NYT Editorial By Anti-Free Speech Professor Ulrich Baer Justifies Student Terrorism

NY Times Promotes Fascism –This video does a good job of summing up the lunacy of the Yale professor’s rant about how we cannot have any more ‘free speech’ because it offends his politics and he wants full control of everyone’s speech.  That is, he wants a fascist liberal censorship regime run by himself.  So, I will examine in detail parts of his editorial at this odious fake news site: What ‘Snowflakes’ Get Right About Free Speech – The New York Times, one of the worst lying operations on earth.


Ulrich Baer, author if this rant, is vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, and professor of comparative literature at New York University, and the author of “We Are But a Moment,” a novel.


Comrades! The NYT has turned over its editorial page to this communist professor who uses it to yap in ‘professorspeak’ a dense language that makes up weird words  like ‘priveleging’ HAHAHA.  I remember when the NYT was reallllly big on ‘correct use of English.’  William Safire wrote lots of stories about how to use correct English.  Now, they use ‘radical leftist yap’ instead.


This ugly language slaughters words and turns everything upside down a la ‘1984’ where up is down and in is out and I call this place ‘The Outerdarkness’ way back when I was a small child.  It is a scary place because it is, as ‘Alice In Wonderland’ clearly shows, a place where words mean ‘whatever you wish’ as the Caterpillar informed Alice.


During the 1980s and ’90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift. Then as now, both liberals and conservatives were wary of the privileging of personal experience, with its powerful emotional impact, over reason and argument, which some fear will bring an end to civilization, or at least to freedom of speech.


And…they are correct, this is not just the end of ‘free speech’ but also a frontal attack on language, itself.  Note the highlighted words here: ‘primacy of argument’ is just plain silly.  And there is no ‘argument’ going on in our universities, there is thug, violent, physical attacks!  The other highlight is ‘priveleging of personal experience.


My computer informs me by underling that stupid fake verb, ‘priveleging’ as wrong, fake, not part of the English language.  I bet this stupid professor uses this word relentlessly and hopes to make it normal.


We should resist the temptation to rehash these debates. Doing so would overlook the fact that a thorough generational shift has occurred. Widespread caricatures of students as overly sensitive, vulnerable and entitled “snowflakes” fail to acknowledge the philosophical work that was carried out, especially in the 1980s and ’90s, to legitimate experience — especially traumatic experience — which had been dismissed for decades as unreliable, untrustworthy and inaccessible to understanding.


In other words, childish temper tantrums trumps intelligent examination.  Feelings are better than logic.  I hate to say this since I am a woman and I studied German philosophy way way back in the 1960’s, but this is exactly how Naziism took root at German universities.


One was supposed to have elemental feelings, not logic or examination of salient facts.  I noticed, way back then, when I argued logic with the left or the right, both were banking on emotion to carry the argument and if losing it, they end up with this emotion:  ‘I am going to beat you up/kill you’ as an argument.


The recent controversies over the conflict between freedom of expression and granting everyone access to speech hark back to another telling moment. In 1963, Yale University had rescinded an invitation to Alabama’s segregationist governor, George C. Wallace. In 1974, after unruly protests prevented William Shockley from debating his recommendation for voluntary sterilization of people with low I.Q.s, and other related incidents, Yale issued a report on how best to uphold the value of free speech on campus that remains the gold standard for many other institutions.

I remember Wallace.  I met him once, actually.  The left never debates anything, they like to use muscle.  We see this today, like the professor who told her students, ‘I need some muscle here,’ when she attacked a student reporter working for the student newspaper run by her school, no less.  She got fired but only after the entire internet went after her and her school.


Unlike today’s somewhat reflexive defenders of free speech, the Yale report situated the issue of free speech on campus within the context of an increasingly inclusive university and the changing demographics of society at large. While Yale bemoaned the occasional “paranoid intolerance” of student protesters, the university also criticized the “arrogant insensitivity” of free speech advocates who failed to acknowledge that requiring of someone in public debate to defend their human worth conflicts with the community’s obligation to assure all of its members equal access to public speech.


The above paragraph wins the ‘1984 New Speak’ award.  Since when are we required to ‘acknowledge’ the opposition’s position?  They have to defend their position via logic and using words, not clubs or molotov cocktails.


And who is denying ‘equal access to public speech’  here?  Why, it is the left wing thugs physically attacking speakers they disagree with, rioting and trying to kill people who come to hear other speakers!  This ‘professor’ who should be kicked out for being anti-first amendment, probably terrorizes students unless they copy his dogma.


