INFORMATION CONTROL and MEDIA INDOCTRINATION
FASCIST CENSORSHIP, OBSESSION with YOUTH and STATE RELIGION (College Liberal Seminaries)

Prologue: FASCISM seeks COLLECTIVE “salvation”, eventually producing a TOTALITARIAN society of ONE, single, “organic” “WHOLE” benefiting ALL, complete conformity allowing no “separateness”. Fascism promises UTOPIA through this-worldly political “REBIRTH”, redemption and realization of “meaning”, produced by never ending “CRISIS”, overcome with revolutionary “CRUSADES” of “ACTION” based on their own “WILL to POWER”, instincts and feelings, which typically produce impulsive tantrums against those who seek limitations on their power and/or critically question their lack of “Reason”, “Reality” and/or DYSTOPIAN RESULTS. Totalitarian, all powerful GOD-STATES use political-religion to promise “heaven on earth”. Fascists purposely confuse and mix politics and religion, Government and God, co-opting “God” in their pursuit of political power, a perverted POLITICAL RELIGION of false idols in/of government. The sheep-like masses require leadership by an elite “enlightened” political governing ruling class and/or messianic “CULT of PERSONALITY” (“gods” IN government). Contemptuous of freedom and democratic self-government, the “god OF government” seeks to SOCIALLY ENGINEER utopian “political paradise” through “science” and an evolutionary “Cult of “Progress”. A utopian future requires INDOCTRINATION of YOUTH and CENSORSHIP of anything violating politically “correct” conformity, preventing eventual totalitarian control on ALL aspects of society, propagated and proselytized by their media “priests” and educational “seminaries”. Mussolini said “fascism is a religion”. Utopian idealism requires total elimination of anything “old”, be it past history, persecuting non-utopian “heretics”, or destroying dogmas of “deplorables” and “clingers”, (tragic realists) which prevent the “cult of progress” and transformational change we can believe in.

FASCISM #1-The Collective #2-Rebirth #3-Crisis & Crusade #4-Action #5-Politics as Religion #6-Contempt for Democracy #7-The Cult of Personality #8-Social Engineering #9-Youth #10-Censorship #11- Fascist Economics

BASIC CRITERIA COMMON TO ALL or MOST TYPES of FASCISM:

#10)CENSORSHIP of INFORMATION

STATE CONTROL and DISSEMINATED “PROPAGANDA”

Adapted from the BOOK LIBERAL FASCISM:
The SECRET HISTORY of the AMERICAN LEFT FROM MUSSOLINI to the POLITICS of MEANING by JONAH GOLDBERG

FASCIST CENSORSHIP – TABLE of CONTENTS
TOTALITARIAN Censorship – ”Progress-ive” Thought Control and Expression
(Manipulating the Masses)
TOTALITARIAN censorship: The Age of MASS DELUSION
DEMAGOGUES, DICTATORSHIP & DEMOCRACY – Propaganda vs Truth
TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP PAST
Fascist Censorship: the French Revolution
Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information: Ministry of propaganda
Totalitarian censorship: Stalin’s soviet union
Nazi censorship: university uniformity – control & conformity
TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP PRESENT:
DEMAGOGUES, DICTATORSHIP & DEMOCRACY – Propaganda vs Truth
government regulation: big brother control & conformity
political correctness: mob conformity squelching debate
College Censorship: political correctness and speech codes

Political language is designed to MAKE LIES SOUND TRUTHFUL and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of SOLIDITY to PURE WIND. – George Orwell
” Speaking the TRUTH in times of UNIVERSAL DECEIT is a REVOLUTIONARY ACT. “
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. LIES will pass into history. We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men … “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. ” – George Orwell
“When you want to help people, you tell them the TRUTH. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear” … “People who pride themselves on their “complexity” and deride others for being “simplistic” should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets COMPLEX is EVADING the TRUTH.” = Thomas Sowell “There are only two ways of telling the complete TRUTH – anonymously and posthumously”
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
In our time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. – Orwell
“We have to put a STOP to the idea that it is a part of everybody’s civil rights to say whatever
he pleases”; “If you tell a big enough LIE and tell it frequently enough, it will be BELIEVED”
“It is not truth that matters, but victory; the victor will never be asked if he told the truth”.
– Hitler
” Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Orwell
“There are only two ways of telling the complete TRUTH – anonymously and posthumously.” – Thomas Sowell

TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP
”PROGRESS-IVE” THOUGHT CONTROL and EXPRESSION
(MANIPULATING the MASSES)

SYNOPSIS:
FASCISM TRANSLATED “ULTIMATE MEANING” into the CITY-state
“MEANING” through the USE of STATE PROPAGANDA (PERSUASION)
“propaganda” and CONTROL of INFORMATION (censorship)
TOWARDS “DESIRED” STATE-GROUP GOALS
government limits information and expression that might run counter to group “progress”
collective censorship against “undesired” goals, defined by the state
anything outside or in opposition to the political GOD-STATE was HERETICAL
totalitarian collectivism and “re-birth” – building utopia does not tolerate “competition”
“crisis” required “action” (CENSORSHIP) TO PROTECT POLITICAL “PROGRESS”

Italian fascist Mussolini coined the term “totalitarian” to describe a “benevolent” (bene =
good) society … “where everybody belonged and was taken care of, where everything was
inside and nothing outside” the state The belief that the entire society was one
organic whole your home, your private thoughts, everything was part of the “one” public
body politic
no realm of human life (from food, sex, entertainment) is beyond political meaning …
“dr. zhivago, you might not be interested in ‘the revolution’, but the revolution is interested in
you” fascism sought social unity with the “organic whole”
an “organic” society is where every class, every individual, is part of the whole it is the
search for a “cause larger than ourselves”
“the quest for community is written in the human heart”
the elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies
mussolini adopted the socialist symbol of the fasces to convey that his movement VALUED UNITY OVER THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC FETISH OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION
“the PEOPLE UNITED WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!” – is a perfectly fascist refrain
meaning and authenticity are found in COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISES – of class, nation or
race and the state is there to enforce that meaning on everyone without the hindrance of debate”
perhaps it is true that “the people united will never be defeated”, but that does not mean the people are right
as calvin coolidge liked to say, “one with the law on his side is a majority”
we tend to forget that unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of irrationality and groupthink
“rampaging mobs are unified. the mafia is unified. marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified”
“meanwhile, civilized PEOPLE HAVE DISAGREEMENTS, AND SMALL-D DEMOCRATS HAVE ARGUMENTS”
“CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IS BASED ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL INSIGHT, WHICH IS WHY FASCISM WAS ALWAYS ANTI-LIBERAL”
martin heidegger, a noted philosopher, now told his students and colleagues that germany’s
soul needed fresh air to breathe and national socialism would provide it heidegger argued
that freedom of inquiry and free expression were NEGATIVE and SELFISH ideas
instead he encouraged his students to live up to their obligations to the national community in
both “thought and deed. A hundred years before hitler, the german-jewish poet, heinrich heine,
had declared: “wherever books are burned, human beings are destined to be burned too”
fascists made politic into a religion

“FASCISM is a RELIGION” – Benito Mussolini
GOD and GOVERNMENT BECOME “ONE”
The POLITICAL CITY-STATE TAKES ON “ULTIMATE MEANING”

ULTIMATE MEANING in COSMOLOGY (the universe)
MORTALITY (life and death), MORALITY (values) EPISTEMOLOGY (knowledge)
HISTORY (purpose)
fascist “progressives” believe government can – should create a “utopian” society
a political “cult of progress” creating spiritual meaning
the state was charged with “redeeming”, turning everyone into compliant social organs
“Your child belongs to us already. you will pass on. your descendants … now stand in the new
camp … in a short time they will KNOW NOTHING BUT this new community” – Hitler
“You must entirley refashion a people whom you wish to make free, DESTROY ITS’
PREJUDICES, alter its habits, limit its necessities, root up its vices, PURIFY its desires”
– Robespierre
“Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.” – George Orwell

Government is the agent to make sure we live “fulfilling” lives (the politics of “meaning”)
in 1993, hillary clinton dropped the phrase ”politics of meaning” – state –run health care
would provide both physical and spiritual “meaning” and well-being for all
“the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible” – hillary clinton
fascism translated “ultimate meaning” into the city-state – “MEANING” through the USE of STATE PROPAGANDA (PERSUASION)
propaganda and control of information (censorship) towards “desired” state-group goals
government LIMITS INFORMATION and expression that might run counter to group
“progress” – COLLECTIVE CENSORSHIP AGAINST “UNDESIRED” GOALS, defined by
the state. ANYTHING OUTSIDE or AGAINST the political god-state was HERETICAL

TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP
”PROGRESS-IVE” THOUGHT CONTROL and EXPRESSION
(MANIPULATING the MASSES)
totalitarian collectivism and “re-birth”, building utopia DOES NOT TOLERATE
“COMPETITION” (CENSORSHIP) to PROTECT political, utopian “PROGRESS”
totalitarian utopia left no room for those who did not want to “progress” or “evolve”
enforced political “correct-ness” through control of information and censorship

In George Orwell’s 1984, the main character Winston is shown as one who does not quite fit in
with the rest of his society. He has a continuous feeling in the back of his head that life as he
knows it is not what it should be and begins writing in a journal about his thoughts, which is
strictly illegal. Winston saw that he had left the diary open on the table. ‘down with big
brother’ was written all over it. (Orwell, page 20)
The society that Winston lives in is governed by the inner party, and ultimately by a figure
referred to as Big Brother. No members of the society are allowed to SPEAK OUT or even
THINK OUT AGAINST the GOVERNMENT. Every house, building, street and public place
has something called a telescreen, which CONSTANTLY MONITORS the people and each of
their actions, speech and even expressions. If a person even appears to have a different
thought than what they are mandated by big brother to have, this person will be arrested by the
thought police and eventually vaporized.

Orwell goes into great depth as to the advancement of the party’s strategy against its ENEMIES.
“We do not merely destroy our enemies, we change them”. (1984, 265) As 1984 progresses,
Winston becomes more aware of his individuality and eventually is UNABLE to HIDE IT –
all the alienated characters … [the] hand of the government … [is] ready to rationalize the
RIGHT and DUTY of the GOVERNMENT to POSSESS SUCH CONTROL OVER ITS
PEOPLE. The novel attempts to instill in the reader a sincere FEAR of the LOSS of THEIR
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS as well as the ability of such a technologically advanced society to
FIND DEVIANTS.

TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP The AGE of MASS DELUSION
DICTATORSHIP vs DEMOCRACY; PROPAGANDA vs TRUTH
”What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his LUNACY?” – George Orwell
HOW to ESCAPE the AGE of MASS DELUSION
Mass delusion is an important tool of oppressors because they can’t survive free expression. That’s why the First Amendment’s a target.
by Stella Morabito June 8, 2015

Stella Morabito: “Nearly 100 years ago, Walter Lippmann wrote about “the manufacture of
consent” in his classic work, ‘Public Opinion’. Edward Bernays penned a little volume called
“PROPAGANDA,” in which he stated that an elite would always be responsible for making the
public aware of “new ideas”, which the public would then act upon as the elite nudged them
into it. POLITICAL PROPAGANDA AIMS to MOBILIZE the MASSES to MOVE an
AGENDA FORWARD. THAT’s MOST EFFECTIVELY DONE WHEN the MASSES are
UNAWARE of the PROCESS.

There is indeed a WAR on the PRIVATE MIND. The POWER ELITES who now
CONTROL the MEDIA, ACADEMIA and HOLLYWOOD, seem to understand SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY well enough to exploit it on a massive scale.
They have engaged in PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AGAINST the PRIVATE MIND by
inducing “COLLECTIVE BELIEF FORMATION”. CONDITIONING and nudging the
masses into GROUPTHINK is a VERY OLD TRICK of ALL WANNABE DICTATORS.
The bloody 20th century is filled to the gills with examples.

Most cannot grasp that such MOBS are mentally detached from REALITY. Participants in the
MOB ACTION CANNOT COMPREHEND that they are actually
CUTTING OFF THEIR OWN FREEDOM of EXPRESSION, as WELL as EVERYBODY
ELSE’s. Why would anyone want to build such a culture of coercion? in a word, POWER.
“Equality” is not the reason for what is happening with such mobs. It is the pretext for what
they are doing. Like all such deceptions, its sole purpose is as a vehicle to transfer power from
individuals to an increasingly centralized state collective.

Joost a.m. Meerloo published “The Rape of the Mind: the Psychology of Thought Control,
Menticide and Brainwashing”in 1956 after years immersed in the study of social psychology
and countless interviews with victims of mental coercion, including Nazi officers and
American prisoners of war in Korea. It is an absolute must-read for anyone who hopes to uphold
the dignity of the individual. The book offers the psychic defenses so lacking among those who
submit to logicide. The TRANSFORMATION of the free human mind to an automatically
responding machine’ is essentially the story of the transformation of the United States.

Delusion is an important element, because tyrannies do not stand up to logic. It seems very
sudden, but it’s not. We’re only at this tipping point because we let our defenses down.
In fact, IF the FIRST AMENDMENT COLLAPSES, it would simply indicate a RETURN to
HUMANITY’s TRIBAL DEFAULT POSITION, in which a sort of
NIETZSCHEAN “WILL to POWER” RULES THE DAY”.

FREE SPEECH is the ONLY ANTIDOTE to MASS DELUSION.
Free expression is always the PRIME TARGET of TYRANTS because it PROMOTES
LOGIC, the search for TRUTH, and FRIENDSHIP.

AMERICA is EXCEPTIONAL precisely because it REJECTS the TYRANTS’ RULE.

Yet as our SPEECH becomes more RESTRICTED, we end up more separated from one
another and more SUSCEPTIBLE to MASS DELUSIONS. As Meerloo wrote: ’where
THINKING is ISOLATED WITHOUT FREE EXCHANGE with OTHER MINDS,
DELUSION MAY FOLLOW’.

“CROWDS and POWER,” by Elias Canetti, is a classic work that explores in detail the draw
of the crowd for human beings. With the continued chipping away of the organic family of
mother-child-father, human relationships inevitably become diluted and MORE
SUBSERVIENT to a MASS STATE. This DETACHMENT cultivates human
ALIENATION, which draws more people to answer to the call of the mass state’s mob.
Such protesters and their scores of CLUELESS APOLOGISTS in the media are also
UTTERLY DETACHED from the REALITY.

It feels like we’ve awakened to an AMBUSH. But the groundwork for mass hysteria like
this was STEALTHILY LAID FOR DECADES, and the minefields sown. It’s what
‘community organizers’ work towards, WHETHER THEY KNOW IT OR NOT.
Once the MASSES are MOBILIZED to push for a cause, the PROPAGANDISTS’ GOALS
can be put into law. American[s] ar eby and large CLUELESS ABOUT PROPAGANDA
METHODS and tactics, and it shows.

In this context, it [POLITICAL CORRECTNESS] seems very much like a tool to BRING ALL
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS UNDER STATE CONTROL and it shouldn’t surprise us
that this is being done today in the name of equality for certain kinds of personal
relationships. Government doesn’t get to COERCE us in private thought or to DICTATE
what we are allowed to FEEL, BELIEVE, THINK and EXPRESS.

The FIRST AMENDMENT is NOT NEGOTIABLE if we are to have any semblance of
FREEDOM in this Country. But the emotional stew in which we are now boiling doesn’t allow
logic or reason to prevail. We can never fight back as long as we are in the dark about
HOW OUR MINDS can be MANIPULATED. MASS DELUSION is an important tool of
oppressors because they CAN’T SURVIVE where FREE EXERCISE of EXPRESSION
and association is practiced.

UNFORTUNATELY, DELUSION can be INDUCED ANYWHERE. It is simply a question of
organizing and manipulating collective feelings in the proper way.
If one can ISOLATE the MASS, ALLOW NO FREE THINKING, NO FREE EXCHANGE,
NO OUTSIDE CORRECTION and can HYPNOTIZE the GROUP DAILY with noises, with
PRESS and RADIO and TELEVISION, with FEAR and pseudo-enthusiasms,
ANY DELUSION can be INSTILLED.

TYRANNIES ALWAYS PRETEND to PROMOTE the VERY THING they SEEK TO
DESTROY. We need to take philosopher George Santayana’s warning to heart, that those
who don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. We need to remind leaders who
are tempted to cave in to mob hysteria that resistance to tyranny is not as futile as
submission to tyranny. AMERICA is EXCEPTIONAL precisely because it REJECTS the
TYRANTS’ RULE.

Yet as our SPEECH BECOMES MORE RESTRICTED, we end up more SEPARATED from
one another and more SUSCEPTIBLE to MASS DELUSIONS. As Meerloo wrote: ’where
thinking is isolated without free exchange with other minds, delusion may follow.
He added, chillingly, ‘is this not what happened in Hitler Germany where free verification and
self-correction were forbidden?’”
MEERLOO also shows immense compassion for our human frailties. He understood just
HOW DIFFICULT IT is to PUSH BACK AGAINST the SOCIAL PRESSURES to
CONFORM.

When it comes to BRAINWASHING, every one of us has our breaking point. But we
absolutely must push back once we understand those tactics.
The TOTALITARIAN POTENTATE, in order to break down the minds of men, first needs
widespread mental CHAOS and verbal CONFUSION, because both paralyze his opposition
and cause the morale of the enemy to deteriorate – unless his adversaries are aware of the
dictator’s real aim.

It’s really hard for CONTROL FREAKS to do their work on us if we are
SPEAKING FREELY with one another in friendship, and especially if we all understand
what they are up to and can call them on it in one voice. So THEIR FIRST ORDER of
business is to SEPARATE US. A sense of ENFORCED ISOLATION is a CRUEL and
EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR INSTILLING LONELINESS and then DELUSION in PEOPLE.
It’s what “community organizers” work towards, whether they know it or not. Once the
masses are mobilized to push for a cause, the propagandists’ goals can be put into law.

American[s] are by and large clueless about propaganda methods and tactics. And it shows.
The left has been employing social psychology and depth psychology on the masses for
decades. A lot of people are scratching their heads today, wondering how life got to be so
surreal, so fast in the United States of America.

Even benign reminders of the FIRST AMENDMENT are QUICKLY DISPATCHED BY MOB
HYSTERIA. Our age of mass delusion and logicide was all so predictable.
One of the best books that cracks the code on what we are living through was written by
Dutch psychiatrist joost a. m. Meerloo about 60 years ago”
“[meerloo’s] book attempts to depict the … TRANSFORMATION of the FREE HUMAN
MIND INTO an AUTOMATICALLY RESPONDING MACHINE.

A transformation which can be brought about by some of the cultural undercurrents in our
present-day society as well as by DELIBERATE EXPERIMENTS in the SERVICE of a
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. When it comes to understanding the inner workings of social
psychology and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, we seem to beat a loss.

It’s no wonder GOP leaders are CAVING ON SO MANY PRINCIPLES, and being absorbed
so easily into the left’s machine. Americans are buying into a fast-talking sales pitch
WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED to READ the PRINT, whether it’s large print or small.

The academy’s disparaging of western civilization virtually WIPED OUT RESPECT FOR
ANY SERIOUS STUDY of HISTORY and CIVICS, as well as for the SOCRATIC
METHOD and the RULES of CIVIL DISCOURSE. All of that and more promotes the
SEMANTIC FOG that allows for MIND RAPE. It amounts to an act of ‘LOGICIDE’.
To kill logic and reason that might stand in their way, wannabe dictators “fabricate a hate
language in order to STIR UP MASS EMOTIONS.

The whole image of such mass delusion in America is surrealistic, especially to
COMFORTABLY INSULATED AMERICANS WHO BELIEVE OUR FIRST
FREEDOMS COULD NEVER REALLY BE THROWN AWAY in the FACE of SUCH a
FULL-FRONTAL, PC-INDUCED ATTACK. Most cannot grasp that such mobs are mentally
detached from reality.
“Participants in the mob action cannot comprehend that they are actually cutting off their own freedom of expression, as well as everybody else’s”

Why would anyone want to build such a culture of coercion? in a word, POWER.
“equality” is not the reason for what is happening with such mobs. It is the pretext for what
they are doing. Like all such DECEPTIONS, its sole purpose is as a vehicle to transfer power
from individuals to an increasingly centralized state. The fuel, as usual, is the emotional
blackmail of people of goodwill, the uses of mass mobilization to exploit that goodwill, then,
finally, to render all such goodwill meaningless. Most who protest are more likely pawns
than true believers.

Like the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd, they tend to be atomized individuals who are drawn to
the PSYCHIC THRILL of being part of a MOBILIZED MASS that FEEDS ON
EMOTIONS and CAN FEEL a SENSE of RIGHTEOUSNESS in the stated pretext.
Such protesters and their scores of clueless apologists in the media are also utterly detached
from the reality.
Government doesn’t get to coerce us in private thought or to dictate what we are allowed to
feel, believe, think and express.
The first amendment is not negotiable if we are to have any semblance of freedom in this
country”

FREE SPEECH is the ONLY ANTIDOTE to MASS DELUSION. Free expression is always
the PRIME TARGET of TYRANTS because it PROMOTES LOGIC, the search for
TRUTH, and FRIENDSHIP”
AMERICA is EXCEPTIONAL precisely because it REJECTS the TYRANTS’ RULE.
Yet as our SPEECH becomes more RESTRICTED, we end up more separated from one
another and more SUSCEPTIBLE to MASS DELUSIONS. As Meerloo wrote: ’where
THINKING is ISOLATED WITHOUT FREE EXCHANGE with OTHER MINDS,
DELUSION MAY FOLLOW’.

He added, chillingly, “is this not what happened in Hitler Germany where free verification and
self-correction were forbidden?” Meerloo also shows immense compassion for our human
frailties. He understood just how difficult it is to push back against the social pressures to
conform. When it comes to brainwashing, every one of us has our breaking point.
BUT WE ABSOLUTELY MUST PUSH BACK ONCE WE UNDERSTAND THOSE
TACTICS.

