Updated: The True Genesis of Amnesty International...it's not what you might think!

The True Genesis of Amnesty International

Read the above article by Claudio Veliz in Quadrant Magazine: Australia's independent review of literature and ideas. Veliz was involved with the organization from its founding. Just for starters, Amnesty International came into being much earlier than its official founding date of 1960. And if you have ever suspected that Amnesty International is anything but politically neutral, despite its stated policy of representing "prisoners of conscience" from both the left and the right, you will learn exactly how and why your suspicions are correct.

According to Veliz:

The Cold War experience would also have confirmed Münzenberg’s conviction that waged urbi et orbi, such campaigns would be ignored inside a communist world undisturbed by a free press and public opinion, but would undermine the moral status of policies advanced by the United States and its allies.

More about this blog: No story in real life ever comes to a tidy end. Stories continue to unfold, and unlike other media, this blog makes a point of following up on them. Each time you revisit this blog, you may find more links and discussion, and sometimes rolling updates, on developing stories.

So here's an update, as of June 19, 2007:

The hidden leftist agenda of AI again comes to light in this recent article, Vatican Calls for Catholics to Stop Supporting Amnesty Int'l. One need not be a Catholic to regard AI's recent activities as a grotesque betrayal of the organization's stated aims:

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the Vatican, called on Catholics to stop supporting the group.

“If in fact Amnesty International persists in this course of action, individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support, because, in deciding to promote abortion rights, AI has betrayed its mission,” the National Catholic Register quoted him as saying.

Stein hoist to LittleGreenFootballs and
Gop3.com: The Triumvirate!

Technorati tags:
1389
About 1389 Blog
Amnesty International
Australia
Christianity
communism
culture wars
current events
history
liberal
politics
Spain

Stumble It!

Digging Negativism

By Analyze

Are Diggers informative, negative, or positive? I wanted to know so I took a recently popular article with the criteria that it must have over 1,000 diggs. My goal was to analyze it using some very powerful text analysis software, SPSS for Text Analysis. I used this article:

VP Cheney, while CEO of Halliburton, was a client of the escort service...

Here's what I found: 76% of the words used in posts were negative such as impeach, criminal, burn, evil, and so forth. Only 24% used positive words such as excellent, positive, better, and so forth.

It was obvious that Diggers are a negative bunch by about 3 to 1. Many diggers could learn from the words of George Washington:

The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.

Technorati tags:
Analyze (author)
Cheney
Digg
Halliburton
impeach
incivility
liberal
negative

Why do Diggers hate so much?

By Analyze

Today's front page political news on Digg has multiple stories lambasting Bush, Cheney, Republicans, Lott, Giuliani, Rove, and any other deemed Conservative by the Digger elitist. The liberal elite who argue that Fox News is "unfair and unbalanced" are the first to throw fairness and balance out the window. But have you ever wondered why they hate so much?

Consider the comments in those posts. They speak of "murdering idiots," "Bush's daily ass f***ing," and the denigration goes on and on and on. It is an endless diatribe of insults and, yes, violence. Rarely are the posts thoughtful or supported with facts. They are just petulant.

We can find the answer in some research done by Dr. Evan R. Harrington. In his work titled, The Social Psychology of Hatred, he points us to three reason for group hatred to help explain the vitriolic language of liberal Diggers.

The first approach may be thought of as a general model of social influence...The second approach might be termed an interpersonal attitude approach, in the sense that individuals are measured in the degree to which they hold attitudes corresponding to authoritarianism and social dominance, which in turn relate to social hostility and prejudice...The third approach focuses on social cognition or the way in which humans perceive the social world in a biased manner due to limits on the brain’s information processing capacity.

Let me interpret that in laymen's terms for our liberal friends: 1) You follow like lemmings; 2) You have a bad attitude; 3) You are dumb. So now we know. How sad they have come to the point that their social status is dependent on posting some diatribe about Bush et al. that few in society will ever notice or care about. Next time you see those hate-filled posts, just understand they are sadly lost. Those liberal haters on Digg are to be pitied.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe says it best: "Hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture."

Technorati tags:
Analyze (author)
Bush
Cheney
Digg
hate
hatred
incivility
liberal
politics
research
social hatred