Warning!

     Daniel Greenfield deposeth and saith:

     The Online Safety Act was sold to the British public as a way to protect children from adult content, but fighting porn proved to be a trojan horse over fighting what the regime cared about.
     Any Britons trying to read the Act probably never made it to Chapter 7 at which point the wooden horse legislation listed a ‘Committee on Disinformation and Misinformation’ and began handing out matching orders on how internet services are supposed to deal with the bogeys of unfettered speech. What does disinformation have to do with keeping kids from accessing porn?
     Recent court hearings revealed that officials had stated that the real purpose was “not primarily aimed at … the protection of children”, but regulating “services that have a significant influence over public discourse”. There’s only one kind of censorship the British government is really into.
     Rather than blocking pornography, the Online Safety Act was used to block videos of parliamentary debates about the Muslim sex grooming gang crisis in the UK. Not only wasn’t the Online Safety Act protecting children from being exposed to sexual content, it was being used to censor revelations about the complicity of the authorities in the sexual abuse of children.

     Yes, that’s Across the Water in our “brother nation” the United Kingdom, but it has some prospects for being replicated here.

     The American left has the same goal as the British Left: unbounded and absolute power in perpetuity. They know, as do my Gentle Readers, that there are three absolute requirements for the maintenance of freedom:

• Education,
• Communications,
• Weaponry.

     No free society can withstand the loss of any of those three,

     The Left has made deep inroads into education in the U.S. I’m sure I need not present the Bill of Particulars all over again. Weaponry is a battlefield: Washington and the state governments have done their damnedest to limit a right guaranteed in the Constitution, and though we of the “gun culture” have had some recent successes in rolling back those incursions, there’s still a long way to go. Communications, thanks to the Internet, was a bright spot for freedom lovers... but the UK’s Left is showing our domestic vermin the path to follow on that front: “safety,” especially for “the children.”

     If there’s anything we ought to have learned beyond all possibility of refutation, it’s that when a Leftist starts talking about “the children,” he’s reaching for power. “The children” is now a shibboleth, a bludgeon-phrase intended to foreclose argument on the current subject, whatever that may be. The Left has no interest in children’s well-being. How on Earth would any concern for children be consistent with “gender fluidity” ideology and “drag queen story hour?” Or allowing Muslims into the United States, come to think of it?

     But as Greenfield notes, the UK’s power-lusters have dropped the mask. Don’t allow our domestic variety to pretend to be different.

Pleasures Of The Tormentor

     Just a quickie today, as I have a great deal to do and very little time in which to do it. First, read this story. Reflect in particular upon the perverse pleasure Jim Galligan got from ruining a young girl’s college prospects...possibly for good. It’s a case study in self-preening assumptions of moral superiority.

     Galligan is not unique; far from it. There are endless Galligans out there, willing to destroy anyone and anything they can tar with even the palest, least plausible smear. Doing harm to others makes them feel good about themselves. It reinforces that assumption of moral superiority. One of the key questions of our time is how to defeat them. There are only two ways:

1. Punish them and those who kowtow to them;
2. Laugh at them and go unconcernedly about your business.

     Nothing else has worked to date. As this is a component in my public order tirade, I exhort my Gentle Readers to ponder it in the light of the observations in that piece.

     But second and arguably even more important, the enveloping problem is one of encroaching linguistic appropriation and censorship. The only way to defeat that is to defy it utterly and stand your ground.

     It speaks volumes to me that Andrea Widburg, the author of the piece linked above, was unwilling to type nigger explicitly in her American Thinker essay. Perhaps she genuinely believes it’s unacceptably offensive. Or perhaps she’s shy about using a “banned” word. In either case, it constitutes a moral default, and here is the reason:

Negroes use nigger frequently among themselves.

     Note that I refuse to call them “African Americans,” just as I refuse to call Amerinds “Native Americans.” They’re Negroes, have been since anthropologists first studied racial classifications and distinctions, and Negroes they will remain. Moreover, this mick-wop honky doesn’t concede anyone the power to ban or “privatize” a word. Neither does my kike wife.

     Do as your conscience directs, always, but please, for the sake of freedom, give at least some thought to the issues here. As for Jim Galligan, he deserves to be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of the country on a rail, and I hope someone geographically well placed for the task will see to it. If he doesn’t like my saying that, he can feel free to call me whatever he likes!

Violations of the 1st Amendment

A President that spies on reporters, claiming national security.

CBS News has the same story.

So, why is the Trump administration's action in the news. In this case, the information given to a reporter really does seem to touch on national security.

Sharyl Atkinson, a well-respected reporter, weighs in on the actions of both administrations.

Shadowing-Banning Explained.

I started this post days ago. I was going to schedule it for early this week.

That schedule may be interrupted. I keep finding more of the Quasi-Corporate, but really Ideology-Controlled Censorship. With the tech-corporate, ed-establishment, and NGO-leadership intertwined in their actions, this is reaching beyond the Collusion level, and into the Conspiracy realm.

Yes, private companies can control the flow of information. However, social media has been given a pass on the content on their platforms, because they have been treated as a common carrier.

...natural monopolies and near-monopolies were deemed to be “common carriers” upon whom the law imposed a duty of providing access on a non-discriminatory basis. The (classically liberal) common law of that era recognized that such entities could exercise market power, or engage in discriminatory conduct without fear of competitive check. Thus, the obligation to serve all on a non-discriminatory basis in order to constrain the exercise of market power, or invidious discrimination based on the preferences of the owner of the common carrier.

It's that non-discriminatory basis that may get them booted from the classification. They've clearly engaged in discrimination by viewpoint. The government could legitimately step in.

However, as a practical move, the timing may depend on the election. If the government signals their hand before the election, expect a frantic response to elect Democrats, involving money, even more censorship, and near-hysteria.

Waiting might be the more prudent move. Surprisingly, Trump might just pull that off - he is a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy, but has been known to move cautiously, given a good reason.

Last - just before this post was scheduled to go live, I found this article about Deep Fakes - videos that have been created, that appear to be the real thing. For a chilling example of what that might mean to you and I, there is this fictional story.

The Offense Gambit

     As any Gentle Reader who’s been following recent developments will know, the scream of “I’m offended!” has become a currency with which to purchase “protection” against disliked opinions, usually in the form of a “safe space” from which such opinions are forcibly excluded. Any number of commentators in the Right have orated on the perniciousness of this trend. The Left’s counter, which has largely gone unanswered, is that various persons have “a right not to be offended.” That claim is usually based on specific characteristics of the persons claiming the right.

     One of the things that made Jordan Peterson’s recent face-off with interviewer Cathy Newman a telling stroke was Dr. Peterson’s immediate riposte of Newman’s claim that transgender persons have “a right not to be offended.” The relevant snippet is below:

     Dr. Peterson clearly understands that a claim such as “a right not to be offended” is by its nature subjective, arbitrary, and unsustainable. He could have attacked Newman as an aspiring dictator, in the exact sense of that word: one who dictates what others must, may, and may not say. He chose not to do so. He elected a wiser course by far: he demonstrated to Newman how he could turn the claim against her should he so choose.

     Leftists haven’t received that sort of treatment nearly often enough.

---

     A contrasting article from Ben Shapiro about the interview pulls the matter into even brighter light. The relevant snippet:

     There’s heavy irony to the fact that Victorian prudishness of manners suddenly abounds on the same Left that champions wearing pussyhats and shouting its abortions. But it’s that Victorian prudishness that tends to win the day — or at least has, for the past several decades. Perhaps that’s because many on the right tend to value manners; good religious men and women studiously avoid causing offense if they have the capacity to do so. It’s worked, too. The Left has wielded the Right’s preference for manners as a club against the Right, claiming offense in order to cow them into silence.