The TOTALITARIAN POTENTATE, in order to break down the minds of men, first needs
widespread mental chaos and verbal confusion, because both paralyze his opposition and
cause the morale of the enemy to deteriorate – unless his adversaries are aware of the
DICTATOR’S REAL AIM”

It’s really hard for control freaks to do their work on us if we are speaking freely with one
another in friendship, and especially if we all understand what they are up to and can call
them on it in one voice”

So their first order of business is to separate us. a sense of enforced isolation is a cruel and
effective tool for instilling loneliness and then delusion in people. According to Meerloo,
manipulators accomplish this through the KNOWLEDGE THAT “FAR BELOW the
SURFACE, HUMAN LIFE is BUILT UP of INNER CONTRADICTIONS.

Our hopes and fears and longing to avoid social rejection are exploited through the dictates
of political correctness, which is the tool that separates people today, especially in that one
place WHERE IDEAS and IDEALS are SUPPOSED to be TESTED MOST VIGOROUSLY
IN ADULTHOOD: the UNIVERSITY.
“a sense of enforced isolation is a cruel and effective tool for instilling loneliness and then delusion in people”

By squashing free thought in the one place where it is supposed to be especially respected,
political correctness circumvents Meerloo’s warning that “the only way to strengthen one’s
defenses against an organized attack on the mind and will is to understand better what the
enemy is trying to do to outwit him.

Manipulators repeat lies and sloganeer endlessly to condition their subjects to repress
unauthorized speech and thought: the techniques of propaganda and salesmanship have been
refined and systematized; there is scarcely any hiding place from the constant visual and
verbal assault on the mind. The pressures of daily life impel more and more people to seek
an easy escape from responsibility and maturity.

As more people SUCCUMB to P.C. CONDITIONING and CEDE THEIR FREEDOM of
THOUGHT, it becomes more difficult for the rest of us to maintain integrity of mind.
our audience shrinks. Like personalities in daily life, the world seems to sink into surrealism,
like so many in Rod Serling’s old “Twilight Zone” episodes.

The TOTALITARIAN MIND DOES NOT OBSERVE and VERIFY its impressions of
REALITY; it dictates to reality how it shall behave, it compels reality to conform to its
Fantasies. Meerloo testified to this feeling of disorientation. Many victims of totalitarianism
have told me in interviews that the most upsetting experience they faced in the concentration
camps was the FEELING of LOSS of LOGIC, the state of CONFUSION in which they had
been brought – the state in which nothing had any validity.
That’s because in the mass centralized state, “PEACEFUL EXCHANGE of THOUGHTS in
FREE conversation will disturb the conditioned reflexes and is therefore TABOO.

On a hopeful note, Meerloo writes that “love and laughter break through all rigid
conditioning. I think the reason there is SO LITTLE “COMEDY” THAT’S FUNNY
TODAY is the GENRE ITSELF has been HIJACKED by the HUMORLESS PC CROWD.
Why is their humorso unamusing and so dependent upon mean-spiritedness?”
“consider this possibility: “the totalitarian mind is like the schizophrenic individual; it has a CONTEMPT FOR REALITY”

Think for a moment of Lysenko’s theory and its denial of the influence of heredity.
The totalitarian mind does NOT OBSERVE and VERIFY its impressions of REALITY;
it DICTATES to reality how it shall behave, it compels reality to conform to its FANTASIES.

We must learn to treat the DEMAGOGUE and aspirant dictator in our midst just as we should
treat our external enemies in a cold war – with the weapon of RIDICULE.
HUMOR is, after all, related to a sense of PERSPECTIVE. If we can see how things
SHOULD be, we can see how askew they can get, and we can recognize distortion when we
are confronted with it.

FREEDOM REQUIRES SELF-AWARENESS. Before human beings can preserve true freedom, they must first be aware of their individual inner contradictions.
Democracy, by its very nature will always have to fight against dictatorship from without and
destructiveness from within. Democratic freedom has to battle against both the individual’s
inner will to power and his urge to submit to other people.

Essentially, democracy means the RIGHT to DEVELOP YOURSELF and NOT to be
developed by others.
YET to develop yourself is impossible without the duty of giving your energy and attention to
the development of others.
FREEDOM means cultivating the art of FRIENDSHIP, BOLDLY EXERCISING OUR
RIGHTS to FREE ASSOCIATION and to COMMUNICATE OUR THOUGHTS to
OTHERS. – “FREEDOM TRULY DEPENDS UPON BREAKING DOWN the WALLS of SEPARATION THAT TYRANNY BUILDS”
It means cultivating knowledge instead of cultivating ignorance. Political correctness is
primarily a tool for crushing people’s ability to have open conversations in friendship and
mutual respect. In this context, it [POLITICAL CORRECTNESS] seems very much like a
TOOL to BRING ALL PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS UNDER STATE CONTROL and it
shouldn’t surprise us that this is being done today in the name of equality for certain kinds of
personal relationships.

TYRANNIES ALWAYS PRETEND to PROMOTE the VERY THING THEY SEEK to
DESTROY. We need to take philosopher George Santayana’s warning to heart, that
those who don’t learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.

We need to remind leaders who are tempted to cave in to mob hysteria that resistance to
tyranny is not as futile as submission to tyranny. Nearly 60 years ago, Meerloo warned his
readers that we absolutely must EQUIP OURSELVES for this WAR ON the PRIVATE
MIND.

In the future, as our psychological understanding grows, leading politicians will have to be better
educated in the principles of modern psychology. Just as a soldier must know how to handle
his physical weapons, so the politicians must know how to face and handle the mental strategy
of HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS and DIPLOMACY.

He will have to become AWARE of the PITFALLS in all human communication and the
FRAILTIES of HIS OWN MIND. In retrospect, it’s tragic that virtually all well-positioned
people of good will seem to have been unaware of that warning, or able to effectively act on it.
Worse, MANY end up CAVING to TYRANTS because they are UNAWARE of the TACTICS
on the PROPAGANDA BATTLEFIELD.
The REALITY [is] that human rebellion and DISSENT CANNOT BE FOREVER
SUPPRESSED: they await only one breath of FREEDOM in order to AWAKE ONCE MORE.

“Nationalism is POWER hunger tempered by self-deception.” – George Orwell

TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP – PROPAGANDA vs TRUTH
“DEMOCRACY” – DEMOGOGUERY – DICTATORSHIP

DISTORTED INFORMATION is generally called “PROPAGANDA,” and, while harmful to
public discourse, it isn’t fatal.
IF DEBATE is FREE and open, PROPAGANDA CAN BE COUNTERED.
If you tell a LIE, I can point out that it was a lie, as long as I have the ABILITY to THINK
and SPEAK”
“If my ability to criticize you is restricted or ‘CENSORED’, then your lies will stand“

The easiest way to restrict the ability of people to question a demagogue is to make it
dangerous to do so intimidation can take many forms. People can be thrown in jail, fined, or
sued for saying certain things a demagogue’s followers (the “mob”) might try to punish or
harm anyone who DISAGREES the ability to CRITICIZE is overwhelmed by
“CONFORMITY” under the MASK of “CORRECTNESS”.
Erich Fromm calls this an “ESCAPE FROM FREEDOM”
CENSORSHIP significantly UNDERMINES the quality of public argument
Censorship makes it DANGEROUS to CRITICIZE dominant views, cultures and political
groups. It makes PUBLIC DEBATE a KIND of COERCION –
DEMOCRACY deterioriates into DICTATORSHIP historically, DEMAGOGUERY is a
precursor to (comes before) the ENDING of DEMOCRACY.

It makes PUBLIC DEBATE a kind of COERCION. Democracy deterioriates into dictatorship. Fascist collectivism leaves NO ROOM for DEBATE, Liberal pluralism opens up room for debate and internal conflict.

When demagogues succeed, their first move is almost always to restrict the power of
democratic government in favor of some kind of tyrannical, dictatorial and/or totalitarian
system. Dictators use demagoguery and “democracy” to END democracy –
“It is not truth that matters, but victory; the victor will never be asked if he told the truth”
– Hitler
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. it soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.
There is NEVER a democracy that did not COMMIT SUICIDE”- John Adams

Joseph Goebbels, born in 1897 in Rheydt, Germany, was the master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator of its cultural life for twelve years. Hitler appointed Goebbels Reich
propaganda leader of the NSDAP in 1929, taking his job as propaganda leader personally and
put all of his efforts into promoting the Nazi party and its ideals. Goebbels was given free
CONTROL OVER ALL the media, using radio, literature and pamphlets to communicate
fascist ideas onto the German public.

Goebbels was a very creative man and used his creativity to PERSUADE the PUBLIC to agree
with his views. Joseph had a general contempt for the human race in general, especially the
Jews, using the Germans’ deep-rooted hatred of the Jews to ignite strong racist feelings in
Germany. Goebbels widely publicized Hitler as a hero and protector of Germany from the
Jews and Marxists. Goebbels wrote literature that ignited feelings in the German public.
Hitler was in agreement with Goebbels’ views and saw his immense potential as a political
influencer.His speeches were very popular – he was seen as one of the greatest propagandists
of the 20th century.

The French Revolution brought down France’s Ancien Régime and led to the establishment
of a NEW ORDER that promised to TOTALLY REFASHION SOCIETY –
fascist “spiritual rebirth”, destroying the “old”, creating the “new” “the masses did not
know what was good for them, so they must be steered by leaders.”

“You must entirley refashion a people whom you wish to make free, destroy its’ prejudices, alter its habits, limit its necessities, root up its vices, purify its desires.” – Robespierre

Loyalty to State and God must be the same thing. Jonah Goldberg states, “Rousseau’s ‘
general will’ became an intellectual foundation for future fascist and ‘totalitarian’ states. “
The “religion of the citizen” … welded the sacred to the secular under a unitary authority.
Rousseau equated “freedom” with total submission to authority.
The state promoted “good” information, punished “bad” information.
The TOTALITARIAN NANNY STATE “PLAYS FAVORITES”, IMPOSING VALUES
towards political “correctness” – imposing cultural acceptance through political coercion.
ENFORCING POLITICAL “CORRECT-NESS” THROUGH CONTROL OF
INFORMATION and CENSORSHIP.

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal individuality of “choice” is ultimately incompatible with a fascist
“community” of “coercion”
In the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, French Revolutionaries
proclaimed the FREEDOM of SPEECH, RELIGION and OPINION.

CENSORSHIP was ABOLISHED, and France APPEARED to be on a path towards tolerance,
pluralism and civil liberties
A mere four years later, the country descended into political terror, as thousands were
arrested, tried and executed for CRIMES of EXPRESSION and OPINION.
While early advocates of press freedom sought to abolish pre-publication censorship, the
majority still believed INJURIOUS SPEECH constituted a CRIME, EVEN TREASON if it
undermined the honor of sovereign authority or sacred collective values, such as religion and
civic spirit.

WILSON’s COMMITTEE on PUBLIC INFORMATION – MINISTRY of PROPAGANDA

In 1915, Wilson warned the nation of “The ENEMY WITHIN”:
“The gravest threat against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our own
borders. there are citizens … born under other flags … who have poured the POISON of
DISLOYALTY into … our national life … who have sought to bring the authority and good
name of our government into contempt” – Woodrow Wilson, 1915.
ANY criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn a prison sentence
who is the government?

The Committee on Public Information was set up in the U.S. During “The Great War” (1917)
the committee on public information was the west’s FIRST MODERN MINISTRY for PROPAGANDA. The CPI sought to “mobilize” american public opinion in the “great cause”. The CPI printed millions of posters, buttons and pamphlets in twelve languages
It was a vital tool, “an important element to be bred into the civilian population.” george creel
the fight for an ideal was coupled with thoughts of self-preservation

Creel created an “army” of nearly 100,000 “four minute men” trained by the CPI to deliver a
four minute speech anywhere. Town meetings, restaurants, theaters, anywhere they could get
an audience to spread the word that the “very future of democracy” was at stake. In 1917-18,
7,555,190 speeches were delivered in 5200 communities.

The speeches celebrated wilson as a “larger than life” leader and Germans as less than human
“huns”. The CPI released a series of propaganda films. Children were asked to sign a pledge
card, “A Little American’s Promise”
The SEDITION ACT banned “uttering, printing, writing or publishing ANY disloyal profane,
scurrilous, or abusive language about the u.s. government or the military.
The postmaster general was given the authority to deny mailing privileges to ANY publication
HE saw fit – effectively shutting down at least 75 periodicals. Journalists faced the threat of
jail or having their supply of paper terminated by the war industries board any discussion
critical of the draft was “unacceptable”. Goldberg states the “chilling effect” on the press was
far more useful than the closures. Many of the journals that were shut down had tiny readerships
but the THREAT of being put out of business influenced other editors. If the power of example
was not enough, one would receive a threatening letter . Then one would be denied mail
privileges “temporarily”.

Any criticism of the government, even in your own home, could earn a prison sentence
A Wisconsin state official got two years for criticizing a Red Cross fund raising drive.
A Hollywood producer received ten years for making a film that depicted British
(our war ally) troops committing atrocities during the American Revolution.
One man was brought to trial for explaining in his own home why he did not want to buy
liberty bonds. Like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, Wilson “harassed” the press.
Goldberg states that 1950s “McCarthyism” was nothing compared to Wilson and “civil
liberties”.

“We have to put a STOP to the idea that it is a part of everybody’s civil rights to say whatever
he pleases”; “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed”
“It is not truth that matters, but victory; the victor will never be asked if he told the truth”
– Hitler

TOTALITARIAN CENSORSHIP: STALIN’s SOVIET UNION

Stalin’s dictatorship went beyond just political obedience and loyalty. Stalin used the state to
control the “hearts and minds” of the Soviet people. Stalin’s “totalitarian” state also sought to
control what one “felt” and “thought”. Propaganda continuously sought to persuade people of
the merits of soviet society under Stalin. CONSTANT PROPAGANDA helped build this
“CULT of PERSONALITY”. Stalin was portrayed as a benevolent “father figure” a “friend”
and “protector” of “the people”. Stalin tried to BOOST FAITH and morale in the communist
system by MAKING HIMSELF a “GOD-LIKE” FIGURE – “Stalin is today’s Lenin”
“father of the country,” “the great and wise teacher,” “the friend of mankind”
photographic portrait of the “great and generous leader”
“stalin is the banner of millions of people in their fight for a better life”

Radios, loudspeakers blared into factories and villages. Movies, theaters and schools taught of
the “evils” of capitalism. With the “capitalist” world sunk in economic depression during the
1930s (with unemployment soaring over 25% in many places) it seemed that Marx’s day had
come – and that Stalin’s Russia was the place where the grass grew greener.
Soviet propaganda inspired naive trust when it claimed that the USSR was advancing quickly
towards SOCIALIST PARADISE. Billboards and posters urged workers to meet or exceed
production quotas. The newspaper “Pravda” (“truth”) linked enemies at home to “foreign
agents, appealing to Russian “xeno-phobia”.

Under Stalin, the state would take control of the “ARTS”. The government controlled which
books were published, what music was heard and which works of art were displayed.
If “artists” did not perform up to government “expectations”, they faced “persecution”.
Jewish poet OSIP MANDELSTAM was imprisoned, tortured and exiled after writing a
satirical verse critical of Stalin. Out of fear for his wife’s safety, he submitted to “threats” and
wrote a “postive” ode to Stalin. He returned from exile in 1934 but was re-arrested in 1938 and
died on his way to a labor camp

BORIS PASTERNAK, writer of “Doctor Zhivago”, was AFRAID to PUBLISH ANYTHING
during Stalin’s reign. Pasternak never saw the world primarily in political or social terms.
This went directly against Lenin and the Bolsheviks which saw human life and lives in totally
socialist terms of world revolution. You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in
you,” explained red army commander leon Trostky. Author Pasternak was NOT ALLOWED
to BE NEUTRAL In the cataclysm of the Russian Civil War and ensuing Bolshevik regime.
Soviet authorities did not allow his works to be published for many years because of his
failure to “fully embrace” social issues.

Pasternak was never going to be good at writing poems that would inspire ordinary people to sweat for the communist cause. Non-conforming artists were “enemies of the state” for NOT being “politically correct”. Olga Ivinskaya became the great love of his life, a model for the character of Lara in “Doctor Zhivago”, “the embodiment of life’s sweetness and joy.
The tender beauty in the midst of impending disaster”. It was not an easy love affair.
Pasternak was not prepared to “bow down” to the system and was BEING “MONITORED”.
Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in 1958 (most embarrassing for the Soviet government) After the worldwide success of doctor zhivago, pasternak lived the rest of his days in Russia in an especially precarious position. Doctor Zhivago was not published in Russia until 1988.

“Writers have always occupied a special position in Russia,” explains Vitaly Shentalinsky.
“Because for lack of democratic institutions, the Russian writer has never been just an artist,
but a spokesmen for the truth and a public conscience as well.” Perhaps this is why the Soviets
sought so thoroughly to gain a stranglehold on all cultural expression. Fearing the
independent voice, they made it a CAPITAL CRIME to be INDEPENDENT.
“like a beast in a pen, I’m cut off from my friends, freedom, the sun,
but the hunters are gaining ground I’ve nowhere else to run
“am I a gangster or murderer? of what crime do I stand condemned?
“I made the whole world weep at the beauty of my land.”
even so, one step from my grave, I believe that cruelty, spite,
the powers of darkness will in time be crushed by the spirit of light

Dr. Zhivago lived a longer life than did bolshevism, but Pasternak had no way of knowing this or making it a comfort for an isolated, vilified old age – he died in 1960.

All Soviet citizens were aware of the consequences of (EVEN PERCEIVED) DISLOYALTY.
Russian Alexander Solzhenitsyn bravely wrote about “the Gulag Archipelago”.
“Any adult inhabitant of this country, from a collective farmer up to a MEMBER of the
Politburo, …
… “always knew that it would take only ONE CARELESS WORD or gesture and he would fly off irrevocably into the ABYSS.” (The Gulag Archipelago)

Stalin made sure ANY SIGNS of DISSENT were STAMPED OUT.
There were NO such thing as “INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS”
Police spies would open people’s mail or plant listening devices in people’s homes
There was no “safe” way of voicing protest. there was NO “FREE PRESS”
critics and dissenters were sent to the infamous “GULAG” forced labor camps.

The Ukrainian famine has only recently been recognized as one of the most DESTRUCTIVE GENOCIDES of the 20th century. IT was a CRIME TO MENTION or REFER TO the FAMINE, punishable at best by three to five years in a labor camp. One doctor complained his sister had died of hunger. He was sentenced to TEN YEARS “without the right of correspondence”. Ukrainian newspapers were FULL of pictures of SMILING CHILDREN. Soviet newspapers ignored the skeletons in the streets. Western papers did report on the famine.

NAZI CENSORSHIP
UNIVERSITY UNIFORMITY, CONTROL & CONFORMITY
AMERICAN ACADEMIA and ECHOES of the THIRD REICH by Marvin Folkertsma
BERKELEY STUDENTS’ SURPRISING REACTION to ISIS and
ISRAEL FLAGS ON CAMPUS by Ami Horowitz

Universities in Nazi Germany were strictly controlled by the authorities. The subjects that
were taught in universities had to fit in to Nazi ideology and few in the universities were
prepared to openly defy the regime. Historically, universities in Germany had been held in very
high regard for their reputation for teaching students to think outside of the norm.
University teachers and students were generally well thought of within German society and the
standards set were copied throughout the world ACADEMIC FREEDOM was TAKEN
FOR GRANTED.

Within German universities were quick to make comments when it was required.
But German universities also developed a reputation for something else other than
academic excellence. German universities were frequently breeding grounds for
NATIONALISM.

Hitler distrusted university professors and lecturers he knew that by the very nature of their
academic excellence that THEY COULD RESIST gleichshaltung (the coordination of the
German population to DO AS the GOVERNMENT WISHED so that they all thought in the
same way) with a history of challenging accepted academic notions.
PROFESSORS were in hitler’s mind a POTENTIAL ENEMY. Hitler wanted universities to
TEACH in a NAZI WAY and for subjects to have a Nazi slant to them they were to become
political and racial institutions that would push the nazi beliefs to the nation’s academic elite.

Hitler’s attack on the universities started shortly after he was appointed Chancellor on
January 30, 1933. ANY lecturers who were Jewish, known liberals and social democrats
were DISMISSED – around 1,200 people or 10% of the total.
One university lecturer, paul kahle, was found helping out a jewish friend in her shop the
harassment he suffered after this was so great that he emigrated to great Britain.
hermann oncken, a historian, was dismissed after he published a less than complimentary book
about Robespierre. In this case, the Nazi government believed that he was openly criticizing
a regime where one man held great power within a country. “The duty of students as well as
professors is to serve the people under the triple form of labor service, military service and
scientific service.”

All university rectors were reliable nazis who were empowered to do as they wished (as long as
it fitted in with nazi ideology) at their university. University curriculums were strictly
controlled so that they fitted in with nazi beliefs. Very few were prepared to speak out
against such an approach as most, if not all, would have known what the consequences were
the first concentration camp at dachau was quickly followed by others built throughout nazi germany.

Some of the inmates of these camps were university intellectuals who had dared to speak out
Frankfurt was the first university the Nazis tackled, precisely because it was the most self-
confidently liberal of major German universities, with a faculty that prided itself on its
allegiance to SCHOLARSHIP, FREEDOM of CONSCIENCE and DEMOCRACY.
The Nazis therefore knew that control of Frankfurt University would mean control of
German academia.

Martin Heidegger, a noted philosopher, now told his students and colleagues that Germany’s
soul needed fresh air to breathe and national socialism would provide it. Heidegger argued
that freedom of inquiry and free expression were negative and selfish ideas. Instead he
encouraged his students to live up to their obligations to the national community in both
“thought and deed.”

A hundred years before Hitler, the German-Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine, had declared:
“Wherever books are burned, human beings are destined to be burned too.” On the night of
May 10, 1933, German students from universities once regarded as among the finest in the
world, gathered in Berlin to BURN BOOKS with “UN-GERMAN” IDEAS.
The students, along with brown shirted storm troopers, tossed heaps of books into a bonfire
while giving the Hitler arm-salute and singing Nazi anthems. 20,000 volumes were hurled into
the flames. Propaganda minister Joseph GOEBBELS joined the students at the bonfire and
declared: “The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at an end”…
As a young person, to already have the courage to face the pitiless glare, to overcome the fear
of death, and to regain respect for death – this is the TASK of this YOUNG GENERATION.
and thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past
here the intellectual foundation of the november [democratic] republic is sinking to the ground,
but from this wreckage the phoenix of a NEW SPIRIT will triumphantly rise…”

Germany was now led by a self-educated, high school drop-out named adolf hitler, who was
by nature strongly anti-intellectual. For Hitler, the reawakening of the long-dormant
Germanic spirit, with its racial and militaristic qualities, was far more important than any
traditional notions of learning.

