The title in quotes above was attached to this post, nearly two years ago. It began,
In “Falling Down.” a movie I like better every time I see it (or think about it), Michael Douglas plays a man who snaps, Sweeney Todd-like, and begins shooting people after the collective injustice, meanness, cruelty, stress and stupidity of daily life becomes unbearable. Finally cornered, he hears a law enforcement officer demand his surrender. “I’m the bad guy?” he says, in a stunning moment of self-awareness. “How did that happen?”
We’re still waiting for that moment of self-awareness from the Left. How it happened in their case is a matter of historical record: accumulated arrogance, cynicism and the rejection of their own ideology’s core principles–you know, liberalism?—did the trick. What was left was pure power-seeking, anger, hate, and “the ends justifies the means,” the “ethic” of fascism and totalitarianism.
That post was triggered by the disgusting assault on the character of Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. I thought that was as low as they could go. I was wrong.
Today I learned from Prof. Turley about an example of the Left’s shameless corruption that I would not have dreamed of even when I wrote those words (Before I go further, let me also repeat a footnote from that post, which read,” I am not playing the game I have had commenters play, protesting that there is no monolithic “Left” and that progressives are not necessarily Democrats, who are not socialists, and that “the resistance” and antifa are distinct, while the news media isn’t political. Baloney. When these groups and their leadership show any independence and stop supporting the monolithic unethical conduct all of these components of the left have engaged in since November, 2016, I’ll begin taking that complaint more seriously.)
The GW law professor saw this Facebook exchange:
Crankshaw is a staffer with the ACLU. Tompkins is an Assistant Professor and Diversity Scholar at Transylvania University, where Sandmann will be attending. Turley wrote in part…
ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw in Kentucky has targeted Transylvania University for admitting Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of Lincoln Memorial. (Crankshaw identifies as an ACLU staffer on social media) Despite various media organizations correcting the story and some settling with Sandmann, some in the media have continued to attack him. Yet, it is far more alarming to see an ACLU official rallying people against a young man whose chief offense appears to be that he is publicly (and unapologetically) conservative and pro-life… He warns that this kid is “more dangerous” than figures like Milo Yiannopolous. The “danger” is that a young freshman holds conservative views that are shared by roughly half of this country…The “both sides” defense used to be the position of the ACLU in fighting for all sides to be given equal opportunities and protections. Moreover Crankshaw labels Sandmann a “provocateur in training with no intention of learning.” Putting aside the provocateur label how would Crankshaw know that Sandmann has “no intention of learning”?…While we have been discussing the intolerance for opposing views expressed at colleges, Crankshaw apparently does not even want to see people like Sandmann allowed into college.
Of the assistant professor, Turley writes,
Rather than say that there is no reason why this conservative student should be singled out in this way, Tompkins declares publicly “I get where you are coming from.” Where would that be? Cranksaw was coming from a place where a wrongly accused conservative teenager will be harassed or targeted for daring to take his views to a college. I appreciate Tompkins noting that students cannot be denied admission based on their political views, though that was once assumed. Yet, Tompkins labels this incoming freshman as part of an anti-intellectual movement and publicly assumes that Sandmann will reject core principles of learning. This is a freshman being publicly shredded by a professor at his school. Tompkins then expresses the same uncertainty why this student would pick a university dedicated to higher education and “the antithesis of what he belies and promotes.”
He then assesses the two:
Cranksaw was describing the exercise of free speech by someone with opposing views as unacceptable. Tompkins responds that he will be closely watching him. Both single out this one students for such added scrutiny and Cranksaw thanks Tompkins for the assurance of close monitoring….Sandmann like all college students should feel greater freedom in expressing their views at colleges, not being closely monitored as someone with dangerous thoughts and ideas. That fact that figures in the ACLU and academia would publicly espouse such views of intolerance is a chilling example of how our faith in free speech has eroded in the recent years.
As usual, infuriatingly, Turley shies away from what he wants to say. He hasn’t lost faith in free speech; I haven’t. It’s progressives, and he knows it, but won’t say it. This increasingly toxic alliance demonizes and seeks to intimidate anyone whose opinions or expression vary from their rigid cant. The current ACLU is populated by individuals like Crankshaw, who instead of being a champion of unpopular speech, publicly attacks a student for holding conservative views, and pronounces him “dangerous.” Yes, Crankshaw is only one, but if he feels secure disgracing the ACLU with such a screed, I see little chance that he isn’t more representative of the culture there than an outlier. If he’s only one, one is still too many for a group that is supposed to protect free speech.
