Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory Pioneer, Remains a Hero to His Students
May 1, 2012 by 1 Comment
By Joel B. Pollak | May 1, 2012 | Breitbart
Harvard Law School professor and Critical Race Theory pioneer Derrick Bell had radical ideas about the civil rights struggle and the Constitution, believing that white supremacy was so fundamental to our society that it would make racial equality almost impossible. To many of his colleagues, and especially to his most devoted students, however, Bell is fondly remembered as a caring and graceful mentor and father figure, as gentlemanly as he was radical.
Erin Edmonds, a member of the Harvard Law class of 1991, was a student of Bell’s who became his research assistant and co-author, ghost writing portions of, and editing, Faces From the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism, among other works.
The controversial book, which argued that black suppression holds American society together, was criticized at the time for defending Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Edmonds’s classmate, Barack Obama, assigned the introduction to the book to his University of Chicago law students, along with Bell’s writings on the history of civil rights law.
Edmonds, who is an executive vice president of an in-house corporate legal department in her native Utah, spoke to Breitbart News about her experiences with Bell, who called her his “adopted daughter,” as well as about the origins and effects of Critical Race Theory.
Bell was not as conclusive in his views, she believes, as he is often portrayed to be. Rather, she says, “he was really rather tentative,” and came to his radical views by way of disappointment with real-world experiences.
It is important, Edmonds says, to remember the ways in which Bell’s experiences shaped his ideas:
Bell was hired by Thurgood Marshall [who argued Brown v. Board of Education before the Supreme Court and later became the Court’s first black Justice] when he [Bell] was a local NAACP executive in Philadelphia after graduating from law school. Marshall hired Bell to help with school desegregation cases in the South [to enforce the Brown decision]. It was dangerous, and it was segregated, and it was discouraging to encounter massive white southern resistance. Bell fought through these piecemeal litigative methods, and Iived through the aftermath, and I think he was just profoundly discouraged by the extent to which structural and institutional racism had not budged much. He was careful to point out that to say there had been no progress was ridiculous, but structural racism had not changed much for those who needed it most. After all, whom did the civil rights struggle really benefit most? Upper class and middle class blacks, and middle- and working-class white women. His worry was that he had left the needy behind, and so he tentatively put forward these theories as questions.
After demanding that Harvard hire black female legal scholar Regina Austin, leading a demonstration in April 1990 (where he was introduced by Obama), and taking unpaid leave from Harvard in protest, Bell returned to campus in the fall of 1990 to offer a non-credit seminar, “Civil Rights at the Crossroads.” He had taught it in previous years, and used it as a laboratory for ideas–including his controversial science fiction story, “The Space Traders,” in which white Americans trade their black countrymen to aliens.
The seminar, Edmonds recalls, included a spectrum of left and liberal students–and even some conservatives–from across the Harvard campus. “The Space Traders” was just the beginning:
He wanted to open up our minds away from strategies that had worked for their limited purpose. Far from being a victory lap [after his protest], that course was intended to snap us out of thinking in traditional ways that no longer worked for people like we: civil rights lawyers, poverty lawyers, even conservatives interested in fighting civil rights privately and less [through] state action.
His class was very effective. Through the use of storytelling, Bell captured the attention of people very quickly, and forced them into [using] a different part of their brains. The most powerful [story] was probably “Space Traders.” The universal reaction, even from conservatives, was that it was possible–not likely, or probable, but possible. That horrified us all. Bell, speaking to a rarified audience of mostly legal students who might well be his legatees, said there are intransigent elements of injustice that are left–and wanted this next generation to think about different ways of fighting that injustice.
Edmonds does not recall Obama attending that seminar, but notes that “Barack and Bell, as consummate intellectuals and diplomats who both welcomed dissent with their views, had an enormous amount of respect for one another,” though they did not mix socially. She describes Obama’s decision to introduce Bell at the protest as an example of the respect Obama enjoyed, and his diplomatic skill.
“Obama’s instinct to find common ground was apparent. And it wasn’t forced. I’ll be honest. There were some hardcore neoconservatives at Harvard Law School, and Barack handled them calmly. He listened to them–and there were times I was incensed and said, ‘How can you stand this?’–but he’s a consummate diplomat.”
