Saturday, December 02, 2006
The Marxist Inspiration Behind The Political Witch-Hunt Of Alaska Game Board Chairman Ron Somerville
In the wake of the "free beer" remarks uttered by Alaska Game Board Chairman Ron Somerville at a Game Board hearing back in October, the denizens of political correctness have crawled out of their lairs to politically gang-stomp this man for doing little more than cracking a tacky joke. Several Alaska Native organizations, including Ahtna, which is represented on Governor-elect Sarah Palin's transition team by Ken Johns, have not only demanded Somerville's resignation (Somerville pictured at left, courtesy of Anchorage Daily News), but have even gone to the extreme of demanding Department of Justice action. Even the Anchorage Daily News published an editorial demanding Somerville's resignation. Governor-elect Palin has publicly stated that she wants to hear from Somerville first, but even so would still prefer his resignation. The entire political aristocracy of the state of Alaska seemingly has lined up against this man and wants to destroy his reputation and possibly even his livelihood over a tacky joke (in much the same way as they destroyed Gregg Renkes and Ben Stevens over some financial dealings that were borderline but still legal).
The MichNews.com website has just posted an article by Selwyn Duke, entitled "How We Will Lose Our Freedom Of Speech", which describes this progressive campaign against the First Amendment. He cites a recent appearance of feminist "civil rights" attorney Gloria Allred on Hannity and Colmes and her remarks about free speech in reference to Michael Richards' recent outburst. Representing the two targets of Mr. Richards’ bile, Frank McBride and Kyle Doss, the stone-faced Allred opened with a very telling assertion, melodramatically proclaiming, “This is not free speech, this is hate speech!” Click on the highlighted title above to read the full article; I merely post a synopsis of it here, cutting and pasting pertinent points.
Selwyn Duke does not believe this to be a spontaneous statement. He believes it was well-crafted and calculated, and intended to serve a far more insidious end than simply extorting money from a goofy comedian. He cites the seemingly unrelated premise of "separation of church and state" and illustrates how this campaign was used as a precedent for the current campaing to detach "hate speech" from free speech. His premise: The mantra "separation of church and state" has been spoken of in constitutional terms so often and so long that now most Americans actually believe there is a constitutional "separation of church and state", despite the fact that this phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. One judge actually warned us of this development in advance. As a dissenting justice in the 1958 Baer v. Kolmorgen case, Judge Gallagher is quoted as having warned that “If the court does not stop talking about the separation of church and state, people are going to start thinking it is part of the Constitution.” But the courts and the rest of America's political aristocracy didn’t stop, and the result is that four decades later this “fact” is imprinted upon the American mind. So much so, that now the average Joe has been inured to the denuding of the public square of historic religious symbols out of respect for this “principle” of the Constitution.
And this is why Selwyn Duke believes Allred’s statement stands out. There are social engineers in our time – and he counts Allred among them – who are trying to imbue the American mind with the notion that so-called “hate speech” is not protected under the First Amendment. The apparent modus operandi is to use the term “hate speech” as much as possible so as to burn it into the lexicon and establish it as a category unto itself. And it’s not hard. This has already been accomplished with terms/concepts such as “sexual harassment” and, the concept of which hate speech is a corollary, “hate crime.” Then, be sure to juxtapose the two terms frequently, as craftily illustrated by Gloria Allred herself. Saying “This is not free speech, this is hate speech!” creates further separation between the two, cementing the notion that they are starkly different verbal species. Once this is accomplished, the idea that the latter is protected by the former may seem laughable.
Selwyn Duke believes that not only will this strategy persuade many legislators and judges that hate speech isn’t protected under the Constitution and therefore can be criminalized, it will also influence the man on the street. This is nothing more than an updated expression of the old advice, “If you really want something, act like you already have it.” As long as one continually condemns “hate speech” and juxtapose it with “free speech,” more and more people will assume that it already is illegal. And once enough Americans believe this, all that is left is to make it official. And the beauty of this is that one doesn’t even have to lie. Success hinges mainly on the positioning of words, timing, tone and, most of all, re-pe-ti-tion.
To a great degree it’s already a fait accompli. Now here's where the Marxist connection comes into play. After decades of “positioning” (this refers to Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s idea about the placement of leftist ideologues in positions of influence for the purposes of altering the culture), with social engineers in academia, the media, entertainment and various organizations and activist groups, it isn’t uncommon to find Americans possessed of this lie. Duke himself has met them, and even pundit Bill O’Reilly uttered this misconception on his cable television show. Remember, as nineteenth century philosopher William James said, “There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it.”
Selwyn Duke wraps up his case by stating that once support for the criminalization of hate speech has galvanized, we’ll have legislation. And once the legalistic rationalization that allows for it permeates enough jurists’ minds, we’ll have it upheld in court. Then, with the principle of hate speech enshrined in American law, it will be open season on positions contrary to those of the positioned. [Ed. Note: Like the open season on Ron Somerville] Once an unacceptable belief is identified, our culture-shapers in the media, entertainment and academia will simply define it as “hateful” and beat that drum until it becomes the next supposition. And then the legal definition will be sure to follow.
A great companion piece designed to drive this point home as been posted by Alex Linder on the Vanguard News Network Forum. The article, entitled "Brainwashing Revisited: You Are The Target", originally authored by Alan Stang, further explores the Marxist connection by exposing the Soviet-style tactics of the oppressors. He also uses the Michael Richards case as his starting point. He cites the recent performance by “Kramer” as the latest evidence that the nation is under Soviet attack far more destructive than 9-11, and suggests there is much more to it than “Kramer’s” personal situation. He considers "Kramer" a quirky talent who found a niche that propelled him into nationwide prominence and profit. Viewers chortled over his every word and antic. His face was known to millions.
After “Seinfeld,” he had his own show, which bombed. Working in a comedy club, he was back at the beginning, which may mean simply that it is difficult for a talent so quirky to find another magical niche. In his business, lightning often strikes only once. So there may have been considerable, suppressed anger waiting to erupt. Whatever the reason, it is reasonable to speculate that “Kramer” now needs to find a new line of work despite his unceasing apologies.
Adding to the preposterous nature of the event, word now arrives that the two men, Frank McBride and Kyle Doss, who heckled him were so affronted by his outburst – so offended, so hurt, so emotionally devastated, so therefore unable to function, et cetera and so on – that, under the Svengali-like influence of feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, they are demanding as much as $10 million in "reparations". Who can blame them? As Jesse and Al would probably say, the honky is down, so get it while you can.
Alan Stang wonders why a few public uses of the word “nigger” are worth $10 million? This is a word that blacks use daily when addressing each other in ordinary conversation. But, if you are white, you felt a twinge just now – didn’t you? – when you read the word on your screen. Seeing the word triggered something in your head. Of course. You probably remember a few years back, a financial official in Washington D.C. referred to an appropriation as “niggardly.” He was fired of course, presumably by a pinhead who doesn’t know the word has nothing whatsoever to do with race, means “stingy,” and is of Swedish derivation. Washington D.C. is of course a black city.
“Kramer” is the latest in a long series of white men who suddenly erupt in a religious, or, more often, a racial outburst, and then spend considerable time groveling in apology. Before there was “Kramer,” there was Mel Gibson, who apparently took off on the Jews after a bender. Sometimes the outburst appears spontaneous. Sometimes it is the product of much provocation.
Remember that Jews and Jewish groups (like the Anti-Defamation League) that specialize in provoking lucrative anti-Semitism excoriated Mel for months about his movie, “The Passion,” accusing him of almost everything except child molestation. And the two men who want money heckled “Kramer” at the comedy club. That is Stage One. In Stage Two, the victim, provoked beyond endurance, erupts. In Stage Three, the people he dumps on claim to be insulted. And in Stage Four, the perpetrator publicly grovels and pleads. [Ed. Note: I add "Stage Five", where the victim pays judicially-directed extortion to his/her tormentors]
By now, this has become routine, to such an extent that I wonder who will be next. What is happening? Notice that you could call people “wops,” “micks,” “dagos,” “honkies,” “krauts,” “mackerel snappers,” “polkas,” and so on, all day. Most of the targets of that terminology would laugh. There would be no backlash. It is still O.K. for Latinos to refer to whites as "gringos", or for blacks to refer to whites as "crackers". But you had better have everything securely nailed down if you plan to use the words, “nigger” or “kike.” Even “broad” or “dame” could get you into trouble. The situation is even more farcical when you remember Jesse’s characterization of New York as “Hymietown,” and Al’s involvement in the fraudulent Tawana Brawley hoax.
