Orwell Overestimated Minneapolis DFLers

From the never-ending “It depends on what the meaning of the term ‘is’, is” files – after seven months of demanding the defunding of the police, and a week of acting on it, members of the Minneapolis Student Senate…er, City Council claim they’re just misunderstood:

In June, Minneapolis city council members Steve Fletcher and Phillipe Cunningham appeared with seven colleagues on a stage bearing a huge sign reading ‘Defund Police’ during a protest in Powderhorn Park.

Now, the duo seem to be mincing words, with Fletcher telling KSTP-TV on Tuesday: ”Defund’ is not the framework the council has ever chosen,’ as Cunningham audibly agreed. 

‘If we’re going to look at how we fund different programs, it would be very hard to do that without taking that money from the Minneapolis Police Department,’ he continued.

Have you ever noticed that the only establishment media that ever actually reports on Minneapolis is in the UK?

12 thoughts on “Orwell Overestimated Minneapolis DFLers

  1. We’re not “de-funding” the police, we’re “re-funding” them. We’re taking back the money the police were given.

    This is not a bad thing, it’s a good thing. Minneapolis citizens are getting a refund. Everyone loves a refund, particularly persons of limited means who tend to be Black, female and children.

    Why do you hate little Black girls and want them to die?

  2. I used to receive the digital version of the Star Tribune, and a couple of months ago, I couldn’t stand it any longer, and didn’t renew. So true about getting better info from some news outlet from the UK.

  3. Berg, Berg, Berg.
    Just because they are un-funding the police does not mean that they are de-funding the police.

  4. Lot of comparisons with Orwell’s vision in the current year, but if you watch this 1958 interview, you will see it was Aldous Huxley that clearly saw the dystopian future we’re entering.

    He foresaw the rot that would occur when people of bad will manipulate mass communications…he even hints at cell phone technology, without naming it.

    The prescience is startling.


  5. Pete S., I’ve just finished Paul Johnson’s _Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky_.
    Johnson’s findings are best summarized in his afterword:
    One of the principal lessons of our tragic century, which has seen so many millions of innocent lives sacrificed in schemes to improve the lot of humanity, is-beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice. Beware committees, conferences and leagues of intellectuals. Distrust public statements issued from their serried ranks. Discount their verdicts on political leaders and important events. For intellectuals, far from being highly individualistic and non-conformist people, follow certain regular patterns of behaviour. Taken as a group, they are often ultra-conformist within the circles formed by those whose approval they seek and value. That is what makes them, en masse, so dangerous, for it enables them to create climates of opinion and prevailing orthodoxies, which themselves often generate irrational and destructive courses of action. Above all, we must at all times remember what intellectuals habitually forget: that people matter more than concepts and must come first. The worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas.

    Johnson’s definition of an intellectual is a person who would like to replace the habits of human relations, built up over tens of thousands of years, by his or her superior system, devised by thinking about it a lot.
    Johnson exposes the clay feet of the people considered visionaries by today’s elites, and shows that they are a phenomenon of the bourgeois, that is, the management class. with bourgeois concerns: money, status among their peers, and above all, not doing a lick of actual work.

  6. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 12.17.20 : The Other McCain

  7. Love Johnson. Read every book he written. I think.

    But I still defer to Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged is a much better representation of what is happening right now than 1984.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.