The museum should have never kowtowed to the angry rabble to begin with. Once you apologize, it is hard to make a boundary. You’ve exposed your belly and it will be lanced. Continue reading
A letter to my fellow trans people:
About the recent Caitlyn Jenner controversy regarding her support for Ted Cruz and her conservative views: It is true that not all transsexuals are in the tank for the far left, or are “feeling the Bern”. Some of us are not even voting for Hillary. Continue reading
Happy New Year 2016!
In spite of the PC madness on college campuses, the growing and very real threat of ISIS and assorted Islamic terror, the relatively sluggish economy and the comical chaos of a presidential race that may come down to Trump vs. Clinton (OH NO) — the American people are resilient, ornery and innovative. In other words, the whole nation isn’t going to hell quite yet. Continue reading
Hope your Holiday season is churning along!
Things do seem to have gotten out of hand if a completely unknown individual like Justine Sacco can make a dumb and racist comment, and — lose her job. Many people make the same comments, or comments that can be construed in that way, and they don’t lose their jobs and the entire world is not exploding with outrage. Probably, few would be working if that happened, and the world would just not have time for all that outrage — which would be continuous since people say shitty things all day long if you take into account all the people in the world. I mean someone somewhere, is saying something insensitive, fat phobic, racially insensitive, vertically challenged phobic, homophobic, transphobic, or just plain retarded! Oops! There I go, I said something insensitive… Can I say “stupid”? Not sure any more. I know the term “lame” is contested in some circles. Any way… Apparently, even for an unknown, random person, social media is like a megaphone that can be heard the entire world over. Imagine her shock when she discovered that the entire WORLD was in outrage over her tweet! People apparently, just LOVE to be outraged! It makes them feel superior and morally righteous. Mob action… I am aware of this tendency but the Sacco story and others make you take pause even more deeply… It takes the fun and spontaneity out of social media. I wonder if people will get over this tendency to be outraged over every dumb tweet? Or, I guess people will just censor themselves…
Have a fantastic New Year and – try not to let the humorless, the easily put-upon, or the nutbags with an agenda get you down. Try not to stay stupid things also, but since we all do say them sometimes, at least – try not to tweet them. And, if you do, let’s hope people have some perspective but — don’t hold your breath! They probably will not.
It’s been some time since I posted, but bear with me dear reader, or stumbler upon, it is not as though I have not been thinking about politics. The riots in the Middle East and across the world recently in Islamic countries and parts of Europe and the UK were certainly ah, bracing. Free speech, even in the USA, is threatened as never before and the world is teetering on the precipice of WWIII as Iran makes a bee line toward nuclear weapons. If Iran attacks Israel, and they fully intend to do so, they have stated they will again and again and — again, Iran also will attack our ships in the region and bases. There you have it — the ignition of a conflict that can widen in scope and intensity like nothing we have seen since the thirties. Russia on the side of Iran along with China. And, Obama dithers on “The View” instead of meeting with Netanyahu, even if Netanyahu will go to where he is, and even though Netanyahu is requesting, with some urgency, a meeting. Obama also then refuses to meet with any leaders at the UN during its recent conference. Hillary was there to hold earnest meetings in his stead while he campaigned and appeared on Letterman, “Pimp with a Limp” and other venues. This country apologizes, again and again, through the Obama administration and straight from his lips, for that ridiculous film, for free speech, while mouthing feeble defenses of that same freedom of speech out of the other side of its mouth. The world of radical Islam hears only the apologies, and the regrets and disavowal of a silly trailer of a movie only fifteen minutes long and looking as though it were made by Ed Wood and — continues to riot and demands, along with the head of the United Nations, that free speech be curbed if it is deemed to be blasphemy.
Even some people I know are on FB calling out for stronger “hate speech” laws in this country. This, instead of defending free speech.
One of the issues that drove me from the left was the issue of free speech and “hate speech”. I remember being on blogs that were organized around certain communities, say of FTMs, and of seeing hapless folks being harassed or threatened with censure if they used certain words or phrases. Words like “lame” or phrases like “retarded question”. I have seen leftists go apoplectic over the idea that the cover of a book with King Kong on it, is somehow a racial slur and that King Kong is a stand-in for African American men. I have been told that because I am not an academic (and I can be thankful for that), I don’t “understand” how that image of the monstrous beast is connected historically and viscerally to African American males. Frankly, I think its an obscene and racist thought to even have, let alone seriously entertain, but it *is * entertained and even considered sacrosanct among the academics out there who appear to enjoy looking for images to pick out as “racist”.
