the enemies of freedom being what they are, and all...
I have just come across word - on the Internet; on the ’fake news’ portion thereof, i.e,, the non-MSM news, of what is really going on in the world, and with unpropagandized commentary on it - that Duke University has now joined Dartmouth and Stanford “in the ongoing list of colleges vying to become a ‘sanctuary campus,’ which essentially means openly violating federal law.”1 Stanford is my alma mater. Herewith an Open Letter to the authorities there:
“Dear Stanford University:
“As an undergraduate on your esteemed premises in the years 1952-55 - I left before graduation, on a search for ultimate, not relative, truths - I became aware very early on that yours was a ‘liberal’ institution; that is to say, that many of your professors and lecturers were of the ‘Left’ political persuasion, and even of the far Left. This was particularly true of my lecturer of Western Civ in my Freshman year; but never mind the details. This is just to comment on your position as regards this ‘sanctuary campus’ business.
“You seem to be proud of your stand in this matter. This matter, of the children of illegal aliens receiving an education - and a higher education at that - in this country. Even though they are here illegally.2 Let’s take a close look at “this matter”.
“The short of it is that an attempt is going on to overthrow this country - this federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A. - by both the far Left and the far Right: the far Left, as regards those socialists who want to ”fundamentally transform” the country into a supposed socialist paradise; and the far Right, as regards the corporate-government complex who are behind the whole shooting match, as it were, and hopefully does not become in very fact.
“You of the Left may have your good reasons for believing the way that you do. But those of us who believe in essential liberty for humans - not cattle, to be corralled and culled at the will of their erstwhile masters - have our good reasons for believing the way that we do, as well. So it would appear to be a stalemate, on that level.
“A pity. For I, speaking personally, would hope to have you folks over on BOTH your far sides of the political aisle join us in the middle in making of this country and this world a better place to be. Under the rule of law. Not under the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
“Thank you for your attention. I trust that a word to the wise is sufficient.
“If not: Your loss.
“Sincerely,”
etc.
—
footnotes:
1) from truthrevolt.org: 'Duke Approves "Safe Space’"for illegal immigrants’ - Paul Bois - December 8/9. The article goes on to comment:
“Somehow that’s allowed, but Christians can’t refuse to bake gay wedding cakes…”
Just so. And that’s how you know you are in the presence of propaganda. It’s a one-way street to such despotic-minded people.
2) Yes, I understand the business about what are called ‘anchor babies’. Which is a term, and condition, that is illegal as well. Inasmuch as the 14th Amendment does not apply to couples who are in this country illegally. Perhaps the print, and record of ‘original intent,’ was too fine in the Amendment and its supporting documents for judicial types to read. May I recommend that they, and accomplices after the fact like your good selves, obtain a pair of glasses for your perusal of the law in this country? Thank you ever so much.
---
I do 'get' that a lot of youth are smitten by the idea of 'equality,' that the way to make everybody on the planet 'equal' (except, of course, tor the inevitable ruling class) is to make us equally miserable, on a poverty level, so that we humans are no longer a 'cancer' to the planet, and it can start healing itself of our cancerous presence on Her, and especially those terribly selfish Americans - oops, I mean, us terribly selfish Americans. But what if the totalitarians have the wrong idea about how to go about making of the world a better place? Both for it, and for us humans???
I know that a lot of youth - at the hands of their 'professors' of 'education' - think that 'there is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so' - that there are no absolutes, and we should start getting used to the idea, as freed, post-religious Soviet Man And Woman. But again I ask: What if they are wrong??
You can't unscramble eggs. Don't go into the dark night of the soul that your erstwhile masters have planned for you, boys and girls, men and women. They may seem like nice people. But underneath their cloaks, they are ravening wolves.
Or perhaps vipers would be a more appropriate metaphor.
About all of which, we are about to find out
the truth.
Including the naked fact that this is war, to them. And hence, their war against what they call 'fake news'. Who, obviously, would ban anything that doesn't toe their line.
Utterly disgusting creatures that they are.
P.S. A caveat. I should say, about the above characterization: Many, of them. Some are just socialists, of the benign variety. Even the further Left of the benign socialists.
Take my lecturer on Western Civ. I do not import to him the worst of intentions. I think he just wanted us Freshmen to open our minds to another way of 'doing' society. (One early evening, after our late-afternoon class, we got to talking, and he mentioned how he had to go home and change into other, workman's clothes as part of his need to hide from his doctor the fact that he was a university lecturer, or otherwise he would be charged an arm and a leg for the man's medical services to him and his family.) But the poor man apparently just didn't fully fathom what he was up against, in early '50s America. The indifference of it all. (Before we Youth could be radicalized by such as the Vietnam No-Win War.)
