Boots on the ground seeing this post – please send pix and updates on .gov numbers/equipment/disposition on Twitter to #thisshitstopsnow and @WRSAblog.
Email is email@example.com.
Spread the word.
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
A court in Egypt sentenced four men to up to eight years in prison on Monday for practicing homosexuality, a judicial official said.
Prosecutors had accused the men of holding “deviant parties” and dressing in women’s clothes. Three were sentenced to eight years and the fourth to three years in prison.
Prosecutors have used a law banning “debauchery” to try homosexuals in the past.
Those accused of homosexuality are often forced to undergo medical tests to establish they are “habitual” gays, a practice rights groups have decried as abusive.
Homosexuality is not tolerated across the Middle East and much of Africa.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
Earth Hour stigmatizes human accomplishment as the root of all evils and treats the lack of accomplishment as an accomplishment. For all the pretense of activism, environmentalism celebrates inaction.
Don’t build, don’t create and don’t do– are its mandates. Turn off the lights and feel good about how much you aren’t doing right now.
Humanity is what is wrong with the world. It began with fire, then the wheelbarrow, the lever and the ax, the mason, the carpenter, the scientist, the visionary. It can end with you.
Just turn out the lights.
Environmentalism has degenerated from valuing how much the skies and the oceans, the butterfly and the beaver, the still lake and the blade of grass, enrich our humanity into a conviction that all human activity is destructive because the species of man is the greatest threat to the planet. Each death, each act of undoing and unmaking, each darkness that is brought about by the cessation of humanity becomes a profoundly environmentalist activity.
Kill yourself and save the planet. Put out the lights, tear down the city and let the earth revert to some imaginary primeval paradise free of all pollution; whether it is the carbon breath of men, dogs and cows or the light pollution of their cities.
Embrace the darkness.
While we take electric light for granted, being able to read and write after dark is a technological achievement that transformed our civilization. Animals are governed by day and night cycles. Artificial light made it possible for us to work independently of the day and night cycle. And that made our literature and our sciences, our civilization, possible.
Like all environmental gimmicks, Earth Hour is self-defeating as anything other than an assertion of identity and faith. Far more energy is consumed promoting it, than is saved by practicing it.
Websites switch to black, even though displaying black on television sets or monitors consumes more energy. Turning off electricity to entire buildings after working hours and then turning it on costs more than letting it run. And getting 90 million people across the country to turn their power on and off at a scheduled time is an energy savings disaster. And since power companies draw down on their more expensive ‘green’ generators first, Earth Hour actually shuts down ‘green’ power.
But its sponsors don’t claim that Earth Hour saves energy or prevents us from polluting the globe. Like every environmentalist stunt from flying rock stars around the world on jet planes to carving thousands of statues made of ice and then leaving them to melt in a public square, Earth Hour is described as spreading “awareness”.
Spreading awareness is the sole purpose of most environmental activism. Awareness spreading doesn’t improve anything, but spreads the ideology that humanity is evil to make people feel guilty, outraged, hopeful or some combination of the appropriate political sentiments in the face of an imminent armageddon that can only be fought by convincing everyone to be deeply concerned by it and disdainful of everyone who stands outside their Chicken Little consensus.
It is a religious ritual for a secular religion that has no god, but whose devil is the gear and the microchip, the milk cow and the imported banana, the skyscraper and the lathe.
The WWF, Earth Hour’s godmother, has learned that shrill attention seeking is a reliable fundraising method. One of the WWF’s more memorable fundraising methods was an ad showing hundreds of planes headed toward the World Trade Center, to highlight just how much more important their work is than fighting terrorism. Franny Armstrong of Age of Stupid, which was promoted by the WWF, ran a 10:10 campaign in the UK, whose ads featured environmentalists murdering dissenters, including a group of schoolchildren. The ads are just ads, but London’s leftist former mayor, Ken Livingstone had said of Age of Stupid, “Every single person in the country should be forcibly sat down on a chair and made to watch this film.”
That is the dark side of environmentalism. The most active non-Muslim domestic terrorist group is environmental. The undercurrent of violence finds easy purchase in environmentalism’s creed that the only real problem with the world is people.
No amount of turning off the lights is enough. Eventually you come around to having to turn off the people.
