Comment of the Day: Amherst Students Have Learned The Progressive-Approved Method to Win Political Debates: Intimidate And Censor The Opposition

Those were the days, my friend...

Those were the days, my friend…

Arthur in Maine delivered a suggested administrative reply to the asinine”demands” of Amherst students, who appeared to be either trying to make state school students, like in Missouri, feel better by proving that attendees of elite private colleges could be idiotic too, or attempting to emulate their imagined betters at Yale  I hope Arthur’s form letter gets a workout, because there will be plenty of audiences for it.

Yesterday, there was an especially ugly demonstration at Dartmouth on November 12, with over 150 Black Lives Matter student members accosting white students and chanting, “Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” “Fuck you and your comfort!” and “Fuck you, you racist shit!,” among other Elizabethan epithets worthy of the culture and and verbal virtuosity they have been imbued with in Hanover. Black Lives Matter is at the root of this uprising by the black privileged against the white privileged; it has been a racist and hate-based movement from the beginning, and the knee-jerk progressive politicians, journalists, pundits and leaders, including Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who have given it their seals of approval either actively or passively should have this and all the  ugliness to come stamped on their resumes. They worked hard to create racial paranoia and divide the nation by color and ethnicity. This was the predictable result: I predicted it; many did. They intentionally planted dynamite in the nation’s most vulnerable fault-line—race— for political gain, and the tremors have started, where they usually do, on the campuses.

Good job, everybody. Good job.

These things do not happen in a vacuum. The macro-cause is always weak leadership, in the home, in the classroom, in the nation. Students may not know much, but they can tell when their country is in distress, and they want to participate in effort to help. Unfortunately, they have one tool at their disposal—disruption—and it usually makes the distress worse.

For I too am from the Sixties. It gave me a twinge of sympathy for Hillary Clinton when she got so much criticism for saying this during the debate on Saturday, for she only meant that she has experience with this phenomenon, and has seen it up close. (Well, she was also trying to duck the question.)

Arthur’s excellent script for administrators is, I fear, too little too late. These culture-wounding attacks on trust and speech  have been nurtured by parents, demagogues, indoctrinating teachers and cynical political leaders; administrators, the least influential and the most lily-livered of all, have scant chance of stemming it.

It would be a start, though.

Here is Arthur in Maine’s Comment of the Day on the Ethics Alarms post, Amherst Students Have Learned The Progressive-Approved Method to Win Political Debates: Intimidate And Censor The Opposition:

 

Dear Kids:

I address you this way because your list of demands reveals you as exactly that. In that the study of human development is a discipline offered here at Amherst (and something of a necessary focus for a college administrator) I’d peg the tenor of your “demands” as consistent with those of most three-year-olds.

As to the demands themselves, the answer is no, and here’s why.

1) Amherst College doesn’t hold you responsible for anything you did before you got here, It’s ludicrous to expect the College to accept responsibility for anything that happened before the rest of us did.

2) Threats are the tool of a thug. We pride ourselves on tolerance at Amherst, but one thing we do NOT tolerate is thugs. Do ANYTHING that even gives the appearance of acting on your threats, and you’ll be expelled. By the way, if you are expelled, we’ll keep your parent’s money. I’m cc-ing them on this, just so they know about that last part.

3) For the love of God, learn how to write. We have some excellent writing courses here at Amherst. Pull any of this shit, and you’ll be unable to find that out for yourselves.

4) There are about 1800 of you. The world’s population is now estimated at approximate seven billion. Ask yourselves how many of those people would far rather be at Amherst than where they are right now.

5) Tangential to that last point, your presence at Amherst means that collectively, you represent roughly 0.0000026 percent of the world’s population. Just a suggestion, but you might consider not whining about privilege, being grateful for what you have, and starting to figure out how to use what you learn here for the betterment of all.

Do I make myself clear? Now get back to your studies and stop making fools of yourselves.

15 Comments

Filed under U.S. Society

15 responses to “Comment of the Day: Amherst Students Have Learned The Progressive-Approved Method to Win Political Debates: Intimidate And Censor The Opposition

  1. From ‘Dartmouth Review’ article: “The tactics, tone, and words of the Black Lives Matter protesters eerily mirrored everything they claim to stand against. The long list of their clear oversteps should spark a moment of reckoning for every honest onlooker, and especially those who have sympathized with their movement to this point.”

