbarism, over
freedom of speech vs. enforced silence, individual rights vs. submission.
Many newspapers have “scrubbed” any stories about Robinson’s
arrest, for fear of violating the government’s restrictions decree and bringing
on legal action.
I sent Theresa May an email.
Take
Robinson out of jail, nullify his sentencing, permit him his freedom as a
journalist. Or are you more concerned about  sucking up to the ragheads and the EU
bureaucrats! You are contemptible! You’re no Churchill or Margaret Thatcher, you
are a craven, power-lusting coward!
I
sent her another:
Perfidious
Albion! Perfidious Theresa May!
If you want to protest Robinson’s
arrest, send May an email, to:
What follows are links to commentaries –
unrestricted here – on Tommy Robinson’s arrest. These are but a handful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6HqA9xenBw
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12375/in-the-european-appeasement-olympics-who-wins
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/05/orwells-nightmare-articles-about-tommy-robinsons-arrest-rapidly-scrubbed-from-the-internet

The Gerund Gestapo

The Ghouls of Grammatical Egalitarianism,
or the Gerund Gestapo
  Oc tober 21 
2013 (Rule of Reason)

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3607969922012259713#editor/target=post;postID=2741485971456435362;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=3;src=postname

In his FrontPage article of October 19th, “Why Charles Krauthammer Gets It Wrong on
the Redskins
,”
Daniel Greenfield corrected columnist Charles Krauthammer over the
storm-in-a-teacup issue of the allegedly derogatory name of the Washington
football team.

Krauthammer, in his October 17th Washington Post Opinion
article, “
Redskins and Reason,” wrote in defense of
his opposition to the team name “Washington Redskins.” He claims it
is a racial slur, whether or not Indians object to it:
I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word.
But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various
minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

What is his objection? It’s a
personal, subjective objection. Krauthammer’s usual prescience on hard politics
has abandoned him on the issue.
        
Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened
substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today,
however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the
clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular
logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give
gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”
In a feeble attempt to find a
substitute name that would omit the term “red,” he suggests:
How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington
football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in
pickup basketball.
A fair try, but
unfortunately, the term
skin has too many
“negative” meanings, as well, among them the British term for the
paper used to roll a joint, a condom, nudity, and so on. Krauthammer seems to
be rebelling against the concept of identity, in Standard English and in slang.
Greenfield noted:
The people most obsessed with this question are white people.
Mostly white liberals. This is a debate that white liberals and white
conservatives are having over political correctness.

And that’s the point.
Krauthammer, whether or not he admits it, has succumbed to the bogyman of
Marxism-driven politically correct speech.

And politically correct
speech (and thinking) is the subject of an essay I wrote in 1997, originally
published in the November/December number of The Social Critic of that
year. It is republished here with some minor editing.
__________________________________________________________________________
A small, innocuous-looking
book appeared in bookstores recently, published under the auspices of the
Association of American University Presses (AAUP), an organization which claims
to be devoted to the dissemination of knowledge and scholarly research. Its
title is
Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing, by Marilyn Schwartz and the
Task Force on Bias-Free Language (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995).
It is little more than 100 pages long, weighs less than a pound, yet its
contents are more potent than the Oklahoma City bomb. Its ingredients are politically
correct jargon, multiculturalism, and the phenomenon of what may be called
“grammatical egalitarianism.”

The 10th Newspeak Dictionary


It is important to note at the start that the Association boasts a
membership of 114 institutions, mostly university presses, but includes such
diverse organizations as the National Academy Press, the National Gallery of
Art, the Modern Language Association, the Russell Sage Foundation, and the J.
Paul Getty Trust. Its membership includes all major American and Canadian
universities, plus Oxford University Press and presses in Tokyo, South America,
and Scandinavia. This is an organization with significant cultural clout.
What is “bias-free” writing? The Guidelines’ definition of
it is “writing free of discriminatory or disparaging language.” It should be
stressed that the object of Guidelines’ concerns is not primarily racial
slurs. The AAUP is not referring to the language to be found in the
pathological hate literature published by the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation,
or the Black Muslims, but to staid university publications. Its focus is
common, inoffensive usage, and the implication throughout the book is that
scholarly works that are not “sensitized” and “sanitized” may in the future be
demoted to the rank of hate literature, and treated with the same disdain,
regardless of their intellectual merit or significance.
The following is a short selection of terms, phrases and usages
from Guidelines, found by its authors to be discriminatory, disparaging
or otherwise “biased”: 
Man, the singular pronoun none coupled with his; girl, mother
nature
, the alleged association of he and she with good
and bad
and great and small; born-again, retard, idiot,
redneck, city slicker, Siamese twins, Dutch treat, deprived, needy,
underprivileged, well-dressed, ghetto, indigenous, tribe, teenager, juvenile