As for Tomkins, he is as bad if not worse, with dead ethics alarms. Imagine starting college knowing that a professor has labeled you, told the campus that “he’ll be watching,” and announced that he expects you to be “anti-intellectual.” And all of this animus comes because the news media set out to demonize a kid for opposing abortion, supporting the President of the United States, and smiling at a rude Native American.
These are despicable people, who work in cultures that encourage members to be bad human beings, and indeed, reward them. They have no excuses or justifications, only the smug security of knowing that there are so, so many people like them.
Ethics Alarms 
I doubt Crankshaw is a Trump supporter.
But seriously. One would have to go back to, say, the mid-1990’s at least, to find examples of a minister of a mainstream church criticizing a religious university for admitting a student that is an open gay rights activist.
What is it with these people? It is exactly as if they watched what the Westboro Baptist Church was doing, and said, “Let’s do what they’re doing and take it up to eleven.” They are behaving like the German ultrarightwing circa 1919.
In 1919 Germany was run by former socialists who comprised the Weimar Republic. The greatest danger to Germany at that time came from the left (Rosa Luxemberg and her husband Karl Luxemberg). The president of Germany used army troops to crush both the left and ultra right wing.
This is yet one more strike against the ACLU which has shown on a number of occasions that it does not truly support the liberties it claims to support. This is the kind of thing one might expect in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, lacking only, for now at least, government sanction, and it is exactly the kind of thing the ACLU should denounce publicly and loudly. Failure to do so just highlights their hypocrisy.
… or in the Castro brothers’ (Michael Moore’s?) Cuba.
Or Julian and Joaquin Castros’ San Antonio.
jvb
This was my immediate thought as well, the fact that someone at a university had to explain to an ACLU staffer that they can’t discriminate against academically qualified students based solely on political policy stances is… I was going to write “amazing to me”, but it really isn’t… Par for the course and yet another nail in the coffin of the ACLU’s credibility as a legitimate Civil Liberty organization.
They won’t admit it because they don’t believe it. As far as they are concerned, they stand for all the good values, and if the rest of the people won’t see it, they will have to be forced to see it. They’re the ones who said “do something about this or we will,” and who are now doing something about it. Maybe, just maybe, though, this latest bit of harassing diners in restaurants and midnight marches demanding white people give up their houses might be a bridge too far. Maybe also this sports-as-social-justice-billboard might be a bridge too far too. Public support for professional sports is tanking, and, if the restaurant owners won’t ensure their diners are safe (because they are terrified these people will burn the place down) they will be out of business anyway. This marching demanding people give up their houses is starting to smack of pre-revolutionary Russia, when the Orthodox Russians would start by attacking Jewish property and roughing Jewish people up, but that would only be a prelude to the Jews being ordered to sell their homes and leave, or Cromwell’s Ireland, when the Catholics who dwelled in the more fertile lands in the east were ordered to move west into the bog country “to Connacht or to Hell, and I care not which.” I never thought I’d see that here, nor hear of it being justified.
This marching demanding people give up their houses is starting to smack of pre-revolutionary Russia, when the Orthodox Russians would start by attacking Jewish property and roughing Jewish people up, but that would only be a prelude to the Jews being ordered to sell their homes and leave…
As I constantly mention, you are substantially mystified. I have read you now for 5 years. I think I understand your general position. You are — permit me to be bold (as I always am) — a sort-of Conservative. Your Conservatism though — I can demonstrate this fairly, directly and rationally — is a compromised form of Conservatism. Additionally, you seem to be a CINO (Catholic In Name Only). You are a Catholic in form, or by ancestry, but Catholicism as-such does not inform your ideas. You are actually more properly an American Jingoist as is Jack. But this is a defining strain within American Conservatism and I have set myself the task of exposing it.
Politely of course yet with a certain panache!
The area in which you are weak is that you do not understand well enough Christian Zionism. I recommend Stephen Sizer’s book Christian Zionism: Road Map to Armageddon (Intervarsity Press, 2004). American Zionism and Christian Zionism are very fundamental problems and there is a relationship between the corruption of the American state (these last 25 years of war have had a terrifying impact on American civil society and show the corrupt and destructive influence of Christian Zionism in the twisting of state policy) and the *outcome* we all live in now.
These are connections that need to be made. They need to be *seen* is of course how I put it.
