Amairikuhn Edgykayshun: Female Student Docked For Using…

alternative news
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 2, 2017

It’s been a while since I had one of my customary rants about the fraudulent state of Amairikuhn edgykayshan and the  insane circus agenda of the cultural Marxists infesting it. Just in time, Ms. S.H. noticed the following article and sent it along:

Student has grade docked for using ‘mankind’ in English paper

Now you’ll note the latest victim of the “politically correct diction” crazy is, in this instance, a young lady who thinks the whole language agenda is a bit ridiculous:

Cailin Jeffers, an English major at NAU, told Campus Reform that she received an email from one of her professors, Dr. Anne Scott, informing her that she had been docked one point out of a possible 50 on a recent paper for “problems with diction (word choice)” related to her use of the word “mankind” as a synonym for “humanity.”

“After our first essay we were given a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’ based off of errors my professor found in our essays. Most of them make sense, just things like ‘make sure you’re numbering your pages’ and ‘cite in proper MLA format,’ but she said we had to be sure to use ‘gender-neutral language,’” Jeffers told Campus Reform. “Included with this rule were several examples of what was and wasn’t okay to use. In one of these examples she stated that we could not use the word ‘mankind.’ Instead, we should use ‘humankind.’ I thought this was absurd, and I wasn’t sure if she was serious.”

Jeffers decided to test the policy on her next paper by including two instances of the word “mankind,” and when the paper came back with the requisite points taken off, she requested a meeting with Scott.

Well, beyond the fact that Northern Arizona is using the very inadequate MLA (Modern Language Association) directives for proper citation – which in my curmudgeonly opinion is absolutely inadequate as a scholarly method of source citation, if only for the reason that it is a completely artificial set of rules, and did not develop from the tradition of academic orthography that emerged over the centuries of use – you’ll note that there is a tactic going on here, one designed to short-circuit the whole idea of “free speech”. Ms. Jeffers’ professor stated:

“I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being ‘human,’ if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language,” Scott explained. “The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.”

The professor of Gender Neutrality and Political Correctness was challenged by her student;

“I stated that I agree with everything she said about my paper except my use of ‘mankind.’ She proceeded to tell me that the NAU English department, as well as the Modern Language Association, are pushing for gender-neutral language, and all students must abide by this,” Jeffers recalled. “She told me that ‘mankind’ does not refer to all people, only males. I refuted, stating that it DOES refer to all people, [but] she proceeded to tell me that I was wrong, ‘mankind’ is sexist, and I should make an effort to look beyond my preset positions and ideologies, as is the focus of the class.”

So note first that the professor put on the airs of “objectivity” and waxed fairly frothy about respecting Ms. Jeffers’ choices of words. But then she went on to state Ms. Jeffers would still be punished for writing the way she wanted to, cited the MLA commissars as the “authority” for her ukase, and when Ms. Jeffers protested that the word mankind did exclude the female sex – funny thing, this curmudgeon doesn’t remember his elementary school or middle school English teachers – women to a… uhm…er… man (this gets so confusing!) – the Professor of Commissarial Conformity lost all objectivity and simply redefined the word according to MLA dictates, and insisted that it did.

OK, we get it, but I hope the tactic here is perceived. In order to “get around” that pesky little thing called “free speech”, the professor couched everything as an academic exercise, nothing more, as an “experiment”.

But one wonders then if the professor, or the institution of lower learning in which she roosts (Edidor’s note, that’s my attempt to be politically correct: “tenure” and words like that are so old fashioned and tainted with masculine imagery) would tolerate a class – just for the sake of experiment – in requiring students not to use “gender neutral” language, but rather, the old traditional language most of use still use, you know, words like “he, him, she, her, it” and “mankind” and so on.

Which brings me to the next article, shared by Mr. V.T. But before this, I have to relate a personal encounter I had with such looniness, one that occurred in the Oxford Union Society during a debate in which I participated. I was at the box, holding forth on something-or-other, and the speaker intervened to correct my use of the word “men” to refer to humanity. She insisted I use gender inclusive language in my remarks. “Men” had to be banned from my vocabulary and replaced with the word “persons”. Well, being a theology student, I objected that this word had more specific technical meanings and that such usage actually confused the issue, and then informed her that the end result of this madness would have to be to change the occurrence of the word “man” or “men” to persons: the word “immanent” would have to be changed to “impersonent” which rhymed with “impertinent” which was “what I find your whole scheme to be.” This was met by a rousing chorus of “hear hears!” and I continued my curmudgeonly and peroration in traditional diction.