He tried. Oh, how he tried. In one of my last two quarters with him he announced to us that there was some sort of political-action protest going on down at San Jose State, and we might be interested in either a) going to it, or b) at least following it on radio. (This was 1953; TV had not become the be-all and end-all of life in America that it would become just a short few years later.) But us unsophisticates - at least in my class with him - just weren't interested in political stuff. Hey - Stanford was a private university, and cost a pretty penny to go to. (The only reason that I was, and could even be, there was because I was on a scholarship.) Most of those kids were there to get a Stanford education (the 'Harvard of the West,' it was known as in my day), that would see them well into some sort of proper and successful professional life afterwards. (And where many enterprising female students were there - and self-admittedly, in some instances, to my personal knowledge - in order to attempt to obtain their Mrs. degree.) And it was definitely in my last quarter with him that it was as if he had finally had enough of our, and his, ennui, when one day he abruptly stopped the lesson and had us all write out a description, as we saw it, of the panoply of political theories and parties. I don't think that he was particularly interested in how we saw the subject. I think he was more interested in inculcating the idea in our thick skulls that there was more than one way to organize society, than the way that was to become known amongst the frustrated change agents of our day as The Eisenhower Years - bland and barren of sturm und drang.
My answer to his assignment? I think that by then I had the rudiments in mind of the political spectrum. (The model I learned from, on the basis of the French Assembly, was of the 'Republicans,' or socialists, on the left of the aisle, and the Monarchists/Royalists - or conservatives, in our modern-day lexicon - on the right, gradating through Individualism over into fascism at the far Right. It has been only later in life that I have come across the idea of the political spectrum running from the statists at the far Left - in all of its permutations, both communism and fascism - through Individualism and on into Anarchism at the far Right . I prefer the former way of looking at the spectrum. Putting both the communists and the fascists at the same end of the spectrum, rather than at the far end of each wing, has never struck me as the best way to look at the matter, with the extreme difference between those two forms of collectivism.) There was one kid in our class who pleased our instructor no end with his detailed response to the question. Like me, he was probably there on a scholarship; not a rich man's kid. More, fodder for a revolution.*
And hey - look at how things have turned out. I am about as revolutionary as one can get. Who else do you know that is advocating doing away with money altogether??? (And especially not interest-bearing money; and its partner in crime, fractional-reserve banking.)
I attribute my stance on 'doing' society in a radically different way to my post-university education. Starting when I dropped out of that formal-education path that I was on (as a pre-Med; and actually provisionally making it into Stanford Medical School, if I had continued on that path), and made my way all the way across the continent to New York City - where I figured that I would find 'the biggest public library in the Western world' - and started my seeking out of ultimate truths - and Truth itself - in earnest.
All, another story. But just to say:
Here I am.
And here we are.
And neither the far Left nor the far Right, nor the Middle of the 'classical' political spectrum - nor the spectrum itself; however imagined - has it quite right.
Close.
But clear your minds of your conditioning, folks. And start
as if anew.
Which it, fully - and occasion for unmitigated joy - is.
('But we can't have people being independent of us. How are we going to be able to control them??'
Indeed. Tough one. Isn't it.
A real game changer, that.)
--
* Later, such attempts at radicalizing university students would result, at Stanford, in such as a graduate school assistant losing his entire life's work in a building fire started by an 'anti-war protestor'. One hopes that the school authorities responsible for the young radical's presence on campus, and presumably his professorial priming, were properly satisfied with their omelet-creating handiwork.
Not.
N.B. In my day in college, communism had no traction. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in his speech deliberately enticing the North Koreans to go for it, by declaring South Korea to be 'out of the U.S.'s sphere of influence' - or however he actually phrased the enticement - was ahead of his time, and that of his One World mentors. The North Korean communists made terrible role models. It would take the Viet Cong - and the North Vietnamese - to turn the trick. Along with the Pressure From Within, of the American communists; who by then were more ready for their role in the globalization of the world going on by TPTB.
As I was to discover, by reading numerous books bravely published by the John Birch Society. Who today would be considered hawking 'fake news'.
Anything to keep the stupid masses from waking up to their stealthily slow but sure enslavement, by totalitarians.
Including the naked fact that this is war, to them. And hence, their war against what they call 'fake news'. Who, obviously, would ban anything that doesn't toe their line.
Utterly disgusting creatures that they are.
P.S. A caveat. I should say, about the above characterization: Many, of them. Some are just socialists, of the benign variety. Even the further Left of the benign socialists.