It is more actually true that Jewish mobs (I will push on your own metaphor here that I have reversed for effect) are going around ‘canceling’ and ‘beating up’ on those they do not like. You are of course not even aware, and you do not want to be aware, of the machinations going on to silence and to destroy those who oppose the collusion between American (Christian) Zionists and Israeli Zionism.
I suggest deconstructing what is being *said* here:
All of this — quite literally ALL OF THIS! — is stuff that you-plural cannot talk about and cannot talk-through. You are not allowed to *see* the present fully; you train your will not to see; and you actually work to block those who do see and have the idea-structures in place to rationally communicate critical ideas.
“I have read you now for 5 years.”
I have mostly ignored you for the same period of time in the interest of remaining sane.
Steve-O-in-NJ,
Alizia has shown me over the years that her unique interpretation of our total existence, right down to the sock lint between our toes, is the only interpretation of reality that Alizia will accept. The problem is that when you read what Alizia writes no one can figure out what that interpretation of reality actually is; this is what happens when you’re being intentionally gaslighted.
I have not, not up to this date, ever included your sock lint as a topic of criticism! This is calumny!
::: bursts out crying :::
No, you ignore me — and whole ranges of ideas really — because you are afraid of them. It is a form of fear really. As if your *sanity* is so fragile! I represent (imperfectly perhaps) a critical and a dissident movement whose ideas terrify you. That is a plural-you. Our ideas are terrifying to you because they both criticize your idea-platforms (both Liberal and Hyper-Liberal) and in a significant sense your position within intellectual culture. If we are given ground, if we are allowed to participate freely and openly, our ideas tend to influence people because they contradict the (general) flawed ideas on which an aspect of American Liberalism is based.
So, don’t kid yourself please. It is unbecoming.
Terrify? Hardly. They just don’t make any sense to me.
Well for Heaven’s sake that is obvious!
Alizia;
I would guess that you are familiar with Raspail’s “The Camp of the Saints”? I just discovered it about a week ago. Trying to catch up on my reading!
Hello. I read about a third of it but other things intervened. I certainly grasp the concepts behind it though. One of these days I will finish it.
A very provocative title I am just finishing is The Sword of Christ by Giles Corey. I was impressed.
I dedicate this post to The Cheshire Cat
_______________________________
As usual, infuriatingly, Turley shies away from what he wants to say. He hasn’t lost faith in free speech; I haven’t. It’s progressives, and he knows it, but won’t say it. This increasingly toxic alliance demonizes and seeks to intimidate anyone whose opinions or expression vary from their rigid cant. The current ACLU is populated by individuals like Crankshaw, who instead of being a champion of unpopular speech, publicly attacks a student for holding conservative views, and pronounces him “dangerous.” Yes, Crankshaw is only one, but if he feels secure disgracing the ACLU with such a screed, I see little chance that he isn’t more representative of the culture there than an outlier. If he’s only one, one is still too many for a group that is supposed to protect free speech.
What is curious is that Sandman’s only claim to a ‘conservative’ position is a) that he is Catholic, b) that he wears a MAGA hat, and c) that he comes from a Catholic college where an anti-abortion stance is held.
Whew! A real Nazi . . . run, people, run!
Yet within Catholicism there are trends in ideas and as well a movement to recover a true Catholicism or in any case a truer Catholicism. There is also a developing movement that redefines Catholicism to reveal again, and to explore (as it were) Catholicism’s opposition to Judaism. That is to say, a Catholicism that holds to the traditional opposition between Christian Catholicism and Judaic or ‘Talmudic’ Jewish philosophy or activism, these forms being, often quite literally, the enemy of both Christianity and certainly of Catholicism.
These developing perspectives are held by and fleshed out by, for example, Kevin MacDonald and E Michael Jones and they have been made into *enemies* and branded as such by the SPLC.
MacDonald and a dozen other Catholic writers have taken religious, philosophical, sociological and political stances that have rendered them completely unacceptable and also *unmentionable* in any so-called ‘polite company’ in any conventional media. That is to say that there ideas are thoroughly excluded and of course roundly vilified. It is of course not their Jewish-Critical postures but the social conservatism that underpins it.
I am just now getting through The Sword of Christ by Giles Corey (I think it is a pen-name since the original Giles Corey, according to Wikipedia:
Giles Corey (c. August 1611 – September 19, 1692) was an English-born American farmer who was accused of witchcraft along with his wife Martha Corey during the Salem witch trials. After being arrested, Corey refused to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. He was subjected to pressing in an effort to force him to plead—the only example of such a sanction in American history—and died after three days of this torture.
