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 Monday, August 25, 2014 | admin
It's been asserted, usually by those on the left end of the spectrum, that 'everything is political.' Well, since the beginning of this present administration, everything is certainly racial, at least in the eyes of the administration's minions and defenders.
Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''
Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.
But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.
Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.
Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.
Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.
So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.
Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.
So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.
But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?
Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.
During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?
My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?
I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.
However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.
So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.
The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.
We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.
Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.
Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.
It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.
Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.
And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.
We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.
There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.
And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.
Example: the appalling exchange between Chris Matthews of MSNBC (he of the 'leg tingle') and professionally black Cynthia Tucker. The topic under discussion is the townhall protests, and the mostly conservative protesters:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.''
Leaving aside Matthews' outrageous proposal -- it's hypothetical, supposedly, but what kind of mind imagines such scenarios? -- Tucker's implicit claim to be able to read the thoughts of the White townhall protesters is itself pretty outrageous.
But this is typical, run-of-the-mill stuff for the media arm of the regime. This is what they do, day in and day out. This is how they earn their livelihood. This is what they think about, and this is how they see the world. They see a world in which just about everybody who is not ''of color'' is racist to some extent or other, and those who deny it merely affirm the truth of the accusation by their very denials. So in these people's warped minds, White=racist. And no exceptions exist.
Regardless of whether the allegations of 'racism' are true in any given case, the real issue is: why have we allowed this society we created become so fanatically obsessed with 'race' and with purging out any incorrect thoughts on the subject? The whole idea of this bogeyman called 'racism' is an idea without which we managed to live successfully and peaceably for centuries, and yet now it seems to completely consume our thoughts and our public discourse. It has become so all-consuming that we managed to elect someone to the highest office in our land, someone whose experience was extremely limited, somebody whose CV is not even known to the public, except as unsubstantiated claims as to biographical details. And this person was elected, for all intents and purposes, because of his race. A White man (or woman) would be laughed off the public stage if he or she thought to run for President with such meagre experience, and while claiming the right not to divulge crucial evidence of past accomplishments, citizenship, and birth. That we elected someone of unknown background and scanty experience belies all common sense, except when we bring the race factor into it.
Over the last half-century we've become fully indoctrinated, most of us, to the idea that black people, and to a lesser extent other 'people of color' are essentially our moral betters, always sinned against yet never sinning. We are always in the wrong where they are concerned, and they themselves can do no wrong. When caught in some misdeed, the benefit of the doubt always accrues to them, and never to us. When a dispute occurs between a White or group of Whites and a black, the black is always the victim, the White the villain. It's as simple as that.
Even when the nonwhite is caught red-handed in a crime, excuses are made, the handiest excuse being: he was a victim of 'racism', or of 'the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.' Whenever a White criticizes a black or other nonwhite, the most effective defense for the nonwhite is to accuse the White of 'racism' and 'hate.' Playing that race card immediately is generally very effective, because the focus shifts to the White 'racist' who is then on the defensive trying to establish that he is innocent of this most serious of moral failings. At that point, the White man is assumed to be the bad guy, regardless of whether the black involved was justly criticized or accused.
So life becomes one long exercise, for Whites, of trying to disprove one's putative racism, to pre-emptively show the world, lest we be accused, that we are really not racist. Liberals are people who work full-time at trying to pre-empt any accusations of racism. ''Conservatives'', especially of the mainstream Republican variety, are not quite as zealous, although they will react when accused with the same protestations of innocence, and the same flailing attempts to establish one's innocence of that 'moral evil'.
Conservatives react, when cornered by race-baiters, by pointing the finger back if the accuser is a White Democrat: ''Democrats are the real racists! Democrats keep blacks on the liberal plantation! Robert 'Sheets' Byrd....'' and so on. In other words, they accept the validity of the concept of racism as the greatest evil, the scourge of our time, and they accept the idea that Whites are often guilty of it (although they point the finger at liberals) and they accept the idea that being found guilty of it should bring condemnation and punishment. In fact they cannot or will not simply step outside of the game and say 'I'm not playing this game anymore.' Why they are stuck in that paradigm, which is the one established by the enemy, is a puzzle to me.
So now conservatives and other common-sense Americans who oppose the health plan are being accused, as usual, of being racists, because they 'obviously don't like the idea of a black president.' Again, the left is asserting mind-reading capabilities.
But should somebody not ultimately ask: is it wrong or 'racist' to have a problem with electing a black president? Is race truly an irrelevant, superficial category that must not be even noticed in choosing between candidates, or making any other choice?