and elderly.

Also on its list of
“offensive” terms are able-bodied and intelligent, which are
considered discriminatory by implication and disparaging in any instance of
comparison.

Guidelines includes the disclaimer, “there is no such thing as a truly
bias-free language” and stresses that the advice it offers is only “that of
white, North American (specifically U.S.), feminist publishing professionals.”
The Task Force, which is composed of 21 university press editors (two of them
men), recommends euphemistic proxies for all of the terms on its “hit list.”

“Books that are on the cutting edge of scholarship,” reads the
AAUP Board of Directors’ position statement, “should also be at the forefront
in recognizing how language encodes prejudice. They should also be agents for
change and the redress of past mistakes.” By “prejudice” Guidelines
means an operative hierarchy of values, not racist premises or gender
“chauvinism.” While the term “encodes” suggests that the authors of Guidelines
regard the human mind as a kind of computer chip that must be sterilized before
“correct” encoding can be applied (and who therefore imply that the mind is a
mere passive receptor and mirror of its cultural environment), another
statement deserves still closer scrutiny: 
“The term normal may legitimately refer to a statistical
norm for human ability (such as 20/20 vision), but should usually be avoided in
other contexts as…invidious.”

If one sets as his standard
of normalcy an individual who is in full possession of his mental
faculties, who is not debilitated by disease or physical impairment, who is
able to take responsibility for his own life, can think and act without special
“accommodation,” then by definition most people are normal, and any
limitation in any of these criteria is a measure of subnormalcy.

In private conversation, one might say of another, “He’s
feebleminded.” In public – e.g., in a “sanitized” book or in a speech – one may
be allowed to say, “He’s cognitively challenged,” or “He’s conceptually
arrested,” or “He’s differently conscious.” But assuming an absence of malice
or cruel intent, the use of the adjective “feebleminded” represents a
conclusion reached from an evaluation or a judgment of a person who, for
whatever reason, chooses not to exercise his mind, and thereby renders himself
comparable to a feebleminded person who has little or no choice in the range or
depth of his thinking.

The same argument can be applied to any of the supposedly
discriminatory or disparaging terms targeted by Guidelines. Suppose one
said, “He’s an idiot,” or “He’s a moron,” or “He’s a retard”; or was more
inventive: “His mind is on crutches,” or “His brain is in a wheelchair” –
assuming that one has made an accurate observation and a just evaluation, the
terser or colorful one’s descriptive prose, the more heinous one’s act of
disparagement. But, in fact, one is not mocking or disparaging idiots, morons,
or non-ambulatory men: they are merely being used as referents of normalcy.