Truth, rational thinking and objective knowledge, the foundation stones of western civilization, were DENOUNCED by Nazi-fied students and professors, in favor of mysticism, speculation and COLLECTIVE THINKING toward a COMMON GOAL – the [progressive] pursuit of a
GLORIOUS FUTURE for Germany.

The YOUTH-ORIENTED Nazi movement had always attracted a sizable following among
university Students. Even back in the 1920s they sensed Nazism might be the wave of the
FUTURE.
They joined the National Socialist German Students’ League, put on swastika armbands and
HARASSED ANY ANTI-NAZI TEACHERS. Now, many formerly reluctant professors were
SWEPT ALONG by the outpouring of student enthusiasm that followed Hitler’s seizure of
Power MOST of the professors eagerly SURRENDERED their intellectual honesty and took
the required Nazi oath of allegiance.

From elementary schools to university level, had been purged of Jewish instructors and
ANYONE DEEMED POLITICALLY SUSPECT, regardless of their proven teaching abilities
or achievements, including 20 past (and future) Nobel Prize winners. In the college classroom,
professors gave lectures amid the nagging FEAR they MIGHT BE DENOUNCED by one of
their students for any reason and possibly wind up in a concentration camp.

Politically ambitious teachers sometimes kept secret dossiers on the utterances and activities
of their fellow educators which could be turned over to the Gestapo to further their own
careers. The widespread insecurity that resulted caused ACADEMIC TIMIDITY WHICH
FURTHER LOWERED EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS. Grammar and high schools
throughout Germany now had NATIONAL SOCIALIST TEACHERS of QUESTIONABLE
ABILITY FORMING YOUNG MINDS in STRICT ADHERENCE to the PARTY MOTTO.
The supreme task of the schools is the education of youth for the service of volk and state in
the national socialist spirit. They TAUGHT NAZI PROPAGANDA as TRUTH and had their
young students recite it back from memory.

AMERICAN ACADEMIA and ECHOES of the THIRD REICH
by Marvin Folkertsma May 17, 2014

MARVIN FOLKERTSMA is professor and chairman of the political science department at Grove City College, where he has taught since 1974

Richard J. Evans declared in his book The Third Reich in Power, the Hitler regime was built on
“CONTEMPT FOR the INTELLECT” and that ‘anything that stood in [its] way,
including traditional educational values such as freedom of inquiry, critical intelligence, or
the ideal of pure research, was to be SIDELINED OR SWEPT ASIDE’”.
Interestingly, he also goes on to comment that the Nazi penetration of higher education, though
it resulted in the emigration of thousands of prominent scientists and scholars, was not
nearly as complete as they wanted it to be.
Reflect on the following case, which involved a prominent academic and globally famous
professor who was denied a promotion because a few radicals disapproved of his political
beliefs. Initially they failed, and the appointment appeared to go through. unfazed by a
temporary setback, his opponents enlisted the aid of a powerful union to block his selection.
The result? Victory! The appointment of the professor in question was denied and the
extremists won.
Who were the extremists? Who was the professor? Werner Heisenberg. Yes, that Werner
Heisenberg, in an incident that took place in Nazi Germany, which saw hundreds of cases like
this. Cases of ACADEMICS FORCED to RECANT THEIR VIEWS, retrench their
thoughts, retire from higher education completely or simply get out of the country while they
could.
A pair of teachers who DESPISED ALBERT EINSTEIN, DISMISSED HIS theory of
relativity as “JEWISH SCIENCE,” and DEPLORED those who emitted EVEN a
SLIGHTEST WHIFF of DISSENSION from the PARTY LINE. The same thing cannot be
said for the coteries of political RADICALS WHO DOMINATE AMERICAN EDUCATION
TODAY. These same radicals also dominate the culture, media and much of American
politics.

In denying individuals as prominent – and especially in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as
courageous – as rice and murray the right to speak, the UNIVERSITIES DECLARED THEIR
OWN “CONTEMPT for the INTELLECT” WHICH SO CLEARLY DEFINED NAZI
GERMANY. We need to make our universities temples NOT of DOGMATIC
ORTHODOXY,” Ali declared in her prepared transcript, “but of TRULY CRITICAL
THINKING, where ALL IDEAS ARE WELCOME and where CIVIL DEBATE is
ENCOURAGED.

That, however, is the EXACT OPPOSITE of WHAT AMERICA’s BACKWARD
“PROGRESSIVES” WANT to TAKE PLACE IN OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.
Lest their “feelings” be bruised by comments that just might possibly burst through the
barricades of IGNORANCE ENFORCED by the POLITICALLY CORRECT ELITES.
In fact, as tirelessly pointed out by critics of american education today, the meretricious
“diversity” movement includes everything from the ethnicity, race, and gender of the
students, but not a whit about what really matters in thriving institutions:
INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY.

This intellectual diversity is exactly what ali had to offer, as well as rice, murray, and many
others who are denied their freedom of expression in venues where only the party line is
permitted. Anything else, we expect, would go “against the core values” of the institution (to
employ brandeis university’s felicitous phrase) and what values might those be, one could
reasonably ask? There doesn’t seem to be a clear definition. Echoes from the third reich
resound through the actions of today’s radicals and intellectual cowards. Prompting us further
to ask, what is next on your agenda of stifling voices you don’t want to hear?
BOOK BURNING ANYONE?”

UNIVERSITY COMPICITY
FASCIST ANTI-SEMITISM THEN and TODAY

BERKELEY STUDENTS’ SURPRISING REACTION to ISIS and
ISRAEL FLAGS ON CAMPUS
by Ami Horowitz FoxNews.com November 19, 2014

I have always thought that there was NO CONNECTION BETWEEN INTELLECT and
WISDOM. To put this theory to the test, I headed out to the University of California,
Berkeley. Students at Berkeley clearly have a lot of intellect; it is one of the most prestigious
and selective universities in the country. I went to the bucolic campus armed with a flag that
represents the GREATEST EVIL KNOWN TODAY, ISIS.
A Fox News commentator waved an ISIS flag on the Berkeley campus and then an Israeli flag.
You’ll never believe which flag won him the STUDENTS’ IRE.

UC BERKELEY STUDENTS IGNORE FOX COMMENTATOR WAVING ISIS FLAG BUT ATTACK HIM WHEN HE WAVES ISRAELI FLAG
Ami Horowitz made a video for Fox News in which he waves each flag on the liberal college’s Northern California campus
Most of the elite students generally ignore him as he waves the terrorist group’s black and white flag when he waves the flag of Israeli flag, he’s cussed at and reprimanded by many who pass
by Daily Mail Reporter November 20, 2014

A Fox News commentator set out to test the different reactions students at the university of
California Berkeley would have when he waved a flag of the terrorist group ISIS versus when
he brandished the flag of Israel. So how did the liberal campus react? ndifferently, when ami
horowitz stated his support of ISIS but when he declared himself an Israel fan, many students
immediately pounced. Shocker: the video appears to show that the liberal university’s students
had LITTLE TO SAY about the Fox News commentator’s SUPPORT of ISIS, but were
ENRAGED by his subsequent SUPPORT of ISRAEL.
“Israel is a thief in the night, and a thief in the day,’ said one man. Another man cursed as he
walked past: ‘F*** ISRAEL! Another person confronts Horowitz to say, ‘tyranny isn’t cute’.
If these are OUR BEST and BRIGHTEST THEN WE SHOULD ALL BE AFRAID,

VERY AFRAID. The school system now produced what he needed – UNQUESTIONING YOUNG MEN READY TO OBEDIENTLY SERVE THE
FATHERLAND UNTO DEATH amid Nazi slogans such as: BELIEVE, OBEY, FIGHT!
Weakness must be hammered away. In my ordensburgen [special nazi colleges] a youth will
grow up before which the world will tremble. I want a brutal, domineering, fearless, cruel
youth. Youth must be all that. It must bear pain. There must be nothing weak and gentle about
it. And in this NEW ORDER, ANYONE REFUSING to CONFORM was simply
REMOVED from society and sent away for a special kind of re-education within the confines
of a CONCENTRATION CAMP. There they would be BROKEN physically, mentally and
spiritually until they either SUBMITTED COMPLETELY or died.
Russian Alexander Solzhenitsyn bravely wrote about “the gulag archipelago”

CENSORSHIP TODAY – GOVERNMENT
GOVERNMENT REGULATION BIG BROTHER CONTROL & CONFORMITY

OBAMA’s WAR ON WHISTLEBLOWERS LEAVES ADMINISTRATION INSIDERS UNSCATHED
FIVE KEY POLITICAL PLAYERS ENJOY ‘VIRTUAL IMPUNITY’ – WHILE FOUR LOWER-LEVEL FIGURES ARE IN PRISON OR FACING TIME
by Spencer Ackerman and Ed Pilkington theguardian.com March 16, 2015

We have seen Barack Obama and his supporters attempt to CHILL ANY sort of SCRUTINY
or criticism of him. Many of HIS RECORDS – whether they are transcripts from Occidental
or Columbia – have not been released he lost his senior thesis (on soviet nuclear disarmament)
from Columbia University (how likely was that to happen, given that he felt his own life was
important enough to write an autobiography in his young 20s). Obama’s records from his time
in the Illinois state senate were “lost”. His campaign used supporters to bombard radio hosts
with calls to jam lines when critics of Obama appeared on radio call in shows.
The “AUTHORITARIAN” tactics being employed by the Obama campaign to STIFLE and
INTIMIDATE ITS CRITICS” were on full display. The specter of the Fairness Doctrine being
passed by congress is also another card in the deck meant to CHILL CRITICISM of
Barack Obama and his supporters.

Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has WAGED a WAR AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS and OFFICIAL LEAKERS. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 espionage act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined and yet other apparent leaks have gone entirely unpunished or have been treated, as in the case of general David Petraeus, as misdemeanors.

John Brennan: promotion to lead the CIA since joining Barack Obama’s first presidential
campaign, the CIA director and former white house counter-terrorism and homeland security
coordinator, has been obama’s liaison to the secret world of us intelligence”
It has rewarded brennan tremendously: not only does he now run the agency he served for
decades, his position appears secure even after he obstructed a senate inquiry into bush-era
torture.
Perhaps his most ironic aspect of that obstruction was an attempt to get the justice department to
investigate senate staffers for allegedly removing classified information. As Abbe Lowell,
lawyer for one of the espionage act eight, Stephen Kim, has argued in a letter to the department
of justice,
LOW-LEVEL OFFICIALS WHO LACK the POLITICAL CONNECTIONS to FIGHT
BACK HAVE HAD the BOOK THROWN at THEM, WHILE HIGH-LEVEL FIGURES
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO LEAK WITH ‘VIRTUAL IMPUNITY’”
“another law for them…

Stephen Kim: 13 months in prison the former state department contractor has served eight
months of a 13-MONTH SENTENCE for violating the espionage act. He was subjected to a
FIVE-YEAR LEGAL ORDEAL, at the end of which he pleaded guilty to
LEAKING DETAILS of NORTH KOREA’s NUCLEAR PROGRAM to a Fox News
reporter, though he insisted he HAD DONE SO to INFORM the AMERICAN PEOPLE
ABOUT the NATURE of the NORTH KOREAN THREAT.
Before he was incarcerated at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Kim told the intercept that the
INTENSITY of HIS PROSECUTION HAD DRIVEN HIM to the VERGE of SUICIDE.

Jeffrey Sterling: Facing years in prison the former CIA officer is awaiting sentencing next
month, having been convicted in January under the espionage act. He pleaded not guilty to
leaking information about a covert effort to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program to a New York
times reporter, James Risen, details of which appeared in Risen’s book State of War.
Sterling faces a sentence that could run to decades in prison. Not only was HIS TREATMENT
NOTABLY SEVERE, but the Department of Justice ALSO AGGRESSIVELY PURSUED
RISEN, essentially THREATENING the journalist with IMPRISONMENT for
refusing to disclose his source.

FASCIST CENSORSHIP: GOVERNMENT REGULATION BIG BROTHER CONTROL & CONFORMITY
OBAMA HAS SENTENCED WHISTLEBLOWERS to 25 TIMES the
JAIL TIME of ALL PRIOR U.S. PRESIDENTS COMBINED
January 23, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog

Obama is arguably MORE HOSTILE towards the PRESS THAN ANY PRESIDENT in HISTORY. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS PROSECUTED MORE WHISTLEBLOWERS THAN ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED.
This administration has also obtained much longer jail sentences against whistleblowers than previous presidents. ACLU legislative counsel Gabe Rottman noted last October: the obama administration has secured 526 months of prison time for national security leakers,
versus only 24 months total jail time for everyone else since the american revolution
top mainstream reporters also say the Obama administration is more HOSTILE to the FREE
PRESS. The folks who spread whistleblower leaks – than any other in history.
Indeed, Obama is TREATING REPORTERS LIKE TERRORISTS and CRIMINALS.
Obama has also gone after top reporters. His Department of Justice labeled chief Fox News
Washington correspondent James Rosen a “CRIMINAL CO-CONSPIRATOR” in a leak
case, and for many years threatened to prosecute Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times
Journalist JAMES RISEN.

The Obama administration also SPIED ON Risen, Rosen, the Associated Press, CBS reporter
Cheryl Atkinson and other media. The Pentagon SMEARED USA today reporters because
they INVESTIGATED ILLEGAL PENTAGON PROPAGANDA. Reporters covering the
occupy protests were TARGETED FOR ARREST. The U.S. GOVERNMENT is
TARGETING WHISTLEBLOWERS in ORDER to KEEP ITS HYPOCRISY SECRET …
so that it can keep on doing the opposite of what it tells other countries to do as part of this effort
to suppress information which would reveal the government’s hypocrisy, the American
Government – like the British government – is TREATING JOURNALISTS AS
TERRORISTS.

JOURNALISM is not only being CRIMINALIZED in America, but INVESTIGATIVE
REPORTING is actually TREATED LIKE TERRORISM

Veteran reporters and journalists say that the Obama Administration is the MOST “HOSTILE
to MEDIA” of ANY administration in HISTORY. The government admits that journalists
could be targeted with counter-terrorism laws. For example, after Pulitzer Prize winning
journalist Chris Hedges, journalist Naomi Wolf, pentagon papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg
and others sued the government to enjoin the NDAA’s allowance of the indefinite detention of
Americans.

The judge asked the government attorneys 5 times whether journalists like Hedges COULD BE
INDEFINITELY DETAINED SIMPLY FOR INTERVIEWING and THEN WRITING
ABOUT BAD GUYS. The government refused to promise that journalists like Hedges won’t
be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.
After the government’s spying on the associated press made it CLEAR to everyone that the
GOVERNMENT is TRYING to PUT a CHILL JOURNALISM, the senior national-security
correspondent for Newsweek tweeted:
“Serious idea. Instead of calling it OBAMA’s WAR ON WHISTLEBLOWERS,
LET’S JUST CALL IT WHAT IT IS: OBAMA’s WAR ON JOURNALISM. Now comes a more insidious form of THOUGHT CONTROL a la 1984, courtesy of long-time friend and Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein”

Liberal: a power worshipper without power. – George Orwell

FASCIST CENSORSHIP: GOVERNMENT REGULATION BIG BROTHER CONTROL & CONFORMITY
CASS SUNSTEIN’s DESPICABLE IDEAS on REGULATING the INTERNET
by Ed Lasky July 12, 2009

Sunstein headed the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His book,
On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why we believe them, what can be done”. In “On
Rumors,” Sunstein reviews how views get cemented in one camp even when people are
presented with persuasive evidence to the contrary. Sunstein worries that we are headed for a
future in which “people’s beliefs are a product of social networks working as echo chambers in
which false rumors spread like wildfire”

Bloggers and others would be forced to remove such criticism unless they could be “proven”
the litigation expense would be daunting; the time necessary to defend a posting (or an article)
would work to the benefit of the public figure being criticized since the delay would probably
allow the figure to win an election before the truth “won out”.

The mere threat of retaliatory actions would be enough to dissuade many commentators
from daring to issue a word of criticism or skepticism. Kyle smith writes in the New York
Post about one aspect of Sunstein’s ideology. Cass Sunstein explicitly supports using the
COURTS to impose a “CHILLING EFFECT”on speech that MIGHT HURT SOMEONE’S
FEELINGS. He [sunstein] thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and
that new laws need to be written to corral the.”

Sunstein’s book is a BLUEPRINT FOR ONLINE CENSORSHIP as he wants to hold blogs
and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering
libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading “rumors”.
Another step is being taken by Congress that might chill free speech on the internet
representative Linda Sanchez from California is behind the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying
Prevention Act, an effort to IMPOSE REGULATIONS ON the INTERNET.

EUGENE VOLOKH, law professor noted the overly broad language of the bill and how it
can be used by a politician to stifle criticism. Free speech for anything remotely “pro-tobacco”
has been culturally banned and almost totally abolished by law between the 1940s and 1980s,
federal regulators attempted to guarantee that the broadcasting industry would act “fairly”

The f.c.c.’s FAIRNESS DOCTRINE claims to ensure “REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY”
FOR OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS ON CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES. Not a statute, but a set
of RULES and REGULATIONS that IMPOSED CONTROLS on the content of the
broadcasting media viewed radio and television as not merely industries but servants of the
public interest.
Opponents of the doctrine, chiefly the media themselves, called it unconstitutional. The F.C.C.’s
1985 FAIRNESS REPORT announced that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the
First Amendment de-regulators in the FCC deemed the fairness doctrine outdated, misguided and
ultimately unfair. The supreme court upheld the f.c.c.’s general right to enforce the fairness
doctrine where channels were limited but the courts have generally not ruled that the fcc is
obliged to do so.

Although it survived court challenges, the fairness doctrine was abolished in 1987 …
its demise left responsibility for fairness entirely to the media and the consumer technology
had changed: with multiple channels on cable television – no longer could broadcasting be
seen as a limited resource.

President Reagan’s veto of the 1987 congressional bill to establish the fairness doctrine as law
did not end the controversy from the mid-1990s to today, proponents continue to call for its
reinstatement. House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D -Ca) signaled her strong support for revival of
the “fairness doctrine”. It would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing
equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters the costly practice of
providing “equal” time might cause many stations to simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity
and other “conservative” talk show hosts.

Digital Democracy vs. Corporate Dominance: R.I.P. Internet Neutrality?
The worst fears of all free speech proponents are upon us. The Verizon suit against the Federal
Communications Commission, appellate decision sets the stage for a Supreme Court review. The
Wall Street Journal portrays the ruling in financial terms: “A federal court has tossed out the
FCC’s “open internet” rules, and now internet service providers are free to charge companies like
Google and Netflix higher fees to deliver content faster.

In essence, this is the corporate spin that the decision is about the future cost for being
connected. “The ruling was a blow to the Obama administration, which has pushed the idea of
“net neutrality.” And it sharpened the struggle by the nation’s big entertainment and
telecommunications companies to shape the regulation of broadband, now a vital pipeline for
tens of millions of Americans to view video and other media.
For consumers, the ruling could usher in an era of tiered Internet service, in which they get some
content at full speed while other websites appear slower because their owners chose not to pay
up.

“It takes the Internet into completely uncharted territory,” said Tim Wu, a Columbia University
law professor who coined the term net neutrality. What the Journal is not telling you is that this
“uncharted territory” is easy to project. If ISP’s will be able to charge varied rates or decide to
vary internet speed, it is a VERY SHORT STEP TOWARDS SELECTIVELY
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SITES BASED UPON CONTENT. Do not get lulled into
thinking that constitutional protective political speech is guaranteed.

Once again, the world according to the communication giants paint a very different interpretation
as the article, Verizon called hypocritical for equating net neutrality to censorship illustrates.
Verizon’s argument that network neutrality regulations violated the firm’s First Amendment
rights. In Verizon’s view, slowing or blocking packets on a broadband network is little different
from a newspaper editor choosing which articles to publish, and should enjoy the same
constitutional protection.”

The response from advocates of the Net Neutrality standard, that is about to vanish, sums up
correctly. The First Amendment does not apply, however, when Verizon is merely transmitting
the content of third parties. Moreover, these groups point out, Verizon itself has disclaimed
responsibility for its users’ content when it was convenient to do so, making its free speech
arguments ring hollow.”

Prepare for the worst. The video, Prepare To Be Robbed. Net Neutrality Is Dead!, which
includes frank language and expletives, provides details that place the use of internet access into
question coming out of this appellate decision. Analyze the implications logically. It is one thing
to charge a for profit service like Netflix a higher fee to transverse the electronic bandwidth of a
communication network. Selling a membership to an end user is the source of their cash flow.
However, most activist political sites usually provide internet users free access to their particular
viewpoint and source links.

Your internet service provider controls the pipeline that feeds your devices and data connection.
No matter which company you pay for this service, you are dependent upon this union. A free
WiFi link may well become a memory. Beaming a satellite signal, mostly is an alternative, when
DSL, cable or other broadband is not available.

No matter what method is used to surf the net, this decision clearly implies that internet
access is now a privilege, at the effective discretion, if not mercy; of a provider that allow
an account for service.

The Ending Net Neutrality Signals A Digital Paradigm Shift. It also means that they could
unfairly push sites like (add the name of your favorite sites) out of the way of users if they (the
“PC” protectors) didn’t like them, acting as effective censors.
Stephen Lendman writes in Digital Democracy vs. Corporate Dominance: R.I.P. Internet
Neutrality?
“Without Net Neutrality, ISPs will be able to devise new schemes to charge users more for
access and services, making it harder for us to communicate online – and easier for companies to
censor our speech. Corporate gatekeepers will control “where you go and what you see.

Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner Cable “will be able to block content and speech they
don’t like, reject apps that compete with their own offerings, and prioritize Web traffic
Subscription services are playing with fire. With the collapse of the main street economy, the
added fees to access content that is mediocre at best, is the actual fallout. Like the dinosaur TV
networks, the corporatist sites risk total rejection from internet visitors.
Totalitarian culturalists are rejoicing with this latest damper on free speech. News by way of
government press releases is pure propaganda. How did this happen?

BIG BROTHER? U.S. LINKED to NEW WAVE of CENSORSHIP,
SURVEILLANCE ON WEB
by John R. Quain FOXNEWS.COM February 27, 2013

Even the most open, democratic governments have sought laws and NEW FORMS of
SURVEILLANCE that many see as a NEW WAVE of CENSORSHIP – and that includes the
United States. The U.S. government asked Google for data on its users more than 31,000 times
in 2012 alone, for example.

The government rarely obtained a search warrant. First, Google recently revealed; in nearly
all cases, the company ended up turning over at least some data. Some argue that heightened
surveillance, restrictions on internet freedom and even censorship are necessary to protect
intellectual property rights, prevent cyberespionage, fight child pornography, and protect
national interests such as nuclear power plants from hackers.

A number of democratic states have considered or implemented various restrictions in response
to the potential legal, economic, and security challenges raised by new media,” notes the freedom
house report “FREEDOM ON the NET 2012.”

Anxiety over online theft and cyberattacks is not unwarranted. virtually every major u.s.
company and media outlet has been a victim. Google was attacked back in 2009.
Facebook, Apple and Microsoft revealed this month that hackers had breeched their defenses.
Indeed, dozens of countries have their own online hacking groups – so-called cyber or
asymmetrical warfare divisions.

Consequently, lawmakers – even President Obama in his state of the union address – have been
motivated to take steps to stem the hacking tide. However, the road to better security could also
stifle free speech. Google says it has seen a 70 % increase in requests from authorities for
information about its users, information which includes private emails and search data. the
biggest requester?

The U.S. government, which sought information 8,438 times in the last six months of 2012.
google complied with those requests in roughly 88 percent of the cases. Congress is working on
reintroducing the cyber intelligence sharing and protection act (cispa). It would enable
companies to divulge private information to government authorities if the companies
perceived some form of “cyber threats”. Cispa offers broad immunities to companies who
choose to share data with government agencies, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Mark M.
Jaycox explained in a blog post. It also creates avenues for companies to share data with any
federal agencies, including military intelligence agencies like the national security agency”

While Congress has yet to hammer out new, possibly more precise, language for a reintroduced
cispa bill, the powers it grants to both private companies and government authorities could
end up making them partners in nationwide surveillance. Partners in nationwide surveillance
– the same complaint often levied against countries like China.

WATCHDOG GROUP REVEALS ‘ENEMIES of the INTERNET’ LIST for 2012
by Zach Epstein March 12, 2012 BGR

Global media watchdog group Reporters Without Borders on Monday released its “ENEMIES
of the INTERNET” list for 2012. The list is comprised of nations it feels INHIBIT ITS
CITIZENS’ FREEDOM TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES ON, OR EVEN DENIES ACCESS
to the internet.
Reporters without Borders’s report focuses a great deal on COUNTRIES that have reportedly
blocked access to social networks and microblogging services in an effort to impede the
efforts of activists as they tried to organize fellow citizens.

The mixing of journalism and activism has been accentuated in extreme situations such as Syria,
where ordinary citizens, appalled by the bloodshed, are systematically gathering information for
dissemination abroad, especially by the international news media. So the outside world knows
about the scale of the brutal crackdown taking place,” the group wrote

New to the “enemies of the internet” list this year are bahrain and a number of other countries,
which join the likes of north korea and china.
Egypt, malaysia, australia and france find themselves on the group’s ”under surveillance”
list. Australia for working to create a mechanism for censoring certain online content, and
France for filtering web content and maintaining its “three-strikes” policy, which cuts off
internet access to people found to be downloading copyrighted content illegally three times
‘a number of democratic states have considered or implemented various restrictions.’- freedom house report freedom on the net 2012

A DEMOGOGUE ingeniously SETS UP his political ENEMIES to be BLAMED for the woe
and suffering he, himself is initiating. The demagogue gets “personal” (ad hominem) to
promote and justify hatred of the “out-group”. Alinsky’s tactics of intimidation are a case in
point. his most oft-quoted rule is “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. . . .
One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on
the other. Chicago style politics: destroy your opponent by character assassination

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA SILENCING the CRITICS
BIG BROTHER VS. ENEMIES of the STATE

SHARYL ATTKISSON’s COMPUTER INTRUSIONS:
‘WORSE THAN ANYTHING NIXON EVER DID
By Erik Wemple The Washington Post October 27, 2014

“I was at home working on questions for yet another story that the Obama Administration
was unhappy with related to the Benghazi Terrorists Attacks.”
The intrusions into former CBS news correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computers constitute
the narrative spine of the reporter’s new book “stonewalled: MY FIGHT FOR TRUTH
AGAINST the FORCES of OBSTRUCTION, INTIMIDATION and HARASSMENT in
OBAMA’s WASHINGTON.”

“reeeeeeeeeee.” That’s the noise that Attkisson’s apple computer was making at 3:14 one
morning. A Toshiba laptop computer issued by CBS News did the same thing a day earlier,
around 4 a.m. All this goes down in October 2012, right in the midst of the Benghazi story.
A person who’s identified as ‘Jeff’ warns Attkisson: ‘I’ve been reading your reports online
about Benghazi. It’s pretty incredible. Keep at it. BUT YOU’D BETTER WATCH OUT.’”

The breaches on Attkisson’s computer, says this source, are coming from a “sophisticated
entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government
agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the National Security Agency
(NSA). Attkisson learns from ‘number one’ that one intrusion was launched from the wifi at a
Ritz Carlton Hotel and the ‘intruders discovered my skype account handle, stole the password,
activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool.

As White House officials pressure CBS News executives over Attkisson’s Benghazi reporting,
something goes haywire with her computer. That very night, with [White House spokesman
Eric] Schultz, [White House Press secretary Jay] Carney and company freshly steaming over
my Benghazi reporting, I’m home doing final research and crafting questions for the next
day’s interview with [Thomas] Pickering.

Suddenly data in my computer file begins wiping at hyperspeed before my very eyes.
Deleted line by line in a split second: it’s gone, gone, gone.” Attkisson grabbed her iphone to
record the madness. While a great deal of data has been expertly wiped in an attempt to cover-up
the deed, don is able to find remnants of what was once there. There’s key evidence of a
government computer connection to my computer. A sort of backdoor link that leads to an
ISP address for a government computer that can’t be accessed by the general public on the web
It’s an undeniable link to the U.S. government.”

To round out the revelations of “number one,’ he informs attkisson that he’d found three
classified documents deep inside her operating system, such that she’d never know they were
even there. ‘Why? To frame me’ Attkisson asks in the book.”
It’s not just her computers that showed signs of tampering, says Attkisson, who bolted CBS
News earlier this year. “[B]y november 2012,” she writes, “there are so many disruptions on my
home phone line, I often can’t use it. I call home from my mobile phone and it rings on my end,
but not at the house. More devices on the fritz at Attkisson central: “my television is
misbehaving. It spontaneously jitters, mutes, and freeze-frames,” she writes, noting that the
computers, tvs and phone all use verizon’s fios service.”

At one point, “Jeff” inspects the back of Attkisson’s house and finds a ‘stray cable’ attached to
her fios box. That cable, he explains, could be used to download data.

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA SILENCING the CRITICS
BIG BROTHER VS. ENEMIES of the STATE

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PUNISHES WATCHDOG JOURNALISTS
as “ENEMIES of the STATE”
Former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson testifies at hearing for Holder’s replacement.
By Justin Koski WESERN JOURNALISM January 30, 2015

Investigative journalist and former CBS correspondent Sharyl Attkisson testified during U.S.
Attorney General hopeful Loretta Lynch’s hearing that under former AG Eric Holder, the
administration cracked down on reporting that aggressively scrutinized the White House.
“If you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don’t like, you will be
attacked and punished,” Attkisson said. “You and your sources may be subjected to the kind of
surveillance devised for enemies of the state. Attkisson testified to the oppressive nature and
tactics the administration used TO KEEP HER AND OTHERS LIKE HER FROM DOING
THEIR WORK.

They covet and withhold public information that we, as citizens, own,” she said.
They BULLY and THREATEN access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations
that publish stories they don’t like and whistle-blowers WHO DARE TELL THE TRUTH.
The job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult,” she ADDED.

CENSORSHIP: MEDIA SILENCING the CRITICS
BIG BROTHER VS. ENEMIES of the STATE

MSNBC: OBAMACARE PROTESTERS ‘RACIST,’
INCLUDING BLACK GUN-OWNER
By Kyle Drennen August 18, 2009

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns.
A man at a pro-health care reform rally wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder
and a pistol on his hip. There are questions about whether this has racial overtones … white
people showing up with guns. Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.

Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester
that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so
edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black.
The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of
Foreign wars in Phoenix, Arizona with a pistol on his hip and an ar-15 (a semi-automatic assault
weapon) on a strap over his shoulder. ‘Because I can do it,’ he said when asked why he was
armed. ‘In arizona, I still have some freedoms.’ A picture accompanying the article showed the
man was African-American.

The commentator says: . . . there are questions about whether this has a racial overtones [sic]
I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns
strapped to their waists, or to their legs.
Jimmie Bise over at the sundries shack asks: What I want to know is what in the name of all
that’s holy was MS-NBC trying to do? Their lying heads claimed not to want more racial
tension, but they deliberately made up a story about growing racist anger to…what?
Bring tensions down? How, exactly does that work?

MSNBC knows their viewers, who consider everyone right of Dennis Kucinish to be racist, so
they won’t question the fact that anyone bringing a gun is a white racist looking to kill the
president because he’s black. They won’t consider that they are being duped.

There are reports that as many as 12 people showed up at an obama event in arizona with
weapons in full view. one man was even photographed wearing an assault rifle. Why are they
doing this, Rachel Maddow?
A man who supports the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
carries a “military style” AR-15 type rifle during a Obama opposition rally in Phoenix.
There were lots and lots and lots of death threats against bush at anti-war rallies and such for
years

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA SILENCING the CRITICS
BIG BROTHER VS. ENEMIES of the STATE

MAN WITH ASSAULT RIFLE ATTENDS OBAMA PROTEST: EXPERTS FRET OVER
“CHILLING” EFFECT ON POLITICAL DISCOURSE FOLLOWING ARIZONA EVENT
Associated Press nbcnews.com August 18, 2009

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle,
milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was
giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed
firearms near the president. Arizona is an “open-carry” state, which means anyone legally
allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it’s visible. Only someone carrying a
concealed weapon is required to have a permit.
No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
“It’s a political statement,” he told the Boston Globe.
“IF YOU DON’T USE YOUR RIGHTS, THEN YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHTS.”

Fred Solop, a northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New
Hampshire and Arizona could signal the BEGINNING of a DISTURBING TREND.
When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and
significance,” Solop said. It actually becomes quite scary for many people. it creates a
CHILLING EFFECT in the ability of our society to carry on HONEST COMMUNICATION.

Paul Helmke, President of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.
“To me, this is craziness,” he said. When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault
rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you’re just
making the situation DANGEROUS FOR EVERYONE.

Helmke said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and
law enforcement from protecting the president. The more guns we see at more events like this,
there’s more potential for something tragic happening,” he said.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as
Arizona and New Hampshire have LITTLE IMPACT on SECURITY PLANS for the
President.
In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to,” donovan said.
They were in a DESIGNATED PUBLIC VIEWING AREA. The main thing to know is that
they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon.

CENSORSHIP: MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
BRITAIN REAFFIRMS ITS BAN ON MICHAEL SAVAGE
Government insists there’s no evidence ‘he did not commit the unacceptable behavior’
WORLD NET DAILY Published: 05/24/2011

The government of Prime Minister David Cameron informed the popular nationally syndicated
host it would CONTINUE the BAN initiated by the previous administration UNLESS HE
REPUDIATED STATEMENTS made on his broadcasts that were DEEMED a THREAT to
PUBLIC SECURITY.
The U.K., however, has NEVER SPECIFIED which statements it thought were so
DANGEROUS.

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
In May, 2009, then–British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced that savage was on a list
of 16 people banned from entry because the government believed THEIR VIEWS MIGHT
PROVOKE VIOLENCE.

Smith said it was “important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards
that we have here, the fact that it’s a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won’t
be welcome in this country. In the latest communiqué from the British government, Michael
Atkins, writing on behalf of the U.K.’s Treasury Solicitor, told Savage’s London-based attorney.
Your client has not provided any evidence to show that he did not commit the unacceptable
behaviour that prompted the decision to exclude him, nor has your client provided any
acceptable evidence to show his repudiation of those unacceptable behaviours.

“How about democracy in the U.K.?” asked Savage, referring to his case. The freedom to a
trial? The freedom of appeal? The freedom to set the record straight?
Why does the Cameron government PROTECT MUSLIM TERRORISTS and MUSLIM
HATE-PREACHERS WHO ESPOUSE the OVERTHROW of the BRITISH
GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY ITSELF, WHILE BANNING MICHAEL SAVAGE
from ENTERING the LAND of their better forefathers?” he asked.

West’s letter pointed out Savage was put on the U.K.’s banned-entry list with “ruthless
criminals,” including a hamas terrorist and Russian skinhead. West argued there is no basis
for the action. For a nation who believes in freedom of speech and press,” he wrote, “I have a
hard time understanding why such a high level, government department would release this
statement when there has NOT BEEN ONE INCIDENT RECORDED IN THE U.S.
REGARDING DR. SAVAGE INSTIGATING VIOLENCE, LET ALONE SERIOUS
CRIMINAL ACTS.
The U.K.’s list includes Hamas terrorist leader Yunis al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan Grand
Wizard Stephen Donald Black, neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe and radical American Pastor Fred Phelps,
known for his virulent anti-gay protests at funerals.

In a legal complaint against Smith, Savage noted the home secretary’s office said in a press
release that the “controversial daily radio host” is “considered to be engaging in unacceptable
behavior by SEEKING to PROVOKE OTHERS to serious CRIMINAL ACTS and
fostering hatred which MIGHT LEAD to INTERCOMMUNITY VIOLENCE.
The allegations are “entirely false,” the complaint asserts. At no time has our client provoked
or sought to provoke others to commit crimes or serious criminal acts.

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA SILENCING the CRITICS – BIG BROTHER VS. ENEMIES of the STATE
WHY is MICHAEL SAVAGE STILL BANNED from ENTERING the UK?
Rachel Marsden Human Events March 20, 2012

Two new developments here in Europe which are just begging to be juxtaposed: U.S. talk
show host Michael Savage is adopting a new tact in fighting his U.K. entry ban, while
Roman Oolanski is allowed to hang out in his Swiss Chalet under house arrest while a
decision is pending on his extradition to the USA.

Savage was placed on the Labour Government’s barred-entry list in may, and still hasn’t
been taken off – so now Texas Rep. John Culberson is asking Secretary of State hillary clinton to
intervene, citing Savage’s need to tend to his “rare medicinal plant specimens from Fiji and
Tonga in kew gardens.

Grannies are felt up and harassed routinely by airport security so as not to offend anyone who
actually fits the profile of a threat. Similarly, the UK home office doesn’t want to offend
people with a proven track record of causing death or destruction – jihadists, mass
murderers, and russian gang members – so it slips someone relatively innocuous onto the list in
the interest of good company.

Culberson errs in his plea: he says that he’s seeking “to help protect Dr. Savage’s First
Amendment rights, and his ability to travel freely to Great Britain. Savage has no “First
Amendment rights” in the UK – or anywhere outside of the USA.
All you have to do is look at the average newspaper website comment section in either the UK or
France to see how the approach to free expression in America is the exception, even among
western democracies. In both of these countries, website operators can be held responsible –
through hefty fines in many cases – for defamatory comments made by others in the interest of
“free speech”.

The MEDIA – “PRIESTS” OUR SELF-ANOINTED WHO “KNOW BEST”

OUR VIEW: MAINSTREAM MEDIA SILENCE ON RAID
of REPORTER’s HOME DISCOURAGING
by Editor October 29, 2013 Colorado Observer.com

BIG BROTHER VS. ENEMIES of the STATE

We couldn’t help but notice that media interest in the outrageous story of the federal raid on
TCO reporter Audrey Hudson’s house in Maryland is starting to look a tad one-sided.
Hudson made the rounds on television and radio, describing her ordeal in the
August 6 pre-dawn raid in which federal agents, armed with a search warrant for a potato
launcher, seized instead her files on stories she had written in the mid-2000s on problems in
homeland security’s federal air marshals service.

Hudson’s account is riveting, but apparently some media are more riveted than others.
The first story ran Friday in the Daily Caller, after which Hudson appeared on Foxnews,
Dennis Miller’s nationally syndicated radio show and other radio programs.
In other words, conservative media outlets are very interested in her story. The so-called
“mainstream media”? Not so much.

Those who did follow up on the story were quick to label her as something different from a
regular reporter. The Atlantic wire called her a “conservative investigative journalist.
The website Mediaite referred to her as a “conservative reporter.”

This raises a question: when’s the last time any reporter from the new york times was
identified by the atlantic wire as a “liberal investigative journalist”? We’re pretty sure
the answer is never. Her treatment at the hands of federal agents should shock everyone
employed in journalism, no matter what the publisher’s political bent.”

The A.P. also knows a thing or two about the current administration’s overreach when it
comes to journalists, having had two months’ of phone records seized in may by the justice
department. It’s no secret that many liberal media outlets are loathe to criticize the Obama
administration, but we would hope such publications would make an exception when a federal
agency stomps on the constitutional rights of the free press.

It’s clearly intimidation,” hudson told foxnews’ gretchen carlson. “i want to make sure this
doesn’t happen to another reporter. because we can’t just have the government coming into your
house on a minor warrant and walk out with whatever files they please of our work product.”

TODAY, it’s Audrey Hudson, BUT TOMORROW, it COULD BE ANYONE – including
journalists working in the “mainstream media.” Those who refuse to speak out now on behalf
of independent-minded reporters like Hudson may find one day that there’s nobody left to speak
up for them.

CENSORSHIP: MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
THREE LIES ABOUT OBAMACARE JONATHAN GRUBER ACCIDENTALLY REVEALED
Jonathan Gruber is not the only one who lied to Americans about Obamacare.
One could even say he was just parroting his boss.
by John Daniel Davidson November 24, 2014

John Davidson is a writer in Austin, Texas, and the director of the center for health care policy
at the texas public policy foundation

For all the hand-wringing over economist Jonathan Gruber’s comments about
“the STUPIDITY of the American voter,” there’s been less outrage over the OFFICIAL
OBFUSCATION of OBAMACARE that his comments have revealed. Perhaps that’s because
the obfuscation is less shocking, on the surface, than the DISDAIN GRUBER SHOWS for the
UNWASHED MASSES. But it’s actually more important, because it REVEALS a PATTERN
of DECEPTION surrounding the law that’s been there FROM the VERY BEGINNING.
gruber was about as much of an insider during the creation of Obamacare as
one could be, and it’s reasonable to think that his understanding of the law was the same, more or
less, as that of the White House.

Here’s the THREE MAIN FALSEHOODS about Obamacare, perpetuated by the
administration and the law’s champions in congress, that Gruber’s candor have revealed.

1. The Individual Mandate ‘Is Absolutely Not a Tax Increase’
In a 2009 interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, President Obama
emphatically rejected the notion that the individual mandate is a TAX.

Gruber admitted that the purpose of the “Cadillac tax” on certain employer-sponsored health
plans is to discourage employers from providing health insurance. The ultimate goal, Gruber
explained, is to get rid of the tax subsidy for employer health plans altogether, albeit indirectly,
by “mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all
know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.

2. Congress Meant for Subsidies to Flow Through State-based and Federal Exchanges
As Jonathan Tobin pointed out, perhaps the greatest effect Gruber’s comments might have is on
the latest Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare in King v. Burwell, which alleges that federal
subsidies for health insurance are only legal if dispensed through an exchange established by a
state.

3. Obamacare Will Make Health Insurance More Affordable
Gruber tackles the question of cost control and affordability with his usual candor, explaining
that “Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay?” His point is more subtle than simply declaiming
the ignorance of the American voter.
The idea here is that the ADMINISTRATION KNOWINGLY MISLED: he knew when he
was running for president that quite frankly the American Public doesn’t actually care that much
about the uninsured. What the american public cares about is COSTS. And that’s why even
though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all
you ever hear people talk about is cost control
How it’s going to lower the cost of health care, that’s all they talk about. Why? because that’s
what people want to hear about because a majority of american care about health care costs.

The implication here is that the PUBLIC, BEING RATHER SIMPLE-MINDED, CAN BE
DISTRACTED from WHAT’s ACTUALLY in the LAW by talking about cost control, which
isn’t really something the law addresses. For Gruber, the assumption is that most Americans
can’t be bothered with what’s in the law.

It’s a fair bet that if Gruber KNEW the law WOULDN’T REDUCE PREMIUMS, so did the
administration. INSTEAD of talking about the TRADE-OFF BETWEEN COVERAGE
and COST, Candidate Obama SIMPLY ARGUED that his reforms would
LOWER COSTS, because that’s what the people wanted to hear.

The FALSEHOOD that Gruber’s comment reveals, though, is that obamacare will make health coverage cheaper. Among the President’s many claims when he was campaigning back in in 2008 was that his healthcare reform would REDUCE PREMIUMS by $2,500 for a FAMILY of FOUR. He repeated this again and again.

Anyone who understands how premiums are calculated knew at the time the assertion was
dubious. An average reduction of $2,500 for a family of four across the board is too neat and
tidy a figure to reflect the complicated actuarial realities of premium rate-setting.
But no matter: what we’ve actually seen in the nearly five years since the law passed is that
premiums have gone up considerably. By some estimates, the average rates in the individual
market have increased nearly 25 % compared to what they would have been without Obamacare,
and have increased measurably in 45 states.