Even the Republicans seem to have bought the idea that race, even if not a 'social construct', is still an irrelevant category, like eye color or height. They accept the belief that race is merely skin color, and that it has no significance in making judgments about people. They are implicitly accepting the idea that race tells us nothing about an individual or group.
During the campaign, when all sorts of nonsensical ideas were floating around ('worse is better,' for example) I had an extended discussion with a fellow blogger, with whom I had an amicable, ongoing exchange, about whether race was significant in the election. The argument also revolved around whether, given a choice between two liberal candidates with similar leftist views, race even mattered. What would it matter if Clinton or Obama were nominated, if they pursued roughly the same agenda?
My thought was: even if the two had very similar policy goals and agendas, race did matter. I believed, and said, that the election of a black president would mean the racializing of virtually everything. I said that even if the media, for some strange reason, decided to be unbiased, the hypothetical administration would racialize things, especially criticism. Any criticism of the president's policies could be -- and therefore would be -- called 'racist.' How could a Democrat administration resist playing that old race card? It's the ultimate weapon in their arsenal; why would they suddenly develop compunctions about using it?
I said that Clinton, however disastrous a President she would be, would not be above criticism. I said that the Republican opposition (even given their craven cowardice) would not be above criticizing her in very blunt terms. She was and is a polarizing figure, and one who already evoked a great deal of hostility from conservatives. She would not be treated with kid gloves. She could be opposed vigorously and openly. Now, contrary to what feminists say, this is not because of 'sexism' or 'misogyny', but just because she was a woman who raised people's hackles, and who had no scruples about attacking her own perceived political enemies.
However, a black president, any black president would be treated with kid gloves, because Republicans are scared stiff of the race card. They would tiptoe around a black president and pull their punches. Nobody would want to be called the 'r-word' so they would roll over. And so far, that's what they've mostly done, throughout the campaign and after the inauguration.
So yes, it matters very much whether the president is White or black, as long as we still have this bizarre system in place in which people quail before a word, and will do or say almost anything to prove they are innocent of the charge of racism.
The system of political correctness, and the victimolatry which makes people fear transgressing against the 'victims' of the world, by word or deed, in essence makes us powerless. It disarms us. We have a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment; self-defense in that sense is legal and allowed. But we are disarmed verbally and in our thoughts. We are not allowed self-defense in our speech. All criticism of the protected 'victims', even in self-defense, is denied us.
We are subject to sanction if we speak uncomfortable truths which ''offend'' the professional offense-takers. So we are to all intents and purposes disarmed. We are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis minorities, and they know this, and use it mightily against us.
Even were we to wake up, stand up, and reject this arcane system, it would still matter whether a president is black or White or some other color. It matters because there is a power differential in this society, and the power is not with us, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. Look who has to bow the knee and apologize constantly; look who has to watch what he or she says. Look who cannot be ill-spoken of or criticized or looked at wrongly. It's not us.
Chris Matthews, and all the other media lackeys, are wrong in insinuating that it is illegitimate or immoral or evil or unjust to consider race when choosing a president.
It's a legitimate criterion for choosing a president. It's legitimate and reasonable because race is not merely a question of skin color or complexion. It is a fact, not a 'social construct', and blacks know this, as do Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, and essentially everybody except mesmerized Whites. Nonwhites recognize that they have an enormous advantage in their race, and this is why they racialize everything. When everything, including the health care debate, is racialized, and when that racialization is meant to marginalize us and make us out to be the villains, nonwhites have every incentive to make it about race.
Think about it: if race were really insignificant, or if White race conferred some special privilege as some insist, then nonwhites would not constantly call attention to race. But they do so constantly, proving that they see some benefit in being nonwhite. They perceive that their interests are served by disassociating from Whitey.
And the stark fact is that many minorities, if not all, see Whites as their rivals if not as The Enemy, or as competitors who stand in the way of their goals, if not as an obstacle to their ambitions. As long as members of other races take an adversarial or even hostile approach towards Whites, it's not only legitimate and sensible to take race into account; it's downright essential to one's survival.
We are not supposed to notice nonwhites animosity and hatred towards us, though it's in our faces in many ways. Some easily-fooled or pollyannaish Whites comfort themselves with believing that minorities like us, they really, really like us, and it's only White 'racism' that makes them hostile to us sometimes. But the fact is: their interests and ours are in conflict. We have every right, indeed, we have a duty to take reality, including racial reality, into consideration when choosing our elected officials.
There are real, significant differences among the races, and these differences should and must be allowed to be taken into account, given that these differences include differences in temperament, personality, innate abilities, and culture.
