Day: October 27, 2017

What Is 'Sacred' to the Modern Left?


I think the most telling thing about General John Kelly’s press briefing last week was when he lamented the things no longer held “sacred” in our country today.  When speaking of American soldiers dying on the battlefield, General Kelly rightly declared:

And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life – the dignity of life – is sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well.


Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer. But I just thought – the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.

The secular usage of “sacred” is derived from its religious meaning.  In Scripture, something sacred was something “set apart” or “holy” – something like God and apart from the world (or the “profane”).  “Sacred” in the secular sense – the usage employed by General Kelly – simply means highly valued, or important, or held in high esteem.  As General Kelly implies, you can tell much about a person by what he rejects as sacred.

Women, life, religion, marriage, family, hard work, the military, et al. are no longer widely held sacred in American culture because the values that demand such have largely been abandoned and attacked by the modern left.  Rejecting the laws of the Lawgiver, the left long ago decided that it was time for human beings to write their own rules and decide for themselves what is and is not “sacred.”

Especially targeted are any values deemed “Christian.”  Never mind the actual words and deeds of the Founding Fathers, and the words and deeds of the early Americans who actually lived in that era – references to God and His Word in the public square have been under assault in the U.S. for generations.  Hollywood, the mainstream news media, and the kindergarten-through-university government school system in the U.S. at least ignores, and more often mocks, what is truly sacred.

Entertained by the vulgar, informed by the ignorant, and educated from a godless Darwinian worldview, it should come as little surprise that tens of millions of Americans have little to no idea what is supposed to be sacred.  How can a culture that’s been taught to slaughter – or at least support the slaughter of – the most helpless and innocent among us expect to honor those who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield?  What can a foolish clown of a woman who has long reliably supported “sacrificing” an unborn child in the selfish name of “choice” know about real sacrifice?

What can those who kneel for a lie understand about truth and justice?  How can we trust those who have waged a relentless war on the oldest and most sacred of all human institutions to grasp what is truly holy, healthy, and good for humanity?  How can we trust the precious fourth estate to individuals who rarely hesitate to lie and distort in order to keep those of like mind in power?  How can we expect those who peddle goods for votes in order to maintain power to serve sacrificially and keep the nation’s best interests at heart?

Even more revealing than what one rejects as sacred are the things a person holds sacred.  To find out what is sacred among today’s liberals, look no farther than the “deeds of the flesh.”  Whether supporting and promoting fornication, pornography, homosexuality, transgenderism – and virtually any item from the sick LGBT agenda; whether killing children in the womb and demanding that employers pay for such; whether waging war on the family, and – through judicial fiat and, again, with little to no regard for the lives of children – redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, the left has abandoned truth and taken the profane and made it “sacred.”

If you want to find out just how sacred, take a public stand against what is “set apart” by the left, or refuse to allow your business to participate in what used to be deemed perversion, or speak out – or attempt to speak out – on a college campus against modern liberalism.  Do so, and you might just face violence or massive fines, lose your job, lose your business, and so on.

In addition to undoing the work of our founders – often “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution beyond recognition –  for decades, the Democratic Party has worked hard to ensure that Americans be governed according to what modern liberals hold as “sacred.”  Aided and abetted by the efforts of their like-minded allies in the media and academia, through the courts, Congress, and the White House, American Democrats have given legal legitimacy and political cover to the profane.

Unable to take comfort in or direction from any righteous power beyond this world, political power has been the dominant instrument by which today’s leftists have forced those unwilling into acquiescing to sacred leftist dogma.  Whether a minority or a majority, American leftists have been able to implement their agenda.  While constantly lamenting the “legislation of morality,” liberals have forced (especially through the courts) their immorality upon hundreds of millions of unwilling Americans.  Thus, along with the pleasures of the flesh, political power is of utmost importance to contemporary leftists.

C.S. Lewis was right.  In the end, there are only two kinds of people: “those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.'”  To find out in which camp an individual currently resides, look at the things he finds sacred.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

I think the most telling thing about General John Kelly’s press briefing last week was when he lamented the things no longer held “sacred” in our country today.  When speaking of American soldiers dying on the battlefield, General Kelly rightly declared:

And I thought at least that was sacred. You know, when I was a kid growing up, a lot of things were sacred in our country. Women were sacred, looked upon with great honor. That’s obviously not the case anymore as we see from recent cases. Life – the dignity of life – is sacred. That’s gone. Religion, that seems to be gone as well.


Gold Star families, I think that left in the convention over the summer. But I just thought – the selfless devotion that brings a man or woman to die on the battlefield, I just thought that that might be sacred.

The secular usage of “sacred” is derived from its religious meaning.  In Scripture, something sacred was something “set apart” or “holy” – something like God and apart from the world (or the “profane”).  “Sacred” in the secular sense – the usage employed by General Kelly – simply means highly valued, or important, or held in high esteem.  As General Kelly implies, you can tell much about a person by what he rejects as sacred.

Women, life, religion, marriage, family, hard work, the military, et al. are no longer widely held sacred in American culture because the values that demand such have largely been abandoned and attacked by the modern left.  Rejecting the laws of the Lawgiver, the left long ago decided that it was time for human beings to write their own rules and decide for themselves what is and is not “sacred.”

Especially targeted are any values deemed “Christian.”  Never mind the actual words and deeds of the Founding Fathers, and the words and deeds of the early Americans who actually lived in that era – references to God and His Word in the public square have been under assault in the U.S. for generations.  Hollywood, the mainstream news media, and the kindergarten-through-university government school system in the U.S. at least ignores, and more often mocks, what is truly sacred.

Entertained by the vulgar, informed by the ignorant, and educated from a godless Darwinian worldview, it should come as little surprise that tens of millions of Americans have little to no idea what is supposed to be sacred.  How can a culture that’s been taught to slaughter – or at least support the slaughter of – the most helpless and innocent among us expect to honor those who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield?  What can a foolish clown of a woman who has long reliably supported “sacrificing” an unborn child in the selfish name of “choice” know about real sacrifice?

What can those who kneel for a lie understand about truth and justice?  How can we trust those who have waged a relentless war on the oldest and most sacred of all human institutions to grasp what is truly holy, healthy, and good for humanity?  How can we trust the precious fourth estate to individuals who rarely hesitate to lie and distort in order to keep those of like mind in power?  How can we expect those who peddle goods for votes in order to maintain power to serve sacrificially and keep the nation’s best interests at heart?

Even more revealing than what one rejects as sacred are the things a person holds sacred.  To find out what is sacred among today’s liberals, look no farther than the “deeds of the flesh.”  Whether supporting and promoting fornication, pornography, homosexuality, transgenderism – and virtually any item from the sick LGBT agenda; whether killing children in the womb and demanding that employers pay for such; whether waging war on the family, and – through judicial fiat and, again, with little to no regard for the lives of children – redefining the oldest institution in the history of humanity, the left has abandoned truth and taken the profane and made it “sacred.”

If you want to find out just how sacred, take a public stand against what is “set apart” by the left, or refuse to allow your business to participate in what used to be deemed perversion, or speak out – or attempt to speak out – on a college campus against modern liberalism.  Do so, and you might just face violence or massive fines, lose your job, lose your business, and so on.

In addition to undoing the work of our founders – often “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution beyond recognition –  for decades, the Democratic Party has worked hard to ensure that Americans be governed according to what modern liberals hold as “sacred.”  Aided and abetted by the efforts of their like-minded allies in the media and academia, through the courts, Congress, and the White House, American Democrats have given legal legitimacy and political cover to the profane.

Unable to take comfort in or direction from any righteous power beyond this world, political power has been the dominant instrument by which today’s leftists have forced those unwilling into acquiescing to sacred leftist dogma.  Whether a minority or a majority, American leftists have been able to implement their agenda.  While constantly lamenting the “legislation of morality,” liberals have forced (especially through the courts) their immorality upon hundreds of millions of unwilling Americans.  Thus, along with the pleasures of the flesh, political power is of utmost importance to contemporary leftists.

C.S. Lewis was right.  In the end, there are only two kinds of people: “those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.'”  To find out in which camp an individual currently resides, look at the things he finds sacred.

Trevor Grant Thomas: At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America.
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com



Source link

Addictions: Sex, Alcohol, and Marijuana


The mass media now show clear signs of creeping child porn, often with hints and deniable photos, including the web landing pages of major corporations. 

By normalizing the sexual exploitation of children who are much too young to make responsible decisions – it’s hard enough for grown-ups – the mass media have been infiltrated by the illegal child porn racket.

It is relevant that Islam sometimes legitimizes adult males having sex with children of a lower-caste tribe, although it is strictly prohibited within the traditional Muslim family.  As a family-based culture, tribal Islam makes a major distinction between politically powerful families and powerless or infidel families.  In Afghanistan, the exploitation of young boys from low-prestige tribal families may be celebrated, but powerful families will also “honor-kill” daughters who are seduced by strangers.

From psychiatrist friends, I understand that prematurely sexualized children may be developmentally endangered.  As children, they are easily manipulated and abused, sometimes with the criminal collusion of parents and guardians.  The result can be a lifelong risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior, among other major disorders.  The ability to become attached to other adults in normal love and marriage relationships can also be badly affected. 