Take my lecturer on Western Civ. I do not import to him the worst of intentions. I think he just wanted us Freshmen to open our minds to another way of 'doing' society. (One early evening, after our late-afternoon class, we got to talking, and he mentioned how he had to go home and change into other, workman's clothes as part of his need to hide from his doctor the fact that he was a university lecturer, or otherwise he would be charged an arm and a leg for the man's medical services to him and his family.) But the poor man apparently just didn't fully fathom what he was up against, in early '50s America. The indifference of it all. (Before we Youth could be radicalized by such as the Vietnam No-Win War.)
He tried. Oh, how he tried. In one of my last two quarters with him he announced to us that there was some sort of political-action protest going on down at San Jose State, and we might be interested in either a) going to it, or b) at least following it on radio. (This was 1953; TV had not become the be-all and end-all of life in America that it would become just a short few years later.) But us unsophisticates - at least in my class with him - just weren't interested in political stuff. Hey - Stanford was a private university, and cost a pretty penny to go to. (The only reason that I was, and could even be, there was because I was on a scholarship.) Most of those kids were there to get a Stanford education (the 'Harvard of the West,' it was known as in my day), that would see them well into some sort of proper and successful professional life afterwards. (And where many enterprising female students were there - and self-admittedly, in some instances, to my personal knowledge - in order to attempt to obtain their Mrs. degree.) And it was definitely in my last quarter with him that it was as if he had finally had enough of our, and his, ennui, when one day he abruptly stopped the lesson and had us all write out a description, as we saw it, of the panoply of political theories and parties. I don't think that he was particularly interested in how we saw the subject. I think he was more interested in inculcating the idea in our thick skulls that there was more than one way to organize society, than the way that was to become known amongst the frustrated change agents of our day as The Eisenhower Years - bland and barren of sturm und drang.
My answer to his assignment? I think that by then I had the rudiments in mind of the political spectrum. (The model I learned from, on the basis of the French Assembly, was of the 'Republicans,' or socialists, on the left of the aisle, and the Monarchists/Royalists - or conservatives, in our modern-day lexicon - on the right, gradating through Individualism over into fascism at the far Right. It has been only later in life that I have come across the idea of the political spectrum running from the statists at the far Left - in all of its permutations, both communism and fascism - through Individualism and on into Anarchism at the far Right . I prefer the former way of looking at the spectrum. Putting both the communists and the fascists at the same end of the spectrum, rather than at the far end of each wing, has never struck me as the best way to look at the matter, with the extreme difference between those two forms of collectivism.) There was one kid in our class who pleased our instructor no end with his detailed response to the question. Like me, he was probably there on a scholarship; not a rich man's kid. More, fodder for a revolution.*
And hey - look at how things have turned out. I am about as revolutionary as one can get. Who else do you know that is advocating doing away with money altogether??? (And especially not interest-bearing money; and its partner in crime, fractional-reserve banking.)
I attribute my stance on 'doing' society in a radically different way to my post-university education. Starting when I dropped out of that formal-education path that I was on (as a pre-Med; and actually provisionally making it into Stanford Medical School, if I had continued on that path), and made my way all the way across the continent to New York City - where I figured that I would find 'the biggest public library in the Western world' - and started my seeking out of ultimate truths - and Truth itself - in earnest.
All, another story. But just to say:
Here I am.
And here we are.
And neither the far Left nor the far Right, nor the Middle of the 'classical' political spectrum - nor the spectrum itself; however imagined - has it quite right.
Close.
But clear your minds of your conditioning, folks. And start
as if anew.
Which it, fully - and occasion for unmitigated joy - is.
('But we can't have people being independent of us. How are we going to be able to control them??'
Indeed. Tough one. Isn't it.
A real game changer, that.)
--
* Later, such attempts at radicalizing university students would result, at Stanford, in such as a graduate school assistant losing his entire life's work in a building fire started by an 'anti-war protestor'. One hopes that the school authorities responsible for the young radical's presence on campus, and presumably his professorial priming, were properly satisfied with their omelet-creating handiwork.
Not.
N.B. In my day in college, communism had no traction. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in his speech deliberately enticing the North Koreans to go for it, by declaring South Korea to be 'out of the U.S.'s sphere of influence' - or however he actually phrased the enticement - was ahead of his time, and that of his One World mentors. The North Korean communists made terrible role models. It would take the Viet Cong - and the North Vietnamese - to turn the trick. Along with the Pressure From Within, of the American communists; who by then were more ready for their role in the globalization of the world going on by TPTB.
As I was to discover, by reading numerous books bravely published by the John Birch Society. Who today would be considered hawking 'fake news'.
Anything to keep the stupid masses from waking up to their stealthily slow but sure enslavement, by totalitarians.
No comments:
Post a Comment