Georgetown Student Association Condemns Conservative Student For Criticizing BLM and The Bostock Ruling

Georgetown_sealWe have been discussing the targeting of professors who voice dissenting opinions about the Black Lives Matter movement, police shootings, or aspects of the protests around the country from the University of Chicago to Cornell to Harvard to other schools.  However, student face even greater pressure to conform to a new orthodoxy enforced on our campuses.  An example is conservative Georgetown University junior Billy Torgerson who was the subject of a formal resolution of condemnation by the Georgetown University Student Association as well as a call for a bias complaint to the university. The reason is a column posted on his own website entitled “A Nation Of Virtuous Individuals” in which he espouses widely held conservative views of the law and patriotic views of the country.

Torgerson prefaces his column by offering a view of the country as basically good and defending what is commonly called “first principles” of constitutional interpretations by conservative scholars.  He starts by saying that “I’ve done a lot of thinking since March 2020. Through all of the conflicting ideas running through my head, one idea remains true over all of them: I love the United States of America.”

The substance of the column first and foremost addresses Torgerson’s criticism of the ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, a decision extending protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to transgender individuals with the expanded interpretation of the term “sex.”  Torgerson advocates a position similar to that of three justices in dissent and a large number of conservative lawyers that the term “sex” was never intended to go beyond the narrower meaning. However, he adds

“I bring up this ruling to make my point – yes, the outcome of the case is good for people that identify as LGBTQ. The benefits for these individuals are not the problem. The problem is that this was an overreach of constitutional authority by the Supreme Court of the United States that will have unintended consequences. The process was wrong, and it was perpetrated by flawed actors within our faithful institutions. This is also a failure of Congress to perform a check on the Judicial branch.”

Torgerson spends much of his column praising the United States and rejecting the notion that the country is inherently racist.  He also criticized Black Lives Matter as a movement.  This criticism is distinguished from the more general cause by Torgerson, who added a clarification that

“In this article, “Black Lives Matter” refers to the ORGANIZATION, not the MESSAGE. Of course Black lives matter – in fact, as far as I am concerned, every life matters. Nobody matters more than anyone else, just like nobody else’s opinion matters more than anyone else. If you don’t like my opinion, draw your own.”

As is always the case on this blog, we are focused on issues of free speech and academic freedom. There are ample reasons to disagree with Torgerson on his statements and his analysis.  Indeed, he invited such debate.  However, the student government decided that his voicing his opposing views was worthy of censure and many want him investigated.  Negrete-Retamales put forward the approved resolution which was adopted with only two dissenting votes.  The resolution calls out Torgerson for such transgressions as “the vocabulary in this article invalidates the experiences of BIPOC individuals in and outside of the Georgetown community.” It also objects that “the article states, ‘The United States of America is not systemically racist today,’ by which the author negates the existence of institutional racism.” It also includes the express call for “the Senate body and the campus community to file bias reports in response to the article and journal entries.”

Just two students voted in favor of the free speech rights of a fellow student.  The article condemns Torgerson because “the rhetoric in this article is racist, ignorant, discriminatory, demeaning, and hateful.” As is often the case, the University said nothing as a conservative students was censored by the student government for expressing his views on a Supreme Court case and current controversies.  For example, the University or the faculty could issue a simple statement from the school’s Speech and Expression Policy that asks students “to judge the value of ideas, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting those arguments and ideas that they oppose.”

Again, Torgerson knew that his column would be controversial and the points that he raises should prompt spirited debate.  That is precisely what higher education should foster: respectful but passionate debate. The students isolated legitimately controversial elements about this column like Torgerson’s criticism of the commonly held view of systemic racism and his criticism of the BLM organization.  I also disagree with such sweeping statements as:

“Black Lives Matter is a movement entirely based in unfalsifiable ideological possession, and it does not deserve your support. If you support this group, your emotions are being manipulated to push for fundamentally-incorrect solutions to problems that have many moving parts. The United States of America is not systemically racist today.”

I would have liked to see an exchange of students on such issues but that debate is not occurring on our campuses, as vividly demonstrated by this censure resolution.

Instead of publishing their own views on this case or the other issues raised in the column, these students sought to punish Torgerson for expressing dissenting opinions on legal and social issues.  As Torgerson is isolated and attacked by the student body, Georgetown remained conspicuously silent.  Not a word about how the university must remain a place for diverse opinions and viewpoints. Outside of a couple conservative sites, there has also been virtually no coverage, let alone a defense, of this student columnist by the media in the interests of free speech.  The incident was reported on the website The College Fix.

The message from this incident is clear for conservative, libertarian, or just contrarian students: if you voice dissenting views, you will be formally denounced as a racist and your views treated as a “bias incident.” These students know that such action could have a harmful impact on future applications or prospects for students like Torgerson.  The intended chilling effect is glacial on any others who want to engage in a good-faith debate over the issues that will be defining our nation for generations.

