Category Archives: DANIEL GREENFIELD ARTICLES

“Xer” [GAY TERM] The People –

Star Trek, THE OMEGA GLORY, S3-E23

Hear me.

Hear this!

Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected.

But wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way.

Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since; tall words proudly saying:

We The People.

That which you call Ee’d Plebnista, was not written for the chiefs of kings, or the warriors, or the rich, or the powerful — but for all the people!

Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words…

 

_______________________________

 

https://newspunch.com/photos-kids-lie-man-dressed-woman-drag-queen-story-time/
https://newspunch.com/photos-kids-lie-man-dressed-woman-drag-queen-story-time/
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forget-mr-rogers-drag-queen-reading-hour-coming-to-a-library-near-you
‘THE MODERN LIBRARY FEATURES ‘GAY’ OR ‘TRANSVESTITE readings’ to children, with full body-contact at times – https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forget-mr-rogers-drag-queen-reading-hour-coming-to-a-library-near-you

_______________________________

ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BY THE GREAT DANIEL GREENFIELD

[INNOCENT OF POSTING THE TOP PHOTOS HEREIN]

XER The People

THE GREAT DANIEL GREENFIELD
THE GREAT DANIEL GREENFIELD

When peaceful protests injure hundreds and destroy entire neighborhoods, and the coronavirus infects protesters depending on the cause they’re protesting for, words don’t mean very much.

And reality itself is under siege in the minds of the men and women who run the country.

A Southern Democrat segregationist inserted “sex” into the Civil Rights Act as a poison pill.

Rep. Howard Smith had introduced what eventually became Title VII, with a letter which asked, that since there were more women than men, “why the Creator would set up such an imbalance of spinsters, shutting off the ‘right’ of every female to have a husband of her own, is, of course, known only to nature… but I am sure you will agree that this is a grave injustice to womankind and something the Congress and President Johnson should take immediate steps to correct… especially in this election year.”

To add to the already hilarious joke, six Supreme Court justices just decided that what the Southern racist really meant by “sex” was gay and transgender because in Washington D.C. no joke is too funny that it can’t be taken seriously as a basis for judicial activism and lawsuits.

It’s still a joke, but we’re not allowed to laugh anymore.

(Image by Bosch Fawstin)


“Few in 1964 would have expected Title VII to apply to discrimination against homosexual and transgender persons. But legislative history has no bearing here,” Gorsuch writes.

If the actual purpose and meaning of the law doesn’t matter, then what does?

What Gorsuch, Roberts and his leftist colleagues believe matters. Nothing else. Rights are as imaginary as gender and legislative history gets in the way of legislating from the bench.

The Gorsuch decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia finding that “sex” in Title VII covers any group having anything to do with sex in a trendy way has been described as “textual”. It’s only textual if you think the text of legislation should be read through a contemporary definition rather than the definition of the time. When President Taft’s wife was discussing their “gay season”, it didn’t mean gay any more than “sex” does. Except maybe according to Gorsuch.

But words can mean anything and nobody cares about facts anyway.

Gerald Bostock, who is at the center of this Supreme Court precedent, claims that he was fired for being gay while Clayton County claimed that the child welfare services coordinator had spent money meant for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) at Cowtippers and F.R.O.G.S.: a cantina in Atlanta. Cowtippers does not appear in Gorsuch’s decision though it seems more germane to the question than the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water, which does.

The Gorsuch judicial activist revision of Smith’s legislation is bad news for those organizations protected by that piece of paper known as the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

“Compelling a religious organization to employ individuals whose conduct flouts the tenets of the organization’s faith forces the group to communicate an objectionable message,” Justice Alito notes, paraphrasing these groups.

But these days there’s a new faith in town and people are being fired left and right for flouting it. If you run afoul of social justice mobs, your job will be gone because the company that employs you will blame you for “communicating an objectionable message”. Like the worth of all lives.

There’s a new heresy in town and the social justice inquisition is always waiting. The essential premise of that faith is that everyone must be made to kneel to it or lose their heads.

“These questions are going to create a tsunami of new litigation and create a huge amount of uncertainty going forward,” Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, cautioned.