     Of late, however, the Left has simply gone too far. No longer do they ask whether objectively offensive statements ought to be made; they now take each statement and ask whether it is subjectively offensive to anyone.

     The emphasized phrases exemplify why I have no great regard for Ben Shapiro. What can he possibly mean by “objectively offensive?” What metric would apply? What measuring instruments exist? It’s a fantasy, no more substantiable than the Left’s fantasy of “a right not to be offended.” But wait: there’s more!

     If the Left uses manners as a weapon, the logic goes, let’s just discard manners altogether. But there’s no reason to do that. We all ought to behave with decency and truth.

     Note the words “ought to,” which are the equivalent of my whipping boy “should.” These are words that don’t belong in a conversation about politics or public policy. They’re too slippery, and too loaded. They too easily give rise to “must,” “shall,” and “shall not:” the coercions of legislation.

     But that’s not all that’s wrong with the above. “Decency and truth,” eh? Whose definition of “decency” shall we apply? In what settings and contexts? Are privacy and private property relevant, or is any statement made by anyone at any time to any listeners in any gathering liable to collective disapproval?

     Then there’s “truth.” Freedom of speech must necessarily include the freedom to lie, at least as long as it doesn’t reach the level of actionable slander or libel. (It certainly must include the freedom to be mistaken, the odd notions of federal agents notwithstanding.) But who will stand up for that aspect of freedom of speech? Damned few orthodox conservatives. Certainly not Ben Shapiro.

---

Margaret More: Father, that man's bad.
Sir Thomas More: There's no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God's law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him.
William Roper: While you talk, he's gone!
Sir Thomas More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

[From A Man For All Seasons]

     The intemperate are forever willing to “cut a great road though the law” to go after someone or something they deem “bad.” It’s not always the intemperate of the Left. Calls for “decency” emanating from the Right have done as much. Consider the early Twentieth Century “reformers’” campaigns for “decency” and “sobriety,” one and all the work of the time’s social conservatives. Their aims were widely approved...or at least, not widely disapproved. Persons who deemed another’s vices to be that other’s proper business – in the old phrase, to be “between him and God” — usually withheld their opinions, lest the “reformers” target them.

     Demagogues know that. A skilled demagogue can turn his target into “the enemy” even if the target is merely insufficiently enthusiastic about the demagogue’s nostrums. The Right has known as many demagogues as the Left, and ought to be reminded of the dangers they pose.

     Just now the demagogues most to be feared are on the Left, but that must not blind us to the possibilities of a “conservative” neo-Victorian fascism. After all, we’re just as easily offended as anyone alive, and just as susceptible to turning our “shoulds” and “should nots” into campaign of intimidation or a legislative agenda. Let’s stay well away from that chasm.

Quickies: Redefinitions

     “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” – You know perfectly well who.

     For human communication to be trustworthy, specific words must have specific meanings, especially when used in public. If you are unwilling to agree in toto with that statement, you might as well stop reading right now.

     Quite a lot of people are trying their best to redefine the words censor and censorship. I refuse to permit this to pass unchallenged. To censor has always had a specific meaning: to forbid the expression of certain facts or ideas by the threat of punishment.

     Publishers cannot censor. Neither can wholesalers or retailers. They can hide a book. They can discourage mention of it by their employees. They can obscure its availability. They can refuse to have anything to do with it. They can arrange for it to be denounced, whether in their “house organs” or by other writers. But they cannot punish him who seeks to offer it to the general public. That takes a government: an institution with the pre-indemnified use of coercive force against private persons or institutions and their property.

     The emotional power of the word censorship must not be diluted by allowing agenda-laden persons to redefine it to suit their purposes. John Peter Zenger would rise from his grave in horror at the sight. There are other words available that would accurately express the travails of those who can’t get published, or are having their sales impeded, by private institutions. We don’t yet live in a nation in which a publishing company can kill, confine, or expropriate you without breaking the law. God willing, we never will.

Censorship Via Corporate Action

Censorship is not permitted by government, under the Constitution.

However, Leftists have gotten around that little problem by targeting the Social Media Giants for cooperation with their aim of shutting up opposition. David Horowitz's Front Page has a post detailing the ways that Leftists are seeking that aim.

Facebook has been a particularly heavy-handed suppressor of Free Speech. The site has used both algorithms and people to weed out what it terms "hate speech". The result:

The company says it now ­deletes about 288,000 hate-speech posts a month.

But activists say that Facebook’s censorship standards are so unclear and biased that it is impossible to know what one can or cannot say.

One of the people that is concerned about FB censorship is Susan Benesch.

“Facebook is regulating more human speech than any government does now or ever has,” said Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, a nonprofit group that researches the intersection of harmful online content and free speech. “They are like a de facto body of law, yet that law is a secret.”

So, is the answer to empower this project?

No. Their logo tells their viewpoint.

In their little world, speech is as potentially violent as a bomb. In their words:

Dangerous Speech is any form of expression (speech, text, or images) that can increase the risk that its audience will condone or participate in violence against members of another group

 Their Guidelines for determining whether speech is dangerous are available here. I strongly suggest that you read it. It is chilling, as it gently, kindly, oh-so-reasonably lays out a case for destroying the most important of the American Rights.

Here is the profile information for Susan Benesch, the director of that project.

Wrongthink

     The above neologism has gained some currency in recent months, owing to the efforts – semi-comic efforts, to be sure – of those being accused of it. For those who didn’t buy a program at the gate, wrongthink refers to the envelope of the Left’s attempts to silence certain opinions and positions. As the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch are surely aware, that envelope now includes outright, undisguised violence.

     To this point, the violence has been “private:” i.e., conducted by Leftist activists such as “Antifa” and the “Black Bloc.” However, there’s no guarantee that it won’t be “municipalized.” Consider the passivity of the Berkeley, California police in the face of the recent riot there. Consider the memo that recently came to light:

     ...and ask yourself: “Just whose side were they on?”

---

     It’s easy to look at the Berkeley street scenes of which so many videos were taken, note the passivity of the “forces of order,” merely snort in contempt and move along. It’s harder to analyze the matter holistically, but much more rewarding.

     Like many coastal cities, Berkeley is hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, Berkeley’s municipal ordinances regard even a walking stick as something no one ought to carry. (See the memo above.) I have no doubt that anyone who’d been visibly in possession of a firearm would have been arrested on the spot regardless of his conduct.

     What that does, in the face of a street clash that turns violent, is to award an advantage to the more numerous, better organized, more violently inclined force. That force becomes overwhelmingly likely to win the day. The Antifa / Black Bloc forces assumed that, as they were uninhibited about employing violence, the edge would go to them. Yet in the recent dustup, the pro-Trump ralliers, who had sincerely hoped for a peaceful showing, responded to Leftist assaults with an unprecedented degree of fury. The Leftists were unprepared to face it, and were quickly humiliated.

     Don’t imagine that Leftists will fail to draw the moral. At the next confrontation, they’ll be armed. The “forces of order,” which “stood down” on the most recent occasion, will look the other way.

     Wrongthink, you see, deserves no protection.

---

     Godwin’s Law:

     Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage which asserts that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"—that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.

     ...has reached peak absurdity. It is no longer necessary to strain to draw such comparisons. America’s Nazis are here and proud of themselves.

     They’re not in unchallenged power, mind you. They might not be in the ascendant. But they’re out and proud, doing what they can to quench all open dissent from their preferences. You can identify them by their willingness to silence anyone who disagrees with them. In Weimar Germany they wore distinctive brown shirts: the garb of the Sturmabteilung:

     The Sturmabteilung, literally Storm Detachment, functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party (NSDAP).