116 thoughts on “Georgetown Student Association Condemns Conservative Student For Criticizing BLM and The Bostock Ruling”

  1. Apparently 1984 is too much for the current round of college loafers basking in stolid immaturity. They need to start with Animal Farm–more similarity to a cartoon–that doesn’t stress their thnking capacity.

  2. This kind of oppressive erasure calls for a more spirited and passionate denunciation than the always even handed, mild mannered and on the one hand and on the other hand Turley shows here. The point isn’t picking out portions of Torgerson’s statement that Turley disagrees with. Of what use that? The point is a forceful, full throated routing of such erasure.

    1. This recalls the Brown Shirts of Hitler who would vehemently attack those who had the nerve to disagree with ANYTHING the “Socialist” party said/did. The same result seems to be pending now, Guns will be forcibly removed, and a Totalitarian Leftist Fascist Regime will ensue. And so, once again, history will repeat itself. We will again see that these so-called Black movements are actually Fascist, and have no intention of helping Blacks, but destroying them, and Jews & Christians as well.

    2. Flaw 1: founding father’s doctrine was created for land owning, white, Christian men only. The constitution was crafted to be amended and change, the same change that you as an American is actively criticizing during this point in history. This upholds white supremacist power and structure.
      Flaw 2: Women’s Suffrage Movement and Civil Rights Movement occurred in the last centry to bring about momentous change for these perspective groups. Black Lives Matter is simply another movement. Just as the govt is filled with ill-equipped individual actors, so can movements. Your statements are slanderous backed by no credible evidence. Emotion is human.
      Flaw 3: we can never be just “American” or brotherly as you put it, if we continue to ignore the trifling disparities that exist within American society. Also your privilege lies in never experiencing racism until coming to GU. I experience racism everyday. Its more than words, its systemic. The fact you have the privilege to publish this hurtful article rooted in ignorance speaks volumes to how disconnect you and your peers truly are in the moment of history we’re in. You have me, a “black sister” and yet have no idea what harmful messages you continue to reaffirm.
      Its clear you have chosen the side to continue to uplift the American status quo, and yet you call yourself a brother. You are no brother of mine. You should be ashamed.

      1. Jeffery Miller (a “black sister” (?)) finds several flaws in Torgerson’s post

        The point here is not whether the column, which the student posted to his own website, was flawed or not. The issue is whether he has a right to express his opinions. The (current) state of US law is that he does. What’s more, he recognizes that his opponents have the exact same right:

        “Nobody matters more than anyone else, just like nobody else’s opinion matters more than anyone else. If you don’t like my opinion, draw your own.”

        The problem, and the point of Turley’s post, is that, increasingly, the fanatical devotees of a new neo-Stalinist religious movement (several of the tenets of which you helpfully, if incoherently, enumerate in your semi-literate post) don’t recognize that right for anyone but themselves.

  3. The stifling of free speech is getting problematic, i agree. Still I’d rank it second in problematic capacity to having a wildly incompetent and corrupt president who has been described by all of his cabinet not presently incarcerated as being not fit to hold the job. All during the time of pandemic, economic collapse and widespread civil unrest directly traceable to his actions while in offce.

    1. Flaw 1: founding father’s doctrine was created for land owning, white, Christian men only. The constitution was crafted to be amended and change, the same change that you as an American is actively criticizing during this point in history. This upholds white supremacist power and structure.
      Flaw 2: Women’s Suffrage Movement and Civil Rights Movement occurred in the last centry to bring about momentous change for these perspective groups. Black Lives Matter is simply another movement. Just as the govt is filled with ill-equipped individual actors, so can movements. Your statements are slanderous backed by no credible evidence. Emotion is human.
      Flaw 3: we can never be just “American” or brotherly as you put it, if we continue to ignore the trifling disparities that exist within American society. Also your privilege lies in never experiencing racism until coming to GU. I experience racism everyday. Its more than words, its systemic. The fact you have the privilege to publish this hurtful article rooted in ignorance speaks volumes to how disconnect you and your peers truly are in the moment of history we’re in.
      Its clear you have chosen the side to continue to uplift the American status quo, and yet you call yourself a brother. You are no brother of mine. You should be ashamed.

    2. Johnny Buglife:

      “The stifling of free speech is getting problematic, i agree. Still I’d rank it second in problematic capacity to having a wildly incompetent and corrupt president who has been described by all of his cabinet not presently incarcerated . . ..”

      OK, help us less well-informed folks out here:

      Which members of Trump’s cabinet ARE presently incarcerated? and which have described him as being not fit to hold the job?

  4. The incomparable Woody Allen presented it best, in his Courtroom scene from “Bananas” (one of his early, funny movies): during a trial for treason Miss America states, “I think [the defendant] is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they’re too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.”
    Trouble is, today’s assault on academic freedom and the free expression of ideas is no comedy.

