Resistance is Liberal

Bill Maher:“Berkeley used to be the cradle of free speech,” he stated. “And now it’s just the cradle for f*cking babies!”

The comedian lit into not just Berkeley, but other colleges across the nation, for shutting down speakers who don’t say “exactly what liberals want to hear.”

Maher added, “I feel like this is the liberals’ version of book burning, and it’s got to stop.”

Even he gets it! Yikes, Berkeley!

Anyone not loyal to a certain ideology must be resisted, rejected, and renounced. Demosthenes, the Athenian rhetorician and champion of liberty, pointed out around 355 B.C. that residents of Athens were free to praise Sparta’s regime, but Spartans were banned from praising Athens. In 1689, the British passed a law guaranteeing freedom of speech in Parliament. A century later, French revolutionaries incorporated into law the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which established free speech as a universal right. Two years later, the Americans ratified the First Amendment, which guarantees that the state shall not infringe on the right to free speech. Roughly a century and half later, in 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. . . . ” I mention all of this because every time I read or hear about the pathetic state of affairs at the University of California, Berkeley — where conservative speakers and rabble-rousers alike are banned from speaking lest they be assaulted by a mob — journalists and other commentators insist on pointing out the irony that this is all happening “where the Free Speech Movement was born.” Yes, I know there was a thing called the Free Speech Movement. And, yes, its members and leaders talked a good deal about free speech. But the movement for free speech is thousands of years old and runs like a deep river across the landscape of Western Civilization. Indeed, I can’t help but get the impression that a lot of people don’t realize that the Free Speech Movement in this context is a brand name. I can tell you that the “mockumentary” band Spinal Tap was born in a 1979 TV skit for ABC. But that is not the same thing as saying the medical procedure – a.k.a. the lumbar puncture — was born in the same skit. Mario Savio, the leader of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, was committed to free speech. But so was Berkeley at the time. In the years before Savio’s movement, Berkeley had hosted speeches by communists, Nazis (invited by leftists to cause a stir), and political and literary speakers of every stripe. Whatever perfunctory regulations of free speech existed, then-Berkeley professor Nathan Glazer explained in his 1965 Commentary essay “What Happened at Berkeley,” went “back to a time when no political activity of any kind was allowed on campus.” Even presidential candidates were barred from politicking because, “as a state university it was not supposed to be involved in politics.” But by 1964, these rules had already been loosened a great deal. The rioters and goons — along with their pusillanimous enablers in the administration — are carrying on this tradition. As for Savio, his mission was broader than merely wanting to allow vigorous debate. He wanted students to be able to participate as much as possible with the civil-rights movement, which, obviously, was a very political movement. He was on the right side of that argument. But Savio was also a passionate leftist. (When he got married to his fellow FSMer Suzanne Goldberg, the Daily Worker’s Mike Gold asked him what they wanted for a wedding present. “All that we really want is for President Johnson to withdraw all our troops from Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. Very little would make us happier.”) Savio had a romantic hatred — in the tradition of Rousseau — for liberal democratic capitalism. His most famous statement came in his speech at Sproul Hall in 1964: There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels . . . upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Whatever legacy Savio has for the cause of free speech is dead, but this mindset lives on. The rioters and goons — along with their pusillanimous enablers in the administration — are carrying on this tradition. It is a tradition that says this is our sacred place and anyone not loyal to our faith must be resisted, rejected, and renounced. All the talk of “hate speech” is clever marketing — like the label the “Free Speech Movement” itself. What these petty, secular theocrats despise is heresy speech. And they will throw their bodies into the gears to silence it. — Jonah Goldberg

Image result for free speech berkeley
Image result for free speech berkeley

The Mirror Universe of Berkeley

1964-65: In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university (Berkeley) administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speech and academic freedom.

Now 53 years later Berkeley is the epicenter of the NOT HELL NO! Free Speech Movement. The want the administration to ban student’s rights to free speech.

And the irony is totally lost on them.

There is a clear and present danger to conservative students at the University of California Berkeley.  

The birthplace of the so-called free speech movement is now the epicenter of a nefarious movement to silence freedom-loving young people.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter had been scheduled to speak… yesterday…, but she canceled. 

