I think that this article makes a decent point about the problems with the recent demand for more anti-bullying laws and/or policies on the heels of the Tyler Clementi suicide.
The major problem is that there is plenty of bullying going on against people with unpopular religious viewpoints (read: they don't endorse the sexual revolution) and many suspect that the gist of increases "anti-bullying" would simply be to increase bullying aginst the other side (because people who don't endorse the sexual revolution don't count, as Emily Nagoski reminds us).
That is all.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Paul Gottfried Defends Germany
I think that this article about Thilo Sarrazin by Paul Gottfried makes a compelling point about modern German politics; essentially, that there is a very trong element that wants German national suicide, under the pretext that anything else is a resurgence of Nazism.
Some of this may be due to paranoia directed at the Germans, but some of it I think is a willful spiteful decision to get rid of Germany in revenge for World War II.
It is high time that Germans learn to find a happy medium between ultranationalism and autoracism (hatred of one's own race), and at some point some of the laws designed to prevent a return to Nazism need to be reviewed in order to make certain that they didn't go too far in the other direction towards making self-annihilation mandatory. At the very least it needs to be realized that the proportion of the population that was exposed to Nazism is rapidly dying off from age. And, if they are going to hav laws against anything that smacks of Nazism, they should at the very least do the same thing with communism; it could be justified as a way of deprogramming those Germans from the eastern section.
That is all.
Some of this may be due to paranoia directed at the Germans, but some of it I think is a willful spiteful decision to get rid of Germany in revenge for World War II.
It is high time that Germans learn to find a happy medium between ultranationalism and autoracism (hatred of one's own race), and at some point some of the laws designed to prevent a return to Nazism need to be reviewed in order to make certain that they didn't go too far in the other direction towards making self-annihilation mandatory. At the very least it needs to be realized that the proportion of the population that was exposed to Nazism is rapidly dying off from age. And, if they are going to hav laws against anything that smacks of Nazism, they should at the very least do the same thing with communism; it could be justified as a way of deprogramming those Germans from the eastern section.
That is all.
Pastors and Politics
(Be warned: if you click on the link, the comments on the page contain sound files that start playing automatically).
Doug Giles has an interesting article about what makes pastors lack boldness on social, cultural, and political issues in our climate, regardless of how much these issues impact church issues.
I think it's a good read, although I cannot agree with everything he says, and for this sort of article the Jonah Goldberg-esque cultural references are inappropriate.
That is all.
Doug Giles has an interesting article about what makes pastors lack boldness on social, cultural, and political issues in our climate, regardless of how much these issues impact church issues.
I think it's a good read, although I cannot agree with everything he says, and for this sort of article the Jonah Goldberg-esque cultural references are inappropriate.
That is all.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tom Tancredo for Colorado
Dear Readers,
There is an excellent opportunity to support a candidate who is good on immigration and to get a Constitution Party candidate elected to the most prominent office yet!
Please, if you have any extra cash donate to Tom Tancredo's campaign!
-Glaivester
That is all.
There is an excellent opportunity to support a candidate who is good on immigration and to get a Constitution Party candidate elected to the most prominent office yet!
Please, if you have any extra cash donate to Tom Tancredo's campaign!
-Glaivester
That is all.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Thoughts on Gays in the Military
It's finally occurred to me why leftists don't see any potential problems from having homosexuals in close quarters with other people of the same sex, including bunking together, showering together, etc., even when they are okay with segregating women and men in those situations.
It's because they are so convinced of the fundamental justice of letting gays serve openly, that any problems that may arise cannot possibly exist, because that would deny fundamental justice.
They are also so opposed to the idea of stereotyping gay men as predators that they cannot conceive of gay men acting inappropriately; any policy which would tend to protect people from a gay man who acts inappropriately is therefore unjust, and to be concerned about a homosexual the same way you would about a heterosexual automatically becomes homophobia; in effect, the lack of a double standard that favors homosexual men is considered to be discrimination.
In effect, of course, we are being told that homosexuals are more sexually enlightened than heterosexuals.
After I commented on this issue on a recent post by Thoreau on Unqualified Offerings, typical leftist joe from Lowell had a hissy fit, suggesting that I was "projeccting my own issues," that "Operating in an all-male environment where some of the men are gay is... no different from being around any other men," and overall suggesting that sexuality is not why we segregate men and women in certain situations.
Commenter Professor Coldheart was slightly more honest, in that he said that the results of putting homosexual men in close quarters with other men would be that: gay men who serve in close quarters with straight men will do the same thing they’ve done for the last ten thousand years of human history. They’ll either keep it under control, or they’ll make a pass at a guy, or they’ll find a quiet spot behind the HummVee for a combat jack. And somehow the Empire will abide.
The not-so-subtle implication here is that men who would be uncomfortable with another man making a pass at them should get over it - or put more bluntly, that we should tolerate sexual harassment if the harasser is gay.
