Posted on 02/25/2020 3:22:32 AM PST by Kaslin
A few weeks ago, I devoted my column to an article about me published in Newsweek under the headline "Conservative Radio Host Ridicules Anne Frank." As the full context of my comments in the video made clear, it was a lie.
To its credit, after its editor was notified of this fact, Newsweek changed the headline and made revisions to the article and issued a correction.
Since then, two more smears have been spread about me, one by an official at Purdue University and the other by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the major source of news in Canada.
The Jan. 21, 2020, issue of The Exponent, the Purdue University student newspaper, published the following in a story about John Gates, Purdue's newly appointed vice provost for diversity and inclusion: "John Gates has seen quite distinct viewpoints at Purdue, even in his first week at Purdue in early 2019. When he attended a Turning Point event that Dennis Prager spoke at, he noted that he was one of three black people in the room.
"'His central thesis was as follows: Diversity is bad. Every dollar spent on diversity is a dollar wasted,' Gates said. 'He said slavery was not bad. In fact, every civilized nation was founded in slavery, and that blacks should just be happy to be in this country. And he got a rousing ovation.'"
A vice provost of Purdue University quoted me as saying, "slavery was not bad."
Needless to say, I never said anything remotely like that.
After mentioning this on my radio show, some of my listeners wrote to Gates, which prompted him to write to me -- not with a retraction or an apology but an invitation to have a chat.
I wrote vice provost Gates a letter, which began: "Dr. Gates:
"I am attaching eight video files of my speech at Purdue. See if you can find where I said, implied or hinted that slavery is not bad.
"Allow me to react to your invitation to chat over the phone. Had I, as a Jew, written in some publication that you said, 'the Holocaust wasn't bad,' and then invited you to have a chat, would you agree to do so? Or would you first demand that I retract such a vile smear of you?
"When you unequivocally retract in The Exponent what you said and apologize for saying it, I will be happy to chat with you. In fact, I will even invite you on to my national radio show."
I never received a response from Gates.
Then, about a week ago, on my radio show, I discussed the issue of private speech versus public speech, and the issue of character, using former President Harry Truman as an example of a good man who used foul language privately, specifically using "kike" when writing or talking about Jews, and the N-word when talking about blacks. A listener called to ask me why I could say "kike" but not the N-word. I told him that the left had rendered the N-word the only word unutterable in the English language, even when merely discussing it, as I was with regard to Truman. And, of course, I added that to ever refer to a black using the N-word is "despicable."
On Sunday, the CBC published an article headlined "It's 'idiotic you can't say the N-word,' says radio host Dennis Prager, soon to speak at Calgary conference."
The headline was an echo of the Newsweek headline, using an entirely out-of-context quote to make it sound as if I want to use the N-word in referring to blacks.
Now, why would the CBC bother writing about an American talk-show host, and how did it come up with this smear?
The answer to the first question is that the CBC, described to me by former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a PragerU event as "to the left of MSNBC," wants to charge Canadian conservative organization The Manning Centre with inviting racist speakers. (I will be speaking in Ottawa at the Centre's annual conference next month.)
And how did the CBC come up with the phony headline and story? The author himself wrote how in his piece: from Media Matters for America, a left-wing site that each day distorts or lies about what conservatives say. The author never bothered to listen to my broadcast. He took what Media Matters wrote and recycled it.
So, then, why do left-wing media do this?
There are two major reasons.
First, truth is not a left-wing value. As I have said and written ever since studying communism and the left in graduate school at the Columbia University Russian Institute, truth is a liberal value and a conservative value, but it is not a left-wing value. However, destroying opponents by destroying their reputations is a left-wing value -- whether it's charging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh with multiple rapes, preoccupying the country with the fake charge that Donald Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election, or the charges such as those made against me.
Second, smearing opponents is not only a left-wing value; it is the left's modus operandi. And the reason for that is: The left does not win through argument. It wins through smear. If you differ with the left, you are, by definition, sexist, racist, bigoted, intolerant, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, fascist and/or a hater. The proof? You cannot name a single opponent of the left who has not been so labeled.
