0 comment Saturday, November 8, 2014 | admin
This is a story I posted over on the Forum a couple of days ago, and which has received little notice. Yet it troubles me in several ways.
Threat in Maine, the whitest state, shakes local NAACP
BANGOR, Me. � In October, the N.A.A.C.P. chapter for northern Maine got shocking news. A man from a nearby town had threatened to shoot "any and all black persons" attending the group�s meetings at an old stone church here, and state prosecutors were worried enough to seek a restraining order.
First of all, please notice the headline the NYT attaches to the story. The fact that Maine is 'the whitest state' seems to carry an implication that this is indicative of a greater propensity for 'hate'. In the New York Times' world, of course, white=hate, so this is not really surprising but still troubling.
Now: before somebody puts words in my mouth, the fact that an elderly (75-year-old) white man supposedly made a threat against the NAACP or black people is not something I intend to defend; although generally I think that if the man has reached 75 years of age and has not heretofore committed violence against others, he is not likely to at this stage of his life.
If, however, he made such a threat, in a credible way, certainly notice should be taken. I don't condone threats, racial or any other kind, from whatever quarter. But the fact is, the man in question has apparently been charged with no crime, although the article says:
This month a state judge signed an order barring Mr. Sawyer from threatening, using violence against or even speaking to any of the chapter�s members. It also requires him to stay at least 150 feet away from anywhere the N.A.A.C.P. meets. A hearing has been delayed for six months while Mr. Sawyer gets medical treatment and counseling, Mr. Harnett said.
And of course Mr. Sawyer has had his firearm taken away. But if he has not been convicted or even charged, how can his gun be taken away? Are our Second Amendment rights so attenuated that it takes merely the word of one witness (in a doctor-patient context) to lose one's right to bear arms? And will Mr. Sawyer's compulsory 'medical treatment' and 'counseling' (read: re-education) involve confinement? Does he have no rights at all, or is he, as an old-stock American, entitled to no such privileges?
It looks as though, judging by the lack of comments over on the forum (save one) I am alone in my concerns about this case. It is about more than just one senior citizen in Maine; it's about the rights of American citizens, especially those of the majority white population. It appears as though 'some are more equal than others.'
How many times have non-whites threatened whites and those of differing races? I suspect there are too many cases to count in an average, say, week in this country. We have seen a number of prominent blacks and Hispanic making very hateful and threatening statements against whites with no consequence whatsoever. For example:
"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 in Barbara Coe, Reconquista, The Takeover of America, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1998, p. 20
"We are here to say that violence and racism and hatred of the white man in America is just as American as apple and cherry pie." Khallid Abdul Muhammad, quoted in Las Vegas Review-Journal and Sun, June 14, 1998, pg. 3A
"We have an ageing white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear!� I love it!"-Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas, Arlington, from a speech in Jan. 1995, quoted in Coe, 'Reconquista, The Takeover of America
Then there was the speech by ''Dr.'' Kamau Kambon:
A Raleigh activist and bookstore owner told a panel at Howard University Law School on Oct. 14 that the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet." Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught Africana Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University, also said this needs to be done "because white people want to kill us."
This kind of thing is so routinely spoken by various minority 'activists' that it is met only with yawns from most people. Somehow we dismiss it as venting or just rhetoric. But why does Mr. Sawyer up in Maine not receive the same benefit of the doubt as these 'minority activists'? And the doctor, who is apparently the only witness who asserts that 'threats' were made: who is he? (Oops, of course I mean 'he or she'; how sexist of me to assume the doctor is a man.) But who is the Veterans Administration doctor? A medical doctor? A psychiatrist? What? And do doctors routinely report such conversations as these to authorities?
It may be that these things are happening around America and I just haven't heard of such a case before. I think of the increasing role medical practitioners are being asked to play in gathering information on citizens, supposedly for our own good, of course. Children are being asked questions during doctors' visit about whether or not their parents own guns, or whether there are drugs in their house. When I visit my doctor I am invariably asked about domestic violence, and about whether I am safe in my home. Many of these lines of questioning seem intrusive and one wonders what use is made of the responses; is the government tracking certain data this way?
But to return to the case of Mr. Sawyer, who has been disarmed and ordered into some kind of 'treatment' for his 'sickness', this should be troubling to those who care about personal privacy, freedom, and our Constitutional rights. A number of issues are at stake here. Should anybody lose their right to bear arms, which is a crucial right for a free society, on the strength of one person's assertions? Can one lose one's Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a felony? Maine's Constitution says:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned. Article I, section 16.
Can someone be ordered to enter 'counseling' and 'medical treatment' based on their holding or expressing politically incorrect views (such as Mr. Sawyer's purported statement that 'Maine should be a white state)? Another thing which troubles me about this case is that Mr. Sawyer's name and town are mentioned very explicitly. Why? Our media are very scrupulous about not mentioning the names of people involved in various scrapes with the law, or people who are accused but not yet convicted of a crime. The old media are now obsessive about omitting any mention of a suspect's race, even when there is supposedly a manhunt going on, with a dangerous criminal roaming free. They are more careful to avoid any possibility of 'racial profiling' and probably also worried lest the public notice that most of the crimes are being committed by certain groups of people. So they cover the facts up as long as they can. But Mr. Sawyer's name is right out there for the public to see. What's the point of this?
