Liberals are such retards!
Billy KKKlinton
February 28, 2003
As Mario Savio spoke in front of the University of California-Berkeley's
Sproul Hall on December 2, 1964, carried by nervous energy and a restless
mass of students who hung on his every syllable, he hadn't a clue that
immortality beckoned. Yet in the 39 years since that windswept day when
Savio delivered an emotion-dripped speech denouncing University Chancellor
Clark Kerr, "the operation of the machine" and "The Man" in general, he has
gained an exalted, almost deified position in the eyes of the left. The
Savio-led march into Sproul Hall and subsequent "sit-in" gave impetus to the
Free Speech Movement (FSM) and became the blueprint for the widespread
campus uprisings and anti-Vietnam protests that followed. Savio's influence
can be seen today not only in the halls of academia (his December, 1964
speech is still cited as a call to arms by campus radicals from coast to
coast) but also in the socialistic worldviews of Phil Donahue, Howard Zinn
and Ralph Nader, all of whom are on the Advisory Board of UC Berkeley's
Mario Savio Memorial Lecture Fund. Moreover, as we survey the present
politically correct campus landscape, it's obvious that Savio, who died in
1996, helped accomplish what was always the FSM's real and primary goal:
establishing a political power base at U.S. universities from which the
Anti-American left could run amok.
In his book, Uncivil Wars, David Horowitz alludes to this unspoken truth,
writing,
"The FSM was ultimately not a movement about free speech. It was about the
right of the political left to agitate for its agendas within the confines
of the campus itself…this was the real achievement of the FSM-the insertion
of ideological politics into the heart of the university community."
This same "Free Speech Movement"- once looked upon with scorn by UC Berkeley
officials-is now regarded reverently at the school, with Chancellor Robert
Berdahl even dedicating a "Free Speech Café" in 2001 to commemorate, well,
the Marxist delusions of one Mario Savio. The spirit of the FSM is so in
vogue that if he were a 20-year-old Berkeley student today, it's a good bet
that Savio would be standing on those same Sproul Hall steps, spitting out
the same impassioned, "rich man/poor man" rhetoric and railing against the
same U.S capitalistic and militaristic systems that he always loathed.
Which brings us to UC Berkeley, circa 2003. Thanks in large part to Savio
and his fellow-travelers in the FSM, Berkeley-home to what were arguably the
most incendiary protests of the turbulent 1960's-reigns as the undisputed
Mecca of American progressivism. Unpatriotic? There are people walking the
streets of Berkeley today who make Noam Chomsky look like Audie Murphy. The
UC Berkeley campus is timeless in that regard, perpetually inhabited by a
small but influential faction of elitist administrators and students
hell-bent on weakening the very country whose policies have granted them
enviable privilege. In the 60's, they hijacked Vietnam and the Civil Rights
Movement in order to press their revolutionary agenda. By the dawn of the
21st century, however, there was little for a Berkeley radical to do other
then attend a few anti-globalization rallies, preach about the perils of
styrofoam and listen to balding, pony-tailed professors intone about the
good ol' days of Mao, Ho and Jerry Rubin. Compared to the epic,
change-the-world sweep of an anti-war movement, this was very unromantic
stuff indeed. Then along came September 11, 2001 and the present conflict
with Iraq, two glamorous excuses for our budding Berkeley Brownshirts to
take to the streets with all the panache of their 60's forebears. Now that
Sadaam is in America's crosshairs and (gasp) patriotism is on the rise,
these same Brownshirts will gain valuable flag-burning experience that can
be passed on to their grandkids for use in future marches. That's how it
works at Berkeley: the torch is passed from one generation of radicals to
the next amidst knowing winks of approval from the University's hierarchy
(many of whom are former radicals themselves).
To fully appreciate how deeply knee-jerk anti-Americanism permeates the UC
Berkeley campus, one needs to look no further than the school's "Day of
Remembrance" last September marking the one-year anniversary of the 9/11
catastrophe. The event's student organizers originally refused to hand out
red, white and blue ribbons to participants or allow the singing of "The
Star-Spangled Banner" and "God Bless America" for fear that (perish the
thought) an outpouring of national pride may result.