The Nazis were among the most enthusiastic environmentalists of their day, even the term ‘Ecology’ was coined by Ernst Haeckel, whose racial views served as precursors to Nazi eugenics. But while Nazi environmentalist believed that we were all animals, they insisted that some animals were better than others. Modern environmentalists believe that we are all worse than animals. In their view we are both natural and unnatural. Natural because we come from the ape and unnatural because we are intelligent. We live on the planet, but our intelligence excludes us from ever belonging to it.
Tools are our crime against nature. We make things. And we make things better. Earth Hour is our reminder to drop our tools and stop. Stop thinking. Stop doing. Just stop.
The incompatibility of productive man with the natural world is a fundamental tenet of the environmental movement. Everything we do is destructive because of what we are. We are tool builders, inventors and producers. And the environmentalist movement is aimed at convincing us to stop being these things. To turn off the lights, make do with less and march back to the caves with a few clever ad campaigns and a catchy tune.
Not only mankind must go, but all the animals that man has domesticated and bred– cows, dogs and cats. That is why PETA kills thousands of dogs and cats a year, promotes the euthanasia of wild cats and pet spaying and its staffers have even been known to kidnap animals and then kill them. It is why the Global Warming crowd has made cow emissions into their whipping bovine.
It’s not enough to kill man, tear down his cities and put out his lights. His cats and dogs and his cows and sheep must die along with him.
Environmentalism is not motivated by a love for all creatures, but by the fanatical belief in the purification of the earth from all traces of human civilization. The political leftist romanticizes the noble savage over the civilized man and its environmentalist arm romanticizes the jungle over the thousand acre farm. It prefers the the swamp to the garden, the wolf to the dog, and the tiger to the house cat.
This preference is not scientific, it is emotional, rooted in an antipathy to industrialization and human development. It wraps itself in the cloak of science, but it is a reactionary longing for a romanticized nomadic past that never existed. A way back to the lost eden of noble savages free from morality and guilt.
In the environmental bible– man is the source of all evil. The transition from the nomadic to the domestic, the village to the city, and the craftsman to the factory, is its version of original sin.
The environmentalist began with a distaste for human civilization and the fetishization of the rural farm life of the peasant. The champions of this “naturalism” were invariably urban artists and writers from the upper classes who were enthusiastic about being in touch with nature. After them came the “Nature Fakers” crafting myths about the high moral standards of wild animals. Domestic animals in such stories were always wicked and dumb, while wild animals lived deep and spiritual lives out in the woods. And so the animal kingdom was subdivided into the noble savage and the uncle tom.
The world was divided into two polar opposites, the green and the gray, in an apocalyptic struggle. Either man would drown the world in industry, or he would return to a natural way of life through a lethal virus (Mary Shelley, The Last Man, 1826), a devastating war (H.G. Wells), oppressive social policies (Edward Bellamy) or eco-terrorism (The Monkey Wrench Gang). The more civilization grew, the more apocalyptic the scenarios became culminating in the two great environmental myths; nuclear winter and global warming. These apocalyptic myths have served the same purpose for environmentalists as apocalypses do for all religions. They predict a time when the sinful order is overturned and the earth is renewed to make way for the faithful.
Man is the environmentalist’s devil. He must be beaten, broken and subjugated. Even the animals he has bred, who are the spark of his genius, must be taken out and killed. Take away his food and his power. Blame him for the natural cycles of the planet and the inevitable extinction of species that goes on whether he is there or not. Take away his technology and his inventions. Tell him that the humblest bacteria is better than him for it is dumb and follows its natural instincts while he insists on using his mind. Take away his primacy and his learning. And then leave him in the dark.
The environmental movement is tenacious, fanatical and deceptive. Its creed is the undoing of all human progress.
There is money to be made from that, as there is in all revolutions, but beneath the inconveniences of living under an environmental regime, from dirty clothes to high taxes, while being forced to listen to the hypocrisies and false pieties of the Gorean clergy of environmentalist activists heating their mansions while the poor freeze in energy poverty, is the darker reality that environmentalism is an anti-human movement with a vicious hostility toward man and the civilization he has built.
Whatever he has built, it must destroy.
The gap between darkness and light is a profound symbol in every civilization. The light of knowledge pitted against the shadowy dark of ignorance. The light reveals, but the darkness hides.
Civilization and the moral code exist in the light of awareness, but the darkness is home to unthinking bestial things. To call for a return to the darkness is a profound act of symbolism. A civilization that celebrates a return to the darkness for even a single hour is longing for a return to a deeper state of darkness.