     It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League (Rotfrontkämpferbund) of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Slavic and Romani citizens, unionists, and Jews – for instance, during the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.

     Like the original Brownshirts, they lack official sanction. However, they receive unofficial forbearance from the police departments of such places as Berkeley, California. The command levels of those departments sympathize with America’s Nazis. They feel wrongthink must be punished. As it would be indiscreet for those commanders to order the police to do so, the commanders order the police not to intervene. Until recently, that was sufficient to award the possession of the streets to the Nazis, and to intimidate anyone minded to challenge them.

     With the most recent events, the commanders’ attitudes might just be turning – but not in the direction of protecting the wrongthinkers! Oh no, we can’t have that. Rather, the police will be encouraged to intervene – subtly at first, no doubt – in favor of the Nazis.

     I may be wrong...but I don’t think I am.

---

     The transition from de facto wrongthink to de jure crimethink – the legal prohibition of the public expression of certain opinions – is already in progress in Europe. Laws that privilege Islam, explicitly banning the expression of certain anti-Islam sentiments, are now in place in France and Germany. Those governments are also pondering the banning of anti-“refugee” sentiments, which have swelled greatly in reaction to the tides sweeping northward and westward from the Muslim Middle East. And of course, there’s considerable agitation for the EU and its member states to condemn Israel and outlaw any commercial interaction with it.

     Too many Americans have told themselves that “it can’t happen here.” Perhaps it can’t, at least with regard to Islam, though the numbers of Muslims in America are growing faster than the population as a whole. But what about other opinions disfavored by our political class and our glitterati? Is it really impossible to imagine that the currents that have produced a rash of “safe spaces” at our institutions of ignorance and indoctrination higher learning could some day burst forth to seize our legislatures – first of municipalities such as Berkeley, then perhaps a few state legislatures, and eventually the Congress of these United States?

     It wouldn’t be promoted as “punishing wrongthink,” but in the name of “public order.” Remember Mark Steyn:

     If it were just terrorists bombing buildings and public transit, it would be easier; even the feeblest Eurowimp jurisdiction is obliged to act when the street is piled with corpses. But there's an old technique well understood by the smarter bullies. If you want to break a man, don't attack him head on, don't brutalize him; pain and torture can awaken a stubborn resistance in all but the weakest. But just make him slightly uncomfortable, disrupt his life at the margin, and he'll look for the easiest path to re-normalization. There are fellows rampaging through the streets because of some cartoons? Why, surely the most painless solution would be if we all agreed not to publish such cartoons. [From Mark Steyn's America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It]

     A few more street battles – especially battles in which America’s Nazis are on the losing end – and laws that forbid the public expression of certain opinions (see the attached list, which will include a schedule of penalties) would become more likely than not. That’s how wrongthink is transformed into crimethink...and the last, pitiful vestige of the freedom Americans once enjoyed is stripped away.

     Scared yet?

---

     I can’t close this essay without mentioning this little raffle, which seeks to promote “wrongthinkers” among our contemporary storytellers. If you enjoy fantasy and science fiction, you’re likely to enjoy the books being given to all entrants. (Entering costs nothing.) The three winners would enjoy a still larger array of “naughty books.” Please consider entering. (No, nothing of mine is on offer.)

Ultimate Silencings

     Every now and then it all seems to come together.

     I’m sure you’ve read about the several instances in which a “TRUMP 2016” sign has appeared at a college campus, and a torrent of whiny, mock-outraged protests has followed. No doubt you’re aware of the “identity” nonsense that’s got the entire nation, its rest rooms, and its pronouns in a lather. And of course there’s the cult of victimism, and the utterly false notion that “hate speech” – see your local leftist loony for the non-definition – isn’t protected under the First Amendment.

     It’s getting even better, Gentle Reader. Really it is:

     The most recent addition to the lexicon of leftist grievance is “message crime”, which popped up at this year’s OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw. According to the annotated agenda, message crimes constitute

     …a rejection of the victim’s identity which can have a marginalizing effect on entire communities. Secondary victimization, where representatives from broader society deny or minimize the seriousness of the incident, can also reinforce and perpetuate this message.

     There is no real attempt to define the new term, just a catchphrase-laden description. And consider the terms used to describe these “crimes”: “rejection”, “identity”, “marginalizing”, etc. That is, the characteristics of what is being anathematized are so vague as to make any judgment entirely subjective.

     Clearly, there are no limits beyond which the Left and its masters will not go. But that’s in the nature of a Ur-totalitarian movement: i.e., a movement that seeks not merely to squelch all opposition, but to prevent even the thought of opposition from entering anyone’s head. Quite obviously, if you can’t think it, you can’t do it. Makes the Ministry of Love’s job a lot easier, and you know how government types hate hard work.

     Speaking of the Ministry of Love, Orwell pinned these developments some seventy years ago, though he wrote about their terminus rather than their evolution:

     Down in the street the wind flapped the torn poster to and fro, and the word INGSOC fitfully appeared and vanished. Ingsoc. The sacred principles of Ingsoc. Newspeak, doublethink, the mutability of the past. He felt as though he were wandering in the forests of the sea bottom, lost in a monstrous world where he himself was the monster. He was alone. The past was dead, the future was unimaginable. What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure for ever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

     He took a twenty-five cent piece out of his pocket. There, too, in tiny clear lettering, the same slogans were inscribed, and on the other face of the coin the head of Big Brother. Even from the coin the eyes pursued you. On coins, on stamps, on the covers of books, on banners, on posters, and on the wrappings of a cigarette packet--everywhere. Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or in bed--no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull.

     As antihero-protagonist Winston Smith discovers through experience, not even that tiny volume within his skull was immune to invasion and prosecution.

     But what is the point, you might well ask? The point, of course, is to induce in the victim – and never imagine that the Left sees you as anything but cattle to be fattened for eventual slaughter – a state of cooperative self-censorship: a condition in which you will be unable to think an unapproved thought because processes installed within your own mind will act to pre-censor it.

     Minority Report’s conception of a Department of Pre-Crime is bad enough, though some might say “Well, if even one life could be saved...” The Left seeks to create billions of automatically acting cerebral Departments of Pre-Crimethink, one per victim. Each of us would become his own, fastest-acting, and most reliable censor.

     Yes, you may well shudder.

---

     I’ve been having a lot of “What’s the use?” days lately. I’m sure you know the syndrome: that state of total personal enervation in which no effort seems justified by its probable results. Garbage like the above, which is gaining popularity throughout the Western world, is a part of the reason: It’s not being resisted. Not only “not effectively;” not at all.

     Even persons whom you’d expect to know better are falling in line. No less a defender of freedom than Glenn Reynolds, our beloved Instapundit, felt compelled to self-censor and apologize for – God help us all – a tweet.

     If Professor Reynolds can succumb, who is immune?

     How many times must I resurrect this essay?

     The essence of the taboo in American society is linguistic: not to speak the forbidden thought or attitude....But even those of us who defy the taboos ideologically are expected to obey their constraints on our vocabulary.

     But controlling our speech is not the Left’s true goal. The Left seeks the ultimate silencing of dissent: each of us must be ruthlessly, rigorously conditioned to pre-censor our minds.

     The disease is too far advanced to allow it further gains. If we’re ever to re-establish freedom of expression as an inviolable principle, the time to dig in our heels and mount a furious counterattack is now.