Sexually abused children can also become abusers themselves, and psychoanalysts have long believed that they are psychologically endangered for life.  High risk for suicide is also associated with a history of sexual abuse in childhood.

In a period of widespread sexual escalation, “transgressive sexuality” and “transgressive violence” have become more and more normalized via the mass media.  I believe that the mass media constitute an increasing threat to normal child-raising and education.

The traditional legal age of consent for intercourse is meant to protect children until they can make an informed choice. Hypersexuality is now so endemic in the corrupt “Frankfurt School” culture, combined with the breakup of family protection, that young children are being “asked” to decide on their sexes.  This is plain abuse of the very limited understanding children have about sexuality.  Adults, including trained psychiatrists, still have a limited understanding of human sexuality. Young children are extremely vulnerable.

Facebook is now said to provide 72 different gender categories for its customers, including underage children who have no conception of the obsessive, compulsive, exploitive, and sometimes violent nature of adult sexuality.  Everything is rationalized as “love,” but human beings have always shown a wild and dangerous variety of sexualities.

At the end of his term, Barack Hussein Obama openly ordered that local school districts around the country abandon their traditional “boys” and “girls” bathrooms.  Obama’s executive order was a plainly unconstitutional and illegal abuse of power, and school districts that obeyed his edict should be held criminally liable. 

There are reports that Obama himself may be addicted to hypersexuality, traditionally considered a danger to normal child-raising and education.  We make no judgment about the accuracy of those reports.

The attempt to choose one’s gender is fraught with dangerous consequences, ranging from body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), which is endemic in modern culture, to high mortality and morbidity in sexually transmitted diseases.  The rise in reports of sexual slavery is also closely linked to this grossly irresponsible and traditionally criminal behavior.

Sexual abuse of children and ignorant and innocent young people has become “normalized” in our culture, as celebrities and power-abusers are being outed one after another.  Sexual exploitation correlates with the abuse of drugs, itself able to create entire generations of misery.  It should be noted that many adults are genetically vulnerable to alcohol addiction, which has long been a source of suffering and misery in European and Asian populations that carry the vulnerability gene.

The legalization of the selectively toxic component of marijuana, THC, is closely related.  The mass media promote both ignorance and a false sense of security about drugs of abuse.  Alcohol and marijuana can be used safely, but genetic vulnerabilities to those substances continue to destroy lives.  In Russia, where alcohol abuse is rife, the average male life expectancy is only 50 years, 25 years less than in other industrial countries.  The toll of family violence and many other dysfunctional behaviors cannot be counted. 

The full marijuana plant has more than 80 known phytocannabinoids, with THC and CBD being the largest in quantity.  In teenage boys, THC has long been believed to trigger psychotic breaks, which then can lead to lifelong histories of psychosis.  I had a highly intelligent teenage friend who took all the illegal drugs available.  He has been periodically hospitalized for psychotic breaks since his teenage years and has never recovered fully.  He is unable to speak coherently.  A great talent and a potentially happy life were completely lost, and a lot of human potential was wasted.

This link to the free biomedical abstract database PubMed.gov shows 35 peer-reviewed journal abstracts on THC toxicity in triggering psychotic breaks, especially in teenagers.

Marijuana growers have consistently increased the hallucinogenic THC component of plant marijuana over decades.  As a result, nobody knows whether he is smoking high-THC or low-THC marijuana in “natural” form.  Highly bred marijuana is no longer “natural,” any more than highly bred miniature terriers are natural dogs. 

The second most common ingredient in wild marijuana is called cannabidiol (CBD), and it has highly promising health effects.  Most marijuana users have no scientific understanding of these points at all, but they are easy to read about in sources like Wikipedia. 

Bottom line: THC can cause psychosis, especially in genetically vulnerable teenagers, males more than females.  CBD appears to be safe and beneficial, but it is not hallucinogenic. 

In addition, any inhaled burned plant is carcinogenic to the lungs.  You could smoke toilet paper or plain wood and it would still harm your lungs.  For that reason, the use of bongs or “vaping” is a far safer way to take in tobacco or marijuana than are joints or cigarettes.  Burned carbon products of any kind pose a risk of lung cancer. 

In synthetic form, THC is demonstrably dangerous in triggering psychotic episodes, but in smaller doses and mixed with other phytocannabinoids like CBD, it may be more tolerable.  But I would not bet my life on it. 

The endocannabinoid system (the natural network of cannabis-like neural messengers and receptors) is complex and incompletely understood.  Like the endogenous opioid system, it has major benefits as well as risks.  People who use marijuana should understand the major differences among

  1. endocannabinoids (which are endogenous to the normal body),
  1. phytocannabinioids (from plant sources, which often include a range of toxic and beneficial molecules), and
  1. especially bred high-THC and low-CBD varieties of the marijuana, which is still called “marijuana” by sellers but may be toxic to vulnerable people.

These are all basic concepts.  They should be taught in elementary schools.

Marijuana is directly analogous to opium, brewed alcohol, and the coca plant.  All plant products are complex.  When humans refine or synthesize the plant molecules, the molecules are often toxic, especially at unnatural dosages, and in purer form, and for people with genetic vulnerabilities.  If you know any alcoholics, chances are that they carry the gene.

I have no doubt whatever that most media people are just as deeply into drugs, natural and artificial ones, as the rest of the trendy pop culture.  When they promote “safe” drugs, they are simply rationalizing their own destructive habits.  They may not understand that there are much more vulnerable populations for most psychoactive molecules, as we keep on finding out.

The bottom line is this: remember all those liberal fads?  Well, don’t believe a word of them.  These people are deluded, and they run the mass media that can turn entire nations into destructive cults.

Michelle Malkin has just published an exposé of child porn photographer Terry Richardson.  This is an important exposé of the creeping (and creepy) child endangerment racket sponsored by advertisers, fashion industry powers, and the celebrity culture.

The fashion corporation Condé Nast has knowingly employed child porn photographer Terry Richardson and spread his child-endangering photos to many millions of people, including an unknown number of gullible children. 

The mass media now show clear signs of creeping child porn, often with hints and deniable photos, including the web landing pages of major corporations. 

By normalizing the sexual exploitation of children who are much too young to make responsible decisions – it’s hard enough for grown-ups – the mass media have been infiltrated by the illegal child porn racket.

It is relevant that Islam sometimes legitimizes adult males having sex with children of a lower-caste tribe, although it is strictly prohibited within the traditional Muslim family.  As a family-based culture, tribal Islam makes a major distinction between politically powerful families and powerless or infidel families.  In Afghanistan, the exploitation of young boys from low-prestige tribal families may be celebrated, but powerful families will also “honor-kill” daughters who are seduced by strangers.

From psychiatrist friends, I understand that prematurely sexualized children may be developmentally endangered.  As children, they are easily manipulated and abused, sometimes with the criminal collusion of parents and guardians.  The result can be a lifelong risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior, among other major disorders.  The ability to become attached to other adults in normal love and marriage relationships can also be badly affected. 

Sexually abused children can also become abusers themselves, and psychoanalysts have long believed that they are psychologically endangered for life.  High risk for suicide is also associated with a history of sexual abuse in childhood.

In a period of widespread sexual escalation, “transgressive sexuality” and “transgressive violence” have become more and more normalized via the mass media.  I believe that the mass media constitute an increasing threat to normal child-raising and education.

The traditional legal age of consent for intercourse is meant to protect children until they can make an informed choice. Hypersexuality is now so endemic in the corrupt “Frankfurt School” culture, combined with the breakup of family protection, that young children are being “asked” to decide on their sexes.  This is plain abuse of the very limited understanding children have about sexuality.  Adults, including trained psychiatrists, still have a limited understanding of human sexuality. Young children are extremely vulnerable.

Facebook is now said to provide 72 different gender categories for its customers, including underage children who have no conception of the obsessive, compulsive, exploitive, and sometimes violent nature of adult sexuality.  Everything is rationalized as “love,” but human beings have always shown a wild and dangerous variety of sexualities.

At the end of his term, Barack Hussein Obama openly ordered that local school districts around the country abandon their traditional “boys” and “girls” bathrooms.  Obama’s executive order was a plainly unconstitutional and illegal abuse of power, and school districts that obeyed his edict should be held criminally liable. 

There are reports that Obama himself may be addicted to hypersexuality, traditionally considered a danger to normal child-raising and education.  We make no judgment about the accuracy of those reports.

The attempt to choose one’s gender is fraught with dangerous consequences, ranging from body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), which is endemic in modern culture, to high mortality and morbidity in sexually transmitted diseases.  The rise in reports of sexual slavery is also closely linked to this grossly irresponsible and traditionally criminal behavior.

Sexual abuse of children and ignorant and innocent young people has become “normalized” in our culture, as celebrities and power-abusers are being outed one after another.  Sexual exploitation correlates with the abuse of drugs, itself able to create entire generations of misery.  It should be noted that many adults are genetically vulnerable to alcohol addiction, which has long been a source of suffering and misery in European and Asian populations that carry the vulnerability gene.

