Polite Kid

Many of you read AmRen. I read it, though I don't post there. But I am finding the quality of comments over there of late to be deteriorating.
First, I have heard that comments there are heavily moderated, and apparently many posts never make it, being culled out for whatever reason.
That's fine: I would actually prefer to read a moderated discussion from which the profane and illiterate posts are excluded, along with the obviously trollish and disruptive.
However I wonder what the policy is there, as regards which comments make it past moderation and actually get posted. I have noticed that the mod or mods are tolerating a lot of comments which are openly hostile to Christianity, from one poster in particular. He manages to work in some kind of dig at Christianity on just about every thread he posts on, regardless of the topic being discussed. For example, on a thread about the financial crisis and the 'subprime mortgage' situation, he gets in a shot at Christians.
If there were similar criticisms and slams of other religions, it might not be so noticeable, but on the many threads about, say, Somalis or Moslems per se, I recall seeing few criticisms of the Islamic religion. Christianity alone is fair game, it appears. Yet I don't recall this being the situation when I first began reading AmRen.
In addition to the anti-Christian comments, there is the commenter who repeatedly urges people to return to Europe. I mentioned him before; actually, it appears that there is more than one such poster, though they may be the same person under different names. The commenter always mentions that all his friends, or "many" of his friends, are relocating to Europe and blending right in there. The whole story seems implausible to me; what are the odds that an individual would know 'many' people emigrating to Europe? The rare person might know one such friend, but 'many'? I suppose it could be that he is living in an ethnic enclave and has many friends whose ties to the 'old country' have never been broken, and hence they've decided to return to their ancestral country. Still, the man seems to be on a mission to convince as many as possible to follow their example and go 'back to Europe.' Now, if he were making the argument that a certain country needs immigrants and welcomes them, it would make more sense, but he isn't making a pitch for a particular country or locality, just 'go back to Europe' where you will fit right in. It all seems odd to me, and the comments are repeated almost word-for-word on many threads over there, as if he is cutting and pasting.
And last, I've noticed that a certain leftist commenter has been dominating certain threads with digs at Protestantism, as well as slurs against the realists who make up most of the commentariat there. Why he is allowed to post repeatedly on certain threads and spew his nonsense is more than I can understand. I know that AmRen states that they 'reserve the right to hold critics to a lower standard' when it comes to comments, but there should be some limits to that policy.
I suppose I am just saying that I don't understand the moderators' standards for approving comments there. If the idea is to drive away people who are sympathetic to AmRen's cause, it might just work. Or if the idea is to provide a platform for obnoxious leftists and anti-Christians to spout their poisonous ideas, then they are certainly accomplishing that.
I think AmRen serves a useful purpose especially for people who are finding themselves opposed to political correctness and multiculturalism, and looking for answers, but I am disappointed with the direction they seem to be taking over there. It does seem as though the commenting standards have lowered, or changed. Does anyone else perceive it that way?

Labels: Blogosphere, Free Speech, Political Correctness

Just to let everyone know, I seem to have beeen hit hard by some kind of respiratory bug. So if I am missing in action tomorrow it will likely be because of that.
I hope you all will excuse any incoherency in my previous post; my brain seems not to be functioning at optimum tonight.
And I'll leave you with a link to a great blog post by Irish Tory, (H/T Flanders Fields) which paints a rather stark picture of our predicament in the West but which at the same time is eloquent and inspiring. I hope you find some inspiration in his words of exhortation. We all need it at this point, I think.
This hope is not in politics, it is not in arguing with our enemies, it is not in letter writing or pointless protests, it is not in powerless 'constitutional monarchies', it is in our souls, in our spirits, our peoples, the men of the west.
Read the rest at the link.

