From the files of Ben Wetmore: "Center-right Moral Crusades: 'Get mad, get mad dog mad'"

NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

Today, from November 2008, "Center-right Moral Crusades: 'Get mad, get mad dog mad'":

Too often those on the right are content to give charts, statistics and pristine figures for our arguments. We let the other side roll out fake grandmothers, women lying about recycling cans for food, fake claims of hate crimes and wonder why, even when these incidents are proven wrong time and time again, we keep losing to people. 
 
Only when one confronts a leftist who is screaming about the tragic death of Matthew Shepherd and points out that it had nothing to do with his homosexuality and everything to do with a drug deal gone wrong, does one understand the mentality of the other side. When they learn the truth they simply don't care, they keep screaming about hate crimes. 

So this isn't a claim to become as irrational as the other side, or merely to parrot back opposing moral outrage to our issues somewhat artificially. No, we ought to set our own real priorities, examine how the proposals on our side and theirs affect real people, and then apply real instances that have a strong emotional appeal for those who are not well educated on our topics. 

The emotional appeals can become a hook from which they learn the facts and the figures and statistics that show that our side is truthful and honest about these problems, but we can't forget that crucial middle point of attracting people in the first place through emotional appeals to become interested in our topics and solutions.

- issue - normal appeal - emotional appeal - leftist rebuttal - addressing their rebuttals Affirmative Action "fairness" and "merit" Whites are pushed out; all races are taught to look down to blacks; blacks are set up to fail in jobs or in colleges they aren't ready for minorities suffered through slavery, and now suffer through unequal access to advancement slavery is about controlling someone's destiny, and now we have the state controlling and managing people's destinies due to race Abortion "Rights" of the unborn The girl who survived an abortion: Gianna Jennssen Back-alley abortions Gianna survived a back-alley abortion, what does that make her? Bureaucracy Inefficiency the the the Business Regulation "Overregulation" the the the Christian Assaults "Freedom" Attacks on nuns, hurting nuns "Separation of Church and State" The state is busy separating the Church from the people, hurting nuns and suing nuns Taxation "Individual rights" and "Capitalism" Business owners who can't afford daycare Poor people need our help If poor people had jobs, they wouldn't be poor, and would be taxpayers Environmentalism High regulatory costs Suffocation of new industry and the creation of new jobs for immigrants, minorities, the uninsured and poor people the the Foreign Wars Usually a mind-numbing pro-war, pro-bombing mentality that does us no good. National bankruptcy; military deaths that will only lead to more future conflicts and, sadly, more deaths Body bags These wars come about because of Democrat policies, and Democrat weakening of the military Immigration "Border Security" Crimes by immigrants, victims of border insecurity, sex crimes Javier who "does the jobs white people won't take" and is just trying to earn money to send back home to Tijuana the Healthcare "Socialism" Deaths due to bureaucracy; elderly deaths due to rationing; denial of care The "Uninsured" the Tuition Needless bureaucratic growth Tuition slavery as undergraduates spend ten years paying off debt Student "services" the

topics we ought to be worked up over: Abortion Abortion activism Abortion healing Academic standards Alternative media Courtship Homosexual therapy Marriage Tuition Unionism and we should develop ways to do grassroots organizing around these topics leftists organize around: Domestic violence Racism Sexism

Pro-life activists not ashamed to use the tactics of the Left against them

By James O’Keefe

In February 2008, Lila Rose and I released our second undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood. We were able to donate money to the organization for the explicit purpose of reducing the number of black babies born in the United States – in line with the intentions of Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger.We carefully chose a dozen or so “one party consent” states, where it is legal to audio record someone without their consent. Not a single Planned Parenthood employee we spoke to was disinterested in the prospect of a donation for our stated purposes. We asked that our donation to be earmarked for minority mothers only. Autumn Kersey, vice president of development for the Idaho division of Planned Parenthood, actually confessed she was “excited” about the donation. We received nationwide news coverage for our sting operation and put Planned Parenthood on the defensive because of its advocacy of black genocide.

