Polite Kid

Here's a rather interesting situation: author Orson Scott Card is the cause of some liberal handwringing among librarians. It seems he is being given an award by the American Library Association, but this can't be, because the 'library community' (liberals love that word community, don't they?) is in a tizzy over his homophobia. What to do?
This is a difficult issue, as librarians (supposedly) believe that information, in all of its forms, should be available to everyone, regardless of how repugnant we may personally or politically find it to be.
Especially in academic libraries, it behooves us to select things with which we disagree on occasion. The question then becomes, what message does giving Card this award send? I've drawn a couple of conclusions from this whole thing.
1) It is vitally important, when deciding to give someone a really big award, to know as much about that person as possible. Remember, in this case, the award was given to the person, not the work. Librarians involved in this particular award didn't do their homework, which has caused some serious problems for them, as well as a major public relations hit for ALA.
On the other hand, we cannot know that the committee would have decided any differently with the information in hand. 2) Awards for children's and young adult literature are particularly thorny, because there is always a struggle between those who wish to protect children from "bad things" in the world, and those who acknowledge that "bad things" exist, and wish to help their children navigate them through reading and discussion. These two groups, often, also disagree rather violently about which things are defined as "bad."
3) Card's internal, personal feelings about homosexuality are not necessarily the issue; his public statements condoning hatred of homosexuals are. As Karen Schneider pointed out, if Card's statements about homosexuals had replaced the word "homosexual" with any number of racial epithets, there is no way that Card would EVER have been considered for the award. Period. While I try very hard to separate the person from the work when I can, and often do read fiction by folks who are politically different from me, in this particular case, I admit I am less than enthusiastic about the prospect of picking up one of Card's books to read. On the other hand, I firmly believe that his materials belong in our SFWA Collection, if only so that some scholar might, 20 years from now, write a lovely dissertation about this whole event, and how it relates to his work.''
Another liberal librarian blog tsk-tsks over Card's 'homophobia':
Jolly and righteous teen author, Orson Scott Card, is the topic of much discussion as honor bestowed by the ALA�s YALSA has brought to general attention Card�s views against tolerance for homosexuals.
Card is quoted as follows:
We Latter-day Saints know that we are eternal beings who must gain control of our bodies and direct our lives toward the good of others in order to be worthy of an adult role in the hereafter.�Orson Scott Card''
Here is Card writing about tolerance:
Tolerance is not the fundamental virtue, to which all others must give way. The fundamental virtue is to love the Lord with all our heart, might, mind, and strength; and then to love our neighbor as ourself. Despite all the rhetoric of the hypocrites of homosexuality about how if we were true Christians, we would accept them fully without expecting them to change their behavior, we know that the Lord looks upon sin without the least degree of tolerance, and that he expects us to strive for perfection.�Orson Scott Card
I am sure this is especially confusing for the poor dears in the 'library community' because Card otherwise hews to all the politically correct shibboleths when it comes to race and immigration. Oddly, or perhaps not so, considering Card's Mormon beliefs, he has nothing but tolerance for tens of millions of illegal 'immigrants', while withholding 'tolerance' toward homosexuals. The rather surly piece Card wrote in defense of illegal immigration was titled 'Ethnic Cleansing or ''Amnesty'', if that hints at his beliefs.
I hate to link to the source of this insulting piece by Card, but here it is.
Read it, if your blood pressure can stand it.
I suppose, as always, race trumps everything. If white Canadians were hopping our Northern border in droves, I suspect Card would be in favor of deporting them en masse, but because illegals are overwhelmingly non-white, they are automatically to be given special consideration.
Here is an excerpt of Card's hit piece on old-stock Americans Needless to say the 'liberal' seems to represent the sanctimonious Card:
"So lawbreakers don't deserve to live here. Have you ever had a speeding ticket?"
"I'm an American. And I pay my traffic fines."
"But you broke the law."
"I was born here."
"But your ancestors weren't," says the liberal. "Your ancestors, somewhere along the line, were born somewhere else."
"But they came here legally."
"No sir, they did not," says the liberal. "I knew we'd get to this point, so I had your genealogy researched. Here's a list of your German ancestors who broke the law of their German-speaking state by emigrating."
"Those weren't American laws, so they weren't criminals here."
"And here are your Puritan New England ancestors, who came here as criminals because of their defiance of the laws concerning religion in England."
"They wanted freedom of religion."
"But they broke the law. And look � here are your Scotch-Irish and German ancestors who settled in Pennsylvania and North Carolina without getting legal title to their lands. They were all law-breaking squatters, and they kept getting caught farming on other people's land and had to move on."
This, quite honestly, infuriates me. Religious dissent is quite different than breaking and entering, and living a life of chronic lawbreaking as most illegals do. Every day, their whole way of life involves lying, defrauding, and otherwise deceiving, exploiting, and plain old stealing. To compare our ancestors with these unprincipled people, who often commit quite egregious crimes in addition to illegal entry and fraud, is insulting to our forefathers.
Card purports to be a religious man and Mormons protest that they believe in the Bible. Where is his honoring of his fathers and mothers? Card, as a Mormon, must know his own family ancestry; Mormons are quite obsessive about genealogy. Does he consider his ancestors as lawbreakers, on a par with the drug-smugglers and sneaks who enter via our Southern border? Apparently so. Apparently he has no honor for his ancestors, or he foolishly (and quite unbibilically) believes that all 'sin' is equal in the eyes of God; he thinks that people who commit crimes such as smuggling and drug dealing are on a par with people who do not worship as their government insists that they should. He is a moral illiterate if he believes such things.
But let's go back to his nasty little rant against patriotic Americans:
It was wide-open country then, and the laws were different �"
"And look � here are your ancestors who crossed over the Appalachian Mountains like Daniel Boone, into areas that the federal government absolutely declared off-limits to white settlers. Then when the Indians attacked them for illegally trespassing, they demanded that the US Army come and kill Indians so your ancestors could keep their illegally occupied land."
"I know the Indians were badly treated, but �"
"In fact, through most of the territory of the US, the first settlers were illegal immigrants, weren't they? US treaties supersede all other laws except the Constitution. So what about it? Do you favor the expulsion of all these white illegal immigrants to restore the land to the legal titleholders by US treaty?"