The university itself is censoring ‘free speech’ very ‘arrogantly’ and so is this evil professor.


The philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, best known for his prescient analysis in “The Postmodern Condition” of how public discourse discards the categories of true/false and just/unjust in favor of valuing the mere fact that something is being communicated, examined the tension between experience and argument in a different way.


Oh gods…hahaha…I used to make fun of  Lyotard.  Guess what I called him?  Yes, ‘Retard Lyotard’.  Free speech and all that.  Typical Left Bank professor in Paris.  Oh, Paris is being systematically destroyed now.  Way to go, guys.


The rioters destroying France are delivering a message, alright: give us all your money and everything or we will burn down the city.  And FU to ‘elections’.  We want a dictatorship.


Instead of defining freedom of expression as guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges, Lyotard focused on the asymmetry of different positions when personal experience is challenged by abstract arguments. His extreme example was Holocaust denial, where invidious but often well-publicized cranks confronted survivors with the absurd challenge to produce incontrovertible eyewitness evidence of their experience of the killing machines set up by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Not only was such evidence unavailable, but it also challenged the Jewish survivors to produce evidence of their own legitimacy in a discourse that had systematically denied their humanity.


In other words, emotions rule.  Kind of like how Hitler operated.  These stupid leftists can’t see how they ape Hitler and Pol Pot and Mao all at the same time.  And note how the ‘Holocaust’ is being abused here.  There have been many ‘holocausts’ in history.  It is, far from rare, quite common.  The Romans did it over and over again.  So did the Mongols.  So did the Crusaders, etc.


Humans tend to do this, this is how we evolved.  Humans have been attacking each other ever since our simian ancestors picked up rocks and sticks and then figured out how to join the two to make spears half a million years ago.  Pretending all this is modern is insanely funny.


The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

Da, Komrade!  Silence anyone who doesn’t toe the line.  Kill them, in fact, for they are ‘evil’.  How on earth does someone discussing genetics ‘invalidate the humanity of some people’?  Well, there is a way of countering an argument you disagree with: you have a counter argument, too!


Ahem.  No, not for this fake professor who should be arrested for fraud.  For him, shutting down the opposing position via force is the way to go.  You terrorize them and chase them down, beat them up, burn the school down if they show up to argue.  Yes, that is his emotional response.


In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.


And I will make fun of him.  He is a full blown Nazi.  And a full blown terrorist.  He doesn’t believe in debates, he believes in muscle, force, stopping debates via terrorism and brute force.  This is the definition of ‘totalitarian’.


The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to underestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generation’s oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth. We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.


That paragraph is pure evil.  Oh, ‘free speech is…important…BUT…should be redrawn to accommodate those who…’ are rioting and threatening to kill anyone who isn’t a communist leftist ecowarrior sex fiend.


The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.


So, you  have to right to say anything except what the professor permits….and anyone attacking free speech is evil!   Oh, the joy of mirrors…I wish this man could say this to a magic mirror and then drop dead due to killing himself for breaking the rules.

Gumby Tax – YouTube

As a college professor and university administrator with over two decades of direct experience of campus politics, I am not overly worried that even the shrillest heckler’s vetoes will end free speech in America. As a scholar of literature, history and politics, I am especially attuned to the next generation’s demands to revise existing definitions of free speech to accommodate previously delegitimized experiences. Freedom of expression is not an unchanging absolute. When its proponents forget that it requires the vigilant and continuing examination of its parameters, and instead invoke a pure model of free speech that has never existed, the dangers to our democracy are clear and present.


Wow, welcome to Communist China/Nazi Germany, professor.  And I suspect you, mein Herr, wish to be the censor who decides what is ‘free speech’ and what isn’t.  Your ‘vigilance’ is KGB/SS censorship.  ‘Pure model free speech’ is hated by all commies and Nazis.


According to you, only you get to decide what is proper speech and what is verboten.  And to enforce this, you encourage crimes, riots and physical intimidation even death.  Yes, you teach history and obviously never learned one damn thing about history.


We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.


And this insane teacher praises thugs who use murder, intimidation and riots as their tools.  Eventually  this idiot will figure out one fine day, power grows out of the barrel of gun.  And the people bearing arms aren’t his buddies and I include the blacks who hate whites in this forecast.  Everyone will be hunting for his scalp, left and right.


