Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Good2Golf]

“[E]very piece of anti-discrimination legislation passed over the past few decades, ignores one of the basic, inalienable rights of man — the right to discriminate. [Though] eliminating racial and sexual prejudice [had] noble aspiration, [anti-discrimination laws] necessarily utilize the ignoble means of coercive force.”

That young activist? Rand Paul in 1982.

...but it is okay to discriminate if you call it Employment Equity, or other such term.  Check.

 

[Kilo_302]

...but it is okay to discriminate if you call it Employment Equity, or other such term.  Check.

Do you believe that everyone, no matter gender, race or sexual orientation has equal opportunity in the US or Canada? Employment Equity, affirmative action, whatever mechanism you want to refer to, are designed to compensate for biases that most people acknowledge exist. They're aren't perfect by any means, but if someone believes African-Americans for example are under-represented in Ivy League schools because of something other than being at an economic disadvantage, or the racial bias of admissions departments, the onus is them to prove what that is.

This is exactly the problem with Libertarianism. It removes the regulations and rules that create a more equal society. It's typically those with every conceivable advantage that push it, because they're already on top. If a central tenet of America is class mobility, well Libertarianism would destroy that pretty quickly. It ensures that those who are on top stay on top.

 

[Good2Golf]

Do you believe that everyone, no matter gender, race or sexual orientation has equal opportunity in the US or Canada? Employment Equity, affirmative action, whatever mechanism you want to refer to, are designed to compensate for biases that most people acknowledge exist. They're aren't perfect by any means, but if someone believes African-Americans for example are under-represented in Ivy League schools because of something other than being at an economic disadvantage, or the racial bias of admissions departments, the onus is them to prove what that is.

This is exactly the problem with Libertarianism. It removes the regulations and rules that create a more equal society. It's typically those with every conceivable advantage that push it, because they're already on top. If a central tenet of America is class mobility, well Libertarianism would destroy that pretty quickly. It ensures that those who are on top stay on top.

So who's to say the particular compensation regimes are correct...of course, you have already assumed that it's fair to be unfair.  There are rules that direct how people are to be treated fairly, and in Canada, an important basis of these regulations is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  If that tool is available to ensure equitable treatment of all, then why adopt a regime of state-acceptable reverse-discrimination?

As well, why do you keep on refering to America?  We're in Canada here.  Can you provide me with factual examples of a Canadian institution, public or private, being permitted to discriminate against anyone?  I mean, other than men being deliberately prevented from gaining equitable treatment in the Canadian nursing profession?

Regards
G2G

 

[a_majoor]

As well, why do you keep on refering to America?  We're in Canada here.  Can you provide me with factual examples of a Canadian institution, public or private, being permitted to discriminate against anyone?  I mean, other than men being deliberately prevented from gaining equitable treatment in the Canadian nursing profession?

Regards
G2G

A friend of mine applying for the OPP is in a hiring regime where (according to his recruiting sergeant) 80% of the spots are "reserved" for women, ethnic minorities and aboriginal applicants. OTOH almost the same percentage of potential applicants are white males....Fire departments also have similar quotas for hiring

Having moved to a 6th floor apartment, I have some reservations that the latest 95lb fire department hires might have some issues getting up and down the ladder with myself or members of my family. Just saying....

 

[Good2Golf]

Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:

Regards
G2G

 

[Jed]

Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:

Regards
G2G

I left the Federal Gov't and was trying to get back in.  Same story given to me for about 5 years. I finally quit trying.  Its been this way for a couple of decades

 

[mariomike]

....Fire departments also have similar quotas for hiring

"I also explained that women and visible minorities, once qualified, are placed in their own group and that each class hired would require 50% from that group and 50% from the white male group."
Frank Ramagnano, Secretary-Treasurer - now President - IAFF Local 3888 - Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association.
https://issuu.com/local3888/docs/spring2009
Page 9.

Having moved to a 6th floor apartment, I have some reservations that the latest 95lb fire department hires might have some issues getting up and down the ladder with myself or members of my family. Just saying....

Might depend on what city you live in.

"Only 44 of the FDNY’s 10,500 firefighters are female." That's an all-time high in the FDNY’s 150-year history.
http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/struggling-firefighter-injured-after-just-10-days-into-new-job/
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/
http://nypost.com/2015/12/27/unfireable-female-firefighter-returns-to-the-fdny/

When I hired on with Metro Department of Emergency Services, Operations Division was 100 per cent male, and remained that way for the next ten years.