Leftwing groups had threatened to silence Ms. Coulter by any means necessary.

But the university refused to guarantee the safety of Ms. Coulter or the students who invited her to speak – the Young America’s Foundation.

The Police and University effectively said they refuse to do their job and that they would not stop left wing snowflakes from causing violence. They sided with them.

I know these students. I know this organization. They are good people – patriots all. They are students who battle with words and ideas – not baseball bats and switchblades.

And contrary to accusations made by some conservatives on Twitter, Young America’s Foundation did not “acquiesce” to the liberal bullies at Berkeley.

It’s important for you to understand the context of what YAF was hoping to accomplish with Ms. Coulter’s planned address.

It was not meant to be some sort of free-for-all in the campus plaza. The event was meant to be a civilized lecture inside some sort of auditorium or lecture hall.

YAF is not in the business of hosting conservative gatherings that resemble professional wrestling shows. They are meant to foster thoughtful and enlightened debate and conversation.

So why – you may ask – did the conservatives not proceed with Ms. Coulter’s speech?

It turns out the university’s police department has a stand down policy – meaning they do not get involved unless there is an imminent loss of life, according to a lawsuit filed by YAF.

In other words – liberals get a free pass to beat the living daylights out of conservative kids so long as the victims still have a pulse.

All the while Berkeley administrators look the other way – while speech liberals disagree with is silenced.

“Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere,” YAF president Ron Robinson told the Washington Examiner. “Berkeley made it impossible to hold a lecture due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators.”

It would’ve been like throwing red meat to a pack of liberal jackals.

Inviting a Zombie Hoard to a brain breakfast while the Police and University hold open the doors for them.

“I had the misfortune of being in a leftist riot as a student, and I wouldn’t want to put my children or anyone else’s children into that situation without assurances that law enforcement would protect them,” Robinson said.

And they wouldn’t. Leftist are not in the habit anymore of caring about your safety or your rights. They really don’t give a damn anymore.

I suppose we should not be all that surprised over the campus uprisings happening across the country. These are the children of the Obama generation – a generation that was taught to silence any speech they disagree with.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” President Obama once said.  

That is the legacy of the Obama Administration – if you can’t silence conservatives, just beat the living daylights out of them.

It is the irony of ironies.

The so-called free speech movement started at Berkeley and ended at Berkeley – not so much with a whimper – but with a punch to the face.

And with great pride and sanctimony.

 

The Struggle

As a person of absolutely no color who embodies an intersectional reality that includes my utter lack of genderfluidity and my unemployment-questioning, differently-veteraned, and non-pagan experiences, I am totally oppressed by progressivism’s hegemonic power structure. I am also the victim of a systemic system of hostile paradigms that denies my truth regarding my phallo-possessory identity.

My struggle is real, and my male-identifying genitalia will no longer be silent!

I bear a heavy burden in the form of my pasty, easily-sunburned skin. For too long, the fact that a previous Schlichter was booted out of Stuttgart in 1750 has meant that I have been subject to the hateful discourse of unabashed Fritzophobes. And that’s when society hasn’t stolen my Teutonic legacy outright. You are culturally appropriating my cold, emotionless people’s heritage every time you are punctual and efficient.

The same is true regarding my Scot ancestry. You shamelessly pillage the cultural treasures of the folk of the moors whenever you speak unintelligibly, or refuse to spend freely and without restraint. Enough of your condescending Braveheartism.

My kilt, my choice.

Even in my own home, I am oppressed. I live under a tyrannical framework of Cubano-supremacy. I am constantly reminded of my minority status as the only non-Latino in the family whenever I am prepared to leave on time while everyone else is still getting ready, whenever I am belittled for my love of mayonnaise, and whenever I am forbidden to dance in public.

“Intersectionality” means that I have lots of complaints about various stuff that I am, and I’m just getting started.

For instance, I am seen as enjobbed, in that I have a job and support my family. This hateful label marginalizes me and subjugates me to the stereotyped role of “provider” and “useful member of society.” It cruelly differentiates me from preferred progressive social actors, like “bums” and “welfare cheats.” The progressive paradigm is, after all, based upon compelling non-Democrat bodies to toil to generate tax revenue for the government to give to freeloaders.