At the time, I meant my remarks as a rather humorous comment, and never dreamed that they would become somewhat prophetic, as the article shared by Mr. V.T. illustrates (copy and paste into your browser):http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/womyn-womxn-womban-taxpayer-funded-university-ponders-alternate-spellings-for-woman/Yes, that’s right, even the words “woman” or “women” are no longer inclusive enough because – you guessed it – they include the words “man” and “men”:

Garcia-Pusateri then introduced several different ways feminists have invented to misspell the word “woman.”

The possible misspellings include “womyn,” “womxn,” “womban,” “wimmin.” There’s also the term “femme” — which means a conspicuously feminine lesbian, according to Urban Dictionary.

The first time the wrong spelling “womyn” appeared in print was at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival in 1976, a handout provided by Garcia-Pusateri asserted.

Obviously, the intention of the misspelling “womyn” is to avoid spelling “women” with the word “men.”

The solution to all this? I suspect Ms. Jeffers has pointed the way: simply refuse to go along with it, even at personal cost. That cost is relatively minor in her case. For some, that refusal will mean not attending college – simply defund the activity of the crazies – because it’s either refusal now, or refusal later, for these people will not stop until they are either confronted, or acquire the power to confront, and at that stage, the demands will be total: abandon all tradition, or pay a costly prince. If that seems extreme, then ask yourself if it is worth the financial cost to send yourself, or your children, to these fraudulent indoctrination centers.

Or, to put it more bluntly: violence to language and free speech today will be violence to people tomorrow.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Political Movie Projected On The Screen Of The Subconscious

LeftRightParadigm
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 28, 2017

This article has to do with people who pick a political side or candidate and refuse to budge an inch, no matter how much troubling evidence is presented to them.

Their filter is firmly in place.

They have a vague impression of a politician—but vagueness is not an indicator of weakness. In this case, vague is mighty and powerful and immovable.

Such people feel an attachment, which they adore. The politician reflects back to them a belief they already hold. That belief, too, is vague. For example, “We must be kind to everyone.” But again, the vagueness is not a weakness. It is unshakable. Can the believer consider evidence that, in a particular situation, kindness is inappropriate or wrong? No. Never.

Based on a vague impression of a politician, and a vague belief, the person will go to his grave and beyond, gripping his attachment to both politician and belief. The entire power of the universe, focused on him, wouldn’t alter his stance.

“But you see, your candidate was instrumental in launching an unnecessary war that killed a hundred thousand people and turned a country into a hell hole, and here are the specifics…”

“Doesn’t matter. A few mistakes may have been made along the way…”

It’s vague, it’s forever, it’s adoration, it’s love. Or a perfect imitation.

“Do you see that giant rock sitting on top of the hill above our village? It’s getting ready to fall. Let me show you some video and measurements.”

“I always loved that rock. It looks like a heart. Have you ever noticed? Don’t you dare try to split it in half or disturb it! When I was a child, I used to sing a song about The Granite King. We’d sit around the fire and roast marshmallows…”

It’s as if the person’s eyesight is becoming hazier as time passes, and yet his belief and attachment are gaining in strength.

“I’ve got my perception-filter, and I’m seeing everything through it, and I never put the filter aside and look at things as they are. Now, what was it you wanted to discuss?”

Of course, most politicians and their handlers capitalize on this hazy crazy psychological condition. Their prime goal is to impart a vague impression to the constituency. Why bother to strive for more?

George Bush the Elder spoke of a “kinder, gentler” society. Bill Clinton said, “I feel your pain.” These are rational political positions in the same way that the Rockefellers are, first and foremost, philanthropists.

Once a person’s perception-filter is fixed in place, he can be whipsawed without let-up. His candidate is good and glorious, and the other candidate is a monster. No facts necessary.

Evidence? Never heard of it.

One side endlessly good; the other side endlessly evil.

Even if that proposition were true, it wouldn’t matter. What matters is how perception can be managed.

Now we’re talking about real triggering. Actual Pavlovian stimulus-response. The mere mention of the “monster’s” name or a cartoon of his face or a quote from him about the weather is sufficient to set off a foaming drool of rage.

Is this externally induced programming? Yes. But at a deeper level, the person is shaping his own response. He’s the author. He’s installing the conditioning.