The legalization of the selectively toxic component of marijuana, THC, is closely related.  The mass media promote both ignorance and a false sense of security about drugs of abuse.  Alcohol and marijuana can be used safely, but genetic vulnerabilities to those substances continue to destroy lives.  In Russia, where alcohol abuse is rife, the average male life expectancy is only 50 years, 25 years less than in other industrial countries.  The toll of family violence and many other dysfunctional behaviors cannot be counted. 

The full marijuana plant has more than 80 known phytocannabinoids, with THC and CBD being the largest in quantity.  In teenage boys, THC has long been believed to trigger psychotic breaks, which then can lead to lifelong histories of psychosis.  I had a highly intelligent teenage friend who took all the illegal drugs available.  He has been periodically hospitalized for psychotic breaks since his teenage years and has never recovered fully.  He is unable to speak coherently.  A great talent and a potentially happy life were completely lost, and a lot of human potential was wasted.

This link to the free biomedical abstract database PubMed.gov shows 35 peer-reviewed journal abstracts on THC toxicity in triggering psychotic breaks, especially in teenagers.

Marijuana growers have consistently increased the hallucinogenic THC component of plant marijuana over decades.  As a result, nobody knows whether he is smoking high-THC or low-THC marijuana in “natural” form.  Highly bred marijuana is no longer “natural,” any more than highly bred miniature terriers are natural dogs. 

The second most common ingredient in wild marijuana is called cannabidiol (CBD), and it has highly promising health effects.  Most marijuana users have no scientific understanding of these points at all, but they are easy to read about in sources like Wikipedia. 

Bottom line: THC can cause psychosis, especially in genetically vulnerable teenagers, males more than females.  CBD appears to be safe and beneficial, but it is not hallucinogenic. 

In addition, any inhaled burned plant is carcinogenic to the lungs.  You could smoke toilet paper or plain wood and it would still harm your lungs.  For that reason, the use of bongs or “vaping” is a far safer way to take in tobacco or marijuana than are joints or cigarettes.  Burned carbon products of any kind pose a risk of lung cancer. 

In synthetic form, THC is demonstrably dangerous in triggering psychotic episodes, but in smaller doses and mixed with other phytocannabinoids like CBD, it may be more tolerable.  But I would not bet my life on it. 

The endocannabinoid system (the natural network of cannabis-like neural messengers and receptors) is complex and incompletely understood.  Like the endogenous opioid system, it has major benefits as well as risks.  People who use marijuana should understand the major differences among

  1. endocannabinoids (which are endogenous to the normal body),
  1. phytocannabinioids (from plant sources, which often include a range of toxic and beneficial molecules), and
  1. especially bred high-THC and low-CBD varieties of the marijuana, which is still called “marijuana” by sellers but may be toxic to vulnerable people.

These are all basic concepts.  They should be taught in elementary schools.

Marijuana is directly analogous to opium, brewed alcohol, and the coca plant.  All plant products are complex.  When humans refine or synthesize the plant molecules, the molecules are often toxic, especially at unnatural dosages, and in purer form, and for people with genetic vulnerabilities.  If you know any alcoholics, chances are that they carry the gene.

I have no doubt whatever that most media people are just as deeply into drugs, natural and artificial ones, as the rest of the trendy pop culture.  When they promote “safe” drugs, they are simply rationalizing their own destructive habits.  They may not understand that there are much more vulnerable populations for most psychoactive molecules, as we keep on finding out.

The bottom line is this: remember all those liberal fads?  Well, don’t believe a word of them.  These people are deluded, and they run the mass media that can turn entire nations into destructive cults.



Source link

Benghazi Liar Schiff Now Lies about Uranium One


When the Democratic anti-Trump mantra of “Russia, Russia, Russia” was in its infancy, House Intelligence Committee off ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff from the People’s Republic of California was in high dudgeon over Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes daring to report to the public and the press that, yes, members of Team Trump were in fact surveilled and the contents of their conversations and their names were recorded and disseminated.

Rep. Schiff had no problem with intel leaks to the New York Times, but an intelligence committee chairman giving the President a heads-up that his transition team was in fact caught up in surveillance by his own government is out of bounds? Schiff insisted it was, and claimed Nunes was not acting as a committee chair but as a surrogate of Team Trump:

At his own news conference later that afternoon, Schiff sharply criticized Nunes, given that his committee is in the middle of an active investigation that includes the question of whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia’s suspected attempts to meddle in last year’s election.


“The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both,” Schiff told reporters.

Schiff has no problem acting as a surrogate for Team Obama or Team Hillary. That deafening silence you hear is the outrage he has expressed over the leaking of classified information to the press designed to fatally wound the Trump transition. Schiff had no problem repeating claims without evidence that Team Trump was colluding with the Russians. But he was troubled by Nunes citing reports proving President Trump was right about his team being monitored, creating a kerfuffle that forced Nunes to recuse himself from active leadership of his committee.

Fast forward to Uranium One and Fusion GPS and evidence of actual collusion and coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the Russians, and we find ranking member Schiff once again acting as a surrogate for both President Barack Hussein Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. He cannot do both. Nor can he ignore evidence that Team Hillary conspired with the Russians to both influence our elections and to engage in arguably treasonous pay-for-play in exchanging control of 20 percent of our uranium supply, the raw material for nuclear weapons, for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Yet that is what Schiff is doing, whistling past his party’s political graveyard and ignoring evidence of crimes that, yes, make Watergate look like a third-rate burglary and the treason of the Rosenbergs look like a misdemeanor, He calls Uranium One a politically-motivated “distraction”, showing how unserious the Democrats are about real corruption and collusion and why these “bipartisan” investigations are a sham by definition:

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accused the Trump administration, Breitbart News and Fox News of promoting news first reported by The Hill last week regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Uranium One deal.


The 2010 deal, covered extensively in Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” gave Russia control of a significant portion of U.S. uranium.


Schiff denounced the new attention as a “partisan effort to distract” and accused House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) of being a part of it given three House committees — Judiciary, Government Reform and Intelligence — were involved.

Schiff, as we know, is no stranger to partisan efforts to distract and is a veteran of using lies, false charges, and obfuscation to distract the American people from the crimes and corruption of Team Obama and Team Clinton. He shamelessly defended the incompetence and criminal negligence of Obama and Clinton in Benghazi

Schiff was the individual who called the heroes who fought off terrorists from the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi liars for their account of the Obama/Clinton administration’s denying security improvements, ignoring warnings of the attack, and the issuance of a stand-down order for any rescue, an order they ignored. As Investor’s Business Daily recounted in 2014:

The California Democrat who suggested that his party boycott the Benghazi Select Committee as a waste of time now accuses those who fought on the CIA annex roof of lying “to promote a new book.”


The last we heard from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was in May. That’s when he told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” he thought the planned select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack was a “colossal waste of time.”


Calling the yet-to-be-approved committee a “tremendous red herring,” Schiff said: “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”…


… Schiff apparently is still not happy about the hearing, which pointed out the State Department’s pre-Benghazi neglect of security, ignoring the security recommendations after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania….


The hearing came right after Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen, three CIA contractors who on that night fought terrorists from the roof of the CIA’s Benghazi annex building, confirmed that there was indeed a stand-down order given that caused a critical half-hour delay….


Schiff, who was not in Benghazi that night, says Paronto, Geist and Tiegen are making up a tale to sell their book, as if their story is less plausible than the proven lie that the Benghazi attack was caused by an inflammatory YouTube video, a myth promoted both by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama.


After seeing clips of Schiff saying the contractors were trying to sell their book and Smith claiming a stand-down order “was never given,” Geist said he “would like to invite Mr. Schiff to a debate… we can talk about it.” He wondered if Schiff wished to “say that to my face.”

Schiff thought the Benghazi heroes was making it up, and now he thinks Nunes and Team Trump are making up the fact that investigations into Team Trump and the Russians, and the creation of a Special Counsel, were prompted by a fake dossier put together by the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. He claims it is a distraction to point out the truth that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration sold out American national security in exchange for more Clinton cash.

Rep. Adam Schiff, have you no shame?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

When the Democratic anti-Trump mantra of “Russia, Russia, Russia” was in its infancy, House Intelligence Committee off ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff from the People’s Republic of California was in high dudgeon over Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes daring to report to the public and the press that, yes, members of Team Trump were in fact surveilled and the contents of their conversations and their names were recorded and disseminated.

Rep. Schiff had no problem with intel leaks to the New York Times, but an intelligence committee chairman giving the President a heads-up that his transition team was in fact caught up in surveillance by his own government is out of bounds? Schiff insisted it was, and claimed Nunes was not acting as a committee chair but as a surrogate of Team Trump:

At his own news conference later that afternoon, Schiff sharply criticized Nunes, given that his committee is in the middle of an active investigation that includes the question of whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia’s suspected attempts to meddle in last year’s election.


“The chairman will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both,” Schiff told reporters.

Schiff has no problem acting as a surrogate for Team Obama or Team Hillary. That deafening silence you hear is the outrage he has expressed over the leaking of classified information to the press designed to fatally wound the Trump transition. Schiff had no problem repeating claims without evidence that Team Trump was colluding with the Russians. But he was troubled by Nunes citing reports proving President Trump was right about his team being monitored, creating a kerfuffle that forced Nunes to recuse himself from active leadership of his committee.