  5. Black Lies Matter

    It is axiomatic. The lies and parasitism of incapable and dependent blacks have been tolerated and suffered for no rational and coherent reason other than that of incomprehensible, phantom liberal guilt which has somehow gained ascendancy.

    One can only imagine that Americans are too busy conducting free enterprise to pay any attention to the disintegration of their self-governing republic of freedom constituted of severely limited and restricted government.

    The lies of blacks were not material when blacks were slaves and they are similarly not material today. The Constitution applies equally and without variation to all legal and legitimate citizens and includes no various, superior or inferior rights for any individuals or groups of individuals.
    _____________________________________________________________

    America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  6. actually, many students did attempt to discuss the matter with this ignorant student by leaving informative comments below his instagram post about the article. many suggested that he look into topics such as mass incarceration, redlining, etc. last time that i checked, he had not responded to any of these. i don’t think it’s admirable for someone to express their opinion when their opinion inherently invalidates the struggles of oppressed populations (Black americans, transgender people). for him to go out of his way to say that the supreme court should have allowed discrimination against trans individuals and that systemic racism doesn’t exist is not something that should be praised. “opinions” like this are incredibly threatening to Black students and it is the responsibility of GUSA to care for them and denounce this type of ignorance.

    1. actually, many students did attempt to discuss the matter with this ignorant student

      The term ‘ignorant’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

      topics such as mass incarceration, redlining, etc

      IOW, you want to spew about humbug and he ignores you.

      their opinion inherently invalidates the struggles of oppressed populations (

      The term ‘oppressed’ does not mean what you fancy it means, either.

    2. what is your evidence of systematic racism? can you point to laws? corporate guidelines? any other systemic evidence? anything you find will be illegal and you should have no problem in this societal culture in getting those wrongs righted.

      and how are black people oppressed in the US, except by the blag thugs that so readily gun them down? and transgender people? who even knew they existed until recently? pick a gender, go with it, and just about no one will notice or even care.

      lastly, these opinions ARE NOT THREATENING to anyone, period. this is a trope to evade freedom of speech.

      what’s really threatening is the constant regurgitation of left wing propaganda shouting down any and all whose critical thought has led them to a different opinion.

      this is an absolute disgrace. i strongly suggest that you do a little research, listen to people outside of safe spaces, think critically, ask hard questions of yourself and others, and see where you land.

      1. Can’t help but notice ‘transgender’ types. A prime characteristic is they get ratty becuse of an extraordinary number of bad PMS days.

    3. Well, Mr. Anonymous . . .
      First of all, a person should be entitled to his opinion even when, as you put it, the “non-admirable” view expressed “inherently invalidates the struggles of oppressed populations” — whatever that means. (You could have tried to explain what that phrase actually means, but I suppose wrangling all those large words would have given you a headache.)
      Second, as to the Supreme Court opinion decried by Mr. Torgerson, he did not complain about the result, i.e., the impact of the majority view. Sure, that ruling made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: but that wasn’t the point. Just as, had the High Court ruled against the petitioners in Bostock, it would not have meant that the Court endorsed trans discrimination, but rather only that the 1964 Statute construed in the controversy did not envision “sexual orientation-based” discrimination in employment.
      Torgerson bemoaned that the Supreme Court’s reasoning was tortured and absurd, a construct to achieve a popular result. To call his analysis a “type of ignorance” merely highlights the inability of “Mr. Anonymous” to understand legal construction. But, then again, perhaps legal construction itself is only a device to “invalidate[ ] the struggles of oppressed populations.”

    4. “opinions” like this are incredibly threatening to Black students and it is the responsibility of GUSA to care for them”

      You sound like you own the “Black students”, like you would own a pet. In fact, you sound like a plantation owner looking out for his slaves.

      What you are is a guilty dog barking, first, and loudest, because you know that you’re really a bigot.Which is clearly evidenced by the fact that you don’t think black students can take “care” of themselves.

    5. It’s not the student author’s job to respond to whatever arguments get put up related to his article. He wrote this on his personal blog. Go start your own personal blog, or write a dissenting opinion in the student paper or on Twitter (but maybe first learn to write). A university has historically been a place to debate ideas. If you can’t debate ideas and learn to form an argument it may not be the place for you. What he says does not invalidate the struggles of oppressed populations if those struggles are real. Which systemic racism arguably is not in the United States today.

    6. Oh dear! We guess he should have immediately perceived the superior wisdom of the presumably calm and civilized missives of his negative respondents, apologized, begged for forgiveness and promised to seek out leftist guidance and approval before forming any future opinions, right? Maybe you need to lead the push for establishment of departments with an approval stamp, make things so much less contentious–you’re almost there.

    7. Ignorant? A tad bit before his time I’d say. But socialists despise anyone who brings to light the error of their ways. Shame on this institution and it’s governing body for its attempt to quell the truth.