I am sick beyond description of this lie that the first settlers were 'illegal immigrants'. How can a supposedly educated, intelligent man promote such rank nonsense? To say that the first settlers or colonists were 'illegal' is idiotic; in order to be illegal, they had to be in violation of some legal code or in defiance of some ruling authority -- which did not exist.
I just want, frankly, to slap people upside the head when they say such imbecilic things; the very fact that they say these things indicates that they are not capable of reason and common sense. You may as well reason with a mule. The only response to idiocy like this is a slap upside the head.
Whose permission did the colonists or settlers need to obtain before immigrating? There were a lot of squabbling tribes and clans scattered across the continent; there was no centralized ruling authority, no king (despite what you read in history books about various Indian chiefs who styled themselves 'Kings'). There were no codified laws. What 'laws' did the settlers break? Who had the authority or the power to forbid them to come here? Whose permission should they have sought, and how, considering that there was no means of communication by which to ask? Could they have written a formal request? To whom? To Indian tribes who had no written language and who, in any case, spoke no English? So all this talk of illegal immigration in that context is just ignorant and obtuse, probably willfully so.
And if Card wants to talk about 'illegal' settlers, my settler ancestors who came to Texas were INVITED by first, the Spanish and then the Mexican officials to settle. They had an invitation. They had paperwork and official documents. There was nothing remotely illegal about their presence in Texas.
And by the way, Mr. Card, whose permission did the Mexicans' ancestors obtain to settle in what is now Mexico?
Whose permission did the so-called 'Native Americans' who came from Asia obtain before they took up residence in North America? If you want to play this game, we are all 'illegal' if you go back some generations. Nobody is really indigenous to their present countries. Not even the hallowed Native Americans. When there was no organized government, whoever was strongest took possession.
But in Card's tendentious diatribe on amnesty, this is supposed to be his blockbuster zinger at the end, with which he thinks he can mortally wound the xenophobe racists:
No, sir, you are the traitor. You're the one who declared that America was no longer a nation built around an idea, which accepted all who embraced that idea. Now it's just like any other nation on Earth. It stands for nothing except for holding on to what we've got and making sure there's no room for the people most desperate to come and join us."
Here we go: the old 'nation built around an idea' nonsense. No, America was not a nation built around an idea. It was a nation built around a group of English colonists, who possessed certain ideas as part of their culture and part of their heritage. Somehow, though, the foolish notion became widespread that we could bring people from many peoples and cultures together and pretend that the 'idea' was all that mattered, and that anybody could be 'American' by giving lip service to that 'idea'. But as it turns out, that hasn't worked at all well; the people who cling desperately to the 'America as an idea' are people, generally, not of the original stock, and because they feel no kinship to the founders of this country, they insist that the Idea is everything. The 'idea' is become an idol for them; the proposition is an empty substitute for kinship to the founding people of this country. Blood is thicker than ideas.
But the 'idea' around which this nation was supposedly built is never clearly defined by these liberals; is the hallowed 'idea' supposed to be freedom? Democracy? Equality?
If we bring together people from drastically different cultures and heritages, we will have many conflicting definitions and interpretations of what 'freedom, democracy, equality' mean to them. To the Latino illegals, 'freedom' means the freedom to sneak into our country and demand special treatment and privileges, paid for by American taxpayers. Freedom seems to mean, to them, their right to disregard the laws of the land, and to trespass on others' property as they trample the border areas. Freedom means the right to speak Spanish and demand that we provide interpreters at our expense and learn their language.
Moslems, in their turn, have their own definitions of 'freedom', as Andrew Bostom points out.
So it's foolish and vain to try to make this country a country based on an idea. What idea? Whose idea? Whose definition? Whose interpretation? We have the Babel situation all over again, when we try to unite the whole world and erase borders. If Card reads and believes the Bible, he knows that God confounded the language of the human race after the hubris of Babel. We now no longer speak the same languages, in more ways than one. Interpreters and translators all do an imperfect job of bridging the linguistic gulf between us. The language barrier only reflects the differences in thought and perceptions among various peoples.
And when we talk about linguistic barriers and thought barriers, Card's diatribe only reminds us of the fact that even among ourselves, we have been divided hopelessly, and our language confounded. When Card talks about 'tolerance' and sin and virtue, it's obvious that those of the liberal persuasion, especially those liberals who are obsessed with re-creating the Tower of Babel in the West, speak a different language that only sounds like English.
I can certainly understand their meaning, although I find their ideas dishonest, spiteful towards their own people, and sanctimonious. However I am convinced that liberals do not understand our side. They have completely rejected the old meanings of words and the traditional understandings underpinning those words. They no longer speak the language of their forefathers, of all the past generations. This is made abundantly clear by the way in which they condemn the morality and the ways of thinking of the past. They have made themselves orphans and strangers in the West because they have disowned the past and their forefathers.
Only by having done so can Card and all others who think as he does believe that wanting to preserve our nation is bad and sinful. Only by cutting themselves off from tradition can they convince themselves that they are the moral betters not only of their traditional contemporaries and countrymen, but the moral superiors of their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, who assuredly believed in 'America for Americans', and who believed -- imagine! -- that borders were essential to a nation, and that wholesale violation of laws was not acceptable.
Still Card is in an odd position; on the one hand, the liberal PC police are about to haul him in for failing to hold the correct beliefs on hallowed homosexuality, but on the other hand, how can they condemn him for being a 'right-wing bigot' when he is clearly on their side as regards that other hallowed victim group, illegal 'immigrants'?
I suppose this must cause considerable cognitive dissonance on the part of the orthodox leftists, who studiously follow the party line on who is owed deference. To be a liberal in good standing, one has to truckle to homosexuals but also to people 'of color.' Card is not being consistent.
On the other hand, I think there are quite a few politically correct Christians who think much as Card does: homosexuality bad, but illegal border-jumping good.
But if the leftward trend continues, these little dilemmas will be solved, as the liberalizing churches decide that homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice, just as illegal invaders are making a lifestyle choice in seeking a better life by lawbreaking.
But I can't help feeling a little smug schadenfreude about Card running afoul of the pharisaical PC brigade. He is really a friend, if they but knew it, but for now, he's a transgressor. PC bites.
Forum comments here.