My veteranness also makes me a target for othering. My soul roils from the conscious and unconscious prejudice poured upon me every time someone asks me if I was drafted, or if the Army is the one with Marines. Why don’t you just burn a hammer and sickle in front of my quarters, you monsters?

And no, I don’t have PTSD. I’m just really annoyed by you.

I am also victimized for my unpaganhood, and I am constantly pressured to conform and accept weird weather religions and the theological musings of internet hipsters who think the idea of Christian grace is some sort of supernatural point system where you get into heaven for accomplishing a set number of good deeds. I reject these attempts to subjugate me to the dominant discourse, just as I reject the liberal Jesusplaining that seeks to steal my savior and turn him into some sort of socialist hippie, a Bernie Sanders in a robe who thinks the only sin is generating too big of a carbon footprint.

And then there is the systemic hate for my rigidly male monosexual identification and my pronounced pro-chick agenda. Too often those of you who are genderfluid deny the identity of those of us who are gendersolid.

Finally, it is time to reject society’s paradigm of unphallused privilege. This bias results in interlocking systems of domination that produce the conditions under which oppressed peoples like me are forced to live, and usually manifests in me getting called whenever someone needs help lifting something heavy.

Those of us who wield a penis demand that you cease your dehumanizing unmale gaze and validate the manly values that stand firm against your anti-testicular hegemony.

We male-identifying men proudly shout out these radical truths:

Boys don’t cry, and it is lame to shed a tear in public, except on Memorial Day or when a dog dies.

Feelings are stupid, except for patriotism and a love of dogs.

Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman.

Also, no man should ever listen to Maroon 5. Nor should anyone else. Including dogs.

We will no longer be man-junk marginalized. From this moment forth, my people’s pronouns are “he,” “him” and “if you touch my stuff, I’ll slug you.”

Your hate speech against us, which is defined as anything you say that we don’t like, must be banned, starting on campuses. As fellow social justice warriors have observed, “Free speech, a right many freedom movements have fought for, has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry.”

Right on! I mean, how could normalizing limitations on free speech ever backfire? You social justice warriors surely shouldn’t worry about this kind of thinking being expressed by people who don’t like you and who have a lot of guns.

Our initial non-negotiable demand is for a safe space for all German/Scot-Employed-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health on every college campus, as well as a Department of German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health Studies to explore the issues regarding, and the terrible social stigma and prejudice faced by, us German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health. We further demand a curriculum that teaches using unique German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health pedagogic strategies, like “reading” and “studying.” It must also educate us about suppressed German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health truths, like about how the Chinese stole the idea for the Great Wall from Deutschland’s autobahns, and how Steve McQueen is a million times cooler than Ryan Reynolds will ever be.

That is our intersectional reality; that is our cry for revolution. We refuse to allow the forces of social injustice to continue to deny our existence, and our suits, clean shaves, and combed hair shall be the transgressive body modifications that demonstrate our alienation from the dominant paradigm.

No longer will we allow our pallor to render us invisible!

No longer will we tolerate being left out of the acronym LGBTQ!

No longer will we be scrotum-shamed! (Kurt Schlichter)

Free Speech

silent

The University of California at Berkeley’s inhospitality to conservative speakers, the subject of a federal lawsuit filed on Monday, prompted a Twitter rebuke from President Trump a few months ago. Yet his administration seems determined to demonstrate that suppression of opposing views is a bipartisan impulse.

Berkeley College Republicans, which invited conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus this Thursday evening, and Young America’s Foundation, which underwrote her visit, argue that Berkeley’s vague, unwritten policy regarding “high-profile speakers” unconstitutionally discriminates against unpopular viewpoints. As a result of that policy, which was adopted after violent protests prompted the university to shut down a February 1 appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, Berkeley canceled Coulter’s speech, then offered to reschedule it for next Tuesday afternoon, in the middle of the “dead week” between classes and exams.

BCR says it felt compelled to cancel an April 12 talk by another conservative journalist, David Horowitz, after the university insisted that it take place at an inconvenient location and end by 3 p.m., meaning most students would be in class while Horowitz was speaking. BCR and YAF say the restrictions imposed by Berkeley in the name of public safety have not been applied to left-leaning speakers and amount to an “unlawful heckler’s veto” that marginalizes conservative voices.