    8. “i don’t think it’s admirable for someone to express their opinion when their opinion inherently invalidates the struggles of oppressed populations (Black americans, transgender people). ”

      Spoken like a true totalitarian.

  7. The anti-racists are racists, the anti-fascists are fascists, those seeking justice seek injustice via extortion. If you care about freedom of expression, accomplishment, individual development, art, literature, or thought, then you cannot be a Democrat today.

    1. It is classic Orwellian double think, Michael.

      “War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength”.

    2. Mikey, grow up and get serious, Individualism is a dead end. Our people need the group to survive. Quit worrying about liberty and fascism and all that and figure out how you’re going to survive the mob that’s coming. Here’s a clue:

      THE STRENGTH OF THE WOLF IS IN THE PACK

      no pack? they you’re not very strong.

      nobody can pull guard duty while they sleep, and nobody can go for more than a couple days without sleeping. add it up, figure it out, fast.,

        1. My family for starters. Other than that, it remains to be seen.

          I’m no wolf really. If I were being generous to myself, at best one of those little French bulldogs

  8. Twenty years ago, the student government was a collecting pool of resume puffers. Now it’s a collecting pool of political sectaries. Why is what he puts on his own website a matter of discussion?

  9. One thing we can do is to pick a college student newspaper, and monitor it daily. Anywhere we can comment on the website challenging the
    false narratives being espoused, we should do with respect and meritocratic excellence.

  10. WE ALL KNOW THE RULES:

    – The mainstream media selectively covers race and crime in order to push a misleading progressive narrative of black victimization.

    – Stories about police brutality are routinely misrepresented and blown out of proportion in order to demonize the police and conservatives as racist.

    – The White victims of black crime are reported by local media and rarely gain traction in the national media. The most horrific stories are usually only covered in the Alt-Right media.

    – George Floyd was “a story about race in America” that the media wanted to tell to push a narrative. Specifically, his death was instantly declared a racist act even though there is no proof of that.

    – Everything that Whites do reflects on Whites as race. In contrast, nothing that blacks do reflects on blacks as a race.

    – If stories make blacks look like less than angelic beings, they are usually suppressed or downplayed.

    And mainstream Conservatives are too scared of being accused of “racism” and getting cancelled to stick up for White people. Not sure who is more worthless in that respect, National Review or the Heritage Foundation.

    Blacks kill other blacks in large numbers – BLM has absolutely no interest.

    Black kills a White person – BLM has absolutely no interest.

    A White kills a black (or even has a public disagreement) – The country has convulsions.

    BLM IS A FAKE AND LIE!

    In 10 years the contents of this email will be legally considered “hate speech” and illegal to say or post. In Europe there are units within the police that attempt to track down such posts and arrest the perpetrator.

    antonio

    1. Antonio, we are headed for one party rule. It will likely be the Democrats, if they win in 2020, or 2024. It will obviously not be Republicans., Even if Trump wins, they will just turn up the heat some more. We are in a countdown to liftoff, the end of the bipartisan system will be clear by 2030 for sure. Elections will either be a farce like they are in many countries, or they will be over altogether.

      With much luck, somebody one our side can seize the brass ring, and take it all where it needs to go, hot and fast. That is obviously not Trump. He may have shown the way to a degree, but he has petered out. Even if he reelects, he wont have the energy or command of the military and intelligence infrastructure to get the real job done. Someone in the wings, perhaps. Someone who will be able to command the army to a severe and draconian program of national rectification and reconstruction, that will leave a more sane, orderly, and socially coherent America to live on after the old disorderly one has collapsed. And that America, will never again be deluded by its own BS into granting endless “freedom” to its internal enemies to sabotage and undermine healthy society.

      Necessarily, that future Draco if he exists, must be different from the failed Republicans of the past, but, in a different direction, equally ready to dispense with all the Enlightenment bromides, and secure law and order by any means necessary.

      In short, it is either submit to Democrat tyranny sooner or later, or, a popular tyrant will neutralize them and lead a draconian restoration of law and order. It will go one way or another, but the time of elections and bipartisan whatever, is all over, it’s done, goose cooked, finito.

      I am small, I can’t control things. Chips will fall where they will.

      But for now, as we expected for a long time coming, the false Enlightenment tropes of old, die now before our eyes. they’re falling like the statutes now, right alongside them. Fine, let them fall! Liberalism and all its pretty lies was a Trojan horse. What America thought was gift of peace was an instrument of war. That trojan horse is this: excessive mercy.

      The city is a goner now. The barbarians are inside the gates and rioting and looting and growing bolder, and only households with cunning, energy, and organization to survive like Aeneas will outlive what’s to come. And maybe one day, coalesce in a new dawn. maybe we live to see it or maybe not.