Labels: American History, Freedom Of Expression, Illegal Immigration, Liberalism, Open Borders, Political Correctness

We knew this was coming. But all the same, it doesn't bode well, for obvious reasons.
THE ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Britain's minister for culture has said.
Andy Burnham told Britain's The Daily Telegraph newspaper the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites.
"The more we seek international solutions to this stuff - the UK and the U.S. working together - the more that an international norm will set an industry norm," the newspaper reports the Culture Secretary as saying.
Giving websites film-style ratings would be one possibilty.
"This is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Mr Burnham said.
Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, the paper said.
[...]
"If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn't reach," Burnham told The Daily Telegraph. "I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now."
He said some content should not be available to be viewed.
"This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."
[Emphasis mine]
We all know that the interpretations of 'offensive' or 'harmful' or 'hateful' will rest with the liberals and leftists who are now to be in the drivers' seat in Washington, D.C. as of January. And if ''our" government is to work hand-in-hand with the leftist British government, no good can come from that for either country.
Blogs like this one, and many other, far less politically incorrect blogs and forums will be filtered if not removed entirely. It may not happen overnight, but this is the direction in which we are headed.
The politically correct vigilantes will be ever more emboldened to silence anyone who fails to toe the line.
We should be thinking about ways to circumvent this effort to quash free speech. We will have to find alternatives, and I believe where there's a will, there's a way. We will have to find alternative ways to communicate and to speak the truth that needs to be heard.
I'm convinced that one of the first acts of our new overlords will be to pass the 'hate speech' and 'hate crime' laws that they have been itching to push through, but failed to do in the last session. I am convinced that this is a priority for them.
"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams
"In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Who ever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin
"For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished freedom is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time. - Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?" - Judge Learned Hand
'"Truth is hate to those who hate the truth" - quote from protester Arlene Elshinnawy, from the WND article linked above

Labels: Bloggers, Blogs, Censorship, Cultural Marxism, Free Press, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Hate Speech, Internet, Liberal Intolerance, Liberals