And at a high enough perch of power, the opportunities are abundant. “We can set both sides against each other and provoke warfare. We can make the most ridiculous claims and feed them to the rabid dogs…”

Again, the degree to which one politician or the other is a monster or a proponent of virtuous progress is irrelevant. The divide-and-provoke-and-conquer operation is all that matters to controllers who are running the op.

Then there is this factor: the all-important initiation of an adrenaline reaction.

When people become tuned to that feeling, they seek it out. This is what they want. If a situation isn’t fight or flight, they’re not interested. They yawn and turn away.

“Where’s the action? I need the action.”

“I don’t want to see a movie. I want to see a movie with fifty titanic explosions and bodies strewn on the street and buildings collapsing. And there’d better be athletic sex, too. And the hero has to experience at least ten close calls. I’m talking imminent death.”

Linking adrenaline surges to politics is vital.

“Supporting my candidate has to feel like love dangerously poised on the edge of a cliff, and the other candidate has to have a live nuclear bomb in his hand. That’s the movie I want to watch. I want to be inside that movie…”

The mere suggestion that one candidate might have a small flaw, while the other candidate is not quite Satan incarnate in every aspect, ruins the show. It dampens the hormonal rush.

“Who wrote that script? Give me my money back.”

Politics must be a movie projected on the screen of the subconscious. It must enter that territory unimpeded. Once there, it must take root and give birth to uncontrollable impulses.

Movie studios and high-level political manipulators are looking for this sweet spot. It’s cash and psychological payoffs and lines around the block.

“Look, we want love versus hate in this script. But it has to be ramped up to a fever pitch. No holds barred. We have to make the evil feel like EVIL, and the good feel like GOOD. At the same time, the hero and villain have to seem real. The audience has to experience being in their shoes and pants and underwear. We’re spending three hundred million on this piece of dreck, and it has to work…”

If the movie-studio gods can make half the audience root for the hero and the other half root for the villain, that’s pure gold. If they can provoke serious animosity between viewers, THEY CAN DEGRADE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE ENTERPRISE and, when we’re talking about politics, that’s exactly what they’re shooting for.

“We can pit people against people and create a stalemate, where very little gets done—except the provocation of conflict. Then we’re home. Everyone sinks lower into a stimulation-response universe. We own that universe. We built it.”

Yes, they did, and they do. Ushering people into it makes it easier to control both sides and ultimately lower an apolitical boom on their heads. Otherwise known as erasing freedom.

“Political policy? Ideals? We don’t have that kind of agenda. The only agenda we have is installing chains around the mind.”

Achieving this goal, in the current American political landscape, only requires a quick inventory of: ratings. Where was the real heat? Where were the real numbers? Why, of course, it was during the campaign leading up to the election. Everybody was tuned in. Therefore, the campaign must never end. We must return to that time. Trump must never be president, and Hillary must never go away. Her shadowy presence and symbolic value—and surrogates—must persist. Thus, the endless challenge to Trump’s legitimacy. He didn’t win. The election was fixed. Perfect. That throws us into the furnace. Again.

Let us return to those days of yore, when families split apart, when the dire flow of energy and desire and vague impression and eternal attachment were King. That’s where we have to build the flames. That’s the subconscious target.

That’s the bulls-eye.

The mind.

Issues and scandals are gasoline pumped into the conflagration.

THIS person’s subconscious will veer THAT way, and THAT person’s subconscious will veer THIS way.

Those people who can see and argue actual evidence will be swallowed up in the noise and the roar.

The movie is called Degradation.

The box office is sensational.

It’s surround-sound and holographic.

Move past partisan payoffs to understand such a strategy. Even move past divide and conquer. The purpose, intent, and objective is eventual mental, emotional, hormonal, and energetic exhaustion.

The whole movie is a trap. The ending, if it ever comes, creates profound passivity in the mind.

Therefore, stepping outside the theater is an absolute necessity.

It’s the first move toward clarity.

And actual choice.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

300 Word Memories #5 – Friendship

friendship
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
March 6, 2017

Friendship is something that we all share with someone to varying degrees, and under a variety of circumstances.  Friends, true friends, should be able to go through thick and thin, no matter what the obstacle.  The greater the obstacle, the quicker one will find out who their friends are.  With that said, with the recent divide and conquer left-right paradigm political climate that always takes place during election, lots of friendships were tested.

Recently, noticed myself that a lot of people kept throwing other individuals they considered ‘friends’ under the bus, simply because those people employed varying beliefs.  Saw this take place literally dozens of times over the last six months, and it’s quite mindboggling to say the least.  In fact, it’s still taking place to some extent.