Suppose Mr. Sawyer becomes the target of the racial agitators, like Joe Horn, who shot two burglars in Pasadena, Texas, was. Suppose Mr. Sawyer has an angry mob congregating around his door and making threats? And of course he has been disarmed and left a sitting duck for any self-righteous liberal who wants to make an example of him or 'teach him a lesson.'
So I can see no good reason for publishing Mr. Sawyer's name. Shame on the New York Times. Where are their journalistic ethics? Of course we know the NYT is not the paragon of journalistic virtue they pretend to be, after their many missteps. We all know they have an agenda, and that the Grey Lady is a woman of easy virtue.
A further injustice is that only majority white people are held to rigid standards about 'hate speech' or racial threats. We all know that racial threats are made by minorities on a regular basis, and these are almost never treated as crimes. There is a manifest injustice based on race in the way these laws are applied and enforced. It is evident that 'hate crime' laws are designed to be employed against only one group of people, to benefit another broad category of people. This violates the idea that we are all equal before the law.
And if this kind of thing can happen, and is happening now, we should be very concerned about our rights and freedoms. I am concerned that too few Americans display any zeal for preserving their Consititutional rights and freedoms. With such a passive and apathetic population, the PC tyrants have free rein.
One more thing which strikes me: the name Sawyer has been in New England since the days of the earliest English colonies. The Sawyers are one of the original Mayflower families. It seems Mr. Sawyer is symbolic here of old America, and he is being made an example of. Out with the old, on with the new.
Threat in Maine, the whitest state, shakes local NAACP
BANGOR, Me. � In October, the N.A.A.C.P. chapter for northern Maine got shocking news. A man from a nearby town had threatened to shoot "any and all black persons" attending the group�s meetings at an old stone church here, and state prosecutors were worried enough to seek a restraining order.
First of all, please notice the headline the NYT attaches to the story. The fact that Maine is 'the whitest state' seems to carry an implication that this is indicative of a greater propensity for 'hate'. In the New York Times' world, of course, white=hate, so this is not really surprising but still troubling.
Now: before somebody puts words in my mouth, the fact that an elderly (75-year-old) white man supposedly made a threat against the NAACP or black people is not something I intend to defend; although generally I think that if the man has reached 75 years of age and has not heretofore committed violence against others, he is not likely to at this stage of his life.
If, however, he made such a threat, in a credible way, certainly notice should be taken. I don't condone threats, racial or any other kind, from whatever quarter. But the fact is, the man in question has apparently been charged with no crime, although the article says:
This month a state judge signed an order barring Mr. Sawyer from threatening, using violence against or even speaking to any of the chapter�s members. It also requires him to stay at least 150 feet away from anywhere the N.A.A.C.P. meets. A hearing has been delayed for six months while Mr. Sawyer gets medical treatment and counseling, Mr. Harnett said.
And of course Mr. Sawyer has had his firearm taken away. But if he has not been convicted or even charged, how can his gun be taken away? Are our Second Amendment rights so attenuated that it takes merely the word of one witness (in a doctor-patient context) to lose one's right to bear arms? And will Mr. Sawyer's compulsory 'medical treatment' and 'counseling' (read: re-education) involve confinement? Does he have no rights at all, or is he, as an old-stock American, entitled to no such privileges?
It looks as though, judging by the lack of comments over on the forum (save one) I am alone in my concerns about this case. It is about more than just one senior citizen in Maine; it's about the rights of American citizens, especially those of the majority white population. It appears as though 'some are more equal than others.'
How many times have non-whites threatened whites and those of differing races? I suspect there are too many cases to count in an average, say, week in this country. We have seen a number of prominent blacks and Hispanic making very hateful and threatening statements against whites with no consequence whatsoever. For example:
"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 in Barbara Coe, Reconquista, The Takeover of America, California Coalition for Immigration Reform, 1998, p. 20
"We are here to say that violence and racism and hatred of the white man in America is just as American as apple and cherry pie." Khallid Abdul Muhammad, quoted in Las Vegas Review-Journal and Sun, June 14, 1998, pg. 3A
"We have an ageing white America. They are dying. They are ****ting in their pants with fear!� I love it!"-Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas, Arlington, from a speech in Jan. 1995, quoted in Coe, 'Reconquista, The Takeover of America
Then there was the speech by ''Dr.'' Kamau Kambon:
A Raleigh activist and bookstore owner told a panel at Howard University Law School on Oct. 14 that the solution to many of the problems faced by black people is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet." Dr. Kamau Kambon, who taught Africana Studies 241 in the Spring 2005 semester at North Carolina State University, also said this needs to be done "because white people want to kill us."
This kind of thing is so routinely spoken by various minority 'activists' that it is met only with yawns from most people. Somehow we dismiss it as venting or just rhetoric. But why does Mr. Sawyer up in Maine not receive the same benefit of the doubt as these 'minority activists'? And the doctor, who is apparently the only witness who asserts that 'threats' were made: who is he? (Oops, of course I mean 'he or she'; how sexist of me to assume the doctor is a man.) But who is the Veterans Administration doctor? A medical doctor? A psychiatrist? What? And do doctors routinely report such conversations as these to authorities?