      But it was good that we saw with clarity, what was coming. We survive or not. But were honest to ourselves, even as we hid from our foes. It was better than living lie, told over and over again inside one’s own head. We all will end up dead one day, meantime, maybe poor, imprisoned, or just isolated and bored trying to outlive the covid. But, we are mentally free to see things as they are.

  11. I appreciate your sensible writing. I heard you speak at an Accepted Students Day at GW and have followed since. The lack of diversity in thought in education is truly shocking.

  12. I used to wonder where the parents were of these fascist radicals actively undermining the foundations of our country. Why aren’t they dis-enrolling them, etc. Then it dawned on me that the students of today are the product of at least 1 generation of Marxist indoctrination on our college campuses. No doubt the adults in these children’s lives are also true believers. Or at the very least, the parents allowed the schools to take control of their children during their primary and secondary education years and sending them off to college was the best way to bring peace at home.

    I believe I dodged an ideological bullet when I left college after 1 semester in 1978 and joined the Navy. My sister, who was 2 grades ahead of me, went directly to the U of Wis. Madison, graduated in 1980 and remained in Madison. She describes herself as a Socialist. Same childhood, different education. I realize the Yuri interview has been discussed, but his prediction of what will take place in this country is so accurate, it bears repeating…often.

    Once demoralization is completed, the second stage of ideological brainwashing is “destabilization”. During this two-to-five-year period, asserted Bezmenov, what matters is the targeting of essential structural elements of a nation: economy, foreign relations, and defense systems. Basically, the subverter (Russia) would look to destabilize every one of those areas in the United States, considerably weakening it.

    The third stage would be “crisis”. It would take only up to six weeks to send a country into crisis, explained Bezmenov. The crisis would bring “a violent change of power, structure, and economy” and will be followed by the last stage, “normalization.” That’s when your country is basically taken over, living under a new ideology and reality.
    https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/yuri-bezmenov?rebelltitem=7#rebelltitem7

    1. the reality is that not everyone who goes to college gets brainwashed. those that aren’t in liberal arts and social science majors often just treat all this nonsense like a trip to the zoo, or an opportunity to meet chicks, etc.

      also, as much as i am frustrated with universities, it’s still a necessary part of getting into many professions. all we can do as parents is to help our kids think critically and arm them with information.

      1. also, as much as i am frustrated with universities, it’s still a necessary part of getting into many professions.

        What profession(s) need(s) a college education? Perhaps it’s time to rethink how this entire process should work to prepare these kids for entering the workforce.

        1. yes, rethinking it is a good idea for sure, but in the meantime you need a college degree to be an engineer, get into law and medical schools, or become a physical scientist, for example. Also needed to be a military officer.

          but i do think in general there is way, way too much emphasis put on going to college. especially now since college used to be an opportunity to broaden your mind. now that is much easier b/c of the internet, for example, and the cost of just getting that experience is often far too expensive if it doesn’t lead to a career that pays it back and the lost opportunity cost.

        2. I know a doctor that couldn’t get into an American medical school. So he took a year of Italian and finished his education in Italy. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. Oh, can I say that.

    2. i dont say this to the good baby boomers– but the boomers are a failed generation.
      they wanted free love and weed in the 60s. in the 70s they finished their university educations and got their fancy jobs
      in the 80-2010 time frame they milked the system and let radicals take over universities and media
      they were high on themselves and had easy bureaucratic jobs and kept quiet, didn’t rock the boat
      they sacrificed the necessary standards of decent society and cohesive culture for “me”
      they leave our country in a ruin. and even now oppose the efforts of a small number to rectify things.
      much as I dislike black thugs and so forth I have come to despise boomer white people most of all the bureaucrats, who sacrificed the foundations of order for their own comfort.

      they are hoping biden will save them. oh, what a vain hope. they have until November to wise up and grow some group instincts because after that, it’s over. it either happens by then or not

      if not, then you can kiss “America” goodbye. forces have been unleashed that will not be containable. oh I dont just mean thugs, I mean, financial forces too. that may break the dollar.
      at that point our best hope will be a fragmentation or devolution similar to how the USSR devolved into a more coherent Russian rump state.

      1. Kurtz,
        There are a lot of moving parts that have gotten us to where we are today. I agree that the decline began during the Boomer generation, but blaming white Boomers assumes way too much. The forces that took control, or were allowed to take control of the education industry, are in my opinion the root problem. We now have at least 3 generations of Americans that have for the most part no working knowledge of American history. What’s worse is they lack the critical-thinking skills necessary to question what they are being told to think.

        Consider what we’ve learned over the last 4 years. Natacha, Book, Shill, Fishwings, etc., haven’t been moved by facts and evidence. These folks aren’t morons. They’ve been educated (wired) to believe in their truth and that includes outright rejecting everything that challenges that belief. The one tell for me of who I’m dealing with is the issue of where our rights come from. Anyone that will argue that all our rights come from government, is the product of our destructive, government education system. Yes, government has the illegitimate power to take away rights, but if they argue the government is the source of your rights, they have given up the legitimate argument to get them back. It’s these people that will fight for majority rule, at all costs.

