Thoughts on recent blogosphere bannings, Islamization, and Balkanization: part I
The paranoia amongst conservative bloggers over being labeled 'racist' or 'antisemitic' has reached a level of nothing less than modern-day witch hunting. As I said in a previous post, the Left employs Hitler's tactic of terrorizing their strongest and most adept opponents until their opponents turn on them. I believe that major conservative and anti-jihad bloggers have succumbed to this spiritual terror to a level that they can allow no free thought or dissent from an ill-defined PC dogma. If one wants to honestly discuss issues of race, ethnicity, demographics, nationalism, and their implications for the future of a country, one is labeled a 'Nazi.'
Conservatives are not fighting World War II anymore. Nazism was the logical conclusion of 100 hundred years of systematic elimination of Judeo-Christian presuppositions in a culture, which created the moral and spiritual vacuum leading to the rise of the Third Reich. When man is no longer made in the image of God, men are no longer created equal and once race has the right to act out their own ethnic determinism and perceived superiority against another. Hitler's cult of the Aryan race was simply an outgrowth of Wagner's German mythology, higher criticism, Darwinism, and Marxism. As a slight aside, it's worth pointing out that Darwinism, Marxism, and higher criticism emerged at roughly the same time. As the true God was thrown out, new gods immediately emerged. Man's heart is an idol factory.
But contrasted with Islam, Nazism is a relative flash in the pan. As I showed in earlier posts, Hitler had such an affinity for Islam because Islam and Nazism shared the same ideas about the Jews and conquest of other peoples. We're not fighting Nazism any more. We're fighting Islam, which has a 1350 year history of antisemitism and subjugation of native peoples into this Arabist moon god worshiping death cult. Islam is just the nazification of pan-Arabism. Societies that become Islamic immediately develop the paranoia, tribalism, and warlike nature that the Arabs have, with all of its constant back-stabbing and treachery.
Conservatives need to stop searching for WWII enemies amongst their ranks. It should be enough that we have repeatedly stated that we disavow racism (an increasingly meaningless word) and antisemitism, but because of the Left's spiritual terror, we are constantly hand-wringing and searching our own ranks for Nazis and other PC heretics. The solution to this is to never apologize for unpopular truths and to immediately go on the offensive. This, of course, requires backbone and moral fiber, something which certain people amongst the conservative blogosphere lack.
People like Allahpundit borrow intellectual and moral capital when it suits them, but attack Christianity otherwise. Consider this statement that he found so repulsive:
After a march across campus, about 60 students opposed to Nick Griffin have entered the speaking location at the MSU Vet Med Clinic.In attendance with Griffin who has just begun speaking is flanked by white supremacist Preston Wiginton.
Protesters are disrupting the speech from Griffin. Protesters are demanding to know about Griffin’s “terrorist activities.”
Nick Griffin just told protesters that he would “shove homosexuals back in the closet and kill them.”“If we had American or Britain threatened by radical Christians I would speak against that too. There is not a clear and present danger,” Griffin said.
Nick accused protesters of being “bused in from Detroit.”
“I want to explain why people like you see me as a racist pig.”
His explanation,”We don’t believe we are better.”
“We don’t believe in integration. Integration is extermination.”
“I have in the past said very rude things about the holocaust,” Griffin said. “I have never denied it, and I do not doubt so many Jews were killed by the Nazis and the Allies.”
“My credentials are I have a degree in history and law. I am significantly older than most of you are here, and I have spoken with many many Muslims,” Griffin told the crowd to explain why he was qualified to talk about Muslims.
“Muslims gang rape women in Norway and other cultures. Only Muslims do this,” Griffin said.
“I am not a Nazi,” said Preston Wiginton when asked who he was. “I am just a person who loves my people. You are the ones being the fascists!”
“There’s too much propaganda going on here, we need to end this,” growled one protester.
“You seek to deny the white people of the world the right to collect in their own community and self determinations; then you are a racist,” Griffin said.
“I have not been to Stormfront in a year,” said Preston Wiginton to questions about his ties to the white supremacy website.