Labels: Blogosphere, Blogs, Christendom, Western Civilization, Western Decline

A few Obama-related links:
First, Barack Hussein Obama and the Triumph of Marxism
Fjordman's latest on Obama.
Several of the links following contain some information about Obama which certainly calls into question the facts presented by the candidate himself and his campaign people. However, I've been halfhearted about posting links of this kind because I think most of my readers have no illusions about Obama, and those who really should read these things and consider them objectively will not do so, being fully indoctrinated members of the cult. So it may be preaching to the choir to post these links, and I suspect most of you are aware of the information contained therein, having already read it at the linked sites or elsewhere. But I present the links as rather interesting information, raising further questions.
These links have some interesting information about Obama's vague past, and the many gaps and unanswered questions.
Pamela at Atlas Shrugs compiled an impressive amount of information about Obama's birth, and notes the discrepancies between the official story, and the (rather scant) existing public information.
This rather odd story from the Times UK introduces readers to Obama's 'auntie' living in public housing in Boston, and his uncle, both described as coping with the "harsh realities" of immigrant life in the U.S.
And last, but certainly not least, Steve Sailer has made his new book on Obama available online at VDare. It's available in .pdf format, and can be downloaded. I've downloaded it, but I have not yet started reading it. Have any of you?
The .pdf file is here: America's Half-blood Prince: Barack Obama's Story of Race and Inheritance

Labels: Blogosphere, Media Bias, Presidential Candidates

Obama picks Biden for V.P.
Barack Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware late Friday night to be his vice presidential running mate, according to a Democratic official, balancing his ticket with an older congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.
Biden, who has twice sought the White House, is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.
And , it appears, a plagiarist. He stole part of a campaign speech from British politician Neil Kinnock, if I remember correctly.
Why Biden? He seems a very lackluster choice. What is gained by having him on the ticket? What motivates this choice?
Not that it really makes any difference to me; to me, the two-party rigged system is not to be taken seriously anymore. I will vote third party regardless, but I am curious as to what my readers think of this, if anything.
Besides, I have little else to blog about tonight; does it seem to anyone else as if the blogosphere is especially quiescent lately? Or dispirited?
I've noticed that many of the blogs I used to read daily have either died or been abandoned, or have such infrequent posts as to be virtually extinct, while several are going on some kind of indefinite hiatus. Does anybody else notice this?
And does it seem lately as if the news is always just more of the same old same old, nothing 'new' about it? Has the news ever been more boring or ennui-producing than it is now?

Labels: Blogosphere, Elections, News, Party Politics, Politics, Presidential Candidates

My previous post on the Bhutto assassination and the 'War on Terror ' seems likely to elicit some of the same kind of ad hominems and childish name-calling as my post of last night, having to do with Ron Paul and the Lincoln/slavery/War Between the States issue.
My patience is at an end; disagree if you must but if name-calling and ad hominems and profanity are the only way you can make your point, then please don't bother. I will edit, delete, or ban as needed.
I recently said I don't want the discourse to be dragged down to that level on this blog; there are lots of places where that kind of thing is routine, but not here on my blog.
My whole reason and purpose for starting this blog was to air some thoughts and ideas that I saw as being excluded from the public discussion and debate. I had seen as much political correctness on the so-called 'right' as on the left, and many of its ardent practitioners are unable or unwilling to even admit that their politics are just another variation of liberalism, albeit in Republican or 'conservative' drag. It is precisely those politically correct 'conservatives' who inspired me to start this blog. If you are one of those PC 'conservatives' then this is a heads-up that you will encounter views here that anger you and probably provoke you to profanity, ad hominem attacks, or snarkiness. I don't intend for this blog to be a combat zone. I intend for it to be a place of civil discussion, preferably among people who agree on some very basic principles. One of the most basic principles here is that political correctness is not tolerated.
Open minds, however, are welcome here; if you are angered or moved to self-righteousness by politically incorrect views, please do us both a favor and move on to one of the many, many politically correct 'right-wing' blogs where your preconceptions won't be challenged or disturbed, and where you won't be offended and angered.
You get what you give on this blog; if you display a civil, grown-up attitude you will receive the same. If you are abusive, combative, and insulting, you will get a cold shoulder and maybe a ban. Such is life.
Thank you for observing my rules of civility and decorum. Those of you who seek honest discussion of conservative, traditionalist, ideas are welcome. Others, you have been informed of what to expect.