Fast forward to Uranium One and Fusion GPS and evidence of actual collusion and coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and the Russians, and we find ranking member Schiff once again acting as a surrogate for both President Barack Hussein Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. He cannot do both. Nor can he ignore evidence that Team Hillary conspired with the Russians to both influence our elections and to engage in arguably treasonous pay-for-play in exchanging control of 20 percent of our uranium supply, the raw material for nuclear weapons, for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Yet that is what Schiff is doing, whistling past his party’s political graveyard and ignoring evidence of crimes that, yes, make Watergate look like a third-rate burglary and the treason of the Rosenbergs look like a misdemeanor, He calls Uranium One a politically-motivated “distraction”, showing how unserious the Democrats are about real corruption and collusion and why these “bipartisan” investigations are a sham by definition:

Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accused the Trump administration, Breitbart News and Fox News of promoting news first reported by The Hill last week regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the Uranium One deal.


The 2010 deal, covered extensively in Breitbart editor-at-large Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” gave Russia control of a significant portion of U.S. uranium.


Schiff denounced the new attention as a “partisan effort to distract” and accused House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) of being a part of it given three House committees — Judiciary, Government Reform and Intelligence — were involved.

Schiff, as we know, is no stranger to partisan efforts to distract and is a veteran of using lies, false charges, and obfuscation to distract the American people from the crimes and corruption of Team Obama and Team Clinton. He shamelessly defended the incompetence and criminal negligence of Obama and Clinton in Benghazi

Schiff was the individual who called the heroes who fought off terrorists from the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi liars for their account of the Obama/Clinton administration’s denying security improvements, ignoring warnings of the attack, and the issuance of a stand-down order for any rescue, an order they ignored. As Investor’s Business Daily recounted in 2014:

The California Democrat who suggested that his party boycott the Benghazi Select Committee as a waste of time now accuses those who fought on the CIA annex roof of lying “to promote a new book.”


The last we heard from Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, was in May. That’s when he told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” he thought the planned select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attack was a “colossal waste of time.”


Calling the yet-to-be-approved committee a “tremendous red herring,” Schiff said: “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”…


… Schiff apparently is still not happy about the hearing, which pointed out the State Department’s pre-Benghazi neglect of security, ignoring the security recommendations after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania….


The hearing came right after Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen, three CIA contractors who on that night fought terrorists from the roof of the CIA’s Benghazi annex building, confirmed that there was indeed a stand-down order given that caused a critical half-hour delay….


Schiff, who was not in Benghazi that night, says Paronto, Geist and Tiegen are making up a tale to sell their book, as if their story is less plausible than the proven lie that the Benghazi attack was caused by an inflammatory YouTube video, a myth promoted both by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama.


After seeing clips of Schiff saying the contractors were trying to sell their book and Smith claiming a stand-down order “was never given,” Geist said he “would like to invite Mr. Schiff to a debate… we can talk about it.” He wondered if Schiff wished to “say that to my face.”

Schiff thought the Benghazi heroes was making it up, and now he thinks Nunes and Team Trump are making up the fact that investigations into Team Trump and the Russians, and the creation of a Special Counsel, were prompted by a fake dossier put together by the Russians and paid for by Hilary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC. He claims it is a distraction to point out the truth that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration sold out American national security in exchange for more Clinton cash.

Rep. Adam Schiff, have you no shame?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               



Source link

The World Before Racial Hypersensitivity


For example, feminism interprets all history as misogynistic and systemically oppressive of women, such that any woman who does not self-identify as a feminist (i.e., a female neo-Marxist) is seen as weak, unenlightened, and suffering from false consciousness. But how, on this model, are we to make sense of the many famous examples of strong, intelligent women from the centuries before feminism redefined the sexes and diminished masculinity? Feminism conspires to erase those examples from our civilizational memory by means of ideological revisionism, redefining the peaks of human nature through the demeaning artifice of historical condescension.

To see how far we are from remembering nature’s true perspective, or being allowed to remember, consider that today most academic study of Jane Austen — nature’s antidote to feminist reductionism and hostility if ever there was one — begins from the absurd presupposition that Austen herself was a proto-feminist. We must believe this, you see, for otherwise Austen represents a profound, and ideologically unacceptable, counterargument to feminist historicism. (Among all the obvious evidence to the contrary, consider that feminism, like all neo-Marxist ideology, is utterly lacking in, and disdainful of, irony, whereas Austen was arguably the most subtle ironist since Socrates.)

Through many such historical contortions, progressives have made it difficult to imagine what an independent woman would look like at all, outside the perspective of feminist radicalism — which is exactly how the neo-Marxists like it.

Likewise on issues of race, history and old literature must always be presented from the neo-Marxist perspective, which is to say as examples of the social injustices or early social justice heroes of the ages before progressivism began to emancipate humanity from the “natural” or “naïve” point of view, in favor of the “scientific” social constructs of collectivist reformation.

So it is that we no longer even blink when we hear stories like this one, in which Alabama Republican Roy Moore is vilified as racist for expressing his Christian faith in this way:

We were torn apart in the Civil War — brother against brother, North against South, party against party. What changed? Now we have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting.


What’s going to unite us? What’s going to bring us back together? A president? A Congress? No. It’s going to be God.

To which an enlightened progressive at Slate responded with this:

Ironically, one way God could improve white Americans’ relationships with Native Americans and Americans of Asian ancestry is by coming down hard on people like Roy Moore who still refer to Native Americans and Americans of Asian ancestry by using racial terms that were already considered insulting and antiquated 50 years ago.

The problem with Moore’s wish for national unity, you see, is that he has the regressive audacity to say “reds” when he should say “Native Americans,” and “yellows” when he should say “Americans of Asian ancestry.” Those stupid Christians, stuck in a language that became “insulting and antiquated 50 years ago”! That is, a language that described things as they are in concrete reality, rather than according to balkanizing abstractions concocted by university professors influenced by Frankfurt School Marxism and intended to manufacture and perpetuate permanent grievance groups to be used as cannon fodder against white capitalist oppression.

I should note that the above example comes from an article by a conservative writer at PJ Media, who objects to the tone-deafness of the left’s criticism of Christians like Moore, but nevertheless concedes the point that terms such as “red” and “yellow” are now generally understood as racist. So you see, even in the context of defending one man’s use of politically incorrect language, conservatives fall prey to the indoctrinated apology reflex: “Yes, his language is now considered inappropriate, but a fair look at the context shows that Moore didn’t intend to say anything racist.”

Enough of that apology reflex, please. Not only did Moore not intend to say anything racist, he didn’t say anything racist. Not at all racist, not even a little racist, not even insensitive-on-modern-terms racist. But we are all so immersed in the progressive distortions of language (and hence of discourse and thought) that our own instinctive rejection of such absurdities tends to get bogged down in a maze of politicized nuance. Nature’s glory has faded into the smog.

Occasionally, however, chance can still provide us with a microcosmic glimpse of the natural — that is, “naïve” or depoliticized — perspective on human differences and the language that describes them. There are still far-flung corners of the Earth where one may find examples of the descriptions and self-descriptions that were normal before the left’s deadly “-isms” were superimposed on language, politics, and psychology to manipulate us into submission before the progressive faith’s version of salvation, i.e., the rejection of liberty, human nature, and the past.

Here, then, for those still receptive to Nature’s beauty, is a breath of linguistic fresh air.

At the Korean university where I teach, a student I know well recently asked me about a disorienting experience she had suffered at the coffee shop where she works part-time. A young black couple — not a common sight in Korea — visited the coffee shop, both dressed very fashionably. As they were leaving, my student, impressed by their looks and bearing, commented to her coworkers (in Korean, but this is a literal translation of her words), “That black couple looks sexy” — upon which a coworker immediately scolded her for her racial insensitivity. Black people, he explained, don’t like to be called words like “sexy,” because it is racially offensive (presumably on the grounds of being a stereotype of some sort, although I wouldn’t waste much time trying to figure that out).

When my student responded that she had not intended any insult, but rather a compliment about the couple’s appearance, she was browbeaten with the standard progressive-postmodern assault: Her intention was not important; what mattered was how the aggrieved identity group wished to be spoken of, and words like “sexy” (which in its adopted Korean verb form, “seksihada,” carries the sense of “to be cool”) are now, supposedly, offensive. (“When did ‘black is beautiful’ become an insult?” I wondered.)

I briefly explained to my distraught student (“Am I prejudiced?”) the birds and the bees of political correctness, and quickly guessed, correctly, that her holier-than-thou, hypersensitive coworker had spent some time abroad, where he had been schooled in the ever-evolving ways of social justice by Western acquaintances, probably university students indoctrinated every day in their classes.

My student herself is an English literature major, which means exactly the same thing in Korea that it means in most Western universities, namely regular saturation in neo-Marxist interpretative theory. Every modern novel taught here is selected for its social justice attitudinizing, and every classic novel is used as an object lesson in the social injustice of past societies — the precise method of teaching history and literature advocated by John Dewey a century ago, by the way. (Imagine the trauma I caused when I taught Brave New World last spring!) And yet she had managed to remain more or less oblivious to the practical manifestations of this social justice propaganda in her everyday life, at least with regard to race issues.