"We thought that [red, white and blue ribbons] may be just too political,
too patriotic," one of the student organizers, Hazel Wong, told the
California Patriot. "We didn't want anything too centered on nationalism,
anything that is ‘Go U.S.A.'"
Another of the event's planners, Jessica Quindel, added, "We're trying to
stay away from supporting [President] Bush. We don't want to isolate people
on this campus who disagree with the reaction to September 11."
Okay, so Quindel and her comrades don't like President Bush. Fair enough.
But at least they permitted those in attendance to recite the "Pledge of
Allegiance."
Didn't they?
"The flag has become a symbol of U.S. aggression towards other countries,"
said Quindel. "It seems hostile."
Now before you go punching a hole in your wall and busting a knuckle, allow
Rong-Gong Lin II, editor-in-chief of Berkeley's Daily Californian newspaper,
to clear things up:
"Not everyone who was affected by September 11 was American," said Lin.
"Some people felt this shouldn't be a day of exclusiveness."
Pardon me, Rong-Gong, but if singing the national anthem and waving the red,
white and blue on American soil are exclusive, then the offended parties
shouldn't be in this country in the first place. Luckily, the California
Patriot, Berkeley's conservative student magazine, drew national attention a
week prior to the so-called 9/11 memorial by publishing an article that
decried the event for its complete lack of patriotic substance. Faced with m
ounting public outrage due to the Cal Patriot article, University Chancellor
Robert Berdahl stepped in and ultimately allowed red, white and blue ribbons
and patriotic songs to be utilized at the memorial. But before doing so, he
made sure to take a few swipes at the Cal Patriot, calling their article
"outrageous" among other things.
Of course, Berdahl would probably have the same haughty reaction if someone
criticized the paid advertisement placed by UC-Berkeley law students in the
February 15 New York Times entitled "Tomorrow's Lawmakers Shouldn't Have To
Answer For Today's Misdeeds."
The full-page ad, which cost the students $18,000 to place, states in part,
"As students of the law, we cannot stand behind a boundless "War on
Terrorism" that has eroded civil liberties, undermined international
institutions, blurred the separation of governmental powers, and caused
havoc in the communities we serve both here and abroad."
Sophomore law student Abby Reyes explained the purpose of the ad thusly at
www.berkeley.edu:
"There was a total disconnect between what we were learning in the classroom
and what was coming out of Attorney General John Ashcroft's office and other
Washington, D.C. agencies. We wanted to let the public know that not all
lawyers are like the Attorney General, and that the up-and-coming generation
of legal minds is appalled at what's going on."
The ad also directs readers to a website, www.wakeupaboutthewar.org, which
further harangues the Bush administration for its handling of homeland
security and announces the full endorsement of no less than 29 Berkeley law
professors and staff. I don't know what's more disturbing, the ad-which was
naive at best and ludicrous at worst-or the fact that respected members of
the Berkeley faculty threw their weight behind it. Ironically, it's more
than likely that these same "students of the law" who oppose the current War
on Terrorism were the first to decry America's intelligence failures as the
root cause of 9/11 (along, of course, with our ruthless imperialism and
continued support of Israel).
Yet there are student groups at Berkeley that make our motley band of future
defense attorneys seem downright jingoistic by comparison. Consider the
following registered organizations presently polluting the Berkeley
environs:
-The Berkeley Democratic Socialists of America: A group whose website
(www.dsausa.org) states "A radical democracy is the only way to ensure a
world in which class, race and gender do not decide our futures" wishes only
one thing: for the United States to break out the borscht and fur hats and
go totalitarian, post-haste. As the largest U.S. affiliate of the Socialist
International-described on the DSA site as "the worldwide organization of
140 socialist, social democratic and labor parties"-the Berkeley Democratic
Socialists have proved loyal comrades, opposing not only U.S military action
in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also stating after 9/11 that "if force must be
used, a multinational police action is the most appropriate means."
