Skip to 1:29 for the exciting part.
- Plato: For the greater good.
- Karl Marx: It was a historical inevitability.
- Machiavelli: So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion maintained.
- Hippocrates: Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas.
- Jacques Derrida: Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the chicken crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD!
- Thomas de Torquemada: Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out.
- Timothy Leary: Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment would let it take.
- Douglas Adams: Forty-two.
- Nietzsche: Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.
- Oliver North: National Security was at stake.
- B.F. Skinner: Because the external influences which had pervaded its sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a fashion that it would tend to cross roads, even while believing these actions to be of its own free will.
- Carl Jung: The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated that individual chickens cross roads at this historical juncture, and therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being.
- Jean-Paul Sartre: In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken found it necessary to cross the road.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein: The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects "chicken" and "road", and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.
- Albert Einstein: Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the chicken depends upon your frame of reference.
- Aristotle: To actualize its potential.
- Buddha: If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-nature.
- Howard Cosell: It may very well have been one of the most astonishing events to grace the annals of history. An historic, unprecedented avian biped with the temerity to attempt such an herculean achievement formerly relegated to homo sapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurence.
- Salvador Dali: The Fish.
- Darwin: It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees.
- Emily Dickinson: Because it could not stop for death.
- Epicurus: For fun.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson: It didn't cross the road; it transcended it.
- Johann von Goethe: The eternal hen-principle made it do it.
- Ernest Hemingway: To die. In the rain.
- Werner Heisenberg: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.
- David Hume: Out of custom and habit.
- Jack Nicholson: 'Cause it [censored] wanted to. That's the [censored] reason.
- Pyrrho the Skeptic: What road?
- Ronald Reagan: I forget.
- John Sununu: The Air Force was only too happy to provide the transportation, so quite understandably the chicken availed himself of the opportunity.
- The Sphinx: You tell me.
- Mr. T.: If you saw me coming you'd cross the road too!
- Henry David Thoreau: To live deliberately ... and suck all the marrow out of life.
- Mark Twain: The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated.
- Molly Yard: It was a hen!
- Zeno of Elea: To prove it could never reach the other side.
- Chaucer: So priketh hem nature in hir corages.
- Wordsworth: To wander lonely as a cloud.
- The Godfather: I didn't want its mother to see it like that.
- Keats: Philosophy will clip a chicken's wings.
- Blake: To see heaven in a wild fowl.
- Othello: Jealousy.
- Dr. Johnson: Sir, had you known the Chicken for as long as I have, you would not so readily enquire, but feel rather the Need to resist such a public Display of your own lamentable and incorrigible Ignorance.
- Mrs. Thatcher: This chicken's not for turning.
- Supreme Soviet: There has never been a chicken in this photograph.
- Oscar Wilde: Why, indeed? One's social engagements whilst in town ought never expose one to such barbarous inconvenience - although, perhaps, if one must cross a road, one may do far worse than to cross it as the chicken in question.
- Kafka: Hardly the most urgent enquiry to make of a low-grade insurance clerk who woke up that morning as a hen.
- Swift: It is, of course, inevitable that such a loathsome, filth-ridden and degraded creature as Man should assume to question the actions of one in all respects his superior.
- Macbeth: To have turned back were as tedious as to go o'er.
- Whitehead: Clearly, having fallen victim to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
- Freud: An die andere Seite zu kommen. (Much laughter.)
- Hamlet: That is not the question.
- Donne: It crosseth for thee.
- Pope: It was mimicking my Lord Hervey.
- Constable: To get a better view.
- Yeats: She was following the Faeries that sang to her to come away with them from the dull, bucolic comfort of the farmyard to the waters and the wild.
- Shelley: 'Tis a metaphor for the pursuits of man: though 'twas deemed an extraordinary occurrence at the time, still it brought little to bear on the great scheme of time and history, and was ultimately fruitless and forgotten.
- Tolkien: Chickens are respectable folk, and well thought of. They never go on any adventures or do anything unexpected. One fine spring day, as the chicken wandered contentedly around the farmyard, clucking and pecking and enjoying herself immensely, there appeared a Wizard and thirteen Dwarves who were in need of a chicken to share in their adventure. Reluctantly she joined their party, and with them crossed the road into the great Unknown, muttering about how rude the Dwarves were to take her away on such short notice, without even giving her time to brush her feathers or fetch her hat.
The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.
A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups, carrying out its mission through a network of 30 Regional and Satellite Offices in the United States and abroad. 
Although it has become quite cliché to reference Orwell and his conception of agents of ‘thought police’ in worlds, I believe the ADL fits the criteria almost perfectly. They are a group that decrees a ‘multiculturalist’ message, but in fact they are a group of nationalists who use “Antisemitism” to crush any criticism of their agitation for Jewish interests. It is devious, but also brilliant.
DEFINING THOUGHT POLICE
Let us define the category of ‘thought police’ first.
It is the job of the Thought Police to uncover and punish thoughtcrime and thought-criminals, using psychology and omnipresent surveillance […] to find and eliminate members of society who were capable of the mere thought of challenging ruling authority. 
This is the definition used the 1984 fiction, so it will need some modifying for the real world (although not much).