“People are genetically programmed to fight people who do not look like them,” Griffin said.
This was taken from a live-blog of BNP leader Nick Griffin's speech at MSU.
From where does an atheist get moral capital to answer people like Nick Griffin? All of the science says that there are some pretty significant differences amongst different races in terms of things like intelligence, brain structure, athleticism, and even behavior. There's even a field called behavioral genetics that examines our genetic predisposition towards certain behaviors. Why would an atheist, who believes that man completely evolved from lower forms of life without any divine intervention, oppose the idea that people are genetically programmed to fight people of other races? Didn't man genetically evolve a morality right along with the evolution of the homo sapiens genome?
The answer is that Allahpundit borrowed Christian capital. Man is made in the imago Dei. As God's image bearers, we all have equal worth. Because of Adam's sin, we are now all born equally prone to all kinds of immoral and unethical behavior. Ultimately, the science can be reconciled with Christianity, as God made both, but since science is not religiously neutral, it must be reconciled through a Christian lens if we're to avoid acting on it's more terrifying implications as Hitler did.
The greater take-away from this is that certain people on the right are not to be trusted, as they have insufficient moral and intellectual capital to go on the offensive against the blatant racism, antisemitism, and spiritual terror of the Left. Such people are not loyal and cannot be trusted not to turn on you arbitrarily. I don't know what Charles Johnson's presuppositions are, but he seems to be another neoconservative without a coherent worldview. I found this comment by Thomas the Wraith, (who was banned from HotAir right along with me), very insightful:
Many of the prominent corporate blogs are far more concerned with towing the partisan line and flattering their political masters than they are with addressing important issues of the war against jihadism. And there's some ego-mania and self-importance involved also.These free-trade worshiping libertarian atheists disguise themselves as “conservatives” but what exactly are they conserving? The invaluable and irreplaceable traditions and institutions of local communities? The priceless, myriad folkways of indigenous people? No. Those blogs that equate conservatism with the Republican party offer only the right to be consumers and nothing more; the freedom to be colonized; the right to become objects of global corporations; the freedom to indulge in a limitless choice of corruptions; the right to sit politely while obscenities and foreign abominations erode civil society. Thanks, but no.
If this is what passes for conservative then count me out.
We have lost much already and have to work to preserve what is left of our inheritance. And if that means we are impolite or even insulting, so be it.
Jihadism gains strength with each passing day. Jihad is creating facts on the ground while we waste our time on witch hunts and purges of those who are judged unworthy. Time is short.
Yes. Time is short. But rather than attack people on the Left with more vigor, we turn on our own vehemently over baseless things, such as thinking the wrong thoughts, or even being perceived to think the wrong thoughts. Rather than slandering someone as a 'Nazi' or a 'racist,' if one doesn't agree with a person, try presenting a contrary argument instead. This infantile name-calling is for the Left, not for us.
PRCalDude
Will Blacklake now be banned from HotAir?
The US didn’t align itself with Stalin against Hitler because he was a champion of free markets and civil liberty. It certainly would be nice to live in a world where nations could cherry-pick only ideal allies. Instead, we have to take what we can get. Sweden could declare itself the Fourth Reich and replace the cross on its flag with a yellow swastika tomorrow, and, distasteful as that might be, one would be hard-pressed to explain how it’d be remotely as great a threat as the global Jihad movement, a nuclear-armed Iran, or creeping European Sharia.
Blacklake on October 30, 2007 at 12:25 PM
He's one of the most intelligent, thoughtful people there.
26 Comments
Reader Comments (26)
By the way, Yours Truly has an LGF login these days, so if there are any salient arguments you'd like to toss their way, I can relay them.
Avoid thoughtcrime while you're on there. You're a little bit paleo.
The next post will deal with some of the stuff Charles has said, and his blatant contradictions.
Hot Air started out featuring Michelle Malkin. When Michelle got her new web page up and running, and started all the TV punditry, Hot Air lost focus.