---

     Long ago, the late, great Robert Sheckley wrote a completely serious novel titled The Status Civilization. In it, protagonist Will Barrent awakens in confinement, all his memories having been erased except for “a meager store of generalized knowledge, enough to keep you in touch with reality.” Presently he is told that he was adjudged guilty of murder, for which reason he has been exiled to a prison planet called Omega. However, Barrent is certain, at some level, that he was falsely accused. The remainder of the story tells of Barrent’s struggle to escape Omega, to return to Earth, and to find those who had condemned him. The “robot-confessor” that sentenced him directs him to a particular address, “where you will find the informer.”

     What he finds comes as a stunning surprise:

     He stood in front of 35 Maple Street. The silence which surrounded the house struck him as ominous. He took the needlbeam out of his pocket, looking for a reassurance he knew he could not find. Then he walked up the neat flagstones and tried the front door. It opened, He stepped inside.
     He made out the dim shades of lamps and furniture, the dull gleam of a painting on the wall, a piece of statuary on an ebony pedestal. Needlebeam in hand, he stepped into the next room.
     And came face to face with his informer.
     Staring at the informer’s face, Barrent remembered. In an overpowering flood of memory, he saw himself, a little boy, entering the closed classroom. He heard again the soothing sound of machinery, watched the pretty lights blink and flash, heard the insinuating machine voice whisper in his ear. At first the voice filled him with horror; what it suggested was unthinkable. Then, slowly, he became accustomed to it, and accustomed to all the strange things that happened in the closed classroom.
     He learned. The machines taught on deep, unconscious levels. The machines intertwined their lessons with the basic drives, weaving a pattern of learned behavior with the life instinct. They taught, then blocked off conscious knowledge of the lessons, sealed it—and fused it.
     What had he been taught?
     For the social good, you must be your own policeman and witness. You must assume responsibility for any crime which might conceivably be yours.

     “The informer” is, of course, his own image in a mirror.

     If Orwell, Sheckley, and I haven’t given you enough to think about yet, there’s nothing more to say but...

     Have a nice day.

Warning Shot

     If you think Hillary Clinton doesn’t really intend to repeal First Amendment protections of freedom of expression, think again:

     Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has sent out a fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no “right to exist,” and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

     “We’ve had a conservative media in this country for a while,” says the email, sent Thursday and signed by deputy communications director Christina Reynolds. “I don’t always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist Reynolds’ acknowledgment that the regular conservative media has a “right to exist,” though, is used to contrast it with Breitbart, which apparently has no such right.

     “Breitbart is something different,” she says. “They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. They’re a different breed altogether — not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers who never have been and never should be anywhere near the levers of power in this country.”

     Miss Reynolds’s gambit is a typical entering-wedge ploy. She accuses the Breitbart site of all manner of sins it’s never committed. She’s counting on popular revulsion at such sins, without any objective evidence thereof, to fuel a campaign to shut Breitbart down. She’s hoping to get enough concurrence with her “free speech is all very well, but you have to draw the line somewhere” cant – as with most such aspiring censors, she’d never actually say where “the line” should be drawn once and for all – to disguise her real agenda.

     The real agenda, of course, is absolute State power over all forms of communication above the level of a conversation over the back fence. Breitbart might be the first to face the guillotine, but it wouldn’t be the last. Liberty’s Torch would be loaded into a tumbril sooner or later.

     There are three absolute requirements for the maintenance of a free society:

1. Education;
2. Weaponry;
3. Communications.

     The Democrats are demonstrably hostile to all three things. They’ve already conquered our educational institutions. They’ve made significant inroads against our right to keep and bear arms. Should they saw through the third leg of the tripod, freedom will be dead and doomed for as far forward into the future as any man alive today can see – and Hillary Clinton has promised to further that attack.

     That’s what we’ll face should the Democrats, the Republican Establishment, the Main Stream Media, and the NeverTrumpers succeed at installing Hillary Rodham Clinton, by leaps and bounds the most corrupt, most deceitful, and most venal figure ever to attain federal power, in the White House this coming November.

Starting Conversations Considered Harmful

     (Perhaps not quite as harmful as the GOTO statement – apologies, Professor Dijkstra – but then, not everyone is willing to abandon that, either.)

     Not long ago, I learned of a group styled the Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance:

     Welcome to the Official Website of the Conservative-Libertarian Fiction Alliance (the CLFA for short). The CLFA is the destination for lovers of fiction and freedom. Visit for the latest news of fiction for consumers ranging from religious conservatives to atheist libertarians and everyone in between – in short, everyone who wants less government control and less SJW authoritarianism, and who loves a good story!

     It sounded like a good idea; after all, “Politics is downstream from culture.” [Breitbart 1:1] –The group boasts a substantial membership, including a couple of well-known writers, and it seemed a good place to look for resources and do the occasional, gentle bit of self-promotion. So after a brief inner struggle, I fought down my anti-joiner inclinations and even though it required me to join Facebook, which I cordially detest, I signed on.

     There’s some substance there, though less than I’d hoped. I did find a cover artist there for Love In The Time Of Cinema, so it hasn’t been a complete waste of time. Mostly it’s just one more Facebook group of persons who find one another generally more agreeable than not swapping recommendations, repartee, and recipes.

     (Yes, recipes. As far as I can make out from my admittedly limited experience, sooner or later every Facebook group will feature recipes for this, that, or the other thing. I’m hoping one of the members will suggest a tasty alternative to the pina colada for my summer indulgence. I've seen nothing so far, but the summer is young.)

     However, it seems that during my brief tenure there, I’ve done something a few other CLFA members dislike: I’ve started a couple of conversations of which not everyone approves. One was on worn-out motifs in urban fantasy; the other was on overtired elements in science fiction. In both cases, a substantial fraction of the responses was “Why are we talking about this?” Another, smaller group held that “We shouldn’t be talking about this.”

     One of the reasons I was reluctant to join Facebook, even though it’s the only effective way to participate in CLFA, is the legendary contentiousness of its members. I have no particular beef with people who like to argue, but there are certain categories of argument that puzzle me. One of them is the sort that runs “Why are we talking about this?” We, whoever that might be, find it interesting enough to add comments. If it bores you, why not simply decline to participate? Surely no one is forcing you to do so.

     Then there are the volunteer censors: “We shouldn’t be talking about this.” Why not? What’s offensive about the subject? That’s a stroke I’d have expected from the Left, not the Right. Anyway, those who are offended by a particular topic have the same option as those who are bored by it.

     Finally, one member posted the same response to each of the two threads I started: “I’ve sold a whole lot of books about this.” Okay, that’s nice, and we’re all happy for you; I am, anyway. But does that mean that others with different preferences ought to keep them to themselves? No one’s trying to invalidate your books; success, as they say, is its own justification.

     I’m no stranger to controversy or contention – Liberty’s Torch should be ample proof of that – but I’m baffled that a site explicitly devoted to “freedom-friendly fiction” should have members more interested in dampening or shutting down the discussion of a subject than in pursuing one that piques their interest.

     I posted a version of this at CLFA’s Facebook site. This will make the maximum degree of irony possible: Someone will suggest that I shouldn’t have done so, and we’ll be off to the races once again.

     UPDATE: The reactions to the above have caused me to delete my Facebook account -- for the third (and probably the last) time. I suppose I should have known better.

Quickies: Censorship’s Latest Frontier

     Just as ‘trans’ rights appear to be the hot new thing in Leftist agitation, freedom of speech is already taking a hit from it:

     Youths in Fairfax County, Virginia, can now be disciplined and even expelled from school for criticizing the intrusive and aggressive transgender ideology.

     The transgender change in school regulations was imposed last night during a dramatic board meeting where only 12 pro-trans witnesses were invited to testify.