A darkness of the soul.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
“It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.”
Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.
It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of social control that the killing sprees expose. Every murder tears apart the myth that government is the answer.
The gun control issue is about solving individual evil through central planning in a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and lives under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing peace signs on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.
That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.
Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, some of the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the security guards at armored cars and banks, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you’re sure to stop all shootings.
So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.
But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about the belief that the problem is individual, not evil, and that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following government orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop.
It’s the central planning solution to evil.
We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We’ll never know how many were killed by Obama’s regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders. There was no individual agency, just agencies. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it.
Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it’s the lack of central planning for shooting people. It’s the individual.
A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders are a major problem. Historically though it’s millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.
Moral agency is individual. You can’t outsource it to a government and you wouldn’t want to.
The impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual.
Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies or do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders.
Gun control does not control guns, it gives the illusion of controlling people, and when it fails those in authority are able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.
We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, committed to bringing their perfect state into being through the absolute control over people, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play.
People do kill people and the only way to stop that is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything that came before it, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.
Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 12th Century which was not a nicer place for lack of guns. The same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where a single family can rule over millions and one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants.
Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.
Would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled?
But the Democratic Party is no longer the party of Thomas Jefferson. It’s the party of King George III. And it doesn’t like the idea of armed peasants, not because an occasional peasants goes on a shooting spree, but because like a certain dead mad king who liked to talk to trees, it believes that government power comes before individual liberty. Like that dead king, it believes that it means this for the benefit of the peasants who will be better off being told what to do.
The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.
Do we want a society run by kings and princes who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The kings can promise us a world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.
It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of; it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. It’s afraid of individual power.
Evil finds heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways.
A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.
An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control.
Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their kings and princes to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the freedom that left the killer free to kill, instead of the lack of freedom that prevented them from being able to stop him.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
Funny Thing: Coming Or Going—Gentrifying Or Fleeing—It’s Always Whitey’s Fault!
Spike Lee’s notorious February 25 lecture at Brooklyn’s Pratt Institute in honor of Black History Month., was an expletive-filled, overtly racial, hypocritical rant. During the supposed Q&A, Lee jettisoned the format and steamrolled the adoring liberal white attendees:
Here’s the thing: I grew up here in Fort Greene. I grew up here in New York. It’s changed. And why does it take an influx of white New Yorkers in the south Bronx, in Harlem, in Bed Stuy, in Crown Heights for the facilities to get better? The garbage wasn’t picked up every [bleepin’] day when I was living in 165 Washington Park. P.S. 20 was not good. P.S. 11. Rothschild 294. The police weren’t around. When you see white mothers pushing their babies in strollers, three o’clock in the morning on 125th Street [NS: highly unlikely], that must tell you something….
Then comes the [bleepin’] Christopher Columbus Syndrome. You can’t discover this! We been here. You just can’t come and bogart [steal]. There were brothers playing [bleepin’] African drums in Mount Morris Park for 40 years and now they can’t do it anymore because the new inhabitants said the drums are loud. My father’s a great jazz musician. He bought a house in nineteen-[bleepin’]-sixty-eight, and the [bleepin’] people moved in last year and called the cops on my father….
Nah. You can’t do that…. You have to come with respect. There’s a code. There’s people. …
And we had the crystal ball, mother [bleepin]’ Do the Right Thing with John Savage’s character, when he rolled his bike over Buggin’ Out’s sneaker. I wrote that script in 1988. He was the first one. How you walking around Brooklyn with a Larry Bird jersey on? You can’t do that. Not in Bed Stuy.
[Spike Lee’s Amazing Rant Against Gentrification: ‘We Been Here!’ by Joe Coscarelli, New York Magazine, February 25, 2014]
It’s important to note that the New York Magazine editor who called Lee’s rant “amazing” was not being ironic. Liberal whites must always re-define racist black behavior as something positive, anodyne, or just misrepresented and misunderstood, probably by white racists.
Of course, Lee’s position would only make sense if he still lived in the Fort Greene neighborhood he’d grown up in. In fact, he fled it back in 2000, to live far away from blacks in a $32 million mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. [“Spike Lee’s Upper East Side mansion hits market at $32 million,” by Matt Chaban, New York Daily News, February 2, 2014]
But while Lee insists upon his own right to enter elite white neighborhoods, he simultaneously claims that whites should be banned from so much as wearing a Larry Bird jersey in a “black” neighborhood. Lee’s definition of “respect” isn’t English, but the black street thug version: submission to threats of physical force.
