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 Monday, August 11, 2014 | admin
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.
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
0 comment Friday, July 25, 2014 | admin
I suspect we're all tired of reading and hearing about this story, but we turn away from it at our peril. It's indicative of how bad things have become here in the former United States between blacks and Whites.
The woman who called the police to report a possible crime in progress is now distraught because she has been accused ''unfairly'' of being a racist.
I suppose I sympathize with her because she is the target of the loathsome PC vigilantes, most probably White, who take it upon themselves to sniff out any political incorrectness and to bring the 'offender' into line, by threats and harassment if need be. On the other hand, her reaction to the (no doubt unpleasant) treatment she's gotten illustrates that she, too, is a believer in political correctness and all its works and pomps.
Her reaction reminds me somewhat of the response by an arch-liberal friend who reported troublesome neighbors in her apartment building, and was accused by said neighbors of 'racism.' She was mortified and aggrieved because she has spent her entire adult life doing and saying everything 'right', playing by the rules of PC, being so careful not to utter a wrong word or offend anyone of a victim group. This friend never dreamt she would be called 'racist' one day; I can only think she imagined that somehow, minorities could divine that she was ''on their side'' and that she was one of the 'good' Whites, not to be confused with those evil racist Whites who lurk around every corner in America. I think she was quite indignant that she was not immediately recognizable as 'friend' and not 'foe.'
I don't know Mrs. Whelan, but her statement seems to show that she is very much a liberal.
When I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said, the criticisms hurt me as a person, but it also hurt the community of Cambridge," Whalen said. "Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words," she said.''
Bless her heart, I am sure she is an honest and decent woman, and she was doing a citizen's duty in calling police, but she does not seem to understand the rules of PC. Under those rules, the minority is always the victim, the White always the guilty party. Always. No exceptions.
Whites, in these interracial situations, are to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise, contrary to our general 'innocent until proven guilty' principle. Of course most of us who think at all about these things know that there is literally no way to disprove one's ''racism'', when one has been accused by an offended 'victim.' Guilty. Off with his head, is the instant verdict.
Will James Crowley stand his ground, or will he become another 'typical White person' who is used as an object lesson?
It is through incidents like this, ''teachable moments'' so-called, that the politically correct dogma is reinforced and further driven home to Whites. The fact that a woman can be driven to tears by name-calling and 'unfair' accusations of something called 'racism' is proof that the PC vigilantes are far too powerful.
And yet, how much power do they have, if we no longer react to their threats and their name-calling? They have only the power we accord them. Unfortunately, they have succeeded in getting more 'hate' legislation passed, which will potentially give authorities power to prosecute people for their thought crimes or 'hate speech', but for now, we still have the ability to stand up to these bullies and petty tyrants, and to stop their coercion.
As to the ''unfair'' accusation of racism, I have a big problem with Whites who go on the defensive in cases like this, protesting that they are not 'racists'. I would instead love to see Whites stand up and reject the whole category of thoughtcrimes called 'racism' or 'prejudice.' I would like to see more people simply shrug off the label, or better yet, to challenge it, to dismiss it as an invented 'crime'.
There was no word 'racism' or 'racist' in the English language before the World War II era, at least. We did just fine without an invented word to describe the various and sundry behaviors that are now lumped together as 'racism.' When the word did enter our vocabulary, it meant more strictly acts of violence or physical harm, based on the race of the victim. The word 'racism' is one of the most elastic words in the English language, expanding to include any number of behaviors, thoughts, acts, and words, or even looks. The word has been rendered absurd by its overuse and its increasingly arbitrary and subjective use.
Maybe this is why some well-intentioned liberal Whites get caught in their own trap: it has become increasingly likely, given the expanding definition of 'racism', that every White will be accused/convicted of it at some point. It's almost reached those absurd, almost comic, proportions now. But I think very few liberals realize that they will unwittingly transgress the constantly-changing PC codes, and be hauled before the PC police for it. Even then, they don't seem to get it.
So is there such a thing as a 'fair' accusation of racism? Mrs. Whelan apparently did not violate the unwritten rule 'thou shalt not mention the race of a suspect unless he be White.' She did not refer to Gates and his unnamed companion (what happened to the second man, anyway?) in her 911 call. But if she had, would she then be a 'racist'? No, she would just be doing what a citizen should do: giving a description of the people in question.
I think what bothers me the most about situations like this is that too many Whites have no instinct to stick together and defend their own; even worse, there are too many who will actually point at another White while proclaiming their own ideologically pure views on race.
Even on the right this happens. Just read any thread on a rightwing forum on the issue of slavery or reparations. Most will protest their innocence: ''my ancestors didn't own slaves! I'm not from the South! My ancestors were still over in Europe then! My ancestors fought for the Union to free the slaves! Not guilty!' The implicit message is ''not me! That other guy over there is the one who's guilty.''
Why do so many Whites feel the compulsion to essentially throw some of our own to the wolves as a kind of sacrifice, and expiation for our (subjective) guilt? Why not show some solidarity? Yes, that too would be called racism, but then it's unavoidable. You will be called that at some time or another, and in fact, you've already been tried and found guilty simply by heredity.
Once we realize that we're considered guilty anyway by virtue of who we are, and who our ancestors were, that should free us considerably from the ''need'' to prove our moral rectitude and PC bonafides.