While many pro-life organizations across the country continue focusing on development, this investigation was far more effective, as it managed to expose Planned Parenthood’s original intentions and raise awareness using telephones and a public university’s video editing program.

This kind of political technology needs to be further utilized by young conservative activists. When I was editor of The Rutgers Centurion, the conservative newspaper at Rutgers University in New Jersey, I convinced administrators to ban Lucky Charms cereal on the grounds it is offensive to Irish Americans. This was done to satirize political correctness on campuses, using what legendary leftist activist Saul Alinsky called the most effective political tactic of all – mockery. It was a win-win scenario: If they did not ban Lucky Charms, they would appear to be biased against Irish Americans. If they did, they would be branded as ridiculously sensitive, as was the case. Likewise, either Planned Parenthood accepts donations from racists, or they must reject the view of their founder, Sanger, as racist.

We framed the issue in a creative way. We did not tackle abortion conventionally but from the racism angle. Because leftists believe that racism is a cardinal sin, we used their rules against them.

Alinsky believed in doing whatever necessary to disrupt and annoy power structures, applying constant pressure and opposition. Applying some of his tactics from “Rules for Radicals,” we (a) never went outside our own experience, (b) went outside our opposition’s experience, (c) used enjoyable tactics and did not spend too long on any particular one and (d) made people believe we were a 1,000 member coordinated conspiracy when there are really only three of us. Many in the pro-life movement criticize using deceit in exposing the racism and absurdity in the abortion movement, but are willing to condemn Planned Parenthood for what we exposed utilizing those tactics.

Many students around the country have nodded in agreement with my theories on activism, but they fear doing what it takes to make them happen. The movement dies when it becomes boring and risk-averse. The hardest part about being a leader is getting people to focus on action in addition to philosophy. If you must spend time “convincing” anyone of anything, it is that they owe it to their philosophy to take action. In the pro-life movement it has been particularly difficult to find people to believe in these tactics, or have the courage to use them.

Leaders taking on power structures need to be raw, confident, fearless and impermeable. Lila received a letter threatening to prosecute the group for violating wiretapping laws, but it did not stop her from continuing the investigation. After the investigation aired nationally on Fox News, Planned Parenthood could no longer press charges, as Lila would appear the victim.

Activists should always be forward thinking and compound successes immediately. For example, pro-life activists across the country could easily replicate our racism project locally by demanding Planned Parenthood be banned from their respective community or campus. “Shut down Planned Parenthood because abortion is murder,” simply will not work. The demand should frame the issue in leftist terms, making it harder to say no. It could be something like “We strongly oppose racism at Springfield State. To honor Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy, we demand that Planned Parenthood be disaffiliated from campus.” It will be very hard for a town or campus bureaucrat to say “no” to anything that claims to honor MLK Jr.

Most importantly, conservative activists need to be their own media, and use their independent media to obtain their goals. In our situation, You Tube decided to arbitrarily ban Part II of our investigation, which had received tens of thousands of views, because it violated the “Terms of Use.” To my knowledge there was nothing in our videos that constituted a violation. We were more likely targeted due to our message, considering that there are millions of other videos that break copyright laws or contain sexual or violent material that are ignored. It is crucial to maintain independent broadcasting capabilities in print and online to get the word out.

The media coverage gained from our investigations is fun but fleeting. Media is unfortunately thought to be an end, but it should be a means. The purpose of our investigation was not just to get on Fox News but to get Planned Parenthood banned from UCLA. If we are successful, this story will likely make the Los Angeles Times and Larry King Live. This would, in turn, encourage others and lead to results so significant across the country that the mainstream media will not be able to ignore them.

Through all of this, your purpose and goal must be clear. We are not doing this just for fun or to embarrass Planned Parenthood; we want to stop them from continuing their murderous activities once and for all. 

NJO: This was originally posted at newguardmag08.blogspot.com.