Not to say Metro D.E.S. was better or worse then or now, just different.

 

[Flavus101]

Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:

Regards
G2G

And this is what infuriates a lot of people my age. Why should someone who is 20 something year old white male be forced out of a job position because someone who is less qualified for the position is either a minority or a female. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Jed]

And this is what infuriates a lot of people my age. Why should someone who is 20 something year old white male be forced out of a job position because someone who is less qualified for the position is either a minority or a female. It makes absolutely no sense.

You should feel your white, male guilt and take one in the name of overall fairness for all of humanity.  [

 

[Flavus101]

Perhaps I will just do a reverse Michael Jackson.  :nana:

 

[PuckChaser]

Just self identify as another race. Worked for that white woman at the NAACP in the US.

 

[a_majoor]

Arch Progressive Bernie Sanders has certainly held his views for a long time indeed:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/sanders-to-charities-drop-dead.php

SANDERS TO CHARITIES: DROP DEAD
From a 1981 New York Times story, revealing Bernie Sanders as the full totalitarian he is underneath his “democratic” socialism:

For the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont. . .

”I don’t believe in charities,” said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ”fundamental concepts on which charities are based” and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs.

There you have it. Given than so many charities are left-leaning, it is revealing to see how much Sanders hates competition of any kind.

And of course Sanders can point to the remarkable achievement of the US Government spending far more than a trillion dollars to "fight poverty" since the 1960's Great Society and having the poverty rate remain static throughout all that time...

 

[a_majoor]

Mark Steyn comes through (as usual) and demolishes the Kumbyah contingent at the Munk debates. The turnabout in voting for a Toronto audience is remarkable, maybe reality can penetrate even in the darkest corners of Rosedale after all:

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-when-mark-steyn-struck-back

Barbara Kay: When Mark Steyn struck back
Barbara Kay
Tuesday, Apr. 5, 2016

Mark Steyn CRAIG GLOVER/The London Free Press

I was one of the lucky attendees last Friday at the Munk Debate in Toronto’s Roy Thompson Hall. The motion before the house concerned refugee policy: “Be it resolved: Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” On the pro side: Louise Arbour, former UN Human Rights commissioner and historian Simon Schama; on the con side journalist Mark Steyn and Britain’s UKIP party leader Nigel Farage.

The Munk tradition is to poll the audience before and after the debate. On this occasion, the audience was, as one might expect with a Toronto audience, heavily salted with elite liberal culturati, and the first poll was 77 per cent for the motion, 23 per cent con. After the debate, the pro vote was 55 per cent and the con 45 per cent, a huge shift in opinion, and therefore a handy win for the cons.

I’m not going to recap the whole debate, as you can watch it online. Summarizing Arbour and Schama: imagine all the kumbaya bromides Justin Trudeau would nod and smile to, and that’s the gist of what they said. I prefer to elaborate on what I consider to have been the tipping point favouring the con side, because it illuminated an important attitudinal gap between progressives and conservatives with regard to our culture.

In his opening statement, Steyn reviewed the present tumultuous situation in Europe. He made it clear that the majority of people streaming into and across the continent are not traditional refugees at all, but male economic migrants, mostly not from war-torn Syria. He, and later Farage, painted a grim picture of the impact that culturally sanctioned aggression is having on communities exposed to critical numbers of migrants, particularly on women and young girls — Steyn cited actual disturbing cases — who are bearing the brunt of the radiating anarchic dynamic inherent in the circumstances.

To some audience members (not to me, but for example to my furiously tweeting companion, a young colleague who happens to bear the same last name as me), Steyn dwelt excessively on the sexual crimes we’ve all read about in Cologne, Hamburg, Malmö and elsewhere. So it apparently seemed to Arbour and Schama, because they mocked Steyn for it in their rebuttals. Arbour sneered at both Steyn and Farage as “newborn feminists” (she got a laugh), while Schama disgraced himself with “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” (That got a very big laugh.) I took one look at Steyn’s glowering face after that remark — Schama will regret having said it to his dying day, I know it — and I kind of felt sorry for those two liberals, because I knew what was coming.