NATIONALISM AND EXAMPLES
The ADL’s main mission, we can deduce from above, is to prevent the spread of anti-Semitic messages throughout society. Let us get one thing clear, the ADL claims it opposes all forms of bigotry, but it is more useful (and clear) to look at them as a Jewish nationalist group. The ADL claims anyone who criticizes the Israeli state and its actions, is simply trying to exhibit their anti-Semitism through a different medium. On their home website, they even provide resources to assist Jews who wish to agitate for pro-Israeli legislation to their representatives . They also have cookie-cutter responses ready on their website to counter anti-Israeli sentiments . It is obvious, if we look at the ADL’s mission statement and web entries, that they are Jewish nationalists that advocate for their own interests without regard for others. I am not saying this (ethnocentric nationalism) is a bad quality to possess, but in the media the ADL portrays itself as a shield of tolerance and an example of a ‘victimized’ people that fights back against cultural and ethnic repression. The ADL is not anything special, they are a group of nationalists.
If you are not convinced of the ADL’s efforts to silence any anti-Israeli sentiment, take a look at this instance:
In the 1970′s, the group was caught distributing lists of persons deemed as enemies, according toSF Weekly in its February issue. Among those who were defamed for being “pro-Arab propagandists” was the highly renowned professor Noam Chomskey. In 1993, according to the same source, the ADL was caught illegally spying on nearly 10,000 people “including members of socialist, labor and anti-apartheid groups.” 
As early as the ’70s, the ADL has been on a mission to quell any anti-Zionist dissent, and it makes sense. The ADL is agitating for a Jewish state, and since they are not criticized for their clandestine spying behavior, they have succeeded in being able to amass significant censorship operations to meet their objective. Notice how the group views their opposition as ‘enemies’, not simply as people who differ ideologically, but ‘enemies’ who are vehemently opposed to them. This is a great tactic, demonizing your opposition and categorizing their dissent as ‘anti-Semitic’ in the mainstream effectively destroys any method of your opposition being able to voice their opinion in a significant medium. Again, there is a common theme, the ADL is a devious group, but brilliant! The Gestapo would be proud!
It seems the ADL even crusades against intellectuals as well! I wouldn’t call Chomsky a ‘pro-Arab’ propagandist (since he is fucking Jewish himself), but since Chomsky is slightly influential to the intellectual mainstream, the ADL responds to his criticism with a little extremism.
And take a look at this interesting partnership:
“YouTube is an incredible tool for sharing videos and giving individuals an opportunity to broadcast themselves, but like other social networking sites it can be abused or used for sinister and dangerous purposes,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “There are those who may try to exploit the technology to spread racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of hate.” 
Exploiting technology, eh?
Having a stake in the popular video-sharing website makes sense as well for the ADL. Foxman, you are the one using technology as exploitation, using it to demonize your opposition and protect Jewish ideological interests whilst hiding under a veil of altruistic endeavor!
They have even tried to get their hands into American libraries, by going after the ALA for ‘anti-Israel’ sentiment.
DOES THE ADL MEET ‘THOUGHT POLICE’ CRITERIA?
Now, let us see if the ADL sufficiently meets the conditions for ‘Thought Police’.
Thoughtcrime is the most obvious similarity, the ADL calls its thoughtcrime ‘anti-Semitism’. Anyone who exhibits any anti-Israeli sentiment is immediately deemed ‘anti-Semitic’ (as if it were a crime) and dismissed as such. In this instance, thoughtcriminals would be those who express said anti-Semitic attitudes. The ADL’s mission statement I provided makes it pretty clear what their objective is.
Does the ADL use psychology and omnipresent surveillance to find and eliminate who challenge their authority?
You bet your ass they do. The earlier examples of ADL espionage and target listing, I believe, are sufficient evidence that shows the ADL relies on cloak-and-dagger surveillance to obtain awareness of their opposition’s activities. The ADL also uses psychology to undermine their opponents, to see this one must simply look at the example of the ADL’s attack on Chomsky. The ADL accused Noam of expressing ‘pro-Arab propaganda’ and simply reduced his position to political meme-spreading. Chomsky, however, makes it clear his anti-Israel position is one based on his general attitude towards imperialism . The ADL uses black and white thinking, the classic fallacious mentality of ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’. They undermine their opponents by making anti-Semitism (or anti-Israeli sentiment) akin to a pathological disorder, a disease. Obviously, opposition to Jewish nationalism can and is more complex than that, but people like Foxman would rather not debate the merits of his people’s nationalism, he just wants to call dissenters names and leave it at that.
There you have it.
The ADL is nothing but a group of Jewish nationalists who use psychological tricks and manipulation to advance their interests. Personally, I would not mind Jewish nationalism if, at least, they were HONEST about their mission. If they did not demonize other racial groups and their attempts at nationalism, (like say, white people) then their nationalism wouldn’t seem so sinister. Hiding under a veil of tolerance and ‘anti-bigotry’ is a lazy tactic, because it allows groups like the ADL to advance their own interests without having to actually discuss why their interests ought to be agitated for. Why argue with someone when you can just call them an ‘anti-Semite’?