It may be that these things are happening around America and I just haven't heard of such a case before. I think of the increasing role medical practitioners are being asked to play in gathering information on citizens, supposedly for our own good, of course. Children are being asked questions during doctors' visit about whether or not their parents own guns, or whether there are drugs in their house. When I visit my doctor I am invariably asked about domestic violence, and about whether I am safe in my home. Many of these lines of questioning seem intrusive and one wonders what use is made of the responses; is the government tracking certain data this way?
But to return to the case of Mr. Sawyer, who has been disarmed and ordered into some kind of 'treatment' for his 'sickness', this should be troubling to those who care about personal privacy, freedom, and our Constitutional rights. A number of issues are at stake here. Should anybody lose their right to bear arms, which is a crucial right for a free society, on the strength of one person's assertions? Can one lose one's Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a felony? Maine's Constitution says:
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned. Article I, section 16.
Can someone be ordered to enter 'counseling' and 'medical treatment' based on their holding or expressing politically incorrect views (such as Mr. Sawyer's purported statement that 'Maine should be a white state)? Another thing which troubles me about this case is that Mr. Sawyer's name and town are mentioned very explicitly. Why? Our media are very scrupulous about not mentioning the names of people involved in various scrapes with the law, or people who are accused but not yet convicted of a crime. The old media are now obsessive about omitting any mention of a suspect's race, even when there is supposedly a manhunt going on, with a dangerous criminal roaming free. They are more careful to avoid any possibility of 'racial profiling' and probably also worried lest the public notice that most of the crimes are being committed by certain groups of people. So they cover the facts up as long as they can. But Mr. Sawyer's name is right out there for the public to see. What's the point of this?
Suppose Mr. Sawyer becomes the target of the racial agitators, like Joe Horn, who shot two burglars in Pasadena, Texas, was. Suppose Mr. Sawyer has an angry mob congregating around his door and making threats? And of course he has been disarmed and left a sitting duck for any self-righteous liberal who wants to make an example of him or 'teach him a lesson.'
So I can see no good reason for publishing Mr. Sawyer's name. Shame on the New York Times. Where are their journalistic ethics? Of course we know the NYT is not the paragon of journalistic virtue they pretend to be, after their many missteps. We all know they have an agenda, and that the Grey Lady is a woman of easy virtue.
A further injustice is that only majority white people are held to rigid standards about 'hate speech' or racial threats. We all know that racial threats are made by minorities on a regular basis, and these are almost never treated as crimes. There is a manifest injustice based on race in the way these laws are applied and enforced. It is evident that 'hate crime' laws are designed to be employed against only one group of people, to benefit another broad category of people. This violates the idea that we are all equal before the law.
And if this kind of thing can happen, and is happening now, we should be very concerned about our rights and freedoms. I am concerned that too few Americans display any zeal for preserving their Consititutional rights and freedoms. With such a passive and apathetic population, the PC tyrants have free rein.
One more thing which strikes me: the name Sawyer has been in New England since the days of the earliest English colonies. The Sawyers are one of the original Mayflower families. It seems Mr. Sawyer is symbolic here of old America, and he is being made an example of. Out with the old, on with the new.
Labels: Hate Crime, Hate Speech, Justice System, Mainstream Media, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Second Amendment, Thought Crime
0 comment Tuesday, November 4, 2014 | admin
I don't watch the celebrity and glamor-oriented TV programming, but it's impossible not to hear about these things in real life and of course in the blogosphere. So there's no escaping them, even for those who are TV abstainers.
I am not going to mention the names of the principals involved because that will only draw the attention of those people who are googling the names and leaving idiotic and abusive comments on blogs and forums on this subject. The people involved are the current Miss California and some 'celebrity' blogger who practices a certain politically correct sexual perversion. I am sure most of you know who I mean. If not, the story is here.
And Old Atlantic's blog entry on the story is here.
I don't usually have much to say about these celebrity stories, but several issues about which I do blog are wrapped up within this story.
First of all, the 'culture war', which, like every aspect of the left-right battle, has heated up since November, and this includes the question of free speech and freedom of thought vs. political correctness. Then there is the dishonest newsertainment media which are fomenting all the controversy around this. There is also the issue of the increasingly virulent anti-Christian, anti-traditional morality faction in this country, which sadly includes not only the left-libertines, but the secular/atheist libertines on the 'right'.
To add one more troubling ingredient, there is the glaring picture of a dumbed-down apostate ''Christianity' which is illustrated by the remarks made by several professing Christian celebrities regarding this story:
"Love is love!" Britney Tweeted... "People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!"
Miley Cyrus Tweeted similar thoughts ... "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad! Like I said everyone deserves to be happy. I am a Christian and I love you � gay or not. Because you are no different that anyone else! We are all God's children!"
Apparently her comments are right in line with those of "Hills" star Heidi Montag, who is expected to marry the show's Spencer Pratt this weekend.
"God says in the bible that we should love our neighbor and he created us all as equals. I know in my heart that gays and lesbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage and I hope to one day go to your wedding, Perez!!!"
Now, I am proud to say I don't know who Mzz Montag is, nor do I really want to know; I care only that she pretends to represent Christianity and wrongly cites the Bible in support of her libertine and oh-so-hip-and-postmodern views.