In a recent discussion thread, a reader left a comment that might easily provoke controversy.
At the time the comment appeared, I judged that the comment might provoke such a response, and I considered how best to handle the situation. However, probably to my discredit, I was guilty of choosing to sidestep the issues raised by the comments, which was probably not courageous on my part. So I let the comment stand.
At the same time, the Haloscan glitch occurred, and I was unable to access my comments, manage them, or write any responses. And today when I was able to access my comments, I saw that there was a disagreement going on, with one commenter requesting that the original offending comment be deleted.
This is not an easy call for me; I've deleted comments rarely during the 15 months or so that this blog has existed. However I can and do ban people who have been uncivil and who make profane, pointless or inflammatory comments.
For some people, an anything-goes atmosphere epitomizes freedom. I disagree; I don't believe that free speech means there are no rules or standards. I don't see how a traditionalist could support that idea of freedom.
On the other hand, I am committed to following the truth wherever it leads, as I said to another commenter on another recent thread. I'm not inclined to forbid certain opinions or lines of questioning out of hand, because that approach is simply not consistent with seeking truth or having an open and honest discussion about the very real threat to our country and our culture and our very survival. These are not trivial and inconsequential matters we are discussing here, but the continued survival of our country and our posterity. America and the West are under threat from within and without and to refrain from discussing our predicament and its causes from all angles is to further diminish our chances.
Those who have read my blog for any length of time know that I am a sworn enemy of political correctness in all its forms. I find it much more than a mere annoyance, and far more than just a quaint absurdity, as some people regard it. Political Correctness is the mortal enemy of truth and honesty and fairness. As such it is one of the main factors in the compromising of our national immune system; it is one of the main weapons with which our enemies, internal and external, keep us weak and divided, and keep us from examining the truth with honesty. Political Correctness has to go if we are to continue to exist as a country, and if we are to have real freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. Political correctness and sacred cows will find no friends here.
I've quoted a phrase of Carleton Putnam more than once here, and the quote seems apt here:
'I never hated anything in my life except two things: dishonesty and the appeasement of evil. These I hate with every fiber of my being. I would rather face controversy and bitterness indefinitely than surrender to either one.''
To me, avoiding the exploration of any question regarding America's predicament amounts to dishonesty. How can I forbid the asking of certain questions, especially when I oppose political correctness, and I refuse to put any group of people above criticism or questioning?
Many people who are as concerned with America's survival as I am are angry at 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestants', especially those of New England stock who all too often are liberal elitists, eager to sell America out in order to be seen as philanthropic and enlightened. I was just at another web forum where WASP New England liberals were taking quite a thrashing from several posters. Now I've said before that I have Puritan New England roots, (as well as much more numerous Southern roots), so some of the worst culprits among WASP politicians are in fact distant cousins of mine. I could name names, but I will refrain; fill in the blanks as you like. Suffice it to say that I have been critical here on this blog of individual political figures who are my own kin, albeit distant kin. As I said, I am no respecter of persons, and yes, there are too many old-stock New England elites who have no allegiance to this country and who are, quite bluntly, a disgrace to our common Puritan ancestors. So my own ethnic kin and my own extended family members are not above criticism; there are no sacred cows here.
I could, following the fashion of the day, take personal offense when someone insults WASP elites and liberal New England people, but I don't, because I recognize that there is more than a grain of truth in the insults. I could protest that there are exceptions, and complain about stereotypes and bigotry but I acknowledge there is truth in the stereotypes. That there are welcome exceptions among the 'New England WASP elite', such as my distant cousin Carleton Putnam, does not disprove the rule. He was an exception, and not typical overall.
I've been fairly hard on people of Irish and Italian immigrant stock here, but I have nothing against individuals of those groups if they are not rabid open-borders advocates or anti-American.
So when a commenter made remarks which were critical of Jews, I was torn as to whether to let the comments stand, and I ultimately allowed them. If the commenter had made similar comments about Irish-Americans, who tend to be very pro-immigrant and pro-open borders, would the same offense have been taken?
I know that the comeback would be: but the Irish have not suffered the persecution that Jews have suffered; there is no organized anti-Irish hatred whereas there is very real anti-Semitism which has resulted in genocidal violence at times in the past.
However some Irish partisans will answer that they themselves were 'targeted for genocide' by the British, and that they almost died out during the Famine of the 1840s. So on and on it goes.
But is it legitimate to place a group of people off limits for critical comments, based on past persecution? And is a fear of current persecution legitimate or overblown?
If I place one group above criticism, how does that square with honest discussion?
I can and occasionally do delete comments which are abusive, race-baiting, and slanderous. I have let stand many comments that I found to be personally insulting and rude, although I usually ban such commenters in the future simply because I am resolved that this blog will not be dominated by incivility or personal squabbles; I've seen it happen on far too many forums and blogs. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, the conflicts tend to drive away others who prefer not to witness the disputes.
My concern is to keep the discussion here as civilized and as objective as possible.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Freedom without responsibility is license and sometimes ultimately anarchy.
We have free speech in this country but this blog is not obligated to allow any and all comments in the name of 'freedom.' I do require that my commenters make their points as civilly and as reasonably as possible, and refrain from personal comments and insults.
So was the controversial comment bannable? If so, in order to be consistent and fair, I would have to ban harsh comments about all ethnic/racial/religious groups if I banned the comments in question. And I and my commenters make some rather harsh comments about certain groups here, being no friends of political correctness. But we do so in the spirit of telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. In a country which has become increasingly afraid to speak difficult truths, we have to kick over the traces or we will be history.
So it's a dilemma. I will not make a blanket pronouncement about any group being exempt from criticism or questioning, but I will ask that commenters temper their comments, and refrain from making inflammatory or malicious statements, realizing too that the definiton of what is inflammatory or malicious is open to some subjective interpretation.
I will say, on the Jewish question, that I've been among many paleos who seem concerned with Jews in particular, and I have found that often their beliefs in a ubiquitous Jewish conspiracy sound eerily like the complaints heard from militant blacks who think Whitey invented AIDS to commit genocide against them, or that Whitey induces blacks to eat pork products because they contain a brain parasite which suppresses black functioning.
On the other hand, because I differ with paleocons on this one issue, I am not inclined to dismiss everything they stand for because I consider them tainted by this one opinion. I know this is the approach of many on the 'respectable right' but I think it is shortsighted. Because I disagree with one emphasis of the neocons, I can't declare them discredited completely, as some other conservatives do -- although I think they are wrong far more often than the paleos, and wrong more often than they are right.
In the end, I confess I am not comfortable with the conspiracy theories which portray Jews as all-powerful; it really reduces us, the majority, to being helpless pawns and victims, and to think of ourselves as victims and pawns is not a healthy state of being. Our forefathers would not have brooked that kind of thinking.
I do accept as reasonable that most minority groups who have experienced persecution, or who believe themselves to have experienced it (as with Irish-Americans) there is a kind of self-protective us-against-them mentality, a sense of grievance which leads to intense ethnocentrism and often a desire to promote one's ethnic group at the expense of the feared majority. Groups do act in self-interested ways; there is no denying that, and minority groups especially so, perhaps defensively at times.
But I prefer to keep discussion here on a higher plane if possible. Most of my commenters do so; I'm generally well-impressed with the quality of most of the comments I get here.
However we are adults here, and if a comment is made that you disagree with or find objectionable, refute it if possible; show where the facts are wrong, the reasoning is flawed, or the conclusions unfounded. Most of my commenters are good debaters and can do that with ease. I WILL step in and delete and ban where warranted , although our respective judgments on just what is acceptable and what is not may differ. It's much better to refute a falsehood than to merely silence it, but granted, sometimes feelings run high and the debate becomes heated.
I will put the question to my readers, or those who are still with me, anyway: should I ban certain topics or questions or issues here? If so, which ones? Or do I make a blanket ban on all ethnic generalizations? If so, then do I then become the people I've decried so often, such as the 'anti-illegal immigration' fighters who ban people for saying 'wetback' or who banish people for criticizing Hispanic culture? What topics and questions are forbidden?
I honestly hope that I will not lose readers over this issue, but truth is paramount here. I do pledge to try to be fair and honest and to keep the discussion civilized.
I realize I probably won't please everybody here; that's not always possible. But I hope that those who have added so much to the discussion on this blog will continue to visit and comment.

Labels: Blogging, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness, Truth

The recent trend towards more comments on this blog is a welcome thing; I generally like seeing more people join in the discussion. However it seems that the uptick in comments has brought with it some problems, among them, the inevitable spam, which is an annoyance to deal with, and then there is a tendency to get off-topic in some threads.
The off-topic posts are only a minor problem, but if possible let's keep to the subject being discussed; if there is a burning issue you want to discuss or a link you feel compelled to share, the forum would be a great place for that, since all who are registered can post topics and links. And yeah, I know the forum is something of a ghost town at the moment, but it looks like there has been a little increase in activity, so it need not stay deserted over there; it's you, readers and commenters, who will make or break the forum.
Another more difficult problem to deal with is the free speech issue. I've come down pretty firmly in favor of allowing ideas and points of view that others might exclude on the basis of political correctness. I am an enemy of PC in all its forms -- but how do we maintain a high level of discourse, which is what I am attempting to do, if we don't have standards, and if the standards aren't enforced?
I would really be sorry to see the discourse deteriorate here on this blog as has happened in many places; it doesn't take much to bring that about. So I am going to go through one of my draconian phases and start editing or censoring and banning if need be. Free speech is good but there is no absolute free speech anywhere, at least if some level of civilized discourse is to be maintained.
I ask rather little, really: just civility, no personal attacks towards me or other commenters, no obscene or blasphemous comments, no crude language generally. We should be able to put our ideas across or make our points without such language. And advocating violence or force is not something I tolerate here. It just isn't.
After a warning or two, (and I've been pretty lenient with people who are on 'our side' while I generally cut leftists and liberals no slack) I will ban those who disregard my basic rules. That's just the way it works here.
Rather than become too lax and tolerant and let the discussion be adversely affected, I will act when I need to, to keep things civil and mature here. I know most of you will honor my rules. Thanks.