The answer to the question is that for many years the people of our country have been subjected to the same brainwashing the Soviets used in Russia and Central Europe; the same brainwashing Mao Tse-tung used on the people of China. And it really has nothing to do with "civil rights"; its purpose is the same: to bring the target nation to its knees so that it can be conquered.
The condemnation of certain words over the course of many years is designed to produce that twinge in your head when you hear words like “nigger,” until you respond as an automaton, like a lab animal in a behavioral science experiment. The ultimate purpose is to neutralize you, to reduce you to a quivering hulk afraid to raise your head, a terrified weakling afraid to speak up, who can be easily manipulated.
Look around you. Isn’t that the atmosphere we have now? No one wants to lose his job, forfeit lots of money (or be forced to take down your website like David Pringle even for a short period of time), and maybe have to undergo “diversity training,” which is just another name for a brainwashing session. Guilt is an enormously effective weapon of control. But if you knew you had nothing to be guilty about, knew you were under attack, the fog would lift. Sensitivity training does not teach people to become less sensitive and thicker-skinned, but instead teaches them to be hypersensitive.
Notice that the attack is concentrated exclusively on the white man, who is blamed for every problem from asthma to zits. Why? Very simple and it has nothing at all to do with race. The conspiracy for world government assaults the white man because most of the people who run this country are white men. If blacks ran it, the conspirators would be doing the same thing to blacks. [Ed. Note: I'm not too sure about this last statement. Rhodesia and South Africa are black-run, are being run into the ground, yet the establishment makes excuses for these black-run governments]
The object is not to indemnify any particular racial, religious or ethnic group for some offense, but to bring America down. That is the explanation for America’s present failure of nerve, for the fact that Americans will grovel before any challenge and acquiesce in any outrage, however outrageous.
That is why homosexuality and Islam – and utterly phony history – are now taught in the government schools. That is why the nation is being invaded by illegal aliens. That is why so-called “mainstream” churches now worship Bush (and Israel), not Jesus Christ. That is why Holocaust Temples are sprouting like dandelions all over America (23 at last count). That is why the Communist scheme to eliminate public expressions of Christianity from this country is succeeding.
Alan Stang is not asserting any "right" for whites to use racial slurs. Instead, he exposes the hypocrisy of the double standard in which whites are expected to abide a higher law than non-whites. This actually reinforces notions of white supremacy in the implicit sense, since this double standard, along with anti-white affirmative action, implies that blacks and other non-whites need special help to compete simply because they're non-white. They wield historical remediation (to justify reparations for chattel slavery, Jim Crow, the Holocaust, the Mexican War, etc.) and the false doctrine of "white privilege" as psychological weapons to induce white guilt.
The Anchorage Daily News promoted the double standard when they called upon Ron Somerville to resign over his remarks. Back in September 2005, when the Reverend Dr. William Green invaded Anchorage Assembly Chambers with a small rent-a-mob and deliberately defamed and smeared Assembly Members Dan Coffey and Anna Fairclough with false charges of racism over the firing of Assembly staffer Elvi Gray-Jackson, the ADN gently slapped Green on the wrist editorially but did not demand his resignation.
With one of his chief detractors on Sarah Palin's transition team, Somerville is probably gone shortly after Sarah Palin is formally inaugurated on December 4th. But Somerville is to be commended for standing firm and refusing to resign.
Tags: politics , Alaska , brrreeeport , Ron Somerville , Marxism