Labels: Blogosphere, Censorship, Freedom Of Speech, Incivility, Political Correctness

The Washington Times editorial writers give their post-mortem on the amnesty bill, and declare that it was killed by the American people.
The people killed amnesty
The justifiably furious reaction of the American public, which deluged senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes, forced the Senate to reverse itself yesterday and send the amnesty bill crashing to defeat � a potentially fatal blow. It was a devastating setback for the Bush administration and its Democratic Party allies, in particular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Ted Kennedy.
In addition to being an extraordinary substantive triumph for the American people, it was a huge victory for the conservative movement. Talkers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and many others played an indispensable role in making available the research by the Heritage Foundation and NumbersUSA and analysis from editorial pages such as this one to tens of millions of Americans in a very short period of time. But ironically, by demonstrating in a powerful way its ability to reach and educate the public about the specific problems with the bill, talk radio has also made liberal politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein even more determined to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine (the equal-time policy enforced by the Federal Communications Commission until it was eliminated in 1987 at the urging of President Reagan) in an effort to take away the one part of the mass media that conservatives dominate.''
They are right about the people delivering the coup de grace to the bill, by means of their calls, e-mails, and faxes.
However does talk radio in general deserve as much credit as this op-ed piece gives them? I don't listen to most of the personalities mentioned. Rush Limbaugh, however, I know has been a Johnny-come-lately to the borders issue, having been conspicuous by his absence from the debate until very recently, when he finally deigned to address it. And from what I hear, he was glibly predicting the amnesty bill would 'sail through' the Senate. Rush obviously underestimated the American people. Hannity has covered the border issue on Fox News, but to my knowledge, he is one of those people who makes quite a show of saying that he opposes only illegal immigration. In fact, most of the talk show personalities fit that category. Still, credit should be given where due, even if these talk radio people often play it safe and allow only politically correct criticisms of immigration. For instance, it's pretty much a given that any criticism of legal immigration is not allowed; only illegal immigration is fair game for debate. That is a huge problem that must be dealt with; if the open borders fanatics (and that is what they are) decide to forget amnesty for the time being, and just work on expanding legal immigration, what response will the 'respectables' have to that, since they have committed themselves to opposing only illegal immigration?
Too much of the debate on immigration is confined within the politically correct bounds of what is allowed to be discussed. If talk radio is to be really useful the debate should be broadened to include the full range of conservative opinion. Those who criticize talk radio for being 'too conservative' are clueless; the majority of talk radio hosts personalities are moderate/right-liberal.
But as far as mobilizing people to oppose the amnesty, the blogosphere has been a real force, I think. The old media, including the Washington Times, seem to have a blind spot where the blogging world is concerned. Some are of the belief that only a relative few log onto the Internet for news and discussion. I believe that more people than ever are turning to the Internet for these things, having found the old media to be hopelessly biased when covering political matters, and too focused on junk news when they are not force-feeding us propaganda. The Internet has created a group of very well-informed people, and these people in turn are exerting an influence on their friends and family who may not be Internet-savvy themselves.
VDare, Michelle Malkin, FAIR, and others who focus on the immigration issue have played a big role. The Internet is the only news source where you can access a full range of opinions and commentary. I think for many of us, the Internet expanded our horizons beyond the limited world of spoon-fed politics in the old media, including cable news channels.
So now that the people have killed amnesty, or at least stopped it in its tracks, what next? This should be an occasion for the people to feel their oats, and realize the power that resides in acting as a united group. The American people, as I've said before, are like Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians. We have for too long relinquished our strength, and allowed ourselves to be rendered immobile. There is still considerable power in a united majority.
Historian Will Durant said
'The political machine works because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.''
If the majority in this country only realized the power that inheres in the majority when that majority acts as one, we might be able to rediscover our strength, and break the self-imposed bonds that restrain us.

Labels: Amnesty, Blogosphere, Majority, Media, Politics, Talk Radio

Lately it seems as if the number of blogs I read daily is dwindling as some of those I formerly read have become defunct or gone on hiatus, and others have gotten too PC for me (or maybe I've gone farther to the right). I find less and less interesting or inspiring material. I feel a trifle discouraged with what is out there in the blogosphere. Maybe things are changing for the worse out there, or maybe I just need some new sources of information or inspiration.
Do my readers have any links to 'right-wing'/traditionalist/nationalist/pro-West/realist blogs or other websites which I or others out there might find stimulating or interesting? Or informative, blogs which are not on my blogroll(s)? Plug your own blogs if you like, or direct me to links you've found, if you please. Thanks.