It’s a fair bet that if Gruber knew the law wouldn’t reduce premiums, so did the Administration.
Instead of talking about the trade-off between coverage and cost, Candidate Obama simply
argued that his reforms would lower costs, because that’s what the people wanted to hear.

CENSORSHIP: MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” – PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
The GRUBER BLACKOUT and a PARTISAN MEDIA
Jonathan S. Tobin commentary.com 11.14.2014

Jonathan S. Tobin: It will be some time before we know for certain whether the fallout from
Jonathan Gruber’s EMBARRASSINGLY CANDID REVELATIONS ABOUT THE
DECEPTIONS at the HEART of OBAMACARE will have a substantive impact on its future.
The story has … provided us with a FASCINATING INSIGHT INTO ANOTHER KIND of
PRETENSE: the SUPPOSED OBJECTIVITY of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA WHICH
HAS, FOR the MOST PART, IGNORED THIS STORY. The virtual blackout of coverage
of Gruber’s remarks in the broadcast networks and major newspapers such as the New York
Times is on its face ASTONISHING. That so many of these outlets that generally fall under the
rubric of liberal mainstream media to have all come to the same conclusion that the Gruber
story wasn’t news speaks to the way that members of this herd all tend to walk in lockstep on
major political issues.

As Howard Kurtz, former media columnist at the Washington Post and CNN said from his
current perch at Fox: on what planet is this kind of embarrassing admission not news?
Maybe on that comet where the spaceship just landed. Gruber was well known to be a major
player on Obamacare and his statements about DECEIVING the Congressional Budget Office
and COUNTING ON the “STUPIDITY” of the American people would, in any context, be
considered newsworthy.
The only reason why editors would chose not to treat it as worthy of coverage would be THEIR DESIRE to HELP the ADMINISTRATION END the DEBATE about its signature legislative achievement.

Search the New York Times website and, as of Friday afternoon, there ISN’T a SINGLE
MENTION of the Gruber controversy save for one opinion article in its upshot section in
which the significance of the story is downplayed. The broadcast networks similarly shut down
the story over the course of the week with no references until the last day and then only in
passing.

For liberals in the mainstream media, news that works against their side is something that must
be contained if not simply THROWN DOWN an ORWELLIAN MEMORY HOLE.
While President Obama and the Democrats should be ashamed of their role in lying to the
American people about Obamacare, their CHEERLEADERS in the MAINSTREAM PRESS
should be just as EMBARRASSED. That apologies won’t be forthcoming from either tells us
all we need to know about the CONTEMPT FOR DEMOCRACY and TRUTH that is
NOW ROUTINE in these precincts.

CENSORSHIP: MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” – PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
The MINISTRY of SILENCE
by John Hayward Breitbart News November 15, 2014

John Hayward: It’s amazing to think we reached the end of the week with a HARD BLACKOUT
IMPOSED on the Gruber story by two major networks, ABC and NBC, while CBS gave it
brief coverage… even as Jake Tapper over at CNN was breaking a new Gruber video.
That’s the one

where Gruber talks about using LIES and SUBTERFUGE to QUIETLY
DESTROY the TAX DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE, because the public
stubbornly refused to part with it.
This effort by major networks to PROTECT OBAMA and his monstrous health care scheme
are SIMPLY CHILDISH; the other networks will be forced into discussing the story when it
comes up on talk shows, and the online buzz is already well past critical mass.
They’re only creating a secondary scandal for themselves, when they’re obliged to explain why
viewers of Fox News and CNN are so much better informed than their own viewers are.

The Gruber blackout is extreme, but this isn’t new “more than ever before, the OBAMA
YEARS HAVE TURNED the MAINSTREAM MEDIA INTO the
MINISTRY of SILENCE, HELPING OBAMA run his scandal protocols by obligingly
GIVING MINIMAL COVERAGE to damaging stories until they could be DISMISSED as
“old news.”

If memory serves correctly, it was NBC that managed to AVOID MENTIONING Operation
Fast and Furious until the day it had to explain to its viewers exactly why attorney general
Eric Holder had just made history by being HELD in CONTEMPT of CONGRESS.
By the way, have you seen a lot of follow-up stories about what was in those Fast and Furious
documents President Obama SHIELDED WITH BOGUS CLAIMS of EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE, released at last under pressure from a federal judge and a freedom of information
act lawsuit? this.”

Nothing in that document pile merited executive privilege. All of it, including correspondence
between holder and his wife, was simply politically damaging material that Obama didn’t want
the public to see while the fast and furious scandal was burning hot.

As far as i can tell, OUR ‘NEWS GATEKEEPERS’ have DISPLAYED ABSOLUTELY
ZERO ANGER, or even curiosity, about this. The most subtle form of media bias has always
been the STORIES NOT TOLD, the DETAILS NOT EXPLORED.

The context unrevealed Grubermania … exposes not only the LAYERS of FRAUD and
DECEPTION USED to PASS OBAMACARE and confirms President Obama himself was a
FULLY INVOLVED CONSPIRATOR, as if his “keep your plan if you like your plan” big
lie wasn’t proof enough

Grubermania also lays bare the wretched BAG of TRICKS USED to foist so much of this
bloated, inept centralized government on us. A media organization that made it to Friday
without reporting on Gruber may be fairly described as many things, but a “news” network is
not one of them.

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” – PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
The MAINSTREAM MEDIA:
SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, REPORT NO EVIL
by Jennifer Rubin Washington Post April 14, 2013

Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn Blog for The POST, offering
reported opinion from a CONSERVATIVE perspective The MAINSTREAM
MEDIA’S BLINDNESS TOWARD STORIES THAT DISADVANTAGE the LEFT is
HARDLY NEW. The MSM have a track record of avoiding for as long as possible (excuse
me, exercising “journalistic judgment”) stories like President Obama’s relationship with
Jeremiah Wright, operation fast and furious and the attack in Benghazi – all of which …
are bad for the left.

The controversies over Administration PERSONNEL from Chas Freeman to Van Jones again
were covered almost purely by conservative media, and sometimes the editorial
pages of mainstream outlets, eventually forcing grudging news coverage of legitimate stories
one can suspect this story-selection bias is INTENTIONAL (delinquencies invariably run in one direction), or one can allow that the lack of geographic, political and social diversity in newsrooms causes the MSM to miss such stories again and again.

Either way, the mainstream media swim in a STREAM of BIAS, bumping along until their course is altered by outside forces. But the mainstream media can no longer get away with the HIDE-the-STORY GAME for very long.

STORY SELECTION is the most INSIDIOUS form of BIAS and the most DISHONEST,
for it conceals, rather than illuminates, events for the public
with the advent of twitter, an even worse form of bias has emerged: mainstream journalists
TRYING to DEBUNK the coverage of conservative outlets of STORIES the MSM is
REFUSING to ACKNOWLEDGE.

CENSORSHIP:MEDIA “SILENCE of the PRIESTS” – PROTECTING BIG BROTHER
JOURNOLIST: A DISGRACE TO AMERICAN JOURNALISM
by Frank Ross breitbart.com 22 Jul 2010

In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story. But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

The burgeoning scandal has exposed the dark heart of the left wing of American journalism: no longer content to simply observe (if indeed they ever were), the Youngish Turks of the JournoList – green, smart-ass reporters and columnists like Ezra Klein and Dave Weigel who never should have been hired by major media outlets like the Washington Post in the first place — have overreached to a breathtaking extent, and in so doing have exposed the entire sham edifice: the MSM as a Potemkin Village of bitter, angry, ugly partisanship.

Caller editor Tucker Carlson gets at the enormity of what Klein et al. have wrought in this summing up, in which he appears to announce the end of the series of excerpts:
Anyone on Journolist who claims we quoted him “out of context” can reveal the context himself. Every member of Journolist received new threads from the group every day, most of which are likely still sitting in Gmail accounts all over Washington and New York. So feel free to try to prove your allegations, or else stop making them.
One final note: Editing this series has been something of a depressing experience for me. I’ve been in journalism my entire adult life, and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt. It’s harder to make that defense now. It will be easier when honest (and, yes, liberal) journalists denounce what happened on Journolist as wrong.

MEDIA BIAS: CHEER-LEADER COLLABORATION with the FASCIST AGENDA
The FIX was IN: JOURNOLIST E-MAILS REVEAL HOW the
LIBERAL MEDIA SHAPED the 2008 ELECTION
by Jonathan Strong The DAILY CALLER 07/25/2010

Jonathan Strong: In 2007, when Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein founded JOURNOLIST,
an online gathering place for several hundred liberal journalists, academics and political
activists, he imagined a discussion group that would connect young writers to top sources.
But in the heat of a bitter presidential campaign in 2008, the list’s discussions veered into
COLLUSION and COORDINATION at KEY POLITICAL MOMENTS, documents
revealed this week by the Daily Caller Show.

In a key episode, journolist members OPENLY PLOTTED to BURY ATTENTION on
then-candidate Barack Obama’s CONTROVERSIAL PASTOR, JEREMIAH WRIGHT.

The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, for instance, suggested an
effective tactic to distract from the issue would be to pick one of obama’s critics, “fred
barnes, karl rove, who cares – and CALL THEM RACISTS. Journolist’s discussions show an
influential left-wing faction of the media participating in a far more intentional sort of liberal
bias
“Journolist’s members included dozens of straight-news reporters from major news
organizations, including time, newsweek, the associated press, reuters, the washington post, the
new york times, politico, bloomberg, huffington post, pbs and a large npr affiliate in california.”

MEDIA BIAS: CHEER-LEADERS – COLLABORATION with the FASCIST AGENDA
MEDIA BIAS in the AGE of OBAMA
by Peter Wehner commentary.com January 30, 2013

Peter Wehner: “The SOFT and at times OBSEQUIOUS INTERVIEW Steve Kroft of
“60 MINUTES” DID with BARACK OBAMA (and HILLARY CLINTON) has RECEIVED a
lot of JUSTIFIABLE CRITICISM.

Mr. Kroft didn’t help himself when he told CNN’s Piers Morgan that one of the reasons the
President turns to Kroft so often is that he doesn’t use “gotcha questions” on Mr. Obama –
the kind that “60 Minutes” routinely used against President Bush and other republicans.

But Mr. Kroft, as embarrassing as his interview was, is merely symptomatic of a larger
phenomenon: the unprecedented swooning and cheerleading by the press for Barack Obama.
To say that the ELITE MEDIA has a LIBERAL BIAS is SIMILAR to DECLARING
that the SUN RISES in the EAST. BUT IT’S NEVER BEEN THIS TRANSPARENT,
the infatuation never this deep, the advocacy this passionate.

We are now seeing shows like “60 Minutes”– once a fearless giant in journalism – give
interviews that you would expect to see on Entertainment Tonight or state-run television.
Among the most significant political developments of our time is how many members of the
press have become partisans in ways we’ve never before seen.

Barack Obama is liberal, Ivy League, and a person of color. That is simply too powerful of a
combination for the elite media to resist. Obama touches the media’s erogenous zone in ways
that no other president, even JFK, ever has.
One gets to sense that journalists not only like Mr. Obama; they are in AWE of him. They want
to IMPRESS and PLEASE HIM and are AFRAID of BEING REBUKED BY HIM.
(it is very much how my 3rd grade son views his teacher).

More and more “objective” journalists seem to feel that liberalism is SYNONYMOUS WITH
SOCIAL JUSTICE and they want to be in the midst of the fight to advance it.
All of this helps explain why Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high in 2012, with
60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and
fairly. There is some rough justice, I suppose, in members of the press being the
ARCHITECTS IN THEIR OWN PROFESSION’S DESTRUCTION. It will be interesting
to see how much worse things will get, and what will finally emerge from the wreckage.
The MEDIA – “PRIESTS” our self-anointed who “know best”
college “seminaries” leading us to “utopian” spiritual “re-birth”

“What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t LIKE
something to saying that the government should FORBID it. When you go down that road,
DON’T EXPECT FREEDOM to SURVIVE VERY LONG.” – Thomas Sowell

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:
MOB CONFORMITY Squelching Debate

Fascism sought social unity with the “organic whole” an “organic” society is where
every class, every individual, is part of the whole it is the search for a “cause larger than ourselves. The quest for community is written in the human heart. The elevation of unity as the highest social value is a core tenet of fascism and all leftist ideologies.
Mussolini adopted the socialist symbol of the fasces to convey that his movement valued unity
over the liberal democratic fetish of debate and discussion. “The people united will never
be defeated!” – is a perfectly fascist refrain. Meaning and authenticity are found in collective
enterprises – of class, nation or race and the state is there to enforce that meaning on
everyone without the hindrance of debate” perhaps it is true that “the people united will never
be defeated”, but that does not mean the people are right
As Calvin Coolidge liked to say, “ONE with the LAW on his side is a MAJORITY”

Jonah Goldberg: We tend to forget that unity is, at best, morally neutral and often a source of
irrationality and Groupthink. Rampaging mobs are unified. The mafia is unified.
marauding barbarians bent on rape and pillage are unified. Meanwhile, civilized people have
disagreements, and small-d democrats have arguments. Classical liberalism is based on this
fundamental insight, which is why fascism was always anti-liberal.

Martin Heidegger, a noted philosopher, now told his students and colleagues that Germany’s
soul needed fresh air to breathe and national socialism would provide it. Heidegger argued
that FREEDOM of INQUIRY and FREE EXPRESSION were NEGATIVE and SELFISH
ideas. Instead he encouraged his students to live up to their obligations to the national
community in both “thought and deed”.

A hundred years before Hitler, the German-Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine, had declared:
“WHEREVER BOOKS are BURNED, HUMAN BEINGS are DESTINED TO BE
BURNED TOO”.

The very idea of a “community organizer” is to stir up a mob for some
political purpose. In her book “Demonic,“ Ann Coulter traces the history of violent
mob. Mob tactics implement their idea of Rousseau’s “general will’ – “the demon is a mob,
and the mob is demonic”

Everything else changes, but mobs are always the same. The mob is an irrational, childlike,
often violent organism that derives its energy from the group “collective”. Intoxicated by
messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations
MOBS create MAYHEM, CHAOS and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage
FOR THEIR LEADERS to CLIMB to POWER.
The mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; …
The very idea of a “COMMUNITY ORGANIZER” is to stir up a mob for some political
Purpose.
Historian Eric Durschmied: “As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild, there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader”

The twisting of truth, stirring of passions, demonizing of opponents, and relying on
propagandistic images in lieu of ideas. MANIPULATING the mob to GAIN POWER,
to appeal to the least informed, most weak-minded and perpetually alarmed members of the
public.
The overall guiding principle to understand is the ‘organizer’ of the group … the person
who will be responsible for creating the vision of the group is “GOD-LIKE” in Alinsky’s vision.

“You can never be happy and dress yourself solely in the glass of other men’s approval.”
– Nicholas Flood Davis
‘Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won’t have to worry about putting gas
inmy car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. you know. If I help [Obama], he’s
gonna help me” – citizen Peggy

Gustave Le Bon captured the mob psychological profile in his 1896 book, “The Crowd: a study
of the Popular Mind. All the characteristics of mob behavior were set forth by Le Bon.
The first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. “The Crowd” paints a disturbing
picture of the behavior of mobs.
Hitler and Mussolini used Le Bon’s book to learn HOW to INCITE a MOB
how to incite a mob: simplistic, extreme black-and-white thinking, fear of novelty,
inability to follow logical arguments, acceptance of contradictory ideas being them by
images, a religious worship of their leaders and a blind hatred of their opponents
Mobs love slogans because the “laws of logic have no action on crowds.”
Mobs, Le Bon says, “are not to be influenced by reasoning, and can only comprehend rough-
and-ready associations of ideas crowds can‘t grasp logic, only images.

“These image- like ideas,” Le Bon says, “are not connected by any logical bond of analogy or
succession”. Affirmation is the creation of a slogan, free of all reasoning and all proof.
“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few” – Adolf Hitler
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accomodate itself to the comprehension of the
least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. In consequence of these facts, all effective
propaganda must be LIMITED to a VERY FEW POINTS and must harp on these in
slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by
your slogan.

“The BROAD MASSES of a POPULATION are MORE AMENABLE to the APPEAL of
rhetoric than to any other force. The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their
intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous” – Hitler
“By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise” – Hitler

Four years of disastrous failure at home? No big deal. 47 million on food stamps, 23,000,000
unemployed, robbing Medicare to pay for Obamacare, death panels, trillions of dollars
wasted, gas doubled in four years, energy and food prices rising, entitlement spending out
of control, no budget in four years – NOT TO WORRY.

“Make the lie big, simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” – Hitler

The easiest way to restrict the ability of people to question a demagogue is to make it
dangerous to do so. Intimidation can take many forms. People can be thrown in jail, fined, or
sued for saying certain things.
(The “MOB”) might try to punish or harm anyone who disagrees. The ability to criticize is
overwhelmed by “conformity” under the mask of “correctness”. It significantly undermines the
quality of public argument, making it actively dangerous to criticize dominant views, cultures
and political groups.

It makes PUBLIC DEBATE a kind of COERCION. Democracy DETERIORIATES into
“MOB RULE”. Liberal pluralism opens up room for debate and internal conflict.
when demagogues succeed, their first move is almost always to restrict the power of
democratic government in favor of some kind of tyrannical, dictatorial and/or totalitarian
system. Dictators USE demagoguery and “democracy” to END democracy.
Minutemen project co-founder Jim Gilchrist tried to speak at Columbia University in 2006
during his remarks, a MOB of students stormed the stage and SABOTAGED the event.

CENSORSHIP: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
OUR EMERGING LIBERAL DYSTOPIA
by Allen Porter 05/21/2014

You know things are bad when even a hardcore liberal ideologue like bill maher can not only
see but publicly admit it. Maher tackled the trendy topic of the release of Donald Sterling’s
recorded remarks. Only instead of falling in line with the MAINSTREAM LIBERAL
MEDIA’s INEXORABLE MARCH FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in this as in all
Cases.

Instead of focusing on the “racist” dimension of sterling’s comments, that is – Maher
decided to buck the well-worn mantle of his ideology and, instead, focus on the real story
that is: instead of playing into the fabricated narrative predictably constructed by the
pervasively liberal media, Maher saw what is really at stake in a case like this – namely
FREE SPEECH, PRIVACY and OUR FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Terrifying reality is that we are on the verge of, and moving ever closer to, a LIBERAL
DYSTOPIA in which SPEECH is DIRECTLY POLICED, and THOUGHT thereby
INDIRECTLY POLICED … one in which principles of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
replace moral standards as the ultimate criteria of normative evaluation … one in which the
CHILLING EFFECTS ON DISCOURSE has become a deep freeze. Maher himself made the
perfect historical analogy during the May 9 show, which is somewhat ironic:
Bill Maher: WHO WANTS TO LIVE in a WORLD WHERE THE ONLY PLACE YOU
CAN SPEAK YOUR MIND IS IN YOUR HEAD?
Bill Maher: That’s what east germany was like. that’s why we fought the cold war, remember?
Bill Maher: so we’d never have to live in some awful limbo where you never knew who, even
among your friends, was an informer. and now we’re doing it to ourselves.

Donald Sterling is being publicly and EVEN RITUALLY SACRIFICED UPON the ALTAR
of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by the speech police before our very eyes today.
Why is what he SAID IN PRIVATE a matter of PUBLIC CONCERN – why does it constitute
legitimate “NEWS”?
First of all, he may be a public figure, but HE’S NOT a PUBLIC POLITICAL FIGURE like
the President; but secondly, and much more importantly, he WASN’T SPEAKING “IN THE
PUBLIC SQUARE” when he made those comments. They were made in the PRIVACY OF
HIS HOME DURING a PRIVATE CONVERSATION.

The truth is that there IS NO LEGITIMATE PUBLIC INTEREST in Donald Sterling’s
private comments. There is an illegitimate one, however, as made abundantly clear by the liberal
media’s RELENTLESS WITCH HUNT FOR PEOPLE WHO THINK WRONG THINGS
(racists, sexists, homophobes, etc.) … it is to extend and reinforce the policing of speech, and
ULTIMATELY THOUGHT according to the values of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

When I hear System of a Down’s “Prison Song” on the radio these days, I don’t think of our
massive, for-profit system of private prisons. I think of the CULTURAL, INTELLECTUAL,
and PSYCHOLOGICAL PRISON STATE being constructed by the CONSTANT
POLICING of LANGUAGE and DISCOURSE by the media and academic establishments.

To see how deep the problem goes, and how far its potential ramifications extend, you need only
consider a recent phenomenon another liberal fabrication out of thin or rather hot air – namely,
so-called “MICROAGGRESSIONS”.

It basically refers to the supposed expression of an intolerance or prejudice (such as racism) in a non-physical act (such as communication) which does not overtly express or display that
intolerance or prejudice. In this Fantasy World, we all should police each other’s speech.
After all, don’t you want to enlighten and elevate your racist or homophobic friend?
And you don’t want to be complicit in his racism by passing over it in silence, do you?

Unfortunately for such deluded liberals, THEIR VISION LEADS TO a DYSTOPIA IN
PRACTICE, NOT the UTOPIA THEY IMAGINE IN THEORY.
One in which it is our ethical duty to turn the powerful lens of microanalysis upon our own
everyday interpersonal interactions, ferreting out and triumphantly exposing any and all possible
expressions of prejudices, even unconscious ones.

That is the much more troubling complicity – those who stand idly and silently by while our
rights of free speech are eroded, while the chill on discourse becomes a hard freeze, which
once interiorized will freeze free thought. Make no mistake: winter is coming applied
consistently, this normative approach to linguistic communication would result in the breakdown
of the very activity.

If you look closely enough, any statement can be interpreted to mean almost anything.
The result of being confronted with such a multitude of possibilities is paralysis – or for the
liberal speech Nazi, an opportunity to exploit. If you look closely enough at most ordinary,
everyday conversations, the possibilities for attributing “micro-aggressions” are literally
endless. If we were to treat our ordinary, everyday interactions like this – always applying the
high-powered analytic microscope that judgmentally measures political (in)correctness —
we really would freeze discourse, we really would create an INTELLECTUALLY FASCIST
CULTURE in which the only statements you are allowed to speak and think are those
LICENSED BY the AUTHORITY.