     The board members met on Thursday night only after being informed the night before that the discipline change would be considered. No opposing voices were allowed to be heard, parents were relegated to shouting opposition from the seats and some were ejected from the meeting....

     The new regulation reads:

     No student in FCPS shall … on the basis of gender identity … be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity.

This “discrimination” language means that a student who speaks out against the “gender identity” ideology can be disciplined, and presumably suspended and even expelled, according to board member Elizabeth Schultz, who opposed the change.

     So a supposedly “public” school system, supported by the involuntarily paid property taxes of Virginia residents, can now deny access to those who differ with a ‘trans’ claim or what issues from it. So that when something like this happens:

     Nattaphon “Ice” Wangyot, a male-t0-female transgender athlete became the first trans student to compete for a high school state championship last week.

     Wangyot, a senior at Haines High School in Alaska, beat a number of biologically female competitors to the finals at the state Track & Field meet in Anchorage. But her presence at the race was met with some criticism from her fellow runners.

     ...in Northern Virginia, anyone who cites the obvious unfairness of it can be deprived of the education (such as it is) that his parents have already paid for...and will continue to pay for even after he’s been denied it.

     I have a novel coming out soon that features the following passage:

     “The country was deep in the grip of the ‘diversity and inclusion’ fad. It was mostly before you were born, and pretty much a bad memory by the time you were old enough to notice. Noisy minorities were at their noisiest—and since a history of oppression was the legal and social coin of the realm, every one of them claimed to be ‘oppressed.’ The one getting the most attention at the time was ‘trans.’”
     I wasn’t sure I’d heard her correctly. “A transportation company?”
     She chuckled. “No, biological men who wanted to be women, or to be treated as women. A very few biological women who wanted to be men, or treated as men. They called themselves ‘transwomen’ or ‘transmen.’”
     I barked a laugh. I couldn’t help it. I caught hold of it quickly, and forced myself back to seriousness.
     She smirked. “You can laugh because you have no idea how bad it was. But there was nothing funny about it. Even though there were only a few thousand of them all together, they were unbelievably successful at bending governments and institutions to their whim. They won privileges that very few people can imagine today.
     “Tim’s employer’s Human Resources department was run by a gaggle of vicious women—real ones, not ‘trans’—who’d already succeeded in enacting weird ‘sexual harassment’ rules and rules about how to treat persons of differing sexual orientations. You could get fired for daring to defy the company line...so naturally the company’s vicious women and vindictive homosexuals used the rules like a club to subjugate or flat get rid of anyone they pleased.
     “Well, these insane HR harpies needed new worlds to conquer, so they decided to make ‘trans tolerance’ their next campaign. But they didn’t mean ‘show tolerance for the deluded.’ They meant to make differing with a delusional person—calling a ‘trans’ person by his birth name, or referring to him as ‘he’ when he claimed to be a ‘she’—a hangin’ offense.
     “They rewrote the personnel policies for the company for the umpteenth time. Corporate management gave in without a fight. The new policies included mandatory ‘sensitivity training’ seminars for the entire company. Until Tim was herded into one, he had no idea what was coming.
     “He sat through about twenty minutes of their harangue before he couldn’t take any more of it. He felt someone had to take a stand against the lunacy. And Tim being...well, Tim, he wasn’t going to wait for someone else to do it. So he stood up.
     “He told them their nonsense had gone far enough. He said the ‘trans’ types are obviously detached from reality, that they need therapy to help them accept themselves as they are, not reinforcement for their delusions. That we should treat the mentally ill with compassion but that it’s wrong to cooperate in their lunacy. And he said he wouldn’t bow to any rule, from HR or anyone else, that compelled him to think or speak or act otherwise. And he walked out.
     “His supervisor fired him immediately after the seminar. He didn’t have anything against Tim. In fact, he agreed with him. He just didn’t want to tangle with HR.”

     Food for thought...especially for those of you who aren’t self-employed or happily retired.

Quickies: The New Censorship

     Technically – i.e., according to the formal definition – censorship requires that the political authority be involved, specifically to punish unapproved speech with the force of the State. Therefore, technically the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids censorship, as it forbids the making of laws that would allow American governments to penalize speech.

     Well, that’s the theory, at least:

     A Breitbart meetup in Arizona ended with a restaurant cutting off the microphone before a police helicopter strangely descended upon the gathering ordering attendees to disperse.

     In an effort to provide offline fellowship to a community of passionately engaged readers, Breitbart News recently introduced Breitbart local “Meet Ups.” The second event, held in Phoenix on Wednesday night, featured Breitbart’s Brandon Darby discussing border issues and AWR Hawkins discussing gun rights. Between 150-200 people flooded the patio on a cool night at K O’Donnell’s to discuss matters of liberty and network with other like-minded conservatives....

     Just as [Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon] Darby finished his remarks and opened the stage for Q&A, the microphone was suddenly cut off and the audio of the Mets/Cubs game began to blare over the PA system. The attendees began to realize that instead of a technical issue, the management at K O’Donnell’s had purposefully cut off the microphone. Once again, PC culture was trying to silence a peaceful group of people concerned about the direction of the country.

     No longer welcome, the large Breitbart crowd began paying their bills and congregating just outside the establishment. Before most of the crowd could conclude their business with the venue, both Phoenix and Scottsdale police departments arrived on the scene and a police helicopter began circling overhead shining a spotlight on the crowd. A PA system on the chopper began to demand that the crowd disperse.

     What brought this about? According to an attendee:

     The event started out fine. After things got going, apparently one of the non Breitbart customers got offended over the content of the program and complained to the management. The manager claimed they were attacked and threatened by someone in our group, so they called the police claiming 200 unruly patrons.

     There you have it: Persons in the restaurant who didn’t like hearing conservatives talk about gun rights and illegal immigration succeeded in getting the event shut down by the police, with the collaboration of the restaurant’s manager. Not only did this offend against the freedom of speech and the right to assemble, it deprived the restaurant of the revenues it would have accrued had the event been permitted to continue.

     The significance of this event will not be lost on conservatives, would-be censors, or restaurant owners. Perhaps the owners of K O’Donnell should think about getting a new manager.

Quickies: The Gandhi Strategy

     So many people have railed against contemporary, politically correct censorship as engineered by the “social justice warriors” – three lies for the price of one, there – that the video embedded below constitutes mandatory viewing:

     Gavin McInnes has the courage of his convictions. He says what he thinks and does it under his right name. This is the indispensable characteristic, the sine qua non of a truly free society. Mark Steyn explains why:

     As Kathy Shaidle notes, many of the commenters to the McInnes video are talking past each other. There are always rational reasons for not flying under your flag. But cumulatively and objectively they have a corrosive effect. McInnes cites the stand-up mommy who, in response to the arrest of a parent who let her children walk home from the park unaccompanied, organized a "Leave Your Kids At The Park" day - to demonstrate to the statist control freaks that they can't arrest us all. Her name is Lenore Skenazy, not "WarriorPrincess437".

     The trouble is the opposite also applies: the more people who sit it out under handles like "Freedom Crusader" the easier it is to arrest the few who do put their names to it.

     ~I think of this, especially this month, in the context of the Mohammed cartoons. This weekend I shall be speaking in the Danish Parliament on the tenth anniversary of their publication. (See here for ticket details.) For the last few weeks Douglas Murray and I have been doing a mordant back-and-forth on how the only reason we're top of the bill is because everyone else is dead, or in hiding under 24-hour police protection. So there's no one but us to invite.

     Steyn’s concluding punch goes straight to the gut:

     If you don't stand up, you make it easier to silence the few who do.