Steyn slowly rose and riposted, in a tone of withering contempt, “I wasn’t going to do funny stuff. I was going to be deadly serious. (But) I’m slightly amazed at Simon’s ability to get big laughs on gang rape.” Vigorous applause. He went on, “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.” Vigorous applause.

I think that was the moment those of the audience who did change their minds got it. The pro side was happy to talk about “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” because they’re abstract images, which liberals like. The words were fresh and meaningful then, but today merely a nostalgic homage to a 19th century immigration adventure with no deep similarities to today’s situation. They’re feel-good words but that shouldn’t make the poet who wrote them in 1883 the author of global refugee legislation in 2016. When Arbour and Schama didn’t like the opposition’s message — no images, just descriptions they interpreted as racist — they chose to shoot the messenger with ridicule, a debating error and an intellectually dishonest strategy.

A civilized culture, which takes centuries of painstaking collaborative work to create, can be easily destroyed, and quickly. This is a reality conservatives understand, but liberals, consumed by guilt for past collective sins, and morally disarmed before the Other, choose to ignore. The Munk debate illuminated this important distinction, and for a change, realism won.

National Post
kaybarb@gmail.com
Twitter.com/BarbaraRKay

 

[a_majoor]

We also have plenty of people who are quite willing to ignore or misrepresent Canada's culture of free speech (with roots dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta), so look both for that, and the inevitable backlash that the author is posting about. Dean Steacy, who made the willfully ignorant statement about freedom of speech being an American concept which he felt free to ignore (or words to that effect) is just one of many public and quasi public officials who are perfectly willing to use the power of the State to shut down speech they don't like here in Canada:

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/04/11/so-i-guess-its-open-season-on-democrat-allies-right-n2145872/page/full

So I Guess It’s Open Season On Democrat Allies, Right?
Kurt Schlichter | Apr 11, 2016

I was super excited to find out about a bunch of liberal state attorneys general aping the Obama administration’s use of government power to persecute their political enemies. This thrilling development is awesome because it gives us conservatives the opportunity to do the same to liberals.

Yeah, if the new rule is that the majority in power uses its authority to persecute its opponents, then shouldn’t we conservatives do it too? Except only harder and more ruthlessly.

Right now, you have attorneys general in places like New York and the Virgin Islands going after the heretics who dare dispute the climate change gospel. These fascists are “investigating” the dissidents and subpoenaing them and those they communicate with to gather “evidence” of non-existent crimes. But of course, the process itself is the punishment. Their purpose is to shut up the people who are pointing out liberal lies.

And you have the California Attorney General’s office going after the guy who revealed Planned Parenthood's baby bit bargaining, sending the storm troopers to trash his home for “evidence” of the “crime” of exposing the sick freaks who chop babies into bits and try to sell off the parts. Keep in mind that lying liberal scammers are never investigated – who is investigating Al Gore for the zillions he made off pimping climate fraud? And the California Attorney General, who took a ton of money from Planned Parenthood, has never before and never will again go after any journalist for secretly videotaping wrongdoers in action. Well, until the journalist is a conservative who caught one of her liberal friends. Then she’ll call SWAT.

The message is clear: If you dare fight the liberal orthodoxy, liberal functionaries in the government will use bogus investigations to bludgeon you into silence. If that notion strikes you as un-American, well, welcome to Obama’s America. Dissent isn’t going to be patriotic again until Ted Cruz is sworn in next January.

But don't get me wrong. I think this is great. Why? Because it gives us a chance to do the same thing to those Chavez wannabes.

And we should, without remorse or hesitation. Sure, I'd prefer a world where prosecutors were motivated by justice instead of politics, but thanks to the liberals that's not the country we live in anymore. We now live in a country where liberals feel entitled to use any government power entrusted to them to pursue not interests of the people but their own stupid political views. Moreover, the liberal media and the liberal establishment cheer them on, heedless of the fact that swords have two edges. So if that's the rule now, I say we use it to remedy this sickness in our politics with a political suppository.

These goose-stepping fascists seem to have forgotten that we conservatives own a bunch of states and we have a bunch of attorneys general with the same powers as theirs. Maybe it's time to use them.