Having walked her through the quagmire of racial politics for a while, I tried to concretize the issue, and to see how much political correctness had seeped into her own perceptions without her realizing it, by asking her the following question:

“Imagine you heard me talking to another Western professor, and I said, ‘These days, most of my students are Asian of course, but back home, while the majority of my students were white, I did have a few yellow students, too.’ What do you think when you hear the word ‘yellow’ in that sentence?”

My student’s initial response, after pausing to think about it, was, “I don’t understand.”

“Well,” I explained, “does the word ‘yellow,’ used to describe Asian people, bother you?”

After another thoughtful pause, she answered, perplexed, “Why should it bother me?” — causing me a delight comparable to what a man might feel upon entering a quiet path in the woods after twenty years in prison. Here, suddenly, and contrary to all my normal expectations of the modern politicization of language, was Nature, pure and simple.

Why, indeed, should a young Korean woman be bothered by being designated “yellow”? True, an Asian person’s skin is rarely yellow in any precise sense, any more than a “white” person is perfectly white, or a black person really pitch black. These designations are simplifications and approximations of convenience, of course. But what makes them racist or insensitive? Not, as writers like that Slate critic quoted earlier would assume, some kind of historical impulse toward Marxist perfection, according to which normal descriptive words magically become “insulting and antiquated” by academic fiat.

On the contrary, what we are seeing here is the inherent parochialism and myopia of progressive pseudo-intellectualism, which childishly mistakes its own theoretical presuppositions for Necessity, and then summarily declares all noncompliant language obsolete and “false.”

It takes a special kind of cultish narrowmindedness to imagine that descriptive language developed organically to serve an obvious and inescapable practical purpose — in this case a basic differentiation of races based on skin tones — can somehow become incorrect and immoral, whereas virtually useless and uninformative abstractions like “Americans of Asian descent” can somehow become correct and moral.

What impressed me most about my little field experiment was that my student — highly intelligent and well-exposed to social justice propaganda — was not only unoffended by the word “yellow,” but was instinctively unable to conceive of why anyone would be offended by it.

The voice of Nature had spoken — and its statement constituted a resounding “Oh, shut up!” to the phony sensitivity racket that seeks to manipulate us through theory-dependent reinterpretations of meaning.

The perspective that is actually false and naïve is the one that would deny that natural concreteness of genuine, prepropagandized communication, and that mistakes its own dogmatic ideological narrowness for higher understanding, just as children believe the world began with them, and everything around them is as new as their first view of it.

By contrast, if a smart and openminded young Korean, looking at the world without those progressive blinkers, thinks a black couple is sexy, she’s going to say so, and if you describe her as a yellow person, she’s going to say, “Yes, that’s right.”

There is a world of thought that is fading and almost lost today, one manifested in the communication of people who have not yet been degraded to the point of seeing themselves as nothing but vessels of political grievance and hypersensitivity. One comprised of souls striving for independence and individual meaning, rather than submitting to compliance and collective identity.

Our consolation, as we watch the last visible flickers of that lost world, is that it will always be there, however thoroughly obscured for the time being. Nature, contrary to the fundamental tenet of the progressive religious dogma, cannot be defeated or obliterated by socializing artifice — and that applies to human nature above all. At the moment, unfortunately, one may be more likely to find evidence of this consoling truth among yellow people than among whites or blacks, but such is life. We must take our signs of hope where we find them.

Daren Jonescu writes about politics, philosophy, education, and the decline of civilization at http://darenjonescu.com/

Imagine a world in which one can actually describe the human species concretely, as one finds it, without measuring every utterance against the ever-changing barometer of political correctness. Imagine a language that actually communicates positively, naturally, rather than forever masking itself in unnecessary, propagandized euphemism in order to avoid the ultimate progressive sin of “offending” someone’s indoctrinated sensitivity and delicateness. Imagine the freedom of describing Asian people as “yellow” without being accused of a hate crime.

So mired is the West in the phony neo-Marxist sensitivities of identity politics — i.e., of racial, sexual, and ethnic differences forged into weapons of cynical progressive demagoguery — that it has become difficult to remember or reconstruct how the human world might have looked before the smog of political correctness obscured our horizon. This civilizational memory loss is, in fact, part of the purpose of political correctness as a tool of social transformation, as it fosters the progressive illusion that there are no legitimate alternatives to “forward.”

For example, feminism interprets all history as misogynistic and systemically oppressive of women, such that any woman who does not self-identify as a feminist (i.e., a female neo-Marxist) is seen as weak, unenlightened, and suffering from false consciousness. But how, on this model, are we to make sense of the many famous examples of strong, intelligent women from the centuries before feminism redefined the sexes and diminished masculinity? Feminism conspires to erase those examples from our civilizational memory by means of ideological revisionism, redefining the peaks of human nature through the demeaning artifice of historical condescension.

To see how far we are from remembering nature’s true perspective, or being allowed to remember, consider that today most academic study of Jane Austen — nature’s antidote to feminist reductionism and hostility if ever there was one — begins from the absurd presupposition that Austen herself was a proto-feminist. We must believe this, you see, for otherwise Austen represents a profound, and ideologically unacceptable, counterargument to feminist historicism. (Among all the obvious evidence to the contrary, consider that feminism, like all neo-Marxist ideology, is utterly lacking in, and disdainful of, irony, whereas Austen was arguably the most subtle ironist since Socrates.)

Through many such historical contortions, progressives have made it difficult to imagine what an independent woman would look like at all, outside the perspective of feminist radicalism — which is exactly how the neo-Marxists like it.

Likewise on issues of race, history and old literature must always be presented from the neo-Marxist perspective, which is to say as examples of the social injustices or early social justice heroes of the ages before progressivism began to emancipate humanity from the “natural” or “naïve” point of view, in favor of the “scientific” social constructs of collectivist reformation.

So it is that we no longer even blink when we hear stories like this one, in which Alabama Republican Roy Moore is vilified as racist for expressing his Christian faith in this way:

We were torn apart in the Civil War — brother against brother, North against South, party against party. What changed? Now we have blacks and whites fighting, reds and yellows fighting, Democrats and Republicans fighting, men and women fighting.


What’s going to unite us? What’s going to bring us back together? A president? A Congress? No. It’s going to be God.

To which an enlightened progressive at Slate responded with this:

Ironically, one way God could improve white Americans’ relationships with Native Americans and Americans of Asian ancestry is by coming down hard on people like Roy Moore who still refer to Native Americans and Americans of Asian ancestry by using racial terms that were already considered insulting and antiquated 50 years ago.

The problem with Moore’s wish for national unity, you see, is that he has the regressive audacity to say “reds” when he should say “Native Americans,” and “yellows” when he should say “Americans of Asian ancestry.” Those stupid Christians, stuck in a language that became “insulting and antiquated 50 years ago”! That is, a language that described things as they are in concrete reality, rather than according to balkanizing abstractions concocted by university professors influenced by Frankfurt School Marxism and intended to manufacture and perpetuate permanent grievance groups to be used as cannon fodder against white capitalist oppression.

I should note that the above example comes from an article by a conservative writer at PJ Media, who objects to the tone-deafness of the left’s criticism of Christians like Moore, but nevertheless concedes the point that terms such as “red” and “yellow” are now generally understood as racist. So you see, even in the context of defending one man’s use of politically incorrect language, conservatives fall prey to the indoctrinated apology reflex: “Yes, his language is now considered inappropriate, but a fair look at the context shows that Moore didn’t intend to say anything racist.”

Enough of that apology reflex, please. Not only did Moore not intend to say anything racist, he didn’t say anything racist. Not at all racist, not even a little racist, not even insensitive-on-modern-terms racist. But we are all so immersed in the progressive distortions of language (and hence of discourse and thought) that our own instinctive rejection of such absurdities tends to get bogged down in a maze of politicized nuance. Nature’s glory has faded into the smog.

Occasionally, however, chance can still provide us with a microcosmic glimpse of the natural — that is, “naïve” or depoliticized — perspective on human differences and the language that describes them. There are still far-flung corners of the Earth where one may find examples of the descriptions and self-descriptions that were normal before the left’s deadly “-isms” were superimposed on language, politics, and psychology to manipulate us into submission before the progressive faith’s version of salvation, i.e., the rejection of liberty, human nature, and the past.

Here, then, for those still receptive to Nature’s beauty, is a breath of linguistic fresh air.

At the Korean university where I teach, a student I know well recently asked me about a disorienting experience she had suffered at the coffee shop where she works part-time. A young black couple — not a common sight in Korea — visited the coffee shop, both dressed very fashionably. As they were leaving, my student, impressed by their looks and bearing, commented to her coworkers (in Korean, but this is a literal translation of her words), “That black couple looks sexy” — upon which a coworker immediately scolded her for her racial insensitivity. Black people, he explained, don’t like to be called words like “sexy,” because it is racially offensive (presumably on the grounds of being a stereotype of some sort, although I wouldn’t waste much time trying to figure that out).

When my student responded that she had not intended any insult, but rather a compliment about the couple’s appearance, she was browbeaten with the standard progressive-postmodern assault: Her intention was not important; what mattered was how the aggrieved identity group wished to be spoken of, and words like “sexy” (which in its adopted Korean verb form, “seksihada,” carries the sense of “to be cool”) are now, supposedly, offensive. (“When did ‘black is beautiful’ become an insult?” I wondered.)