In essence, Guidelines advocates abolishing human
comparison by prohibiting the identity of referents. In the foregoing example,
one would be discouraged from expressing a judgment or evaluation of a person
who has offered abundant evidence of his inability or unwillingness to think
normally or to perform some task. Such a person is simply there, like a rock or
a tree, beyond discrimination (in the strict, nonracial, nonsexist meaning of
that word), beyond evaluation, beyond recognition. He is not incomparable; more
precisely, he is non-comparable. To compare the inventor of the steam
engine with a man who is unable to do simple math or boil a kettle of water
without harming himself is, by egalitarian anti-standards, a grave breach of
“social justice” and an unforgivable faux pas.
According to Guidelines
“[a]djectives such as poor and unfortunate have a
similar [negatively connotative] effect and are patronizing, as are such
epithets as heroic and courageous.”
Thus, if Guidelines’
authors have their way, not only will it be considered a breach of egalitarian
etiquette to make a distinction between heroism and cowardice, but it will not
be permitted to establish distinctions between normalcy or abnormalcy by which
to measure anyone’s character, ability or physical condition. There will be no
such thing as normalcy or any hierarchy of values, or value-measurement, just
whatever the slot machines of egalitarianism and multiculturalism happen to
disgorge from an eclectic, random stew of humanoids. A genius and an idiot are
not to be distinguished, discriminated, or even recognized; each is
“differently abled” or “specially conscious,” and no value may be placed on one
over the other.
This is not the pursuit of “social justice,” even if one could
assign a benign intent to the concept. It is a formula for the manufacture of
politically correct automatons.
Strictly speaking, measures of subnormalcy are not moral
judgments. Neither are they absolute measures of one’s potential for
achievement. Helen Keller was both blind and deaf. John Steinmetz, the
brilliant electrical engineer, was a hunchback. Toulouse-Lautrec, the painter,
was a dwarf (injured by a fall down the stairs when a youth). Neither is gender
an obstacle to achievement, nor is race, especially not in regards to intellectual
accomplishment or to any field of productive work that entails a greater than
average measure of mental labor. The numbers represented by women and
individuals of other races or cultural backgrounds in this respect are so great
that they do not represent exceptions to the rule – the rule simply does not
exist
.
(Parenthetically, the act of blacklisting supposedly disparaging
terms is self-defeating. Readers will recall how quickly the first wave of
politically correct euphemisms was met with disdainful humor. What occurred was
the transfer of the intended evaluations or judgments from the banished terms
to the euphemisms. The intent of the evaluations or judgments found a new mode
of expression – with the added, stressed note of contempt for the euphemism
itself, for its stumbling, awkward redundancy, for its ill-disguised role of
shielding the subject of the euphemism from true identification or evaluation.)
Grammatical Egalitarianism
Webster’s defines egalitarianism as “a belief in human equality, especially with
respect to social, political and economic rights and privileges.” Grammatical
egalitarianism
is the systematic culling of “offensive” words and
phraseology from the English language and the substitution of innocuous or
“preferred” argot, at the expense of clarity, economy and logic, for the sake
of protecting the feelings of real or imagined “victims” of such
offending language.

In economics, egalitarianism is the philosophical root of
antitrust laws and graduated taxation; in politics, of the welfare state and
modern university admissions standards. If we treat the identification of
individuals or of specific human conditions as “social” elements of some
egalitarian ideal, then grammar has lagged behind economics and politics –
until now. Grammatical egalitarianism would be employed to “catch up” by
leveling people’s conceptual and evaluative criteria, so that by law, etiquette
or custom, no person can be distinguished from another, and to no one’s
advantage but the lowest common denominator’s.
An antidote to Guidelines

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Guidelines is that its
contents are not at all shocking or revolutionary. The “guidelines” contained
therein are already a matter of ubiquitous, if uneven, conformity in business,
government and the news media. In its bibliography are listed more than a dozen
other publications, by university and trade publishers alike, that serve as
guides for “nonsexist” and “bias-free” writing. While this would imply that the
AAUP Task Force’s effort is redundant, perhaps merely a postscript to a
culture-wide phenomenon, it is in fact much more. The welfare state introduced
new meanings to such terms as deprived, disabled, and handicapped.
As a politically correct metathesis, grammatical egalitarianism strives to
purge language of all human distinctions and measures, regardless of
their origin.