Let's take Texas, a wonderful state with an attorney general who needs to look out for the interests of Texans, no matter how attenuated those interests are. For example, certainly some Texans own Democrat-loving Facebook’s stock. Did Facebook make any disclosures to potential shareholders that it intended to censor the views of conservative Facebook users? Weren't shareholders led to believe it was to be a freewheeling open forum? Why, the activities the company failed to disclose to shareholders could drive away customers and lower the value of the stock. In other words, that kind of failure of disclosure runs the risk of defrauding investors. This might be something that the Attorney General of Texas might want to look into, right?

Those poor Texan investors would be stunned - stunned! - to learn that the idea behind Facebook is not making a profit for investors but, rather, to support the personal political ideology of Mark Whatever-his-Name-Is. Yeah, the Texas AG should totally investigate Facebook, and subpoena a bunch of its records, and those of its political allies. But remember that all this has nothing to do with the fact that Facebook's leadership are noted liberals and Democrats donors.

Nothing at all. Because justice or something.

And gosh, you know a lot of aspiring scholars in Texas apply to very liberal colleges around the country who market to Texan young people. Those kids spend a lot of money on tuition. But if those colleges don't disclose that their policy is to discriminate against men in sexual abuse proceedings, to deprive them of any kind of due process, and to generally persecute Christians and conservatives on campus, well, the law has a word for that kind of knowingly false representation.

Fraud.

So I think the Texas Attorney General should be sending out a whole liberal-ton of subpoenas to find out exactly what's going on in all the Ivy League colleges regarding their admissions policies, their anti-male policies, their conspiracy to discriminate against conservatives and Christians. Sure, it would be a huge burden on the schools and potentially super embarrassing, but so what? Why, that's the only way to protect the young people of Texas from being misled through knowingly false misrepresentations.

Don’t we owe it to the children? Why do liberal colleges hate the children?

So, if we're going to start initiating the same kind of politically motivated “investigations” in order to bludgeon our political opponents into submission, then shouldn’t we do the bludgeoning better and harder than our enemies? Want to play horsey? This is horsey, and shouldn’t we conservatives play the game without remorse? After all, if we are going to change the rules, well, then we conservatives should play by the new rules too. Right?

But there's another way, a better way. It's called the rule of law. It's where attorneys general concentrate on upholding the law rather than their personal ideology. I'm all for that. That's my preference.

Of course, Texas’s current attorney general wouldn’t do any of this because of his quaint fixation on fulfilling his oath and upholding the rule of law. But if the rule of power continues to replace the rule of law, then it’s only a matter of time until conservatives decide to use our power ruthlessly against those who chose this foolish and dangerous path.

 

[OldSolduer]

Thucydides, I had a friend who was a Corrections Officer and an OPP Auxiliary for 15+ years, trying to get into policing, and was told numerous times by the OPP, Toronto and Ottawa Police Services that, "he was highly qualified and they'd love to have him on their force, but unfortunately he was a white male, and on the opposite side of hiring direction..."  It took him five years of waiting until TPS hired him, but he eventually made it.  It would seem that in "special cases" discrimination is not only acceptable, but society supports it. :not-again:

Regards
G2G

Funny thing happened to me. I applies twice to become a Winnipeg Police Service constable. I was denied twice.
I can't prove it but I was pretty sure it was because I wasn't visible minority or female. I was at the time a near 20 year CAF member. The visible minorities were given a three month course just to enable them to WRITE THE APTITUDE TEST!!!

Flash forward to 2004 - several former CAF members were recruited by WPS because that's what the WPS wanted...the most qualified candidates.

 

[mariomike]

Funny thing happened to me. I applies twice to become a Winnipeg Police Service constable. I was denied twice.

Try thrice?

Winnipeg Free Press
11/6/2015

"But the pool of potential recruits is getting smaller as interest in police work declines across the country, said Winnipeg Police Association vice-president George Van Mackelbergh.

"Recruiting right across the country is down. We don’t have near (as many) candidates – not just here but anywhere – coming to policing anymore," he said.

"A lot of people don’t view this as a desirable profession anymore. They see the scrutiny that we’re under and to a lot of folks, it’s just not worth coming here for that kind of money."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/WPS-wants-70-new-members-342123481.html

 

[PuckChaser]

"Not worth coming here for the scrutiny or the money"? I call BS. Most police forces have alienated their prime recruiting grounds, young white males. The "progressive" hiring plans to meet quotas mean a lot of very good candidates don't want to bother to go through the process only to be told "too white/male", or "We'd like to hire you, but we can't". Public safety professions should be best candidate available, no mention of race/gender/creed on any forms, and interview notes written non-gender specific. A board can sit, review each file (comprised of no one who has met the candidates) and the top X are picked.