Labels: Blogging, Blogosphere, Conservatism, Nationalism

In my travels around the internet, I came across a blog, apparently run by a British blogger, who simply collects and posts links to sites and blogs dealing with an eclectic array of subjects.
But this particular blog wears its politics on its sleeve -- which is fine up to a point, but if the purpose of the blog is simply to share links of interest on various subjects, is it not possible to put politics aside and simply offer those links without making a political point? I would hope that I could do so; I have thought of starting another blog strictly for the non-political items, things which are of interest, sometimes trivial or frivolous, sometimes just fun, diverting, or bizarre. But it seems that leftists and liberals see political lessons in anything and everything; they eat, live, breathe, and dream their politics and ideology. This is something I touched on in a blog entry I wrote recently, which I called 'No escaping politics.' I was lamenting the fact that even trivial and seemingly innocuous areas of life, such as popular entertainment, was politicized by liberals and leftists and their constant carping and moralizing. That tendency is evident on the blog I mentioned.
Just to illustrate what I mean, I would guess that about 75% of the links are in some way leftist/liberal, dealing with revisionist history from the point of view of some victim group or other, or otherwise politically correct to the max. For example, a web page for 'deaf queers.' (Their terminology, not mine.) And there are the obligatory links to pages about Malcolm X, Cesar Chavez, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela -- the whole pantheon of the left. Then there are links to sites about Liberian refugees, the Zoot Suit Riots, Afro-Cuba, the history of colonial oppression in the Congo, a site about the Pacific Island state of Tuvalu, which we are told is 'threatened by global warming.'
We find a link to a site about 'Self-harm' and an information clearing-house for self-harmers. I assume that 'self-harmers' are those who are into the morbid fad of cutting themselves and other such things.
There is a site by or for Nigerian artists, and one about the 'survivors of the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921.'
There are links to sites like 'Rabble' which is 'left-talk.' And there is a site called 'Knitters Against George Bush.'
There are many links to 'outsider artists' which seems to mean 'naive' or untrained artists who work in a very primitive or childish style; this is apparently hip, given the left's disassociation of art from beauty and grace.
There are links aplenty to sites having to do with 'sexual minorities' as well as obscure racial and ethnic minorites like Romany Gypsies and Melungeons. There are sites about homelessness, and sites which will give money for starving Argentine children for each click.
Reading through the many, many links at this blog is interesting but it begins to be very depressing after a couple of pages of such topics. I begin to consider what the world looks like to the leftists and liberals, and having been one (although I had some atavistic conservative beliefs which I never lost in those days) I can remember perceiving the world as this big mass of misery, full of victims -- who were righteous and saintly -- and victimizers, who were the successful people, the normal people whose success and normalcy were obviously gained at the expense of the poor victim groups.
The blog in question is an example of how leftists truly live in an 'alternative' universe, where only the bizarre, the outre, the exotic, the rebellious, the odd, and the Other are central to their universe. This alternate universe has its own history, in which the 'wretched of the earth' are front and center.
The leftist worldview focuses always on suffering and victimhood and 'outsider-hood'; there is righteous indignation and anger about all the suffering and injustice and poverty and inequality and low self-esteem. But there seems to be a cherishing of all these bad things; a tendency to prize these things as being somehow exalting in themselves. If you are a member of some oppressed victim group, based on race, ethnicity, sexual habits, criminal history (including immigration status) , or other outsider status, then you are automatically put on a pedestal of sorts; it's apparently an inversion of society's values, wherein we traditionally honored people who excelled or distinguished themselves, or people of character and ability.
Far from wanting to defeat poverty, injustice, war, oppression, or suffering, the left clings to those things, and cherishes them. It gives meaning and purpose to their lives. It enables them to have a self-righteous cause and an excuse to rail endlessly against the system, to strike a pose as the rebel, the seer, and the would-be avenger.
Now, we live in an age in which there is plenty wrong with the system, and the powers that be are seemingly detached from the people they claim to represent and serve, but all the same, the left is over the top in their opposition to the established order. It's all too evident that they would prefer to bring down the existing order of things, and destroy traditional society and its 'oppressive' rules and morality.
We all know from the evidence of history that leftism has never solved the problems it purports to have the answers to. Instead, leftist regimes, whether of the mild 'socialist' variety or of the harsher sort, exacerbate the problems they claim to fix. Injustice and inequality have never disappeared under a leftist system, and though they usually make claims to be for 'peace' they often result in bloodshed on a vast scale, as with Stalin and Pol Pot.
No, the left, despite their constant obsessing on the sufferings and injustices of this present world, does not want to solve these intractable problems; they identify with them too much. The things which enrage the left, the things they rail against so much, are part and parcel of the human condition since Adam and Eve were evicted from Eden.
Leftists are always in rebellion against authority, and they seem perpetually infuriated at the fact that we human beings have to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow. I think they would prefer to be able to return to the idyllic pre-Fall world, in which man and woman had things easy. But Adam and Eve lost that privilege when they rebelled against God's authority. The left is still rebelling against God's authority, still raging over the loss of Eden, and refusing to recognize that we human beings brought our troubles on ourselves.
In the meantime, since we are stuck with this imperfect world, it would seem that we should be able to enjoy what good and pleasant things there are -- and there are many -- without having to turn everything into an occasion for sob stories, condemnations, and bitterness. Not everything in the world need be turned into a political morality play.