After the Milo melee in February, Trump suggested on Twitter that Berkeley risks losing federal funds if it “does not allow free speech.” If the president were sincerely committed to protecting First Amendment rights, he would issue similar warnings to the Department of Homeland Security, which recently demanded that Twitter reveal the identity of a DHS gadfly, and the Justice Department, which is considering criminal charges against people who share classified information leaked by others.

Last month a special agent in charge at Customs and Border Protection, a division of DHS, issued a summons to Twitter seeking records that would unmask the person or persons behind @ALT_USCIS, an account that regularly criticizes the Trump administration’s immigration policies. There did not seem to be any legal justification for the summons, which looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate critics.

DHS dropped the summons the day after Twitter filed a lawsuit arguing that it threatened the First Amendment right to engage in pseudonymous political speech. Last week, in response to inquiries by Sen. Ron Wyden, D, Ore., DHS Inspector General John Roth revealed that his office is investigating whether the CBP summons was “improper.”

The day before Roth expressed concern about government inquiries that might have “a chilling effect on individuals’ free speech rights,” CNN and The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department is once again looking for a way to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for sharing classified documents with the public. The Obama administration abandoned that project after concluding that charging Assange with violating the Espionage Act would create a precedent that could be used against any news organization that publishes stories based on “defense information” from sources who obtained or divulged it illegally — a very common journalistic practice.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo says we shouldn’t worry about that because Assange is not a real journalist, a debatable and constitutionally irrelevant point. The “freedom of the press” that is guaranteed by the First Amendment is not the freedom of people who work for officially recognized news outlets; it is the freedom to use technologies of mass communication.

That freedom extends to everyone in the United States, whether or not he is a professional journalist or an American citizen. If Assange broke the Espionage Act by distributing classified material within the U.S., that means he used “the press” there.

Trump, who declared “I love WikiLeaks!” when it was revealing embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton, has changed his tune now that he perceives a threat to his government’s secrets. When he was asked about a potential criminal case against Assange last Friday, Trump said, “It’s OK with me.”

Logic 101

It’s basic programming/ Humans program robots. Humans are racist and sexist. Thus, robots are racist and sexist too.

Right? 😦

Robots can be just as biased as humans, according to a recent study conducted at Princeton University that uncovered gender and racial bias in an Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine.

According to the researchers, robots have always exhibited racist and sexist word associations, such as connecting women with families and households but not professionalism or careers.

“The work raises the specter that this machine ability may become an instrument of unintended discrimination.”   

Researchers from Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy decided to test this concept with Stanford University’s Global Vectors for Word Representation, or GLoVe, an AI machine that uses the internet to learn how to associate words and concepts, reports The Tartan.

The researchers put GLoVe through a replica of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a test developed by Harvard University that is used to detect implicit bias in humans by having them associate certain images with positive or negative adjectives.

[RELATED: Research finds implicit bias training is ineffective]

One IAT, for example, has participants match up images of black people and white people to adjectives like “pleasant” and “unpleasant.” If the person takes longer to match the black images to “pleasant,” the the IAT determines that they are biased against black people.

GLoVe demonstrated a variation on this type of racial and gender bias in the study’s version of the IAT, identifying black names as less pleasant than white names and associating women with the arts rather than the sciences.

GLoVe also linked certain job-related words to masculinity, such as “programmer” and “professor,” whereas women were identified more closely with roles like “nurse” and “assistant professor” based on the proximity of those terms to gender-specific pronouns in online sources.

Since robots and AI machines learn by gathering real-world data, they apparently reflect the biases present in human language. Therefore, if humans exhibit gender and racial bias, the machines we create will too.

[RELATED: Social justice on Mars]

“The main scientific findings that we’re able to show and prove are that language reflects biases,” said Aylin Caliskan of Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy. “If AI is trained on human language, then it’s going to necessarily imbibe these biases, because it represents cultural facts and statistics about the world.”

According to the study summary published in Science Magazine, AI bias could lead to “unintended discrimination” if the machines are used for tasks such as sorting resumes for job openings.