“Can a Catholic school deny employment to a teacher whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching? Can an Orthodox Jewish day school refuse to hire a male teacher who self-identifies as a woman, contravening traditional teaching rooted in Genesis?” Josh Hammer, Of Counsel at the First Liberty Institute, asked.

The answer is obvious and the lawsuits are inevitable. And thus Smith’s old joke translates into the effective criminalization of traditional religious morality at the institutional level. That’s the problem with writing jokes into legislation, they end up packing a hell of a punchline.

The Gorsuch decision has put the Bible on the same level as the code of the Klu Klax Klan and that great legislator’s response to the First Amendment question is that it will be settled in future cases. There’s little doubt that it will, and on the terms of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia.

Our constitutional legacy, like our religious foundations, is based on the belief that words matter. Judicial activism is based on the opposite belief that words can and do mean anything.

“Legislators actually won’t know what they are voting to pass—because words might change cultural meaning dramatically between the time of passage and some future court case,” Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, warns.

When words mean nothing, rights mean nothing. Rights derive not from foundational documents grounded in eternal truths, but from social trends and the whims of political appointees.

Bill Clinton had famously debated the meaning of “is” and of sex. Gorsuch and his five accomplices claim that they’ve settled the question of “sex”. Now comes the battle over defining “religion” and the “free exercise” of it. Are teachers in religious schools exempted? What about bookkeepers? Civil rights has long since become a zero sum game with winners and losers.

The winners advance to the next stage of suing people and the losers retreat to defending them.

Religious organizations will be forced to defend the religious role of teachers. And, once that battle is lost, the religious role of rabbis and ministers. Then they’ll be told to ‘bake the cake’.

The larger question, the one that Gorsuch so casually loses sight of in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, is where do rights come from. The Declaration of Independence had a compelling answer to that question that enabled Americans to defy the will of a king.

“All men are created equal,” wrote a long-dead Virginian whose statues are being toppled, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Equality was not in contradiction with religion, but derived from it. Our common origin as children of G-d made us equal. The whim of a court or any human ruler could not make or unmake our equality.

Contemporary judicial activism has pitted religion against equality and we are less equal for it.

Judicial activism began by taking away the equality of Natural Law and replacing it with the inequality of judicial whim which inevitably nullifies whatever good it sets out to create.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia reinvents the meaning of sex, based on the deeply serious work of a Dixiecrat trying to make a joke of the Civil Rights Act, while treating the First Amendment, that is the work of our Founding Fathers, as an awkward footnote. Title VII requires treating Rep. Howard Smith’s joke more seriously than the work of James Madison, and then dismissing Smith as irrelevant to the question of what sex was meant to mean.

What then is this whole thing based on beyond the prejudices of 6 contemporary justices?

As the crank said to William James, “it’s turtles all the way down.”

“Some of those who supported adding language to Title VII to ban sex discrimination may have hoped it would derail the entire Civil Rights Act. Yet, contrary to those intentions, the bill became law. Since then, Title VII’s effects have unfolded with far-reaching consequences, some likely beyond what many in Congress or elsewhere expected,” Gorsuch’s opinion concedes.

Take Title VII, which was blown up out of a segregationist’s joke into the ultimate expression of protecting women as a “sex” against discrimination, which now eliminates womanhood.

As Justice Alito notes, “The effect of the Court’s reasoning may be to force young women to compete against students who have a very significant biological advantage, including students who have the size and strength of a male.”

That’s far-reaching alright compared to Smith giggling about an entitlement to husbands. Some half a century later we live in a strange new world in which the dominant elite consensus is that women don’t exist except as a set of outfits, injectable hormones and a state of mind. The most popular children’s author in the world is under attack for asserting that women really do exist.

Our elites used to mock Galileo’s interrogators only to deny the existence of something far more real and obvious than the motions of planetary bodies. And the Supreme Court is on board.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia continues the process of ushering in a world in which rights are as fluid as the definitions of words and the shifting nature of ideas in a society going mad.

Smith’s joke continues to resound long after his death by not merely wiping out the Civil Rights Act, but the entire Bill of Rights. That old segregationist’s joke is now set to destroy, as Alito pointed out, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and women’s rights.

The joke hath given. Now it taketh everything away.

Civil rights have come so far that women and religion both have to defend their right to exist.