Obama was in Edmonds’s law school “section,” a subdivision of students who take all of their first-year requirements together. In the annual moot court exercise, Edmonds was dismayed to draw Obama as an opponent– “of 550 people in that first-year class at Harvard Law School, there was exactly one person whom no one wanted to draw”–and she burst into tears.
“He’s very sensitive, and when he saw me, he put his arm around me and he started laughing. I said, ‘That’s not funny.’ And he said, “Erin, you yell back at professors–what are you afraid of?’”
She and her partner lost to Obama and his partner, she says, but at least the Obama team “didn’t wipe the floor with us.”
Besides the five full-year courses that all first year law students take, Edmonds and Obama were also together in at least two other classes–one on racial issues with Professor Randall L. Kennedy. (Edmonds says she believes Obama was also in her classes on corporate law and the law of terrorism, but she cannot be sure. Obama has not yet released his law school transcripts.)
Edmonds describes Kennedy as a protégé of Bell’s who had followed his own path.
Read the full article here.
Related Articles
- Exclusive: Kagan’s Handwritten Notes to Bell on Critical Race Theory (johnmalcolm.me)
- The Vetting – Exclusive: Obama Letter to Bell to Blurb ‘Dreams From My Father’ (johnmalcolm.me)
- The Vetting: Bell’s Critical Race Theory Promoted in Public Schools (johnmalcolm.me)
- The Vetting: Obama Channels Derrick Bell in Attack on Supreme Court (johnmalcolm.me)
- Critical Race Theory and the Trayvon Martin Case (johnmalcolm.me)
- Journalists’ Panel Discussion Shows Critical Race Theory Mainstream to Left (johnmalcolm.me)
- Dr. Thomas Sowell on Derrick Bell, Critical Race Theory, and the Mentors of Barack Obama (prweb.com)
- PJ Media’s stupid effort to attack Obama through Derrick Bell’s book “Afrolantica Legacies.” (althouse.blogspot.com)
- What is Critical Race Theory? (johnmalcolm.me)
- Bell, via Kagan, on Critical Race Theory: The Constitution Is the Problem (wdednh.wordpress.com)
Humor is ridicule Marxist style
May 1, 2012 by Leave a Comment
By Judi McLeod | April 30, 2012 | Canada Free Press
Get ready for ridicule as the latest means for Marxists to hobble their enemies.
It starts with President Barack Obama kickstarting toilet humor at the White House Correspondence [sic] dinner Saturday night: “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and pit bull? A pit bull is delicious,” is joking uncouth Barry Soetoro style.
It picks back up tomorrow with May Day anarchy dressed in canned laughter:
“Our movement goes geopolitical later in May,” (Adbusters Tactical Briefing 30: The May 2012 Insurrection, April 26, 2012). “We swarm Chicago and confront NATO. We tell the military elites there to stop their saber rattling against Iran, halt the global arms race and get behind what the majority of the people on Earth want: a nuclear-free world starting with a nuclear-free Middle East that includes both Iran and Israel.”
That sounds more like an Occupy Wall Street (OWS) founding Adbusters lecture than an attempt to tickle John Q. Public’s funny-bone.
But wait…”And then when the G8 leaders meet in Camp David, we create a global spectacle the likes of which the world has never seen before…millions of us…individually, in flash groups and en masse, we burst out laughing at the lunacy of the eight most powerful political leaders on the planet thinking they can dictate the people’s business from behind closed doors and barbed wire fences. For one day, we take over the global mindspace with a whirlwind of #LAUGHRIOT jokes. (Like: Why did the G8 chickens cross to Camp David? Cuz they’re on the other side. haha!) We laugh our heads off on every news broadcast in the world.”
Sort of like Obama on Saturday night, whose latest prop was a flushing toilet.
“President Obama Opened Correspondents’ Dinner with a Toilet Flush….Really” was the headline on the Blaze, April 29, 2012.
Everyone who saw it would get the analogy of a United States in the toilet with the man who put it there now a standing comedian mocking and laughing in reverie of his work.
“President Obama‘s presentation started with a little sketch that poked fun at his recent ’hot mic‘ episode with Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev by having the audience believe that we were listening to the leader of the free world complaining about having to be at this dinner, while sitting on a toilet. That portion ended with a flush and Obama craving a cigarette,” said the Blaze.