“In addition to revealing a new comprehension skill for machines, the work raises the specter that this machine ability may become an instrument of unintended discrimination based on gender, race, age, or ethnicity,” the summary warns.

We’re all doomed… 😦

 

Free Speech

The Progressive First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion (except Islam),and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

Orwellian” is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, …

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone— to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings!” -George Orwell

Understand that if America is stupid enough to let liberals take power again, they will persecute and prosecute normal Americans like us who dare to dissent. That’s not a guess or a prediction – that’s a commitment they have made to their fascist followers. They’ve seen what the truth can do to their schemes. After 2016, there’s no way they are going to take a chance on another electoral rejection by us normals, so they don’t even pretend to support free speech anymore. It will be one gender neutral being-one vote, one more time, and then never again.

Hold on. That’s clearly nuts, right? This is obviously crazy talk that’s talking crazy, isn’t it? Don’t liberals love free speech?

No.

We know they don’t love free speech because they tell us they don’t, in both words and deeds. The whole free speech thing lost a lot of its luster for the libs when people like us decided to try it out. The liberals didn’t count on that – free speech was supposed to be their jam, a way to offend, annoy, and outrage us squares, to blow our bourgeois minds with their transgressive, no-holds-barred free thoughtery and critical thinkery. But they never intended for it to allow those banjo-strumming rubes living between I-5 and I-95 to express wrong thoughts and thereby win elections.

So now the progressives are trying to do something about it. Recently, every single Democrat voted to effectively repeal the First Amendment. You see, the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” were too expansive for liberals’ tastes because they prevented Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

This creepy idiocy was in response to Citizens United, a Supreme Court case that, to people who actually believe in free speech and not liberal fascism, conforms to the First Amendment by telling the federal government that no, you can’t put people in jail for making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Yes, you read it correctly. Democrats think that Congress should be able to make laws to put people in jail for making movies critical of Democrat politicians. Roll that around in your head for a while.

Now, they call it “campaign finance reform,” and their argument is that they aren’t really limiting speech – just limiting how people spend their own money. Apparently, under the First Amendment, we are allowed to say anything we want, but Congress can pass a law telling us that we just can’t spend any money to actually be heard.

It would mean the government can tell us we can’t buy paper, we can’t buy ads, we can’t buy video tape, we can’t pay a film crew or writers, and we can’t pay for airtime. Congress could even tell us we can’t buy internet access to post our thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. And Congress, in the Dems’ utopia, could even pass a law not letting you spend a few measly pennies to buy my awesome book about how liberals will split our country in two.

 

Yes, they want to be able to ban books.

Other than that, under the liberals’ paradigm, we can speak to our hearts content, though only to people within shouting range. But don’t worry. The official, approved mainstream media would be exempt – and unofficial, unapproved media, well, not so much. “Fake news” and all that – “fake” being defined as “critical of liberals.” Fortunately, we’d have such unbiased, nonpartisan, objective outlets like the New York Times and CNN (starring noted free speech scholar Fredo Cuomo) to provide us open forums to air our conservative views. Also, we could get unicorns to skywrite our opinions for free using rainbows spewing from beneath their fluffy tails.

What’s still unclear is what prison sentence Democrats would impose upon someone who breaks the law by exhibiting a film or writing a book critical of Hillary Clinton. One year? Five years? Life in SuperMax? Come on Democrats, how long would you imprison someone for illegal speech?

 

And what should the penalty be for climate change denial? Since rejecting their weird climate religion is Earth-murder, or something, you would think they’d want to burn you at the stake – or is that too carbony?

Then there’s that clinical moron Howard Dean, who is ironically famous for his own bizarre exercise of the First Amendment. Leveraging all his intellectual fire power, he recently unloaded his mental squirt gun upon those of us who think the First Amendment means what it actually says. “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” he announced on Twitter, apparently having discovered a constitutional exception that would allow Democrats to stifle any speech they choose to stick the “hate speech” label on. Which would, of course, be anything and everything we normals want to say.