I wonder what happens in 40 years when Caucasian is no longer the clear majority? In 2011 it was down (still a large number) to 76.6%, dropping roughly 3% every census period. If the trend holds, we'll reach 50% by 2057.

 

[mariomike]

"Not worth coming here for the scrutiny or the money"? I call BS.

Unless Winnipeg has fallen on hard times, so do I.

A Toronto Police constable earned $244,095 last year.

Public safety professions should be best candidate available, no mention of race/gender/creed on any forms, and interview notes written non-gender specific.

When the time comes to rescue my sorry butt I don't care who they send, as long as they can LIFT!  ;D

 

[Flavus101]

"Not worth coming here for the scrutiny or the money"? I call BS. Most police forces have alienated their prime recruiting grounds, young white males. The "progressive" hiring plans to meet quotas mean a lot of very good candidates don't want to bother to go through the process only to be told "too white/male", or "We'd like to hire you, but we can't". Public safety professions should be best candidate available, no mention of race/gender/creed on any forms, and interview notes written non-gender specific. A board can sit, review each file (comprised of no one who has met the candidates) and the top X are picked.

I wonder what happens in 40 years when Caucasian is no longer the clear majority? In 2011 it was down (still a large number) to 76.6%, dropping roughly 3% every census period. If the trend holds, we'll reach 50% by 2057.

:goodpost:

I think that this quota non-sense will start to impact DND in a big way as well, if it hasn't already started.

 

[a_majoor]

Tying it all together:

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.ca/2016/07/the-progressive-thread-weaving-evil.html

The progressive thread weaving evil together

There's a common thread weaving together all the terrorist incidents in Europe, all the murders of police officers in the USA, and all the political protest from the sometimes fringe, often violent left-wing and progressive groups in this country.  It's a fundamental determination to tear down and demolish the status quo in society by whatever means are necessary.  It's a declaration of war against the standards that have hitherto defined civilization.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Let's look at a few facts.

The mass exodus of refugees from the Middle East to Europe has been applauded and funded by left-wing individuals and sympathizers.  Witness George Soros' support for and active involvement in the crisis.  He's far from the only player.  I believe that at least some of the blood spilled by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in Europe is on his hands, because he's done and is still doing everything in his power to bring more of them there.

Witness the deliberate equating of police with street gangs.  For example, here's Ta-Nehisi Coates on the subject:

In the black community, it’s the force they deploy, and not any higher American ideal, that gives police their power ... if the law represents nothing but the greatest force, then it really is indistinguishable from any other street gang. And if the law is nothing but a gang, then it is certain that someone will resort to the kind of justice typically meted out to all other powers in the street.

However, the law - not the police, the law - most certainly does represent something more than "the greatest force".  It's the basis of our social contract.  Defiance of the law means that social contract is breaking down.  To target police is to target those who uphold that social contract.  Thugs kill other thugs as a matter of routine.  To treat police in the same way is to treat them as thugs.  Some of them - the bad apples - may, indeed, be thugs;  and the criminal justice system should and must treat them as such.  However, the vast majority of them are not thugs.  They're decent men and women trying as hard as they can to preserve the social contract.  As George Orwell put it:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

That's as true today as it's ever been.  Only when those 'rough men' are constrained by and act within the social contract can we have any security.  When those doing violence are not constrained by anything . . . it's thug rule.

The attack on the police in the USA is being orchestrated by movements such as Black Lives Matter, whose name is demonstrably a lie.  BLM will protest against police brutality from dawn to dusk and all night long, but will they say - much less do - anything about the black lives lost to violent criminals, usually themselves black?  I've never heard them do so.  Theirs is a peculiarly one-sided, selective focus.  The criminal murders of blacks vastly outnumber those committed by police, by a factor of at least a hundred to one and probably far higher than that:  but you never hear BLM mention that reality.  They're trying to undermine the social order, the social contract.  Their agitation against the police is merely a means to that end.

BLM is just one example of a flock of social activist organizations geared to challenge the social contract on every level.  They're all funded and organized by shadowy, behind-the-scenes figures, and all work towards the same end from different directions.  For example, the Washington Times recently reported:

Billionaire George Soros has funded liberal organizations intent on bringing confusion, disarray and trouble to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland next week.