Rather than hammering on Democrat socialism, they're now hammering on GOP foolishness. Maybe it is fair to hammer on both, but it isn't helping their erstwhile cause of getting a secular conservative (dare I say a conservative progressive?) elected to the presidency.
Up is down... And every time AP mocks the religious right he ends up looking ignorant about religion. (And he often has good reasons for mocking certain elements.) But the last thing a secular intellectual wants is to be made to look ignorant by the religious right.
My point is that AP's treatment of Christians on the Hot Air web-page is harassment. But it is harassment against Christians, so he gets a pass. Any other kind of harassment is crushed. The unfortunate sad thing is that Michelle knows all this and also gives it a pass.
Really knocks down my respect for both AP and Michelle.
>>>>>>>>
But there is a well known precedent for this kind of anti-Christ behavior.
Those who hate Christians hate Christians because they first hate Christ.
"..They hated me without a cause."- Jesus quoting Psalm 109:3 in John 15:25.
Taken from this web page.
Few people are honest enough to admit that they simply hate someone, and hateful people look for reasons to justify their hatred.
Matthew 12:10, "And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him."
The Pharisees hated Jesus' goodness, and wanted to find fault in Him. The world is filled with such people today, who seek to justify their hatred of the righteous. We work beside them in the workplace. We meet them in public. We even find them in our churches. They hate without a cause.
The Pharisees and the lawyers of Jesus' time were no different than the same cut-throat type of people today.
Luke 7:33-34, Jesus said, "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!"
No matter what we do as Christians, some people will hate us without cause, and will search diligently to find excuses to justify their hatred. We'll be damned if we do, and damned if we don't. The hypocrites of Jesus' day were always looking for reasons to discredit, attack, and embarrass Him. This is the sinful nature of man.
John 8:5-6 tells us of the maliciousness of the scribes and Pharisees... "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him." Over and over in the Bible, we read about those who were hated without cause. In Genesis 37:5, we read concerning Joseph ... "And Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it his brethren: and they hated him yet the more." Joseph did nothing wrong; yet he was hated fiercely by his jealous brothers.
Daniel, Daniel 6:3-5, was hated without a cause and ended up in the lion's den.
We read also of the prophet Daniel, in Daniel 6:3-5, who was hated without a cause ... "Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.
Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God."
"The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth." -Psalm 37:12 "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" -Luke 17:1
Larry,
I stuck up for AP quite a bit amongst Christians who thought that he was anti-Christian. When John over at Verum Serum thought that AP wasn't linking them as often because of their Christianity, I stuck up for AP. I feel pretty foolish now.
The astonishing thing is that Blacklake got off scot-free for his comments, as did Loundry. Blacklake was essentially making the same argument you were on the previous thread.
It smacks of a self-righteousness and pride. He's probably gloating.
The thing th
AP is not anti-Christian. He is just anti-Christians-who-diagree with his brand of heterodoxy.
He's always complaining about people jumping to the conclusions, and here he is jumping himself, kicking off 2 or 3 of his most faithful suporters from the religous conservative side. He lost a lot of street-cred with the few conservative Christians left at Hot Air. But I don't think he cares.
Since most of the postings are from "progressives" and "secular center" Hot Air has become quite bland and, well, kooky. Which is exactly what the left bloggers are claiming it to be.
{sigh}
I have lost count of the times AP and his cronies have mocked Christians by first telling us what we believe (which is twistedly wrong) and then proceeding to straighten us out. But then when we defend ourselves, we are mocked for being thin skinned and/or hypocrites.
Anyway...
I'm willing to sign an open letter to Michelle, talking about this nonsense at Hot Air, if you think it would do any good. Even if I did get booted, I'm not sure I really care anymore.
Not much to add other than this is an excellent post and I agree wholeheartedly. Actually, Robert Spencer recently said much the same thing you did - that we need to stop attacking each other, our own allies, over nitpicky things. His speech, something I read at Vanishing American, your post here, and some recent things over at Gates of Vienna all sound the same. A house divided...
Excellent post. Personally, I think some of the larger, or as called here, "corporate" blogs, may have become a little protective of their big-blog status. It's only natural, but the results are quite lamentable if not downright angering.