And, of course, now the opposition to Obama’s presidency is — all mired and based in “racism”. Right.
The war on free speech that is happening right now, at the UN, worldwide in the press and most certainly in the academy (see speech codes on campus), is something to watch if you write, or if you wish to be able to live in a society that is not underwritten and undermined by totalitarianism. It’s that simple.
Here: <a href=”http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/120925/muslim-nations-push-international-blasphemy-law”> Muslim Nations Push for International Blasphemy Laws </a>
And, from the article:
“The United Nations, at the behest of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), will debate, once again, the merit of blasphemy laws that could potentially criminalize religious defamation.
“We are living through a period of unease,” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last week. “We are also seeing incidents of intolerance and hatred that are then exploited by others. Voices of moderation and calm need to make themselves heard at this time. We all need to speak up in favor of mutual respect and understanding of the values and beliefs of others.”
Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, points out in the Washington Post that “since 1999, the 56-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has sought to include the issue of religious defamation in UN Human Rights Council resolutions.”
And, make no mistake, Obama has already cast his lot with this international law. Here:
<a href=”http://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/obamas-blasphemy-law-to-protect-islam/”> Obama’s blasphemy law to protect Islam </a>
From the Heritage Foundation as quoted in the above link from FactReal:
“As recently as December 19, 2011, the U.S. voted for and was instrumental in passing ‘U.N. Resolution 16/18’ against ‘religious intolerance,’ ‘condemning the stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of people based on their religion.’ While this may sound innocuous, it was the latest incarnation of a highly controversial ‘anti-blasphemy’ resolution that has been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the United Nations since 1999.”
Make no mistake, as Coptic Christians are being murdered in Egypt along with Buddhists in Thailand, and anti-Jewish material circulates freely and in abundance in the Middle East and other Islamic strongholds, this law is NOT to protect religious minorities but to seal the mouths shut of any who would dare to criticize Islam. And, our President has supported this.
Every American should be outraged.
Glenn Greenwald is one of those lefties I agree with on occasion, although his views on Israel are way off the mark. And, no doubt, he leans socialist. However, he is very interested in civil liberties, and in this — we at least approach agreement or sometimes even flat-out agree. Here, he brings up the recent Chick Fil-A business and how it is dangerous for a government to try and ban a business, simply because it does not agree with that business’s speech. It violates constitutionally protected free speech. And, I imagine that Greenwald, like me, is all for gay marriage. He believes that if you don’t like Chick Fil-A’s views on gay marriage, or their contributions to anti-gay marriage groups, write them a letter or don’t eat there. There are other ways to let them know you disapprove, and of course, you can ignore them and work for the side promoting gay marriage and drown their voices out with better, more articulate arguments. That works better in the long run, and — it keeps the anti-gay marriage groups from feeling, in this case justifiably, persecuted.
“Should government officials be able to block businesses from opening or expanding due to disagreement with the political views of the business’ executives? Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel evidently believes he should have this power:
The anti-gay views openly espoused by the president of a fast food chain specializing in chicken sandwiches have run afoul of Mayor Rahm Emanuel and a local alderman, who are determined to block Chick-fil-A from expanding in Chicago.
“Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values,” Emanuel said Wednesday.
“What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.”
I know this censorship (and that’s what it is, and in the constitutional sense) — is happening in Boston as well, thanks to the Mayor of Boston.
Greenwald points out to those on the left (or supporters of gay marriage on the right) who are still obtuse on this matter, that they most likely would object if a governmental body or agency decided to ban from the city or country any corporation or small business that supported choice, or gay rights or — (on the right) supported Israel. In Europe, I hear that governments are banning Israeli businesses, and this feels ominous to me as a supporter of Israel, but more importantly, it is an overstepping of the authority of government that we should never allow in this country. Let’s not be like Europe in this case, and I do think this is unconstitutional.
We do have protected free speech and just because it is speech that I don’t like, doesn’t mean I can get the Mayor of a major American city to ban it by banning the business. Since when does a government ban businesses based on their contributions to a cause? Plus, there is nothing more galling than a bunch of anti-gay activists feeling “oppressed”. Cry me a river. But in this case, they actually have a justifiable reason for feeling that way, and that’s just no good.