Labels: Blogging, Civility, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression

Almost Forbidden Thoughts
Clyde N. Wilson, Chronicles
"Without censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden, have little chance of finding their way. "
�Solzhenitsyn, Harvard Address
We all know that there are truths that are almost never stated publicly in the U.S.�truths that media, politicians, and "intelligentsia" pretend do not exist. Astute observers, Tocqueville and Solzhenitsyn among others, have noted that in "American democracy" public discourse tends to group-think and is neglectful or hostile to ideas lacking group-think respectability.
Some of these truths are things that absolutely everybody knows but may not be mentioned without penalty. Others have been so long buried under complacent or expedient denial that much effort is required to discern them.
Here are a few of my almost forbidden thoughts. Doubtless you will have some of your own.''
The first of Wilson's 'almost forbidden thoughts is this one:
Heredity has as much or more control over our individual fates as environment; i.e., intelligent children tend to come from intelligent parents.''
I agree with that thought, and it is amazing how unacceptable that thought is to most people, regardless of their political leanings. Many conservatives, or should I say 'conservatives' visibly chafe at the introduction of that idea into a conversation.
Why, I wonder? Because, possibly, egalitarianism is such a pervasive idea, accepted by many who consider themselves conservative as well as liberals. And to hint that intelligence may have a large hereditary or genetic component makes many people uncomfortable. I notice that a couple of the comments following Wilson's piece call this idea into question, because they see, implicit in Wilson's simple statement, an apologia for eugenics. I think that may be a twisting of what he has said, and a conclusion that is not warranted. He does not say that unintelligent people ought not to reproduce or that intelligent ones should have more children. He does not say that society should create incentives for intelligent people to have children or disincentives for the unintelligent. He simply says that heredity may be a large factor in intelligence.
I think it's an important idea because if it were ever to be accepted as true, it would largely discredit many of our educational policies, for instance, programs such as 'No Child Left Behind', the Bush-Kennedy effort at closing the so-called 'achievement gap.' Only the belief in the blank slate theory of child development and intelligence justifies efforts like this rather unsuccessful policy. And as long as people avoid facing the reality that children are not blank slates with equal potential from the git-go, we will be throwing good money after bad, trying to close the 'achievement gap.'
There is evidence of hereditary differences in IQ.
But because this is an idea that conflicts with our egalitarian ideology, the facts have to be buried, explained away, or discredited. So on and on we go, in a vain attempt to 'level the playing field.' As long as we deny facts and statistical evidence, we are doomed to repeat the same failed policies again and again. And what does the myth of the blank slate and equal potential do to race relations? It perpetuates anger and frustration and endless accusations of 'racism.' After all, if there are no heredity-based group differences in intelligence, then the 'achievement gap' must be the result of discrimination and 'racism', or malice on the part of the majority. And the racism implication also provides a built-in excuse for the achievement gap.
One of Wilson's other 'forbidden thoughts' had to do with the racial aspect of crime, to which a commenter takes exception, although not convincingly. However as another commenter notes in that thread, the exception taken by one commenter simply corroborates Wilson's description of the ideas as 'forbidden', since forbidden ideas will elicit exactly that kind of gainsaying response.
I agree to some extent with the truth of most of Wilson's 'forbidden thoughts', although I can't speak to the question of how corrupt the state of Massachusetts is.
I agree with him that Lincoln is not the saintly figure that popular history makes him out to be, but given my Southron roots, it's unlikely I would see Lincoln as a hero.
If I might add any forbidden thoughts of my own, I would repeat some of the 'forbidden thoughts' I have expressed so often here: like this thought: immigration, regardless of whether legal or illegal, has not been an unmixed blessing for America. In many cases it has not been a blessing at all, but a curse.
America is not a nation of immigrants.
The Statue of Liberty is not an advertisement for Open Borders.
Emma Lazarus's amateurish poetry on the Statue is not gospel, and it has no force of authority.
'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses... the wretched refuse of your teeming shore...' was not part of our Founding documents or ideals; it was no more than the overwrought ramblings of one woman.
And here's a forbidden thought: 'wretched refuse' means... what? In modern colloquial English? Do the open borders cultists really want to call immigrants that?
Another forbidden thought: Ellis Island is not a holy shrine, and those who passed through it are not some kind of saints to whom the rest of us must make obeisance.
Legal immigration is not good in and of itself; it is good only in limited numbers, and as long as the immigrants themselves are people who can adapt and fit into our existing country, and contribute thereto.
Continual population growth is not a desirable thing for our country.
Our country will not become depopulated without constant immigration.
Concern for the environment is or should be a conservative principle.
Concern for overpopulation is NOT a leftist idea that should be scoffed at by 'conservatives.'
Our economy does NOT rely on immigrants, legal or illegal.
Immigrants did NOT build America.
Slaves, likewise, did not build America.
'Hard work' is not the only qualification for would-be immigrants. The world is full of 'hard-working people.' They are not all entitled to come here because they are 'hard-working.'
Mexicans are not starving.
Illegals are not 'forced' to come here.
Latinos or Hispanics are not necessarily 'hard workers', regardless of the positive stereotypes.
(How do I know this? Take a look at Latin America, or at your local colonia or barrio. I rest my case.)
Latinos or Hispanics are not necessarily 'devout Christians' with good 'family values.' That hype probably was hatched by the RNC, or La Raza, or both, working in collusion.
Stereotypes are stereotypes, and flattering stereotypes like the above are just as overgeneralized as negative stereotypes sometimes are.
Making up flattering falsehoods about races or ethnicities is dishonest, regardless of the 'good intentions' supposedly behind the flattery. A lie is a lie is a lie. Telling a lie often enough will not make it so, no matter how benevolent the intention is.
Many of the politically correct, multicultural and diverse commercials and movies and TV shows are lies, based on some kind of fantasy world bearing no resemblance to the actual world.
Stereotypes, although overgeneralized in some cases, generally reflect reality, to some extent. Stereotypes are often substantially true.
And here's one: if secession was wrong and if it constituted 'treason' then how do we justify the Revolution against British authority? If it was right to forcibly drag the South back into the Union, would the British not have the right to drag the American colonies back under the rule of the British Crown?
I could go on, but that's my list of forbidden thoughts.
Any contributions from my readers?