To illustrate the potential influence of Guidelines,
imagine that a scholar whose field of study is American political history has,
after years of work, finally completed his magnum opus on modern
political trends. His thesis is that, with very few exceptions to the rule, the
character and capabilities of political officeholders tend to diminish in
direct proportion to the growth of statism. This scholar’s work is being
seriously considered for publication by a university press. In his manuscript,
however, are several statements of questionable egalitarian taste, one of
which, summarizing chapters of dry commentary and rigorously researched proofs,
reads, “Modern politicians are moral and intellectual midgets, when compared
with the moral and intellectual stature of the Founding Fathers.”
His editor at the university press might feel compelled to ask the
historian to rewrite that and other allegedly offensive sentences, or to
substitute bland proxies for midget and other red-flagged terms. 
The
scholar cannot use dwarf, or cripple, or any other term which,
either as a simile or a metaphor, implies a subnormal human condition; yet
subnormalcy is the point he wants to stress and the Founding Fathers are his
measure of integrity and intellectual achievement. He harbors no ill feeling
toward or prejudice against midgets, dwarfs or the handicapped; he was not even
conscious of them when he wrote the sentence. He senses that he had been
expected to be conscious of them, but he dismisses that thought as too
fantastic. He consults a dictionary of etymology, and learns that midget is
derived from a variety of long-dead languages, and that its original meaning
was a gnat-like insect or sand fly; that is, the word existed long before it
was modified to name a human condition.

What can the scholar do? Should he try to rewrite the sentences?
Find substitutions? Remove the sentences altogether? Work out some kind of
compromise? Or take a stand and insist that his words remain unaltered?
The answer depends on a host of unknowns. If the scholar does not
want to risk reducing his chances for publication – and his career as a
historian would depend on publication – he may not want to take a stand for the
sake of a few words. Furthermore, he cannot know whether his editor is a
staunch advocate of “bias-free” writing; or is indifferent to the issue and so
not likely to risk offending his managing editor and coworkers, who may be
advocates; or is a loner who is contemptuous of “bias-free” writing, but who is
certain that he would be voted down in an editorial meeting.