The killings in Norway – insane, and heinous and entirely evil would be wrong no matter who did them and no matter which political ideology they represented. There can be no doubt of that, and certainly no debate.
However, I would agree with Bruce Bawer when he states that this (hopefully) singular and evil act should not be construed as an excuse to avert our attention from the very real threat that Radical Islam poses to Europe, the entirety of western civilization, and indeed to the whole world. Bawer lives in Norway as an American expatriate and a gay man. He is in many respects, like myself, an unlikely convert to the values of classic liberalism. Indeed, he claims to still be a Democrat, but in any case, many would consider him a conservative. Labels aside (and I am not one to eschew labels as being entirely useless), Bawer knows of what he speaks and so I am linking to his article here. First, I quote:
“Those of us who thought, in the first hours after the blasts in downtown Oslo, that we were witnessing yet another act of jihad can be forgiven. In a way, it made sense. 9/11, London, Madrid, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai — why not Oslo? Then again…Norway, although a member of NATO with troops in Afghanistan and Libya, was not exactly in the forefront of the struggle to defeat jihad. On the contrary. Norway calls itself “the peace country.” For years, the Norwegian government and cultural establishment have striven to communicate to even the most extreme elements of international Islam that they want to be friends. They’ve shown their good faith in a number of ways:
They’ve made a great show of treating Jews very shabbily. Jostein Gaarder, author of the international bestseller Sophie’s World, published an op-ed a few years back declaring his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people. When Gaarder came in for some criticism, many high-profile members of the Norwegian cultural elite rushed to stand shoulder to shoulder with him. If the cultural elite in Norway is more anti-Semitic than its counterparts in any other country in Europe, it has a great deal to do with the recognition that the more you like the Jews, the more you’ll antagonize the Muslims.
They’ve been extremely gentle with Mullah Krekar, Norway’s resident terrorist. While some government officials have (admirably) labored to get the founder of Ansar al-Islam returned to his native Iraq, the system has repeatedly protected him, allowing him to stay in a very nice flat in Oslo, where he is supported by the state. Over the years the Norwegian media have churned out countless profiles of this murderous, child-torturing monster, invariably depicting him as a charming, grandfatherly type and allowing him plenty of space to bash the United States.
They’ve squelched criticism of Islam. In January 2006, Vebjørn Selbekk, editor of a small evangelical publication called Magazinet, reprinted the Danish Muhammed cartoons — and sent the Norwegian establishment into a tailspin. Politicians at the very highest level pressured Selbekk to apologize for his offense. He withstood admirably — for a while — but eventually buckled, and on February 10, 2006, appeared before a gathering of Norwegian imams and begged their forgiveness for having exercised his freedom of speech. Top government officials looked on in satisfaction, and a delegation led by a bishop of the Church of Norway traveled to Yemen to deliver the happy tidings of this capitulation to the theologian widely viewed as the closest thing to a Muslim pope, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
They’ve dropped displays of Islamic totalitarianism down the memory hole. Two years ago, on two separate nights, a small army of Norwegian Muslim youths rioted in the heart of Oslo, turning a usually placid quarter into something reminiscent of Sarajevo or Beirut at their worst. The alleged motive for this explosion of violence was displeasure over the situation in Gaza; the real intention was to mount a display of power — to intimidate, and to communicate to Norway that their time had come, and that they had better be listened to with respect, or else. And in February of last year, another small army of Muslims, this time not rioting boys but sullen-looking men in long coats and full beards, gathered in downtown Oslo, in the same square where Vidkun Quisling once held his Nazi rallies, and listened with apparent pleasure while a young speaker named Mohyeldeen Mohammed threatened Norway with its own 9/11. Both of these events came and went, and the people who make decisions about this sort of thing plainly decided that it would be best to pretend that they had never happened.
They’ve openly supported terrorist groups. In the last few days, one of the major stories out of Norway has been the declaration by Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre of his country’s support for the effort by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state. This stance scarcely came as a surprise, given the Norwegian government’s longstanding effort to “build bridges” to Hamas. It was Støre, after all, who — when a couple of dozen Western diplomats walked out on a rabid anti-Israeli speech by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad at the 2009 UN conference on racism — was the only Westerner who chose to stay and hear him out.