And that is ultimately what will happen, I think. People keep telling us that homosexuals in the military hasn't been a problem for other countries, but considering how hard the government has tried to suppress information regarding the problems of putting women in certain military situations (i.e. not publicizing the number of women who are absent from ships due to pregnancy) and how little actual debate there is over issues such as the fact that certain requirements are being re-defined to accomodate women (i.e. stretchers are not operated by four rather than two people, because most women are too weak to operate half of a stretcher), and how there were attempts to present the Jessica Lynch story in a way to make women in combat seem more palatable, who here thinks that any problems that gays in the military might cause would not be suppressed, both by the countries which already instituted the rule (which are more into egalitarian fundamentalism than we are) and by us in the future.
What Professor Coldheart implies, and what I think the military will do, is ultimately make an unofficial policy that anyone making any charge of a homosexual behaving inappropriately will be immediately labeled homophobic, and be punished for it. The effect of this will be that a certain amount of same-sex sexual harassment will be unofficially required to be tolerated, and any objections will be seen as bigotry. Anything that gets in the way of egalitarianism will be crushed, and concerns about harassment will be swept aside the same way that they were largely swept aside by feminists when it came to Bill Clinton.
That is all.
It's because they are so convinced of the fundamental justice of letting gays serve openly, that any problems that may arise cannot possibly exist, because that would deny fundamental justice.
They are also so opposed to the idea of stereotyping gay men as predators that they cannot conceive of gay men acting inappropriately; any policy which would tend to protect people from a gay man who acts inappropriately is therefore unjust, and to be concerned about a homosexual the same way you would about a heterosexual automatically becomes homophobia; in effect, the lack of a double standard that favors homosexual men is considered to be discrimination.
In effect, of course, we are being told that homosexuals are more sexually enlightened than heterosexuals.
After I commented on this issue on a recent post by Thoreau on Unqualified Offerings, typical leftist joe from Lowell had a hissy fit, suggesting that I was "projeccting my own issues," that "Operating in an all-male environment where some of the men are gay is... no different from being around any other men," and overall suggesting that sexuality is not why we segregate men and women in certain situations.
Commenter Professor Coldheart was slightly more honest, in that he said that the results of putting homosexual men in close quarters with other men would be that: gay men who serve in close quarters with straight men will do the same thing they’ve done for the last ten thousand years of human history. They’ll either keep it under control, or they’ll make a pass at a guy, or they’ll find a quiet spot behind the HummVee for a combat jack. And somehow the Empire will abide.
The not-so-subtle implication here is that men who would be uncomfortable with another man making a pass at them should get over it - or put more bluntly, that we should tolerate sexual harassment if the harasser is gay.
And that is ultimately what will happen, I think. People keep telling us that homosexuals in the military hasn't been a problem for other countries, but considering how hard the government has tried to suppress information regarding the problems of putting women in certain military situations (i.e. not publicizing the number of women who are absent from ships due to pregnancy) and how little actual debate there is over issues such as the fact that certain requirements are being re-defined to accomodate women (i.e. stretchers are not operated by four rather than two people, because most women are too weak to operate half of a stretcher), and how there were attempts to present the Jessica Lynch story in a way to make women in combat seem more palatable, who here thinks that any problems that gays in the military might cause would not be suppressed, both by the countries which already instituted the rule (which are more into egalitarian fundamentalism than we are) and by us in the future.
What Professor Coldheart implies, and what I think the military will do, is ultimately make an unofficial policy that anyone making any charge of a homosexual behaving inappropriately will be immediately labeled homophobic, and be punished for it. The effect of this will be that a certain amount of same-sex sexual harassment will be unofficially required to be tolerated, and any objections will be seen as bigotry. Anything that gets in the way of egalitarianism will be crushed, and concerns about harassment will be swept aside the same way that they were largely swept aside by feminists when it came to Bill Clinton.
That is all.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Short Manifesto
It has come to my attention in recent years that many of the problems facing the U.S. are not the result of well-meaning fools; rather they are the deliberate result of a hostile elite class whose goal is the destruction of traditional society and the delegitimization of all traditional institutions, and indeed the destruction of the historical American peoples. These devastations are to be replaced with a semblance of radical individualism (not in terms of individual liberty but in terms of a lack of restraining social mores), the equalization of all forms of relationships, and the importation of hostile alien populations.
In the end, the destruction of the institutions by which society is formed will lead to the functions of such institutions being taken over by the state; where social mores restrained behavior now we will only have force of law. No distinction will remain between personal morality and criminal/civil law, as all moral objections to things which are not expressly prohibited by law will be effectively banned.
The most potent weapon I think that conservatives now have in their arsenal is contempt. The first step to confronting the enemy is to realize that he is the enemy. He* certainly sees us as such, and so we should not believe that we can make him friendly. We can certainly behave civilly towards him when the situation warrants, and when confronted with new people who are on the other side, we can give them the benefit of the doubt. But once a person sides with the enemy, and explicitly sees us as the enemy, we must not make the mistake of seeing him as a possible friend.