Filed under .money matters

16 responses to “NYT Editorial By Anti-Free Speech Professor Ulrich Baer Justifies Student Terrorism

  1. Petruchio

    “The university itself is censoring ‘free speech’ very ‘arrogantly’ and so is this evil professor.” Yes and these were the very same people who, in earlier times were preaching about everyone needs to be more tolerant and understanding of differing viewpoints. But give these types some POWER and my, oh my! How the worm has turned.

  2. Christian W

    We should thank the student protestors, the activists in Black Lives Matter and other “overly sensitive” souls for keeping watch over the soul of our republic.

    Yes, and Antifa etc, all the Deep State/Soros running dogs.

  3. Ken

    Also off topic. In Oakland, CA, a group of 40 – 60 “juveniles” did a flash-crowd attack on a commuter train, robbing the passengers and then disappearing into a nearby project-like community. The press and BART will not release any photos of the criminals, since they are “juveniles.” If I was a local resident I would dearly like to know what these “juveniles” looked like so that I could protect myself in the future.

    I suspect that political correctness is behind this, and it trumps the protection of the public.

  4. Flor

    Out of Atlantis, NOT Out of Africa

    Since Cro Magnon Man was first discovered in 1868, he has presented fundamental puzzles for traditional scientists. Today there is still no solution in sight for the traditional anthropologists.

    Cro Magnon Man appeared abruptly in Europe and North America, starting from around 35,000 years ago, lasting to about 12,000 years ago.

    The first recognized discovery of a Cro Magnon was in 1868, only 20 years before the Secret Doctrine was written by Madam Blavatsky.

    The scientist is quite right. Skull types are known after the name of the place where they are first discovered and Cro Magnon was discovered in a cave in France. He is still considered by scientists today to be taller and larger brained than the average human living today.

    The first puzzle causes these physical characteristics to be not pleasant for the anthropologist. To fit in more gracefully with their theories, Cro Magnon should have been shorter and smaller brained than the average for humans today.

    A second and major puzzle for anthropologists is that Cro Magnon man appears to arrive with his culture from no discernible origin. He does not show any discernible development.

    His culture was distinctly superior to others around him. This could be seen clearly in the nature of his tools.

    The advanced culture of Cro magnon gives all the appearance of arriving from elsewhere already fully developed. Notice the relatively modern-looking, tailored clothing with sewn arms and legs. Also shoes and a hat!

  5. Flor

    Atlantis and Lemuria

    Let’s just say that the first creatures that were introduced to an island group in the Pacific Ocean and were guided there, now approximately 900,000 years ago, did not look like the current human in the slightest. This island group was called Lemuria, or simply Mu.

    Just as with Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean and Kumari Kandam in the Indian Ocean there was much more land above water back then than there is now, because the South Pole was located above the ocean and not above land, as has been the case since the turning of the Earth’s axis.

    After much polar ice melted and disasters hit both continents, only the highest parts are still located above water. For Atlantis there are the current Azores and Caribbean, for Lemuria there are islands such as Hawaii and Oceania (1)

    Despite the necessary natural disasters, the new human developed itself successfully, and approximately 300,000 years ago a new chapter could be added to the story: Atlantis.

  6. Claudeeyah



    There are certain parties (races) that are allowed to commit gross crimes and get away with it. How racist of you to not only notice, but call it out! You really need to open up a big ole can of STFU by taking a cue from the illustrious professor who penned the article Elaine quoted.

    I am guessing you are white for having the audacity to micro agression me by calling this crime out. I suggest it is you who is guilty of a hate crime for even mentioning that our “juveniles” committed a crime. Taking back something (money, jewelry, phones, possessions, etc.)back from people who are guilty of systemic racism and white privilege for generations is not a crime. It is reasserting another oppressed group’s right to level the playing field by taking back that which was stolen.

    Your rights end where my feelings begin, bitchez! 😀

  7. Christian W

    Gilad Atzmon, an anti-Zionist Jew, is going to be attacked by Antifa goons.

    Funny how Zionists are ordering Antifa and other “progressives” around isn’t it.

  8. Funny, that. Atzmon is brave to come to the belly of the Beast to discuss Palestine.

  9. Yes, I posted that today.

  10. Petruchio

    Gee whiz. You mean this isn’t The Age of Aquarius with sympathy and trust abounding?? I’m shocked!!

  11. Lou

    off topic–not sure which thread is best for,
    The guy who saw the child being raped [and got a coach job soon after] may get millions of dollars?
    He didnt go to the media, he went to a lawyer;


  12. Yup, ain’t football fun?

  13. Lou

    Cronyism. The college bought him off with a job, now he has sued.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s