“It’s not often that we get to see the most powerful man in the world tell jokes about eating dogs, craving cigarettes and imposing his rumored “radical socialist agenda” on the country. And yet, last night in Washington, D.C., we were treated to just that. Wait, let’s not forget the toilet flush. Did we really need to envision the president sitting on the toilet, seconds before he was to address the White House Press Corps?
Read the full article here.
Related Articles
- Alinsky Alive and Well in the White House (askmarion.wordpress.com)
- President Obama Opened White House Correspondents’ Dinner With a Toilet Flush…Really | Obama WHCD Speech | Video | TheBlaze.com (wdednh.wordpress.com)
- Adbusters versus Obama: The Battle is On (economicpolicyjournal.com)
- White House Correspondents’ Dinner: The Funnier Candidate? (newyorker.com)
- How Obama learned to manufacture the ‘truth’ Judi McLeod (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Advent of the ‘Back Off Hollywood Fan Club’ (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Ridiculous Right Wing Article of the Day: Obama’s ‘Forward’ Slogan Is Marxist (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- Fox News Contributor Blames Obama’s ‘Disdain’ for Women on ‘Marxist’ Father (crooksandliars.com)
- Humor is ridicule Marxist style (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Does President Obama’s New ‘Forward’ Slogan Prove He’s A Marxist? (mediaite.com)
Ron Paul Debates Paul Krugman: Austrian Versus Keynesian Economics [Video]
May 1, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Related Articles
- Paul Krugman Says Debates Are Worthless (motherjones.com)
- Thoughts on the Paul-Krugman Debate (notesandobservations.me)
- Ron Paul and Paul Krugman debate economic theory (rawstory.com)
- Paul Destroys Paul (txwclp.org)
- Live debate recap: Ron Paul versus Paul Krugman (mining.com)
- Ron Paul Smashes Paul Krugman (The Proof) (economicpolicyjournal.com)
- Weasel & the Wise Man (theburningplatform.com)
Lawmaker’s ‘How to Slap Washington’ Strategy
May 1, 2012 by 2 Comments
Urges other states to protect citizens, build own detention prevention
Virginia has passed a new law that bars state cooperation with any federal detention of its citizens under Barack Obama’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, and a lead lawmaker there says other states should do the same.
“If Congress and the president must suspend a citizen’s civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights to fight the war on terrorism, then we have lost that war, having lost the very purpose for which the war is being fought – to preserve the American constitutional republic,” Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall wrote in a letter this week to legislative leaders around the country.
“Let Congress and the president hear from the states as we join together, so that we soon may see the day that they repeal this terrible law (NDAA),” he wrote.
Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1 just a week ago, making Virginia the first state to approve such legislation.
His concern was that NDAA “literally turns the entire country into a military battlefield, conferring extraordinary powers on the U.S. armed forces against its own citizens.”
“Not since the American Civil War has there been such a claim of power over the nation’s citizenry,” he said. “Thank God, we live under a Constitution of competing independent and sovereign states, not a monolithic centralized power in Washington, D.C.”
Marshall’s letter noted Virginia was the first state in the nation to refuse cooperation “with federal authorities who, acting under the authority of section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), could arrest and detain American citizens suspected of aiding terrorists without probable cause, without the right to know the charges against them, and without the procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our new law goes into effect on July 1, 2012.”
He told lawmakers, “While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.
“While the [state] bill was modified several times along the way of passage, including amendments from our governor who wanted language to ensure state cooperation with the federal government where it is legal and constitutional, I hope our effort will be a motivation, and perhaps even a model for other state legislatures that they too would take a stand in resisting federal overreach,” he said.
“I was particularly heartened by support from the Japanese American Citizens League, which reminded the Virginia General Assembly that illegal detentions could occur in the future, because they have occurred in the past – with President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 and the roundup of 110,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps because they were classified as ‘suspected enemy aliens.’”
He said, “Today we face a similar situation. The so called ‘War on Terror’ has led to the same kind of hysteria and racist actions by government. I can also say that we have lacked the political leadership to identify that this kind of forced indefinite detention is a repeat of what happened during WWII.”