Miley Cyrus can be excused somewhat, as she is still a minor child who has evidently not had a good grounding in the Bible nor in Christian morality as set out in the Bible. I suppose having a parent in show-biz is also a definite handicap when it comes to having a good upbringing and sound values and morals. Still, she should know better, and I fear that many gullible and malleable young 'Christians' will follow her example and adopt similarly unsound viewpoints, if they haven't already absorbed them from the corrupt and ugly culture that passes as 'entertainment' in our day.
And I am not sure that the person to whom their comments were addressed will suddenly soften his views towards the Bible or Christians in general; I have encountered many such people in real life and they are perpetually embittered that there is a Bible which condemns their pet vice, and they hate the fact that anyone reminds them of that fact. Ergo they hate Christians.
One more bit of trivia about the 'celebrity blogger' who was the center of all this: he is an example of the much-vaunted ''conservative'' Cuban-'American' community of Florida. Now, does anybody care to tell me again how Cuban-'Americans' who fled Castro are such staunch conservatives and Republican stalwarts? Or how they are poster children for legal immigration?
Over at the Big Hollywood blog, which is incidentally not exactly too staunchly conservative either, a commenter mentions something about the pageant:
On the subject: As a pageant competitor you spend an entire year doing mock interviews, discussing every hot-button or political topic under the sun. There is NO WAY her pageant directors were unaware of her stance on gay marriage prior to the pageant.''
This is the question that occurred to me: was the question a set-up? I suspected that they knew the young woman's Christian background and set a trap for her, asking her a question which they knew she would likely answer 'wrongly' -- after which they could gin up a public brouhaha and make an example of her. The object? To further marginalize and ridicule Christian believers, to remind everybody once again, lest anybody forget, that there is only one correct viewpoint on 'gay marriage' and that deviating from that PC viewpoint carries some penalties.
I give the young woman considerable credit for answering honestly; she was probably savvy enough to know that she was giving the 'wrong' answer and yet she answered honestly. Many people (not just Christians, but people in general) would have dissimulated rather than risk the consequences of giving an 'incorrect' answer. She stuck to her guns. Good for her.
I am also left wondering how and why our popular culture exalts people like the 'celebrity blogger' in this day and age. It was true, once upon a time, that to become a celebrity, one had to be, if not talented or fascinating, at least attractive and presentable and well-groomed. None of these are true of the walking grotesquerie who is at the center of this story. Standards have fallen; I lament this often. We seem to have dropped our standards in every area of life. Nowadays we celebrate the ugly, the sordid, the grotesque, the freakish, and the repellent, not only in popular culture but even in the high arts. What happened to our ideals of beauty and grace? How do we get them back? And how do we banish the ugly and the corrupt, which dominate our public sphere so relentlessly?
And what do we do about weakening this politically correct tyranny which exercises enormous power via our corrupt 'entertainment' media? I personally think that the so-called entertainment media wield far more power than academia, the school system, and the so-called 'news' media. More people get their PC ideas from watching trashy entertainment programming than from any other source -- other than peer pressure, which also is more powerful, even among adults, than many people acknowledge.
I know of a good number of people of mature years who have reversed themselves on social and political issues based on what they pick up from the media; they learn to like 'gay' celebrities, for example, and decide that not allowing 'gay marriage' is hateful and mean as well as 'behind the times.' Many people in my area learn virtually everything they ''know'' about blacks from the flattering media; they then begin to fawn over certain black celebrities, and slowly adopt the PC, pro-black attitudes they learn from the media, becoming de facto anti-Whites.
As I've said before, those who find TV and movies offensive or objectionable always get the facile advice ''just don't watch.'' But there is no isolating oneself; even if we don't watch the propaganda, we are exposed to it second-hand, or third-hand. And if we shield our children or grandchildren from it by throwing the TV out and boycotting movies, they still absorb it from their classmates or neighbors. Unless we take up dwelling in caves in the most remote areas we can find, there's no avoiding it. Ultimately it finds you. You can run, but you can't hide.
And here, James Edwards writes about how it's becoming 'uncool' to have traditional beliefs about homosexuality. Even the supposed 'conservatives' like Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Rick Warren have fallen in line with the PC viewpoint. I remember well when Dr. Laura was detested and denounced by gays because of her supposed 'homophobic' beliefs, and now she has recanted and joined in the PC chorus.
It may be that we are just seeing the wheat divided from the chaff; I never believed Warren was 'conservative,' especially in a Biblical sense, and Dr. Laura has been rather inconsistent on her religious beliefs, but it seems as though we are swiftly moving towards a time when it will not only be 'uncool' to refuse to toe the line on homosexuality, but it may soon be costly in terms of consequences, if not downright illegal.
I am not going to mention the names of the principals involved because that will only draw the attention of those people who are googling the names and leaving idiotic and abusive comments on blogs and forums on this subject. The people involved are the current Miss California and some 'celebrity' blogger who practices a certain politically correct sexual perversion. I am sure most of you know who I mean. If not, the story is here.
And Old Atlantic's blog entry on the story is here.
I don't usually have much to say about these celebrity stories, but several issues about which I do blog are wrapped up within this story.
First of all, the 'culture war', which, like every aspect of the left-right battle, has heated up since November, and this includes the question of free speech and freedom of thought vs. political correctness. Then there is the dishonest newsertainment media which are fomenting all the controversy around this. There is also the issue of the increasingly virulent anti-Christian, anti-traditional morality faction in this country, which sadly includes not only the left-libertines, but the secular/atheist libertines on the 'right'.