Labels: Bloggers, Blogosphere, Leftism, Liberalism, Politics

In this article from the not-too-distant past, a blogger comments on a news story about -- what a coincidence -- blog wars.
...the kind of exchange that regularly lights up the blogosphere in varying degrees of nastiness. Feuds spill into vast corners of typo-ridden cyberspace as bloggers post and repost passages for paint-by-number demolition and incendiary comments fan the flames.
You can't help but think that Thomas Jefferson himself would be pleased to know that out there in the awesome equalizing social force that is the Internet, people armed with the power of free-flowing ideas are busy pummeling the crap out of each other.
More than that, they're doing it in public, with an often participatory audience. Blog fights are verbal steel-cage smackdowns with a revolving door. Says Ariel Meadow Stallings, a Seattle writer who posts her random musings at Electrolicious.com: "Bloggers are an inflammatory bunch."
It seems that even the innocuous topics, like parenting, often lead to ugly exchanges on the Internet. It isn't just politics that sparks this kind of thing. I was once on a message board discussion about a TV show that erupted into an ugly flame war.
So how does a blogger avoid being embroiled in this kind of thing, or defuse it once it's started?
Is it possible to unilaterally opt out of a blog war? Is it ended when one side stops fighting back?

Labels: Blogging, Blogosphere, Civility, Internet

This post is not one that I had planned for today, but it's an impromptu post, based on comments I just read on another site, comments which echo almost identical remarks I've read countless times on other, similar sites and forums. In fact, more than once, I've had such remarks aimed at me on this blog.
Have you all guessed what I am about to write? The comments in question were along the lines of 'you talk about what is wrong but what are we supposed to do? Why aren't you out doing something? Why does everybody just complain, and do nothing? What about organizing?'
I've addressed such complaints -- or accusations framed as questions, before. But since this is such a common question, I'll try again.
To begin with: there are websites, forums, and blogs that DO promote some kind of action, usually along the lines of organizing faxing/e-mail/phone/letter-writing campaigns. Some have promoted boycotts. Some publicize and take part in protests and rallies, sometimes counter-rallies where the pro-amnesty mob is protesting. This is possible mostly where the people involved in the web forums are able to network in the real world with like-minded people and actually physically get together and do things as a group. Many of the people on certain anti-illegal forums, for example, are located in Southern California or Arizona, and hence can act as a group in their local areas.
Some bloggers are encouraging web-based activism, like e-mailing. But what other options are there, given that we are all scattered here and there?
This blog, like many similar ones, however, is frequented by people who are mostly widely dispersed throughout this vast continent. By means of my site statistics, I know that my regular readers are located not only in the U.S. and Canada, but in Europe, Australia, and even a few in Asia and elsewhere. This situation does not lend itself to organizing any kind of group effort.
I don't usually exhort my readers to fax, write, e-mail, or call anybody; I've done that on the odd occasion, like when the amnesty bill in, one of its lives, was threatening to succeed. But in general I tend to trust that my readers are savvy enough to do those things, and informed enough to know how to go about it: how to contact their representatives and make their wishes known.
But I support those who organize such campaigns. I don't disparage them, and I try to do what I can when I can.
I think many of us are prone to forget local action; this may be the area in which to concentrate, as opposed to Washington D.C., which seems to become more remote and unresponsive, if not downright hostile, with each day. I think we should be as involved as we can in local affairs in our towns/cities and counties, and let's remember school boards too, although I think homeschooling is the best choice these days.
And when I read these frequent complaints on various blogs and forums, I often feel inclined to question whether the complaining person is himself doing all he could in the real world, or whether he is looking to others to not only raise the alarm but to fight the fire too. Are we looking for leaders rather than taking our own initiative? When did we become such a nation of bystanders? In many cases we have to become the leaders we are looking for. If we wait around for the man on a white charger, it may be too late.
It's also good to remember that just because some of us are on the Internet, blogging or posting comments, that does not mean that we are not also doing what we can do in real life. It's a fallacy that the person who is a ''keyboard warrior',' as some disparagingly put it, is a shirker out there in the everyday real world. All of us, surely, have lives outside the Internet where we take these issues just as seriously as we do in cyberspace.
None of us knows what the rest are doing or not doing out there in the real world; it's not a case of either/or; being an 'internet activist' hardly precludes doing something in real life -- unless one spends all of one's waking hours at the computer.
Ideas and action are not mutually exclusive, although often the 'men of action' and the thinkers and exhorters and philosophers are two different groups of people. Everybody has a part to play, and as with any other effort, there has to be some specialization of function. We can't all be carrying out the same roles.
It would seem that the sphere of action is out there in the world around us, in our immediate surroundings. The Internet, in many cases, is just a place to discuss, philosophize, strategize, gather moral support, spread the word, but out there in the towns and communities we each inhabit, that's where we have to focus our real-life efforts.
At the same time, if anybody out there has suggestions for practical ways we can act, or if anybody has successes they can relate to inspire the rest of us, or give us hints as to what we might do, or how best to do it, I'm interested in any such stories.
This is a frustrating, disheartening effort, when it seems that the odds against us are long, and many people are outright hostile to us, but let's not blame each other for the obstacles we encounter. We need to have some kind of spiritual unity to give us the strength to keep going.