And for now, at least, everything is racial, because those in charge have made it so, because it serves their purpose nicely.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Freedom Of Speech, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race Card, Race Denial, Racial Division, Socialized Medicine, Thought Crime
0 comment Saturday, June 14, 2014 | admin
I've been reading some discussions around the conservative blogosphere, and there are a couple of interesting ones at Gates Of Vienna, such as this thread on Fjordman's latest article.
Commenters Diamed and kitmanic make noteworthy comments on that thread. However there are the usual comments which decry the political incorrectness which seems to be the main object of fear for some people on the right, but especially among the counterjihad right.
Not that I am singling Gates of Vienna out. It happens in many places around the conservative blogosphere. Even on this blog, one of my former commenters (who has since disappeared) seemed alarmed at some politically incorrectness on my part and as if to cover over it, hastily reminded me of the wonderful contributions our minorities have made, and how many of them are very nice people. Actually I conceded that many individuals among minority groups are nice people, and many seem friendly and pleasant. But again, we have to look at general patterns not at individuals. And I will not resort to politically correct disclaimers every time I make a non-PC statement. It seems to me to be an appeasing, defensive gesture, and that's the last attitude we need, in our situation.
The politically correct liberals are easy to spot, and predictable in their behavior. But the politically correct on the 'right' are a little harder to spot sometimes; they will go just so far in their political incorrectness. For example, it's easy for many on the right to have negative feelings towards Moslems because of 9/11. But for many, that's as far as their heresy goes; thus far and no farther. Even then they often couch their negative statements about Moslems with phrases like 'but I am sure there are many more who are peaceful people who want the same things we want'.
Then there are the people who will say critical, angry things about illegal immigrants, but hasten to add that 'I don't have anything against legal immigrants.' Or there are those who will admit that even legal immigration is not always good, but who will then say 'but the Hispanic Americans I know are good family people and good Christians.'
What is it that underlies this nervous, defensive behavior? It does seem to me to be a nervous, fearful kind of thing. Are these people afraid of their fellow Americans? Do they feel they have to talk the rest of us out of our 'hateful' impulses, sort of act as the little angel on our shoulders telling us not to be 'racists'? It seems so. I sense a real distrust of other White Americans on their part.
Or can it be that it's self-talk, that they are afraid that they, too, have a hidden 'racist' nature that must be fought every step of the way?
Are they afraid that the politically incorrect dissenters will bring down the wrath of the 'Others' on us? If so, then they at least realize, if only subconsciously the threat we are under.
I think that many Americans, and judging by the Gates of Vienna commenters too, many Europeans have thoroughly internalized the belief that people of European descent are somehow inclined to be natural oppressors, perpetrators of 'genocide' against innocent nonwhites. They have bought the liberal/leftist propaganda which has dominated the textbooks of the last half-century or so, and which of course is hammered into people's consciousness by the mainstream media all over the West.
Many Americans have come to accept unthinkingly the common view that American history was one long dark episode of 'genocide' against the poor Indians, and oppression of the poor blacks via slavery, Jim Crow, and other such 'atrocities'. This caricatured image of America is very much the dominant one in our media, such as in Hollywood movies, and it goes essentially unchallenged, because no one wants to try to defend things like slavery or segregation, except for a few unreconstructed Southerners, and they are becoming pretty thin on the ground these days, as many Southron people are as PC as the rest. So we simply accept that our ancestors were the bad guys, generally guilty of everything of which they were accused.
I suppose if we accept that, as the majority seem to do, then we really ought to keep ourselves in check, and keep our fellow Americans under close watch, lest they revert to their evil natures and start oppressing the downtrodden again.
Some of the younger generations might -- might -- be excused for harboring these delusions, because they have been indoctrinated steadily from day one. But for those who are old enough to remember, there is no excuse for buying this warped version of our history. I suspect that those old enough to know better, but who still accept the PC version of history, somehow rationalize it by thinking, 'well, I and my family never oppressed any minorities, and I never saw these atrocities we hear about so often, but maybe in some other area it was as bad as they say.'' Northerners, I think, are inclined to think this way, and though they themselves feel no personal guilt, they hold the South accountable for every evil the White man is accused of.
I was only a child during the days when forced integration happened, and the Civil Rights revolution played out, but I was aware of what went on around me, aware enough that I don't accept the popular, PC interpretations of our history. I know better.