Labels: Freedom Of Expression, Freedom Of Thought, Illegal Immigration, Political Correctness

I expect most of you have read Steve Sailer's latest essay at VDare.
It fits very much with the theme we've been discussing here on this blog: the growing intolerance on the right toward anyone who transgresses the holy laws of political correctness.
Sailer notes with considerable disgust that virtually nobody on the 'respectable' right, such as the NRO crowd (with the exception of John Derbyshire) or the army of 'conservative' bloggers at Townhall wrote a word about the recent Watson controversy, despite its considerable import. After all, it is not just a political issue; although the assault on free speech should concern all good Americans, but the Watson story has implications for scientific inquiry and the pursuit of truth. Surely someone should care about that, even if they are not concerned about the political ramifications of the public humiliation of Watson.
Sailer sees in this situation a reflection of the lack of courage and integrity among those on the Right.
The level of intellectual integrity on the Right�let alone courage�is catastrophically lower today than just 13 years ago, when the John O'Sullivan-edited National Review responded to the publication of The Bell Curve by devoting most of its December 5, 1994 issue to an impressive symposium on race and IQ.
In it, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's bestseller was attacked by some, but also stoutly defended by Michael Barone, Michael Novak, James Q. Wilson, Dan Seligman, Arthur Jensen, and Ernest Van den Haag.
Where have you gone, Michael Barone? (Or John O�Sullivan, for that matter).''
In a recent entry on political correctness among conservatives I used the phrase 'the righteous right,' and wondered who had coined that term. Apparently it was Sailer, in the context of the Trent Lott debacle of a few years ago. At that time, I became extremely disillusioned with many in the Republican Party, not only the leadership but many average party members, as they all, as one, attacked Trent Lott and called for his head over his relatively innocuous remarks to Strom Thurmond. At that time, it was evident that political correctness was as much of a religion to many on the right as it is on the left. I found the whole Lott 'scandal' to be dismaying.
So yes, the 'righteous right' has embraced a peculiarly leftist form of 'righteousness'.
If you read the Time article linked above, you will see the liberals at Time lecturing the Republicans about their 'racist' ways, and the Republican response was to scurry to deny their 'racism.' The politically correct instinct in Republicans seems to be a conditioned response to any liberal accusations of bigotry, and the 'conservatives' who respond by conforming to the liberal rules can't seem to see that their eager compliance makes them appear to be deferring to the liberals, acknowledging that the accusations of bigotry are really true.
Sailer advises against apologizing for gaffes, as Lott did to little avail, and as Watson did:
Never apologize for a "gaffe" (i.e., the telling of an unpopular truth).
When you beg forgiveness, the hate-filled jackals just smell your fear and weakness. It excites them, so they pile on. Further, the watching crowd can't tell who's right, so they respect whoever seems the master of the situation at the moment.
In his October 19 response in the U.K. Independent, "To question genetic intelligence is not racism," Watson seemingly tried to be subtle, arguing that there was a difference between inferiority and diversity, then pointing out the Darwinian implausibility that everyone could have evolved to be identical.
Well, swell. But the politically correct don't engage in rational argument. They just hound and bludgeon. So you have to stand your ground.''
Sailer rightly admonishes that those who are hauled up before the PC kangaroo courts stand their ground. Yet there are few who seem able or willing to do this. I agree with Sailer that those among the 'righteous right' are buckling to the left, and failing to defend their own. We are allowing not only our 'side', but truth itself to be routed.
And in the context of the discussion we've been having here about the politically correct neocons, it seems that they have decided to follow the old saying, 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.'' So now the PC neocon 'right' have taken to acting as part of the PC inquisition on their own, so as to pre-emptively ward off the accusations of the left. It seems they have so internalized the left's PC moralizing that they have themselves begun behaving like the left.
The consequences of this abdication by the 'right' are serious. The truth will be more marginalized and silenced than ever if those on the right, who are supposedly the upholders of the idea of truth and free speech in a morally relativistic, post-modern world, have given up and surrendered.

Labels: Censorship, Faux Conservatism, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness, Republicans