        1. As the prime arguer of the obvious point that no one has rights unless the government they are subject to grants them, tell me what “facts” and “evidence” proves me wrong. Where did these rights exist before our constitution was written and ratified, or earlier the Magna Carta was agreed to?

          I’m waiting for the “facts” and “evidence”.

          1. Where did these rights exist before our constitution was written and ratified, or earlier the Magna Carta was agreed to?

            If we have no rights other than what is granted by government, then what was the moral and legal justification for our revolution and the establishment of a new government?

          2. “Where did these rights exist before our constitution was written and ratified, or earlier the Magna Carta was agreed to?”

            They existed before the writing of the Torah.

            In Genesis is the concept of all people coming from a single person, and thus the idea that no person or group is better than another.

            When God said that mankind shall have dominion over the animals, it does not say that people should have dominion over one another. That is liberty.

            Thou shalt not murder means we have a right to life and that others cannot take it as they wish.

            Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth means that a rich man’s tooth is worth the same as a poor man’s tooth. Equality under the law.

            Job and Abraham and Moses all questioned God, Abraham even chided Him, asking, ‘Will not the Lord of all the universe do what is right?’ God did not silence their questions and rebukes. Freedom of speech.

            1. I’m sorry Prairie Rose, but I don’t believe in supernatural beings controlling our lives. That is not fact or evidence, it is your religious beliefs. You’re welcome to them but neither I nor the government is subject to them. I agree that on the most basic level humans know that the golden rule requires us to treat fellow humans fairly, to not murder them or steal their property, but absent a government – could be tribal rule – those are not rights but courtesies. We don’t need god to tell us those things, In fact we imagined the gods supposedly telling us what we devised on our own.

              1. I do not think God controls anyone’s life.

                You do not have to believe in God to see the wisdom in those words.

                Besides, they undergirded the Founders’ conceptions of liberty and unalienable rights, along with the wisdom of the Greeks and the long, hard lessons of History.

              2. I’m sorry Prairie Rose, but I don’t believe in supernatural beings controlling our lives.

                Youre a DNC troll. of course you do
                You worship hourly at the altars of “hate” and “f*** Trump” every single day.
                You sacrifice people online with every keystroke
                You quote from your Sacred Texts NYT, CNN, WaPo with vigor

                You believe blithely what your high priests at the Temple of Divide & Conquer tell you without batting an eye

                You believe alright. And you are intent on the rest of the country joining your cauldron

                Hail Satan

              3. Again btb, I will say you have a totalitarian mindset. You believe man in the form of a King, Dictator or anyone else gave us our natural rights and that they can take those right away. If they are God given then those rights always exist despite the despots..

                Without having to believe one way or another about God, it is preferrable that our natural rights not be reliant on a mere mortal.

              4. Bythebook,
                “I agree that on the most basic level humans know that the golden rule requires us to treat fellow humans fairly, to not murder them or steal their property, but absent a government – could be tribal rule – those are not rights but courtesies.”

                “At the most basic level”– that is, inherent in being human (so we are in violent agreement–different words, same meaning). If, as courtesies, people recognize such things, then they exist prior to government (and are not created by it). Government protects, preserves, and defends these rights, as they are inherent in people. This government is of the people, so we are charged as citizens with protecting and defending one another’s rights.

                “We don’t need god to tell us those things”

                He didn’t tell us these things explicitly. It is revealed Truth.

                1. Except Prairie, some governments do not protect them and some do. If you lived in Germany in 1939 you would have none of them.

                  1. You are correct that some governments protect them and some do not. Ours made explicit an outline of major rights (the 10th leaving it open) for clarity; our government also tried to make clear what government *gets* to do to try to limit it.

                    In 1939 Germany, the rights still existed; they were being violated. You cannot violate what does not exist.

          3. “As the prime arguer of the obvious point that no one has rights unless the government they are subject to grants them, ”

            That is the problem with those of your persuasion.

            You have demanded that our government usurp the rights of Americans. That is your ideology. That is where we differ. I believe the people provided very specific rights to the federal government but you believe all rights come from the government. You are of a totalitarian persuasion and do not understand the ideas behind natural rights, limited government, federalism or even the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

          4. Come on Book. If we had no rights before government existed, then according to you, we had no right to revolt against the King of England and we had no right to form a new government. Slaves wouldn’t even have the right to make a moral appeal. You, and those that believe as you do, are the very definition of useful idiot that every tyrannical government needs for their existence.

            1. Olly, a right I wish we had or think we should have – otherwise known as a moral right – is not the same as an actual right which will be enforced by the government if need be.