    Everyone who has looked upon the last year+ of Black rioting/protesting/revolt registered at a visceral level what, in fact, what it meant and represented. I think it must be reduced to ‘strict power principles’ to understand what it is, and also where it leads. To become intellectually aware that ‘the tactics, tone, and words of the Black Lives Matter protesters eerily mirrored everything they claim to stand against’ is the mind finally registering what the ‘body’ knew all along: This is about power, use of power, and the desires of power-hungry persons interested in displacing those in an existing power-structure. By hook or by crook, the ends justify the means.

    The book ‘After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s’ (this was the shorter article, later expaned into a book, that was publsihed in Guide Magazine: http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm), offers a map of sorts, modelled after Alinsky, for enforcing, through strategy and ploy, the acceptance of unwanted practices and attitudes on an entire nation. The PR industry, in concert with a mercantile and political class, has worked side-by-side to bring a perversion into the cultural sphere and make it normal. It seems to me this is an insidious aspect of radical leftist undermining.

    There is a similar ‘movement’ in operation now (using the same tactics) but it takes place in a different cultural locality and yet has to do with ‘rights’, with righteousness, with ‘righteous indignation’, with pointed activism which aims at a vulnerable emotional center in white people. Effectively, they simply have no defence against the ‘attack’ brought against them at this level. In my view, until whites can counter the emotional, the visceral attack’ with a position of self-definition which involves recognition of and acceptance of white identity, the ‘social putsch’ will only continue: for one venue to another, from one institution to another. Whites will collapse though, they will turn to jelly, or they will crawl away before they confront, at the level it requires confrontation, what is sweeping over the cultural landscape.

    Arthur in Maine has communicated some ideas – a little comic really – that will only bounce around in the mind and go no further. Meaning, they do not penetrate to an emotional level, and into the body. (My idea is that ideas only have power when the ’emotional body’ gets behind them) It is irony or sarcasm and is designed, I guess, to shame. But it will have and it can have no effect whatever. Everyone in this ‘protest movement’ will merely laugh at it. Because power knows what it can achieve against anaemic and powerless individuals.

  2. Steve-O-in-NJ

    All I can say is, I am glad I left college behind 20+ years ago. I saw a few flickers of protest in the wake of Rodney King and the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, but they never reached this level of outright thuggery. Neither the campus police nor the jebbies in charge would have stood for it, leave alone the parents.

    I wonder if some of this brazen and arrogant behavior comes from the hagiography that has been painted over the Sixties by sympathetic writers and academics. To read some of the literature you would think that the students and activists were Saints Francis and Claire, trying to bring peace and enlightenment to a world of terror and oppression, and the only fault that folks like the Weathermen and those responsible for the Greenwich Townhouse explosion committed was being a little overzealous. You don’t hear much about the extremely violent riots, the bank robberies, or the fact that those responsible for that bombing were actually preparing to set a bomb at a dance for NCOs at Fort Dix. If you do, it’s quickly glossed over or even excused. You certainly don’t hear of consequences falling on the majority of the activists, a lot of whom are tenured academics now, or the students, who frequently got a slap on the wrist, graduated, and became lawyers, doctors, captains of industry, etc.

    The other side is sometimes just as guilty with painting over the realities of life on the battlefield or patrolling the mean streets, but that’s tangential. Maybe the activists DON’T get the hagiographic treatment here, especially not with social media so prevalent. It’s one thing when everyone just sees sanitized news with campus police beating up some poor schlub or a demonstration that’s just students singing. It’s another when you see the raw footage of black thugs muscling journalists away or attacking those who won’t join their disruptive behavior. I hope that plenty of that gets out, to the point where anyone with a functioning brain can’t deny the truth.

  3. Steve-O-in-NJ: “I wonder if some of this brazen and arrogant behavior comes from the hagiography that has been painted over the Sixties by sympathetic writers and academics.”

    I would suggest that unless someone – carefully and thoughtfully: analytically – has dissected categorised the ‘Sixties’ movement, and been able to separate out of it what is good (or ethical) from what is not good (and possibly unethical), the de facto position is some sort of fuzzy warmth about the Sixties. This has penetrated the culture to a profound depth. But more than that it resonates in an emotional center since it was not only radical ‘ideas’ that came on the scene, but extremely tangible emotions. To sort through all that is not easy since, to be truthful, ‘all that’ represents a massive and extremely potent seduction of a cultural body. Yet it was so much fun to be seduced and many ‘good things’ came out of it, too.