     So: We now have Gavin McInnes, Kathy Shaidle, Mark Steyn, and an obscure Web commentator who’s hardly worth mentioning on the side of outspokenness under one’s right name. Anyone else?

Rebel with a cause: #FreeSpeech and the flying of the #ConfederateFlag

It started with a cartoon on Wednesday, then a little bit of a video rant on Thursday. Since it's Friday, I'm sharing both here. Like I said in one of those places (or was it on Facebook?), I never cared to wear this particular flag before. Now that it's come down to a Free Speech & Free Expression issue? I just can't help myself.

Do you agree or disagree with my premise that the flag, "isn't about slavery; it's a sign of rebellion against 'Authori-TAH'?"

Fine Lines Or Battle Lines?

     It’s gratifying to note how much attention Patrice Stanton’s short piece on “Free Speech & Fine Lines” has received. Truly, the ability to depict a conflict in a visual form has more impact than any number of words. But for some of us, your humble commentator most emphatically included, words are all we have...which might be a good thing:

     I damn sure didn’t go to war for this country twice to come home and be told by a bunch of homely chicks with daddy issues, effete literary fops scandalized by the notion of resistance to Third World pathologies, and nimrod sons of politicians playing at journalism what I can and can’t say. And I don’t think most Americans are ready to have everything they speak, write, or think perused for possible hate criminality by these same goose-stepping creeps.

     We’d rather die than “live” on our knees, begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please. And those who want to shut us up better be equally committed if they want to succeed.

     After Garland, they went too far. They showed their hand and their goal, a world where they decide who gets to say what. Imagine the same hysterical social justice drama queens who shriek about microaggressions getting to decide what you can and can’t say. Just understand, you fascist bastards, that if you want to be Nazis, you’ll need to do what the Nazis did and find some armed thugs – yeah, I’m using the word “thugs” whether you like it or not – to come stop us. Tell them to wear Kevlar.

     Please read the entire column. Then multiply it by 100,000,000. That’s roughly the magnitude of the reaction against the sort of vilification that’s been heaped on Pamela Geller...for holding a cartoon-drawing contest.

     The Left’s cat’s-paws in the media may have finally gone too far. But let’s not leave it there, shall we? Let’s take a broader look at the “progressive” campaign against freedom of expression.

---

     “You got to use all your weapons.” -- Jim Bouton

     The Left understands Bouton’s insight. The Right does not...at least, we don’t often behave as if we do.

     The Left’s attack on freedom of expression is multi-pronged:

1. Legal: By “lawfare” suits against persons who express views inimical to its aims.
2. Financial: Through boycotts and threats of boycotts against the representatives of viewpoints it disapproves.
3. Ostracism: Through thunderous media denunciations of such representatives.
4. Deceitful: By slandering or libeling those whose statements it disapproves.
5. Tendentious: By carefully choosing words and phrases that misdirect one’s attention.
6. Physical: Through actual campaigns of destruction and physical intimidation.
7. Victim-Blaming: By recasting atrocities as somehow the fault of those attacked (e.g., the attack on Pamela Geller as “her fault” for “baiting” radical Muslims).

     Not every tactic works on every occasion, but the multiplicity of them is sufficient to intimidate, even paralyze, quite a few people with important things to say – things that must be said. If you can be made to feel that all of society’s “big guns” are aimed at you, you can be induced to self-censor, and those must-be-saids might just go unsaid.

     However, if they continue to be said, even by a tiny minority of the un-cowed, anger at the Left’s suppressive tactics will build. So the Left’s agenda depends on achieving total success...and fortunately for these United States, that has proved impossible.

---

     A few months back, the following sequence of simple drawings was used to dramatize the Left’s attack on our right to keep and bear arms:

     I submit that the Left has sought to apply a similar progression to freedom of expression, albeit not principally by legal means. Yes, their mouthpieces – including the evil bastard in the White House – have railed against the Citizens United decision, but short of a Constitutional amendment effectively repealing the First one, they’ll get nowhere with that. Their campaign against freedom of expression has mainly used “political correctness:” an attempt to get us to self-censor by disapproving of us so stridently that we become convinced that we’re being naughty.

     Mind you, these are the same people who praise “art” such as “Piss Christ” and “plays” such as The Vagina Monologues. These are the same people who celebrated Andrea Dworkin. These are the same people who adore homosexual-activist parades that feature all manner of “transgressive” dress and conduct. These are the same people who lionize Emma Sulkowicz. When the “naughtiness” supports their agenda, they have no problem with it.

     A full-throated, utterly courageous counterattack is the only credible response. Moreover, it, too, must be multi-pronged:

1. It’s not “reproductive choice;” it’s killing babies in service to irresponsible promiscuity.
2. It’s not “transgressive sexuality;” it’s perversion on public display.
3. It’s not “social justice;” it’s demands by good-for-nothings for what they refuse to earn.
4. It’s not “environmentalism;” it’s a back-door attack on capitalism by closeted socialists.
5. It’s not “anti-racism;” it’s black hatred for and violence against whites.

     ...and so forth. Take especial note of what Peter Berkowitz said in his recent essay on the subject:

     Nevertheless, most of the elite media—overwhelmingly left liberal—have largely neglected to cover the left's crusade against free speech. Operating out of newsrooms, as Powers observes, in which "there is nobody to push back on their biases," reporters seem unable to detect anything amiss on campuses, in the media, and in the political arena where, after all, the draconian regulation of speech is intended to serve avowedly left-wing causes.

     That deliberate averting of the eyes by the media will only break down if we resolve to break it. Now that there are alternative conduits for the news, the Main Stream Media are losing credibility, specifically because people have noticed that they won’t cover certain subjects, and will only cover certain others in a deceitful fashion. That makes it possible for us to bring them to heel, if only we’re willing to be loud enough, numerous enough, and persistent enough.

     Once the Left has lost its control of the media, all else will follow, for without media protection, its various initiatives cannot be sustained. Decent persons, heartened by the crescendo of sentiment against their schemes, will mass to wipe them out.

---

     There’s a “potential well” to be dealt with here. Until enough persons find enough courage to speak openly and stridently against Leftist attempts to silence us, there won’t be enough persons to speak openly. That’s part of why I’ve kept on with this drivel for eighteen years now. Someone has to take the early risks. Someone has to expose himself, and at least act as if there’s nothing to fear. Someone must say what must be said.

     The battle lines have already been drawn. Which side are you on?

Constitutional Math

Oops! Sounds like it was a "Shooting & Cartooning" contest.

My husband and I had the "interesting" fortune of attending Pamela Geller's Mohammed Cartoon event in Garland, Texas, Sunday night, May 3rd, 2015. As you probably know, Bosch Fawstin was the double prize winner, making my entry a loser. (No worries, though, I'm already planning next year's entry and it's sure to be a winner.)

It was a very long night, with no physical injuries to either of us, just some stretching of our patience (towards its limits). Monday afternoon, after the long trip back to Garland, we retrieved our vehicle. Immediately we rushed back towards D/FW airport to get my husband off on a business trip he wasn't actually sure he could complete until finally stepping into the terminal in the nick of time.

Once I got back home - alone - it all hit me fairly hard, but in a way that quite surprised me. I was what I can only describe as despondent. I took a couple of days, during which I talked to my husband of course, but only briefly, after all he was "soldiering on" so I needed to as well.

But as my mood refused to budge I wondered, "Where online might I find people who've been in stressful situations, events that didn't go the way they'd planned...yet they'd made it through a little bit wiser for it?" And so I sought and recieved some timely advice from readers over at westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com.