Readers can fight back by contacting the president of Purdue, Mitch Daniels, at president@purdue.edu. Contacts from Purdue alumni would be particularly helpful. And readers can contact the CBC through Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or an email to its ombudsman: ombud@cbc.ca
The CBC needs to change its headline and issue a correction, as Newsweek did. My email to the author of the article, in which I asked for these changes and explained the entire context, did not receive a reply. You can read the letter on my website and send it or link it to the CBC.
If good liberals and conservatives don't fight the left, truth loses. If truth loses, all is lost.
It's that simple.
Cause a label, its followers and the media will make it stick
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism
Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform
Milieu Control. This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.
Mystical Manipulation. There is manipulation of experiences that appear spontaneous but in fact were planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority or spiritual advancement or some special gift or talent that will then allow the leader to reinterpret events, scripture, and experiences as he or she wishes.
Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.
Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members’ “sins,” “attitudes,” and “faults” are discussed and exploited by the leaders.
Sacred Science. The group’s doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.
Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clich�s, which serve to alter members’ thought processes to conform to the group’s way of thinking.
Doctrine over person. Member’s personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.
Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group’s ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also. (Lifton, 1989)
Prager does a very good job here at boiling down what is going on.
The Left lies because the truth shows what a disaster their policies are, so they must lie to maintain power.
They do it because it works.
Correct.
It is also easy. Media Matters (aka George Soros) has made it very easy for them to have a fake quote and then plausible deniability for relying on MM.
He sure does.
DEFUND the CBC.
and NPR/PBS
“Why the Left Calls Good People Racist”
Simple because they are not interested in the truth.
And maintaining the lie seems to pay pretty good.
It works, but it soon leaves them in a bubble where everyone is the same color as them - and anyone who isn’t has left them behind.
Let’s not over-complicate things. The Left calls everybody racist because it is an easy way to control people. It’s like “abracadabra” and poof your opponent is kneeling before you.
And they have followed the same pattern with all the other “isms” and “phobias”. First, invent a label for someone who disagrees with a certain position. Next, attach a stigma to the label. Last, call anyone who disagrees with your position that newly invented label and then clutch your pearls and faint, as if that person is just the worst monster alive, and make sure it is seen on TV. Presto, you have people begging to be your slave.
“Transphobia” anyone? Hey, I don’t think we should let men in dresses into girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms and play women’s sports. Transphobe!!!!!! Oh, I’m sorry - please go ahead and destroy my culture and society and place my daughters and sisters at risk so that I can avoid being called that name. Thank you, master.
> “My email to the author of the article, in which I asked for these changes and explained the entire context, did not receive a reply.”
Prager is pissing into the wind. Sternly worded emails have as much effect as politely asking Adam Schiff to tell the truth.
Follow Nunes’s example: sue the crap out of them, make them pay and they will not only stop, they will haul ass back to the holes they popped out of.
> “If good liberals and conservatives don’t fight the left, truth loses.”
Set the example Rabbi. Show the way. Sue them and expose their lies, their hypocrisy.
Racism - where is thy sting?
Law doesn’t work that way. In court, you can’t say “I did it because I was told it was ok.” That will land you in jail.
The only way they can avoid liability is by retracting.
“in a bubble where everyone is the same color as them”
Very true. That’s why their ultimate goal is to make that bubble the majority. Coming soon.
Racism = Democrat thugs oppressing political speech.
Because that’s all they have.
I am a Purdue alumnus. Purdue slid off the scales many years ago. We sent our daughter there and had to pull her out as she wasn’t learning anything useful. She was being indoctrinated (more than ten years ago now). A great institution has fallen. I have written to them many times, but they don’t listen or respond. My husband (also a Purdue alumnus) won’t hire from them as their grads are too stupid. I kid you not. Sad.
“They do it because it works.”
And it works because we’ve let it work.
L
It seems that Purdue’s newly appointed vice provost for diversity and inclusion Dr. Gates was caught telling a lie and can’t admit it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.