What Lee advocates is Politically Correct asymmetrical apartheid—blacks can live anywhere, but they can also maintain (through force) segregated black neighborhoods. [“Spike Lee and other sentimental segregationists,” by Harry Siegel, New York Daily News, March 4, 2014]
What’s worse is that Lee’s hypocritical tribalism is in line with what our rulers have been imposing on us for 60 years. Government at all levels moves with ruthless fanaticism to destroy any neighborhoods that are “too white.” Even Republicans get in the act—like Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead strategizing to culturally enrich his largely white state with Somali “refugees.”
Those pushing these policies live far away from the consequences they create. Like Lee, they say “Diversity for thee, but not for me.”
None of the nine white Supreme Court justices of the unanimous Brown decision lived among integration/diversity. Nor did the committee that helped federal judge Arthur Garrity “integrate” Boston’s public schools via forced busing during the 1970s. [“Busing’s Boston Massacre,” Hoover Institution, November 1, 1998]
Diversity-hustling white journalists typically live in virtually black-free areas in places like Bethesda and Potomac, Maryland. The journalists and Catholic Church functionaries who denounced Frank Borzellieri all live in lily-white areas—in one case, the same neighborhood as American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor.
The justification for sweeping government action on desegregation, busing, anti-white racial preferences, and demographic change is what the U.S. Supreme Court called in Bakke the “compelling state interest” of diversity. But the very people who push it seem the most eager to forgo its blessings.
What holds the whole scheme together is simply white guilt. While it is fashionable to sneer at white-driven gentrification, other propagandists condemn “white flight” for supposedly causing high black crime rates and economic collapse.
For example, former crime reporter David Simon created the TV show The Wire, a supposedly realistic look at crime and policing in Baltimore. During a documentary promoting the show, Simon asserted that social scientists had proved that when a formerly white neighborhood reached six percent black, the whites all pulled up stakes and left, as if whites said, ‘We won’t tolerate this level of black neighbors.’ Simon gravely nodded, after stating his pseudo-fact, as if to say, ‘You see how racist whites are?’
The simple truth: whites are fleeing the black violence, not causing it.
A revealing look at how “diversity” destroys communities is the 1998 book Left Behind in Rosedale, by sociologist Scott Cummings. This mainstream, academic work covers the destruction of Fort Worth TX’s formerly white, crime-free, University Heights neighborhood.
It’s a familiar tale. Middle-class blacks moved in, used the now desegregated neighborhood as a stepping stone, and moved on. They were followed by the underclass, who imposed a reign of racial terror on the aging whites who didn’t flee. Atrocities included the rape and murder of elderly women, in one case through shoving a broom handle down a woman’s throat.
The Fort Worth PD failed to protect the whites, the MSM ignored their plight and—as Cummings recounts—his academic colleagues positively reveled in the whites’ suffering.
But the reaction of liberal whites is far different if it is whites themselves who are changing neighborhoods. Usually middle/upper-middle class whitea buy up properties cheaply in depressed areas, and improve and profit off them. These “gentrifiers” often start out in working-class white neighborhoods, such as Brooklyn’s Park Slope, but soon run out of white areas, and have no choice but to wade into black communities, like Manhattan’s Harlem, Brooklyn’s Fort Greene, various parts of Baltimore, and other dilapidated, black-run cities.
Many urban dwelling gentrifying whites are socially liberal—which leads to awkward encounters once they actually encounter “diversity.” Recently, a lesbian Baltimore gentrifier, Tracey Halvorsen, came out of the closet about the black-on-white racial violence, in a searing personal essay. [“Baltimore City, You’re Breaking My Heart,” Tracey Halvorsen, Medium, February 6, 2014] Halvorsen inspired other Baltimore gentrifiers to recount their own harrowing experiences with blacks. But she also received the predictably hysterical blowback about how black crime is actually her fault, because of “inequality.” [“Some or All Fears: ‘Breaking My Heart’ Post Sparks Debate,” City Paper, February 7, 2014]. Suitably chastened, Halvorsen swiftly bent the knee, condemned those who had shown her support, and leapt back into the closet, pulling the door tightly behind her.