I got my thoughts on the totality of Sunday's events together only after letting those readers' good advice sink in. I put it in a video for my YouTube channel which is as much confession as it may be advice for others. YouTube is where I keep up with many of the issues I'm interested in and so it's a natural place for me to share a lot of my "deeper thoughts" these days (sometimes attempting a tounge-in-cheek delivery style). I hope you'll let me know what you think of my thinking.

“Microaggressions” and “Triggers”

     Ace is on fire:

     We used to call "microaggressions" our personal peeves, but the Social Justice Warriors want to make it sound important (and give it the false sheen of academic rigor), so they called it "microaggressions." Note this word also shifts the party responsible -- it used to be understood that if you had a pet peeve, it was your pet peeve.

     Now comes the word "microaggression" to make it sound like the guy who activated your pet peeve did so voluntarily and, well, aggressively -- instead of it just being you getting annoyed, because you're sensitive.

     For a long time, I've heard Asians, in particular, talking about the particular "microaggression" of asking "Where are you from?" When they say "Fort Lee, New Jersey," the other person says, "No really, but where are you from?"

     Several things here. One, I can see how this would be annoying.

     Two, I don't think many people actually ask the question this way. I think the question is here being deliberately made to sound more stupid than it was actually posed. Like, I'd ask, "I mean, where does your family originate from?"

     But I wouldn't ask that, because now I know it's the Worst Thing Ever to try to find out if the person you're speaking to is of Korean or Chinese, or Korean or Japanese, extraction, because like You Should Just Know Or Something.

     This put me in mind of the scene in Clint Eastwood’s movie Gran Torino where Eastwood’s character introduces his young Hmong protégé to one of his friends, an Irish barber. If you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about; if you haven’t, for the love of God, get a copy and see it! It’s one of the best movies of the last few years.

     I’m also reminded of a scene in Frank Herbert’s neglected novel The Santaroga Barrier:

     “I’m going to tell you something, sir,” Burdeaux said. “Maybe you can understand if I tell you about something happened to me here. It’s a thing that would have hurt me pretty bad one time, but here...We were at a Jaspers party, sir. It was right after Willa, my girl, announced her engagement to Cal Nis. And George, Cal’s daddy, came over and put his arm across my shoulder. “Well there, Win, you old nigger bastard,” he said, “we better have us a good drink and a talk together because our kids are going to make us related.” That was it, Mr. Dasein. He didn’t mean a thing calling me nigger. It was just like...like the way we call a pale blond fellow here Whitey. It was like saying my skin’s black for identification, the way you might come into a room and ask for Al Marden and I’d say “He’s that red-headed fellow over there playing cards.” As he was saying it, I knew that’s all he meant. It Just came over me. It was being accepted for what I am. It was the friendliest thing George could do, and that’s why he did it.”

     Dasein scowled trying to follow the train of Burdeaux’s meaning. Friendly to call him nigger?

     “I don’t think you understand it,” Burdeaux said. “Maybe you’d have to be black to understand. But...well, perhaps this’ll make you see it. A few minutes later, George said to me, “Hey, Win, I wonder what kind of grandchildren we’re going to have—light, dark, or in-between?” It was just a kind of wonderment to him, that he might have black grandchildren. He didn’t care, really. He was curious. He found it interesting. You know, when I told Annie about that afterward, I cried. I was so happy I cried.”

     A place – a community – where you don’t have to pre-censor every word you think to utter, because your neighbors are men of good will and know you to be one too. Wouldn’t you love to live in a society like that?

---

     The Social Justice Warriors are utterly opposed to freedom of speech and thought. In case you’re wondering, you can’t have the second without the first. For reasons beyond the scope of this tirade, our thinking is tied indissolubly to our speaking.

     Time was, showing a friendly interest in a new acquaintance’s heritage was considered mildly complimentary. Now that it’s been deemed a “microaggression,” a form of “othering,” there appears to be a general license to take offense at any such inquiry. Granted that there are still many persons who don’t take offense, to avoid unpleasant public confrontations one must pre-classify all one’s acquaintances as “man of good will” or “touchy bastard looking for a reason to take offense” before daring to speak.

     That reality is a large part of why I limit my public exposure so sharply. When another person takes umbrage at my innocent remark, I rear up on my hind legs and bellow a war cry. The sequel is often quite unpleasant.

     This, too, is part of the SJWs’ agenda: the atomization of American society into discrete, mutually suspicious or hostile groups. Persons who believe themselves surrounded by enemies will naturally look for protectors...and the State is ever ready to step into that role.

---

     Before I close, a few words about “triggers.” This concept is exculpatory: an argument for excusing violence or other forms of disruption on the part of some Leftist mascot-group. The principal ones are, of course, Negroes, women, and homosexuals.

     The “trigger” concept is tightly tied to “microaggression,” in that it is almost entirely verbal. The “wrong” word is now deemed adequate justification for an abusive or violent response. It’s not that long ago that the notion would have been laughed out of court: “Incitement to riot is not a justification for riot.” But things have changed rather dramatically, and not for the better.

     Present trends continuing, this combination of SJW tactics will drive a redistribution of the American population. There will soon be regions where only one category of persons is accepted: Caucasian, Negro, Mongolian, Amerind, conservative, liberal, what-have-you. Subtle but effective techniques will be applied to exclude those “not of our kind.” Those regions will be enduringly on guard against their “different” neighbors. Such a Balkanization will spell the end of the United States as a functioning national society.

     This effect is already observable in Britain, France, and several smaller European countries. It’s not making them more peaceful or more politically coherent.

Repression And Rebellion

     Commentator and television host Greg Gutfeld notes an important development today:

     Hosted by Kevin Hart, guests on the Comedy Central Bieber Roast included the aging Snoop Dog, the salty Natasha Leggero, the forgettable Ludacris, and the good sport that is Martha Stewart. Many of the jokes were likely written by Redeye favorite Jesse Joyce, or maybe Kurt Metzger. The jokes won’t be retold here, but to summarize: the barbs directed at Martha were filthy, Leggero was referred to as a whore multiple times, Ross compared Shaquille O’Neal to King Kong, jokes were made at the expense of a comedian’s dead father (some by the comedian himself) – who died on 9/11. The content was racist, sexist, sizest, homophobic, transist (not sure that’s a word), and most of all hurtful. It was all a disgusting mess, for the most part (it’s a roast, people).

     In short, if any of this stuff had been said anywhere else — on campus, or twitter – the speaker would be shamed into oblivion.

     (Unless, of course, you’re Trevor Noah, and have Jon Stewart’s blessing).

     It’s the only place – and perhaps the last place for now, where you can still make jokes about illegitimacy, suffering, and death – and get away with it.

     I got the sense from watching it, that the roast has become less about ripping apart of a famous celebrity, but more a release valve in an increasing uptight, suffocating culture. The spread of manufactured moralism – where a joke or hypothetical situation (as rebel thinker Gavin McInnes posits) takes on the appearance of a threat greater than actual physical harm – is now driving real, authentic freedoms into careful pockets. The roast is more cathartic than funny.

     There’s a reason for the similarity between the words repression and pressure.

     That which we repress has a tendency to mushroom inside us. Should the pressure build beyond our capacity to withstand it, the eruption can be dramatic...and violent. This is as true of legally or socially-enforced norms as it is of a bad belch.

     The Left’s current campaign to control our thinking by controlling what we may say is having exactly this effect. Think of all the individual words their forces have tried to ban. I’ve written about this before, of course, but the Left’s campaign has moved into even higher gear in the most recent years. A good example is the attempt by the supporters of Hillary Clinton to forbid a wide range of criticisms of Her Royal Majesty as “sexist” – in truth, as verbal lese majeste.