Thomas Jefferson famously said "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." We've all heard this quoted, or read it, but it's significant that he specifically said ''tyranny over the mind of man."
Often when we hear the word 'tyranny' we automatically envision the old Communist regimes in Eastern Europe where people were shipped off to gulags or mental institutions for dissenting from the regime and the Party. This hard totalitarianism, with its roundups of dissidents, or its midnight knocks on the door, is not the only kind. Though the systems could and did imprison (and sometimes kill) the bodies of dissenters, they could not always imprison the minds of their subjects.
It's commonly said, by those with direct experience of these regimes, that the people in general did not truly believe the ideology whichwas the basis for the Communist regimes. Newspapers, radio, and television, as well as movies, offered only the accepted party line on anything, and heavily censored anything that belied the official belief system. However, it seems that this information control was rather clumsy and transparent, and many people thus saw through it, inwardly rejecting it while outwardly conforming, and discreetly keeping silent.
Sometimes it's a temptation to wonder if the same is not true in the Western countries, where our politically correct, mandatory multiculturalism and ''equality'' are the dictates of the day. There is, certainly, a core of people who, for whatever reason, have managed to reject the lies at the heart of the prevailing order. But are these people sufficient in numbers to form any significant opposition?
Sad to say, I think the majority in our country, and perhaps in all Western countries, are fully indoctrinated, so much so that they have no idea they have even been programmed to think as they do. I think many are indoctrinated so thoroughly that they believe the ideology of the regime to be their own, independent beliefs, and what's more, they would probably be willing to give their lives or take the lives of others for the sake of those beliefs.
True believers, no matter how bereft of truth the system to which they've pledged themselves, will do this. How many cults have made the headlines, as their benighted followers commit suicide or go to the extreme of killing the ''traitors'' who desert the cult or question its tenets?
Thomas Jefferson was a man who chose his words with great precision and care, as he did all things. When he wrote the phrase, 'tyranny over the mind of man,' he did so for a reason.
Imprisoning men's bodies does not confine their minds. The Left knows this. It's often said, however, that an idea can't be killed. When the Communist regimes imprisoned people like Solzhenitsyn, they did not destroy his ability to think freely. When a dissident or resister is killed, his ideas often spread because of his death. You truly can't kill ideas, but the tyrants know that you might kill an idea a-borning, and stop it from becoming fully formed and growing. And you might, to a great extent, render many people incapable of conceiving a free idea. You might intellectually sterilize or stunt people by steady, unrelenting propaganda, especially if it's started as early as possible in life, and sustained. You might, if you wished to do this, use everything from advertising to movies, to plays, music, literature, the visual arts, sports and games. Soon, as the propaganda takes hold, people propagate it without even realizing they are passing it on, like a virus. It becomes part and parcel of the whole culture.
To truly condition people and diminish their ability to think freely, you might also make plenty of mind-numbing, dulling drugs available, from the illegal ''street drugs'' to the respectable kind, prescribed by your kindly doctor and dispensed by the pharmacist. Have you ever noticed how many people you meet are on some kind of mood-altering drugs these days? The children are on various drugs for 'ADD", or ADHD or whatever it's called now, and the adults are often on antidepressants or sleep medications. Why are our medical professionals so eager to press these things on us? Every time I visit the doctor, the routine question ''are you depressed?'' is asked. Whose idea is it to importune people to take antidepressants? Is it some kind of official policy?
I am not impugning the character of doctors or other medical workers. I don't doubt that they believe they are doing only what is for our benefit, but I wonder why as a people we are so medicated.
A population that is harried and stressed by unstable conditions, uncertainty about tomorrow, and grieving, in some cases, the loss of the familiar, may feel more need to medicate their feelings away, and our government is probably happy to encourage this trend, as they become increasingly involved in our medical and health business. But a population that is anxious, stressed, and medicated for it will be less likely to be able to think clearly and judge rightly.
The ideologues who shape our culture do not want a populace with the time, the acuity, or the inclination to think and evaluate for themselves. The ideologues, those soft totalitarians who sit in seats of power, want to influence if not control our thoughts. Not only are our thoughts fair game, but our feelings, our emotions, our attitudes, our opinions, our moods, our wishes, aspirations, dreams, hopes, and expectations. They want to dictate the language we use, the words we choose to express ourselves. Obviously, via our entertainment, they want to shape the most private and personal fantasies and urges, too, and then enslave us to those as well.
Even our most sacred impulses are being shaped by the insidious influence of the prevailing ideology, which of course is, like the true God, a jealous 'god' who wants us to have no other deity but itself. Our churches, being led by and populated by imperfect people, has also fallen prey to the world's belief system, and the propaganda, which wants to govern how we relate to God as well as to our fellow man.
The Bible tells us not to fear those who kill the body. The soft totalitarians, the mind tyrants, may not kill dissenters outright, but they want to abort our ability to think and to feel as free men and women.

Labels: Freedom Of Expression, Freedom Of Thought, Leftism, Media Manipulation, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Totalitarianism, Tyranny

PC won't permit illegal immigration opponent to speak
The 'PC' alluded to in the headline is Providence College, by the way:
PROVIDENCE -- Tom Tancredo, former congressman from Colorado, Republican presidential candidate and outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, is scheduled to speak in Rhode Island Wednesday. But he will not be addressing students at Providence College as he had originally planned, after college officials rejected a request from a student group to invite him to campus.
[...]
Student group Youth for Western Civilization asked PC officials if they could also host Tancredo, but the request was denied, said PC spokeswoman Pat Vieira. "They are not an officially recognized group," Vieira said. "They asked very late in the semester when there was not enough time for the request to go through the usual channels." Just as important, Vieira said, were Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's views on immigration and how immigrants -- whether here legally or illegally -- should be treated, which contrast sharply with Tancredo's.''
Happily, another venue has been found for Tancredo's speech, under the sponsorship of another group.
What is going on with this treatment of Tancredo? He has had a long record of opposing illegal immigration, but I don't remember him being shut down as much as he as been in recent times. Why, now, are his views intolerable, or more so than they used to be to the PC 'tolerance tyrants'?
I realize the Catholic Church is not a democracy, nor is it meant to be, so the Church leadership is not accountable to church members for their political stances -- but it seems a little separation of church and state is in order here.
I also understand, though, that Providence is a Catholic college, but as the article notes, the college has not prevented pro-abortion politicians like Ted Kennedy from speaking, though abortion is against Catholic teaching. It would seem that immigration, legal or not, is a more 'sacred' principle than life to some of these liberal theological types.