To add one more troubling ingredient, there is the glaring picture of a dumbed-down apostate ''Christianity' which is illustrated by the remarks made by several professing Christian celebrities regarding this story:
"Love is love!" Britney Tweeted... "People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!"
Miley Cyrus Tweeted similar thoughts ... "Jesus loves you and your partner and wants you to know how much he cares! That's like a daddy not loving his lil boy cuz he's gay and that is wrong and very sad! Like I said everyone deserves to be happy. I am a Christian and I love you � gay or not. Because you are no different that anyone else! We are all God's children!"
Apparently her comments are right in line with those of "Hills" star Heidi Montag, who is expected to marry the show's Spencer Pratt this weekend.
"God says in the bible that we should love our neighbor and he created us all as equals. I know in my heart that gays and lesbians should have the same government rights that Spencer and I will when we get married. So, yes, this blonde Christian believes in gay marriage and I hope to one day go to your wedding, Perez!!!"
Now, I am proud to say I don't know who Mzz Montag is, nor do I really want to know; I care only that she pretends to represent Christianity and wrongly cites the Bible in support of her libertine and oh-so-hip-and-postmodern views.
Miley Cyrus can be excused somewhat, as she is still a minor child who has evidently not had a good grounding in the Bible nor in Christian morality as set out in the Bible. I suppose having a parent in show-biz is also a definite handicap when it comes to having a good upbringing and sound values and morals. Still, she should know better, and I fear that many gullible and malleable young 'Christians' will follow her example and adopt similarly unsound viewpoints, if they haven't already absorbed them from the corrupt and ugly culture that passes as 'entertainment' in our day.
And I am not sure that the person to whom their comments were addressed will suddenly soften his views towards the Bible or Christians in general; I have encountered many such people in real life and they are perpetually embittered that there is a Bible which condemns their pet vice, and they hate the fact that anyone reminds them of that fact. Ergo they hate Christians.
One more bit of trivia about the 'celebrity blogger' who was the center of all this: he is an example of the much-vaunted ''conservative'' Cuban-'American' community of Florida. Now, does anybody care to tell me again how Cuban-'Americans' who fled Castro are such staunch conservatives and Republican stalwarts? Or how they are poster children for legal immigration?
Over at the Big Hollywood blog, which is incidentally not exactly too staunchly conservative either, a commenter mentions something about the pageant:
On the subject: As a pageant competitor you spend an entire year doing mock interviews, discussing every hot-button or political topic under the sun. There is NO WAY her pageant directors were unaware of her stance on gay marriage prior to the pageant.''
This is the question that occurred to me: was the question a set-up? I suspected that they knew the young woman's Christian background and set a trap for her, asking her a question which they knew she would likely answer 'wrongly' -- after which they could gin up a public brouhaha and make an example of her. The object? To further marginalize and ridicule Christian believers, to remind everybody once again, lest anybody forget, that there is only one correct viewpoint on 'gay marriage' and that deviating from that PC viewpoint carries some penalties.
I give the young woman considerable credit for answering honestly; she was probably savvy enough to know that she was giving the 'wrong' answer and yet she answered honestly. Many people (not just Christians, but people in general) would have dissimulated rather than risk the consequences of giving an 'incorrect' answer. She stuck to her guns. Good for her.
I am also left wondering how and why our popular culture exalts people like the 'celebrity blogger' in this day and age. It was true, once upon a time, that to become a celebrity, one had to be, if not talented or fascinating, at least attractive and presentable and well-groomed. None of these are true of the walking grotesquerie who is at the center of this story. Standards have fallen; I lament this often. We seem to have dropped our standards in every area of life. Nowadays we celebrate the ugly, the sordid, the grotesque, the freakish, and the repellent, not only in popular culture but even in the high arts. What happened to our ideals of beauty and grace? How do we get them back? And how do we banish the ugly and the corrupt, which dominate our public sphere so relentlessly?
And what do we do about weakening this politically correct tyranny which exercises enormous power via our corrupt 'entertainment' media? I personally think that the so-called entertainment media wield far more power than academia, the school system, and the so-called 'news' media. More people get their PC ideas from watching trashy entertainment programming than from any other source -- other than peer pressure, which also is more powerful, even among adults, than many people acknowledge.
I know of a good number of people of mature years who have reversed themselves on social and political issues based on what they pick up from the media; they learn to like 'gay' celebrities, for example, and decide that not allowing 'gay marriage' is hateful and mean as well as 'behind the times.' Many people in my area learn virtually everything they ''know'' about blacks from the flattering media; they then begin to fawn over certain black celebrities, and slowly adopt the PC, pro-black attitudes they learn from the media, becoming de facto anti-Whites.
As I've said before, those who find TV and movies offensive or objectionable always get the facile advice ''just don't watch.'' But there is no isolating oneself; even if we don't watch the propaganda, we are exposed to it second-hand, or third-hand. And if we shield our children or grandchildren from it by throwing the TV out and boycotting movies, they still absorb it from their classmates or neighbors. Unless we take up dwelling in caves in the most remote areas we can find, there's no avoiding it. Ultimately it finds you. You can run, but you can't hide.