     A bit after the original “Shamans” post cited above, I wrote in a coda:

     Linguistic taboos, bad enough in themselves, are an entering wedge for other sorts of controls. When the taboo crosses from being cause for castigation to being a justification for punishment, genuine censorship has arrived.

     Does anyone doubt that this is the next stop on the Left’s crusade? But equally, does anyone doubt that a backlash is building – indeed, as Gutfeld strongly hints, that safety valves, though they’re already opening, will ultimately prove insufficient – and that the eventual rebellion will be horrible?

---

     The dynamic that fuels censorship is bifurcated. For some, it’s a tactic employed in the implementation of an agenda. For others, it’s merely a way to enjoy what they find most pleasurable: the exercise of power.

     He who lusts for power over others is inherently evil. I trust this requires no great argument in its justification. The evil man, once he has some degree of power, will use it to acquire more, for power is a drug that doesn’t sate. However, the enjoyment of power requires that it be used. For, as O’Brien said to Winston in 1984, to enjoy your power, you must be actually coercing your victim at the moment:

     ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
     Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
     ‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.’

     But this sin, like many others, carries the seeds of its own comeuppance. Driving critical and hostile speech underground makes it even more dangerous to the ruling elites than driving a religion underground. It increases otherwise uninvolved persons’ interest in what's being said, and why, and why it’s being suppressed, and whether it might be true. Of course, you can’t expect the ruling elites or their protected mascot-groups to realize any of that; they’re getting too much of a thrill out of the power they wield.

     It often seems to me as if Tyrant's Disease has a built-in antibody in the form of Tyrant's Arrogant Stupidity. This is such an occasion. Unfortunately, the cure is at least as unpleasant as the disease itself.

---

     Nothing under the veil of time is truly stable. Every life, however long, will end. Every institution, however mighty, will eventually fall. Even black holes will collapse through quantum evaporation. Even baryons will eventually decay. The one thing we can count on is that “this too shall pass away.”

     The Left’s burgeoning censorship regime, today being imposed mainly by excoriation rather than by law, will pass away as well. What follows could be unbelievably ugly; let us pray that it not be so. But the probability of a horrifying result increases with every word or phrase that’s deemed unspeakable, and every thought that’s deemed beyond the pale. It is our right and our duty to resist, not merely for the preservation of freedom in our time, but to minimize the destruction that will follow when the Left’s house of cards collapses.

     “Inevitable” is a word one should use only with great caution. But if all things must pass, then the collapse of the Left-imposed regime of speech and thought is inevitable, as is the backlash that will follow should it not be fought back while we still possess the numbers, the means, and the will.

Speak No Evil?

As public confidence dwindles in the supposedly protective mechanisms around us, we confront a choice of paths into the future:

1. We can surrender to the tides that threaten us;
2. We can become self-reliant;
3. We can close our eyes.

(Note carefully what I didn’t say. We cannot make the inherently untrustworthy agents of the State trustworthy, nor will improving their equipment, their training, or – may God help us all – their “inclusiveness” make us any safer. It’s been tried, people. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.)

He who has surrendered mentally will choose option #1. He who has resolved to survive and flourish will choose option #2. But he whose fragile mettle will not allow him to confront the evidence of the onrushing darkness will choose option #3.

It’s notable that #3 types cannot endure any dispute about what they’ve chosen to deny. That might be because it’s harder to shut your ears than your eyes. Whatever the reason, if a #3 type leans in a certain direction politically, he’ll want to silence those who’ve chosen options #1 and #2. If he’s politically or journalistically active, he’ll strive for exactly that result, whether through the law or through derision and intimidation.

Kevin Williamson gives us a look at one of the tactics employed:

The “Fox News Is Stupid and Evil” article is by now its own genre of journalism, albeit one that almost nobody does very well. In the course of attempting to enlighten some not especially bright Democrats earlier this week — hola, @mcspocky! — I went looking through a few of the so-called studies that purport to demonstrate that Fox News viewers are deeply and uniquely misinformed about public affairs. They are mostly horsepucky, as I demonstrated with this assortment of dim-witted accounts of the PunditFact “study” (which is not a study) of disputed Fox News statements, the authors of which rightly warn against using it to make general conclusions about Fox News, inasmuch as the data sample is admittedly arbitrary and biased — not out of malice or bad faith, but because the very structure of such fact-checking columns ensures that it is so, among other things by examining only disputed statements.

Other entries in the genre are not holding up well over time, either. The gentlemen-scholars of Alternet gave it their very best with a piece published under the subtle headline “Study confirms that Fox News makes you stupid.” The column contains a bullet list detailing nine outrageous things that Fox News viewers believe in error, which I have reproduced here with my comments in brackets.

The entire piece is well worth your time – Williamson, whom I have criticized in the past, does yeoman’s work in this selection – but above all, ponder his conclusion:

The Left has learned over the years that winning debates is difficult but discrediting people and institutions is relatively easy. You point the finger and yell “racist!” or “stupid!” or “stupid racist!” long enough and loud enough and it will start to stick. And for a long time, the Left did not have to do very much debating, because there was no Fox News, no Rush Limbaugh et al., and no conservative alternatives online. Now there are, and so the Left’s most pressing order of business is the delegitimization of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh et al., and conservative alternatives online. And if that doesn’t work, Harry Reid is ready to repeal the First Amendment, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is ready to see you locked up for your political views.

And when that happens, you can bet that somebody will publish a study finding that it’s the only rational thing to do.

Indeed.

---

Does anyone else here recognize the name of Theodor Adorno? You can be forgiven for it if you don’t. Yet Adorno was among the originators of the “stupid or evil” rhetorical tactic of which the Left is so fond. As he fancied himself a “scientist,” he gave it a pseudo-scientific gloss. His book The Authoritarian Personality became a basic text for the Frankfurt School rhetoricians and dialecticians who came after him. Notable among them was Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse embraced Adorno’s “conservatives are fascists” thesis wholeheartedly. As he wrote in his infamous 1965 tract “Repressive Tolerance:”

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word....

Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and 'philosophies' can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the 'marketplace of ideas' is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities....

[1968 Postscript:] As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition.

Note the use of “false consciousness” in the above. This is a thinly veiled assertion that if you disagree with Marcuse, you’re probably stupid. Marcuse subsumes the “evil” part from Adorno’s assertions about “the authoritarian personality,” which he unabashedly identifies with political conservatism and incredibly equates to “fascist.”

(Yes, yes, the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch are already aware that fascism is a Marxist phenomenon, but some things cannot be said too often.)

Adorno and Marcuse provided the activist Left with rhetorical weapons they’ve used to campaign against freedom of expression for decades. Happily, they’ve made little progress so far. However, as the storm clouds mass above us, an increasing percentage of Americans find that they prefer not to hear the plain facts about any of them. Some of them would like to silence the rest of us and the organs we use for communication and mutual information, and are willing to sign on to the activists’ campaign to see to it.

---

A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers...and its greatest strength is a free press when ‘free’ is defined as ‘responsible’ and the managers define what is ‘irresponsible.’ – Professor Bernardo de la Paz, in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

The political campaign to limit free expression to what political powers that be decide is “reasonable and responsible” will be presented to us under a number of rationales. Some will have a superficially attractive veneer. Others will be wrapped in the stark colors of fear. Regardless of the rationale, the aim will be to put the State in charge of what may and may not be said: an abrogation of our First Amendment guaranteed rights.

As Clarence Carson once wrote, left-liberals have long maintained that freedom of speech plus the vote are sufficient to “protect freedom.” They were insincere then; they’re showing their true colors now. All that remains is to see whether decent persons will let them get away with it.