Even a liberal female homosexual, if she’s white, can do no right. Whites are racist if they move out of black neighborhoods because of black crime – or even notice black crime at all. But they are also racist if they move into black neighborhoods.
It’s a long drop from “for ourselves and our posterity” to public policy driven by the insecurities of people like Spike Lee.
Integration and diversity was never about improving the lives of blacks. It is about destroying the communities of whites—and creating a dysfunctional, dependent wreck in the place of the historic American nation.
Nicholas Stix [email him] is a New York City-based journalist and researcher, much of whose work focuses on the nexus of race, crime, and education. He spent much of the 1990s teaching college in New York and New Jersey. His work has appeared in Chronicles, The New York Post, Weekly Standard, Daily News, New York Newsday, American Renaissance, Academic Questions, Ideas on Liberty and many other publications. Stix was the project director and principal author of the NPI report, The State of White America-2007. He blogs at Nicholas Stix, Uncensored.
Cleveland Indian fans should be saddened to learn that the beloved Chief Wahoo is on his way out, having been designated as politically incorrect by liberals who revel in their ability to ban anything they please on any foolish pretext. In cowardly response to moonbat tantrums, the cheerful cartoon Indian is getting replaced by a boring block C as the team’s primary logo.
Chief Wahoo isn’t going away. At least not yet. He’ll still have a home on the Indians’ jersey sleeves.
But the Chief is well on his way to the reservation. From there he will vanish entirely, rendering our culture just a little more drab, and a little more monochromatically politically correct.
For now Chief Wahoo is still on the home caps too…
In that sense, the impact of the logo redesignations would be more symbolic than practical.
But symbolism matters, especially when discussing Chief Wahoo…
[T]he logo redesignations would have ripple effects because media outlets — including “SportsCenter” and newspapers — would start using the block-C, instead of Wahoo, as their visual shorthand for the team.
Wahoo set off on his Trail of Tears a few years ago:
The franchise removed Wahoo from its road cap in 2011 and from its home batting helmet in 2013. At last summer’s All-Star Game FanFest — a merch-fest where teams generally slap all their logos on every product imaginable — Wahoo was nowhere to be found. Go to the Indians’ website and you’ll find the block-C near the top of the home page with Wahoo less prominently used. Several reporters have noted that the block-C has a much larger presence than Wahoo at the team’s spring training facility too.
The priggish liberals at ESPN unsurprisingly want the Chief banned immediately on the grounds that “ethnic caricatures such as Wahoo are harder and harder to defend in a modern, diverse society.” Next they will demand the team change its name.
Why should anyone care what logo is on the hat of a dying city’s baseball team? Because every time the totalitarian Left takes an inch, they move on to take the next inch. No matter how absurd the battles are, if normal Americans keep losing them, we will wake up one day soon to find our culture no longer exists.
On a tip from Shawn R.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Some of my colleagues are celebrating. They call Eich a bigot who got what he deserved. I agree. But let’s not stop here. If we’re serious about enforcing the new standard, thousands of other employees who donated to the same anti-gay ballot measure must be punished.
More than 35,000 people gave money to the campaign for Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that declared, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” You can download the entire list, via the Los Angeles Times, as a compressed spreadsheet. (Click the link that says, “Download CSV.”) Each row lists the donor’s employer. …
Thirty-seven companies in the database are linked to more than 1,300 employees who gave nearly $1 million in combined contributions to the campaign for Prop 8. Twenty-five tech companies are linked to 435 employees who gave more than $300,000. Many of these employees gave $1,000 apiece, if not more. Some, like Eich, are probably senior executives.
Why do these bigots still have jobs? Let’s go get them. …
If we’re serious about taking down corporate officers who supported Proposition 8, and boycotting employers who promote them, we’d better get cracking on the rest of the list.
Remember that the people they are seeking out for destruction gave money years ago to a proposition that was passed by a majority of California voters, who were then overruled by the courts, starting with gay activist judge Vaughn Walker. Prop 8 is long dead; the liberals who control the judiciary have spoken. The explicit objective now is to hunt down people who have privately held views in the past that are currently considered inconsistent with leftwing ideology.
This isn’t about promoting homosexuality as an end in itself, or only the tiny percentage of Americans who are pushily homosexual would be driving it. This is a major battle in the Cultural Marxist war to replace America with a country where no thought crime (as defined by ultra-Left oligarchs) will be tolerated.