And there is always the AAUP in the background, ready to
reconsider the status of recalcitrant members who publish books whose texts
“encode prejudice.” If the editor manages to push through the historian’s
“unsanitized” work, the publisher may be upbraided by the AAUP or subjected to
other unknown pressures.
If the scholar caves in and accommodates the editor and publisher,
he sets a precedent for himself and other publishers and writers. “See? Even
the champion of liberty and enemy of collectivism had the decency to
compromise. Why can’t you?” And if the scholar takes a principled stand
against having his work sanitized – if he does not wish to become an “agent” for
a change he does not endorse, if he does not want to become a “redresser” of
mistakes he either does not concede or had no role in – he will do so with the
knowledge that he risks rejection of his work, for there are other, less
troublesome authors willing to be published under almost any conditions.
This scenario depicts the conflict faced by an accomplished adult
who presumably, in his formative years, could avail himself of the Oxford
English Dictionary
, Roget’s Thesaurus, and Webster’s Synonyms and
Antonyms
before large sections of these reference works were X’d out by
grammatical egalitarianism and declared off-limits by his teachers. It is a
dilemma in which many authors might soon find themselves, unless they are
fortunate enough to have courageous publishers willing to place paramount value
on an author’s ideas and competency, and none on his capacity for obsequious
thought orthodoxy.
In her 1972 essay “The Establishing of an Establishment,” Ayn Rand
notes that:
Private cliques have always existed in the intellectual field,
particularly in the arts, but they used to serve as checks and balances on one
another, so that a nonconformist could enter the field and rise without the
help of a clique. Today, the cliques are consolidated into an Establishment….Rule
by unofficially privileged groups spreads a special kind of fear, like a slow
poison injected into the culture. It is not fear of a specific ruler, but of
the unknown power of anonymous cliques, which grows into a chronic fear of
unknown enemies. [1]
The relevance of her remarks
as regards grammatical egalitarianism should be apparent.
The Atomization of Concepts
To atomize a concept for the purpose of destroying or
repressing it is to explode a term into its constituent parts, treat the
constituents as wholes in and of themselves, and finally to inhibit the
rediscovery or usage of the atomized concept with cognitive barriers.
Well-known among logicians as a “reductionist” fallacy, this process repeals
the law of Occam’s Razor, which states that entities are not to be multiplied
beyond necessity.
Guidelines, which devotes almost half of its page count to the subject of
how to achieve “gender-inclusiveness” in writing, focuses on the terms he
and man. Reading the recommendations in Guidelines on how to
atomize these terms is, at times, amusing:
“[I]n subjects and traditions of discourse where he has
been universally employed and men are assumed to be present, it [she]
may temporarily redress the traditional omission of women.”
And:                                                                                                             
“Using words like mankind and man to refer to men
and women, while convenient shorthand, embodies bias and introduces that bias
into our perceptions of history and self. Use of the masculine singular pronoun
[he] to refer to all people is misleading and exclusive.”
Thus, the concept man
must be atomized into numerous phantom concepts which are never reunited under
that term again by their essential attributes.
If one consults the etymological source of the term he and
remembers how it is used in the generic sense, one will see that it is derived
mostly from an amalgam of Old German and Old English, and has come to be used
so that it and its derivatives, such as his, refer to a person of either
gender. The terms man and men have similar histories, and have
been used accordingly since the Enlightenment.
What the feminists are really objecting to are these terms’
secondary but unavoidable masculine connotations. The only answer to their
objection is that the terms he and his and man must refer
to some abstraction, or to some personified image of a human being. And since
one of the attributes of the male gender, virility or potency, has been
metaphorically linked to the physical and mental behavior of the human race,
for better or for worse, the personified image or abstraction naturally
defaults to man. Unless one is willing to settle for a circus freak, or
a hermaphrodite, or even an “it” as an alternative to man or he,
there is no other term that performs the same task.
And why would the grammatical egalitarians wish to atomize the
term man? For two reasons: First, discarding the term gives them the
rationale and precedent to perform the same vivisection on other, less complex
terms; second, the term man does not include, and certainly does not
evoke the image of, any of their pets: the handicapped, racial minorities, the
elderly, homosexuals, or women. The term man is an ennobling term; it
does not admit ciphers who refuse to poke their heads out of their particular
group or tribal shells. The concept is a reproach to the egalitarians, for they
see nothing noble or glorified within themselves that correlates to the
concept, and nothing in the concept that can be applied to them.
“Insensitivity to racial and ethnic identities” continues the AAUP
position statement, “and to differences of religion, age, ability, and sexual
orientation reinforces the conscious and unconscious attitudes that allow us
too often to reproduce ignorance.”
Both in the AAUP position statement, and in Guidelines’
table of contents, are cited as victims of discrimination, disparagement and
injustice almost every group that has benefited from governmental social or
economic legislation: minorities, women, the elderly, the handicapped, and
homosexuals. However, that grammatical egalitarianism is being sanctioned and
promoted by a quasi-governmental organization is not a fundamental cause of the
phenomenon. Subjectivist art usurped representational art as part of a cultural
trend whose root cause was the disintegration of philosophy. It was private
foundations and a coalescing art Establishment which over decades banished
representational art from parks, museums and business offices. The National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) did not appear until long after the fact.
Similarly, objectivity and clarity in language have been under
attack from academe for decades, as ambiguity and imprecision in language
gradually became hallmarks of sophistication and wisdom among the
pseudo-intelligentsia. It was only a matter of time before the sewer lines
through which the universities have been spewing effluvia into the culture
themselves became rotted. The proposed “homogenization” of language by
grammatical egalitarianism is merely another feature of a wider phenomenon,
with government nomenclature and subsidies abetting and accelerating the trend.
Thought Orthodoxy
Thought orthodoxy is not synonymous with thought control.
There is no Federal Board of Language Usage to which publishers must submit
their books and journals to be tested for discriminatory of disparaging
language before they can be put on the market for sale to the public. However,
while no official agency of control exists, there is a kind of
interlocking directorate of semi-public institutions and organizations which
accomplishes the same purpose by presenting a united front against freedom of
expression and imposing orthodoxy on our culture’s intellectual and literary
pacesetters.
 “Say what you please, we’re
not censors!” proclaims the AAUP’s unspoken credo. “But say it our way,
or do not bother to say it.” Short of overt government repression, I cannot
imagine a more insidious form of thought control than this, which is to thrust
independent minds of whatever professional suasion or degree of ability into a
purgatory that is not quite freedom and not quite slavery.
The goal of the grammatical egalitarians is not to diminish our
range of thought, but to homogenize it. To homogenize the contents of a
mind, however, is to accomplish the same end: unquestioning, knee-jerk
obedience to the authority of orthodoxy. Such a mind may be able to produce a
“sanitized” book without prompting by the czars of goodthink, but it
would never venture to extend its range of thought. Instead of reducing the
number of words available to people in an ever-shrinking Newspeak dictionary
(as described in George Orwell’s novel,
Nineteen Eighty-Four), Guidelines and its
proponents advocate swelling the number of “value neutral” euphemisms for the
ostensible purpose of preserving the “self-esteem” of the beneficiaries of
collectivism and altruism (and, indirectly, to preserve the “moral” aura of the
welfare state by squelching any incipient criticism of it). [2]
What of young minds? Discussing the issue of reprinting old or
classic texts or collections of historical and literary documents, Guidelines
advises that “Educated readers generally understand that scholarly publishers
may not revise the language in a reprinted text…unless the text is intended
for classroom use in the primary and secondary grades
.” [Emphasis added.]
Thus, an educated adult may be permitted to read unexpurgated, unsanitized
reprints, because he will somehow know better than to be “prejudiced” by
whatever “disparaging” language he may encounter. The minds of children and
adolescents, however, must be homogenized before “encoding” sets in, and so it
is permissible to tamper with old or classic texts.
In the scholar’s case, the cognitive obstacle is fear – fear of
recrimination from unknown powers and influences in the realm of publishing. In
the school textbook case, the cognitive obstacle is engineered ignorance
by schools in concert with the publishers of textbooks – a practice that has
been unofficial policy in public schools for decades.
Ayn Rand concluded her 1972 essay, “Censorship: Local and
Express,” with a dedication to Jefferson’s vow, inscribed in marble above his
statue: “I have sworn…eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind
of man.”[3] She wondered how conservative members of the Supreme Court could
bear to look at the Jefferson Memorial in light of their decisions. In 1996,
the grammatical egalitarians are neither blind to the magnificence of the
statue, nor deaf to the meaning of the words. 
They would prefer to see the
statue and the words replaced with an NEA-financed androgynous hulk who humbly
swears subservient deference to any random cipher who chances by.
Guidelines reflects almost every collectivist trend that has come to
fruition over the past thirty years: gender conflict, egalitarianism, the
elevation of mediocrity, the indulgence of the irrational as a right, and the
theft of physical and spiritual wealth under the rubric of “social justice.”
The grammatical egalitarians have assigned themselves the task of concealing
the destruction caused by these and other trends behind a wall of words
designed to exclude reason, inquiry and truth. This wall is composed mostly of
euphemistic, concept-destroying argot; lining the top of it is the barbed wire
of envy and the broken glass of malice. The wall will remain intact for as long
as men consider it their altruist duty neither to question its existence, nor
to wonder what it hides, nor to speculate whether it is meant to protect or to
imprison them.
Under the entry “The Aggrandizement of Mediocrity” in Usage and Abusage, the late lexicographer and
grammarian Eric Partridge concluded a poignant commentary on the decline of
standards in literature, the arts and language with the observation that 
 “[a]nyone who believes in
civilization must find it difficult to approve, and impossible to abet, one of
the surest means of destroying it. To degrade language is finally to degrade
civilization.” [4]