And the way they’ve talked to Norwegian Muslims about Islamist terrorism has been — well, consider this. A couple of years ago, when Jørn Holme, head of security services for the Norwegian police, showed up at a meeting sponsored by the Muslim Students Association, supposedly to discuss terrorism, surveillance, and the Muslim community, his main goal seemed to be to bond with the Muslims in attendance by putting down ethnic Norwegians (who, he said, were “too stupid to understand that there is no connection” between Islam and terrorism) as well as white American Christians (“In the United States in the sixties,” he told the audience, “blacks were raped by whites who went to church the next day”). Holme called the United State “human-rights-violation-country number one” and said that his greatest fear, when he contemplated a possible terrorist act in Norway, was that such an act would inflame anti-Muslim prejudice.”
Bawer goes on to state in his article that he fears that legitimate criticism of Islam may be squelched by this act of barbaric and delusional political violence. I wonder, reading his points above, what criticism there is in any case? However, his point is a good one. As hate speech laws proliferate in intensity in other places in the EU and in Canada (the circus of Section 13), these murders can only add to the anti-free speech project of the left. Bruce makes a good deal of other points and of course, has noticed that Anders Behring Breivik has mentioned his name, although with a certain amount of uncertainty as to his credibility as Bawer is gay. Of course, many of the people that I often read and admire for their uncompromising anti-Jihad stances are named in the pages of Breivik’s exhaustingly long “manifesto” which was apparently, often copied from the loony screed of the Unibomber with a few key changes to make it relevant to his own purposes. In any case, Bawer continues here…
“During those hours when we all thought this was a jihadist attack, one thought that crossed my mind was that this would change the political map of Norway. For years, the Progress Party, which is the second largest of Norway’s seven or eight major parties, has led the way in calling for more responsible policies on the immigration and integration of people from Muslim countries — and has been demonized as a bunch of right-wing extremist xenophobes who hate Muslims. I assumed that after this attack, Norwegians would vote in a Progress Party-led government in the next elections. Now it appears that the man who committed all these murders is a former member of the Progress Party and is, indeed, a right-wing extremist xenophobe who harbors (according to Dagbladet) a “violent hatred for Muslims” and multiculturalism, and who targeted the Labor Party youth camp because he blames the ruling Labor Party for the Islamization of Norway. Norway’s political future looks very different now, in short, than it did 24 hours ago.
It gets worse. Anders Behring Breivik, it turns out, was a frequent commenter at a website, document.no, that is run by a friend of mine in Norway, Hans Rustad, and that is concerned largely with the Islamization of Norway. Hans’s website is down right now — I don’t know why — except for a page on which he has posted a collection of all of Breivik’s postings on the site, going back to 2009. On September 14, 2009, he wrote: “Bawer is probably not the right person to work as a bridge-builder. He is a liberal anti-jihadist and not a cultural conservative in many areas. I have my suspicions that he is TOO paranoid (I am thinking of his homosexual orientation). It can seem that he fears that ‘cultural conservatives’ will become a threat to homosexuals in the future. He refuses therefore to take the opportunity to influence this in a positive direction. This seems entirely irrational.”
On October 31, 2009, he wrote that several things needed to be done in the next twenty years in order to prevent the Islamization of Norway, among them: “Initiate a collaboration with the conservative forces in the Norwegian church. I know that the libertarian forces in the European anti-jihad movement (Bruce Bawer among others, and some other libertarians) will have a problem with this, but conservative forces in the church are in fact one of our best allies. Our main opponents must not be jihadists but the jihadists’ facilitators — namely the multiculturalists.” And on November 6, 2009, he wrote: “It is tragicomic that an important NGO like Human-Etisk Forbund [the Norwegian Humanist Association] has been taken over by a cultural Marxist when it should be run by a liberal anti-jihadist like Bruce Bawer.”
It is chilling to read my own name in postings by this mass murderer. And it is deeply depressing to see this evil, twisted creature become the face of Islam criticism in Norway. Norwegian television journalists who in the first hours of the crisis were palpably uncomfortable about the prospect of having to talk about Islamic terrorism are now eagerly discussing the dangers of “Islamophobia” and “conservative ideology” and are drawing connections between the madness and fanaticism of Breivik and the platform of the Progress Party. Yesterday’s events, then, represent a double tragedy for Norway. Not only has it lost almost one hundred people, including dozens of young people, in a senseless rampage of violence. But I fear that legitimate criticism of Islam, which remains a very real threat to freedom in Norway and the West, has been profoundly discredited, in the eyes of many Norwegians, by association with this murderous lunatic.”