And here, James Edwards writes about how it's becoming 'uncool' to have traditional beliefs about homosexuality. Even the supposed 'conservatives' like Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Rick Warren have fallen in line with the PC viewpoint. I remember well when Dr. Laura was detested and denounced by gays because of her supposed 'homophobic' beliefs, and now she has recanted and joined in the PC chorus.
It may be that we are just seeing the wheat divided from the chaff; I never believed Warren was 'conservative,' especially in a Biblical sense, and Dr. Laura has been rather inconsistent on her religious beliefs, but it seems as though we are swiftly moving towards a time when it will not only be 'uncool' to refuse to toe the line on homosexuality, but it may soon be costly in terms of consequences, if not downright illegal.
Labels: Bigotry, Celebrity Culture, Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Hate Speech, Mass Media, Political Correctness, Propaganda
0 comment Monday, November 3, 2014 | admin
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
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
0 comment Wednesday, September 3, 2014 | admin
In this article, the writer declares that No one deserves a veneer of goodness because of their race.
''I've been thinking about race, and prejudice, a lot over the past weeks.
The world has been quick to condemn John Galliano for his anti-Semitic rant. I condemned him a long time ago, firstly for portraying women on his catwalk as adolescent boys, and secondly, for his wanton, unthinking use of fur.''
I confess I had to google Galliano's name, because I am not a follower of fashion trends, or haute couture. Some of you may know his name, but I learned he is a top fashion designer, who designs for Christian Dior.
He is described in the article I linked as 'British', though he is Gibraltar-born, and of Spanish descent.
The article's writer continues:
But I think we are all guilty of bigotry, in lots of subtle ways.''
Her example of her own 'bigotry' is that she had objected to dealing with a Filipino customer service phone worker who spoke poor English. So obviously she is liberal and PC to the core. I mean, wanting to speak to someone whose English is intelligible is not 'bigotry', it's just common sense.
But the writer does seem to be having some kind of epiphany, even if only to the extent that she is actually thinking about racial issues, and seeing the reality that we do impart a certain moral superiority to certain groups whose distinction is that they are 'victims', or perceived as such. And she sees that even the sainted Third Worlders are not angelic, but are capable of cruelty or other unattractive qualities in many cases.
Galliano's crime was making some very politically incorrect statements about Jews. For those remarks he has been suspended by Dior. He has offered the requisite apology -- but that has not stopped the authorities in France from charging him with a crime.
Galliano, 50, Friday was suspended as creative director for Christian Dior pending an investigation into charges he hurled anti-Semitic insults at patrons in a Paris cafe.''
[...]
The Anti-Defamation League applauded Dior's swift firing of its longtime design leader, who has often been called one of the most brilliant and creative designers of his time.
Galliano's dismissal, "sends a clear a clear message that this kind of anti-Semitic rhetoric is unacceptable both in the fashion world and in larger society, and that such outrageous, bigoted behavior comes with a cost," said the group's national director Abraham H. Foxman, who is a Holocaust survivor.
"The fact that someone is brilliant in a certain field does not immunize him from facing the consequences of words that are hateful, bigoted or prejudiced. Galliano is a public figure with a high profile, but he is apparently also a serial bigot," Foxman said.''
His apology, pretty much according to the standard formula:
"I have fought my entire life against prejudice, intolerance and discrimination, having been subjected to it myself. In all my work my inspiration has been to unite people of every race, creed, religion and sexuality by celebrating their cultural and ethnic diversity through fashion. That remains my guiding light
Anti-Semitism and racism have no part in our society. I unreservedly apologize for my behavior in causing any offense," the British designer said in a statement.
He said he would immediately seek help for his "failures." People close to Dior said the 50-year-old designer has been suffering from alcohol addiction and that it impacted his ability to work.''
I don't know whether he is a 'bigot'; being gay and rather flamboyant, he may just be trying to shock or outrage people, saying the most un-PC thing he could conceive of. Or it may be that, as with Mel Gibson, the alcohol was talking. But, in vino veritas, as they say.
But the fact is, to say nasty things about Jews is still the worst crime in the PC order of things. Jews as a group still hold the position of arch-victims, and therefore the penalties for speaking in a negative way about them are greater than the penalties for speaking critically or rudely about other groups in the PC-protected hierarchy. Blacks, however, are a close second, and gays are way up near the top as well.
Whether or not you think that holding negative opinions of Jews is a sin or a crime or is ''hate'', should people be subject to criminal charges, and possible imprisonment for expressing those views? Obviously much of the rest of the Western world thinks so, considering that 'hate speech' laws exist, and people are arrested and charged, essentially for insulting someone or hurting someone's feelings.
How much longer before the same situation exists here? We are almost at that stage here in America, the land of the free, already.
''I've been thinking about race, and prejudice, a lot over the past weeks.
The world has been quick to condemn John Galliano for his anti-Semitic rant. I condemned him a long time ago, firstly for portraying women on his catwalk as adolescent boys, and secondly, for his wanton, unthinking use of fur.''
I confess I had to google Galliano's name, because I am not a follower of fashion trends, or haute couture. Some of you may know his name, but I learned he is a top fashion designer, who designs for Christian Dior.
He is described in the article I linked as 'British', though he is Gibraltar-born, and of Spanish descent.