Had he lived long enough, Partridge might have made the astonished
observation that there exist those who do not believe in civilization, who
approve and abet its destruction, and who are dedicated to diminishing men’s
minds by degrading language as a means of finally degrading civilization, not
by reason of ignorance or ineptitude, but as a conscious, informed policy.

Notes:

1. “The Establishing of an Establishment”, in
Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: Signet, 1984. P.
168
2. See Orwell’s “The Principles of Newspeak” in the Appendix
following the conclusion of the novel. While it is a brilliant essay on the
methodology of the deliberate epistemological stunting of minds, there is a
distinct difference in goals between the grammatical egalitarians of today and
the totalitarians of the novel. Ayn Rand rightly remarked that such a society
as Orwell describes could not long survive even as a semi-industrialized one,
chiefly because the minds that could make it function would perish. And, there
is another difference between the grammatical egalitarians’ purpose and that of
the minions of Big Brother, which is that the former wish to impose thought
orthodoxy on everyone, while the latter imposed orthodox thought and language
only on ruling Party members. Rulers who reduced their range of concepts to the
parroting vocabulary of an autistic person would not be able to continue making
and maintaining telescreens, helicopters or any other product of free, thinking
minds, nor would they be able to indefinitely retain their power, as Orwell
suggests such a dictatorship could, regardless of the degree of their
brutality.
3. In Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 188.
4. “The Aggrandizement of Mediocrity” in Addenda, Usage and
Abusage: A Guide to Good English
, by Eric Partridge. London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1947. Reprinted by Penguin, 1981. P. 379