But even those younger have the responsibility to investigate things for themselves, to go to older sources such as old history books, old newspapers, and above all, to the older generations who have clear memories and who have not themselves been brainwashed. The truth is available to everybody who cares to seek it out. But it most assuredly will not be found in our mainstream media, either the 'news' media, so-called, or the 'entertainment' media.
We have to find ways to get across to our fellow 'conservatives' who are still somewhat under the PC spell that this is no time to worry about little niceties like whether we hurt somebody's feelings -- especially when those somebodies have not the least regard for our feelings -- or whether we look like 'bigots' to someone else, or whether someone calls us a name.
It's painfully obvious that these 'conservatives' absolutely don't see the direness of our situation; they seem to think that in being polite and fair and considerate and 'tolerant', we will somehow deflect what is coming our way. They just don't see, can't see, or just plain refuse to see that our house is on fire, and this is not the time to worry about being genteel and inoffensive. It's not the time to show our magnanimity and our good nature by deferring to the enemies in our midst. Worrying about political incorrectness on our side is absurd at this late hour.
As I argued in a couple of posts before, there is a time for anger and yes, even a time for hate. That last phrase is in the Book of Ecclesiastes. And yet so many people today want to be holier than God himself and disclaim hate or even righteous anger. And what we are talking about does not even fall under the true definition of 'hate', a word which by the way has been overused and abused by the left. What is being called 'hate' all too often is merely a speaking of unflattering truths, or in some cases, an expression of righteous wrath at the wrongs being inflicted on us. It is an expression of outrage at the injustices which are multiplying every day. It's a cry of protest against the invasion of our country, the criminalization of free speech, the loss of our rights, and the loss of our homes. Are we to be silenced even in the face of those things?
Kevin Myers in his recent pieces in the Irish Independent spoke of the need for 'measured hostility' in our situation.
And so, not hating, I certainly don't want anyone to hate anyone else either. However, I know and feel and applaud measured hostility, the guardian of our civilisation, and the father of our laws. Measured hostility is what puts the gunman behind bars: it drives the mugger from the street and the burglar from our homes.
It also protects freedom of speech from those who would steal it from us -- most particularly in Ireland of today, the quango thought-police of doctrinaire liberalism, and single-issue vigilantes in the media. ''
Call it measured hostility,then. We need it. We cannot afford niceness and timidity and appeasement.
To the politically correct among us, what are you afraid of? Us? Yourselves? The Other?
As for me, I'm only afraid that we will go gently and politically correctly into that good night.
I don't welcome the dying of the light, and as long as there is breath in me, I will rage against it.
Commenters Diamed and kitmanic make noteworthy comments on that thread. However there are the usual comments which decry the political incorrectness which seems to be the main object of fear for some people on the right, but especially among the counterjihad right.
Not that I am singling Gates of Vienna out. It happens in many places around the conservative blogosphere. Even on this blog, one of my former commenters (who has since disappeared) seemed alarmed at some politically incorrectness on my part and as if to cover over it, hastily reminded me of the wonderful contributions our minorities have made, and how many of them are very nice people. Actually I conceded that many individuals among minority groups are nice people, and many seem friendly and pleasant. But again, we have to look at general patterns not at individuals. And I will not resort to politically correct disclaimers every time I make a non-PC statement. It seems to me to be an appeasing, defensive gesture, and that's the last attitude we need, in our situation.
The politically correct liberals are easy to spot, and predictable in their behavior. But the politically correct on the 'right' are a little harder to spot sometimes; they will go just so far in their political incorrectness. For example, it's easy for many on the right to have negative feelings towards Moslems because of 9/11. But for many, that's as far as their heresy goes; thus far and no farther. Even then they often couch their negative statements about Moslems with phrases like 'but I am sure there are many more who are peaceful people who want the same things we want'.
Then there are the people who will say critical, angry things about illegal immigrants, but hasten to add that 'I don't have anything against legal immigrants.' Or there are those who will admit that even legal immigration is not always good, but who will then say 'but the Hispanic Americans I know are good family people and good Christians.'
What is it that underlies this nervous, defensive behavior? It does seem to me to be a nervous, fearful kind of thing. Are these people afraid of their fellow Americans? Do they feel they have to talk the rest of us out of our 'hateful' impulses, sort of act as the little angel on our shoulders telling us not to be 'racists'? It seems so. I sense a real distrust of other White Americans on their part.
Or can it be that it's self-talk, that they are afraid that they, too, have a hidden 'racist' nature that must be fought every step of the way?
Are they afraid that the politically incorrect dissenters will bring down the wrath of the 'Others' on us? If so, then they at least realize, if only subconsciously the threat we are under.
