Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Everything Appears To Be Going Exactly To Plan

At the end of last month, Peter Sessions wrote this about England's BBC:
For 20 years I was a front man at the BBC, anchoring news and current ­affairs programmes, so I reckon nobody is better placed than me to ­answer the question that nags at many of its viewers — is the BBC biased?

In my view, ‘bias’ is too blunt a word to describe the subtleties of the pervading culture. The better word is a ‘mindset’. At the core of the BBC, in its very DNA, is a way of thinking that is firmly of the Left.
(Got that? The "pervading culture" has a "mindset" - a gestalt if you will - wonder what it could be?)

Yesterday, we were told of (social psychologist) Jonathan Haidt's discovery:
He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.
(Got that? They've got “sacred values” - not like yours or mine - wonder what they are and where they got them?)

Then, today, Stephen Glover made this observation:
The intellectual history of the past 250 years has been one of increasing freedom of expression in politics, religion and literature. In the past 50 years that ­process has accelerated, so that it seemed there was practically nothing that could not be said or written.

Except when it offended the sensibilities of people who ­proclaim their liberalism but seek to censor others who say things they deem offensive.

Even merely to hold views that diverge from the new orthodoxy on issues such as global warming or religion or traditional morality is to risk at best ridicule, at worst censure and contempt.
(Got that? All kinds of fun taking place out there - without a comment from anyone - and it's the "non-judgmental" people who are doing it, right?)

And, finally, Rob Enderle, a San Jose, California- based technology consultant had this to say about celebrity political NewAge cultist Arianna Huffington's being put in charge of AOL's content:
There’s certainly the opportunity to create a much more powerful liberal voice in the country. The fact that it hasn’t been done yet, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
Riiight. So let's see:

Liberals own the media.

Liberals have created a "hostile climate" for anyone who doesn't agree with them.

If you don't agree with liberals, you "risk at best ridicule, at worst censure and contempt".

But, still, they seek "a much more powerful liberal voice" because - supposedly - "it hasn’t been done yet".

Why do we have a sneaking suspicion "it" involves re-establishing a fuhrer, building concentration camps, commencing with mass murder, and war?

Don't forget:

Defeat liberalism, and they'll be back - defeat NewAge, and we're done with the whole lot of 'em!