The woman who called the police to report a possible crime in progress is now distraught because she has been accused ''unfairly'' of being a racist.
I suppose I sympathize with her because she is the target of the loathsome PC vigilantes, most probably White, who take it upon themselves to sniff out any political incorrectness and to bring the 'offender' into line, by threats and harassment if need be. On the other hand, her reaction to the (no doubt unpleasant) treatment she's gotten illustrates that she, too, is a believer in political correctness and all its works and pomps.
Her reaction reminds me somewhat of the response by an arch-liberal friend who reported troublesome neighbors in her apartment building, and was accused by said neighbors of 'racism.' She was mortified and aggrieved because she has spent her entire adult life doing and saying everything 'right', playing by the rules of PC, being so careful not to utter a wrong word or offend anyone of a victim group. This friend never dreamt she would be called 'racist' one day; I can only think she imagined that somehow, minorities could divine that she was ''on their side'' and that she was one of the 'good' Whites, not to be confused with those evil racist Whites who lurk around every corner in America. I think she was quite indignant that she was not immediately recognizable as 'friend' and not 'foe.'
I don't know Mrs. Whelan, but her statement seems to show that she is very much a liberal.
When I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said, the criticisms hurt me as a person, but it also hurt the community of Cambridge," Whalen said. "Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words," she said.''
Bless her heart, I am sure she is an honest and decent woman, and she was doing a citizen's duty in calling police, but she does not seem to understand the rules of PC. Under those rules, the minority is always the victim, the White always the guilty party. Always. No exceptions.
Whites, in these interracial situations, are to be presumed guilty until proven otherwise, contrary to our general 'innocent until proven guilty' principle. Of course most of us who think at all about these things know that there is literally no way to disprove one's ''racism'', when one has been accused by an offended 'victim.' Guilty. Off with his head, is the instant verdict.
Will James Crowley stand his ground, or will he become another 'typical White person' who is used as an object lesson?
It is through incidents like this, ''teachable moments'' so-called, that the politically correct dogma is reinforced and further driven home to Whites. The fact that a woman can be driven to tears by name-calling and 'unfair' accusations of something called 'racism' is proof that the PC vigilantes are far too powerful.
And yet, how much power do they have, if we no longer react to their threats and their name-calling? They have only the power we accord them. Unfortunately, they have succeeded in getting more 'hate' legislation passed, which will potentially give authorities power to prosecute people for their thought crimes or 'hate speech', but for now, we still have the ability to stand up to these bullies and petty tyrants, and to stop their coercion.
As to the ''unfair'' accusation of racism, I have a big problem with Whites who go on the defensive in cases like this, protesting that they are not 'racists'. I would instead love to see Whites stand up and reject the whole category of thoughtcrimes called 'racism' or 'prejudice.' I would like to see more people simply shrug off the label, or better yet, to challenge it, to dismiss it as an invented 'crime'.
There was no word 'racism' or 'racist' in the English language before the World War II era, at least. We did just fine without an invented word to describe the various and sundry behaviors that are now lumped together as 'racism.' When the word did enter our vocabulary, it meant more strictly acts of violence or physical harm, based on the race of the victim. The word 'racism' is one of the most elastic words in the English language, expanding to include any number of behaviors, thoughts, acts, and words, or even looks. The word has been rendered absurd by its overuse and its increasingly arbitrary and subjective use.
Maybe this is why some well-intentioned liberal Whites get caught in their own trap: it has become increasingly likely, given the expanding definition of 'racism', that every White will be accused/convicted of it at some point. It's almost reached those absurd, almost comic, proportions now. But I think very few liberals realize that they will unwittingly transgress the constantly-changing PC codes, and be hauled before the PC police for it. Even then, they don't seem to get it.
So is there such a thing as a 'fair' accusation of racism? Mrs. Whelan apparently did not violate the unwritten rule 'thou shalt not mention the race of a suspect unless he be White.' She did not refer to Gates and his unnamed companion (what happened to the second man, anyway?) in her 911 call. But if she had, would she then be a 'racist'? No, she would just be doing what a citizen should do: giving a description of the people in question.
I think what bothers me the most about situations like this is that too many Whites have no instinct to stick together and defend their own; even worse, there are too many who will actually point at another White while proclaiming their own ideologically pure views on race.
Even on the right this happens. Just read any thread on a rightwing forum on the issue of slavery or reparations. Most will protest their innocence: ''my ancestors didn't own slaves! I'm not from the South! My ancestors were still over in Europe then! My ancestors fought for the Union to free the slaves! Not guilty!' The implicit message is ''not me! That other guy over there is the one who's guilty.''
Why do so many Whites feel the compulsion to essentially throw some of our own to the wolves as a kind of sacrifice, and expiation for our (subjective) guilt? Why not show some solidarity? Yes, that too would be called racism, but then it's unavoidable. You will be called that at some time or another, and in fact, you've already been tried and found guilty simply by heredity.
Once we realize that we're considered guilty anyway by virtue of who we are, and who our ancestors were, that should free us considerably from the ''need'' to prove our moral rectitude and PC bonafides.
Labels: Ethnic Division, Free Speech, Liberal Intolerance, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race-Baiting
0 comment Friday, May 2, 2014 | admin
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.
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