We would have to give up humor and authentic, unmediated expression – all our words and
thoughts would have to be much more guarded, screened by the superego of self-censorship
before being let loose. That’s the world that we are drifting into, carried narcotically by the
current of contemporary liberal culture and media. That’s a world not even Bill Maher wants to
live in, yet it’s one we creep further into every day, it’s time for liberals to wake up with Bill
Maher, and STOP THIS MAD MARCH BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

CENSORSHIP: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
AMID OUTCRY, NEWS-PRESS is ADAMANT on
PROVOCATIVE TERM FOR IMMIGRANTS
Despite protests, the Santa Barbara News-Press says it will continue using provocative term for immigrants
by Amanda Covarrubias L.A. Times January 19, 2015

A few decades ago, it wasn’t unusual for American newspapers to refer to PEOPLE LIVING in
the United States WITHOUT LEGAL PERMISSION as “ILLEGAL ALIENS,” or even
“illegals”. Those terms were criticized as offensive and eventually gave way to “ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANT,” a label that itself was jettisoned by most outlets two years ago, when the
Associated Press banned the term from its stylebook in favor of language that more precisely
describes a person’s immigration status that approach – adopted by the times in 2013 – seemed to
have taken root and defused the criticism in most places but the local newspaper’s decision to
call such immigrants “illegals” has turned idyllic Santa Barbara into an unlikely flashpoint in the
nation’s immigration battles.

The News-Press ran the headline”illegals line up for driver’s licenses”. On Jan. 3, prompting
protests and a message painted in red on the wall of the newspaper’s offices the paper used the
term again last Friday in another front page story: “driving legal opens door to illegals’ past”

News-Press officials have stuck by their choice of language, saying that describing someone
living in the country illegally as an “illegal” is accurate, and compared the vandalism on their
offices to the deadly attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris.
“We will NOT GIVE IN to the THUGS who are attempting to USE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS as a TOOL of CENSORSHIP and a weapon to shut down this newspaper,” News-Press co-publisher Arthur von Wiesenberger wrote on the website of the minuteman project, which opposes illegal immigration.

But community groups have DENOUNCED the NEWSPAPER, calling for an advertising
Boycott. They have a RACIST PERSPECTIVE and they don’t seem very apologetic about it,”
said Savanah Maya, a Santa Barbara City College student and member of people organizing for
the defense and equal rights of Santa Barbara youth. Using the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as
a backdrop for their positions framed as human rights and freedom of speech issues, one side
argued that the headline was racist and the other argued that it was an accurate description of
immigrants applying for driver’s licenses without having to prove citizenship

“I respect their right to free speech,” said city councilwoman Cathy Murillo, who attended the
pro-immigrant rally, “but they don’t have to be hateful. It’s like the ‘n-word’ for blacks.”
They should be allowed to decide the type of language they want to use,” said Robin
Hvidston, Executive Director of We the People Rising. They have a right to use that word.
where do you stop?”

He said that the federal government uses the word online and on official documents, and that a
vast majority of people agree that it’s an appropriate term. It accurately describes the
800-pound gorilla in this whole story,” katich said. “people are in this country illegally .…
I think that’s why this has tapped a national nerve. Abigail Salazar, 20, a student at UC Santa
Barbara who said her mother was deported to mexico nearly five years ago after being in the
United States without legal permission. “We’re tired of immigrants being portrayed as
criminals,” Maya said. “People are not illegal.”

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP – POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE

“Decades of dumbed-down education no doubt have something to do with this, but there is
more to it than that. Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, but is
replaced to a great extent by ideological indoctrination. Moreover, it is largely indoctrination
based on the same set of underlying and unexamined assumptions among teachers and
institutions” – Thomas Sowell

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP – POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
At COLUMBIA, STUDENTS ATTACK MINUTEMAN
by Eliana Johnson New York Sun October 5, 2006

Eliana Johnson: The Minutemen were founded in 2004 by Gilchrist to keep illegal
immigrants out of america by alerting law enforcement officials when they attempt to cross
the border. Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, were in the process of giving a speech at the
invitation of the Columbia College Republicans. Pandemonium ensued at Columbia,
protest that brewed all week.

On campus, the Republicans’ flyers advertising the event were DEFACED and TORN DOWN.
An hour before Stewart and Gilchrist took the stage, rowdy protests began outside the auditorium
on Broadway, where activists chanted, “hey, hey, ho, ho, the Minutemen have got to go!”
Students stormed the stage at Columbia’s Roone Auditorium, knocking over chairs and tables
and ATTACKING GILCHRIST.
They were escorted off the stage unharmed and exited the auditorium by a back door.
They interrupted Stewart, who is African-American, when he referred to the declaration of
independence’s self-evident truth that “all men are created equal”.
The students jumped the stage, pumping their fists, chanting victoriously, “si se pudo, si se
pudo,” spanish for “yes we could!” A student’s demand that Stewart speak in Spanish elicited
thundering applause and brought the protesters to their feet.

Masked protestors wearing military style uniforms glare at citizens to assure them they have
nothing to fear from the hordes of illegals descending onto their small town.
HAVING WREAKED HAVOC ONSTAGE, the STUDENTS UNROLLED a BANNER that
read, in both Arabic and English, “no one is ever illegal”. The protesters remained standing,
turned their backs on Stewart for the remainder of his remarks, and DROWNED HIM OUT by
chanting, “wrap it up, wrap it up!” protestors called stewart a racist, a sellout and a black
white supremacist.

These are racist individuals heading a project that terrorizes immigrants on the U.S.-Mexican
Border. Ryan Fukumori, a Columbia junior who took part in the protest, told the New York Sun.
They have no right to be able to speak here. Stewart appeared unfazed by their behavior –
he simply smiled and bellowed, “No wonder you don’t know what you’re talking about”.

The college republicans expressed their concern about the lack of free speech for opposing
viewpoints on the Columbia campus in the wake of the evening’s events. The student protesters
rush to vindicate themselves with monikers like ‘liberal’ and ‘open-minded‘.
But their actions, their attempt to condemn the minutemen without even hearing what they
have to say, speak otherwise,” the president of the Columbia College Republicans, Chris
Kulawik, said.

“We’ve often FEARED that there’s NOT FREEDOM OF SPEECH at Columbia for more right-wing views – and that was PROVEN tonight”, said Executive Director of the Columbia College Republicans, Lauren Steinberg.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad was allowed to speak at Columbia. In one of his speeches, labeled as “good tidings,” Ahmadinejad expects the disappearance of Israel, the U.S. and Britain, “the way the pharaohs disappeared.” “DEATH TO AMERICA … death to israel”
“anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic Nation’s fury”.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “AMERICA’S STRAW-LIKE STRENGTH and SATANIC RULE OVER the WORLD is ABOUT to be ANNIHILATED”
Politically correctness mob conformity squelches debate.
AMERICAN CITIZENS VOICING their opinions about immigration CENSORED,
GENOCIDAL ANTI-SEMITE FOREIGN LEADER ALLOWED to SPEAK ???

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
October 22, 2006 – Two Tucson men were arrested last night after throwing custard cream pies at author Ann Coulter during her speech at the University of Arizona. Portions of the pies
connected with the conservative commentator’s face and shoulder the police report quotes
smith saying that he and Wolff were “THROWING the PIES AT HER IDEAS NOT at HER”
Smith, a UA student, and Wolff were charged with criminal damage, a felony, and
misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, vandalism, and assault without injury.

Kalamazoo, Mich. (2005) commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut
short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad
dressing. “Stop the bigotry!” the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid during the
program at Western Michigan University.
The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was
struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

Democrat House Candidate Clay Aiken Wants to PUNCH ANN COULTER in the FACE
Democrat and “American Idol” runner-up Clay Aiken is running to unseat Rep. Renee Ellmers
in North Carolina’s 2nd congressional district and has also scrubbed his Twitter account of his
public desire to punch conservative columnist Ann Coulter in the face.
“Anyone else watching Piers Morgan want to punch Ann Coulter in the face,”
Aiken wrote in a tweet in October of 2012

COLLEGE ENSORSHIP: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
CAMPUS LEFTISTS DON’T BELIEVE in FREE SPEECH
Conservative speakers now have bodyguards when they visit universities.
by David Horowitz April 18, 2009
David Horowitz: “I arrived in Austin, Texas, one evening recently to give a speech about
academic freedom at the university there. Entering the hall where I was to give my speech,
I was greeted – if that’s the word – by a raucous protest organized by a professor and self-styled
bolshevik, Dana Cloud forty protesters hoisted placards high in the air and robotically chanted
“down with horowitz,” “racist go home,” and “no more witch-hunts”

Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with
arrest if they continued on this course. (the threat was administered very carefully, with three
formal warnings before any action could be taken) this quieted the crowd enough that I could
begin my talk, which proceeded without further serious incident. She presented herself as a
devoted teacher and mother who was obviously harmless.

Then she accused me of being a McCarthyite MENACE DISREGARDING the FACTS I had
laid out in my talk – that I have PUBLICLY DEFENDED the right of University of Colorado’s
radical professor Ward Churchill to HOLD REPREHENSIBLE VIEWS and NOT BE FIRED
FOR THEM, and that I supported the leftist dean of the Law School at UC Irvine when his
appointment was withdrawn for political reasons – SHE ACCUSED ME of whipping up a
WITCH-HUNTING HYSTERIA that made her and her faculty comrades feel threatened.”

When Ms. Cloud finished, I pointed out that ORGANIZING MOBS to SCREAM EPITHETS
at invited speakers fit the category of “McCarthyite” a lot more snugly than my support for a
pluralism of views in university classrooms. I gestured toward the armed officers in the room –
the University had assigned six or seven to keep the peace – and introduced MY OWN
BODYGUARD, who regularly accompanies other conservative speakers when they visit
Universities. In the past, I felt uncomfortable about taking protection to a college campus
until a SERIES of PHYSICAL ATTACKS at UNIVERSITIES persuaded me that
SUCH PRECAUTIONS were NECESSARY.

When I spoke at the University of Texas two years ago, Ms. Cloud and her disciples had to be
removed by the police in order for the talk to proceed. I don’t know of a single leftist speaker
among the thousands who visit campuses every term who has been obstructed or attacked by
conservative students, who are too decent and too tolerant to do that. The entire evening in
Texas reminded me of the late Orianna Fallaci’s observation that what we are facing in the
post-9/11 world is not a “clash of civilizations,” but a clash of
CIVILIZATION vs BARBARISM

David Horowitz is the author of “One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at
America’s Top Colleges Are Indoctrinating Students and Undermining Our Democracy”

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
MOB RULE on COLLEGE CAMPUSES
by Cinnamon Stillwell www.sfgate.com November 29, 2006

America’s college campuses, once thought to be BASTIONS of FREE SPEECH, have
become INCREASINGLY INTOLERANT toward the practice visiting speakers WHOSE
VIEWS DO NOT CONFORM to the prevailing left-leaning POLITICAL MIND-SET on
most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon while
academia has its own crimes to atone for, it’s the STUDENTS who have BECOME the
BULLIES. As of late a disturbing number seem to feel that theirs is an inviolate world to which
no one of differing opinion need apply. As a result, everything from pie throwing to
DISRUPTING SPEECHES to ATTACKS ON SPEAKERS has become COMMONPLACE.

Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such il-liberal treatment at San Francisco
State University, former liberal activist-author turned conservative activist-author David
Horowitz had HIS ENTIRE SPEECH SHOUTED DOWN by a group of protesters
composed primarily of students and other members of the spartacus youth club, a trotskyist
organization. The group stood in the back of the room shouting slogans and comments at every
turn. Even this was not enough to warrant their removal, so Horowitz and his audience, which
included me, simply had to suffer through the experience. Horowitz, whose speech centered on
his academic bill of rights, took on his critics and attempted to engage them in dialogue, with
varying degrees of success but those who actually came to hear him speak, whether out of
sympathy for his views or out of a desire to tackle them intellectually, were unable to do so fully
because of the actions of a few bullies.

It is not only conservative speakers who are at RISK of HAVING THEIR FREE SPEECH
RIGHTS TRAMPLED upon on American college campuses. Those who DARE CRITICIZE
RADICAL ISLAM in ANY WAY, shape or form tend to suffer the same fate.

In 2004, U.C. Berkeley became the locus for BULLYING BEHAVIOR during a speech by
ISLAM SCHOLAR Daniel Pipes. I was witness to the spectacle, one I’ll never forget.
Members of the Muslim Student Association and other protesters formed a disruptive group in
the audience, SHOUTING, JEERING and CHANTING CONTINUALLY.

They booed loudly throughout and called Pipes everything from “RACIST” and “ZIONIST”
(which in their minds is an insult) to “RACIST JEW” – all because Pipes had the audacity to
propose that moderate Muslims distance themselves from extremist elements in their
midst; … that in tackling terrorism authorities take into account the preponderance of Muslim
perpetrators and that Israel has a right to exist peacefully among its neighbors.

This was hardly the first time that U.C. berkeley students had espoused hostility toward
speakers with “unpopular” views or those hailing from “unpopular” countries such as Israel
nonetheless, it was a wake-up call for many in the audience who had not yet experienced
first-hand the INTIMIDATION of the MOB.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: Political Correctness – MOB Conformity SQUELCHING DEBATE JEWISH STUDENT SUES UC BERKELEY OVER ASSAULT BY PALESTINE SUPPORTER Berkeleyside.com March 7, 2011
A former Jewish student at UC Berkeley has filed a lawsuit against the university contending it violated her civil rights when it did not protect her against attacks from a pro-Palestinian student. Jessica Felber filed the lawsuit in the northern district court on march 4, almost one year to the day Husam Zakharia, the head of Berkeley’s students for Justice in Palestine, allegedly rammed her with a shopping cart filled with toys, according to the suit.

Felber, then 20, was a member of the pro-Israel Tikvah group, which had often clashed on
campus with Students for Justice in Palestine. Felber was holding a sign stating “Israel wants
Peace,” on March 5, 2010 as part of an event for Israel Peace Week. The rally had been called
to counteract rallies held on behalf of Israel Apartheid Week.

The lawsuit contends that the University of California FINANCIALLYSUPPORTED
STUDENTS FOR Justice in Palestine and an affiliate group, the Muslim Student Association,
but TOLERATED ITS ATTACKS on Jewish students expressing support for Israel.
SJP and Zakharia have been involved in other incidents on campus to INCITE VIOLENCE
AGAINST and INTIMIDATE Jewish and other students,” states the lawsuit.
Defendants knew of this HISTORY of INCITMENT and INTIMIDATION YET TOOK NO
REASONABLE STEP to ADEQUATELY CONTROL Zakharia or other student members of
the SPJ. The complaint also contends that PHYSICAL INTIMIDATION and VIOLENCE
were frequently employed as a tactic by SJP and other campus groups in an effort to
SILENCE STUDENTS on campus who support Israel. Berkeley is the founding space of the
free speech movement,” said Joel Siegel, the San Francisco attorney for Felber.
IT’s ABOUT FREE SPEECH. PEOPLE SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED to STIFLE
SPEECH THROUGH ACTIONS WHICH ENDANGER STUDENTS. THAT’s WHAT’s
HAPPENING.

American Muslims for Palestine called for an “international day of action for palestine”
on Sept 23, 2014. Sep 29, 2014 at UC Berkeley, Students for Justice in Palestine members and
supporters are chanting “from the river to the sea, palestine will be free,” “we support the
intifada!” … “long live the intifada!”
SJP at UCLA and on campuses across the country is a HATE GROUP that TARGETS JEWS and their SUPPORTERS, SPREADS LIES ABOUT the JEWISH STATE and CALLS FOR ITS DESTRUCTION – an ACT of GENOCIDE.

Does SJP-UCLA support terror? It supports the terrorist governments of the West Bank and
Gaza whose EXPLICIT GOAL is the DESTRUCTION of the JEWISH STATE and whose
Terrorist armies target Jewish civilians solely because they are Jews.
Is SJP an organization that fights for “Justice in Palestine”? hardly. the oppression of
palestinians by the corrupt, terrorist governments of the West Bank and Gaza, is never a subject
of SJP protests and propaganda. Only the Jews.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP:POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
DEPAUL UNIVERSITY JEWISH STUDENTS INTIMIDATED ON CAMPUS
by Paul Miller May 21, 2014

JEWISH STUDENTS on the Depaul University Lincoln Park campus who have been
INTIMIDATED and DON’T FEEL SAFE on campus since the Anti-Israel BDS campaign
began Feb 24, 2012 short lived .
Disruption of the Nonie Darwish talk by the Students for Justice in Palestine at UNM on Feb.
23. The talk was put on by the Israel Alliance notice that the disruption began when Darwish
said that Islam didn’t have right to force itself on her. The SJP students are all about
FORCING THEMSELVES ON OTHERS and doing harm. Recently, reformers from
within the Arab world itself have been on the receiving end of such treatment Arab American
activist and author Nonie darwish was to speak at Brown University, when the event was
canceled because her views were DEEMED “TOO CONTROVERSIAL” by members of the
Muslim Students’ Association.

Given that Darwish is the author of the recently released book, “Now They Call Me Infidel:
Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror”. Such claims are
hardly unpredictable.Like most Arab reformers, Darwish must overcome the resistance within
her own community, AIDED and ABETTED by MISGUIDED liberals SYMPATHIZERS.

In order to get her message across, Darwish’s pro-Israel views led to an invitation from the
campus Jewish group Hillel to speak at Brown University. Unfortunately, the very same
organization later backed out, fearing that their relationship with the Muslim Students’
Association would be harmed by the experience. But if such a relationship is based on
MUTUALLY ASSURED CENSORSHIP, then it’s hardly worth preserving. in the end, all of
Brown’s students missed out on what would undoubtedly have been a thought-provoking
experience.

It’s a sad state of affairs indeed when the figures of moderation and reform that many who call themselves liberal or progressive should in theory support are instead shunned in the name of political correctness. For how can one expect to promote progress while helping to STIFLE the VOICES at its heart?
People such as Shoebat and Darwish, who LITERALLY RISK THEIR LIVES to CALL
ATTENTION to a GRAVE THREAT to ALL OUR RIGHTS, are the TRUE FREEDOM
FIGHTERS of OUR DAY. But far too many accord that label to those who choose to effect
political change by blowing themselves up in a crowd of civilians or by randomly lobbing
rockets into homes and schools or by promoting hatred of other religions by excusing such
behavior and simultaneously helping to suppress reformers, liberal student groups are in fact
aiding the very totalitarian forces they claim to oppose.

They have in effect become part of the problem, not part of the solution. It would be nice if we
could look to our colleges and universities as the bearers of progress, but at this rate it seems an
unlikely prospect. If we are to truly promote an atmosphere of intellectual openness, respectful
political debate and the free flow of ideas on campus, then we must stem the tide of
THUGGERY, BULLYING and INTOLERANCE that threatens to subsume future
generations.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: POLITICAL CORRECTNESS – MOB CONFORMITY SQUELCHING DEBATE
‘CAMPUS CLIMATE’ COMMITTEES PREACH TOLERANCE WHILE
ATTACKING FREE SPEECH by CONSERVATIVES
Tolerance? How about tolerating the First Amendment?
by Ron Meyer February 28, 2012

The tolerance and inclusiveness college campuses brag so much about aren’t being extended to
Conservative students, former Young America’s Foundation intern, and current UCLA student,
Samantha Schutte explains: administrators and student leaders love to throw around
BUZZWORDS LIKE ‘DIVERSITY’, ‘UNITY’ and ‘INCLUSIVITY’.

Many college campuses have entire advisory committees, or even chancellors, whose sole
purpose is to promote a positive “campus climate.” The stated goal is to maintain civility and
mutual respect. But these committees have the unrealistic notion that every group on a campus
can get along and never fight

I have news for them: the Students for Justice in Palestine and pro-Israel students aren’t going to
hold hands and skip through the quad together anytime soon. Conservatives and liberals are
going to debate. Students are going to DEBATE IDEAS. That’s the nature of a
FREE SOCIETY.

At UCLA, it has been proposed that questions be added to funding applications to determine if
the petitioning group has reached out to groups who may be affected by their event
Essentially, if you THINK someone or some group MIGHT BE OFFENDED by a speaker you
host or another aspect of your event, they want to see that you have contacted them ahead of time
to give them fair warning and “discuss your goals for the event.”
Student government claims that the answers to these questions would not affect funding
allocations, but because the goals of an event are one of the main funding criteria, this is clearly
impossible to prevent. It is ridiculous to ask student groups to clear their events with the other
side. Every group should be able to openly and aggressively champion their beliefs words or
actions can ALWAYS BE PERCEIVED as OFFENSIVE by SOMEONE and there is no way
to avoid this, so many colleges are exploring the use of restorative justice to resolve campus
climate issues.

Universities claim to protect the first amendment rights of students, but subject them to speech
codes and confine them to “FREE SPEECH ZONES”. UCLA has Meyerhoff Park, Berkley
has a free speech café, etc. administrations claim that these areas are an affirmation of the first
amendment, BUT the FACT that THESE AREAS EXIST at ALL MEANS that FREE
SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES is BEING RESTRICTED.
The inclusivity and equal opportunities you hear about don’t seem to apply to conservatives.
If a conservative speaks out about radical islam, affirmative action, or other controversial issues,
these groups CALL IT RACISM or HATE SPEECH.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: EDUCATIONAL INDOCTRINATION & INTIMIDATION
[CONFORMITY CLOSING MINDS]
POLITICALLY CORRECT DEATH THREATS at GEORGIA TECH
by Peter Collier FrontPageMagazine.com March 21, 2007

Peter Collier co-authored seven books with David Horowitz, including Destructive Generation:Second
Thoughts About the ‘60s and biographies on the Fords, Rockefellers, and Kennedys

This past February, while other Georgia Tech students were exchanging flirtatious Valentine’s
Day notes, RUTH MALHOTRA received an anonymous letter whose message was anything
but amorous:
This Valentine’s Day, you cannot attack gay marriage. It is about love and you are about hate.
This Valentine’s Day, you cannot condemn a woman’s choice. It is about love and you are about hate.
This Valentine’ Day, you cannot protest the Vagina Monologues. It is about love and you are about hate.
No, this Valentine’s Day, YOU WILL BE RAPED. SEX IS ABOUT LOVE AND THROUGH IT YOU WILL EXPERIENCE HATE. I CANNOT WAIT.