              Olly, I have not said anything to insult you and my answers meet your request for facts and evidence. You have not done the same. Where were these rights before 1776 or 1215?

              Your obvious confusion comes from the common right wing idea that government is a bad thing, which of course is ignorant. Try anarchy for a comparison. Since we live in a democracy, our government is something sane Americans should take pride in. Others around the world have envied our achievement in creating the government that secured those rights you like to pretend already existed. Except they didn’t and those in Europe and Asia at the time could have told you that.

              1. Bythebook,
                “Your obvious confusion comes from the common right wing idea that government is a bad thing”

                You are quite mistaken. That is a straw man because that is not what the ‘right wing’ believes. If the ‘right wing’ thought government was ‘a bad thing’, then they would work to achieve anarchy. Outliers of both parties tilt towards anarchy, but not the vast majority of conservatives.

                Government is a good thing when it is still in the hands of the people, when it functions according to the precepts that are its outline. There is legitimate concern that when government starts to exceed its bounds, when it gets out of balance (e.g., the Executive Branch having too much power), or when due to its sheer size the people have lost power, then it is detrimental to the nation at large.

                Reining in the government does not mean eliminating it. Thoughtful discussions can be had regarding the scope of government, as well as what areas may need trimming like a monstrously overgrown privet hedge.

              2. Your obvious confusion comes from the common right wing idea that government is a bad thing, which of course is ignorant.

                If we could be secure in our rights without government, then no government would be necessary But that isn’t the case, a government is necessary…period. Ours has a stated purpose; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted… A government that does that within the limited power it was provided is a good government. A government that fails in the security of rights and exceeds its limits is bad. That’s basic civics.

          5. Book,
            For years I’ve been trying to understand what happens to the mind that would make one deny natural rights. What would make someone so convinced, despite all the evidence throughout history, that they are and should be subordinate to the will of others. Then it hit me. Yuri Bezmenov touched on the process, the Great Brainwashing, he called it. There’s a phenomenon I’m certain you’re familiar with and it’s called The Stockholm Syndrome. If there’s a better explanation as to why any human being would support an ideology that strips them of the natural right to be free, I’d like to see it. Until then, this describes everyone that has succumbed to this syndrome. Who is the captor? Your government.

            Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response. It occurs when hostages or abuse victims bond with their captors or abusers. This psychological connection develops over the course of the days, weeks, months, or even years of captivity or abuse.

            With this syndrome, hostages or abuse victims may come to sympathize with their captives. This is the opposite of the fear, terror, and disdain that might be expected from the victims in these situations.

            Over the course of time, some victims do come to develop positive feelings toward their captors. They may even begin to feel as if they share common goals and causes. The victim may begin to develop negative feelings toward the police or authorities. They may resent anyone who may be trying to help them escape from the dangerous situation they’re in.

            This paradox does not happen with every hostage or victim, and it’s unclear why it occurs when it does.

            1. ‘But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.’

  13. More intolerance from our institutions of higher learning. Conform to the group think or be shunned. Where are the institution’s leaders when it comes to promoting honest debate! They are cowardly hiding in the closet.

  14. Tactics coming straight out of the MARXISTS/COMMUNISTS playbook…. INSULT, HUMILIATE AND NAME CALL anyone with a dissenting opinion. My family ESCAPED Cuba…. those of us that opposed the Castro regime had our reputations slandered, businesses boycotted and eventually stolen and assigned the name “GUSANO” which means Worm. Ostracized simply for having a dissenting opinion. TIME TO STAND UP AMERICA….. these spoiled little so-called “social justice warriors” are like a plague to our Republic….we must CLEAN HOUSE NOW….OR THIS HOUSE SHALL FALL….

    1. @salvador

      Glad to see you here. My family left Fidel’s “worker’s paradise” in 1961. Came with the clothes on their backs and suitcases. I detest Communism in any and all its forms, including the Cultural Marxist variety.

      antonio

      1. I’m proud that both Salvador and Antonio successfully escaped Communist Cuba to live in America. I hope both of you continue to call out those who are trying to suppress free speech and free thought!

    2. we may just end up in a reverse situation to Columbia, where there was a measure of order in the cities but the commies ran the jungle.
      we may end up in a position that looks more like the FARC. At least, in terms of the alignment of the people and their immediate local sympathies.

      here, the commies run the cities and sane people are in control of the countryside. our people are stronger there.

      this is why i say we may need to look to an unexpected source for inspiration– Mao’s leadership in the civil war in China, where he rallied countryside people against the corrupt urban based Guomindang which was strong in the cities– hate to say this but the KMT was the comparador party; the party controlled by international finance, the pary controlled by foreigners. they had the mercenary army, but Mao lead the patriots. I know this is a hard analogy to swallow. But the KMT was like what we now see in the Democrats and the fake Republican weasels who backstab Trump. So, yes, I claim that whatever sort of wicked beast he was, Mao was leading the patriotic side in the civil war, the people in the country side. And we need to look to organizing resistance not from the cities but from the suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas. Secure local government, secure the food, secure the highways. Then in two months let the major metros burn and starve and loot themselves into oblivion. Then once they are exhausted, root them out and secure them. Assuming that the army stood aside and simply kept the nukes safe, a popular civil war here could be resolved substantially within 6-12 months of action, assuming, that our side actually got itself sufficiently organized in advance. The time to seriously contemplate this is now.