The article's writer continues:
But I think we are all guilty of bigotry, in lots of subtle ways.''
Her example of her own 'bigotry' is that she had objected to dealing with a Filipino customer service phone worker who spoke poor English. So obviously she is liberal and PC to the core. I mean, wanting to speak to someone whose English is intelligible is not 'bigotry', it's just common sense.
But the writer does seem to be having some kind of epiphany, even if only to the extent that she is actually thinking about racial issues, and seeing the reality that we do impart a certain moral superiority to certain groups whose distinction is that they are 'victims', or perceived as such. And she sees that even the sainted Third Worlders are not angelic, but are capable of cruelty or other unattractive qualities in many cases.
Galliano's crime was making some very politically incorrect statements about Jews. For those remarks he has been suspended by Dior. He has offered the requisite apology -- but that has not stopped the authorities in France from charging him with a crime.
Galliano, 50, Friday was suspended as creative director for Christian Dior pending an investigation into charges he hurled anti-Semitic insults at patrons in a Paris cafe.''
[...]
The Anti-Defamation League applauded Dior's swift firing of its longtime design leader, who has often been called one of the most brilliant and creative designers of his time.
Galliano's dismissal, "sends a clear a clear message that this kind of anti-Semitic rhetoric is unacceptable both in the fashion world and in larger society, and that such outrageous, bigoted behavior comes with a cost," said the group's national director Abraham H. Foxman, who is a Holocaust survivor.
"The fact that someone is brilliant in a certain field does not immunize him from facing the consequences of words that are hateful, bigoted or prejudiced. Galliano is a public figure with a high profile, but he is apparently also a serial bigot," Foxman said.''
His apology, pretty much according to the standard formula:
"I have fought my entire life against prejudice, intolerance and discrimination, having been subjected to it myself. In all my work my inspiration has been to unite people of every race, creed, religion and sexuality by celebrating their cultural and ethnic diversity through fashion. That remains my guiding light
Anti-Semitism and racism have no part in our society. I unreservedly apologize for my behavior in causing any offense," the British designer said in a statement.
He said he would immediately seek help for his "failures." People close to Dior said the 50-year-old designer has been suffering from alcohol addiction and that it impacted his ability to work.''
I don't know whether he is a 'bigot'; being gay and rather flamboyant, he may just be trying to shock or outrage people, saying the most un-PC thing he could conceive of. Or it may be that, as with Mel Gibson, the alcohol was talking. But, in vino veritas, as they say.
But the fact is, to say nasty things about Jews is still the worst crime in the PC order of things. Jews as a group still hold the position of arch-victims, and therefore the penalties for speaking in a negative way about them are greater than the penalties for speaking critically or rudely about other groups in the PC-protected hierarchy. Blacks, however, are a close second, and gays are way up near the top as well.
Whether or not you think that holding negative opinions of Jews is a sin or a crime or is ''hate'', should people be subject to criminal charges, and possible imprisonment for expressing those views? Obviously much of the rest of the Western world thinks so, considering that 'hate speech' laws exist, and people are arrested and charged, essentially for insulting someone or hurting someone's feelings.
How much longer before the same situation exists here? We are almost at that stage here in America, the land of the free, already.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Free Spech, Hate Speech, Orwellian
0 comment Saturday, August 23, 2014 | admin
David Thompson gives us his take, as always interesting, on the recent controversies over 'hate speech,' for example in the Islamic Awareness Week at Tufts University.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.
Fear and Hate
It should, I think, be unnecessary to point out that claims of being offended don�t, in themselves, entitle one to anything in particular, and certainly not rights of unilateral censorship. But we live in strange times and some repetition may be in order. As I wrote back in May 2005:
In this fashionable rush to condemn those who cause offence, we are in danger of overlooking something important. All grievances are not of equal merit. Nor are they deserving of equal sensitivity or accommodation. Whether or not a person is offended may not depend on what is actually said or written, which may be perfectly coherent, measured in tone and serious in intent. The perceived offence may depend on the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the supposedly aggrieved party... Very civil and inarguable comments can, for instance, cause "offence" to someone who is determined to be offended for political gain and determined to exploit the pretence of being hurt. Indeed, the pantomime of being conspicuously aggrieved can be a form of passive-aggressivism - a way to express hostility or dominance while hiding being the role of victim. This tactic is widely employed by the morally incontinent and by bullies of all kinds.
In light of those comments, the following may be of interest. Mike Adams has developed a similar line of thinking and arrived at an interesting, and quite helpful, definition of "hate speech":
Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener�s inability to offer an intelligent response. Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: (1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and (2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.''
Good commentary from both Thompson and Mike Adams.
Thompson says, of Adams' ideas:
If, as Adams suggests, "hate speech" is defined by the listener�s inability to tolerate dissent or formulate an intelligent response, then advantage is given to those who least deserve it. Those who resort to threats and howls of impropriety gain leverage over people who are prepared to listen and rebut with argument and evidence. Thus, moral incontinence, idiocy and bullying prevail.''
All in all, it's an interesting piece. The entire thing should be read, and please do read the discussion thread, which, sadly, illustrates yet another example of neocon/right-liberal political correctness, in which the bogeymen assume the usual guise of 'racists and bigots.' The Klan are invoked, and poor old James Watson is again given a drubbing for his comments. I notice however that as usual nobody has a cogent argument with which to refute anything Watson has said, but I guess you don't need one if you have noble motives such as defending the downtrodden victims.