Mark Steyn weighs in with wit (even under these circumstances) and characteristic aplomb, pointing out that in fact, no Muslims were killed so this particular form of Islamaphobia had some odd consequences:
“The mass murderer Breivik published a 1,500-page “manifesto.” It quotes me, as well as several friends of NR — Theodore Dalrymple, Daniel Pipes, Roger Scruton, Melanie Phillips, Daniel Hannan (plus various pieces from NR by Rod Dreher and others) — and many other people, including Churchill, Gandhi, Orwell, Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, not to mention the U.S. Declaration of Independence.* Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.
It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken. Parts of it simply cut and paste chunks of the last big killer “manifesto” by Ted Kaczynski, with the occasional [insert-your-cause-here] word substitute replacing the Unabomber’s obsessions with Breivik’s. This would seem an odd technique to use for a sincerely meant political statement. The entire document is strangely anglocentric – in among the citations of NR and The Washington Times, there’s not a lot about Norway.
Nevertheless, Breivik’s manifesto seems to be determining the narrative in the anglophone media. The opening sentence from USA Today:
Islamophobia has reached a mass murder level in Norway as the confessed killer claims he sought to combat encroachment by Muslims into his country and Europe.
So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder. Yet the Associated Press is on board:
Security Beefed Up At UK Mosques After Norway Massacre.
But again: No mosque was targeted in Norway. A member of the country’s second political party gunned down members of its first. But, in the merest evolution of post-9/11 syndrome, Muslims are now the preferred victims even in a story in which they are entirely absent. “
From here: Islamophobia and Mass Murder by Mark Steyn
And, with that I send my condolences out to Norway and to all of those people whose loved ones were killed or hurt. There is no redeeming value to this act, and I would hope that the narratives that it generates are not exploitative of those deaths, but that they instead shed light.
In other news, on a more personal note, in case you wondered where I went I just moved, and am searching for a new place to live, and am “transitioning” again! This time possibly even, eventually to a new city, though time will tell. Everything is a bit chaotic for me, but it won’t be forever. So, I’ll not be able to post quite as much as I’d like I think, but I’m still around and will check in from time to time with new observations. Thanks to all who stop by to read!
She rode in on a blazing Koran, quite literally. Ann Barnhardt has been taking the interwebs by storm, exorcising the demonic shrieking ass kissing free speech squelching demon of NICE from our collective midst. In response to Lindsay Graham’s finger shaking about the dire consequences of lighting a Koran on fire (what will happen if they get mad at us?), Ann made her own Koran burning video. Quoting hair raising Surahs that condone and command wife beating and marital rape, sex with pre-pubescent girls and boys, and of course, the beheading and maiming of “infidels” (that’s most of the people who read this blog and it is most certainly me) — Ann strikes at the heart of our fearful acquiescence and frenzied attempts to be “nice” and reasonable toward a philosophy that is anything but. “Religion of peace” – I DON’T THINK SO. She reads these nakedly violent passages, starkly sociopathic in tone, and swiftly lights each Surah on fire one by one. She works with a wand of outrage – naming evil as evil. And, unlike the gently naive if brave Molly Norris, who instigated the “Draw Mohammed for a Day” on Facebook and just as swiftly tried to take it back, once the horrible realization that Muslim radicals were indeed offended began to dawn… Ann doesn’t give a rat’s ass if an acolyte of Mohammed gets a hair up his ass. She’s pretty amazing! And, while I feel deeply for Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, and am outraged on her behalf (since she had to go ghost to escape threats of death), I also can’t help but wonder if Ann is ultimately more able to stand her ground because she is an outright American Patriot and a conservative. Not a hipster, but a trader in cattle futures. Raised in eastern Kansas around cows and calves and cowboys, she is steeped in the down to the real landscape of midwestern and western boots and stirrups– common sense, no bullshit, and an abiding love of country. Ann is not reading Chomsky * and wacking off to his apologies for Islamic terror, she knows with a beautiful certainty that the United States, free enterprise, Christianity and Judaism are absolutely superior, at this point in time, to the drooling of Islamic radical misogyny and terror. Hell, she sees the issues endemic to Islam itself, radical or not. She sees Islam as being primarily a totalitarian political ideology and not a religion. Certainly, one can make a case for that.