I briefly explained to my distraught student (“Am I prejudiced?”) the birds and the bees of political correctness, and quickly guessed, correctly, that her holier-than-thou, hypersensitive coworker had spent some time abroad, where he had been schooled in the ever-evolving ways of social justice by Western acquaintances, probably university students indoctrinated every day in their classes.

My student herself is an English literature major, which means exactly the same thing in Korea that it means in most Western universities, namely regular saturation in neo-Marxist interpretative theory. Every modern novel taught here is selected for its social justice attitudinizing, and every classic novel is used as an object lesson in the social injustice of past societies — the precise method of teaching history and literature advocated by John Dewey a century ago, by the way. (Imagine the trauma I caused when I taught Brave New World last spring!) And yet she had managed to remain more or less oblivious to the practical manifestations of this social justice propaganda in her everyday life, at least with regard to race issues.

Having walked her through the quagmire of racial politics for a while, I tried to concretize the issue, and to see how much political correctness had seeped into her own perceptions without her realizing it, by asking her the following question:

“Imagine you heard me talking to another Western professor, and I said, ‘These days, most of my students are Asian of course, but back home, while the majority of my students were white, I did have a few yellow students, too.’ What do you think when you hear the word ‘yellow’ in that sentence?”

My student’s initial response, after pausing to think about it, was, “I don’t understand.”

“Well,” I explained, “does the word ‘yellow,’ used to describe Asian people, bother you?”

After another thoughtful pause, she answered, perplexed, “Why should it bother me?” — causing me a delight comparable to what a man might feel upon entering a quiet path in the woods after twenty years in prison. Here, suddenly, and contrary to all my normal expectations of the modern politicization of language, was Nature, pure and simple.

Why, indeed, should a young Korean woman be bothered by being designated “yellow”? True, an Asian person’s skin is rarely yellow in any precise sense, any more than a “white” person is perfectly white, or a black person really pitch black. These designations are simplifications and approximations of convenience, of course. But what makes them racist or insensitive? Not, as writers like that Slate critic quoted earlier would assume, some kind of historical impulse toward Marxist perfection, according to which normal descriptive words magically become “insulting and antiquated” by academic fiat.

On the contrary, what we are seeing here is the inherent parochialism and myopia of progressive pseudo-intellectualism, which childishly mistakes its own theoretical presuppositions for Necessity, and then summarily declares all noncompliant language obsolete and “false.”

It takes a special kind of cultish narrowmindedness to imagine that descriptive language developed organically to serve an obvious and inescapable practical purpose — in this case a basic differentiation of races based on skin tones — can somehow become incorrect and immoral, whereas virtually useless and uninformative abstractions like “Americans of Asian descent” can somehow become correct and moral.

What impressed me most about my little field experiment was that my student — highly intelligent and well-exposed to social justice propaganda — was not only unoffended by the word “yellow,” but was instinctively unable to conceive of why anyone would be offended by it.

The voice of Nature had spoken — and its statement constituted a resounding “Oh, shut up!” to the phony sensitivity racket that seeks to manipulate us through theory-dependent reinterpretations of meaning.

The perspective that is actually false and naïve is the one that would deny that natural concreteness of genuine, prepropagandized communication, and that mistakes its own dogmatic ideological narrowness for higher understanding, just as children believe the world began with them, and everything around them is as new as their first view of it.

By contrast, if a smart and openminded young Korean, looking at the world without those progressive blinkers, thinks a black couple is sexy, she’s going to say so, and if you describe her as a yellow person, she’s going to say, “Yes, that’s right.”

There is a world of thought that is fading and almost lost today, one manifested in the communication of people who have not yet been degraded to the point of seeing themselves as nothing but vessels of political grievance and hypersensitivity. One comprised of souls striving for independence and individual meaning, rather than submitting to compliance and collective identity.

Our consolation, as we watch the last visible flickers of that lost world, is that it will always be there, however thoroughly obscured for the time being. Nature, contrary to the fundamental tenet of the progressive religious dogma, cannot be defeated or obliterated by socializing artifice — and that applies to human nature above all. At the moment, unfortunately, one may be more likely to find evidence of this consoling truth among yellow people than among whites or blacks, but such is life. We must take our signs of hope where we find them.

Daren Jonescu writes about politics, philosophy, education, and the decline of civilization at http://darenjonescu.com/



Source link

The Democrats’ Pathology


Failing to defeat Trump in the election, the Democrats have worked endlessly to deflect their humiliation with denials, demonization, conspiracies, and pathological diagnosis. These are not new political tactics. Although they are amplified more, they remain pathetic and ineffective.

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life was written in 1962 by noted historian Richard Hofstadter, but was conceived earlier to explain the rejection of Adlai Stephenson, the preferred choice of academics and credentialed intellectuals, in favor of Eisenhower. Rejecting an intellectual candidate was considered synonymous with rejecting reason and knowledge, but this arrogance of the left that they hold a monopoly on these virtues blinds them to the reality that progress, innovation, and insight are not limited to their institutions. In fact, one could easily argue that most of our progress occurs outside of our institutions of higher learning. Our universities serve to archive progress and innovation, but it does not always originate there. Eisenhower’s victory came after a period where intellectuals had come to dominate Washington’s institutions during the FDR years. The need to move beyond the leviathan that guided us through the Depression and WW II may have had less to do with any opinion of intellectuals than with the new postwar dynamics.

Hofstadter’s anti-intellectualism has echoed ever since to explain any election the left loses. For a country that is anti-intellectual, we seem to lead the world in Nobel prizes in all fields of science and the arts. Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, Tesla and thousands of high-tech startups that have dramatically changed the way we work and live have solid American roots. No country can match us in startups.

Nor does the intellectual left explain their wide support of the most deadly and nefarious political movements from Mao to Chavez. The left confuses intellectualism with credentialism. The institution of the blue-collar intellectual is to be found in the laboratories of Thomas Edison and other tinkerers as well as our educational institutions. We are not anti-intellectual because we reject bad ideas.

Thomas Franks in What’s the Matter with Kansas? contended that Midwestern rubes were easily deceived into voting against their own best interests. Consider the irony that the highly educated elite who control much of the traditional media had such a hard time convincing voters what was good for them. How arrogant is it to assume you know what is in others’ self-interest? Obama even contended that the dissatisfaction with the ACA was mostly a communication issue.

Hofstadter and Franks attributed their party’s loss to a pathology of the voters. The rejection of their candidates and their ideas was not a rational response, but some kind of social or psychological malfunction. There is a movement that believes the 25th Amendment should be invoked against Trump, contending that the President is unfit because of a severe narcissistic disorder.

Social media has made narcissism as American as baseball; it should be no surprise that Trump’s narcissism was deemed acceptable considering the alternative. But to contend that he has crossed a line to unfitness for office opens a very dangerous precedent. Tyrannical regimes have imprisoned thousands on questions of psychological fitness. Fifty years ago, psychologists considered homosexuality a psychological disorder.

Democrats are revulsed today from tools they created handed to their worst nightmare. Yet they propose more tools that are more dangerous to our liberty than the problems they address. Trump is quickly filling lower court positions free of the Senate filibuster thanks to Harry Reid. They have discovered that the pledge at the inauguration did not include upholding executive orders. The elevation of the power of the Supreme Court was a rallying cry to independent voters and helped Trump, who now stands to appoint possibly three or more justices.

The Supreme Court hearing on Wisconsin gerrymandering could possibly hurt Democratic votes. But little could backfire on them as much as making a pathology from dissent. Do they really want to seek impeachment or invoke the 25th Amendment on mere policy differences and leadership style?

The violence carried out in the name of political correctness, the ’ends justify the means’ mentality using moral supremacy to justify immoral acts, and their gaslighting that faults those who reject their arrogance all raise questions of their psychological fitness. It becomes a bit difficult to claim credibility on judging Trump’s psychological fitness while Kathy Griffin is hoisting a bloody severed head, a bunch of women are marching wearing vagina suits, and black masked students march to shut down free speech while claiming to be the anti-fascists.

Perhaps the Democrats suffer from severe denial. Anosognosia is not simply denial of a problem, but the genuine inability to recognize that a problem exists.

Efforts to identify strategic and communication failures have excluded the recognition of the rejection of their policies and their ideas. Criticizing those who reject you is not productive to making the changes required to win. It has become an obsession bordering on the pathological.

Henry Oliner blogs at www.rebelyid.com

Failing to defeat Trump in the election, the Democrats have worked endlessly to deflect their humiliation with denials, demonization, conspiracies, and pathological diagnosis. These are not new political tactics. Although they are amplified more, they remain pathetic and ineffective.

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life was written in 1962 by noted historian Richard Hofstadter, but was conceived earlier to explain the rejection of Adlai Stephenson, the preferred choice of academics and credentialed intellectuals, in favor of Eisenhower. Rejecting an intellectual candidate was considered synonymous with rejecting reason and knowledge, but this arrogance of the left that they hold a monopoly on these virtues blinds them to the reality that progress, innovation, and insight are not limited to their institutions. In fact, one could easily argue that most of our progress occurs outside of our institutions of higher learning. Our universities serve to archive progress and innovation, but it does not always originate there. Eisenhower’s victory came after a period where intellectuals had come to dominate Washington’s institutions during the FDR years. The need to move beyond the leviathan that guided us through the Depression and WW II may have had less to do with any opinion of intellectuals than with the new postwar dynamics.