Big Brother Wants to Watch You

James Clapper, former
head of the CIA, stated that the U.S. 
government’s spying on political candidates, especially ones he doesn’t
approve of, was a legitimate action.

        Big Jim Clapper Wants You Watched


A Daily Caller article, “Clapper
Defends Spying On Trump Campaign
as ‘A Legitimate Activity’,” by Julia
Nista, on May21, quotes him:
Clapper, currently
a CNN security analyst, said he is not OK with Trump ordering an investigation
into the DOJ, saying, “that’s actually a very disturbing assault on the
independence of the Department of Justice.”
“When this
president or any president tries to use the Department of Justice as a private
investigatory body, that’s not good for the country.”
Clapper said he is
concerned about “politicizing what is a legitimate activity, and an important
one, on the part of the FBI. They use informants and have strict rules and
protocols under this.”
You have to wonder what Clapper’s notion of
“politicizing” is when the DOJ was a tool of the Democrats, charged with the task
of finding “dirt” on Trump during his campaign –hardly “independent”! – and after
he occupied the White House.
In the meantime, the Gateway Pundit, on May
2nd, devoted some time to the belligerent utterings of another
ex-CIA director, John
Brennan
, in Christina Laila’s “John
Brennan’a Latest Cryptic Tweet Has People Asking ‘Is This a Threat to Trump?’
”:
Brennan
is caught in a perjury trap over his statements about Hillary’s phony dossier
in a May 2017 testimony to the intel panel.
Obama’s
former CIA chief was also involved in setting up Russian espionage traps for
minor players in Trump’s camp, according the investigative reporter, Paul
Sperry.
Brennan
posted a cryptic tweet Sunday which had Twitter buzzing.
A
highly partisan, incomplete, and deeply flawed report by a broken House
Committee means nothing. The Special Counsel’s work is being carried out by
professional investigators—not political staffers. SC’s findings will be
comprehensive & authoritative. Stay tuned, Mr. Trump…. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/989870523042680832 …
Brennan’s latest
tweet has people asking, ‘is this a threat?’
Yes, it was a
threat, and not a very veiled one. It was a sneering , “Watch your back”
advisory. Just as Clapper’s statement was.
“Professional investigators”? Professional
by Mafia standards, one would think. Although the result of these “professional
investigators” has been zilch. Their “investigations” were as fruitful as an
Easter egg hunt in the Sahara Desert.
As Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the
former FBI director who has been running in circles for over a year with an
empty basket in search of prancing Russian unicorns, deserves the attention of
a genuinely professional investigator
and researcher, Diana
West
. In her latest column, she outlines Mueller’s brilliantly failed,
bungle-rich, and politically correct career. Although he is touted as a
“Republican,” Mueller is a “Rino,” or a Republican
in Name Only.   You could say he is the leading Frogman in the
dark waters of the Deep State.
From the very start, FBI Director Mueller
was not one to follow evidence where it leads. Instead, as the 9/11 record
shows, he was one to divert others from where evidence leads….
West 
writes that in 2008,
Mueller’s
FBI publishes Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon. This lexicon is devoid
of all words necessary to discuss, describe, understand and thus think about
jihad, i.e., Islamic terrorism. 
The words
“Islam,” “Muslim,” “jihad,” “Muslim
Brotherhood,” even “al-Qaeda” — all of which appear in the 9/11
Commission Report — have disappeared entirely from the lexicon of FBI analysis.
Instead, agents must focus on the literally meaningless concept of
“violent extremism.” As if that’s not mentally paralyzing enough, the
FBI definition of violent extremism includes this: “An analytical judgment
that an individual is a ‘violent extremist,’ ‘extremist,’ or ‘radical’ is not
predication for any investigative action or technique.”
                                                                                                                    