If someone announces that they have no interest in the preservation of traditional American society, they should be denounced. Any claims that we are being racist or intolerant should be met with "if you want to do away with my society, why should I care about your feelings?"
Above all, we need to realize that we are defenders; we are the ones who have been attacked. We are reacting to an attempt to delegitimize and to destroy us, and we should not have to apologize for that.
That is all.
*I use "he" here as a generic personification of all leftism, not aimed at the gender of the writer of the particular piece I am referencing.
In the end, the destruction of the institutions by which society is formed will lead to the functions of such institutions being taken over by the state; where social mores restrained behavior now we will only have force of law. No distinction will remain between personal morality and criminal/civil law, as all moral objections to things which are not expressly prohibited by law will be effectively banned.
The most potent weapon I think that conservatives now have in their arsenal is contempt. The first step to confronting the enemy is to realize that he is the enemy. He* certainly sees us as such, and so we should not believe that we can make him friendly. We can certainly behave civilly towards him when the situation warrants, and when confronted with new people who are on the other side, we can give them the benefit of the doubt. But once a person sides with the enemy, and explicitly sees us as the enemy, we must not make the mistake of seeing him as a possible friend.
If someone announces that they have no interest in the preservation of traditional American society, they should be denounced. Any claims that we are being racist or intolerant should be met with "if you want to do away with my society, why should I care about your feelings?"
Above all, we need to realize that we are defenders; we are the ones who have been attacked. We are reacting to an attempt to delegitimize and to destroy us, and we should not have to apologize for that.
That is all.
*I use "he" here as a generic personification of all leftism, not aimed at the gender of the writer of the particular piece I am referencing.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Naked Leftism
Checking out Alas, I came to this piece.
I think it is very instructive in understanding the leftist mindset, and why the supposed beacons of "tolerance" are so willing and eager to try to destroy all dissent. Does anyone doubt that if this woman were in charge, being an evangelical Christian would be criminalized and all who dissented would be sent to re-education camps?
Q. When does a liberal believe in tolerance?
A. When he isn't the one in power.
That is all.
I think it is very instructive in understanding the leftist mindset, and why the supposed beacons of "tolerance" are so willing and eager to try to destroy all dissent. Does anyone doubt that if this woman were in charge, being an evangelical Christian would be criminalized and all who dissented would be sent to re-education camps?
Q. When does a liberal believe in tolerance?
A. When he isn't the one in power.
That is all.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Holland, Stop Prosecuting Geert Wilders!
Randall Parker and Dennis Mangan take the Netherlands to task for their persecution prosecution of someone for simply standing up for his own country against incompatible invaders.
That is all.
That is all.
On Joseph Sobran's Death
I think the best way to remember Mr. Sobran (whom I know only from reading his writings - I never had any contact with the man) is to remember some good quotes from him. To the extent that he contributed to my political development, it was through the use of one-liners that summed up principles I believed in but had never been able to express so succinctly. He could get to the heart of issues in a way that allowed me to describe and defend my worldview from some of hte more vexing attacks. So here are a few that I remember:
"I’ve always believed there’s really no such thing as a double standard. When people appear to apply a double standard, it means they are actually applying a hidden single standard — one they don’t want to admit."
"I guess the label that suits me best is reactionary utopian. I want to go back to a better world that never quite existed." (This one is especially apt, because it allows a conservative to admit that he thinks we have lost something that we need to get back without having to fight the old "the good old days weren't perfect!" retort).
(from the same article as linked above) "You know you’re politically homeless when you go to a John Birch Society dinner and you feel you’re surrounded by well-meaning liberals. "
"Notice that the Tenth Amendment is one of the few passages in the Constitution in which the Federal judiciary hasn’t discovered reservoirs of penumbras and emanations. I wonder why."
(btw, yes, I am aware of some of the more - unsavory aspects of Mr. Sobran's writings - but now is not the time to dwell on them).
That is all.
"I’ve always believed there’s really no such thing as a double standard. When people appear to apply a double standard, it means they are actually applying a hidden single standard — one they don’t want to admit."
"I guess the label that suits me best is reactionary utopian. I want to go back to a better world that never quite existed." (This one is especially apt, because it allows a conservative to admit that he thinks we have lost something that we need to get back without having to fight the old "the good old days weren't perfect!" retort).
(from the same article as linked above) "You know you’re politically homeless when you go to a John Birch Society dinner and you feel you’re surrounded by well-meaning liberals. "
"Notice that the Tenth Amendment is one of the few passages in the Constitution in which the Federal judiciary hasn’t discovered reservoirs of penumbras and emanations. I wonder why."
(btw, yes, I am aware of some of the more - unsavory aspects of Mr. Sobran's writings - but now is not the time to dwell on them).
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)