In honor of a major hero of the American Left, the formerly rotund and now simply the gellatinous “Poi-treat” and erstwhile Chairman Mao Zedong, I am adding a new category to my ever-growing list. For homosexual supremacists and their tinselled, whining, “don’t-call-me-homophobic” entourage I introduce the metaphorical first edition of “Nigel’s Little Pink Book.”
Just as loveable Uncle Mao’s “Little Red Book,” which hit the shelves in Beijing back in ‘66, was a collection of smarmy “dong-isms,” (yes, you heard me, Nigel) so is “Nigel’s” intangible collection equally full of it. Different “it,” but equally full of it.
Mao said things like:
-
There is in fact no such thing as art for art’s sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics. Proletarian literature and art are part of the whole proletarian revolutionary cause.
I was gonna say that.
This and other delights were chanted in the streets as Mao’s Kids ran amok, pounding sand up the butts of anyone not in lock step with the tenets of the Cultural Revolution. And the same thing is happening here, even down to the name. Except that it’s not sand that’s being pounded.
The homosexual special privileges movement is heavily engaged in overturning this American culture of ours and is very successful in bringing about its demise. But it just hit a big, big snag called “The Marketing of Evil” by David Kupalian. And they’ve given it a big, big boost to boot.
There are a couple of moderately lengthy links following that will bring brightened hearts to Americans and unfettered rankling to anti-Americans. One, here, is from nationally syndicated commentator David Limbaugh (yes, brother to Rush—how’d you like to share a Thanksgiving family dinner at that table?)
In this encounter Mr. Savage’s accusers (see link above) claimed they were put in a panic by the threat of, of all places, having someone like Mr. Savage on staff and trying to balance the boat. In fact, and here’s where “Nigel’s” would come in handy if it existed, Savage’s harrassers used terminology straight out of the texts of harrassment laws and hate-speech laws to try to frame Mr. Savage as a predisposed bigot, an animal, who was out to destroy homosexuals everywhere. How dare an institution of higher learning (Ohio State University) hire on a librarian of his low intellectual and ethical esteem?
How dare they, indeed? Here you will see how the University responded, and the threat they made to Mr. Savage even as they “exhonerated” him. Note that they never refute the false claims, they just try to dodge the inevitable (and now inbound) bullet.
-
“One month later, the OSU-Mansfield Human Resources investigator informed Savage in writing that he was not guilty of discrimination/harassment and that the charges should never have been filed.
‘”…in a letter dated April 6 – but mysteriously not postmarked until April 18, and received by Savage yesterday – the university informed Scott Savage that the faculty had overstepped their bounds:
-
‘Dear Mr. Savage:
‘On March 16, 2006, Gary Kennedy, Associate Professor and Faculty President, filed an allegation of discrimination/harassment complaint on behalf of Norman Jones, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of English and James Buckley, Ph.D., Associate Professor of English, all of whom are faculty members of The Ohio State University Mansfield regional campus, against you.
‘Based on the statements, interviews and documentary evidence provided into this inquiry, it is determined there is no finding of discrimination/harassment on your part.
‘However well intentioned [!] the actions of Professors Jones and Buckley, the fact remains their claims of discrimination and/or harassment based on your suggestion of a book does not meet established university policy criteria for filing such a claim.’”
If the complaint violated “established university policy criteria,” why did the entire faculty vote in favor of the claim?
-
‘”I’d say it’s for the same reason about a third of the faculty completely abstained from voting,” commented Kupelian (author of The Marketing of Evil). “Those nine faculty members knew the charges of sexual harassment against this poor librarian were ridiculous and that they couldn’t vote yes. But they also didn’t want to be accused by the rest of the faculty of being homophobes and bigots. So they didn’t vote. The entire faculty – those who voted yes, and those who abstained from voting – wanted to be certain they were not tarred as haters and Neanderthals.”
‘”Those nine abstentions are just one more proof that the OSU Mansfield campus is a place of fear and intimidation, not one of openness, robust inquiry and free speech as the faculty members imagine,” Kupelian added.
‘”What boggles my mind,” said David French, lead attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has taken up Savage’s case, “is that nobody voted against accusing a librarian of sexual harassment for recommending a book.”‘
After informing Savage the allegations were unfounded, the letter suggested a new round of anti-discrimination and harassment training was in order.
‘”What colleges normally do in this situation,” explained French, “is to first do what is necessary to defuse the immediate crisis. Then they go into the ‘re-education process,’ where they bring in the experts to discuss how hurtful and painful it is when people discuss Judeo-Christian morality on campus.”‘
Tsk!
Indeed, among the letter’s “Recommendations” was this:
“Promote frank, open and respectful discussion among faculty and library staff, in particular and among all staff in general. Dr. Jones had indicated that maybe he could be a liaison person to spearhead this effort.
Ironically, Jones – who had just falsely accused Savage of sexual harassment, and strongly attacked Kupelian’s book – was being suggested as the point man responsible for leading the faculty in “open and respectful discussion” of differences.
More ominously, the letter to Savage – signed by T. Glenn Hill of the university’s Office of Human Resources – appears to end with a warning to the party who had been falsely accused:
… keep in mind that retaliation in any form is prohibited, per university, state and federal law. [emphasis mine]
But as WorldNetDaily reported, attorney French says the damage to his client’s reputation and career has been done. In fact, Savage has already filed a complaint against the three professors for false accusations of harassment, and he is discussing with ADF a more “substantial” response – including possible litigation.
“Ohio State University allowed its resources to be used in a campaign of slander and defamation,” said French, adding Savage “wants to do something substantial to deter any future tyranny or bullying of others.”
You know, there are a lot of iniversities in this country. A lot. So if more lawsuits like this were pursued, and, say, a couple of dozen campuses were shut down, assets reassigned to their victims and then put to good use, do you think that would make a statement to the leftists who destroy mind, body and spirit with such aplomb?
Sue their pants off…uh, well, that may be considered foreplay, actually. Sue the tar out of ‘em…gosh, how do I say this without sounding insensitive?
Litigate so the world will know, Mr. Savage. Best wishes to you and your family.
“Nigel’s Little Pink Book” will not prevail.
Litigate so the world will know.
ara