-The Berkeley Stop the War Coalition: A vital cog not only in Berkeley's
burgeoning anti-war movement but also at Bay Area protests in general, this
group boasts a membership of 400 students and 20 faculty/staff. According to
its website (www.berkeleystopthewar.org), the group opposes war with Iraq
and is united around three points: 1) stopping the war. 2) ending racist
scapegoating and defending all targeted communities and 3) defending civil
liberties. But as their site provides links to International A.N.S.W.E.R. (a
front for the Stalinist Workers World Party), Moveon.org (the loopy Leftists
responsible for the recent recycling of the1964 "Daisy Ad") and the "Not in
Our Name" Coalition (a favorite of Chomskyites in both the academic and
entertainment realms), Berkeley's Stop the War Coalition reveals itself as
just the latest in a disturbingly long line of Blame America First zealots
-The International Socialist Organization (ISO) and Left Turn: two of the
more extreme Leftist cells operating on Berkeley's campus, both of these
organizations revel in America-bashing, specifically the Unites States
"imperialistic" foreign policy and the impending war in Iraq. Not
surprisingly, Left Turn, which describes itself as "a network of
revolutionary socialists and anti-capitalists," boasts four Berkeley faculty
members among its ranks. As for the ISO, little needs to be repeated other
than its mission statement, which proclaims, "the ISO stands in the
revolutionary tradition of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky."
While UC Berkeley's socialist/anarchist wing cornered the market on campus
Anti-Americanism long ago, it may have to ratchet up its radicalism a few
notches in order to keep pace with some of the school's ethnic student
causes:
-Berkeley Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MECha): The mission
statement at MECha's website (www.berkeleymecha.org) seems innocent enough,
describing the University-funded group as "a national student movement that
concentrates on political, social, educational and cultural issues that
pertain to the Chicano movement." But let's rewind to March 2002, when MECha
distributed a flier, "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" that called for
revolutionary liberation of the American Southwest from the hands of the
"gringos." After the Cal Patriot published an article calling the flier
racist and anti-American, MECha members verbally and physically threatened
the magazine's staff. Soon after, someone broke into the Patriot's offices
and stole all 3,000 copies of the magazine. So much for innocence.
-Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP): This militant club was actually
banned from organizing on campus for one year by Berkeley's administration
after an incident last April in which its members occupied the school's
Wheeler Hall for four hours in protest of an Israeli incursion into the West
Bank. A melee ensued in which 79 students were arrested, including one
reserved young "pacifist" who bit a police officer. Apparently, the SJP foot
soldiers were just taking cues from their leader, Snehal Svengali, a
26-year-old Berkeley graduate student in English who also teaches a class at
the school called "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance."
Svengali made national waves when the course was announced last spring not
only because of its description (which included the decidedly partisan line,
"the brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, an occupation that has
been ongoing since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed
millions of Palestinian people,") but also due to this caveat: "Conservative
thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections." Seems like an odd statement
at an institution renowned for free speech, not to mention a glaringly
obvious attempt by Svengali to indoctrinate students into his extremist
agenda. But Svenagli is a man of many despicable hats. In addition to the
SJP, he also finds time to lead the aforementioned Berkeley International
Socialist Organization and is a prominent member of the Stop the War
Coalition. His feelings about the United States were made brutally clear at
Berkeley's 9/11 memorial when he praised the hijackers for "striking the
first blow against American capitalism." While Svengali's Palestinian course
is an unusually overt stab at political propaganda on behalf of America's
global enemies, the type of anti-American bias it expresses constitutes a
large part of Berkeley's curriculum as well as those of countless other
high-profile universities.
-Scanning UC Berkeley's list of student groups reveals a significant Muslim
presence, with the Iranian Student-Cultural Organization (ISCO), the Afghan
Student Group, the Assyrian Student Alliance, the Somali Student Association
and the Muslim Student Association all collecting University funds.
Considering that Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia and the Muslim world in
general aren't exactly breaking bread with the United States these days, the
lack of anti-American vitriol on the groups' websites was initially
surprising. But once I got past the announcements for ski trips, luncheons
and dances on the ISCO site (as well as the homepage that read "My paradise!
Oh, heavenly Iran!" in large Arabic letters), I was greeted with this
pronouncement: "Contact your Senator and Representatives' office and express
your outrage at the racial discrimination against Iranian and Middle Eastern
communities throughout the United States!" There were also calls for protest
of the INS detainment of Middle-Easterners who failed to register in the
United States as required. Which raises the question: when it comes to
waging the War on Terror, just whose side is ISCO on?