Good luck over there, Blacklake... ;)
PR,
I think I've found the problem - ALL white people are basically natural-born racists. Must be genetic, or else it couldn't be ALL.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?
ARTICLE_ID=58426
If all white people are racist, should they have to apologize for what they obviously can't control?
Like I say, three things are bad for you - white sugar, white flour, and white people.
Hey Jen, you are right.
On one hand we are working to foster red on red conflict between various jihad factions. But they are likewise striving for blue on blue conflict among anti-jihad groups.
Red on red, blue on blue, is a reference to military war gaming where red represents the enemy and blue the friendly.
Question is, who is really winning? I sometimes appears we are eating our own faster than they are.
didn't have time to read enough of this or the HA thread in question, but I have to say I'm not suprised. I'm actually suprised Malkin hasn't fired Allahpundit. He obviously has a hard on for Atheism and attacking Christians. The other day in a "quote" thread which was about atheism, I pointed out that Atheist don't live logically...he didn't like that comment do good.
I don't mind his Ron Paul bashing though, he is not an ally in this war except for the Jihadist.
Yes, Ron Paul is naive on world events and has failed to distance himself from Trutherism, but an antisemite and white supremacist he is not, despite AP's attempts to paint him as one.
here is one of Ron Pauls 'views' on Israel:
"Expect Israel to use the chaos to further promote their occupation and settlements in the Palestinian homeland and possibly even in Lebanon. Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in a period of outright war will surely serve to intimidate her neighbors and intensify her efforts to further expand the Israeli homeland. -- Ron Paul"
thats right, Israel, not the Terrorist/Hezzbollah he refuses to name, will use "chaos" and their nukes to "expand the Iraeli homeland". The same Israel that has been foolishly doing "land for peace deals" and GIVING UP LAND.
To me, he's either as stupid as they come on this stuff(possibly because of a pacifist, anti-war at all cost, pressuposition?) OR there is something to all the neo-nazi connections.
I'm leaning toward the latter. If you want to be non-interventionist, you would simply say, "Let Israel work out it's own problems with the Palestinians and vice versa." You wouldn't make a moral judgment one way or the other, if you ask me.
Walt,
But people like Ron Paul don't see it as a judgement call, they see it as simple basic fact.
On issues like Israel, they only see what Israel is doing now. What came before that put Israel in it's current position is irrelevant. Kind of like they also don't care about American History that has led us to the place we are now in.
These people live in the here and now. Past means nothing, and future is important only in so much as it supports their view of today.
You'd have a hard time proving that. Ron Paul's talk at google was replete with historical references. He seemed like something of a student of history to me.
I guess I am stretch my point. But why did he use the historical references? Is it to prove his nutty ideas or excuse his nutty ideas?
On a lot of things I agree with him, but on others I think he's a kook.
Stuff you'd agree with him on: taxes, trade, gun rights, the constitution, lassez faire capitalism. You might disagree with him on foreign policy though.
I'd say he has knowledge of history on a selective basis, he is picking and choosing history to suit his ideology. There is american history, including stuff the founders did and advocated that go against his talking points.
lucky for him, most people are clueless about history.
I have a brother, college age and big into apologetics and philosophy who has bought into this crap. Tonight he told me, that "once we fix our foreign policy" we'd have money to fund all this libertarian stuff like school vouchers. I was like, 'yeah, until we get blown up'........which followed with, "no, they only attack us because we are over there, once we leave we will live in peace."....its unbeleivably naive, and ignorant of Islam itself and History.
I don't even agree with him on the Constitution, he takes the parts he wants to justify his stupidity, out of context and too literally. the "Declaration of war" is one area.....but he has on his site his view that, there are "Only 3 federal crimes", which are piracy, counterfeiting and something else, in the constitution. Big problem with that, the Founders themselves in the first several congress passed laws that did not fall under those 3 things.
LoL... jp, I'm a big proponent of school vouchers.
;)
this was linked on hotair today, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6863
in it, has links to some of the history i'm talking about.