And they’ve already had some victories.

Civil rights group Color of Change — which Mr. Soros gave $500,000 to in his Foundation’s latest tax return — collected more than 100,000 signatures on a petition to demand Coca-Cola and other companies withdraw their support from the convention. The petition that featured a Coke bottle with the label, “Share a Coke with the KKK.”

Color of Change was joined by UltraViolet, another Soros-backed women’s rights organization, in the petition, an effort to amplify their collective voice against the GOP.

And it worked.

. . .

To demonstrate how extreme Color of Change’s political ideology is, it’s latest campaign is to defund America’s police forces that “don’t defend black lives.” Its social media feeds give no reference to the five men in uniform who lost their lives in Dallas.

. . .

Brave New Films, which received $250,000 from Mr. Soros‘ foundation, tried to make waves for Republicans by creating misinformation about their convention through social media.

Brave New Films is a social media “quick-strike capability” company that uses media, films, volunteers and internet video campaigns to “challenge mainstream media with the truth, and motivates people to take action on social issues nationwide,” according to its website.

In a Facebook posting, Brave New Films bragged about driving a fake internet campaign — a petition to allow for open carry at the convention — into the mainstream media. The petition was reported on as if Republicans wanted it, however, it was simply created by a liberal, Soros troll.

. . .

MoveOn.org is also planning activity. They proudly took responsibility for shutting down Mr. Trump’s rally in Chicago in March, and fundraised off their success.

MoveOn is organizing a “National Doorstep Convention” that runs parallel to the GOP’s convention where members plan on going door-to-door in Ohio and other states to urge voters to “reject the politics of hate sown by Donald Trump and the GOP.”

The group’s been quiet about their plans for actual protests at the convention, but we can bet they’ll be involved. On Wednesday MoveOn urged its members in an email to sign the “Movement for Black Lives Pledge,” being circulated by Black Lives Matter activists, calling Mr. Trump a “hatemonger.”

. . .

Last weekend, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), a progressive organization that was given $900,000 by Mr. Soros’s Foundation, held a People’s Convention in Pittsburgh, to organize social justice movements ahead of the political conventions both in Cleveland and Philadelphia.

The conference included Black Lives Matter organizers, those campaigning for immigration reform, the Fight for $15, LGBTQ rights, and environmental justice activists. It’s purpose was to give them the tools to communicate and engage with one-another’s campaigns to amplify their collective voice.

“We are beginning to launch a real national organizing framework — that’s something that really hadn’t been seen since ACORN went under,” Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change told the American Prospect of the conference.

That’s right, Mr. Soros is actively working to build another ACORN.

There's more at the link.  Funny how Mr. Soros' name keeps cropping up, isn't it?  However, he's not the only one behind these organizations.  For example, look at who's funding Black Lives Matter.

Jonathan Haidt recently pointed out a root cause of this agitation.

We’re beginning a second transition of moral cultures. The first major transition happened in the 18th and 19th centuries when most Western societies moved away from cultures of honor (where people must earn honor and must therefore avenge insults on their own) to cultures of dignity in which people are assumed to have dignity and don’t need to earn it. They forswear violence, turn to courts or administrative bodies to respond to major transgressions, and for minor transgressions they either ignore them or attempt to resolve them by social means. There’s no more dueling.

... this culture of dignity is now giving way to a new culture of victimhood in which people are encouraged to respond to even the slightest unintentional offense, as in an honor culture. But they must not obtain redress on their own; they must appeal for help to powerful others or administrative bodies, to whom they must make the case that they have been victimized.

. . .

The key idea is that the new moral culture of victimhood fosters “moral dependence” and an atrophying of the ability to handle small interpersonal matters on one’s own. At the same time that it weakens individuals, it creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims.

Again, more at the link.

Mr. Haidt's research is in the area of so-called microaggressions;  but I believe it's directly relevant to this discussion.  You see, each of the organizations we've discussed above is trying to exploit the concept and culture of victimhood.  They claim to identify (and identify with) various classes of victims, and seek to mobilize them (and their sympathizers) to agitate against the system that has allegedly made them victims.  If there were no culture of victimhood - if, instead, the focus was on individual responsibility - these organizations would collapse.  Only by denying individual responsibility, focusing instead on groups and the social contract that has until now governed their interaction, can they establish their own reason for being.