 

This “I don’t like what you are saying so it’s hate speech now shut-up” footnote to the First Amendment is well-known at our colleges and universities. These bastions of free thinking freely admit thinking that we normals have no right to think freely at all. The fact that California law enforcement is regularly ordered to stand back and allow conservative speakers and their audiences to be intimidated and beaten in order to silence them is just a preview of the new America that liberals dream of. If you imagine the unholy love child of the economic basket case/police state of Venezuela and the grim intolerance of your local campus, you have a pretty good idea of the new, fascist America the Democrats seek to breed.

Think that analysis is wrong? Well, here’s a complete list of all prominent Democrats standing up against these free speech abominations:

_________________________________________________.

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, but then they wouldn’t be liberal if they were born with shame genes. So, since we patriots are the only ones who actually support free speech, what do we patriots do to protect it?

Whatever it takes.

We fight peacefully in the political arena, in the courts, and in the shrinking marketplace of ideas while we can, but we must also be ready to fight in the streets when those punky puffboys try to shut us up. No quarter, no compromise, no surrender – we fight and win, or they shut us up forever.

Look, the left has told us what it wants – the power to force us to be silent and submit. That’s not wacky supposition; that’s not fevered imagination. They are open about their agenda, and it’s happening before our eyes. To pretend that our republic is not facing an existential threat from progressives who would use violence to silence their political opponents is to willfully ignore the evidence, just like a climate cultist ignores cold weather. And the violence has already begun: in fact, it is key to their plan for a free speech-free future. Today it’s gangs of masked thugs attacking us. Tomorrow, it’s uniformed men with guns – or at least those few spineless cowards among our security forces will ignore their oaths to defend the Constitution in exchange for a paycheck and a pension – dragging us off to jail for illegal speech. Or worse.

We patriots face a stark choice. We could choose the easy path of submission and hope that the left will leave us be if we just give in to their demands and give up on our right to participate in our own governance. But that won’t ever work – the true joy of leftism comes from imposing the leftists’ collective will upon its designated villains, and one guess as to the identity of those designated villains.

Hi.

No, they don’t want to leave us alone – that misses the whole point of being a leftist. A leftist yearns to be the one doing the bullying and dominating. If we give in, we will spend the rest of our lives with their soft, girly hands around our necks.

And if we are so gutless as to give up our God-given rights in exchange for “peace,” we deserve that pathetic, dishonorable fate.

But we won’t give up. We won’t surrender. No matter how hard they punch, as Instapundit urges, we’ll punch back twice as hard.

It was funny seeing those antifa dorks get wedgies in Berkeley, but our enemies are serious about stripping us of the rights that our Creator endowed upon all men and women. Many of us are veterans or law enforcement, and our oaths to defend the Constitution even at the cost of our lives did not come with an expiration date. Millions more who did not take one of those oaths subscribe to them nonetheless. We promised not to let a fascist regime take hold, and we intend to keep our promise.

The First Amendment is followed by the Second Amendment for just this reason – history will record that our people’s unique refusal to be disarmed by those who seek to steal our liberties was a key factor why we will never be Venezuela II: The Revenge.

Our only chance of avoiding a catastrophe is if our would-be progressive overlords understand that for us normal Americans, there are only two possible outcomes. And living at their mercy as their serfs is not one of them.

The outcome we want is that we normals live free in a democratic republic exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution, whether because leftists choose to respect our civil rights, or because we force them to respect our civil rights.

The other alternative is that we die on piles of spent brass surrounded by the bodies of our enemies. Either one’s cool – but submission to slavery is not an option.

That un-American, wannabe fascist Howard Dean need only look at a license plate from neighboring New Hampshire to understand how this is going to end. We’ll either live free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

Freedom Speech is Censorship, after all…

Political Science

I am a Carl Sagan fan from way back. His 1980 TV miniseries “Cosmos” hit me at just the right age and inflamed a lifelong love of science. But we’ve had nearly 40 years to assess the long-term effects and see how Sagan unwittingly contributed to a trend that muddled public understanding of science. This weekend’s so-called “March for Science” is a perfect example of what went wrong.

All you really need to know about the “March for Science” is that it is scheduled for Earth Day. The organizers may say the march is nonpartisan and has a variety of goals, but it’s mostly just about global warming. It’s not just about whether global warming is actually happening, or whether it is caused by human activity, but about a specific political program for dealing with global warming.