Labels: Academia, Church-State Separation, Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression, Illegal Immigration, Liberal Christianity, Liberal Intolerance, Political Correctness, Tom Tancredo

The following editorial was written in 1922 by the legendary newspaperman William Allen White, known as the Sage of Emporia. It seems apropos today, though written in a rather different context.
White is hard to categorize politically today; like most men of past generations he is not easily labeled according to today's definitions. Above all, he was a champion of small-town middle America and the sense of community and belonging. He was one of the old-school newspapermen who believed in hearing both sides of an issue. His kind of journalism is mostly extinct.
To an Anxious Friend
July 27, 1922
You tell me that law is above freedom of utterance. And I reply that you can have no wise laws nor free enforcement of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people -- and alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison, and the wisdom will survive. That is the history of the race. It is the proof of man's kinship with God.
You say that freedom of utterance is not for times of stress, and I reply with the sad truth that only in time of stress is freedom of utterance in danger. No one questions it in calm days, because it is not needed. And the reverse is true also; only when free utterance is suppressed is it needed, and when it is needed, it is most vital to justice. Peace is good, but if you are interested in peace through force and without free discussion -- that is to say, free utterance decently and in order -- your interest in justice is slight. And peace without justice is tyranny, no matter how you may sugar-coat it with expediency. This state to-day is in more danger from suppression than from violence, because in the end, suppression leads to violence. Violence, indeed, is the child of suppression. Whoever pleads for justice helps to keep the peace; and whoever tramples upon the plea for justice temperately made in the name of peace only outrages peace and kills something in the heart of men which God put there when we got our manhood. When that is killed, brute meets brute on each side of the line.
So, dear friend, put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this state will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only men can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold -- by voice, by posted card, by letter, or by press. Reason never has failed men. Only force and repression have made the wrecks in the world."

Labels: Free Speech, Freedom Of Expression

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

We all know it's happening.
But one of the recent casualties of an apparently new campaign to exclude politically incorrect content is the video to which I linked several posts back, entitled 'Was America Ever a White Nation?' The video was an excerpt from the documentary called A Conversation About Race.
Of course honest conversations about race are still highly taboo in our society, so it's not surprising that some politically correct vigilante reported the video in question.
I view a lot of videos on You Tube, but to be honest, You Tube is a morass of idiocy when it comes to the comment section following the videos. You Tube seems to be the playground of a great many barely literate leftists, most of whom seem to be adolescents, in spirit if not in years. No matter what the content of a video may be, for instance, such an innocuous thing as the carol ''Good King Wenceslas", someone has to leave nasty comments of a political nature. Accusations of 'racism' and 'hate' abound among the misspelled and crude comments which litter the threads.
Personally I haven't registered at You Tube, so I cannot post comments or 'flag' videos as abusive. But it's evident that the many pestilential leftists who post there flag any video they deem as 'hateful' or 'racist.' I wonder how much of this our side does? Perhaps we ought to start being as free with flagging videos as ''offensive'', just as the leftists and multicultists do with anything even remotely favorable to our side and our culture.
I generally feel that debating or arguing with leftists and multicultists is a waste of time and energy, but I do think it would be a good thing if more pro-White, pro-Western people spoke up and left thoughtful and well-phrased comments so that the leftists won't win the day by default.
And as far as the left's wanton complaining and snitching on anything they dislike, it would seem that both sides could play at that game. It might throw a monkey-wrench into the works to start flagging You Tube videos lavishly, especially those which are unfriendly to our people and cause. For too long, the left has shouted everybody else down, and monopolized the public debate on virtually everything. When is our side going to start making a showing?
I grant you, political correctness being the devouring monster that it is, our side will be censored and banned all over the place, but even if comments stand for a short time, they have a chance of being seen by a few, at least. I personally think there's little chance of converting the lost, but there might be people who are vacillating, or who haven't yet really heard both sides fully, who might be open to hearing our side. That goes for other more neutral forums too; we can make our case in a reasonable, civilized way whenever and wherever we can. I used to do a great deal more posting on 'mainstream' forums and boards, but I find I have little time for it these days. Still, I think we need to make our voices heard, and not concede the field to the left everywhere.

Labels: Censorship, First Amendment, Freedom Of Expression, Freedom Of Speech, Hate Speech, Thought Crime

I've decided that this 'honest dialogue' thing is a good idea, and in the interest of contributing to the discussion, I thought it might be useful to remind ourselves of some of the 'dialogue' contributed by others over the last 15 or 20 years, when many of us were not really paying attention.
"At no moment in my life have I ever felt as though I were an American." - Toni Morrison
"The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean Algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, and Ballanchine ballets don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history." - Susan Sontag
"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." - Mary Frances Berry, Civil Rights Commission head, 1991
"Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get
out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people, it is your duty to die. . . ." - Augustin Cebada, quoted by Barbara Coe, in Reconquista: The Takeover of America, 1991
"We have an aging white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear! . . . I love it!" - 'Professor' Jose Angel Gutierrez, ibid.
"I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder." - 'Professor' bell hooks [sic], from A Killing Rage
"And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem." - African Studies 'professor', Dr. Kamau Kambon
''When I consider the enormity of the white man's crimes against humanity ... Against the poor. Against my mother and my father. Against me ... I think ... Let the earth marinate in poisons. Let the bombs cover the ground like rain. For nothing short of total destruction will ever teach them anything!' - Alice Walker, 'In Search of Our Mother's Gardens'
Also see here for more from Walker along these lines : What can the White man say to the black woman?
"When talking about the history of this great country, one can never forget that America was built upon the genocide of Native Americans and enslavement of African people. To say otherwise is criminal." - Spike Lee, quoted in LA Times, 7/7/2000
"I'm convinced AIDS is a government-engineered disease. They got one thing wrong, they never realized it couldn't just be contained to the groups it was intended to wipe out. So, now it's a national priority. Exactly like drugs when they escaped the urban centers into white suburbia." - Spike Lee (again), quoted in Detroit Free Press, 9/9/1992
This is just a small sampling of the 'dialogue' to date, as contributed by the other side, the only side which gets heard in our useless media. Our side has been oddly silent thus far, except for the occasional protest 'not me, I'm no racist', which, to be fair, is about all we are allowed to say in this rigged 'dialogue.'
But in principle I think dialogue could be a good thing, and I expect to have more to say on this, though I have a feeling it is not what our masters want to hear.

Labels: Ethnic Differences, Ethnic Division, First Amendment, Freedom Of Expression, Political Correctness