This is startlingly reminiscent of the criminal mindset.  I wrote about this in my memoir of prison chaplaincy.  In it, I pointed out a number of characteristics of the criminal's outlook on life, including the following:

3.  Refusal to accept responsibility. The criminal avoids or evades any acceptance or admission of guilt or responsibility. Even when he displays contrition about his actions, it’s usually an outward show. In reality his only genuine regret is that he was discovered. He’ll blame anything and everything, anyone and everyone except himself for the negative consequences of his crimes. Of course, this means that he’ll eagerly agree with those blaming factors in his background for his crimes — it allows him to slide out of accepting any personal responsibility for his actions. It’s always someone else’s fault.

. . .

6.  A need for excitement. The criminal ‘gets a kick’ out of what he does. Even getting caught has its own thrill. Dealing with the arresting officers (perhaps including an exciting car chase that gets him on TV), establishing his place in the hierarchy in the jail, dealing with the courts, trying to ‘beat the rap’: all have their own emotional intensity. The same applies to life in prison. A really hardened convict may spend more time in the Hole than in general population, aggravate and infuriate staff, annoy other inmates… but he doesn’t care. He’s getting a kick out of his ‘power’ to make others react to him.

. . .

10.  A refusal to accept reality. Reality is defined by the criminal on his terms, not by the victim of his crime or by society. A criminal convicted of check fraud will adamantly deny that he’s a thief — he ‘never took anything’. One who stole from a bank didn’t steal from an individual, only an institution, and that’s not theft by his lights. A rapist didn’t do any harm to his victim — ‘she enjoyed it’. A child abuser wasn’t abusing the child at all: he was ‘showing his love’ for his victim. An armed robber who killed his victim when he resisted wasn’t guilty of murder. If his victim had complied with his demands he wouldn’t have died. He ‘asked for it’ by resisting, therefore his death wasn’t the robber’s fault. Most criminals will argue that they weren’t convicted because of what they did, but rather because ‘the system’ or ‘the judge’ or ‘the prosecutor’ was against them. It was personal bias that put them behind bars, not the weight of evidence. I could go on forever in this vein, but I’m sure you get the picture.

More at the link.

Do you see any common ground between these characteristics, and the attitude and conduct of so many progressive pressure groups such as Black Lives Matter, Moveon.org, Common Dreams, Color of Change, and so many others?  I certainly do.  Almost uniformly these groups deny (or don't even mention) the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility for their lives and actions.  They'll blame anything and anyone else.  It's "the system".  It's "the police".  It's "racism".  It's never the individual's fault, never the fault of the group complaining about oppression.  It's always someone else.

They also appear to demonstrate a real need for excitement, to make "the Man" respond to what they're doing.  They're social gadflies.  They never achieve anything themselves - at least, I've never seen anything they've managed to build.  They merely cause trouble for those they oppose.  They tear down what others have built, but offer nothing concrete with which to replace it.

Finally, they certainly appear to refuse to accept reality.  Black Lives Matter is a particularly evil offender in this regard.  They have not one word to say about the hundreds - sometimes thousands - of black lives shattered by criminal violence every single weekend in this country.  Go add up the accounts of shootings, stabbings, etc. in every major city in the USA for any weekend this year.  See how many of the victims were black.  See how many of the perpetrators were black.  Do you hear one single word out of BLM about them?  Like hell you do!  Instead, BLM chunters on and pontificates about the violence of the police . . . when the latter accounts for far, far less than 1% of the violence offered to blacks (usually by blacks) on a routine, everyday basis.  Clearly, to BLM,  black lives don't matter.  That's the only possible explanation of this reality.

All these progressive organizations have this common thread running through their activities.  Individuals don't matter.  The social contract doesn't matter.  All that matters is pursuing their own progressive, liberal agenda . . . and damn the cost to everyone else.

That's just plain evil.  There's no other way to describe it.

Of course, when you try to point that out, the mainstream media and the lickspittle servants of political correctness are going to do their best to silence you.  Witness what a CNN presenter did yesterday to Sheriff David Clarke of Wisconsin when he laid the truth on the line.

For the record, Sheriff Clarke is right.  This is a hate group ideology.  It's nothing less and nothing more - and we need to treat it as such.

Peter