    I suggest that almost no one has been able to get things correctly sorted out. And by that I mean to arrive at a cogent ethical platform. How verey much so this is at a national level and at the level of managing a now-declining superpower of vast proportion.

    Unless someone can access the rigor and the discipline of a spiritual or religious path – here speaking uniquely of the personal level – a secular relationship is not strong enough, is not enough of a platform to combat forces which seek and manage to penetrate our own ‘spiritual body’. You will have no defence and in a sense no right to defend yourSELF. You must simply open your body-mind door and let the Powers determine you. This sounds quackish, I know, but I can explain and defend the reasoning.

    This is how power functions: It gets right to the core. It goes for the core. It side-steps the wavering mind. It operates at a visceral level.

    I’d further suggest that, in terms of power (as I am attempting to define it, perhaps erroneously) and the use of power, the recent movements or uprisings have a great deal to do with, and the impetus arises out of, the power-claiming and violence of rap music. The origins are here and less (it seems to me) in ideology.

  4. Consider this interview. Stephanopoulous interviews Obama: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiybapwQFD0

    How to go about successfully challenging a master rhetorician (or a sophist depending on one’s mood)?

    What I find curious is that Obama articulates, intellectually, and successfully, what is in reality a visceral, emotional platform.

  5. Other Bill

    Re President Obama’s involvement in what’s going on. From an article in the NY Post (excuse the length but I really think this is worth seeing):

    Barack Obama’s presidency has been pockmarked by rioting, looting and protests. That’s no coincidence. It’s what the former community organizer sought from Day One. And it’s just going to get worse before he leaves office.

    The senseless protests we’re seeing break out on the campuses of the University of Missouri, Yale and other colleges, as well as on bridges and highway overpasses and outside police stations, are precisely the kind of thing Obama was trained to organize while attending leftist agitation schools founded by Chicago communist Saul Alinsky. He learned to a fare-thee-well how to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”

    These irritating, self-absorbed, belligerent brats will “hands-up, don’t shoot” themselves into every cobwebbed corner of society.
    Now Obama is returning the favor of his Alinsky masters, training and cloning an army of social justice bullies to carry on his revolution to “fundamentally transform America.” He’s doing it mainly through a little-known but well-funded group called Organizing for Action, or OFA, which will outlast his administration.

    OFA, formerly Obama for America, has trained more than 10,000 leftist organizers, who, in turn, are training more than 2 million youths in Alinsky street tactics.

    The leftist group, which recently registered as a 501c4 nonprofit eligible for unlimited contributions, holds regular “organizing summits” on college campuses.

    Through social media, they mobilize flash mobs against “biased cops,” “climate-change deniers,” “Wall Street predators” and “gun extremists.” They hold rallies against conservative foes of gay marriage, LGBT rights, abortion and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    In addition, Obama has trained hundreds of thousands of junior agitators through AmeriCorps, a Clinton youth program he’s dramatically expanded, and through My Brother’s Keeper, the “racial justice” initiative he launched in the wake of the 2012 death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin. My Brother’s Keeper agitates for “school discipline reform” — that is, touchy-feely alternatives to suspensions and expulsions — and other measures to “improve outcomes for boys and young men of color.”

    All three of these federally sponsored projects have crossover with the Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street movements, both of which Obama embraces. They share manpower and resources, as well as radical agendas, while coordinating activities with nonprofit ACORN clones, who are being secretly bankrolled through Justice Department subprime settlement funds extracted from banks.

    In fact, the president has egged on both BLM and OWS protesters. “We are on their side,” he assured OWS in 2011. And last year, Obama met with Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who earlier this year also got to sit down with the first lady in the White House.

    This president has encouraged the nonstop civil unrest exhausting the nation.

    The protests of the ’60s had real causes — fighting for civil rights and opposing the draft during an unpopular war. But today’s protesters are posers grasping at faux causes and ginning up pseudo-grievances about things like Halloween costumes and swastikas drawn in bathrooms.

    They are protesters in search of an issue, agitators in search of a target. They aren’t even rabble-rousers so much as rubble-rousers picking through the charred remains of the last revolution.

    Alinsky’s 13th rule for radicals — “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it” — is getting harder to do, because there are fewer and fewer real targets from which to pick. That’s why today’s racism charges are so nebulous.