Labels: Activists, Bloggers, Blogosphere, Politics

Apparently, conservatives are losing, or have lost, to liberals in the blogosphere.
A digital war has broken out, and the conservative movement is losing. Read the comment sections of right-leaning blogs, news sites and social forums, and the evidence is there in ugly abundance. Internet hooligans are spewing their talking points to thwart the dissent of the newly-out-of-power.
We must not let that go unanswered.''
Obviously this is not a new thing; the left has always had an army of zealots with apparently nothing to do but roam around the Internet and swarm right-wing blogs and forums. Even before the blogosphere was a factor, they were always on conservative forums, derailing discussions and provoking flame wars. Simply by disrupting and diverting the energies of the honest participants there, they managed to win a victory of sorts in most cases, without even having to post any substantial arguments or coherent refutations.
But according to the article the current administration is sending out new armies of fanatics to destroy the discussion at various conservative forums and blogs.
Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.
The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever.
Much of Mr. Obama's vaunted online strategy involved utilizing "Internet trolls" to invade enemy lines under false names and trying to derail discussion. In the real world, that's called "vandalism." But in a political movement that embraces "graffiti" as avant-garde art , that's business as usual. It relishes the ability to destroy other people's property in pursuit of electoral victory.''
From what I've observed, their intents and their tactics are childish, seeking mostly to cause chaos or anger wherever they go, and to fire off as many insults as they can before being banned.
The writer of the article deplores the fact that the right does not respond effectively, and does not try to engage leftists on their turf. The fact is, as most of us know, any sort of non-liberal view is not welcome on the left-wing blogs and forums, and will quickly get you banned, but not without your being insulted and pilloried by everybody on the board.
Personally I've never been inclined to participate in that kind of rolling in the mud with liberals and lefties, and that lack of willingness to participate in slanging-matches with lefties seems to be what the writer is lamenting. I don't know what he suggests should be done; I don't believe that the real hard-core lefties and liberals are potential converts, and I've seen that they are not amenable to reason or open to any opposing points of view. However the people who are less doctrinaire, the people of more flexible political leanings might be reasoned with, and it would seem they might be found on the forums or blogs where people gather to discuss other-than-political topics.
I've also thought (and said) that YouTube, being infested with many fanatical lefties who post inflammatory comments on all kinds of videos, is a place where people of more illiberal views ought to register and post more, so as to balance out the left-wing juveniles of all ages who leave their illiterate diatribes all over YouTube. Of course YouTube is politically correct, so the lefties will have free rein there while right-wingers and pro-Whites will be tolerated far, far less, but there is a real need for other points ot view to be heard, even if the comments get deleted sooner or later. I see very few posts which are not liberal to left on YouTube.