[The meaning here — the irony if you wish — is that this is what is being done to (if you will permit me to say it once again) true conservatives in contradistinction to the fake conservatives of the American present. The so-called American Conservative is in truth a Progressive as I have made completely clear about 596 different times.]
American Christianity, according to ‘Giles Corey’ (the book is prefaced by Kevin MacDonald I might add) has been neutered. That is to say of course that it has had its manly testicles removed. The metaphor, as I am increasingly discovering, is absolutely apt. It has become a *lapdog* with no teeth. I guess I might say that it can bark a bit. But it has very little decisiveness at all comparable to former times. Additionally, American Christianity almost right across the board has been overtaken by the various perverse *interpretations* of Christian Zionism. Right there — any conversation on any level about the philosophy and political activism of Christian Zionism will place you, toot sweet, in the Camp of the Evil Ones.
The typical ‘Christian’ of our day is a direct participant in the progressive ideology with all its impositions.
I could create an outline of a Christian oppositional stance as-against American Progressivism that would cause many here to lose control of their bowels.
So let me get this straight: You champion here a ‘Conservative’ but the only thing conservative about him, and thus the reason he could become your *champion-conservative*, is that he is opposed to abortion and *supports* President Donald Trump.
That is a devastatingly powerful Conservative position to have!
The curious thing as I say is that what *they* refer to as ‘Conservatism’ is merely a slightly-right-of-center progressivism! They are that far to the edges!
So, here are a few sources to consider genuine conservatism — a conservatism that sets its sights on actual conservation! 1) Counter-Currents (Greg Johnson), 2) Occidental Observer: White Identity, Interests, and Culture (Kevin MacDonald, and 3) Culture Wars (E Michael Jones).
These have been slated for erasure and every day are under one level of attack or another, having been denied an Internet platform, or defunded by being unable to process CC payments, and of course lied about in the most outrageous and bold-faced matter. (I should add 4) Red Ice Radio.
Now, these are sources that are being accessed by a wide range of people. They access, they read, they are influenced, but of course no one with any standing would be so reckless as to refer to them.
Getting to the *actual truth* about what is going on in America, and in this world, is a fraught and a dangerous endeavor. It involves many risks and tremendous dangers.
“and branded as such by the SPLC.”
An aside; I received a letter from the SPLC a few months back soliciting my…um…perception of their fine work.
In an uncharacteristic departure from my obsequious desire to displease no one, I, in no uncertain terms, cut ’em a new one.
Recently, I got a response thanking me for my…er…input and a SASE in which to forward a donation in the amount with which I was most comfortable.
Not sure whether to SMFH…or surrender it to Steve’s graphic below.
Paul,
Since solicited your help to improve their work, send SPLC an official bill for your skilled rhetorical input; I think $500 should do it.|
Steve
Gut Laugh Leader Board entry, Steve; like my Dear late Father always said: “Paulie, a good laugh’s better’n a pill!”
I’ll link them to your blog and make it a cool grand…..
Alizia, could you possibly state your critique of the United States in say, two hundred or fewer of your own words, i.e., without referencing any obscure scholarly tomes? It’s very difficult to figure out where you’re coming from.
This is a trick, Bill. I have written now for years here. I have described a critical position in many posts, in different ways, and consistently over time. And you ask me to reduce it to a paragraph? But if you are like Steve of NJ you like him have not ever read what I have written.
I think this blog has a search function. I think you can look up any of my posts and gain a sense of what my (or *our*) critical position is.
Right you are, Alizia. I find the vast majority of your oeuvre unreadable due to its length and the over-reliance on references to authorities. Can you boil what you’re saying about the U.S. down to a Wikipedia-sized executive summary?
What you’re saying may very well be worthwhile. I just find it inaccessible. Capice?
Other Bill wrote, “I just find it inaccessible.”
You’re understatement is too kind OB.
In a nutshell; it’s “inaccessible” partly because the scrambled philosophical mess behind it is gaslighting readers, telling readers that they’re wrong, telling readers they never knew they were wrong, 2 + 2 ≠ 4, and that being “guided” into the metaphysics abyss of Philosophy by a scrambled philosophical mess is the only answer to the troubles that readers never knew they had. It’s brainwashing 101 but you have to be willing to bite the bait.