 

From the files of Ben Wetmore: "Restructuring Leftist's Fancy Language"

NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

On this day, "Restructuring Leftist's Fancy Language [sic]":


If you read enough leftist literature, especially college-oriented texts, you find a variety of words that only make sense in context, ones that you've never heard in normal conversation. Such gems as "heterosexist" and "pseudovalues" or "moral pathologies" or "neocolonization" are bandied about as though, well, as though they're real words.
 
And God bless these leftists, they are incapable of producing one dollar worth of real value, or "value" to our postmodern readers, to the economy but are remarkably creative and productive when it comes to making up words, or, bear with me, "pro-neovernacular construction."

And while these leftists are busy making up new words, we're faced with the challenge of figuring out what the hell they mean, and also dealing with the inherent connotations that these new words bring. We're always playing defense! We ought to go out of our way to define their crazy thoughts with the same flair that they obviously enjoy ridiculing our principles.

This exercise is also pertinent to the longer discussion about the tactics of pivot-point and also the Leesburg grid.

So, in the pro-neovernacular constructionist spirit, we've listed out some fancy new words to describe leftists on the left and would love to hear any input or suggestions that you might have to add to, amend or correct any of the words and phrases. As you can see, we could always use the simple answers to describe them, but the fancy language just makes it sound so much better.

-	their fancy language	-	normal language	-	our fancy language	-
	Marxist		Thief		neocollectivist rationalizer
	Queer		Pervert		anal-centric hypersexualist
	Pro-"Choice"		Pro-Abortion		infant termination apologists
	Clinic Doctor		Abortionist		infant terminator
	Feminist		Man-hater		Woeman - antiphallic gender discriminator
	Postmodernist		Idiotic		pro-definitionless
	Relativist		Coward		subjectivist
	Deconstructionist		Whiner		academically intolerant
	Religious Hater		Atheist		deistiphobic
	Communist		Red Bastard		Genocidal communitarian
	Lesbians		Dykes		vaginal hypersexualist
	Pornographers		Degenerates		sexual addict and social sexual infector
	Neoconservative		Liberal		Democratic Imperialist
	Radical Blacks		Uppity		Afrikan reinventionist
	Racial Instigators		Outside Agitators		Corporate racialists
	Modernists		Modernists		Ageists - elderly intolerant

Non-Gay Men with Girlfriends get Married to Each Other

NJO: Title, video and blurb from James O'Keefe's YouTube channel VeritasVisuals.

Uploaded on Nov 16, 2008

Two Heterosexual men obtain three marriage licenses in Auburn, Worcester and Southborough, MA. They tell the county clerks they're marrying for benefits sake, they have girlfriends, and they will soon get divorced.

In James' speech to the American Chesterton Society in 2010, he offers some insight into the thinking behind the video:

"When I visit these government bureaus in my investigative videos I find that nothing shocks people anymore. Nothing shocks a bureaucrat. There's a sense of soullessness in the way they conduct their affairs. In other video I got married. Now I am heterosexual, and I got married to a male friend of mine. I got a marriage license saying I want to get married and get divorced in a week; I just want the benefits. And they married me. They didn't blink an eye."

Also the Washington Examiner had a short article about the video in 2010 which has since been scrubbed. This from the archived page:

Say what? O'Keefe tried to marry a man in 2008

[...]

Like a scene out of "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" O'Keefe and his friend Ben Wetmore attempted to legally marry in the commonwealth of Massachusetts for "insurance purposes." But unlike the 2007 film, the two made it clear to city workers and O'Keefe's hidden cameras that they were not gay, and had girlfriends. They said the marriage was merely for benefits and the two intended to divorce.

"I just want to make sure, is it OK that we're not gay?" O'Keefe asks in the video.
When Yeas & Nays asked O'Keefe for comment on the video, he said, "Ben and I were investigating the way soulless government bureaucrats treat the institution of marriage in Massachusetts. 'It's just a piece of paper, right?'"

Minions / fellow culture warriors involved:

Ben R. Wetmore

Ben Wetmore

Ben Wetmore and James O'Keefe are both former students and employees of The Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia. Wetmore was the Institute's Director of Student Publication Workshops 2004-2006, and O'Keefe was one of its Field Coordinators in 2007.