And the list goes on: the Berkeley ACLU, Amnesty International, the
Progressive Labor Party (whose website, www.plp.org, is so hard-line that it
refers to North Korea as "Capitalism with a phony Socialist cover"), the
Berkeley Anarchist Discussion Group. With so many un-American organizations
entrenched at UC Berkeley, it's a miracle that the University's Army, Navy,
Air Force, Aerospace and Military Science ROTC programs not only exist but
are thriving. That, along with the regular presence of military, C.I.A. and
Department of Defense recruiters at campus career fairs, is one of the great
paradoxes of a UC Berkeley education. The University of California system is
the recipient of considerable Department of Defense funding in the areas of
physical science and engineering. In 2001-2002, for example, UC-Berkeley
received $257.5 million in research contracts and grants from the federal
government, including $35.2 million from the D.O.D, $14.1 million from the
Department of Energy and $22 million from NASA (not to mention the
Department of Energy-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory). Yet
judging from Berkeley's traditional anti-government stance, there is a
perverse tendency among the school's administration to bite the hand that
feeds them. If Congress didn't pass a law in 1995 disallowing Pentagon
contracts with any university that barred access to military recruiters, the
only camouflage you'd see in Berkeley would be on some dreadlocked
hackey-sacker's bandana.
The Anti-American left is so ingrained in every fiber of UC Berkeley's being
that any student whose political beliefs fall somewhere to the right of
Martin Sheen faces an uphill battle when it comes time to roster. A recent
opinion piece in the Daily Californian decried this fact, criticizing
anthropology professor Laura Nader (Ralph's big sister) for "taking on
authority for the students" and creating an environment where "a large
number of students take her class as an opportunity to have their liberal
opinions validated or created by a tenured professor." Unfortunately, the
author almost reflexively falls back into standard UC Berkeley mode, stating
"Bush is throwing us into a war his daddy couldn't finish…to so many
students at UC Berkeley, myself included, he represents nothing other than
pure evil." Forget Sadaam Hussein: it's this Bush cowboy who we really have
to worry about.
Such shallow, uninspired leftward thinking should be expected when 85
percent of UC Berkeley's faculty is registered Democrat (with 4 percent
identifying with the Green Party). According to a 2002 poll taken by David
Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture, out of 54 professors in
the UC Berkeley History department, only 1 Republican could be found, out of
28 Sociology professors 0, out of 57 English professors 0, out of 16 Women's
Studies professors 0, out of 9 African-American Studies professors 0 and out
of 6 Journalism professors 0. Is it any wonder that these
progressive-dominated departments, along with Middle-Eastern Studies,
invariably end up hosting numerous America-hating guest speakers?
-Edward Said, a Palestinian-born professor of English and comparative
literature at Columbia University and longtime detractor of both the United
States and Israel, delivered a lecture on February 19 at UC Berkeley
entitled "The United States, the Islamic World and the Question of
Palestine." In his speech, which took place before a rapt, overflow
audience, Said tossed out whoppers such as "everybody knows that we as U.S.
citizens are the suppliers and guarantors of the Israeli war machine," and
"short of genocide, I cannot think of a single human right that has not been
violated in Gaza. And it has all been carried on with the total support of
the U.S. government." Despite these absurd statements, and another in which
he said, "Everything [Colin] Powell has accused the Ba'athists of has been
the stock in trade of the Israeli government since 1948," Said received a
prolonged standing ovation at the conclusion of his speech. This followed a
reverent introduction two hours previous by University Chancellor Robert
Berdahl.
-Berdahl also found time in his schedule to present guest speakers Arthur
Sulzberger, Jr., publisher of the New York Times and Howell Raines, the
paper's executive editor, as part of a November 22, 2002 forum on the press
& foreign affairs. The event, which was billed "Setting the Agenda? The New
York Times and America's View of the World", consisted of conversation
between Sulzberger, Raines and left-wing UC Berkeley Dean of Journalism,
Orville Schell. Considering that the Times has basically morphed into a paid
advertisement for the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party in recent
months, Sulzberger and Raines had to feel right at home amongst Berkeley's
omni-present Fifth Column.
-On September 10, 2002, a student group called SANE (Students For A
Non-Religious Ethos) hosted Michael Newdow, the San Francisco man who caused
a national uproar last summer when the Ninth Circuit Court upheld his effort
to have the words, "Under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Separation of church and state is one thing, but removing God from every
facet of American life is a motion that our Founding Fathers would never
have tolerated. Which surely made Newdow's appearance that much more
attractive to Berkeley's abundant cultural Marxist sect.