In 2010, West writes, Mueller ducked again:
Still from 1984 (1984)

As Congress was considering the Uranium One
sale, Mueller’s FBI allegedly hides from Congress evidence it had collected
showing that Russian officials were engaged in a bribery scheme aimed at
growing their atomic energy business inside the United States. 
In 2013,
Boston Marathan attack. As with the Ft. Hood
attack, Mueller’s see-no-Islam FBI was unable to interpret information passed from Russia
about the “radical” Chechen Muslim Tsarnaevs. Too busy study see-no-Islam
training materials?
               
September
4, 2013: 
Mueller’s last day at
the FBI. Enter James Comey.
So, whose side was Mueller on? The Russians’ ? Islam’s? The
Clintons’? The Democrats’? Or that of the exclusive club of elitists, the Deep
State, who wish to “run things” and collect all the gravy?
In the meantime,  in a
Western Journalism article of May 21st by Ben
Marquis
, Judge Jeanine Pirro spoke on the DOJ’s  role in spying  on Trump, pointing the finger at Loretta Lynch, the Attorney
General at the time of the campaign to rid the country of Trump, as she was the
only person who could authorize that a spy (now known to be Stefan
Halper
) be inserted into Trump’s campaign. But Pirro’s harshest words and
contempt were reserved for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who
recused himself from the obligation of indicting Hillary Clinton.
Judge
Jeanine Pirro
absolutely exploded at that news during the “Opening Statement” segment of her
program Saturday evening, and pointed an accusatory finger directly at the
ultimate overseer of the Obama administration’s FBI — former Attorney General Loretta
Lynch.
It
was recently reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post that the
FBI had used an “informant” to subversively question fringe
associates of the Trump campaign with regard to possible campaign connections
with Russia. That information likely served as part of the foundation for the
Trump/Russia collusion investigation….
“Here,
that would be liar Loretta Lynch. Lynch, herself, would’ve had to have approved
of an informant on that campaign. And if she didn’t, then the FBI under
James Comey was even more corrupt, going rogue in their attempt to destroy
Donald Trump.”
Pirro
also heaped plenty of criticism on current Attorney General Jeff Sessions and
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who she viewed as, at best, doing
little to nothing to expose these dastardly deeds by their predecessors in the
Department of Justice, and at worst being complicit in the wrongdoing and
subsequent coverup….
We
may never know the exact content of that discussion [on the Phoenix Airport
tarmac between Lynch and Bill Clinton in June 2016] but we could one day find
out that Lynch did indeed sign off on the use of an informant [Halper] to
assist the FBI in spying on the campaign of a political opponent. Such a
revelation would be nothing short of devastating to the supposedly “scandal-free”
Obama administration.
You do get tired of having to review every
little wiggle the Trump-haters have made to defeat  candidate and then President Trump – an outsider
and an antithesis of the Deep State,  from
the Steel
dossier
to Stormy Daniels – but you  might
also pause to ask yourself:  What was in
it for  Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Lynch,
Obama, MCain, and all the rest  of the criminal
sneaksbies, who comprise a cast of characters perhaps greater than that of Victor
Hugo’s drama Cromwell , other than the chance to perform together a
victory Conga?

Big Islam is Watching You
For one thing, the status quo of a managerial,
totalitarian government, ready and eager to become truly “globalist” and
safeguarding one’s place in the scheme of things – a genuine “scheme” in the
sense of Al Gore’s global
warming
scheme, with one awarded , for example, the exclusive right to
produce wasteful windmills and solar panels – would have been preserved and
sustained. Conspiring to bring down Trump was a way of expressing  their malice for anyone who says A is A, a malice felt especially for most
Americans. “Power
tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely,”
Trump has proven that the would-be king has
no clothes. Reality has impinged on the world of the Deep State, invaded its sacrosanct
“safe space,” and caused its denizens to drool a lake of venom, a lake known colloquially
as “the Swamp.”  And the ghouls will
never forgive him or the American people.  
The ghouls want to watch you to make sure you submit, and don’t  go off-script.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén