Yesterday, a foreigner, working as a US Congressional aid, said “So what?” and hung up on a constituent who pointed out that his Congressman was acting against the US Constitution.

In response to the latest “mini amnesty”, called The DREAM Act, launched against the American people by their corrupt “representatives”, a colleague of mine called his so-called “representative”, Jim McDermott, to object to this violation of The Posterity of the Founders of the US:

US Congressional Switchboard Toll-free Numbers (02-07-07)

1-866-340-9281
1-877-762-8762
1-866-808-0065
1-866-220-0044

White House Phone: 202-456-1111
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 866-340-9281

During the phone conversation he pointed out that the US Constitution forbids US officials to accept titles of nobility, as was recently granted Rep. McDermott by an African king:

That’s when McDermott’s Congressional aid responded in his foreign accent, “So what?” and hung up.

The SPLC, which has been trying to get Kevin MacDonald’s academic tenure revoked, with some minor victories, is now trumpeting a paper by David Isadore Lieberman titled “Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century” as “Academic Paper Rebuts Cal State Professor’s Anti-Semitic ‘Scholarship’”.

I started reading the paper despite the fact that it was being trumpeted by a disreputable source—hoping to find some real scholarly criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship.  Here is a representative passage:

So there is little common ground between MacDonald?s warm embrace of authoritarian values and Altemeyer?s urgent warnings against them. In the end, of course, these are really matters of data interpretation; MacDonald can certainly make use of Altemeyer?s statistical findings concerning authoritarian personalities without finding them the cause for alarm Altemeyer himself does. The problem, however, is that MacDonald?s transparent desire to render tendencies toward authoritarianism among members of his own ethnicity palatable requires him to do some fancy rhetorical dancing around Altemeyer?s terms as well as his data. Ultimately, this will lead us to the real issue of interest here: yet another example of MacDonald suppressing information that does not conform to his theory.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but much of it seems to boil down to such arguments:

“Those who MacDonald cites on particulars would object to his use of their data for his thesis.”

In the above too-typical paragraph, Lieberman goes so far as to admit that this isn’t really a valid criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship but then turns right around and calls MacDonald’s omissions of, what Lieberman admits are, irrelevancies as “suppressing information that does not conform to his theory”.

It is hard to get motivated to read such a paper.  If someone grinds their way through the lefty-blogger type rheotoric to find some nuggets of real scholarship within Lieberman’s paper, let me know.

Language is a potent weapon for legitimizing any political system. In many instances, the language in the liberal West is reminiscent of the communist language of the old Soviet Union, although liberal media and politicians use words and phrases that are less abrasive and less value-loaded than words used by the old communist officials and their state-run media. In Western academe, media, and public places, a level of communication has been reached which avoids confrontational discourse and which resorts to words devoid of substantive meaning. Generally speaking, the liberal system shuns negative hyperbolas and skirts around heavy-headed qualifiers that the state-run media of the Soviet Union once used in fostering its brand of conformity and its version of political correctness. By contrast, the media in the liberal system, very much in line with its ideology of historical optimism and progress, are enamored with the overkill of morally uplifting adjectives and adverbs, often displaying words and expressions such as “free speech,” “human rights,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” There is a wide spread assumption among modern citizens of the West that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken as something self-evident.

There appears to be a contradiction. If free speech is something “self- evident” in liberal democracies, then the word “self-evidence” does not need to be repeated all the time; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most. The very adjective “self-evident,” so frequent in the parlance of liberal politicians may in fact hide some uncertainties and even some self-doubt on the part of those who employ it. With constant hammering of these words and expressions, particularly words such as “human rights,” and “tolerance”, the liberal system may be hiding something; hiding, probably, the absence of genuine free speech. To illustrate this point more clearly it may be advisable for an average citizen living in the liberal system to look at the examples of the communist rhetoric which was once saturated with similar freedom-loving terms while, in reality, there was little of freedom and even less free-speech

READ MORE...

An opening out of the themes from Part 1, these being the inadequacy of our philosophy and its fatal disconnection from first principles, or first cause.  On the Radio page now.

So as to produce equality of outcome for Hispanic students, they will receive full credit for the University of Majority Rights course Geography 101, the only requirement being that they demonstrate mastery of this map:

An audio file deferentially referential to ...

and ...

and ...

about, essentially ...