You have to see for yourself; don’t take my word for it!
Now, tell me, why can’t “radicals” be this radical? I mean, leftists, actually, on campus or off? Why can’t they be this incensed by the Islamic mutilation of women and the rape of children, by honor killings or the beheading of various non-Muslims including Buddhists and the murder of Coptic Christians? Why do I only see the far left defending and minimizing the threat of Islamic radicalism? Who can we count on finally, to defend what is certainly a superior civilization? Possibly, the answer would surprise, even me. In fact, I am surprised, but I am also heartened And, yes, this video is campy, inadvertently, but it is also serious stuff folks.
* (and I apologize ahead of time, to Molly Norris if she is not into Chomsky or other ridiculous masturbatory anti-Americanism. And, even if she is… Let’s face it, she did come up with that brave and wondrous idea of everyone everywhere drawing Mohammed for a day to defuse the whole insanity, and I wish her only the best! God speed Molly, wherever you are. How sad and utterly wrong that already, Americans appear to have mostly forgotten you and your courage, and wit. I hope you come back out of this crucible stronger . Thank you for inspiring me! )
Geert Wilders has the voice of a prophet and he should not be ignored, especially as his own government attempts to silence him. He is on trial for hate speech in the Netherlands, and here, the text of his speech as his trial opens again, as translated by Vlaamse Leeuwin. From, Gates of Vienna, here: The Lights are going out all over Europe
“The lights are going out all over Europe. All over the continent where our culture flourished and where man created freedom, prosperity and civilization. The foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.
All over Europe the elites are acting as the protectors of an ideology that has been bent on destroying us for fourteen centuries. An ideology that has sprung from the desert and that can produce only deserts because it does not give people freedom. The Islamic Mozart, the Islamic Gerard Reve [a Dutch author], the Islamic Bill Gates; they do not exist because without freedom there is no creativity. The ideology of Islam is especially noted for killing and oppression and can only produce societies that are backward and impoverished. Surprisingly, the elites do not want to hear any criticism of this ideology.
My trial is not an isolated incident. Only fools believe it is. All over Europe multicultural elites are waging total war against their populations. Their goal is to continue the strategy of mass immigration, which will ultimately result in an Islamic Europe — a Europe without freedom: Eurabia.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Anyone who thinks or speaks individually is at risk. Freedom-loving citizens who criticize Islam, or even merely suggest that there is a relationship between Islam and crime or honour killing, must suffer, and are threatened or criminalized. Those who speak the truth are in danger.
The lights are going out allover Europe. Everywhere the Orwellian thought police are at work, on the lookout for thought crimes everywhere, casting the populace back within the confines where it is allowed to think.
This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of speech is not the property of those who happen to belong to the elites of a country. It is an inalienable right, the birthright of our people. For centuries battles have been fought for it, and now it is being sacrificed to please a totalitarian ideology.
Future generations will look back at this trial and wonder who was right. Who defended freedom and who wanted to get rid of it.
The lights are going out all over Europe. Our freedom is being restricted everywhere, so I repeat what I said here last year:
It is not only the privilege, but also the duty of free people — and hence also my duty as a member of the Dutch Parliament — to speak out against any ideology that threatens freedom. Hence it is a right and a duty to speak the truth about the evil ideology that is called Islam. I hope that freedom of speech will emerge triumphant from this trial. I hope not only that I shall be acquitted, but especially that freedom of speech will continue to exist in the Netherlands and in Europe.”
While Wilders is on trial for hate speech in Amsterdam, while in the UK British salafi Abu Mounisa at The Islamic Awakening Conference lays radical Islamic intentions out in plain speech. The west ‘worships freedom, democracy and capitalism’ as well as allowing women to walk in the street wearing what they wish, without being slapped — and he goes on in vivid detail.
From Gates of Vienna once again here: Replacing the system with Islam
Save liberty — smoke a cigar!
Apparently, cigarettes or cigars are being rubbed out in the UK from photographs of Winston Churchill, The Beatles, and FDR. No cigarette holder set firmly, squarely between the teeth of an attentive looking FDR – no. That would influence someone to take up the deadly cancer sticks. Possibly, your children could be removed from your home for seeing you smoke, if they haven’t already been removed for being fat, at least in the UK.