As you can see, anonymity is no longer an option. Neither is sitting on the sidelines. Either we fight these vermin, or they win. If they win there will be zero tolerance for anyone they deem to be ideologically incorrect, as they have clearly demonstrated.
On a tip from Shawn R.
I’m told the Slate piece is satire. I had considered the possibility, but judging by the way liberals went after Eich, could see no reason to believe that a piece in a leftwing publication calling for more of the same would not be on the level. Is it also satire when the author calls Eich a “bigot” for privately opposing the desecration of marriage? If not, where does the satire line start? Or is the satire claim just cover to hide behind when moonbats overstep?
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From Mad Medic
The sour Leftists who anoint themselves our elite:
“No wonder they hate Christianity so. Not only does it deny everything they are; it pulls the mask off them and calls them what they are and have always been – merely more fallen men sunk into wickedness.” – - Ahead of the World | John C. Wright
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Haven’t you learned anything from history?
‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long.
Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed. In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic. You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion. You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division. Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose | The Matt Walsh Blog
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The removal of Eich is about fascism.
It’s about one group of people forcing everyone else to bow to their hat on a pole;
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
One of my favourite characteristics of the English language is its abundance of idioms and ‘folk expressions’; phrases which can be used to express very complex ideas with simplicity and brevity, provided the other party is of a cultural kin.
You’ll no doubt have your own favourite example. Mine is the old phrase ‘Sour Grapes’.
As with other elements of our language, this idiom is now commonly used incorrectly. Many people believe ‘sour grapes’ to mean being bitter or annoyed about losing a game, when actually it is much more beautifully nuanced than this.
The ‘sour grapes’ idiom derives from a story in ‘Aesop’s Fables’ about a fox who tries to reach a high-hanging vine of perfectly ripe grapes. When he is unable to do so, he dismisses the grapes as being sour, in order to delude himself out of his own disappointment.
To lose a chess game and be angry therefore is not sour grapes. To lose a chess game and then dismiss the concept of ‘winning at chess’ as invalid – is.
This idiom is very useful – I find – to the modern situation as we confront it.
How much of Musim rage against the West derives from a genuinely held belief in cultural superiority, and how much of it is – like the fox and the grapes – merely cognitive dissonance? Do Islamists hate the West because they genuinely love their poverty, or do they detest the West because its glistening fruit is beyond their capability?
To pursue an answer, let’s try a thought experiment:
Imagine a Pakistani youth walking down a high street in London. In the course of his journey he notices all the furniture of a modern, secular culture; a group of lightly clothed women congregating together without a family chaperone; smartly-dressed business people of both sexes enjoying a red wine lunch; young lovers walking hand in hand, having chosen each other freely, without filial or tribal consideration; and all about him rises the glassy architecture of an affluent, free and developed nation, built by people other than his own.
Isolated and confused by all this, he thinks to himself:
“Look at all these soulless, decadent sinners!” and pledges his energy to their collective destruction.
But then suddenly, out of nowhere, a magical figure appears in a puff of smoke and offers the startled fanatic a bargain -
“I feel sorry for your discomfort” the figure whispers “….And so I’m going to give you two ways to alleviate it… The first is for you to be born again in Pakistan, away from all this horrific liberty, and never to learn of it. Or, alternatively, I can make you one of these very people, in appearance, identity and lifestyle, so that it no longer bothers you and this tension is resolved.”
As to which option the Muslim would take, it is impossible to give numbers. We can nevertheless provide case studies of ideological weakness which suggest the latter option might often be more likely than the former.
Before embarking on the deadliest attack against the West this century, some members of the al-Qaeda hijack-squad are believed to have engaged in numerous un-Islamic practices on American soil, such as attending strip-clubs and getting blind drunk at liquor bars. Similarly, their ring-leader Osama Bin Laden, according to the Navy Seals who disposed of him, is said to have kept a large stash of Western pornography at his Pakistani compound. Meanwhile, the main regime credited with exporting the ideology utilised on 9/11, the Saudi Royal Family, routinely sends its younger members to Europe for a ‘private education’, during which their licentious, playboy behaviour has become notorious in London hotels and German brothels.
