Did George Will actually imply that women get socially rewarded for being raped (and thus imply they desire this status)?
The editorial page editor for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch fish wrapper (the internet cannot bankrupt these scumbags soon enough!), Tony Messenger, explained why they were no longer publishing George Will, in part because of “a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it.”
I have two theses in this post. In case you might miss it, my first is that George Will wrote the most basic, obvious common sense, and that Tony Messenger’s character is identical to the content of a used air flight sickness bag.
I ask you, would anyone read Tony Messenger allegation of the content of Will’s editorial, “that sexual assault victims on college campuses enjoy a privileged status,” understand anything other than rape as sexual assault? I don’t think so. That is exactly what Messenger is alleging. George Will wrote that rape confers benefits in college society.
Here is what George Will wrote in the “offensive and inaccurate” column:
Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.
So what would Tony Messenger’s allegation have looked if he had told the truth: “We fired Will in part because a column published June 5, in which Mr. Will suggested that victims of micro-aggressions on college campuses enjoy a privileged status, made the decision easier. The column was offensive and inaccurate; we apologize for publishing it.”
No, that wouldn’t work. Tony Messenger had to lie, confident that there are enough liberal liars out there, committed to the narrative of the Republican war on women, who will insist on repeating the lie so loudly they will drown out any real media blowback.
I could rant more about this scum and his transparent lie about what George Will said, but I will move on to something more important, my second thesis.
Why hasn’t this happened before?
That is an important question. Conservatives believe with good reason that Leftists are a pack of illiberal censors or worse. But those who have a political agenda usually are more careful than that. Liberals don’t yet want to stifle all free speech. That gives the game away. Such an attack would alert too many people about their ethics (totalitarian politics) and their goals. The trick is to only censor as much as absolutely necessary. That way, all those columns by (mostly horridly establishment) conservatives can be used to assure the populace that there is diversity in our political culture. Every time George Will was published, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch could use him as a way of denying how Leftist they are.
Likewise, when they decide to punish someone for what they have written, they have to make it out that there was some kind of extreme ethical reason for doing so. Thus Messenger’s transparent lie about what George Will wrote.
So why move against George Will now? Voltaire’s advice on how to discover who rules you shows us the answer.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
In this case, it is not a matter of “Who?” but “How?”
George Will did not say what Messenger claimed but he did write against the Education Department’s new method for dominating campus culture and speech.
When we think of the Obama agenda, we are confronted with a lot of data. Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Mexico, drug cartels, defeating the Second Amendment, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, using the IRS to destroy conservative voters, amnesty, immigration lawlessness, anti-coal, anti-carbon dioxide, pushing homosexual and transgender culture, etc.
Lots of people have been able to write on on all that stuff without getting their column canceled. Perhaps this is all just coincidence, but I think we should seriously consider that this indicates that they are really invested in this Federal takeover of college campuses.
They think their new assertion of power is important. Maybe we need to spend more energy defeating and reversing it.
(hat tip: The Blaze)