I think that many Americans, and judging by the Gates of Vienna commenters too, many Europeans have thoroughly internalized the belief that people of European descent are somehow inclined to be natural oppressors, perpetrators of 'genocide' against innocent nonwhites. They have bought the liberal/leftist propaganda which has dominated the textbooks of the last half-century or so, and which of course is hammered into people's consciousness by the mainstream media all over the West.
Many Americans have come to accept unthinkingly the common view that American history was one long dark episode of 'genocide' against the poor Indians, and oppression of the poor blacks via slavery, Jim Crow, and other such 'atrocities'. This caricatured image of America is very much the dominant one in our media, such as in Hollywood movies, and it goes essentially unchallenged, because no one wants to try to defend things like slavery or segregation, except for a few unreconstructed Southerners, and they are becoming pretty thin on the ground these days, as many Southron people are as PC as the rest. So we simply accept that our ancestors were the bad guys, generally guilty of everything of which they were accused.
I suppose if we accept that, as the majority seem to do, then we really ought to keep ourselves in check, and keep our fellow Americans under close watch, lest they revert to their evil natures and start oppressing the downtrodden again.
Some of the younger generations might -- might -- be excused for harboring these delusions, because they have been indoctrinated steadily from day one. But for those who are old enough to remember, there is no excuse for buying this warped version of our history. I suspect that those old enough to know better, but who still accept the PC version of history, somehow rationalize it by thinking, 'well, I and my family never oppressed any minorities, and I never saw these atrocities we hear about so often, but maybe in some other area it was as bad as they say.'' Northerners, I think, are inclined to think this way, and though they themselves feel no personal guilt, they hold the South accountable for every evil the White man is accused of.
I was only a child during the days when forced integration happened, and the Civil Rights revolution played out, but I was aware of what went on around me, aware enough that I don't accept the popular, PC interpretations of our history. I know better.
But even those younger have the responsibility to investigate things for themselves, to go to older sources such as old history books, old newspapers, and above all, to the older generations who have clear memories and who have not themselves been brainwashed. The truth is available to everybody who cares to seek it out. But it most assuredly will not be found in our mainstream media, either the 'news' media, so-called, or the 'entertainment' media.
We have to find ways to get across to our fellow 'conservatives' who are still somewhat under the PC spell that this is no time to worry about little niceties like whether we hurt somebody's feelings -- especially when those somebodies have not the least regard for our feelings -- or whether we look like 'bigots' to someone else, or whether someone calls us a name.
It's painfully obvious that these 'conservatives' absolutely don't see the direness of our situation; they seem to think that in being polite and fair and considerate and 'tolerant', we will somehow deflect what is coming our way. They just don't see, can't see, or just plain refuse to see that our house is on fire, and this is not the time to worry about being genteel and inoffensive. It's not the time to show our magnanimity and our good nature by deferring to the enemies in our midst. Worrying about political incorrectness on our side is absurd at this late hour.
As I argued in a couple of posts before, there is a time for anger and yes, even a time for hate. That last phrase is in the Book of Ecclesiastes. And yet so many people today want to be holier than God himself and disclaim hate or even righteous anger. And what we are talking about does not even fall under the true definition of 'hate', a word which by the way has been overused and abused by the left. What is being called 'hate' all too often is merely a speaking of unflattering truths, or in some cases, an expression of righteous wrath at the wrongs being inflicted on us. It is an expression of outrage at the injustices which are multiplying every day. It's a cry of protest against the invasion of our country, the criminalization of free speech, the loss of our rights, and the loss of our homes. Are we to be silenced even in the face of those things?
Kevin Myers in his recent pieces in the Irish Independent spoke of the need for 'measured hostility' in our situation.
And so, not hating, I certainly don't want anyone to hate anyone else either. However, I know and feel and applaud measured hostility, the guardian of our civilisation, and the father of our laws. Measured hostility is what puts the gunman behind bars: it drives the mugger from the street and the burglar from our homes.
It also protects freedom of speech from those who would steal it from us -- most particularly in Ireland of today, the quango thought-police of doctrinaire liberalism, and single-issue vigilantes in the media. ''
Call it measured hostility,then. We need it. We cannot afford niceness and timidity and appeasement.
To the politically correct among us, what are you afraid of? Us? Yourselves? The Other?
As for me, I'm only afraid that we will go gently and politically correctly into that good night.
I don't welcome the dying of the light, and as long as there is breath in me, I will rage against it.
Labels: Free Speech, Freedom Of Thought, Political Correctness, Thought Crime, Western Decline
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