Closer to home, we have the following example: According to the Daily Mail, numerous students who attended University with the figurehead of British terrorism, Anjem Choudary, allege that the fanatic – despite his professed devotion to Sharia – was known to engage in extreme sexual promiscuity and drunkenness when away from the prying eyes of his family.
Finally (and most horribly), the Jihadi death squads who stalked unguarded neighbourhoods of Baghdad after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein were widely reported to have executed dozens of young men for possession of alcohol whilst under its influence themselves.
I could go on of course, but I don’t think I need to.
Is it enough to write all this off simply as hypocrisy; or might we justly infer a motive outside of the official excuse of religious piety? To tidy it up into a question: Do Islamists actually believe they are right, or are they merely thrashing around in a fit of nihilism and self-denial because they recognise they are wrong?”
My favourite novelist Martin Amis wrote against this idea in his masterful history of Stalinist genocide ‘Koba the Dread: Laughter and the Twenty Million’. ‘Koranic rule’ he wrote ‘is meant to work’. It is meant to result in affluence, ‘swimming pools and atomic bombs’.
According to Amis’s position then, when Muslims erect a society like that attempted by the Taliban in Afghanistan, they sincerely and unironically believe that Sharia law – harshly applied – will eventuate in a Utopia that shames the West by its own example.
As much as I admire Amis’s gifts, I must disagree with him here. Islamists might be fanatical, and psychopathic, and unreasonable, but I don’t believe they are stupid.
More likely for me is that they, like the fox, cannot admit to themselves that they have failed and – worse – that a great historic rival has got to the fruit instead. To concede as much would require a renunciation of the superiority of Sharia law and thus of their deepest held convictions.
Trapped between this terrible humility and an intolerable status quo, their violence is merely music to drown out the sound of their contradiction.
When George W. Bush suggested in a post-9/11 speech that al-Qaeda ‘hate us (America and the West) for our freedom’, he was roundly mocked, including by those on the right who otherwise agreed with him. It sounded implausible and contradictory. Why would people become suicidally angry about another culture’s success?
Cognitive dissonance is the answer, and I hope you’ll agree that (on this at least) President Bush is owed an apology.
From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
(Emphasis mine, ZTW)
Although I write in favour of European self-rescue, it should be clarified that I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of the measures required being adopted, now or in the future.
The chances, to put the matter frankly, of persuading an indoctrinated population to do something they have been conditioned – often since childhood – to regard as sinful, are zero.
Europe’s rescue from Islamisation requires discrimination, on both national and local stages. At the national level, every government must realise that the needs of its historic majority are more its rightful business than the ‘rights’ of a swelling and hostile minority. At the local level meanwhile, people must learn to recognise human difference as something vital to their personal security.
Discrimination however, is – perhaps more than anything else – anathema to the liberal mind. Consequently, even if the thought of European Muslims being sent their deportation papers may thrill the imagination, that is almost certainly where it will remain.
Muslim immigration will probably be halted the first day after the collapse of the European Union, but that will only deal with a hypothetical inflow and will solve nothing as to those already settled. On this point, the most likely scenario is that those Muslims who already live here (and their posterity) will be part of Europe forever.
Sure, the natives will thrash and moan a bit as each demographic milestone is met with grim punctuality; 15%… 20%… 25% etc… But these will be mere imitations of self-confidence, and of those historic conditions that once permitted self-confidence. Much like the re-enactments of medieval battles on a wet Tuesday in Bosworth, these will be resistance-themed carnivals, hemmed in by police and finally dispersed by reality.
True, it is unlikely that Muslims will capture all of Europe, but it is now almost certain that they will conquer its capitals and other large cities. The demographic material is already in place for the Islamisation of London, Brussels, Stockholm, Oslo, Paris, Berlin, Duisburg, Leicester, Malmo, Marseilles, Luton, Strasbourg, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague and the urban parts of Switzerland.
These are all famous and historic places, decorated with treasures invaluable to world-history. What will happen to them when they are populated almost exclusively by Muslims?
Students of Asia’s modern history will be familiar with the fate of the Buddhas of Bamiyan; an ancient relic of pre-Islamic culture in Central Afghanistan. As is now notorious, the structure was exploded and the relics entirely destroyed by Taliban militants in 2001.
Just imagine that – the scene and all its details – for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Now – if you can – try to impose that image onto Rome, London, Paris or Berlin.