As for the problem of trolls on this blog, I've had them, and the left-wing types can be extremely nasty. While some believe that 'free speech' means that trolls should not be banned and their comments not deleted, I disagree. A blog is under the control of the owner, as is a forum, and comments are there at his or her sufferance. Yes, everybody has a right to a point of view but none of us have a right to post our points of view just anywhere we choose. We all know that newspapers, which are supposed represent 'freedom of the press' do not allow controversial or non-PC comments to stand, in many cases, and not every letter to the editor will be published. Those which are published are often edited. So there is no ironclad rule that a blog has to allow any comment by anyone in the name of 'free speech.'
The liberal and leftist trolls are almost always nasty and uncivil, with sarcasm and vitriol being their only language.
Sadly though, I've been more frequently attacked by those on the 'right' than by lefties. The lefties usually call me the predictable names they call even the mildest Republican: "racist" or "bigot" or "hater."
My enemies on the right, however, have attacked me for being 'an extremist', and on the other hand, have called me a PC hypocrite, a 'Jewdeoxtian', a 'rapture bunny' a 'redneck', a 'hillbilly' a "patriotard' (because of the fact that 'American' is part of my blog name) and other such typically liberal slurs. It seems I am too right-wing for some, yet not right-wing enough for others.
I've been criticized by some on the right who objected to the people I link to, and found me guilty by association of whatever the supposed sin of a given blogroll partner. Fine; I stand by those I link to, though that does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything they may say, nor do they necessarily endorse everything I say.
I've been attacked on the basis of my ancestry and had my "mental health" questioned in a very personal and nasty way -- from people on the right.
I've been told I am a 'political purist' while others say I am not enough of a purist because I don't take a position on their favorite issue.
I've had commenters leave in a huff because I let non-PC comments stand, usually criticisms of Jews. I was told that if I did not delete said comments and ban the commenter, the complainer would be forced to leave my blog and not return here anymore. Upshot: I let the comments stand, and lost several regulars. My principle is that there are no sacred cows; I won't put a group above scrutiny or criticism. On the other side, others have accused me of 'cowardice' for not personally addressing the 'Jewish question.' So there's no winning, and no pleasing everybody. I can't be all things to all people.
And I've noticed I'm not alone in this; I've seen other right-wing bloggers experiencing similar problems, and my conclusion is that there is a disturbing amount of infighting on the right, a lot of 'eating our own'. All the while, the left never lets up on us, and our country is slipping away, and we are all fighting amongst ourselves.
Personally it particularly grieves me when a fellow Christian wants to quarrel publicly with me; as Christians, we are not supposed to do that. I would prefer someone PM me if they have an issue, and to do so civilly as Christian brethren should. I think it's bad for all Christians when we fall out amongst ourselves in public.
Sometimes it crosses my mind that many of these attacks from the 'right' may in fact be lefties posing as right-wing in order to sow discord and bad feeling within the ranks of the right. On the other hand, realistically, conservatives and race-realists tend to be rather fractious and stubborn people by nature, I think, and it's predictable that we would disagree at times.
Maybe part of the reason why we do so little to defend against the rabid left is that we are too busy picking and pecking at each other.
As I've said before, we have to learn to put aside any differences we have and make common cause; this is not a time in which we can afford to fall out amongst ourselves. Whatever differences we on the realist right have, we can defer those and put them aside in favor of saving what is left to be saved.

Labels: Blogosphere, Conservatives, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Leftism, Liberal Intolerance