All of these issues make me wonder if the virtue of friendship hasn’t been cheapened, when compared to what it was like in the past, when say, people like J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were friends.  Mind you, Tolkien and Lewis, although sharing much in common, did not agree on everything.

This increasing pattern makes me wonder whether or not what people call friendship nowadays is nothing more than a shell of its former ideal.

Ironically, the very people throwing others under the bus for being who they really are, are themselves the ones demanding other individuals to respect those very same qualities.   Talk about hypocritical!

In a world where people gain ‘friends’, seemingly with every new minute, it does seem that to some extent the quality of friendship/acquaintances has been cheapened.  But perhaps, by that very nature, when true unbounded friendship is achieved, it is vastly more meaningful than it ever could be.

It seems with time, more and more people just want others to be a clone of themselves.  They want to talk to a mirror for the rest of their lives.  They want the mirror to reply, exactly how they themselves would reply.  Every.  Single.  Time.  That’s a highly disturbing proposition.

What’s the world coming to when other people want to literally program you to be who they want you to be?  Perhaps, this is taking place because from the bottom up, that’s exactly what the system does to us.

From youth, the public school system has taught society how to conform in astounding degrees.  This can be seen here, here, and here.  So it’s no wonder that now the people that have been conforming their whole lives want others to conform.  That doesn’t justify what’s taking place, but it helps shed a shred of light unto this conundrum.

Regardless of that, however, if there’s one positive thing to take from this it is that, if someone’s not your true friend, they will just be an anchor upon your ship, and hold you back.  Nothing positive can come from someone that wishes you to conform, regardless of what you believe.  That simply shows these people did not respect nor value the friendship and what it truly means.

Just as a ship can’t move while being held back by the weight of a broken anchor that can’t be pulled back, some individuals won’t be able to move forward through life with people holding them back in similar fashion.  That’s why it’s vital to breakaway from toxic relationships.

After all, those who really are your friends, deep down inside, will never put you through such circumstances.  In fact, they will go with you above in beyond, through hell and back and always be there, right by your side, to the end – because that’s what true friendship is about.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.

Breakaway Ruminations #4 – Divide & Conquer Left | Right Paradigm

LeftRightParadigm
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
February 16, 2017

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.”
– John Adams

“They don’t want to see us unite: All they want us to do is keep on fussing and fighting.  They don’t want to see us live together: all they want to do is keep on killing one another.”
– Bob Marley

Given the enormous amount of division taking place the last year or so, and specifically the last three months, it seemed prudent to take a gander at the Divide & Conquer Left-Right Paradigm again.

Nowhere was the socially engineered fracturing of the populace more obvious then within the bowels of social media, where individuals of all walks of life were attempting to make other people conform to their points of views, or cease their relationships altogether that in many instances were years in the making.  It is a quite unfortunate state of affairs that people’s values have declined so much to even ruminate on such possibilities.

Divide and conquer is a concept that takes an enormous portion of most of the populace’s time and yet receives no attention from mainstream media, and barely even the alternative media, and with good reason, for the media usually serves the job of stoking the fires of division.

What exactly is this system-installed and bifurcated left-right paradigm?

To simplify, the left-right paradigm is a concept from political sciences and anthropology which proposes that societies have a tendency to divide themselves into ideological opposites.

That’s certainly one way to look at it.

Another way of viewing this would be proposing the establishment carries out this division on purpose to make it seem like there are only two sides to every debate, thus making the populace a lot more malleable and easier to control.  After all, two sides are magnitudes easier to control than say, hundreds, or thousands.   Rarely are things ever that simple.

First things first, let’s take a cursory glance at some – although certainly not all – of the permutations that the left/right paradigm is often bandied as. Being cognizant of these will make it easier for an individual to center their mind onto particular divisive agendas that are taking place within the media.

The Left/Right paradigm includes, but is not limited to:

– Back people vs. White people
– Muslim vs. Christians
– Republicans vs. Democrats
– East vs. West
– US vs. Russia/China
– US vs. Middle East
– Poor vs. Rich
– Liberals vs. Conservatives [could dovetail into politics, but it need not]
– Religion vs. Atheism
– Gay vs. Straight
– Women vs. Men
– Young vs. Old
– Prolife vs. Prochoice

There are many more derivatives, but those examples are some of the most salient ones out there.

In any case, take a good minute or two to ponder at that list again. What don’t you notice anywhere?

The individual.