      I suspect I am not the only person who has formed a theory such as this. I have been talking to people about it hypothetically for decades and I see more and more people of social standing and quality willing to entertain notions like this. I also see it in the migration patterns of our people from California into places like Idaho. yes, I am not the only guy with a brain. There are others smarter than me out there and they are not just dreaming or typing on the internet.

      I also see it in how chaos and mob rule has been tolerated in certain places like New York City. Obviously, there are Green zones, the Federal Reserve bank and wall street and so forth. The parts which matter. Or take San Francisco: mobs can poop on the sidewalks all they want, but they arent allowed to mob up on the Federal Reserve bank or Cupertino. or on federal bases.

      These are MOUT type problems in which there are plenty of experts out there who will respond to whatever side seems the strongest.

      So a strong and coherent political and social base must be reformed to show the mercenaries who may blow one way or another, which side their bread is buttered on.
      and again I claim that can happen for us from the rural areas to the suburbs. Cities over 100,000 are a lost cause.

      how to organize the suburbs and rural areas into a coherent socially and politically unified base that can outlive the collapse of the USA? This is not a theoretical problem. It is a real one.

      The time frame to make this happen is inside 5 years. Or, we will end up in a very bad position by 2025, unable to defend ourselves from an America that by then will basically be a one party state ruled by corrupt Democrats who now show their true colors as awful tyrants who promote chaos and disorder and human misery for their own selfish gain.

      At that point, a coup d’etat would be the only realistic manner in which to rectify a crumbling America. With a stern tyrant to cut the heads off that hydra and burn it into utter oblivion.
      Obviously Trump is no stern tyrant. He is sitting back quietly now, who knows why. i can only wonder. Maybe there is one out there who will show his face come 2021 and lead a reorganization into a coherent social force that can outlive the collapse.

      When this hits America full force, it will be a nightmare. But just as it’s gotten hotter in 2020 and we are still alive, that too will be one we can survive, and then after, thrive.

      Bipartisan governance can only work if the people who constitute the parties are sufficiently close culturally to cohere as a whole after elections.

      America is now too “diverse.” The Democrat party is openly the party of comprador native born traitors for hire to foreign money and foreign labor and foreign nation-wreckers, with a lumpenproletariat base that is ever and always just looking for more free stuff and “Street action” at our expense.

      so either there is a “population transfer” sufficient to make the Rump American nation socially uniform enough to make democracy work for us like it did in the earlier part of the nation, or, every fragmented part of whatever the outcome of the “Collapse” may be, will have to be run by a de facto one party system.

      Am I saying democracy may not be our future? yes. It can and does work for countries as uniform and geographically as Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland, Sweden.
      It does not work quite so well in a very “diverse” society nor one as large as the present day USA or Russia for that matter.
      Managing a vast geographic domain with a diverse population, thoughout history, has been almost everywhere and always, possible only with a federal system of autocracy, national or imperial autocracy, or a one party republican form. From Rome to Byzantium to India to one iteration of government after another in China up to the present day, democracy is not fit for a geographically wide and diverse population. America is watching it die right now. it is time to get past it and think of the other future possibilities to restore law, order, stability, equity, and prosperity.

      A political treatise which addresses this dynamic is “crisis of parliamentary democracy” by Carl Schmitt.

  15. Black Lives Matter Is an avowedly Marxist organization. Really no debate required. And those who support it, support it’s socialist and racist goals. Really pretty simple and no pussyfooting around is needed. Oh I’d wear the censure like a badge of honor.

    1. @mespo

      DITTO! BLM is a self proclaimed Marxist organization but more of the Herbert Marcuse type, than Lenin and Stalin. Actually Stalin regarded the Frankfurt School as ‘ersatz Marxists’. Whatever his faults, Stalin’s quarrel was with international Capitalism, not White Westerners and their culture.

      antonio

  16. It ought to surprise No One that Conservatives have been on the side of the Blacks. Was it the Liberals who decided to put a end to slavery and indeed initiated a War to accomplish that goal ? Was it the Liberals who voted to grant these freed slaves the status of American Citizens ? Was it the Liberals who in 1890 manoeuvred Congress to pass a bill which put a stop to unfair Election practices by allowing federal oversight of elections. Was it Liberals who passed the Equal Rights Amendment of 1964 even if a Liberal President signed it into law ? The Answer in each cause is in fact Conservative not Liberal.

Leave a Reply