The UK and all of Europe is ahead of us in this niggling yet fiery war against improper offensive speech and dangerous unhealthy imagery, but since so many people I know want the USA to be just like Europe, this may change soon. In fact, it is already changing. Speech codes proliferate on campus. Young people, at least “well-educated” ones tend to take for granted the idea that speech should be censored and expression pulled through a wire mesh of politicized ideology to sift it down to its least offensive, most palatable — pap.
Here, Dennis Prager, a conservative who actually understands the difference between transsexuals and transgender people, as shown here in an interesting column on the “T” in GLBT and why it is not always the same as “transsexual”, writes about the growing list of words and phrases considered too offensive or dangerous to write or say or apparently, think…
First, his column on transsexuals and transgendered people, which particularly impressed me. You don’t find many people out there who begin to understand the difference. While “transgender” has been used as an umbrella term, and I try not to niggle too much about language, the fact remains that transsexual people are actually quite different in many respects from many who would consider themselves “transgender”. Prager appears to understand this:
“And few people, conservative or liberal, have any trouble accepting a transsexual, i.e., someone who has surgically changed his or her sex.
But what does any of this have to do with the transgendered, i.e., people who do not psychologically identify themselves with their biological sex, who act as if they were a member of the opposite sex, and who have not changed their biology? Why does the Left include the transgendered in its activism on behalf of gays?
While we may not agree on his opinions in that column regarding same sex marriage, (I believe in it strictly from the perspective of liberty), Prager is absolutely right that the left believes that differences between the sexes are socially constructed and therefore actually part of a greater paradigm of power and powerlessness; everything, even biology, is seen through a mesh of oppression/oppressor. Transsexuals are actually not necessarily interested in destroying binary gender — as it’s called, but this is often conveniently ignored.
And, since the world is viewed by the left as a veritable booby trap of sensitivities and oppressions, language is examined first from the perspective of who it might offend or harm.
Here, in a more recent column, Prager notes the left’s growing attack on speech. And, remember, an attack on speech is ultimately, an attack on — thought.
Dennis Prager writes:
“Graphic torture and frontal nudity may be shown on screen, but smoking cigars or cigarettes may not. A Churchill museum in London has removed the cigars from wartime Churchill photographs, FDR has had his ubiquitous cigarette holder removed from his photographs, and the cigarettes have been removed from the Beatles’ hands in the famous photo of them crossing Abbey Road.
The list of forbidden words and behaviors due to Leftist activism is quite extensive.
The latest example is the left’s war on any words or imagery that come from the worlds of war or guns.
Already, “crusade” has been removed from Americans’ vocabulary — lest it offend Muslims. Overnight, the left effectively banned the use of a perfectly legitimate word that usually described an admirable preoccupation with doing good — “that newspaper is on an anti-corruption crusade.”
Now, the left has announced that words such as “target” and “cross hairs” are offensive — on the idiotic pretense that such imagery causes people to murder. If I were the CEO of Target stores, I would be concerned — will my company be sued because of its name and logo?”
From this article:
Put left-wing speech control in the cross hairs
And, yes, I know it is old news by now, but I was particularly impressed by Palin’s spirited defense of free speech in her post-Arizona shooting speech. I don’t think I have ever heard an American politician speak with such fervor and clarity about speech and why it is important that it remain free.
Caroline Glick had some interesting comments in this regard, even noting that Palin is a “revolutionary leader”, and that the Tea Party movement is also “revolutionary” in its fierce and unapologetic call for more liberty.
“In certain ways, Palin is a revolutionary leader and the Tea Party movement is a revolutionary movement. For nearly a hundred years, the Left in its various permutations has captured Western policy by controlling the elite discourse from New York and Los Angeles to London to Paris to Tel Aviv. By making it “politically incorrect,” to assert claims of Western, Judeo-Christian morality or advocate robust political, economic and military policies, the Left has made it socially and professionally costly for people to think freely and believe in their countries.
What distinguishes Palin from other conservative leaders in the US and makes her an important figure worldwide is her indifference to the views of the Left’s opinion makers. Her capacity to steer debate in the US in a way no other conservative politician can owes entirely to the fact that she does not seek to win over Leftist elites. She seeks to unseat them.
The same can be said of the Tea Party. The reason it frightens the Left, and the Republican leaders who owe their positions to their willingness to accept the Left’s basic agenda, is because it does not accept the Left’s policy agenda. “
The Aim of Blood Libels
I’m playing catchup here folks, but I did want to note these articles and ideas