I’m always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, Steve. It’s rendered me a sucker many a time, but that’s just the way it goes.
Other Bill wrote, “I’m always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, Steve. It’s rendered me a sucker many a time, but that’s just the way it goes.”
I completely understand fully agree most of the time; however, there are those cases of the boy who cried wolf where I just stop giving “some” people the benefit of the doubt.
There are people who understand what I say. Perhaps there are not many, I can live with that. Yet I know that what I talk about is understood by at least some. I could name some names but I avoid any sort of *siding* with any other person who participates here. I want absolute freedom to say what I want, when I think it.
If you are genuine in wishing to understand some particular point, you need do nothing more than to ask a question about it and I will answer. Try it: name one thing you’d like me to clarify.
In the most reduced terms, ethics — the focus of this blog — has to do with the more profound philosophical, religious and existential questions that we can ask. They are questions as old as Time itself. You (I mean some general person) cannot make it into something else.
In some ways you would be better off taking the road the Steve Witherspoon has taken. You could even team-up with him. Those sorts of games I have noticed are often played on Internet forums. And they are certainly played here. They are after all political games as these conversations are extensions of politics in many senses. So, it must be like that I reckon.
There is no *over-reliance* on ‘authorities, as you put it, but references to contemporary figures. Richard Weaver, Charlotte Iserbyt, E Michael Jones and all the others: these are people who participate in a wide-ranging and on-going conversation.
I think we have different objectives Bill. But I must say that I sincerely appreciate you and the way you conduct yourself. Really, if enough were to say “Be gone, Devil!” I would fly fly away, never to return. But even Jack tolerates me. Odd.
Through my time here — when I came on I was in a very different and quite uncertain space — I have defined myself and my interests. In fact (I was thinking this this morning) through this blog I have found (this will sound pretentious) my life work. Really, I am not kidding.
My work is to define what has happened *to us* and *in us* and to come to conclusions about how to *turn this around*. But within the context of a Christian redefinition.
Tough luck for you, in a way, that over 5+ years you had to be subject to my probings! Sorry! 😩
Okay. A question: Do you believe Jews are intent on destroying Western/Judeo Christian culture and pursuing an explicit strategy to do so?
Okay. A question: Do you believe Jews are intent on destroying Western/Judeo-Christian culture and pursuing an explicit strategy to do so?
[Note: there is no Judeo-Christian culture. There is a Christian culture and there is a Judaic culture. They are not one, and they are limitedly related. It is a mistake to describe them in that way. Through a certain *strategy* of doing so, Christianity is eviscerated. Christianity is radical to Judaism in all senses.]
But as to your question . . .
It’s a very good question, and I understand why you’d begin there. Having been raised in a strict Jewish setting (Orthodox) and having (as I say) *escaped* from it and chosen to become a Christian, I slowly have begun to understand that Judaism is in a general sense inimical to Christianity. Christianity is, and did begin, through a rejection of the structure of the Jewish religion as it operated at that time. And then, as everyone knows, came the exile. What is called ‘diaspora pathology’ in combination with the entirely negative (and I mean entirely negative) Talmudic condemnation of Christianity, it is not possible for strict forms of Judaism to be anything but overtly hostile to traditional Christianity.
The operative word here is ‘traditional’. All of the present Christian forms of today, with the exception of very isolated groups (or sects) have been ‘remodeled’ as it were by the doctrine of Christian Zionism. Christian Zionism is an extreme heresy. And both Christian and Jewish-Israeli Zionism(s) are involved in nefarious activities.
Latin nefārius, from nefās, crime, transgression : ne-, not; see ne in Indo-European roots + fās, divine law; see dhē- in Indo-European roots.
The literal meaning of the word is interesting: negating divine law.
Now, it must be said that I accept the Christian revelation, and I accept and understand the meaning of the Advent. Obviously, to take this literally might be understood by you, or other persons on this blog, as mistaken. I understand this.
My general idea at this point — I was in no sense as clear as I am now and when I first started participating on this blog — is that Judaism’s general struggle is very problematic for Christendom. I am quite certain that strict Orthodox Judaism can in no sense be a *friend* to Christianity. And the reasons why should be obvious. And I see Christianity as having become astoundingly and tragically weakened. These are portentous times in my view. All occurrences, everything that goes on, everything observed, all of this has tremendous meaning and portent.