To find a rape threat in her mailbox was almost a relief to Malhotra after months of receiving
death threats (one of the most charitable, from a fellow student, said, “I really want to
CHOKE you, BITCH”) As with all the other letters, she turned the vicious valentine over to
the Campus Police, which added it to the “ongoing investigation” that so far has yielded
nothing.

Malhotra can’t help believing that a university that claims to be more committed to “civility”
than any other school in the country and routinely initiates proceedings against students who
commit such offenses as smoking in the dorms would certainly have immediately sprung
heroically into action if she had been a black, hispanic, lesbian, or almost any other woman
receiving such messages but she is a conservative activist and almost by definition a thorn in
georgia tech’s side so the school’s administration, beginning with President Wayne Clough and
working downward to various assistant deans, has sat on its hands while Malhotra endures
what her Attorney David French calls “a PERSECUTION.”

Presently a graduate student in international affairs, Malhotra has had a college career that
resembles a sort of Pilgrim’s Progress through what the campus sensitivity experts like to call
“HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT”

A committed Christian, she was personally conservative but not particularly political when
she arrived at tech in 2002. In the perfervid post 9/11 atmosphere on campus, she found herself
gradually pulled into the orbit of the college republicans and soon galvanized not only by
questions of war and peace but also by issues such as race preferences and abortion.

And on all of these issues, she found, CONSERVATIVE STUDENTS FACED a TILTED
PLAYING FIELD. She recalls: “the more I got involved, the more I saw the OBSTACLES
conservative students face in EXPRESSING THEMSELVES. The administration put so many
more CHALLENGES IN OUR WAY.

We didn’t have the same resources and opportunities that leftist students had. I EXPECTED
an OPEN FORUM FOR IDEAS, BUT the administration was CLEARLY BIASED.
Already a controversial figure on campus, Malhotra, now chief plaintiff in the suit filed with
fellow student leader Orit Sklar, BECAME PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE for the Georgia
Tech left.

An ad hoc group called CLAM (conservatives and liberals against Malhotra) FORMED ON
CAMPUS with the SOLE RAISON D’ETRE of HARASSING HER. An anti-malhotra
website appeared calling her “CHRISTO-FASCIST” and showing an unflattering shot of her
face stippled with DIGITIZED SWASTIKAS. Flyers were posted throughout the campus
denouncing her as a “TWINKIE“- an asian who was “yellow on the outside and white on the
inside. The charge of ETHNIC TREASON was almost laughable: Malhotra’s Indian descent
had given her a dark complexion and she wasn’t asian according to the racial taxonomy
propounded by campus victim groups. Although she knew that if she had been on the left
she would have been accorded “PROTECTED STATUS” as a presumptive “MINORITY”.

Far more disturbing that the mundane slanders she faced as she completed her course work for
her degree were the messages that now began to appear on her campus email. One writer
THREATENED to THROW ACID IN HER FACE. At the upcoming graduations ceremonies,
THREATS against Malhotra reached a crescendo. “So YOUR NOT DEAD YET Ruth
Malhotra,” one of them began with uncertain grammar but UNMISTAKABLE ENMITY.
“BUT YOU WILL BE SOON.” Another one WARNED, “don’t even try to protest national
coming out day. If you do, you will regret it, and don’t say you were not warned. You are
HATED on this campus and YOU SHOULD FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE”.

Yet another said, “for every time a student is called nigger on campus – YOU WILL RECEIVE
A BULLET to the HEAD”.

Malhotra is unable to forget the KAFKA-esque situation: “it is IRONIC that the Georgia Tech
ADMINISTRATION WOULD ENFORCE UNLAWFUL SPEECH POLICIES THAT
SILENCE DISAGREEMENT WITH ITS PREFERRED POLITICAL AGENDA, but
remains absolutely SILENT in the face of THREATS ON A STUDENT’s SAFETY.
David French, her lawyer in this case and a longtime litigator in matters of free speech and
student rights, is also STUNNED by what has happened to malhotra:
“I’ve never seen anything quite like this. The tolerant left at Georgia Tech seems to have decided that Ruth MUST BE DESTROYED to PROTECT `TOLERANCE’.
“No opinion is worth burning your neighbor for” – Voltaire

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: EDUCATIONAL INDOCTRINATION & INTIMIDATION
[CONFORMITY CLOSING MINDS]
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS on CAMPUS CHILLS DEBATE
By Cathy Young November, 2012

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason Magazine and Real Clear Politics

George Carlin’s “seven words you can never say on television” – and Carlin’s warning to us
all about HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THREATENED FREE SPEECH.
Carlin: “It’s left-wing paternalism. years ago, we all got to expect that censorship would come
from the right wing wing, but to expect it from the left wing – from the politically correct people
on the campuses – that caught me by surprise”.
It shouldn’t have caught him by surprise. Liberals preach tolerance like it’s their job, but they’re
ironically a huge reason for the existence of zero-tolerance policies and we’re not just talking
sexual harassment.
We’re talking anything that might offend anyone for any reason
At the Indiana University/Purdue University campus, a janitor was in jeopardy of losing his
job, because he was reading a book about how notre dame kept the kkk out of south bend.

The title of the book was “NOTRE DAME VERSUS the KKK” – and his co-workers saw the
title and were offended by it. Offended by the BOOK COVER, NOT the CONTENT of the
book. It wasn’t until the ACLU jumped to his defense that the college administrators finally
decided that he wasn‘t, in fact, trying to “disrespect the environment”.

I happened to be reading greg lukianoff’s book, “unlearning liberty: campus censorship and
the end of American debate,” which explains well how such a thought-stifling mindset would
take hold. The focus of “unlearning liberty” is the push to censor speech and even thought in the
name of political correctness – “sensitivity” to “oppressed” groups defined by race, ethnicity,
religion, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics.

While these groups have suffered real and egregious injustice, lukianoff’s well-documented
narrative leaves no doubt that the CURE offered by many U.S. colleges is WORSE than the
DISEASE. Many schools’ harassment codes BAN not only INSULTS and THREATS, but
STEREOTYPING and “NEGATIVE comments or JOKES” related to race, gender, disability,
and other categories or any statement PERCEIVED as OFFENSIVE. SOME EVEN TARGET
INCORRECT GENDER-BASED “PERCEPTION” (shades of Orwellian “crimethink”).
A Tufts University student newspaper was sanctioned for “racial harassment” for publishing an
ad that offered examples of intolerance and misogyny in Islam to counter the religion’s
positive portrayal during the school’s Islamic Awareness Week.

Campus orientations designed to inculcate correct beliefs. A mandatory program at the
University of Delaware (eventually suspended due to FIRE’s efforts) herded students into
workshops that immersed them in extreme versions of racial, ethnic and gender stereotypes.

In another exercise, students had to line up on opposite sides according to their position on social
issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage – with no middle ground allowed – to PUBLICLY
SHAME THE HERETICS. One unacceptable viewpoint was that eating disorders are caused
by individual mental problems rather than society. The effect of this enforced sensitivity,
Lukianoff asserts, is NOT to PROMOTE DISCUSSION of difficult issues, but to STIFLE IT.
Many observers report that DEBATE in CLASSROOMS has all but DISAPPEARED.
Students are TOO AFRAID to OFFEND others by expressing or challenging an opinion
It’s time to speak out for SPEECH. If we accept the dictum that an opinion can only be tolerated
if it does not “oppress” (read: offend) anybody, pretty soon this dictum will be the only
opinion allowed to exist.

College Censorship: SPEECH CODES – INDOCTRINATION & INTIMIDATION
[UNLEARNING LIBERTY]
UNIVERSITY of MICHIGAN SPENDS $16,000 TELLING STUDENTS
NOT TO SAY OFFENSIVE WORDS, LIKE ‘CRAZY’
Everything is offensive to someone, so shut up! Says U-M
by Robby Soave Feb. 9, 2015

Robby Soave: On their way to class each day, students at the University of Michigan encounter
banners and posters warning them against using non-inclusive language like “that’s so gay” or
“retarded”. The full-list of inappropriate phrases includes less obviously offensive things, like
“I want to die” and “that test raped me”; it also includes downright inoffensive words like
“crazy” and “insane”.

It gets worse. The effort previously included a clothesline of hurt feelings where students were
asked to respond to the prompt “would say this…?” with “if you knew that …” and then give an
explanation. A sampling, courtesy the inclusive language campaign’sfacebook page:
Would say you this…? “we/i just need to work the kinks out.” if you knew that… “this
sentiment is rooted in racism – kinky hair is beautiful. natural hair is powerful. hair is political
and so is “the personal.””
these sentiments aren’t really objectively offensive at all – they are merely offensive to someone
for reasons no other person could know up front.

By this low standard of offended-ness, absolutely every expression in the english language
would be objectionable to somebody, somewhere. Aside from the obvious problem of
teaching students that they should be walking on eggshells all the time, isn’t conflating
actually racist statements with the above a tad bit, um, offensive?

The campaign asks students to pledge not to say offensive things to each other.
It’s reminiscent of the University of California-Davis “WORDS THAT HURT” activity, with
the crucial distinction that participation in UM’s program is voluntary. It did cost the University
$16,000 to implement, however. University representatives stressed that the program doesn’t
trample anybody’s free speech rights: “this program is INTENDED to be EDUCATIONAL,
NOT REGULATORY.

Asked if the campaign stifles free speech, Fitzgerald said “we believe this program has just the
opposite effect. We believe it will make discourse more constructive by respecting the views
and perspectives of others,” he said. “A campus conversation about the impact of words is good
for everyone.” I see little evidence that the conversation is anything but one-sided.
The message of these campaigns often seems to be, when in doubt, say nothing!
That’s hardly the right lesson for a university to impart to its students.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: SPEECH CODES: INDOCTRINATION & INTIMIDATION
[UNLEARNING LIBERTY]
FIRE SINGES the CENSORS
by Donald A. Downs November, 2012

DONALD A. DOWNS is the professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison

In 1987, a NEW BREED of speech and harassment codes and student INDOCTRINATION
were unleashed on college campuses across the land. What Allan Kors and Harvey Silverglate
famously labeled the “shadow university“ – the university dedicated to censorship and
politically correct paternalism – is now at least 25 years old.

By the end of the 1990s, however, many observers predicted that the repression would
eventually run out of steam as the passions driving political correctness waned with age.
More skeptical observers claimed that it was not disappearing, but metastasizing
Unlearning Liberty supports those who claim that political correctness has undergone
METASTASIS RATHER THAN ENTROPY.

Lukianoff observes, “Even a single conspicuous case of punishing speech can have dramatic
consequences”. This is what we lawyers call “‘the CHILLING EFFECT'”. Written in the
spirit of such figures as Alexander Hamilton and Judge Learned Hand, who famously taught us
that liberty cannot prevail if it is not alive in the hearts and minds of citizens.
UNLEARNING LIBERTY strives to educate readers about the deeper arguments for free
thought that underpin the First Amendment.
Drawing on thoughtful theorists of free expression, Lukianoff illustrates how freedom of thought
and speech are indispensable to intellectual growth, character development, and democratic
citizenship.

“The greatest consolation in life is to say what one thinks” – Voltaire
Someone once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of our own ignorance
– Thomas Sowell
He discusses how these virtues depend upon EXPOSING INDIVIDUALS TO ALL
RELEVANT IDEAS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH WHICH ONE DISAGREES, and
teaching them how to formulate and defend their own thoughts.

Higher education’s emphasis upon having the “right” ideas and values in POLITICALLY
charged areas has often SHORT-CIRCUITED the minds of too many young adults who
have entered the adult world. Crimes of omission are bad enough, but crimes of commission are
worse.

The most disturbing implication of Unlearning Liberty is not that HIGHER EDUCATION
OFTEN NEGLECTS to TEACH and PRACTICE LIBERTY that it is COMPLICIT in the
very “UNLEARNING” of LIBERTY.
Rather than instructing us in the liberty that Lincoln claimed “consecrates” us as a people,
domains of higher education are ACTIVELY TEACHING us that LIBERTY is BAD.

“Someone once said that the most important knowledge is knowledge of our own ignorance”
“One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable
to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other “people’s motives,
make bold assertions, repeat slogans – anything except reason” – Thomas Sowell
“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling“ “The words games of the left – from the mantra of “diversity” to the pieties of “compassion” – are not just games. They are ways of IMPOSING POWER by evading issues of substance through the use of seductive rhetoric“ – Thomas Sowell

Lukianoff draws on the work of such social scientists as Diana C. Mutz, who shows in
Hearing the Other Side (2006) that HIGHER EDUCATION can CLOSE MINDS as much as
OPEN THEM.
Referring to Mutz, Lukianoff writes, “[t]hose with the highest levels of education have the
lowest exposure to people with conflicting points of view, while those who have not
graduated from high school can claim the most diverse discussion mates.
UMKC’s “free speech zone” policies restricted demonstrations and other free speech
activities to small parts of campus, but also required that students obtain 10 days’ advance
permission in order to use those zones.

UMKC’s “free speech zone“ also required that students obtain 10 days’ advance permission in
order to use those zones. Such free speech rights violations are quite common on campuses
across America.
Students matter-of-factly accept the required of advance state permission to express oneself .
Despite the fact that zones like these have been immediately overturned every single time they
have been challenged in court
A fear has plagued me for years. No matter how strong our first amendment protections might
be, and no matter how wise the reasons for those strong protections are they don’t matter very
much if students don‘t know what their rights are in the first place, and don’t understand
when they’re being violated.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: SPEECH CODES DESTROYING DEBATE & DISSENT
WATCHDOG GROUP: FEDS to FORCE ALL U.S. UNIVERSITIES
to ADOPT UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH CODES
by Oliver Darcy May 13, 2013

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) are SET TO FORCE
ALL U.S. COLLEGES and UNIVERSITIES to ADOPT RESTRICTIVE and ILLEGAL
SPEECH CODES. In an attempt to curb sexual harassment on campuses, a well-respected
academic watchdog group is alleging. The charges, made by the Foundation for Individual
Rights in Education (FIRE) are based on a letter the DOJ and DOE sent jointly to the
University of Montana, instructing administrators to adopt a broad definition of sexual
Harassment.

That definition, according to the letter, must include “ANY unwelcome conduct of a sexual
nature,” including “verbal conduct, even if an ‘objectively reasonable person of the same gender
in the same situation’ does not deem such contact offensive.
Federal officials describe the new policy in the letter as a “BLUEPRINT for COLLEGES and
Universities across the country. FIRE, a non-profit civil rights educational foundation, reacted
by characterizing the MANDATE as a “SHOCKING AFFRONT to the United States
CONSTITUTION”. It is a “BREATHTAKINGLY BROAD DEFINITION of SEXUAL
HARASSMENT that MAKES VIRTUALLY EVERY STUDENT … a HARASSER WHILE
IGNORING the FIRST AMENDMENT”.

FIRE went on to claim that the new rules could make ANY student guilty of sexual harassment.
Students would be SUBJECT to DISCIPLINE for “ANY expression related to sexual topics
that OFFENDS ANY PERSON,” including ASKING AN INDIVIDUAL OUT ON A DATE or
TELLING a SEXUALLY THEMED JOKE, according to the FIRE press release.

“I am appalled by this attack on free speech on campus from our own government,” said Greg
Lukianoff, president of FIRE. He added the DOE and DOJ are “IGNORING decades of legal
decisions, the Constitution, and common sense, and it is time for colleges and the public to
push back”. According to FIRE, this new mandate even contradicts previous guidance.
provided to colleges and universities by the department of education
The organization says in 2003 the doe defined harassment as contact that “must include
something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person
finds offensive.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: SPEECH CODES DESTROYING DEBATE & DISSENT
FACING NATIONAL CRITICISM, FEDS ATTEMPT to
DEFEND CONTROVERSIAL CAMPUS ‘BLUEPRINT‘
Washington Campus Reform May 30, 2013”

CAMPUS REFORM, a project of the Leadership Institute, is America’s leading site for college
news. As a watchdog to the nation’s higher education system, Campus Reform exposes bias,
abuse, waste, and fraud on the nation’s college campuses. Our team of professional journalists
works alongside student activists and student journalists to report on the conduct and misconduct of university
administrators, faculty, and students. Campus Reform holds itself to rigorous journalism standards and strives to
present each story with accuracy, objectivity, and public accountability.

Following two weeks of blistering criticism from the Foundation for Individual Rights in
Education (FIRE) and commentators nationwide. U.S. Department of Education’s Office for
Civil Rights (OCR) is attempting to defend a CONTROVERSIAL SPEECH CODE
“BLUEPRINT” that requires colleges and universities to expand their definition of sexual
harassment to include speech protected by the First Amendment.
”Yesterday, OCR sent a statement to concerned students, faculty, alumni, administrators, and
citizens who have written the agency to express outrage over the threat to free speech. Presented
by the may 9 findings letter and resolution agreement authored by OCR and the Department
of Justice (DOJ) to conclude an investigation into the University of Montana’s practices
regarding sexual assault.

OCR’s new statement contradicts its MAY 9 letter. For example, in the statement sent
yesterday, OCR contends that “the May 9 letter explains that ‘sexual harassment’ is unwelcome
conduct of a sexual nature but that sexual harassment is not prohibited by title ix unless it creates
a ‘hostile environment’. The previous may 9 letter includes no such explanation.
OCR’s statement further claims that the new blueprint is CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR
AGENCY GUIDANCE. This is PLAINLY FALSE, as FIRE has detailed at length.
The Office for Civil Rights’ weak attempt to walk back its disastrous May 9 letter is too little,
too late“, said FIRE president Greg Lukianoff.

“OCR’s belated lip service to freedom of expression following a national firestorm of criticism
is hardly sufficient to undo the damage of a 47-page ‘blueprint’” that doesn’t once mention
the First Amendment or freedom of speech. FIRE calls on OCR to immediately issue a swift and
detailed retraction and clarification to every college and university in the country. “OCR argues
that a broad definition of sexual harassment encourages reporting, but MANDATING THAT
STATE and PRIVATE EMPLOYEES MUST REPORT PROTECTED EXPRESSION to
AUTHORITIES AS ‘HARASSMENT‘ is NO MORE ACCEPTABLE than REQUIRING
the REPORTING of ‘UNPATRIOTIC’ SPEECH AS TREASON,”

Lukianoff continued “in just over two years, OCR has REDUCED DUE PROCESS
PROTECTIONS for students accused of serious misconduct, issued DANGEROUSLY
VAGUE GUIDANCE ON ‘BULLYING’ and is now mandating a definition of sexual
harassment that will render virtually every student and faculty member guilty of harassment.
The AGENCY is OUT of CONTROL. OCR must reverse its attack on student and faculty
rights before it is forced to do so by courts, legislators, and universities themselves”

“Some of the biggest cases of MISTAKEN IDENTITY are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are NOT GOD” – Thomas Sowell
“Discord is the great ill of mankind; and tolerance is the only remedy for it” – Voltaire “Love truth, but pardon error” – Voltaire
COLLEGE CENSORSHIP
SPEECH CODES, CONTROL & CONFORMITY through “CORRECT-NESS”
6 WAYS to DEFEAT the CAMPUS CENSORS
by Greg Lukianoff and Robert Shibley April, 2013

It’s no longer a matter of much debate that America’s college campuses are NOT the
BEACONS of FREE and OPEN DISCUSSION THEY were INTENDED to BE. In its 14
years of existence, our organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE),
has DOCUMENTED HUNDREDS of CASES of GROSS ABUSES of students’ and faculty
members’ fundamental rights.
MORE THAN 60% of America’s largest and most prestigious colleges have SPEECH
CODES that are either UNCONSTITUTIONAL (at public universities) or directly contradict
promises of FREE SPEECH (at private universities). Our combined decades of work as
president and senior vice president of FIRE have convinced us the GROUPTHINK and the
PRESSURE to CONFORM, BE SILENT, or talk solely to those with whom you ALREADY
AGREE that is fostered by the culture and rules of the MODERN CAMPUS is
DESTRUCTIVE to students, our educational system, and our society as a whole.”
Legally end the slippery debate about WHAT “HARASSMENT” REALLY MEANS.

Since the 1980s, the most common form of campus speech codes has been WILDLY
OVERBROAD OR VAGUE harassment codes. POORLY WRITTEN OR PURPOSELY
BROAD harassment policies can chill or silence huge swaths of protected speech.
Auburn university at Montgomery BANS “JOKES” ABOUT PROTECTED
CHARACTERISTICS, as well as “making judgments,” thus managing to ban with a single
policy both Chris Rock and Sandra Day O’Connor.

The Supreme Court has actually provided the solution to this problem, if only schools would
listen. it comes from Justice O’Connor’s majority decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of
Education (1999). The Supreme Court set out a standard for peer-on-peer harassment in the
educational setting that protects free speech while preventing real discriminatory
harassment.

Under the Davis standard, behavior becomes punishable when it is (1) unwelcome, (2)
discriminatory, (3) on the basis of gender or another protected class, such as race, (4) directed at
an individual, and (5) “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines
and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively
denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

Such a specific definition is nothing like the countless campus codes that prohibit
“inappropriate,” “demeaning,” or merely “offensive” speech. Adopting Davis would send a
strong message that “harassment” can no longer be treated as code for a student’s or
administrator’s SUPPOSEDLY “RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.”

Public colleges and universities that maintain unconstitutional speech codes are, of course,
breaking the law. Yet at least 61.6% of the PUBLIC COLLEGES rated by fire have
SPEECH CODES that we deem to be BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Campus speech codes and unclear federal policies currently give campus administrators an
EXCUSE TO OVER-REACT TO SPEECH. Indeed, university attorneys have some basis for
believing that it may be safer, from a liability standpoint, to over-react.

This kind of legal ambiguity – which can leave administrators wondering if they can be sued for
not violating the constitution sends the problem of politically correct administrators into
overdrive. Litigation on a large scale may be the only way to rebalance this perverse.
Incentive structure by creating a real and substantial risk to colleges that currently FIND IT
SAFER and EASIER to CENSOR FIRST and ASK QUESTIONS LATER.

