Archive for April 22nd, 2011
In the 1950s, every student had to learn the difference between “socialism” and “communism.” Every college student could parrot that, while socialist GOALS could be the same, professors who were socialists did not advocate violent MEANS to that end
One high State Department official said he had a problem with this back in the late 40s when he filled out his Federal job application. A question on it was, “Have you or any member of your family ever advocated the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence?”
He had a little trouble when he replied, “Yes.”
His grandfather was still alive and his grandfather was a Confederate veteran.
But note the question was not, “Are you a Communist?” There was a LOT of legal maneuvering then. The Federal Courts ruled that a person could be fired from his job for being a member of the Klan or other “hate” organizations accused of violent intent, but no one could be fired for being a Communist who openly advocated the violent overthrow of the government and the violent seizure of all property.
As we all know, this court law is the one that governs our society.
On the left, one simply has to make it impossible to prove that one is ENGAGED in promoting actual and specific violence. On the left, the ENDS make no difference at all.
On the right, the MEANS make no difference at all. The GOAL of preserving the white race opens the door to any action anyone wants to take.
This policy is, as usual, most fanatically supported by respectable conservatives. William Buckley kept whining to liberals that he wouldn’t hire anyone they called a racist. So why were Major New York Times writers openly not only pro-Communist, but pro-Stalinist?
The simple answer, of course, would be, “Largely because of prostitutes like you.”
#6 by Frank on 4/9/2011 – 11:10 am
Dave, I live in a university town, so have a lot of Mommy Profs here both in the U and throughout the local political establishment. I comment in the local newsblogs, and get a word in wherever I smell anti-white, which is everywhere.
I actually use the phrase “mommy professor” in some posts, and usually with anti-white in the same sentence. The intent is to make the MPs look both silly and evil.
The question I have for you is: do you (or any other bugsters) use “mommy professor” outside of “our Thing” here? Do you recommend it? Do you see a problem with it?
Thanks for all your coach-talks!
#7 by Dave on 4/10/2011 – 2:28 am
I use “Mommy Professor” all the time and I use it in any venue I happen to be in without restraint (I regularly use the term in informal conversations with elected officials, in speaking before groups, and also at work) It is perfect because it is an underhanded way of expressing disrespect while having “cover” for being called on it.
You know the organizational game when it comes to behavioral standards: You have to keep your commentary within the bounds of “being directed toward an organizational purpose” or face discipline for having a personal agenda. You can stay within those bounds and successfully use the term “Mommy Professor”. I have never been called on it for violating organizational behavioral norms.
It is very difficult to be called on using “Mommy Professor” because you just say that you are reminding everyone, Mommy Professor’s credentials notwithstanding, that you are just dealing with opinion. The question is whether it is “informed opinion” and informed opinion adheres to people regardless of credentials. People are sick and tired of the costume of credentials anyway. Increasingly, reciting one’s credentials just makes people groan. In today’s world credentials are actually a hindrance to your credibility (outside of medicine and other technical areas where formal ratings actually matter), but kids don’t know this.
Everybody knows it is “Mommy Professor’s” tendency to hide behind her status, even though it is not uncommon for her to claim to be a renegade. (This is another thing I think people are increasingly sick of – the standard claim of Establishment people that they are anti-Establishment).
Think of Elizabeth Warren (Harvard Law Professor and Special Counsel to the President) and her pretense that she is a feared enemy of Wall Street and friend of THE CONSUMER.
I wish I had a nickel for every anti-Establishment “rebel” in the Establishment. I would be a rich man indeed. Mommy Professor LOVES to posture. Pretending she is a “rebel” is one of her most standard forms of posturing.
Believe me, Elizabeth Warren would be offended by being called “Mommy Professor” and she would have a terrible time responding. “Mommy Professor” is a great insult. It is durable, memorable, and it works.