I think that the stronger that Judaism gets, the weaker Christian forms must necessarily become. And the stronger that Christian forms become, the less power & influence Jewish forms, and Judaic forms, will have. To the degree that traditional Christianity is oppositional to Jewish social and cultural penetration (Kevin MacDonald writes about this in his ‘Culture of Critique’ series) is the degree that it must, by nature you might say, seek to weaken Christian practice and belief.
I think that we — all of us — have to profoundly examine ourselves in the most searching way to discover, within our own psyches and personalities, that which ‘destroys’. You have brought up a great point with the word ‘destroys’. Things — valuable things, important things, necessary & crucial things — do get destroyed and it is not a *them* that does this. It is us, in one way or another.
So, the first order of business is in locating, essentially, what is *destructive* within us. This for me means devoting a great deal of thought to trying to see and define *what has happened* and *why it has happened*. We need to locate and to understand those destructive influences that, as I say, undermine what is valuable and worth preserving in our specific traditions. They are indeed being etched away.
Would you wish that I proceeded to more direct statements? or to more specific examples of the undermining of the Occident? Would you feel better — more clear or certain — if I said things that were definitely and truly *anti-Semitic*? A great deal is still up in the air for me, but if you need to have a clear and definite statement it would be that I think that Jews have always been problematical and troublesome throughout their exile-diaspora. But they — we if you will — have a very unique historical trajectory that I do not think 99.99% of Gentiles actually grasp. My views are largely close to those of Hilaire Belloc. But I have to mention that I have read Houston Chamberlain (Foundations of the 19th Century) and numerous other titles that are definitely *forbidden*.
I do believe that an invigorated traditional Christianity must necessarily become more *aware* of everything connected with these questions and problems. What an individual does with that awareness — I am perhaps an example of one who has it (or believe I have it) is of course uncertain. For you to understand any of this would involve the study of a researched like Kevin MacDonald.
So, I got through this and the house is intact. No fissures through the walls. No dark cloud assembling overhead . . . 😁
OH MY GOD!!!!
What the hell has happened to the mentality of the United States? Have we really gone so far over the edge of reality that the “right think” totalitarians are this comfortably open about their anti-American totalitarianism?
I think if I squint my eyes I can clearly see the brink on this side of the horizon without any magnification.
Jack wrote:
The current ACLU is populated by individuals like Crankshaw, who instead of being a champion of unpopular speech, publicly attacks a student for holding conservative views, and pronounces him “dangerous.” Yes, Crankshaw is only one, but if he feels secure disgracing the ACLU with such a screed, I see little chance that he isn’t more representative of the culture there than an outlier.
Well, I can’t confirm that the ACLU is totally comfortable with the Crankshaw, but they did say this about the incident (Seen National Review online):
ACLU Kentucky’s deputy director Amber Duke defended Crankshaw’s right to post his views on his personal accounts.
“These were personal views expressed on personal time on a personal Facebook account. The views in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the ACLU of Kentucky,” Duke said. “As a stalwart defender of the First Amendment, the ACLU of Kentucky respects its employees’ freedom to express themselves on their own time.”
While that appears to be consistent with their free speech mission, except that his actual speech the ACLU is defending seems to advocate positions the ACLU should find offensive. One would think that such boldfaced offense to their “… stalwart defender …” mission was at least worthy of more than a “do not necessarily reflect our views” equivocation. To me, that reads “is close enough to our current view that we don’t care to object” given how diametrically advocacy of dismissing a student for protected speech conflicts with the supposed mission of the ACLU.
One would expect that if Crankshaw expressed, say, a racist opinion about Sandmann, the ACLU would have something rather pointed to say about that, or about a homophobic view if he were known to be gay. So how, exactly, is a statement that runs directly counter to free speech worthy of such careful equivocation from an organization who claims protection of free speech as a core mission?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Well the young man in question already has income from CNN, the Washington Post, and others in the sideline. Now a future financier of the young man will be TRANSYLVANIA University!
Prof. Tompkins classes sound riveting. I am sad I can’t attend them.
https://www.transy.edu/academics/faculty/atompkins/
jvb
Rather appropriate that the school refers to itself as Transy U
I saw that, too.
jvb
Prof. Tompkins apologized for targeting Sandmann:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/9/avery-tompkins-transylvania-u-instructor-apologize/
Jonathan Turley’s post caused a bit of sticky wicket for the good Professor of Diversity.
jvb
And what of Crankshaw?