COLLEGE CENSORSHIP: SPEECH CODES DESTROYING DEBATE & DISSENT
HOW FREE SPEECH DIED on CAMPUS
A young activist describes how universities became the most authoritarian institutions in America. by Sohrab Ahmari November, 2012

SOHRAB AHMARI, an Iranian-American journalist and a nonresident associate research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society. Ahmari’s columns, feature stories, and book reviews have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, the Boston Globe, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Tablet, Commentary, Dissent, City Journal, and World Affairs, among other publications

At Yale University, you can be prevented from putting an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote on
your t-shirt at tufts, you can be censured for quoting certain passages from the Quran
welcome to the most authoritarian institution in america: the modern
university. “A bizarre, parallel dimension,” as Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation
for Individual Rights in Education, (FIRE) calls it. I caught up with Mr. Lukianoff at New York
University in downtown Manhattan, where he was ONCE TARGETED by the SAME
SPEECH RESTRICTIONS that he has built a CAREER EXPOSING.

Lukianoff, a Stanford Law grad, has SPENT the PAST DECADE FIGHTING FREE-
SPEECH BATTLES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
Six years ago, a student group at the university invited him to participate in a panel discussion
about the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad that had sparked violent rioting
by Muslims across the world.

When Muslim students protested the event, NYU threatened to close the panel to the public if
the offending cartoons were displayed. The discussion went on – without the cartoons. Instead,
the student hosts displayed a blank easel, registering their own protest. “The people who
believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have
won”, Lukianoff says.
“If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses”, but now
things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone’s
feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person.
As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything
and everything can be punished.

At Northeastern University, where I went to law school, it is a violation of the internet-usage
policy to transmit any message “which in the sole judgement of administrators is annoying.
Lukianoff: “Speech codes and SUPPOSEDLY ‘WELL-INTENTIONED’ CENSORSHIP on
campus have faded into the background of the national consciousness,” … “repression on
campus not only poses a long-term threat to all of our freedoms, but also impedes and
distorts the way we talk to each other as Americans.”

In his book, “Unlearning Liberty,” Lukianoff notes baby-boom Americans who remember the
student protests of the 1960s tend to assume that U.S. colleges are still some of the free-est
places on earth but that idealized university no longer exists. It was WIPED OUT in the
1990s by ADMINSTRATORS, DIVERSITY HUSTLERS and LIABILITY-
MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONALS, who were often ABETTED BY PROFESSORS
COMMITTED TO POLITICAL AGNDAS. “What’s disappointing and rightfully scorned,”
Lukianoff says, “is that in some cases the VERY PROFESSORS who WERE BENEFITING
FROM the FREE-SPEECH MOVEMENT” …TURNED AROUND to ADVOCATE speech
codes and speech zones in the 1980s and ’90s.

POLITICALLY “CORRECT” CONFORMITY:
INTOLERANCE, INTIMIDATION & INDOCTRINATION

Today, university bureaucrats suppress debate with anti-harassment policies that function as
de facto speech codes. What they share is a view of “harassment” so broad and so removed
from its legal definition that, mr. lukianoff says, “literally every student on campus is
already guilty”

At Western Michigan University, it is considered harassment to hold a “condescending
sex-based attitude. I think of all Harvard men as Sissies” (from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s 1920
novel “This Side of Paradise”), a quote that was banned at Yale when students put on a t-shirt”
Tufts University in Boston proscribes the holding of “sexist attitudes“ as “harassment”.
In 2006, Tufts University’s conservative student newspaper The Primary Source (TPS)
published a satirical Christmas carol titled “O Come All Ye Black Folk,” a parody of race-
based college admissions. The Tufts student newspaper was found guilty of harassment in
2007 for printing violent passages from the Quran and facts about the status of women in
Saudi Arabia during the school’s “Islamic Awareness Week”. In April 2007, TPS ran a piece
titled “Islam – Arabic translation: submission,” a satirical advertisement that ridiculed
Tufts’ “Islamic Awareness Week”.

After students complained about the articles, Tufts’ Committee on Student Life found TPS
guilty of harassment for having “targeted” black students and Muslims for
“embarrassment”. The committee banned TPS from running anonymous items and
recommended that the student government “consider the behavior of student groups” in future
decisions about recognition and funding. FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts protested the punishment of TPS’ protected speech, which garnered national
media attention. Tufts finally lifted the punishment but refused to honor its promises of free
expression, failing to reverse the finding of guilt.

Cartoons in “The New Yorker” magazine used to make me burst out laughing but those in recent years don’t even produce a smile. Could it be that political correctness makes it impossible to see and portray the humor in the many absurdities all around us? – Thomas Sowell

At California State University in Chico, it was prohibited until recently to engage in “continual
use of generic masculine terms such as to refer to people of both sexes or references to both
men and women as necessarily heterosexual. Luckily, there is no need to try to figure out what
the school was talking about. The prohibition was removed earlier this year after FIRE named it
as one of its two “speech codes of the year” in 2011.

If you’re going to get in trouble for an opinion on campus, it’s more likely for a socially
conservative opinion. Consider the two students at Colorado College who were punished in
2008 for satirizing a gender-studies newsletter. The newsletter had included boisterous
references to “male castration,” “feminist porn” and other unprintable matters. The satire,
published by the “coalition of some dudes,” tamely discussed “chainsaw etiquette” (“your
chainsaw is not an indoor toy”) and offered quotations from Teddy Roosevelt and
menshealth.com.

“Even when we win our cases,” says Lukianoff, “the universities almost never apologize to the
students they hurt or the faculty they drag through the mud. Brandeis university has yet to
withdraw a 2007 finding of racial harassment against Prof. Donald Hindley for explaining the
origins of “wetback” in a Latin-American studies course.

The president of Valdosta State University expelled a student because the student publicly
criticized the president’s decision to build a new parking lot on campus. It took a federal
court to reinstate the student. What motivates college administrators to act so viciously?
Lukianoff: “It’s both self-interest and ideological commitment. On the ideological front, it’s
almost like you flip a switch, and these administrators, who talk so much about treating every
student with dignity and compassion, suddenly come to see one student as a caricature of
societal EVIL.
Administrative self-interest is also at work. “There’s been this huge expansion in the
bureaucratic class at universities,” Lukianoff explains. “They [bureaucrats] passed the number
of people involved in instruction sometime around 2006. So you get this ever-renewing crop
of administrators, and their jobs aren’t instruction but to police student behavior”.
l
Lukianoff: “In the worst cases, they see it as their duty to intervene on students’ deepest
Beliefs. Consider the University of Delaware, which in Fall, 2007 instituted an ideological
orientation for freshmen. The “treatment,” as the administrators called it, included personal
interviews that probed students’ private lives with such questions as: “when did you discover
your sexual identity?”

It required students to go through a veritable four year “treatment” regimen that entailed
extensive indoctrination in “correct” attitudes toward race, gender, sexual orientation, and
sensitivity. When a student demurred, she was “written up”. Students were taught in group
sessions that the term racist “applies to all white people” while “people of color cannot be
racists”.

FIRE succeeded in shutting down the Delaware program with the able assistance of two
professors there. Yet in march, 2012, Kathleen Kerr, the architect of the Delaware program,
was elected vice president of the American college personnel association, the professional
group of university administrators.

“Some of the biggest cases of MISTAKEN IDENTITY are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are NOT GOD” – Thomas Sowell
“Too often what are called “educated” people are simply people who have been
SHELTERED FROM REALITY for years in ivy-covered buildings. Those whose whole careers
have been spent in ivy-covered buildings, insulated by tenure, can REMAIN ADOLESCENTS
on into their golden retirement years” – Thomas Sowell

“Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly
educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important.
some confuse that feeling with idealism.” – Thomas Sowell

POLITICALLY “CORRECT” CONFORMITY: INTOLERANCE, INTIMIDATION & INDOCTRINATION
FORDHAM WELCOMES INFANTICIDE ADVOCATE
PETER SINGER AFTER ATTACKING ANN COULTER INVITE
by Robert Shibley November, 2012

Robert L. Shibley FIRE’s Senior Vice President, is a native of Toledo, Ohio, and a graduate of
Duke University and Duke University School of Law. Robert’s undergraduate experience serving as the managing
editor of the Duke Review newspaper, which frequently decried (and faced) administrative censorship and bias, led
him to a career defending the rights of college and university students and faculty members.

Fordham university president Joseph McShane made a full-throated condemnation of the
Fordham College Republican’s invitation to Ann Coulter to speak on campus.
[Coulter’s] rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative – more heat than light – and
her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature McShane was disappointed
that the College Republicans would invite a speaker compares Coulter’s speech to
“HATE SPEECH,”’ which “DISGUSTS” HIM apparently having been gifted with the ability
to know what was good for them, the Fordham college republicans canceled the event.

Having been personally slammed as immature bigots who lack character and judgement in
an e-mail from their College President to ALL students and many family members, the group’s
cancellation of the coulter event, while unfortunate for the principle of free speech, is HARDLY
SURPRISING. Princeton professor and philosopher PETER SINGER, who is probably
America’s best known ADVOCATE FOR HUMAN INFANTICIDE, has been invited to speak
on a panel at Fordham, invited not by an independent student group, either, but by his
OWN faculty and administration.
To many, Singer’s philosophical positions will make coulter’s political positions seem bland.
Fordham SEEMED downright HONORED by SINGER’s PARTICIPATION, PROMOTING
the event, prominently featuring Singer, calling him “the MOST INFLUENTIAL
PHILOSOPHER ALIVE TODAY.” Singer is indeed well-known, and has made headlines
with statements like “the GROUNDS FOR NOT KILLING PERSONS DO NOT APPLY TO
NEWBORN INFANTS,” and “KILLING a DISABLED INFFANT IS NOT MORALLY
EQUIVALENT to KILLING a PERSON. VERY OFTEN IT is NOT WRONG AT ALL.”

McShane must know that the espousal and advocacy of SINGER’s beliefs at such a place is
SURE TO “DISGUST” MANY members of Fordham’s community who would undoubtedly
describe it as a “NEEDLESSLY PROVOCATIVE” and “HATEFUL” appeal to the
“DARKER SIDE of OUR NATURE.” Where is the FULL-THROATED
CONDEMNATION of the decision of his faculty and provost to invite singer?

Robert Shibley: “BOTH Singer and Coulter should be allowed to speak. In the end, the only
reasonable conclusion can be that McShane and the Fordham Administration have
ALLOWED THEIR POLITICALLY DRIVEN DISTASTE for Ann Coulter to overcome
their responsibility as academics to allow the marketplace of ideas to function as intended at
Fordham. The wisest and soundest course would have been to avoid wading into an unnecessary
political debate,” Let BOTH Coulter and Singer speak without commenting on their views, and
trust Fordham’s adult students to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS in an UNFETTERRED
MARKETPLACE of IDEAS.

BELITTLING STUDENTS who dare to invite a speaker to campus as a way to
DISINCLINE THEM from EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS or inviting future speakers is
beneath the dignity of a University President. Father McShane should be ASHAMED.”
Greg Lukianoff says that the Fordham-Coulter affair TOOK CAMPUS CENSORSHIP to a
NEW LEVEL.
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”
– Voltaire

POLITICALLY “CORRECT” CONFORMITY:
INTOLERANCE, INTIMIDATION & INDOCTRINATION

The Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against officials of the
L.A. Community College District. The lawsuit comes after a professor allegedly censored
and threatened to expel a student following a speech about marriage and his Christian faith
during an OPEN ENDED ASSIGNMENT in a PUBLIC SPEAKING CLASS, classroom
speech he gave against same-sex unions in the emotional aftermath of the passage
of Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban.

Los Angeles Valley College professor John Matteson INTERRUPTED and ENDED
Jonathan Lopez’s presentation mid-speech, calling Perez a “FASCIST BASTARD” in front of
the class for speaking about his faith.

Stalin pejoritively described ANY OPPONENT as “FASCIST“, the “totalitarian” dictator
using “AD HOMINEM” ATTACKS TO “CENSOR” PUBLIC DEBATE.
Mao invented the term “political correct-ness” as a term to “censor” and “punish” those
opposed to the goals of his “totalitarian” state.
who is the “fascist”? – the student “liberally” expressing his [politically “in-correct”?] views or
the “totalitarian” teacher “enforcing” political “correctness”.

Lopez’ speech included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible
Verses. INSTEAD OF ALLOWING LOPEZ TO FINISH, MATTESON TOLD THE
OTHER STUDENTS THEY COULD LEAVE IF THEY WERE OFFENDED. WHEN NO
ONE LEFT, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson
wrote on Lopez’s evaluation, “Ask God what your grade is.”
After seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told lopez that
HE WOULD MAKE SURE HE’D BE EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL

ADF Senior Counsel David French: “Public institutions of higher learning CANNOT
SELECTIVELY CENSOR CHRISTIAN SPEECH. This student was speaking well within
the confines of his professor’s assignment when he was CENSORED and ultimately
THREATENED WITH EXPULSION. When students are given open ended assignments in a
public speaking class, the first amendment PROTECTS THEIR ABILITY TO EXPRESS
THEIR VIEWS.
Moreover, the district has a speech code that has CREATED a CULTURE of CENSORSHIP
on campus. America’s public universities and colleges are SUPPOSED to be a
‘MARKETPLACE of IDEAS‘, NOT a HOTBED of INTOLERANCE.

As Penn professor Diana C. Mutz discussed in her 2006 book Hearing the Other Side, the
more education you have, the less likely you are to have exposure to people with different
points of view. One might hope that colleges would be aware of this problem and would be
working overtime to correct it. It is, after all, their job to ensure their students are being trained
to use the tools of reason and critic thinking.”
But there’s little indication that this is the case on the scale necessary to make a difference.
While there has been much talk in the last decade that higher education is moving on to some
next level. Progress can be made within the existing models as long as students and faculty can
and do still get in trouble for merely stating opinions that administrators dislike.

That’s why promoting a cultural norm that advocates seeking out those people and testing one’s
beliefs would advance dialogue more than we can now imagine is possible.

“Safety” is a much abused term on campus, often invoked lightly to refer to a generalized right
for students to feel emotionally unchallenged. That kind of “safety” is a more appropriate goal
for K-8 education. But there is a kind of safety for which advocates of reform in higher
education must press: CAMPUSES NEED to be PLACES WHERE IT is SAFE to DISAGREE
at a FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL. SAFE to QUESTION and EVEN SATIRIZE the
UNIVERSITY’s SACRED COWS, SAFE to QUESTION the CONVENTIONAL WISDOM,
and SAFE EVEN to BE WRONG, to PROVOKE, and (GASP) to JOKE.”

“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is NOT of the
SAME OPINION, is a MONSTER” – Voltaire

POLITICALLY “CORRECT” CONFORMITY:
INTOLERANCE, INTIMIDATION & INDOCTRINATION

A 2010 survey by the American Association of Colleges and Universities found that of
24,000 college students, only 35.6% strongly agreed that “IT is SAFE to HOLD
UNPOPULAR VIEWS ON CAMPUS.
When the question was asked of 9,000 campus professionals – who are more familiar with the
enforcement end of the censorship rules – only 18.8% strongly agreed

Lukianoff thinks all of this should alarm students, parents and alumni enough to demand
change. The trouble is that students are usually intimidated into submission.
The startling majority of students don‘t bother. They’re too concerned about their careers, too
concerned about their grades, to bother fighting back,” he says.
Parents and alumni dismiss free-speech restrictions as something that only happens to c
onservatives, or that will never affect their own children. “I make the point that this is
happening, and even if it’s happening to people you don’t like, it’s a fundamental violation of
what the university means,” says Lukianoff. Free speech is about protecting minority rights.
free speech is about admitting you don’t know everything”. Free speech is about protecting
oddballs. It means protecting dissenters”

In 2006, a San Francisco State University administrator became possibly the first public
official in our country’s history to violate the establishment clause by enforcing Islamic sharia
law. She claimed that students who had stepped on homemade mock-ups of hezbollah and
hamas flags as a part of an anti-terrorism protest were guilty of ‘desecrating the name of
allah’ after the students were put on trial for “incivility” for their indisputably protected
speech.
The Supreme Court has made clear that citizens possess a First Amendment right to burn an
American flag; stepping on the flags of designated terrorist organizations is unquestionably
Protected. After months of pressure from fire, the school found the students not guilty of
“incivility” on First Amendment grounds. The subsequent lawsuit brought against SFSU by the
students in federal court resulted in an opinion overturning the California State University
system’s “civility” code.

In 2004, the Christian student fellowship at Florida’s Indian River Community college was
forbidden from showing Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ at a group meeting.
The reason for forbidding a screening of the world’s highest grossing religious film of all time?
The college claimed that the film was “controversial” and “R-rated” codes. But the college
had allowed r-rated films to be screened in the past year. At the same time the college
banned The Passion of the Christ, it was hosting a student production that included a skit
called “fu*king for jesus“ which centered on masturbating to a painting of Jesus Christ.

UC Santa Barbara subjected Professor William Robinson to a months-long investigation
after he sent the students in his Sociology of Globalization class an e-mail comparing the Nazi
treatment of Jews with Israel’s actions towards Palestinians. Although students were not
required to read, discuss, or agree with the content of Robinson’s e-mail, two students filed
formal complaints.

The resulting outside pressure threatened Robinson’s academic freedom and free speech.
FIRE argued that the initial assessment of the students’ claims should have led to immediate
dismissal of the complaint since the single e-mail was both protected expression and relevant to
the course. The investigating committee recommended dismissing the case, but the matter
remained in UCSB Chancellor Henry T. Yang’s hands for several weeks.
Soon after FIRE and other groups wrote Chancellor Yang, the charges against Robinson
were dropped.

Yale University censored images of muhammed in author Jytte Klausen’s book,
The Cartoons That Shook the World which discusses the controversy and violence that resulted
from the publication of cartoons of muhammed in a Danish newspaper in 2005.
The book, published by the Yale University Press in Fall, 2009, was to contain images of the
cartoons and other images of Mohammed.
However, Yale University intervened in the editorial process of its press, submitted the
cartoons out of context to a group of anonymous consultants and, relying on their opinions,
decided to remove the cartoons from the book. Despite much criticism of the University’s
decision to override academic freedom and avoid controversy, Klausen’s book was published
without any of the images

“to learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” – Voltaire
“Too much of what is called “education” is little more than an expensive isolation from reality”
– Thomas Sowell

POLITICALLY “CORRECT” CONFORMITY: INTOLERANCE, INTIMIDATION & INDOCTRINATION
The NEW INQUISITION
by Thomas Sowell April, 2015

Thomas Sowell: “HOW LONG WILL THIS COUNTRY REMAIN FREE? Probably only
as long as the American people value their freedom enough to DEFEND it. But how many
people today can stop looking at their electronic devices long enough to even think about such
things?”
Meanwhile, ATTEMPTS to SHUT DOWN PEOPLE WHOSE FREE SPEECH INTERFERES WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S POLITICAL AGENDAS GO ON, WITH REMARKABLY LITTLE NOTICE, MUCH LESS OUTRAGE.

The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one
of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, rather than answering
them. Another INSIDIOUS ATTEMPT to SILENCE VOICES that DISSENT from
CURRENT POLITICALLY CORRECT CRUSADES is targeting scientists who do not agree
with the ‘global warming’ scenario”.
Congressman Raul Grijalva has been writing universities, demanding financial records
showing who is financing the research of dissenting scientists, and demanding their internal
communications as well. Mr. Grijalva says that financial disclosure needs to be part of the
public’s “right to know”. Who is financing those who express different views”.

He is not the only politician pushing the idea that scientists who do not march in lockstep with
what is called the “consensus” on man-made global warming could be just hired guns for
businesses resisting government regulations. The head of the National Academy of Sciences
has chimed in, saying: ‘Scientists must disclose their sources of financial support to continue to
enjoy societal trust and the respect of fellow scientists’”

The public’s “right to know” has often been invoked in attempts to intimidate potential
supporters of ideas that the INQUISITORS want to SILENCE. SCIENCE is NOT about
‘CONSENSUS’ BUT FACTS. Not only were some physicists not initially convinced by
EINSTEIN’s THEORY of RELATIVITY, Einstein himself said that it SHOULD NOT BE
ACCEPTED UNTIL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE COULD TEST IT.
That is how scientific questions should be settled, NOT BY POLITICAL INTIMIDATION.

There is already plenty of political weight on the scales, on the side of those pushing the
‘global warming’ scenario.
TOO MANY UNIVERSITIES are TOO WILLING to be STAMPEDED by PRESSURE
GROUPS.

Have we forgotten Duke University’s CAVING IN to a LYNCH MOB MENTALITY during
the “gang rape” hoax in 2006? Or the University of Virginia doing the same thing more
recently? Politicians determined to get their own way by whatever means necessary may have
no grand design to DESTROY FREEDOM, but what they are doing can amount to
TOTALITARIANISM on the INSTALLMENT PLAN.

“[T]he peculiar EVIL of silencing the expression of an OPINION is, that it is ROBBING the
human race; posterity as well as the existing generation, those who dissent from the opinion,
still more than those who hold it. IF the opinion is RIGHT, they are deprived of the opportunity
of exchanging error for TRUTH: IF WRONG, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the
clearer perception and livelier impression of TRUTH, PRODUCED by its COLLISION with
ERROR.” – John Stuart Mill:
“What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from SAYING that they DON‘T LIKE
SOMETHING to saying that the GOVERNMENT should FORBID IT. When you go down that
road, don’t expect FREEDOM to survive very long” – Thomas Sowell
“No opinion is worth burning your neighbor for” – Voltaire

CONCLUSIONS – “The WAVE”

”The Wave” promised SIMPLE BUT DECEPTIVE ANSWERS regarding CHANGE in a
COMPLICATED and CONFUSING world. Giving up individual freedom for the promise of
communal “greatness”. The PROMISE of “progress” and “newness” comes with
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. The confusing chaos of freedom lost to communal
tyranny … do we learn this lesson, or are we constantly “fooled again” by the “promise” of
fascism?
“FOOLED AGAIN” by the “possibilities” of “change” and “newness” …
the PROMISE and LURE of CHANGE leading to something FAR WORSE than before …