Marshall offers lawmakers in other states information on how to prepare a similar bill on his DelegateBob.com site.
The Virginia plan endured various twists and turns en route to becoming law. When finally approved by the legislature, the governor still had concerns. He proposed amendments that were adopted without change by lawmakers. Under the state’s procedures, no further signature is needed, and the plan becomes law on July 1.
Marshall said the final bill is “a real slap in the face to Washington.”
“I had liberals voting for this,” he said.
An analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center said the bill “prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a United States citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”
House Bill 1160 addresses several obscure sections of the NDAA of 2012 that appear to allow unlimited detentions by U.S. military forces and federal law enforcement agencies of even U.S. citizens without charges or a court hearing.
The federal plan targets citizens who are classified as belligerents or who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Marshall told WND that he was alarmed to find out that Obama specifically had wanted that section included in the law.
Read the full article here.
Related Articles
- State to Feds: We Won’t Cooperate (johnmalcolm.me)
- Virginia lawmakers agree to reject NDAA (EndtheLie.com)
- Lawmaker to governor: Sign detention prevention (wnd.com)
- Virginia votes to refuse NDAA (rt.com)
- Virginia says “No” to anti-Constitution NDAA (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com)
Ponerology 101: Lobaczewski and the origins of Political Ponerology (Part 1 of 8)
May 1, 2012 by 1 Comment
By Harrison Koehli | February 15, 2010 | Signs of the Times
Beginning immediately after World War II and continuing in the decades after the imposition of Soviet dictatorship on the countries of Eastern Europe, a group of scientists – primarily Polish, Czech, and Hungarian – secretly collaborated on a scientific study of the nature of totalitarianism. Blocked by the State Security Services from contact with the West, their work remained secret, even while American researchers like Hervey Cleckley and Gustave Gilbert were struggling with the same questions.1 The last known living member of this group, a Polish psychologist and expert on psychopathy named Andrzej Łobaczewski (1921-2007), would eventually name their new science – a synthesis of psychological, psychiatric, sociological, and historical studies – “ponerology”, a term he borrowed from the priests of the Benedictine Abbey in the historic Polish village of Tyniec. Derived from poneros in New Testament Greek, the word suggests an inborn evil with a corrupting influence, a fitting description of psychopathy and its social effects.Most of what we know about this research comes from precious few sources. Łobaczewski’s sole contact with the researchers was through Stefan Szuman (1889 – 1972), a retired professor who passed along anonymous summaries of research between members of the group. The consequences for being discovered doing this type of forbidden research were severe; scientists faced arrest, torture, and even death, so strict conspiracy amongst their little group was essential. They safeguarded themselves and their work by sharing their work anonymously. This way, if any were arrested and tortured, they could not reveal names and locations of others, a very real threat to their personal safety and the completion of the work. Łobaczewski only shared the names of two Polish professors of the previous generation who were involved in the early stages of the work – Stefan Błachowski (1889 – 1962) and Kazimierz Dąbrowski (1902 – 1980).2Błachowski died under suspicious circumstances and Łobaczewski speculates that he was murdered by the State police for his part in the research. Dąbrowski emigrated and, unwilling to renounce his Polish citizenship in order to work in the United States, took a position at the University of Alberta in Canada, where he was able to have dual citezenship. A close reading of Dąbrowski’s published works in English shows the theoretical roots of what would become ponerology.3
Like Lobaczewski, Dąbrowski considered psychopathy to be “the greatest obstacle in development of personality and social groups”.4 He warned, “The general inability to recognize the psychological type of such individuals [i.e. psychopaths] causes immense suffering, mass terror, violent oppression, genocide and the decay of civilization. … As long as the suggestive [i.e. hypnotic, charming, “spellbinding”] power of the psychopaths is not confronted with facts and with moral and practical consequences of his doctrine, entire social groups may succumb to his demagogic appeal”.5 In perhaps the first explicit mention of “political psychopathy”, he remarked that the extreme of ambition and lust for power and financial gain “is particularly evident in criminal or political psychopathy”:6