Thank you for reading, Daniel Greenfield

.

How to Make Your Own Race Riot – by Daniel Greenfield

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/01/06/us/06donors.190.jpg
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/01/06/us/06donors.190.jpg

How to Make Your Own Race Riot

The angry rioter is a sacred figure in the progressive pantheon of social justice. But the saint of the looted convenience store is as mythical a figure as the selfless community organizer. The race riot isn’t a bubbling stew of outrage out of which wounded souls emerge to cry out for justice. It’s a complicated criminal conspiracy in which the perpetrators rarely suffer any consequences.

Here’s how a race riot is actually put together.



[Counting Down:]

3. Riots aren’t fed by outrage, but by opportunism

The rioters aren’t outraged, they’re usually bored young men, frustrated and lacking in empathy. Many of them have gang ties or a criminal record stretching back to kindergarten.

They’re the same people who commit crimes in any other non-outraged context.

The rest are there to get some attention while providing them with protective coloration. 9 out of 10 people screaming frenziedly while holding up “Black Lives Matter” signs would eagerly scream and hold up “Tiger King 4 President” or “Minneapolis Loves the KKK” signs if it got them positive attention and a shot at being on television.

Everything else you need to do know about why riots happen out can be read on a thermometer. Weather breaks up a riot faster than appeasement. It’s hard to riot when your teeth are chattering. There’s a reason that riots usually happen in the summer. The same viral video that sets a nation on fire would have been met with shrugs in the winter.

The riots didn’t happen because of outrage, but because the gathering mobs were told by everyone from CNN right up to their local Democrat politicians that angry protests were expected and would be tolerated. That was as good as throwing a match into a spreading pool of gasoline.

No one was stealing beauty supplies or starting fires in Walgreens because they were upset about George Floyd They were stealing because they believed that they could get away with it.



2. The rioters and looters aren’t burning their own community

A riot has two components. There are the bored and irritated locals who begin swarming streets because they have no jobs, it’s hot outside and there’s nothing good on television. They will loosely agree with whatever issue is on the table, but they aren’t all that worked up about it.

And then there are the outsiders.

Before the riot, community organizers, citizen reporters and assorted activists show up to coordinate, spread slogans and justify the coming violence. They want violence far more than the locals do and they taunt police and try to create incidents, but they ofte avoid personally engaging in violence.

(In the early twentieth century the group stirring up riots was usually some arm of the Communist Party. Later a variety of leftist groups, like Antifa, many closely entangled with the Democratic Party took over. Most of the damage is done by looters and rioters from other areas looking for an opportunity to burn and steal. Some locals will tag after them, but they are usually responsible for the worst of the violence. Some of the looters are from out of state, others from different neighborhoods.

Being outsiders they’re unknown to the police and rarely have to worry about being identified afterwards. And they don’t care about burning down someone else’s community.

The media usually sticks to its narrative of an outraged community that engages in excesses, especially when it can’t tell apart the locals from the outsiders. Local cops can, but no one in the media listens to them. Arrest records ofte show that most of those charged in the more violent crimes aren’t locals, but the media remains immune to facts that conflict with a favorite narrative.



1. Riots are about power, not for the rioters, but for the establishment

“We must not reprimand our children for outrage when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system,” Al Sharpton had said, in the aftermath of the murder of a Jewish student by an angry black mob.

This same rhetoric was used by the inciters of the violence around the country and has been used in similar riots going back generations. Its major theme is that the rioters are free to do whatever they want. They carry no moral responsibility for their actions.

And what they want is to smash and steal anything they can get their hands on. This isn’t outrage. It’s textbook amoral behavior. The riot doesn’t release anger; it frees the perpetrators of their morality.

The real purpose of a riot isn’t to benefit the rioters. It’s to benefit those who incite the riot. The rioters and looters react in response to riot-friendly conditions created from above. If you build the political infrastructure for a riot, the rioters and looters will come.

Sharpton’s riots weren’t about helping anyone except himself. By associating himself with violence, he sold the idea that he was an influential figure in the black community. Whether or not Sharpton was actually popular, his rise to the top of the political establishment became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Riots are about perception, not reality. The ringleader tries to keep his hands clean while convincing the establishment that he can turn the violence on or off any time he wants to.