To those in power, the individual is antithetical to the establishment’s plans.  The individual is a rebel, someone to be avoided at all cost.  This is why from youth, particularly through schooling, society has been indoctrinated to conform to fit within these divide and conquer structures that fracture the populace.

A keen glance at how the system operates is crucial in order to understand the full breadth and scope of this issue.  For this we will take a gander at some snippets provided by John Taylor Gatto’s system breaking book, Dumbing Us Down The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling.

Below are a handful of the many countless passages within the book that speak a length about how this pervasive and constant divide and conquer issue takes place beginning in childhood, brought about through public schooling:

“It is absurd and anti-life to be part of the system that compels you to sit in confinement with people of exactly the same age and social class.  That system effectively cuts you off from the immense diversity of life and the synergy of variety; indeed it cuts you off from your own past and future, sealing you in a continuous present much the same way television does” [1][Bold Emphasis Added]

Not allowing individuals to be part of other points of views in life, to diversity – other shades in the endless spectrum of life – stultifies their growth because their mind doesn’t expand as it would if they were exposed to many points of views.  Furthermore, in inculcates the meme that the box – whatever reality the comptrollers are parading around – is all there is, and anything beyond the box is to be seen as suspect.  Ideas do not get considered and creativity gets incinerated at warp speed, like a snowman in a blast furnace.

Moreover:

The highest value to the Combine [those in control] is neither democracy nor accountability, but compliance, pure and simple, and its favorite stratagem is to divide and conquer.  And if that doesn’t work, there’s always drugs.”[2][Bold Emphasis Added, Italic Emphasis In Original.]

Life a hot knife that slices through butter, this particular thought by Gatto minces no words.

The favorite strategy is divide and conquer, which undoubtedly takes place by individuals being cut out from the diversity of life and is manifested from youth by behavior that’s been socially engineered to be predictable.

This is why ultimately, freedom from conformity is as vital as ever if the individual is to survive and keep their inherent nature, and if society is going to shed the shackles of division that benefit the comptrollers.

In fact, being free and not conforming and melting into the collective was so important, that Thomas Jefferson, echoed these poignant words:

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men…where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction [to a party] is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go at all.”[Emphasis Added]

In other words, as long as the individual is lucid enough to think for themselves, and has the foresight, logic, and critical thinking needed to understand the issue, individuals should remain just that, individuals.

The self-cognizant and critical thinking individual will never be part of the group. They will always be a person within a group, there’s a difference, and this distinction is crucial.

How can an individual rectify this relentless situation?

Perhaps it’s best to heed the words of Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, which they shared in their notable book, How To Read A Book

The best protection against propaganda of any sort is the recognition of it for what it is.  Only hidden and undetected oratory is really insidious.  What reaches the heart without going through the mind is likely to bounce back and put the mind out of business.   Propaganda taken in that way is like a drug you do not know you are swallowing.  The effect is mysterious; you do not even know afterwards why you feel or think the way you do.“[3][Bold Emphasis Added]

A person can’t tackle issues they are blind too.

And isn’t it ironic, that people, immediately after taking a hit from the mainstream media – and even alternative media – divide and conquer left right paradigm pill, soon forgo all logic and reason, acting in primal fashion based on the box-version of reality most media parades?  It’s almost like a scheduled hatred session, not unlike hateweek in Orwell’s 1984.[4]

And it always happens when and where the mainstream media tells you, and never otherwise.  This goes to show how integral the mainstream media is in socially engineering this divide and conquer at the outset.[5]

Knowing this, what’s an incisive individual to do?

Cut these issues off at the pass.  See the deceptions taking place by what your intuition tells you, and be wary about anything that stirs the fires of division.

Realize that following your intuition is merely the first step in a long process of growth that the individual will go through once their mind is open capable of discerning divisive mechanisms for what they are.

Once individuals fully comprehend how the system strives to use every single individual as pawns in a game, it’s easy to quit the nonsense altogether.

But more importantly, the individual should relish their inherent capability of knowing that, if they are cognizant of the modus operandi, no amount of propaganda or divisive tactics will ever seep into their mind.  Thus, this brings the ability to think lucidly, decisively, and proactively.

Breaking away into total awareness is the key.

___________________________________________________
Sources & References:

[1] John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down – The Hidden Curriculum Of Compulsory Schooling, p. 24.
[2] Ibid., p. xvii.
[3] Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van Doren, How To Read A Book, pg. 194.
[4] George Orwell, 1984, in reference to Hateweek, at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_week
[5] Breakaway Guide To The Mainstream Media