Methods are developed for spreading dissension between groups (as in the maxim “divide et impera” [divide and rule]). Treason and deceit in politics are given justification and are presented as positive values. Principles of taking advantage of concrete situations are also developed. Political murder, execution of opponents, concentration camps and genocide are the product of political systems at the level of primary integration [i.e. psychopathy].7
In a passage decades before its time, he observed that less “successful” psychopaths are to be found in prisons, while successful ones are to be found in positions of power (i.e., “among political and military national leaders, labor union bosses, etc.”). He cited two examples of leaders characterized by this “affective retardation”, Hitler and Stalin, to whom he referred repeatedly in his books8 and who both showed a “lack of empathy, emotional coldness, unlimited ruthlessness and craving for power”.9
Dąbrowski and Łobaczewski experienced this horror firsthand. In September 1939, the Nazis invaded Poland using a false-flag operation that has come to be known as the Gleiwitz Incident. This was part of the larger SS project Operation Himmler, the purpose of which was to create the illusion of Polish aggression as the pretext for “retaliation”. In other words, the Germans needed a plausible excuse or cover story to invade the country. Germans dressed as Poles attacked a radio station and broadcast anti-German propaganda in addition to murdering a German-Silesian sympathizer of the Poles, Franciszek Honiok, and placing his body at the scene.10 The Nazis used these operations to justify the invasion, after which they instituted a regime of terror that resulted in the deaths of an estimated six million Poles. As part of a larger goal of destroying all Polish cultural life, schools were closed and professors were arrested, sent to concentration camps, and some murdered. Psychiatry was outlawed. According to Jason Aronson of Harvard Medical School, the Nazis murdered the majority of practicing psychiatrists. Only 38 survived out of approximately 400 alive before the invasion.11 During this tumultuous time Łobaczewski worked as a soldier for the Home Army, an underground Polish resistance organization, and his desire to study psychology grew.
The gothic style school that he would later attend, Jagiellonian University, suffered greatly during the war years as part of a general program to exterminate the intellectual elite of the city of Krakow. On November 6, 1939, 144 professors and staff were arrested and sent to concentration camps. They had been told that they were to attend a mandatory lecture on German plans for Polish education. Upon arrival, they were arrested in the lecture hall, along with everyone else present in the building. Thankfully, due to public protest, the majority was released a few months later and despite the University having been looted and vandalized by the Nazis, survivors of the operation managed to form an underground university in 1942.12 Regular lectures began again in 1945 and it was probably then that Łobaczewski began his studies under professor of psychiatry Edward Brzezicki13,14 Łobaczewski probably also met Stefan Szuman, a renowned psychologist who taught at Jagiellonian, at this time. Szuman later acted as Łobaczewski’s clearinghouse for secret data and research.
While Jagiellonian and the other Polish universities enjoyed three years of freedom, this quickly ended in 1948 when Poland became a satellite state of the Soviet Union and the Polish United Workers’ Party took full control of University life. With the establishment of the Polish Democratic Republic, Poland was placed under the Soviet sphere of influence; medical and psychiatric services were socialized, and clinical psychiatry reduced to strictly Pavlovian concepts. Thus the “Stalinization” of Polish education and research picked up where Hitler left off. Łobaczewski’s class was the last to be taught by the pre-Communism professors, who were considered “ideologically incorrect” by the powers that be. It was only in their last year of schooling that they fully experienced the inhuman “new reality” which was to inspire the course of Łobaczewski’s research for the rest of his life.
During the three decades he spent living under the Communist dictatorship, Łobaczewski worked in general and mental hospitals. The dictatorship provided intensified conditions and opportunities to improve his skills in clinical diagnosis – essential skills for coming to terms with this new social reality. He was also able to give psychotherapy to those who suffered the most under such harsh rule. Early on, as others involved in the secret research observed Lobaczewski’s interest in psychopathology and the social psychology of totalitarianism, he became aware that he was not the first to pursue such research and was asked to join their group. Originally, he only contributed a small part of the research, focusing mostly on psychopathy. The name of the person responsible for completing the final synthesis was kept secret, but the work never saw the light of day. All of Łobaczewski’s contacts became inoperative in the post-Stalin wave of repression in the 1960s and he was left only with the data that had already come into his possession. All the rest was lost forever, whether burned or locked in some secret police archive.