The last decade of riots are the product of a new generation of Sharptons, ambitious activists feeding hate, of the New Black Panther Party’s obsession with becoming relevant, of the ragged hipster ends of Occupy Wall Street drifting from occupation to occupation, of radical white lefties and groups like Black Lives Matter that exist to suck up funding and sympathy from their white lefty allies.

It’s an old and cynical game that has been played in and around the Democratic Party for too long.

The answers to the rioting can’t be found in its streets. The problem didn’t come from there. It came from a corrupt political establishment that lights the fuse for its own power and profit.

Watcher of Weasels 2020-06-01 13:59:08

AmericanThinker.Com, ARTICLE:

BY THE GREAT DANIEL GREENFIELD

THE GREAT DANIEL GREENFIELD
THE GREAT DANIEL GREENFIELD

EXCERPT:

…now they want to hang Donald Trump with their violence and their charges of racism.  Make no mistake: this is a planned series of events coordinated and funded by the hard left.  There is nothing spontaneous about it other than those foolish looters who help the left’s narrative.

Once again: An awful war, brought on by awful people who simply do not care about anything other than their own political power.  It’s clear now that they will do anything to hold on to the power that Trump is denying them.  It’s clear that all these fronts are part of their war — their war on America, their war on us.

But the fog has lifted.

They can be seen for what they are: a group attempting a naked political power-grab.  One more attempt to sow chaos in the American system.  One more attempt to take over from an American public that wants to bring the normal processes of American life back.  One more attempt to shock America into rejecting the Trump presidency.  One more attempt for them to overthrow us.  One more attempt to sell their utopia to us….

Full Original Article In The Great AMERICANTHINKER.Com, Is Here

“THE PRIVILEGE OF ANGER”

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L_J1ALwM8W4/W57-QNb4ScI/AAAAAAAAYUY/77U5by2mEOEczL7Nv4FOx3TpZuWfJw_UwCLcBGAs/s1600/1417997402317.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/

Anger Privilege

BY:

THE GREAT

If you want to know who has privilege in a society and who doesn’t, follow the anger.

There are people in this country who can safely express their anger. And those who can’t. If you’re
angry that Trump won, your anger is socially acceptable. If you were angry that Obama won, it wasn’t. If you’re black and angry about the police, your anger is celebrated. If you’re white and angry about , or any leftist cause, you’re on the side of the angry angels.

But if you’re angry that your job is going to China or that you just missed being killed in a Muslim suicide bombing, your anger is unacceptable.

Not all anger is created equal. Some anger is privileged rage.


If you hang up an effigy of a Democrat governor while protesting the lockdowns, you will lose your job. But if you topple statues, loot stores, or throw bricks at police, celebrities funded by corporations will help bail you out. Violence, like anger, is also a matter of privilege. Only some get to do it.

Public acts of violence are not a symptom of oppression, but of privilege.

Good anger gets you a gig as a CNN commentator. Bad anger gets you hounded out of your job. Good anger isn’t described as anger at all. Instead it’s linguistically whitewashed as “passionate” or “courageous”. Bad anger however is “worrying” or “dangerous”. Angry left-wing protesters “call out”, angry right-wing protesters “threaten”. Good anger is left-wing. Bad anger is right-wing.

Socially acceptable displays of anger, from Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter riots to the anti-Trump marches to the furious campus protests, are invariably left-wing. They’re never described as dangerous even when they trash, loot, kill, and burn cities to the ground. That’s privilege.

Why were chants of “Lock her up” immoderate, but not Bush era cries of “Jail to the chief”? Why were Tea Party rallies “ominous” but throwing Molotov cocktails at cops is “courageous”? Why is killing Trump on stage the hottest thing to hit Shakespeare while a rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask was hounded by everyone from the Lieutenant Governor of Missouri to the NAACP?

Not all anger is equal. Anger, like everything else, is ideologically coded. Left-wing anger is good because its ideological foundations are good. Right-wing anger is bad because its ideology is bad.

It’s not the level of anger, its intensity or its threatening nature that makes it good or bad.