Is there any hope of disabusing the 'conservative' apostles of political correctness? They seem quite convinced that they are the epitome of 'conservative' righteousness. They seem to have no inkling that they are following along two steps behind their left counterparts, as regards their adherence to PC.
Somebody coined the term 'the righteous Right' to describe conservative Christians, but I am inclined to use that term for the PC adherents on the 'right' who get the vapors when somebody says something politically incorrect. Get the smelling salts. Maybe they are the 'self-righteous right.' Or maybe some of the commenters are actually liberals of the garden variety. It's getting so hard to tell these days.
Labels: Conservatives, First Amendment, Free Speech, Hate Speech, Political Parties
0 comment Thursday, June 19, 2014 | admin
''Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house''. - Matthew 12:29
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
At Western Biopolitics , JWH comments on a piece by Anthony Hilton at the Occidental Observer.
Hilton is discussing Jeremy Waldron's review of Anthony Lewis book, 'Freedom for the Thought We Hate'. Waldron is not so sure we ought to grant 'freedom for the thought we hate'
Hilton makes some good arguments as to why we should not criminalize thoughts or emotions like hate, which is an argument that I've made here and here : by passing 'hate speech' laws or hate crime laws generally, we are in essence outlawing emotions or feelings or thoughts.
In Hilton's words:
Typically lost sight of is the fact that hate is a complex emotional/motivational mechanism that evolved as part of a defense system. If it were totally absent, our ancestors wouldn�t have lasted long in the face of the predatory humans of other tribes, ethnies, or races. Why? Because they wouldn�t have been motivated to defend themselves. Remember all those propaganda images from WWII. They promoted hatred toward stereotyped enemies.''
Good points, particularly the last point about how the propaganda of past wars was a necessary part of steeling the people to defend themselves against an enemy. Now, I know many people on the right these days seem to be turning into born-again pacifists, indicting all war as bad and unnecessary, but I don't believe we can make that kind of blanket condemnation of war. War is just a symptom of our fallen human condition, as is crime.
And I think that the proscription we have these days against 'stereotyping' certain groups, unless the stereotype is glowingly positive, is working against us. For example: how many times do we encounter the statement that ''of course I have nothing against the illegals themselves; I'd do the same thing they're doing if I was hungry", or 'of course it's all the fault of the white traitors, not the fault of those who are invading our country.' Or this: ''all the Mexicans I know are hard-working, honest, friendly people; I just don't like illegal immigration.' This is all a kind of magical incantation to ward off any accusations of 'racism' or 'xenophobia'. It's nothing more than the 21st century variation of the old ''some of my best friends are [fiil in the blank].''
I just can't go along with this latest spin on political correctness: I have plenty against those who are invading my country, figuratively spitting in my face, and veritably stealing our children's birthright. The blame belongs on their doorstep as much as on that of the shadowy invisible 'elites' who are the only permissible objects of our anger and resentment. Sure, these elusive 'elites' deserve blame, and plenty of it, but so do all the scavengers who are moving in on a weakened America to feast off the remains. I can find little to empathize with where their behavior is concerned.
As long as we carefully fight off any forbidden 'negative' thoughts and feelings towards our enemies -- or if you are too squeamish to call anyone your enemy, then call them competitors or supplanters -- then we will never, ever, have what it takes to defend our own interests, whether verbally or politically or in any other way. The 'stereotypes' of the past -- the war-whooping Indians, the shifty Mexican, or whatever, were ways in which we steeled ourselves to deal with them unsentimentally. We can have good old fashioned anger and dislike towards people who are a threat to us, or who are openly hostile to us. Our parents knew that, but we've had it mostly whipped out of us, and we are the weaker for it.
And this is exactly the point of the 'hate speech' legislation and all the unofficial 'democratic censorship' in which our peers chastise and call us names if we transgress by speaking negatively of protected groups. The idea is to outlaw any negative thoughts about certain groups, and to instead encourage us to blame ourselves or to blame our own people first for what these protected groups are doing to harm us.
The net effect is that we are verbally defenseless, and are fast becoming less able to even think in a critical way about certain groups of people. We have been so conditioned to experiencing some negative effect when we speak our minds in 'politically incorrect' ways that even the thoughts become short-circuited before they are fully formed, let alone spoken out loud.
JWH addresses this 'disarming' effect of political correctness:
An inability to defend group genetic interests inevitably will lead to a diminishment of these interests. After all, in any competition, if one side is prohibited from acting to defend its interests, it is certain that this side will lose. No matter how skilled the boxer, if his arms are tied down to his sides, even a 97 lb. weakling as the opponent will eventually win the fight.
Thus, "hate speech laws" inevitably, and with mathematical certainty, lead to significantly diminished genetic interests for the ("unprotected") majority group. This diminishment of group interests can include actual partial or total displacement and replacement by others. In other words, genocide.
[...]
How can any individual or group accept the social and political legitimacy of a system that outlaws that individual's or group's expression of their interests?''
That's the question.
Labels: Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Speech Codes, Stereotyping
0 comment Tuesday, April 29, 2014 | admin
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.
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