To be sure, there are other goals involved in the march and some contention, even among the organizers, about the extent to which the march should embrace causes like “diversity.” So the goals run the gamut from the left to the far-left. And that’s the problem. The “March for Science” is an attempt to equate the Left’s political goals with Science Itself, claiming the intellectual and moral authority of science for the Left’s agenda.

You can see why they would want to do that. The Left’s latest worker’s paradise—this time in Venezuela—is finishing up the usual devolution into mass poverty, starvation, dictatorship, chaos, and gang warfare. Given this ongoing track record of destruction, the Left has to seize on the illusion of moral authority however it can.

This is an old campaign—the Communists used to claim that they represented “scientific socialism”—but its modern form was largely shaped by Sagan, by way of “Cosmos.” He is remembered as a great popularizer of science, explaining the achievements of physics, mathematics, and astronomy in glowing, inspirational terms. But he faced the basic problem of all such popularizers.

Science has its own unique language and methods: the language of mathematics and a method of systematic observation and experimentation. The reason science tends to be opaque to the public is because it ultimately requires that they understand its language and learn to use its methods. But how do you communicate the history and meaning of science to those who don’t yet speak its language? You turn science into something they can understand. You make it into a narrative, a story.

Sagan mostly turned it into a story about brave and honest scientific pioneers fighting against the forces of superstition and obscurantism. He made it into a narrative of good guys versus bad guys, of the forces of light and progress against closed-minded reactionaries. This was sometimes oversimplified, but it wasn’t entirely wrong; the religious authorities who persecuted Galileo definitely weren’t the good guys. But Sagan fell into the temptation to make this narrative about science fit just a little too closely with the agenda of conventional late-twentieth-century liberalism, so he used “Cosmos” as a platform for the Cold War-era moral equivalence of the “anti-nuclear” movement and homilies about environmentalism.

“Cosmos” is an interesting intellectual time capsule, because it was broadcast just at the point when predictions of global environmental catastrophe were tipping between global cooling and global warming. So he presented the two as equally likely scenarios that required further study (and, of course, massive government funding).

But he dropped his guard at this point, forgot his own admonitions about following the evidence wherever it leads, and indulged the conceit that science would just happen to line up neatly with his own political preferences. What he didn’t do was entertain the possibility that human beings aren’t destroying the planet or cruising toward planetary catastrophe. He did not even consider this null hypothesis as a possibility.

It was a glaring hole in scientific objectivity, and it set the path for the popularizers of science who would follow in his footsteps. He had fixed the narrative in place, and they followed it.

Like I said, I’m a big fan of Carl Sagan. There was a lot of merit in his history of science, his style was thoughtful, and he was adamant about the principle of tolerance for opposing ideas. People like Bill Nye who muse about imprisoning “climate deniers” are unworthy of claiming any part of his legacy. Yet that has been the trend.

Sagan clearly hoped that his stirring narrative about science would inspire young people to go beyond and beneath the narrative and learn the actual method of science. Instead, his successors saw the success of his approach—in terms of attention and celebrity and moral authority—and chose to use the narrative as a substitute for science.

If you don’t really need science so much as the narrative, then what you get is our own era’s official replacement for Sagan: Neil deGrasse Tyson. As the decades pass, Sagan’s imitators become less thoughtful and more propagandistic, less interested in conveying the actual scientific method and more concerned with just telling the public what to think. It’s also about making those who accept the approved “pro-science” political agenda feel they are superior to all of those ignorant, knuckle-dragging bigots who disagree with them. It equates science, not just with the politics of the Left, but with the Left’s attitude of smug condescension. That’s how you get Tyson’s fake-but-accurate narratives or the meme-swapping superficiality of the IFL Science crowd.

That’s also how we get things like the March for Science, in which it is naturally assumed that defending science dovetails perfectly with the Left’s “resistance” against the current administration and every part of its agenda. It reduces science to a narrow political pose and blinds people to its big questions and radically different method of inquiry.

Popularizers like Sagan ended up achieving the opposite of what they set out to do. But every failed experiment is just an opportunity to learn something, and what we learned here is that science cannot be promoted by turning it into a political narrative—not without losing its distinctive virtues. (Federalist)