Hofstadter’s anti-intellectualism has echoed ever since to explain any election the left loses. For a country that is anti-intellectual, we seem to lead the world in Nobel prizes in all fields of science and the arts. Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, Tesla and thousands of high-tech startups that have dramatically changed the way we work and live have solid American roots. No country can match us in startups.

Nor does the intellectual left explain their wide support of the most deadly and nefarious political movements from Mao to Chavez. The left confuses intellectualism with credentialism. The institution of the blue-collar intellectual is to be found in the laboratories of Thomas Edison and other tinkerers as well as our educational institutions. We are not anti-intellectual because we reject bad ideas.

Thomas Franks in What’s the Matter with Kansas? contended that Midwestern rubes were easily deceived into voting against their own best interests. Consider the irony that the highly educated elite who control much of the traditional media had such a hard time convincing voters what was good for them. How arrogant is it to assume you know what is in others’ self-interest? Obama even contended that the dissatisfaction with the ACA was mostly a communication issue.

Hofstadter and Franks attributed their party’s loss to a pathology of the voters. The rejection of their candidates and their ideas was not a rational response, but some kind of social or psychological malfunction. There is a movement that believes the 25th Amendment should be invoked against Trump, contending that the President is unfit because of a severe narcissistic disorder.

Social media has made narcissism as American as baseball; it should be no surprise that Trump’s narcissism was deemed acceptable considering the alternative. But to contend that he has crossed a line to unfitness for office opens a very dangerous precedent. Tyrannical regimes have imprisoned thousands on questions of psychological fitness. Fifty years ago, psychologists considered homosexuality a psychological disorder.

Democrats are revulsed today from tools they created handed to their worst nightmare. Yet they propose more tools that are more dangerous to our liberty than the problems they address. Trump is quickly filling lower court positions free of the Senate filibuster thanks to Harry Reid. They have discovered that the pledge at the inauguration did not include upholding executive orders. The elevation of the power of the Supreme Court was a rallying cry to independent voters and helped Trump, who now stands to appoint possibly three or more justices.

The Supreme Court hearing on Wisconsin gerrymandering could possibly hurt Democratic votes. But little could backfire on them as much as making a pathology from dissent. Do they really want to seek impeachment or invoke the 25th Amendment on mere policy differences and leadership style?

The violence carried out in the name of political correctness, the ’ends justify the means’ mentality using moral supremacy to justify immoral acts, and their gaslighting that faults those who reject their arrogance all raise questions of their psychological fitness. It becomes a bit difficult to claim credibility on judging Trump’s psychological fitness while Kathy Griffin is hoisting a bloody severed head, a bunch of women are marching wearing vagina suits, and black masked students march to shut down free speech while claiming to be the anti-fascists.

Perhaps the Democrats suffer from severe denial. Anosognosia is not simply denial of a problem, but the genuine inability to recognize that a problem exists.

Efforts to identify strategic and communication failures have excluded the recognition of the rejection of their policies and their ideas. Criticizing those who reject you is not productive to making the changes required to win. It has become an obsession bordering on the pathological.

Henry Oliner blogs at www.rebelyid.com



Source link

The Big Law Firm Casting Couch


Versions of Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood’s casting couch have been played out all across this country in industry after industry. I know, because it happened to me. 

After my experience I did extensive research and then conducted seminars on the law of sexual harassment. Still later I conducted investigations into workplace harassment complaints. In most of the cases I encountered, every participant had a completely different understanding of what actually happened. Most weren’t lying – other than to themselves – but few determined their conduct by reference to anyone or anything other than their own interests. 

Most importantly, I learned that there are concrete ways to attack this metastasizing phenomenon – ways that offer legal protection to everyone who follows the rules, and that also encourage people to do the right thing. The problem is that most people, even most professionals in industries where harassment is endemic, don’t know the law. In this area, at least, the law is a strong motivator of good conduct by employers and others who are affected by harassment.

I relate my experience as a case study to highlight the complexities and challenges of sexual harassment both during and after the trauma itself. I then point out that there are available legal protections so that readers can search out those tools, or force their employers to do so.

***

I was a young associate in a law firm when I was approached at an after-work fundraiser by a partner with whom I worked. After about an hour of conversation he told me I was smart but that I wouldn’t make partner unless I had his help. And he made it clear that his help would be forthcoming only if I agreed to a certain kind of relationship with him.

He insisted that I let him drive me home that night. Although I repeatedly refused, he menacingly followed me back to the office. I cowered under my desk that night, terrified to get in the elevator or use the stairs to escape, lest I find him in a space from which I could not get away.

I went to that partner the next day and told him if he never did anything like that again I wouldn’t report him, but if he did I would. I also went to a more senior woman lawyer and told her what happened, but insisted I didn’t want her to do anything because I needed to take care of it myself. So far as I know, she respected my wish.

Mine was a classic case of sexual harassment: a man in a powerful position used that position to try to get something he wanted from a woman from whom he wouldn’t otherwise get it. He allowed himself to believe he wasn’t being coercive because I paid close attention to him. As a young associate my goal, in part, was to make sure he was happy with me. Coming from a female associate, that pleasing had a different meaning to my boss than when the young male associates listened carefully and laughed at his lame or off-color jokes.

This phenomenon – smart older men with young attractive women intent on satisfying their demands – was the perfect setup for what I called the Revenge of the Nerds. These predators were frequently the guys who weren’t popular in high school or college, the geeky ones (have you looked at Harvey Weinstein?) who suddenly have women hanging on their every word. Harvey Weinstein still insists any physical encounters with the women complainants were consensual – and at least a part of him believes it, no matter how ludicrous that seems. They all seemed so eager to please him!

The partner who made the advance to me was a white male, but I was also harmed by several white woman who used my experience, without permission, to wheedle money out of our firm when it fired them. They included what happened to me in their sex discrimination complaint: “it was the juiciest thing in the complaint,” I was told by a firm partner. And the black female lawyer who drafted and filed the complaint on behalf of those women never asked me if the facts as stated were true – as was her obligation as a lawyer – or if I was okay with her clients using my experience for their financial benefit – another painful disappointment for me. 

Months later, when the predatory partner was asked to take a position of power for a Republican U.S. senator, I told the senator’s wife for whom I used to work about what had happened. I hoped to ensure there would be no repeat performance when the predator arrived in our nation’s other candy bowl of anxious-to-please women: Washington, D.C. 

Instead of thanking me for the tip-off, my former boss told her husband. The senator summoned me to his office and ruthlessly grilled me about the incident. He tried to get me to say it was okay with me if he hired the predator lawyer.  I refused.  Short-lived victory.

That night the head of my department called me at home. This lawyer was a staunch Democrat but the firm benefitted – and hoped to continue – from its relationship with the senator, and with one of its partners on the way to DC, they hoped to continue to benefit from that relationship. So my boss understood that he had one duty: not to right the wrong, and not to make sure it didn’t happen again, but to get me to sign a release. My bosses wanted me to say that what happened wasn’t that bad, that I had misunderstood. They wanted me to give the okay for the senator to hire their partner. And they used a woman partner to try to get me to give that okay. This was taking place just when I learned I had cancer and needed to decide what course of treatment to pursue.  That made no difference to any of them.

There was one good guy in my story: a black professor of mine from Harvard Law School. He was the only one I could turn to who wouldn’t fold in the face of the senator or the law firm. Everyone else – peer or superior, man or woman, black or white – did a calculation about what to do with what happened to me, and for each of them the calculation treated me as irrelevant – my feelings, my privacy, my rights, all were of no consequence.

So, finally, here’s the good news: as I learned from my studies of sexual harassment, the incentives to do the right thing are written into the law. People just need to know what the law is, and how they can trigger the appropriate conduct. That could be reporting a problem before it becomes a nightmare, or it could be intercession by a supervisor, because if one has knowledge of the bad behavior and doesn’t report it, that supervisor is also liable. The woman lawyer to whom I told what happened to me was legally required to act once she knew, my request that I needed to handle it myself notwithstanding.

If a company has a sound sexual harassment policy, and if its employees are made aware of that policy, and if the policy is followed – the company has a good defense to any claim. Conversely, if there is no policy in place or if the policy is not followed, or if the employees are not informed in detail about the policy, the company has no such defense.

And for those (hello, Woody Allen) who worry that a single wink or innocent remark will lead to the chain gang, the law is smarter than that. There are legal protections for those wrongly accused, just as there are guidelines for knowing when a wink is just a wink.

The people who engage in sexual harassment, or those who act based on their own best interests’ calculation rather than protecting those who deserve protection, need to know the law and the consequences to them for getting it wrong. There can and should be fewer victims, both the many abused and those wrongly accused. 

https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RnNZfQn2o2xpggJQqefCOervMbPIci5mujDPJnvl43kv6Rtxjyh5gHN_JKVzeU-aaGz3pePFgxfoAAtZJZNx8mveVTc-11j98EfuAJVcumUenA=s0-d-e1-ft#https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gifMarcus is a journalist and former lawyer.