Instead of the Buddhas being demolished, imagine the Roman Colosseum, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, or the Eiffel Tower subjected to the same misfortune.
I can assure you these are not outlandish thoughts. Despite popular misunderstanding of the matter, the 9/11 hijackers did not target the Twin Towers out of hatred of American ‘economic power’. They were rather acting in line with the Qutbist condemnation of idolatry. In Wahhabi Islamism, any great man-made structure that attracts wonder or praise, and that is not built expressly for Islamic worship, is an idol. This is why the Twin Towers were brought low. This is also why the Saudi government – with the consent of the Wahhabist religious establishment – has demolished many ancient buildings connected with the life of Mohammad in Mecca and Medina. Mohammad, you see, is not regarded by Muslims as divine, and therefore any pilgrimage to, or veneration of artifacts associated with him is also considered idolatrous.
The Pentagon too, is an idol. It was built to symbolize the power of the American military – the power therefore of ‘men’, and was attacked for these reasons.
One cannot exactly estimate how many of the cultural treasures of Europe would also be considered idolatrous according to this same measure, but surely if the artifacts of Mohammad himself are not considered sacred, then why would the Brandenburg Gate be afforded any mercy?
A successful Muslim conquest of Europe will reset European history at year zero. History shall not be so much as changed, as removed entirely. Europe will be forced to forget itself; that it ever had a history to begin with; just as the Egyptians were made to forget their past, as were the Persians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and the Berbers, after they too fell to armies of Muslim conversion.
Away from cultural symbols, the mechanics of society will be greatly affected. Sharia courts will proliferate across Europe (whether governments allow them or not). Genital mutilation will continue in private. In the open, women will be assaulted on an increasing scale. Rape rates will skyrocket. Whatever pretentions a rational feminism ever had will be driven to extremism or else submission. Harassment will forbid native European women from urban centres and thus from commercial employment.
Elsewhere, shops selling alcohol will be vulnerable to attack and boycott. Terror-threats will paralyze subways. Every time Israel defends itself in the Middle East, anti-Semitism will become a violent reality.
There are potential military consequences too. The influential blogger Fjordman has commented on the dire possibility of French nuclear weapons falling into Muslim hands. I’m afraid it isn’t a fanciful idea. All it would take is one rogue Franco-Algerian general and Europe would be under a shadow of destruction.
All that for the false virtue of blind tolerance…
Pessimism like this is not an admirable trait, I know, but it is nevertheless appropriate to the situation Europe finds itself in. I see no sign of a popular movement able to achieve anything of substance on this issue. The EDL is all but finished. UKIP, the party in which so many good people invest their hopes, is practically neutral on the culture clash, preferring to badmouth Poles and Romanians than Pakistanis. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders was trounced in the national elections. Where now?
As I say, this is a depressing post, but I do believe it pays to periodically remind oneself of the stakes of doing nothing.
Vladimir Putin & the Appetites of Men
“The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of the totalitarian buried somewhere, way down deep,
in each & every one of us. It is only the cheerful light of confidence & security which keeps this evil genius down…If confidence & security were to disappear, don’t think that he would not be waiting to take their place.” – George Kennan – - A Catholic Thinker
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Noah: “Think Days of Our Lives meets Waterworld.”
I’ve also heard some “Christian leaders” endorse this steaming pile of heretical horse manure.
I’m tempted to accuse them of being cowardly, dumb, or dishonest, but I’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they slept through the most troubling parts — like the part at the beginning, and the end, and all of the parts in between. I’m a Christian and I think ‘Noah’ deserves a four star review | The Matt Walsh Blog
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Is it about time that we start searching for America instead of this airplane?
I am more interested in where our country has gone, and I wish we would have just as intense a focus on what has happened and where our country went down as there has been on this airplane. - – Limbaugh
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Minneapolis Lesbian Police Chief Dons Hijab for “Hijab Day”
There’s nothing like a lesbian feminist authority figure who boasts of being the first female police chief in Minneapolis
donning a symbol of male ownership in a patriarchal tribal society to express the deep schizophrenia of the left in its enthusiastic enabling of Islamists. In other news: Two women accused of having a lesbian relationship have been sentenced to death by a court in the self-declared autonomous region of Puntland in northern Somalia. In the first case of its kind in Somalia, a culturally conservative and Muslim nation. — FrontPage Magazine
From AD: http://americandigest.org/