Groups like the ADL really suck because they give malicious representations of Jewish people. It seems as if Jewish intellectual and political leaders do more to portray a negative Jewish Stereotype than fight it, and damn do they do a good job.
The ADL is one of the greatest examples of any agency coming close to the category of ‘Thought Police’.
As eloquently described by Noam Chomsky in his book Necessary Illusions (1989):
The leading official monitor of anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith, interprets anti-Semitism as unwillingness to conform to its requirements with regard to support for Israeli authorities…. The logic is straightforward: Anti-Semitism is opposition to the interests of Israel (as the ADL sees them). …
The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming “one of the main pillars” of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on. These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel’s refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement. 
A new feminism meme on the internet? No way!
The video above contains a long, emotionally-driven “apology” from a group of male feminists named “Conscious Men”. These “conscious men” took it upon themselves in the video to apologize for the supposed centuries of oppression women have had to endure (of course men are to blame). The men - I would not even call them men - appear in the video all with empathetic gazes, as if they were pretending to stare into women’s eyes to prove how their apology is sincere (and not trying to score some points, even though that is what it seems like).
I don’t understand the drive necessary to push such an anti-masculine message. I mean, masculinity within men is mostly innate, a complete fruit can still possess remnants of manhood that exist on an instinctual level. Now of course, these fellows define masculinity differently and distinguish between the status quo masculinity and “conscious” masculinity. Nowhere do they define what the hell they mean by this exactly, but I guess that ought to be expected. To them, ‘conscious’ masculinity is probably masculinity accepted by feminists, which is the antithesis of the pursuit in the first place!
This desire to maintain a state where you offend no group and no person infects all facets of society now. Although this is just one video of some crazy group, I think this is political correctness evolving. As of now, we are aware of PC and the ridiculousness it exhibits at times, however, it is still commonplace in both the media and society for people to respond to arguments with “that’s offensive” or “I”m offended” or “that’s racist” or “that’s sexist”, as a counter-argument. What if the next wave of political correctness is an even more ridiculous revision of social histories; are the new wave of feminists going to say they were mathematical geniuses and Amazonian warrior women before male patriarchal oppression begun?
bragantim asked: Why did you stoled my design which I didn't make but why.
Because you stole my land from my people.
How is important is cultural diversity in your school?
(watch before reading)
Currently, I attend a public high school, right in the minority-laden district of a densely populated Southern California city.
As a minority myself, of Mexican/Amerindian descent, I may with utmost certainty say that “diversity” lingers around campus thought and policy. “Diversity”, in its idealistic form, hovers around the campus as if questioning the premise would entail you clamor for the return of segregation, or worse, slavery. Its not a flagrant display of propaganda, no that would be too melodramatic. Its presence is subtle, like most ideals.
Diversity plagues our textbooks, with suggestive pages of people of all different skin colors and varying cultures; all neatly arranged holding hands in a proverbial group circle as if our interracial and cultural history resembled a bonfire on one of California’s many sandy shores. Diversity, of course, also manifests itself in the student body; blacks, whites, Asians, Mexicans (who make up the majority), Filipinos, Indians, and even some native Americans are thrown in for good measure, all walk the campus.
Diversity and the message of “equality” among the student body acts as a daily prayer preached by the principal and the army of administrators. The students are given a collective, scholastic identity through the school and her mascot; the common drivel we are persuaded to accept is that since all of us attend the same school and receive the same education, we share some type of bond, and out of this bond somehow an ethic arises. The ghastly ethic of dishonest equality rears its head, or the claim: “we all ought to view each other as equals”. We are supposed to accept forceful integration; we are forced to act and remain content with associating with folks that we probably wouldn’t have any intention of associating with given the choice.
Yes, on my campus, “diversity” is viewed as an end in itself, a goal, a purpose, or a telos; although the name might change, the idea does not. The schoolwide SAT scores plummet, yet, our administrators are at a loss for an explanation outside of “the kids don’t study hard enough”. I would bet if constant fights and rumbles between gangs broke out - mostly between graffiti enthusiasts and vandals - the remedy would be a menial cascade of anti-violence and pacifist lectures. The major cause of unrest within the school would remain ignored, however.
I am not over-simplifying the issue either, obviously other factors may come into play. But for the most part, forced integration seems to take on the role of an obstacle or weakness more than a strength. We can blame the teenagers and the adolescent tendency to act out, for its own sake. I admit it is not unreasonable to attribute certain anti-social behavior within schools and students, to just a general dislike of authority and people around you. But you just don’t see these kinds of problems in racially/culturally homogenous (i.e. similar) places, places like Japan or China (not that they don’t have their own problems.
All that one needs is a brisk walk across the quad areas during the lunch break; one panoramic glance reveals kids all separated from each other, mostly separated by similar appearance and race. You can name it a tendency of teenagers to clique up because of a stereotype threat, you can call it an adolescent desire to belong to a group; I call it the natural predisposition to segregate with those whom you feel most comfortable around, and my school administration aims to suppress this very natural instinct, to achieve an obligation for an unattainable moral ideal. Get over yourselves, we are not all equal, and you don’t have a right to not be offended!