Versions of Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood’s casting couch have been played out all across this country in industry after industry. I know, because it happened to me. 

After my experience I did extensive research and then conducted seminars on the law of sexual harassment. Still later I conducted investigations into workplace harassment complaints. In most of the cases I encountered, every participant had a completely different understanding of what actually happened. Most weren’t lying – other than to themselves – but few determined their conduct by reference to anyone or anything other than their own interests. 

Most importantly, I learned that there are concrete ways to attack this metastasizing phenomenon – ways that offer legal protection to everyone who follows the rules, and that also encourage people to do the right thing. The problem is that most people, even most professionals in industries where harassment is endemic, don’t know the law. In this area, at least, the law is a strong motivator of good conduct by employers and others who are affected by harassment.

I relate my experience as a case study to highlight the complexities and challenges of sexual harassment both during and after the trauma itself. I then point out that there are available legal protections so that readers can search out those tools, or force their employers to do so.

***

I was a young associate in a law firm when I was approached at an after-work fundraiser by a partner with whom I worked. After about an hour of conversation he told me I was smart but that I wouldn’t make partner unless I had his help. And he made it clear that his help would be forthcoming only if I agreed to a certain kind of relationship with him.

He insisted that I let him drive me home that night. Although I repeatedly refused, he menacingly followed me back to the office. I cowered under my desk that night, terrified to get in the elevator or use the stairs to escape, lest I find him in a space from which I could not get away.

I went to that partner the next day and told him if he never did anything like that again I wouldn’t report him, but if he did I would. I also went to a more senior woman lawyer and told her what happened, but insisted I didn’t want her to do anything because I needed to take care of it myself. So far as I know, she respected my wish.

Mine was a classic case of sexual harassment: a man in a powerful position used that position to try to get something he wanted from a woman from whom he wouldn’t otherwise get it. He allowed himself to believe he wasn’t being coercive because I paid close attention to him. As a young associate my goal, in part, was to make sure he was happy with me. Coming from a female associate, that pleasing had a different meaning to my boss than when the young male associates listened carefully and laughed at his lame or off-color jokes.

This phenomenon – smart older men with young attractive women intent on satisfying their demands – was the perfect setup for what I called the Revenge of the Nerds. These predators were frequently the guys who weren’t popular in high school or college, the geeky ones (have you looked at Harvey Weinstein?) who suddenly have women hanging on their every word. Harvey Weinstein still insists any physical encounters with the women complainants were consensual – and at least a part of him believes it, no matter how ludicrous that seems. They all seemed so eager to please him!

The partner who made the advance to me was a white male, but I was also harmed by several white woman who used my experience, without permission, to wheedle money out of our firm when it fired them. They included what happened to me in their sex discrimination complaint: “it was the juiciest thing in the complaint,” I was told by a firm partner. And the black female lawyer who drafted and filed the complaint on behalf of those women never asked me if the facts as stated were true – as was her obligation as a lawyer – or if I was okay with her clients using my experience for their financial benefit – another painful disappointment for me. 

Months later, when the predatory partner was asked to take a position of power for a Republican U.S. senator, I told the senator’s wife for whom I used to work about what had happened. I hoped to ensure there would be no repeat performance when the predator arrived in our nation’s other candy bowl of anxious-to-please women: Washington, D.C. 

Instead of thanking me for the tip-off, my former boss told her husband. The senator summoned me to his office and ruthlessly grilled me about the incident. He tried to get me to say it was okay with me if he hired the predator lawyer.  I refused.  Short-lived victory.

That night the head of my department called me at home. This lawyer was a staunch Democrat but the firm benefitted – and hoped to continue – from its relationship with the senator, and with one of its partners on the way to DC, they hoped to continue to benefit from that relationship. So my boss understood that he had one duty: not to right the wrong, and not to make sure it didn’t happen again, but to get me to sign a release. My bosses wanted me to say that what happened wasn’t that bad, that I had misunderstood. They wanted me to give the okay for the senator to hire their partner. And they used a woman partner to try to get me to give that okay. This was taking place just when I learned I had cancer and needed to decide what course of treatment to pursue.  That made no difference to any of them.

There was one good guy in my story: a black professor of mine from Harvard Law School. He was the only one I could turn to who wouldn’t fold in the face of the senator or the law firm. Everyone else – peer or superior, man or woman, black or white – did a calculation about what to do with what happened to me, and for each of them the calculation treated me as irrelevant – my feelings, my privacy, my rights, all were of no consequence.

So, finally, here’s the good news: as I learned from my studies of sexual harassment, the incentives to do the right thing are written into the law. People just need to know what the law is, and how they can trigger the appropriate conduct. That could be reporting a problem before it becomes a nightmare, or it could be intercession by a supervisor, because if one has knowledge of the bad behavior and doesn’t report it, that supervisor is also liable. The woman lawyer to whom I told what happened to me was legally required to act once she knew, my request that I needed to handle it myself notwithstanding.

If a company has a sound sexual harassment policy, and if its employees are made aware of that policy, and if the policy is followed – the company has a good defense to any claim. Conversely, if there is no policy in place or if the policy is not followed, or if the employees are not informed in detail about the policy, the company has no such defense.

And for those (hello, Woody Allen) who worry that a single wink or innocent remark will lead to the chain gang, the law is smarter than that. There are legal protections for those wrongly accused, just as there are guidelines for knowing when a wink is just a wink.

The people who engage in sexual harassment, or those who act based on their own best interests’ calculation rather than protecting those who deserve protection, need to know the law and the consequences to them for getting it wrong. There can and should be fewer victims, both the many abused and those wrongly accused. 

https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RnNZfQn2o2xpggJQqefCOervMbPIci5mujDPJnvl43kv6Rtxjyh5gHN_JKVzeU-aaGz3pePFgxfoAAtZJZNx8mveVTc-11j98EfuAJVcumUenA=s0-d-e1-ft#https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gifMarcus is a journalist and former lawyer.



Source link

694940094001_5625805397001_5625804940001-vs.jpg

Corey Feldman claims he's being targeted for death!


Corey Feldman has long said that he and ‘80s pal Corey Haim were victims of sexual abuse in Hollywood when they were children – now he’s determined to expose the pedophiles he says attacked them. 

Feldman has alleged in the past that Haim was raped at age 11 by a powerful person in Hollywood and the experience led to Haim’s drug addiction issues. Feldman’s pal and “Lost Boys” costar died in 2010 at 38 from pneumonia.

Now, Feldman wants to produce a self-distributed film about the pedophiles he says are still plaguing Hollywood.

From l-r: Corey Feldman, Dianne Wiest, Corey Haim and Jamison Newlander in a scene from the film "The Lost Boys" in 1987.

From l-r: Corey Feldman, Dianne Wiest, Corey Haim and Jamison Newlander in a scene from the film “The Lost Boys” in 1987.

 (Warner Brothers/Getty Images)

“I believe we can… bring down potentially a pedophile ring that I have been aware of since I was a child. Right off the bat I can name six names,” he said in a video posted on Wednesday in which he announced the film and requested funding from his fans. 

Feldman claimed he survived a “near-death experience” after two trucks tried to run him over — all because he’s working to expose pedophiles in Hollywood, he said. In the video, Feldman said his physical safety is in danger.

He shared an Indiegogo campaign to fund his planned documentary.

As of this writing, Feldman’s Indiegogo campaign has raised more than $99,000 of its flexible goal of $10,000. According to the site, a “flexible goal” means Feldman will keep all the money raised, even if the goal is not met.

“Ever since I discussed the fact that I have this plan, my life has turned to utter chaos,” he says in the nearly seven-minute video below.

“I’ve been silenced my whole life, but just over the past few days since I made that announcement, I’ve been arrested, I had a near-death experience last night where I felt like I was almost going to be killed. Two trucks came speeding at me at the same time on a crosswalk.”

Feldman’s wife, Courtney, wrote on the Indiegogo campaign page that the money is for their security and that he’s taken measures to ensure his secrets can outlive him.

Actor Corey Feldman and his wife Courtney Anne Mitchell pose at the premiere for the documentary "Jane" in Los Angeles, California, U.S., October 9, 2017. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni - RC1DADEE5560

Actor Corey Feldman and his wife Courtney Anne Mitchell pose at the premiere for the documentary “Jane” in Los Angeles, California, U.S., October 9, 2017.

 (Reuters)

“This is much bigger than raising finance for a film, this is about the balance of Good and Evil in very real terms,” she wrote.

“Firstly as a security measure Corey has already written down the names and details of the events and given them to a trusted person of power, in case anything should happen to him or any member of his family before the film is finished,” she warns.

Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie Claim Harvey Weinstein Sexually Harassed Them

The news comes on the heels of the now infamous scandal surrounding disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein. However, if Feldman is able to prove his allegations are true, it could expose a much deeper criminal conspiracy, he insists. 

“I propose to do this by… telling my own story in a very real way, in a very honest way, with no editing, no censorship, no studio behind it,” he says.

“I will make the film, I will direct the film, I will produce the film, and I will self-distribute it to guarantee it gets a theatrical release with your donations. Additionally, it will help me buy the security and the legal team I need to protect my family.”



Source link