-Out of all the crackpots, anarchists and jihadists who've spoken at UC
Berkeley during the 2002-2003 school year, my favorite has to be Sami
Al-Arian, the University of South Florida professor who took part in the
September 13, 2002 conference, "Islam in America: Rights and Citizenship in
a Post-9/11 World." Al-Arian, whose visit was sponsored by the UC Berkeley
African-American Studies Department and the Center for Middle-Eastern
Studies, was arrested on February 20 of this year. Seems that he was serving
as U.S leader for the militant terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Al-Arian's indictment accused him, along with seven other men, of operating
a criminal racketeering enterprise supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad and
also with conspiracy to kill and maim people abroad, conspiracy to provide
material support to the group, extortion, visa fraud, perjury and other
charges. Al-Arian's arrest is almost enough to make you forget about UC
Berkeley's Abdulaziz Al-Saud Program in Arab and Islamic Studies, which is
financed by none other than Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud
(say that fast three times) of Saudia Arabia. Incidentally, Al-Saud's wife
has been under suspicion for months for allegedly funding terrorists.
All of this brings me back to Mario Savio and that brisk December day in
1964, when campus radicalism was young and a New World Order seemed just
around the corner to fledgling Berkeley leftists. The opening salvo by the
Free Speech Movement that year was a leaflet exclaiming "The University does
not deserve a response of loyalty and allegiance from you. There is only one
proper response to Berkeley from undergraduates: that you ORGANIZE AND SPLIT
THIS CAMPUS WIDE OPEN."
As evidenced by this bold exhortation, the Sproul Hall "sit-in" and ensuing
protests weren't just some innocent plea for equal time. Regardless of what
today's leading leftists would have us believe, the FSM represented little
more than an opportunistic seizure of influence by a rag-tag lot of
Marx-worshipping anarchists.
While things haven't worked out quite like Savio and his fellow 60's
revolutionaries planned (witness the sweeping conservative victories of last
fall), they can rest easy knowing that their anti-American message has found
at least one willing host. It's the same place Savio alluded to in 1964 when
he said,
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes
you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively
take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the
wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it
stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who
own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working
at all!"
In 2003, Berkeley has finally become the repressive, exclusionary machine
that Savio described in his famous speech. And the voice being shut out is
that of America.
w.N.(Bill) McCaw
> By Erick Stakelbeck
> February 28, 2003
snipped the long quote of Stakelbecks rant:
> As evidenced by this bold exhortation, the Sproul Hall "sit-in" and ensuing
> protests weren't just some innocent plea for equal time. Regardless of what
> today's leading leftists would have us believe, the FSM represented little
> more than an opportunistic seizure of influence by a rag-tag lot of
> Marx-worshipping anarchists.
>
> While things haven't worked out quite like Savio and his fellow 60's
> revolutionaries planned (witness the sweeping conservative victories of last
> fall), they can rest easy knowing that their anti-American message has found
> at least one willing host. It's the same place Savio alluded to in 1964 when
> he said,
>
> "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes
> you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively
> take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the
> wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it
> stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who
> own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working
> at all!"
>
> In 2003, Berkeley has finally become the repressive, exclusionary machine
> that Savio described in his famous speech. And the voice being shut out is
> that of America.
U Cal is a huge university, and supports a proportionally large variety
of extreme student organizations. Good for them!
The article Billy quotes assumes the typical conservative attitude of
absolute certainty that their way is the holy grail, and all dissenters
are just deluded, foolish children.
It is good to see Universitys change from operating as molders of future
corporate managers and workers to a place where ingrained attitudes,
biases, and preferences are challenged. In short, they are challenged
to think! What a concept! No wonder the conservative business
interested are worried. Much of our present warrior attitude, My
Country Right or Wrong, Etc., just won't stand up to reason and
observation of other countries experiences.
Just why do you suppose that 85% of the U Cal professors are resistered
Democrats? I personally think it is because they are thinkers and have
come to the conclusion that the Democrats are better for our country.
Cheers! W.N.(Bill) McCaw
"The Smallest Dog can Lift his Leg on the Tallest Building"!