Is There Enough of
America Left To Be Saved?
Is There Enough of America Left To Be Saved?
Paul Craig
Roberts
As many
readers of this website have noticed, the United States has lost its character
and become a dysfunctional society. In place of a largely homogeneous
population once united in veneration of the Constitution, there exists today
massive diversity which Identity Politics has used to disunite the population
into separate interest groups.
No clause
or article of the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, is safe. The George W.
Bush and Obama regimes destroyed two of the most important protections of civil
liberty—habeas corpus and due process. Bush declared indefinite imprisonment on
suspicion alone without evidence or trial. Obama declared execution of US
citizens on accusation alone without due process. The Justice (sic) Department
wrote legal memos justifying torture, thus destroying the constitutional
protection against self-incrimination. One of the authors of the memos is now a
professor of law at UC Berkeley. The other is now a federal judge, indications
that respect for the Constitution and enforcement of US and international laws
against torture is fading in law schools and the federal judiciary.
A third
important protection of civil liberty—freedom of speech which is necessary for
the discovery of truth and to serve justice—is being destroyed. Apple,
Google/Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, university speech codes, legislation against
protesting Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, and the presstitute media
that has been turned into a propaganda organ in behalf of vested interests are
all actively involved in protecting lies against truth.
Glenn
Greenwald reported that “the single greatest threat to free speech in the
West — and in the U.S. — is the coordinated, growing campaign to outlaw
and punish those who advocate for, or participate in, activism to end the
Israeli occupation” of Palestine.https://theintercept.com/2016/02/16/greatest-threat-to-free-speech-in-the-west-criminalizing-activism-against-israeli-occupation/
The Second
Amendment, which was placed in the Constitution as a defense against oppression
by government, is under attack by well financed organizations in service to the
police state with the intention of disarming the population. Many attentive
Americans are convinced that mass shootings are staged or pretended in order to
create public support for repealing the Second Amendment. Clearly the amount of
effort expended against the Second Amendment is disproportional to the number
of shooting deaths as compared to other causes of deaths. Why this one cause of
deaths has so many well financed and politically active organizations compared
to other causes of deaths is a question that is studiously avoided. We see far
more opposition to the Second Amendment than we see against Washington’s
destruction in whole or part of seven countries during the past two decades,
resulting in the death, maiming, widowing, orphaning and displacement of
millions of peoples.
In an
Orwellian twist, freedom of religion is now interpreted as a prohibition
against celebrating Christianity, the religious basis of the country, in public
arenas.
Law
faculties and the ACLU have deemphasized the original rights specified in the
Constitution, emphasizing instead rights for transgendered, homosexuals,
illegal aliens, and those seeking and performing abortions—a horrendous crime
only a few decades ago.
Today all
it takes to trump the US Constitution is to utter “National Security.”
As the
United States is the Constitution, destroying the Constitution destroys the
United States. Yet those destroying the Constitution claim that they are making
the country safe by substituting police state measures for civil liberty.
The newly
invented rights and the speech codes are used as weapons against heterosexual
white males and to transfer authority from white male professors and managers
to university and corporate “diversity offices” acting in behalf of “oppressed
minorities” (women, non-white races except apparently Asians, homosexuals,
transgendered). In the August 2018 issue of Chronicles, a magazine of
American culture, Jack Trotter relates one of his experiences as an assistant
professor “at a major Southern university, one of those SEC football titans.”
In a lecture he encouraged his students to “avoid excessive use of abstract,
Latinate terms in their writing.” He was accused of committing a racist crime
of advocating white superiority by expressing a preference for short words with
clear meaning that comprise Anglo-Saxon vocabulary. The absurd charge was
placed in Trotter’s university file for internal use in the event he gave
further indications of white supremacy by uttering the term Anglo-Saxon.
It gets
even more ridiculous than this. A professor I know at a major research
university was unaware that “girls” had been made an insensitive word and used
it in class. He was called before a diversity dean and told that one more
infraction and he would have to attend a class in “diversity training.”
The same
thing happened to a graduate student at an English University who was one
Friday afternoon sitting talking with three secretaries who were describing the
evening out they had planned. He said: “sounds like a fun girls’ night out.”
The expression “girls night out” is an old one widely used by women themselves,
but the secretaries took offense at the word “girls,” complained, and the
graduate student was subjected to sensitivity training.
Any member
of an “oppressed minority” can make a complaint against a white male on any
basis, and it is in the vested interest of the diversity office, whether
university or corporate—remember the Google case—to regard the complaint both
as true and as an offense.https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/08/google-committed-suppression-free-speech/
A couple
of years ago a black female student claimed that as she walked past a
fraternity house on the Georgia Tech campus, racial slurs were yelled at her
from an open window. The president immediately suspended the fraternity without
due process. It was proven that all the windows in the house had been painted
shut for many years and that none of them would open. But the penalty against
the fraternity stood.
It would
be interesting to know if white males are permitted to file complaints against
radical feminists who dismiss all white heterosexual males as rapists and black
professors who describe whites as “ice people,” racists, and imperial/colonial
exploiters.
The
question is: are white heterosexual males protected by speech codes? I would
suspect that if a white male filed a complaint against a man-hating feminist,
the diversity office would take the complaint as proof that the white male is a
misogynist, and if a white male filed a complaint against a black it would be
interpreted as proof of the white male’s racism.
There have
been some cases of Christian students complaining of prejudices that professors
display against Christianity, but by and large I don’t think the complaints
have had much success.
Liberals
will say that the rights protected in the Constitution are more prevalent, not
less. They will point to the success of the civil rights movement in
integrating blacks. Overall, however, it is not clear that blacks have any more
due process and habeas corpus rights under the War on Terror than they had
under Jim Crow. The overall loss of civil liberty cancels the blacks’ gains.
Indeed, have blacks actually gained any rights when the police with little
accountability can shoot down unarmed blacks on the streets and in their own
homes? If gun control is needed, why isn’t it needed for the police?
Just as
protests against Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinians are being
criminalized throughout the West, so is free speech that challenges the
self-serving agendas of governments and vested interests. The hope that the
Internet and social media would expand free speech have been proven wrong by
the move against Alex Jones, the Ron Paul Institute, and antiwar.com by Apple,
Twitter, and Google/Facebook. Apparently these corporations are convinced that
Western peoples are sufficiently in the power of The Matrix that the attack on
the First Amendment will cost them no lost business or condemnation by the
public.
That
corporations believe that they can attack the First Amendment with no adverse
consequences to themselves shows the extent to which the United States has
eroded.
No comments:
Post a Comment