Faced with this hopeless situation, he decided to finish the work on his own. But despite his efforts in secrecy, the political authorities came to suspect that he possessed “dangerous” knowledge that threatened their power. One Austrian scientist with whom Łobaczewski had corresponded turned out to be an agent of the secret police, and Łobaczewski was arrested and tortured three times during this period. While working on the first draft in 1968, the locals of the village in which he was working warned him of an imminent secret police raid. Łobaczewski had just enough time to burn the work in his central heating furnace before their arrival.15 Years later, in 1977, the Roman correspondent to Radio Free Europe, to whom Łobaczewski had spoken about his work, denounced him to the Polish authorities.16 Given the option of a fourth arrest or “voluntary” exile to the United States, Łobaczewski chose the latter. All his papers, books, and research materials were confiscated and he left the country with nothing.
Upon arrival in New York City, the Polish security apparatus utilized their contacts to block Łobaczewski’s access to jobs in his field. He was terrified to learn that “the overt system of suppression I had so recently escaped was just as prevalent, though more covert, in the United States.”17 In short, the U.S. was infected with the same sickness and the “freedom” they offered was little more than an illusion. In the case of scientists living abroad, the Polish secret police’s modus operandi was to suggest certain courses of action to American Party members, who then gullibly carried them out, unaware of the real motivations for their actions. Łobaczewski was thus forced to take a job doing manual labor, writing the final draft of his book in the early hours before work. Having lost most of the statistical data and case studies with his papers, he included only those he could remember and focused primarily on the observations and conclusions based on his and others’ decades of study, as well as a study of literature written by sufferers under pathocratic regimes.
Once the book was completed in 1984 and a suitable translation made into English, he was unable to get it published. The psychology editors told him it was “too political”, and the political editors told him it was “too psychological”. He enlisted the help of his compatriot, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had just previously served as President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser and who initially praised the book and promised to help get the book published. Unfortunately, after some time spent corresponding Brzezinski became silent, responding only to the effect that it was a pity it hadn’t worked out. In Łobaczewski’s words, “he strangled the matter, treacherously”.18 In the end, a small printing of copies for academics was the only result, and these failed to have any significant influence on academics and reviewers. Suffering from severely poor health, Łobaczewski returned to Poland in 1990, where he published another book and transcribed the manuscript of Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes onto his computer. He eventually sent this copy to the editors of sott.net and Red Pill Press, who published the book in 2006. His health once more failing, he died just over a year later, in November of 2007. While other scientists conducted important research into these subjects over the years, Łobaczewski’s book remains the most comprehensive and in-depth. It is truly an underground classic.
Go to Part 2 in the Ponerology 101 series.
Notes:
- Cleckley wrote the classic book on psychopathy The Mask of Sanity and Gilbert wrote The Psychology of Dictatorship based on his analysis of the Nazi Nuremberg war criminals.
- It’s unclear if Łobaczewski was aware of more but refused to share their names for fear of their well-being.
- Unfortunately, like Gilbert’s book, Dąbrowski’s books are now out-of-print. A DVD containing scans of his work is available here.
- Translated by Elizabeth Mika in “Dąbrowski’s Views on Authentic Mental Health”, in Mendaglio, S. (ed) Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press, 2008), pp. 139 – 53.
- Dąbrowski, K. (with Kawczak, A. & Sochanska, J.), The Dynamics of Concepts (London: Gryf, 1973), pp. 40, 47.
- Dąbrowski, K. 1996 [1977]. ‘Multilevelness of Emotional and Instinctive Functions’ (Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1996 [1977]), p. 33.
- Ibid, p. 153.
- Ibid, p. 21; ‘The Dynamics of Concepts’, p. 40; Dąbrowski, K. Personality-shaping Through Positive Disintegration (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 202; Dąbrowski, K. Psychoneurosis Is Not An Illness (London: Gryf, 1972), p. 159.
- Dąbrowski, K. (with Kawczak, A. & Piechowski, M. M.) Mental Growth Through Positive Disintegration (London: Gryf, 1970), pp. 29 – 30.
- See Wikipedia, “Gleiwitz Incident”.
- Preface to Dąbrowski, K. Positive Disintegration. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), pp. ix – x.
- Błachowski taught at one such underground university in Warsaw. See Wikipedia, “Stefan Błachowski”.
- On the arrest of Jagiellonian staff, see here.