And that is why the left so easily slips into violence. All its ideological ends are good. Therefore its means, from mass starvation to gulags to riots and tyranny, must be good. If I slash your tires because of your Obama bumper sticker”, I’m a monster. But if you key my car because of my Trump bumper sticker, you’re fighting racism and fascism. Your tactics might be in error, but your viewpoint isn’t.

There are no universal standards of behavior. Civility, like everything else, is ideologically limited.

Intersectionality frowns on expecting civil behavior from “oppressed” protesters. Asking that shrieking campus crybully not to scream threats in your face is “tone policing”. A black millionaire’s child at Yale is fighting for her “existence”, unlike the Pennsylvania coal miner, the Baltimore police officer and the Christian florist whose existences really are threatened.

Tone policing is how the anger of privileged leftists is protected while the frustration of their victims is suppressed. The existence of tone policing as a specific term to protect displays of left-wing anger shows the collapse of civility into anger privilege. Civility has been replaced by a political entitlement to anger.

The left prides itself on an unearned moral superiority (“When they go low, we go high”) reinforced by its own echo chamber even as it has become incapable of controlling its angry outbursts. The national tantrum after Trump’s victory has all but shut down the government, turned every media outlet into a non-stop feed of conspiracy theories and set off protests that quickly escalated into street violence.

But Trump Derangement Syndrome is a symptom of a problem with the left that existed before he was born and one that continues even in contexts where he isn’t the issue. The left is an angry movement. It is animated by an outraged self-righteousness whose moral superiority doubles as dehumanization. And its machinery of culture glamorizes its anger. The media dresses up the seething rage so that the left never has to look at its demons in the mirror of its soul.

The left is as angry as ever. Campus riots and assassinations of Republican politicians are nothing new. What is changing is that its opponents are beginning to match its anger. The left still clings to the same anger it had when it was a theoretical movement with plans, but little impact on the country. The outrage at the left is no longer ideological. There are millions of people whose livelihoods were ruined, whose rights were taken away, whose land was seized, and whose children were turned against them. There are people whose small businesses have been shut down or burned to the ground.

The angry left has gained a great deal of power. It has used that power to wreck lives. But monopolies on anger only work in totalitarian states. In a free society, both sides are expected to control their anger and find terms on which to debate and settle issues. The left rejects civility and refuses to control its anger. The only settlement it will accept is absolute power. If an election doesn’t go its way, it will overturn the results. If someone offends it, he must be punished. Or there will be anger.

The angry left demands that everyone recognize the absolute righteousness of its anger as the basis for its power. This anger privilege, like tone policing, is often cast in terms of oppressed groups. But its anger isn’t in defiance of oppression, but in pursuit of oppression.

Anger privilege is used to silence opposition, to enforce illegal policies and to seize power. But the left’s monopolies on anger are cultural, not political. The entertainment industry and the media can enforce anger privilege norms through public shaming, but their smears can’t stop the consequences of the collapse of civility in public life. There are no monopolies on emotion.

When anger becomes the basis for political power, then it won’t stop with Howard Dean or Bernie Sanders. That’s what the left found out in the last election. Its phony pearl clutching was a reaction to the consequences of its destruction of civility. Its reaction to that show of anger by conservatives and independents was to escalate the conflict. Instead of being the opposition, the left became the “resistance”. Trump was simultaneously Hitler and a traitor. Republicans were evil beasts.

Anger has to go somewhere.

The left likes to think that its anger is good anger because it’s angry over the plight of illegal aliens, Muslim terrorists, transgender bathrooms, the lack of abortion in South Carolina, the minimum wage at Taco Bell, budget cuts, tax cuts, police arrests, drone strikes and all the other ways in which reality differs from its utopia. But all that anger isn’t the road to a better world, but to hate and violence.

Millions of leftists are told every day that Republicans are responsible for everything wrong with their lives, the country and the planet. Despite everything they do, all the petitions they sign, the marches they attend, the donations, the angry letters, the social media rants, Republicans continue to exist and even be elected to public office. Where does that anger go?

Either we have a political system based on existing laws and norms of civility. Or we have one based on coups and populist leftist anger. And there are already a whole bunch of those south of the border.

Leftist anger is a privileged bubble of entitlement that bursts every other election. Its choice is to try to understand the rest of the country or to intimidate, censor, oppress and eventually kill them.

ORIGINAL ARTICLES ARE HERE