    The police dogs, truncheons and firehoses of the civil-rights movement have been reduced to slights, slurs and symbols. Today’s discrimination is “unconscious” or “implicit.” Activists know it exists, they just can’t prove it. It’s “systemic,” yet they can’t find it.

    Desperate for things to grind against, the omni-protesters of the Obama era are turning on their own. Even professors, deans and chancellors who worship at the altar of diversity and multiculturalism are enduring their wrath, poetically suffering intolerances in the name of tolerance.

    These little flash-fascists are even cannibalizing the First Amendment that gives them the space to be obnoxious. At Mizzou, they have given campus cops license to police otherwise free speech for “hateful” or “hurtful” words.

    Obama is leaving behind a generation of militant jerks — collectively known as his “family” — to continue to proliferate protests and militate against everything and nothing. These irritating, self-absorbed, belligerent brats will “hands-up, don’t shoot” themselves into every cobwebbed corner of society, and the liberal media will give them the national bullhorn to amplify their hatred every time.

    Chronic social irritation can do lasting damage to the fabric of a nation. By falsely accusing people of racism . . . or sexism . . . or homophobia . . . or Islamophobia — or whatever other “ism” or phobia they come up with next — these agitators are creating angst and hatred in people’s hearts that wasn’t there previously.

    But maybe that’s the objective. As Alinsky advised Obama and other young radicals: “A revolutionary organizer must shake up the prevailing patterns of lives — agitate, create disenchantment and discontent with the current values [until] masses of people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. . . . The time is then ripe for revolution.”

    Paul Sperry, a visiting Hoover Institution media fellow, is author of “Infiltration” and “The Great American Bank Robbery.”

    • Chronic social irritation can do lasting damage to the fabric of a nation. By falsely accusing people of racism . . . or sexism . . . or homophobia . . . or Islamophobia — or whatever other “ism” or phobia they come up with next — these agitators are creating angst and hatred in people’s hearts that wasn’t there previously.

      Would this not incite racism, sexism, or homophobia against the very groups they are trying to protect?

    • The part that annoys me the most is that some of the grievances you mentioned are (in my opinion) quite legitimate, and they’re not getting addressed at all. Biased cops? Wall Street predators? You bet. (Well, actually, the problem isn’t that cops are biased, it’s that they can get away with murder, but never mind) These problems are real and they require solutions… and here are the students, demanding that a school take down a statue of Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves and therefore contributed to a general climate of systemic racism and WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU KIDS!? We have people getting shot down in the streets and billions of dollars getting pilfered out of our economy, and you spend your time and effort complaining about someone smearing feces on the wall in a vaguely offensive shape!? Can’t you do ANYTHING better with all that free time you seem to have?

      If these are the people agitating for revolution, then I don’t want to find out what kind of revolution they’d actually give us.

  6. Doesn’t it all depend on what essential, and core, Weltanschauung one subscribes to? For example, in my case, I desire to discover, to know, and also to have revealed to me the right, proper and correct view to take. The one to LIVE in accord with. We know what the Left Wing version is (here it is: Chomsky interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBZLnfKSa_k)

    If we define a ‘patriotic’ position, are we not allying ourselves with the most outrageously reactionary, and the most outrightly non-democratic, power structure?

    And if I am to be a patriot, does this mean accepting and working with the given power-structure?

    Who here has the ethical clarity to guide me (and others) to the ‘true’ platform?

    How shall ‘ethics’ be defined when the questions are so large?

  7. Peter Holden

    Not for Publication
    Not to be a pedantic ass, because it changes the point not a whit, but I think the percentage in the Arthur in Maine post (para. 5) slipped a digit. It should be .000026% not the five zeros.

    OK, so I am, at the very least a pedant, and probably a pedantic ass.

  8. Isaac

    –Black Lives Matter student members accosting white students and chanting, “Fuck you, you filthy white fucks!” “Fuck you and your comfort!” and “Fuck you, you racist shit!”

    Which means that white students at Dartmouth have now experienced more actual racism and harassment in one day than all of the University of Missouri students combined, if you add up every single one of their real and imagined slights.

  9. Phlinn

    So, this is a bit off topic, but after seeing Claremont’s breakdown I think there is a Student Coddling ethics trainwreck, although I wasn’t sure how to label it. Campus Progressive Activism seems a bit too broad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.