- See Jagiellonian University website.
- Later, in Bulgaria, he attempted to send a second draft to a contact in the Vatican via a Polish-American tourist, but to his knowledge it was never delivered.
- Łobaczewski only learned the identity of his denouncer from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance in 2005. See interview conducted November 19, 2005.
- Łobaczewski, A. Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (Grande Prairie, AB: Red Pill Press, 2006), p. 23.
- In Memoriam: Andrzej M Łobaczewski
Related Articles
- Political Ponerology (psychopathresistance.wordpress.com)
- PONEROLOGY The Science of Evil… (projectworldawareness.com)
- The Madness of Western Civilization (disquietreservations.blogspot.com)
- Beyond Insanity – Political Ponerology – Macrosocial Evil (powersthatbeat.wordpress.com)
- Is Obama Insane:The Madness of Western Civilization (musicians4freedom.com)
- China’s prime minister visits Auschwitz death camp (timesofisrael.com)
- Bella Quiz: Nail Polish History (and More) Quiz Part Two (bellasugar.com)
- Hatred Transformed: Germans And Jews | Nico Voigtländer and Hans-Joachim Voth | Viox | 01 May 2012 (voxeu.org)
John Malcolm 
Occupy Twitter: Top Ten Dirty Tricks Leftists Play Online
By Liberty Chick | May 1, 2012 | Breitbart
Twitter has become the battleground for the 2012 elections and the fight to push the country further left or closer to the right. It is the vehicle that not only informs and influences the opinions of others, but often it is Twitter that actually drives the news cycle. Protest movements like Occupy and Anonymous are using Twitter and other online media as a key mechanism in fighting the battle for ideas and opinions. However, for months now, there has been a coordinated campaign on the part of some leftists to silence conservatives on Twitter in an effort to reduce the impact of the right’s voice on public opinion and the news.
It’s a campaign that has been obvious to many of those who’ve been experiencing this first-hand. And Sunday night, more sunlight was shone on the issue as thousands witnessed an attack on a higher profile target when Chris Loesch, the husband of Big Journalism editor and CNN contributor, Dana Loesch, had his Twitter account suspended suddenly and unexpectedly–for “sending multiple unsolicited mentions to other users.”
The action sparked an outpouring of support, sending the hashtag #FreeChrisLoesch to the top of the trending tags, and once more with #FreeChrisLoesch AGAIN when his account was suspended yet again (and again) after less than a minute or so of having been restored. In reviewing the tweets that lead up to the incident, there is no evidence whatsoever that Chris abused Twitter’s terms of service. His “infraction” was the mere act of defending his wife by responding to those targeting her with vile, disgraceful tweets, all of which Dana has aptly reported here on Big Journalism.
It was later discovered that the cause of Chris’s suspension stemmed from a coordinated effort to abuse Twitter’s “block and report” features to trigger Twitter’s algorithm that flags an account as spam, thereby automatically suspending the account temporarily until human eyes could review the situation.
Many outlets have since covered Sunday night’s incident, including, but not limited to, Human Events, Newsbusters, Twitchy and The Washington Times. The truth is, this isn’t the first time that this has happened to a conservative on Twitter, either. In fact, many have experienced this and other attacks in recent months. Sunday night was simply the first time that conservatives fought back–en masse.
We’ve all seen tactics like this in action online in one form or another. Over time, countless numbers of activists on the right have sent me examples of similar attacks, and I’ve even spoken directly with many of them. We thought this might be the perfect opportunity to share a list of the “Top Ten Dirty Tricks Leftists Play Online.”
I’ll preface this list with a couple of obvious caveats.
First, I know that there are some on the left who vehemently disagree with such tactics, and to those individuals, I say thank you for standing up for free speech even when it does not reconcile with your own beliefs. I wish more on the left would speak out in support of all free speech.
Secondly, I would venture to guess that there are some on the right who might not play entirely fairly, either. I don’t believe many on the right would excuse that behavior. The observation from many however, is that the instigators of such tactics I’m about to list below appear to be overwhelmingly left-leaning.
That being said, here is the list, by all means not all inclusive and in no particular order, compiled from examples that have been sent, tweeted, posted and discussed in recent months.
Read the full article here.
Related Articles
Share this: