Feminist restriction of freedom of speech: it goes way beyond Facebook.

Sometimes I’ll drop by Feministing to look at their link ups. Several days ago, I followed a link to a site I’d never heard of before, GenderIT, where I found the following article.  I’m actually going to give you the full text right here.

The false paradox: freedom of expression and sexist hate speech

Margarita Salas on 10 June, 2013 – 14:12

When we talk about freedom of expression we are within the paradigm of human rights. Human rights are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, which means that the improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others and the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others. This also means that they should not be hierarchized, that freedom of expression does not trump the right to live a life free of violence. It also means that there are limits to freedom of expression that are legitimate in order to strike a balance with other human rights. As a society we seem to have been able to understand this very clearly when it comes to hate speech and racism, but for some patriarchal reason the issue becomes subject of debate when we talk about hate speech and sexism.

The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers Recommendation defines hate speech as: “all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti- Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.”1 In this definition it is important to remark that gender is not mentioned explicitely as one of the risk factors for discrimination and hostility, and one really cannot be expected to place women under the category of minorities as we represent more than half of the world´s population.

In contrast, feminist Dona Lilian argues that: “sexist speech can be framed as hate speech, as it functions to denigrate women as a group, in the service, ultimately, of patriarchal subjugation. Therefore, no matter how unsophisticated it may seem to talk simplistically about ‘women’ and ‘men’, the world we live in is still organized around those categories. Moreover, it is organized in such a way that ‘women’ as a class are subordinate to ‘men’ as a class, and it systemically discriminates against women.”2

Given the popularity and presence of social networks in the everyday lives of millions, there are several iniatives that have dealt with the problem of hate speech online from the perspective of the users. The Lithuanian NGO Tolerant Youth Association created an autonomous system that allows people to report bashers directly to prosecutors. There is an anti-racist initative that promotes a bot in Twitter that retweets racist content tagging it as such. Also, Aktion Kinder des Holocaust has the project Internet Streetworking, which contacts the authors of pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic statements.

These are all valuable options that are being implemented to handle specific cases, but there is a stakeholder that is important to mention in this context: the internet intermediaries who own these social networks and sites through which hate speech is propagated. Can internet providers prevent the use of their services by haters/ extremists? The Anti-Defamation League answers: “Yes. Commercial providers may prohibit users from using their services to send anti-Semitic, racist or bigoted messages. Such prohibitions do not violate the U.S. constitutional rights of users because a commercial provider is not a government agency. Because the relationship between providers and users is usually strictly based on contract (users often click “I agree” to a site’s terms of use after signing up), it is the agreement between the provider and the user, and not the U.S. Constitution, which governs the relationship.”3

So commercial providers can regulate usage, but should they? Do internet intermediaries actually have a responsibility or a role to play regarding the content that circulates through their services? The second pillar of the Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework, developed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, defines: “the corporate responsibility to respect human rights, which means to act with due diligence to avoid infringing on the rights of others and to address adverse impacts that occur.”4

Hence, internet corporations do have an important role to play in taking measures to ensure that human rights are not infringed. This includes women´s rights to live a life free of violence. In its 15 years Review of the VAW Mandate, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women addressed the issue of accountability for actions of non-State actors, including multinational corporations. The Special Rapporteur on VAW recommended gender impact studies, inclusion of gender as part of corporate responsibility, and the institutionalization of codes of conduct incorporating human rights within corporations or as part of social responsibility of corporations, rather than complete reliance upon enforcement by States. Also, the second key principle of The Guiding Principles of the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy, recommends conducting regular human rights impact assessments, which could open the door for the gender impact assessments recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur on VAW.

There is growing awareness about the importance of these issues from the perspective of internet corporations, although it is not always clear how to move forward. In this sense it is relevant to approach the issue in partnership. Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair of the Global Network Initiative, United States, stated that: “companies need not face these challenges on their own. By working together with civil society organizations with expertise on the ground in challenging markets, academic experts and technologists with in-depth expertise on emerging issues, and investors who see the profit opportunities in a socially responsible approach, companies can more accurately gauge risks and identify opportunities to advance rights.”5

The one thing we cannot do is shelter under the false paradox of freedom of expression to remain passive while online violence against women advances. We must recognize that sexist hate speech is a form of violence and just as we have done with racism or xenophobia, we each must play our part in putting a stop to this form of gender based violence.

I was infuriated by the time I reached the end, ready to write up a scathing rebuttal, but first I decided to have a look around the website.  What is GenderIT?  From About GenderIT.org:

GenderIT.org emerged from the Association for Progressive Communications Women’s Rights Programme‘s advocacy work in information and communications technologies (ICTs). The need to have examples of national policy gender-sensitive language, tools for lobbyhttp://www.genderit.org/es/glossary/12/letterl#term783″>ing, and an understanding of the impact of poor or positive policy all within easy access has been expressed by ICT advocates and policy makers alike.

The APC WRP also developed the Monitor for gender advocates – women’s organisations and movements across the world who are just beginning to explore gender issues in the deployment and application of ICTs, and need to understand the intersections with key women’s issues such as violence against women or economic empowerment…

Here are some of their official goals.  Understand that they considered “sexist language” to be part of violence against women.

1. Recognition of technology-related forms of VAW
Technology-related forms of violence must be recognised as a form of violence against women and be integrated in monitoring, prevention and response mechanisms, including in public policy and in expanding the implementation of anti-VAW laws. States, inter-governmental institutions and other actors must address technology-related forms of violence against women in their response and prevention efforts.

2. Multi-sectoral prevention and response mechanisms
Holistic, multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral (primary, secondary and tertiary) prevention and response mechanisms must include private sector technology actors, state telecommunications and communications institutions, and the technical and internet rights communities.

3. Evidence building: Reporting on technology-related forms of VAW
Systematic reporting and monitoring of technology-related forms of VAW must be instituted at all levels. National statistics and indicators on VAW must include a component reporting specifically on ICT-related VAW, so that trends can be monitored and addressed.

4. Capacity building for actors in the criminal justice system
Capacity building for public officials in the areas of education, health, social welfare and justice as well as the judiciary and police must include awareness, understanding and responses to technology-related forms of violence against women. Accountability mechanisms must be established and strengthened to ensure compliance of public officials with laws and regulations that respond to these violations.

5. Engaging intermediaries to build safer online spaces
Internet intermediaries including internet and mobile service providers must be called upon to develop corporate policies, practices and tools that respect women’s rights and condemn online practices that are harmful to women.

This organization has some kind of support from the U.N.  They were given a platform to make a statement during the U.N.’s most recent meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women.  I encourage you to take a moment if you have time to read this entire document: APC’s Women’s Rights Programme statement to the CSW 57th Session.  Here is just an excerpt of the document:

Emerging forms of violence against women: defining harm
The emergence of technology related forms of VAW has not happened in a vacuum, but are part of the continuum of violence against women that “occurs in all countries, contexts and settings… is one of the most pervasive violations of human rights” and is a “manifestation of the historically unequal power relations between men and women and systemic gender-based discrimination”.

Culture, norms and practices that reinforce prejudice

When women suffer violence online, the aim is the same as violence offline – to keep women out of spaces that men feel belong to them, to silence women’s voices and to stop women’s participation in an increasingly important sphere. The pain that is inflicted is real. As is the case offline, cultural norms and practices that perpetuate and reinforce damaging stereotypes and prejudice and subordinate women, abound online. In fact, the levels of sexism and misogynist behaviour and speech online dwarfs what occurs in the public sphere offline.

Strategic objective 2 of Section J of the Beijing Platform for Action calls for action to be taken to promote a balanced and non-stereotypical portrayal of women in the media. This extends to online spaces where women in particular have used the openness of the internet and ICTs to confront and resist damaging stereotypes through creating their own media and positive representations. However, misogyny and online harassment is increasingly used to police women’s behaviour which prevents them from being able to fully participate in online life.

Prominent women bloggers are regularly subjected to online abuse and violent threats that attack their sexuality and right to express an opinion, especially when it is related to fields where men have traditionally been held as experts, such as gaming, politics and technology. One of the highest profile cases of misogyny and harassment recently is the case of Anita Sarkeesian. Her ‘crime’ was to raise money for a series of video “exploring female character stereotypes throughout the history of the gaming industry”.  A campaign against Sarkeesian began which included calls for her to be gang-raped and emails sent to her that contained images of her being raped by video game characters. It culminated in the ‘Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian’ ‘game’ which allowed gamers to punch her image until the screen turned red with her ‘blood’. Sarkeesian’s own analysis drives to the heart of what makes online harassment and misogyny, even in its extreme forms, acceptable, when similar actions offline would be condemned – and that it is more than just the anonymity of the harassers, but also the online misogynist culture that accepts and even celebrates it. However, it should also be noted that this case is one on a continuum of virtual violence against women who speak out against male dominance of ICTs.

An article in the Guardian, ‘How the web became a sexists’ paradise’ documents the concerted campaign against women occupying public spaces online. The normalisation of violent behaviour and the culture that tolerates VAW – such as that exercised against Sarkeesian – mimics trends offline. Gender-blind or misogynist policies by some private sector actors contributes to the impression that the individuals can engage in sexist behaviour online. An example is Facebook, which censors breastfeeding photographs, but allows pictures of bare breasts if they are for male sexual edification (such as on the page ‘Boobs, Breasts and Boys who love them’). This allows individuals to mutually reinforce sexist and violent behaviour, and contribute to norms, attitudes and behaviour that makes online spaces hostile towards women.

No evidence is presented that Facebook censors breastfeeding photos, and frankly I do not believe that it does.  This strikes me as, well, a lie meant to manipulate a sympathetic audience into consenting to increased feminist censorship of online speech with which they don’t agree.  Here is Facebook’s official statement:

Breastfeeding is a natural and beautiful act and we’re very glad to know that it is so important to some mothers to share this experience with others on Facebook. We take no action on the vast majority of breastfeeding photos because they follow the site’s Terms of Use. Photos containing a fully exposed breast do violate those Terms and may be removed. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children (over the age of 13) who use the site. The photos we act upon are almost exclusively brought to our attention by other users who complain.

Once I started poking around GenderIT, I realized that this is a massive NGO.  They employ large numbers of people, mostly women, and serve as an umbrella for hundreds of smaller organizations throughout the world.  The amount of money required to run this NGO must be enormous.

Who is funding this?

I searched and searched online but could find no information about their funding.  Given the number of organizations and countries involved, this has got to be in the multi-millions of dollars.  They brag about their involvement with foreign governments and their ability to influence policy.  They have the ear of the United Nations.  They are well-funded.  They don’t mind playing loose with the truth.

One of the ideas I see batted around the manosphere and the wider reactionary sphere is Oh, but now we have the internet.  The Cathedral (or feminism or whatever) will surely crumble now because we will say The Truth!  They can’t stifle us on the internet!

Really?

135 thoughts on “Feminist restriction of freedom of speech: it goes way beyond Facebook.

  1. Farm Boy

    When you have facts and logic on your side, censorship should not be in your arsenal. Otherwise, censorship is good.

  2. alcestiseshtemoa

    Synchronicity strikes again.

    There’s even a video game based on an engineered virus funded by international/multinational corporation/organization which infects their home base and then spread abroad to infect the entire human race.

    The live-action movie trailer is below.

  3. Leap of a Beta

    Facebook does censor breast feeding. It also censors bare breasts and nudity. They simply rationalize that it doesn’t because there’s an inundation of bare breasts compared to a small trickle of breast feeding.

    Neither are all that big though. I don’t think I’ve once seen a bare breast on facebook, though I’ve seen breast feeding a couple times – usually in the pictures accompanying articles about moms protesting inability to breast feed in certain locations.

  4. alcestiseshtemoa

    Internet freedom should be upheld, but targeting, attacking and destroying these NGOs and international/multinational corporations and organizations is of high importance. They’re basically like tentacles which infect the entire world and spread viruses abroad.

    [ssm: So far as I can discern, Africa and Latin America are a major focus of this organization.]

  5. donalgraeme

    It should come as no surprise to anyone that the internet would be targeted for censorship. The Enemy is no fool; they understand full well that if samizdat could help bring down Soviet Russia, then the internet could easily do the same to them.

    The lesson of the day: Everywhere is a battlefield.

    ssm: Yes. Everywhere is. And what we mustn’t do is ever assume that temporal weapons will save us. That is the overarching moral of today’s story. Today we can use the internet. Later we may not be able to. Prayer first, last, and always is our chief weapon: Even so, come Lord Jesus!

    The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the LORD. – Prov. 21:31

    Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God. – Ps. 20:7

  6. sunshinemary

    Farm Boy:

    When you have facts and logic on your side, censorship should not be in your arsenal.

    Reading through the GenderIT website will disabuse you of any notion that this organization cares in the least about facts they do not like.

    Remember when I linked to the Women’s Studies conference at our dear alma mater calling for “advocacy to inform research”? The “facts” they amass are self-created; if you can manipulate your research questions and methodologies properly, you can create facts that say anything. They already know what they want the facts to say. Don’t believe me?

    Graduate study at the University of Michigan offers an opportunity to engage in research that informs and shapes the world around us.

    So much for objectivity.

  7. Leap of a Beta

    Also, their equating people’s hurt feelings online to violence offline is stupid.

    Women should put on their big boy pants and deal with the consequences of their actions and the world around them.

  8. sunshinemary

    Leap:

    equating people’s hurt feelings online to violence offline is stupid.

    It is stupid, Leap, but they just put on their sad face, their Don’t hurt women and girls! face, and men fall for it. They fall for it because most normal men don’t want to hurt women and girls, so they’ll support policies that they believe will prevent that. The reality is that they are simply being manipulated. What these women really want (but I think it goes beyond these women; they are really just pawns in my opinion) is to control what men can say.

  9. alcestiseshtemoa

    ssm: So far as I can discern, Africa and Latin America are a major focus of this organization.

    Indeed. The situation is just like Word of Faith heretical Protestants come to these places and spread their filth. I have more hope for Latin America though.

  10. Farm Boy

    Women should put on their big boy pants and deal with the consequences of their actions and the world around them.

    They are too busy being victims. Furthermore, being a victim is a lucrative business.

  11. alcestiseshtemoa

    I think Latin America will survive, but with major wounds and scratches thanks to these disgusting, despicable organizations.

  12. sunshinemary

    One thing we have to give them credit for: they are forthright. From Ms. Salas’ article, the last paragraph really sums up the entire organization:

    The one thing we cannot do is shelter under the false paradox of freedom of expression to remain passive while online violence against women advances. We must recognize that sexist hate speech is a form of violence and just as we have done with racism or xenophobia, we each must play our part in putting a stop to this form of gender based violence.

    My blog would be an example of what would be considered sexist speech. I have been accused of being a misogynist many times (though I am not one), both by feminists and even by people on sites like Hooking Up Smart. If GenderIT were able to immediately implement their desired policies, what I write would be illegal.

  13. van Rooinek

    Online violence? What the hell is that? Can a hostile internet user, send a command to remotely make someone else’s mouse rise up and slap them across the face?

    Of course not. There’s NO SUCH THING as “online violence” — by definition, it does not and logically cannot exist. If you don’t like what’s being said, go to another website, or turn off your computer.

    Duh.

    [ssm: Agreed.]

  14. Stingray

    does not trump the right to live a life free of violence.

    I stopped reading riiiiiggggghhhtttt here. One does not have the right to freedom of violence. That is utter crap. One has a right to protect oneself from violence. That does NOT include censorship. Words are not violence.

    I need to go away for a while and calm down. I will finish the rest of the article later.

    [ssm: Yes, that was my reaction, too.]

  15. sunshinemary

    It isn’t just violence that can be verbal. Sexual assault can also be verbal and occur over the internet, they say.

    From ”Grace and Disgrace” by Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill church in Seattle, in which he claims that one out of four women are sexually assaulted and gives this definition of rape/sexual assault (emphasis is mine):

    Any type of sexual behavior or contact where consent is not freely given or obtained and is accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, or abuse of authority…[a]nd it manifests itself in three ways: The ‘acts’ can be physical, verbal, or psychological. In the age of bullying and the Internet, in the age of certain inappropriate speech and conduct, it just, it can be physical contact that connotes sexual assault, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. It also can be verbal and/or psychological.

    Further reading on this issue from my old blog:

    http://leticiamary.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/sunday-supplications-i-see-rapists-everywhere-church-edition/

  16. Martel

    The whole “internet violence” thing is just more evidence of how the left warps language, and of our need to stop them.

    Race-hustlers also describe “hate speech” as violence, and any opposition to affirmative action is “hate speech”, thus opposition to affirmative is violence so we can ban it to “protect” people.

    You take words that describe something that people don’t like (racisim, violence), and then expand the definitions of those words to include everything YOU don’t like. It’s a disgustingly effective way to manipulate the masses.

    Another great one is the use of “phobia”, making your political enemies “mentally ill”.

  17. Leap of a Beta

    ” One has a right to protect oneself from violence.”

    Truth. You can’t stop anyone from doing anything unless you have overwhelming evidence they mean to cause harm. Which is tricky, with people’s propensity to talk shit. There are plenty of cases where someone who was acting in perceived self defense was charged because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove violence would occur, even if the individual was convinced it would. The same reasoning is behind warrants for arrest, search and seizure, probable cause for pulling people over, etc.

    Feelings have never mattered till recently, and their intrusion into our justice system have decimated true justice.

  18. Miserman

    @SSM. How can I upload a couple of photos to my comment? I have proof that Facebook allows breastfeeding illustrations.

    ssm: I can’t type in the full HTML code to show you, but do this, substituting > for Y and < for X.

    X img src="url" alt=""/Y

    Make sure that any photos you put here do not show anything that isn’t PG, okay?

  19. sunshinemary

    I wish like heck that I had taken a screen shot of the comment from a feminist at Manboobz who told me that s/he hope all my children died. Mr. Futrelle deleted his/her comment eventually. It would have been Black Knighting fodder. Two can play at this “don’t assault me over the internet” business. Though, of course, I don’t really want to play that game.

  20. Leap of a Beta

    “Furthermore, being a victim is a lucrative business.”

    More that pandering to victims and taking a cut of the money is a lucrative business. The victims themselves stay victims and in their place, kept there by the business that wants to keep having funding it can take a cut out of.

  21. Miserman

    This concept of speech equating with violence cuts both ways. Regardless of how elegant the language is, could it not be said that accusing men who say offensive things are committing acts of violence against women is itself a inciting of some sort of persecution or prosecution?

  22. Miserman

    SSM, I sent the illustration to your email account and will leave you to decide if it’s PG. ;-)

    [ssm: That's G rated. Feel free to put it in the thread.]

  23. Martel

    @ Miserman: “This concept of speech equating with violence cuts both ways. Regardless of how elegant the language is, could it not be said that accusing men who say offensive things are committing acts of violence against women is itself a inciting of some sort of persecution or prosecution?”

    I theory, yes, and in a specific organization stupid rules can be a great way to Black Knight.

    But in a societal sense when the supposedly disinterested people who enforce the rules like one group and not another, it won’t work.

    One of Mussolini’s ideas was to make absolutely everything illegal. That way he could arrest whoever he wanted whenever he wanted. His friends were breaking the laws, too, but whenver somebody complained about it “we just can’t get to everybody.”

    And then they’d get arrested.

  24. Retrenched

    It’s not possible to have freedom of speech and freedom from offense at the same time – not if the laws treat everyone equally. It is possible, though, for a superior class (e.g. feminists) to have both while an inferior class (non-feminists) has neither.

    This is what feminists (and really, leftists in general) are aiming for – with themselves as the superior class of course.

  25. Looking Glass

    I barely got past this part:

    “When we talk about freedom of expression we are within the paradigm of human rights. Human rights are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, which means that the improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others and the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.”

    This is a fallacy. Rights aren’t interrelated. Liberty isn’t interrelated. Freedom isn’t interrelated. Depending on the situation, they can be *related* to each other. Your Freedom to Speech ends about the point were you threaten me. Your Freedom to swing a bat around is unlimited, until it interacts with my Freedom to survive.

    Oh, and the first sentence needs a comma.

  26. Novaseeker

    The idea of words as violence is straight from post-modernist philosophy. Post-modernism generally considers anyone who claims that their own perspective has objective validity to be committing violence in an intellectual sense, because it is trying to impose one’s own perspective on others under the guise of objectivity, while post-modernism generally holds that subjectivity is the main locus of truth (grossly oversimplified). So when you consider the expression of thought as objective to constitute a type of violence, it’s very easy to move from that to the position that any speech (spoken thought) which is personally perceived by others as an imposition is tantamount to violence. And that’s basically what these people are saying — thought expressed in words which they perceive as an imposition on them is therefore violence.

    As a practical matter, we all knew that the time in which spaces like this would be permitted to continue by the Cathedral would be quite limited. The only reason they have persisted as long as they have is because they are quite small and generally are off radar screens. That is slowly changing. I expect that within the next 5-10 years none of the stuff we write about here will be permitted by any internet host based in a Western country. Not the heavy hand of the state, per se (although as we know they have all of the info anyway), but companies will “voluntarily” do this as a result of pressures from lobbies like the one mentioned in the article, coupled with an avalanche of societal apathy about regulating the internet.

    What we are really living through is a peaceful transition from a corporatist pseudo-democracy to a more purely totalitarian pseudo-democracy. Those of us who spent time in communist countries before 1989 know what this looks like, and we can see the signs everywhere. Yet it is also new, because this is happening peacefully, and with the support of most of the people, erm, sheeple.

  27. Frank

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never huuurt me… unless I’m a woman!

    For a lot that incessantly peddles the “strong and independent” line, they sure get offended easily.

  28. theshadowedknight

    They are calling for internet monitoring. This would likely be why they are getting so much money. A front group of useful idiots that play the girl card to call for the setup of a traffic and data capture and analysis system, as well as restrictions on speech.

    Technology-related forms of violence must be recognised as a form of violence against women and be integrated in monitoring, prevention and response mechanisms.
    States, inter-governmental institutions and other actors must address technology-related forms of violence against women in their response and prevention efforts.
    Systematic reporting and monitoring of technology-related forms of VAW must be instituted at all levels.

    PRISM, turned to focus on speech relating to sex roles. Oh, since those evil Republicans started the War on Women, we can just keep an eye on them, too. Christians should also be watched, lest they try and restrict women’s control of their own bodies. White people started the Patriarchy, so them, and blacks have that awful, misogynistic rap culture, so them, too. That should cover it.

    I cannot wait to get out of here. What a hole in the ground this is becoming. The Hispanics are going to be pissed when they finish invading and nothing is left. Damned gringos ran it into the ground before we could steal it. Sike!

    The Shadowed Knight

  29. donalgraeme

    “I cannot wait to get out of here. What a hole in the ground this is becoming. ”

    Where do you propose to go TSK? No where is truly safe from the Enemy. His reach is long, and his grasp unyielding. The only nations that have escaped the embrace of “Feminism” are those with other totalitarian impulses of their own.

  30. Pingback: Feminist restriction of freedom of speech: it goes way beyond Facebook. | Viva La Manosphere!

  31. earl

    Hate speech is whatever offends your feelings. Usually it contains truth in it.

    By that logic Jesus was every type of hate speaker you could think of.

  32. earl

    “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never huuurt me.”

    That was true until false rape charges became a thing.

  33. anonymous_ng

    Not long ago I started doing some research on the whole idea of rights and I came away from it with a slightly different perspective than when I started.

    I see it like this. Rights only exist in relationship to humans and then only with respect to some level of human society. For example, there are no rights associated with the planet Jupiter or between a herd of water buffalo and a pride of lions.

    My best conclusion is that you could replace the word right with the phrase should be so. I have the right to speak my mind. I should be able to speak my mind. I say that because it seems that rights talk comes up when people perceive a mismatch between the law and what is considered right and proper colloquially.

    Ultimately, I see rights and the discussions therein as sort of a first world, top of Maslow’s heirarchy problem.

    Or, another way to put it is that talk of rights beyond a certain point is nothing more than mental masturbation. You have a right to life to the extent that you can defend that right, or convince other people to defend that right on your behalf, and if you get sideways with the wrong person or to many of the right people, your right to life will be trumped by their right to not have to deal with you any longer.

    Thus, I always come to the conclusion that talk of rights is like debating the angels dancing on the head of a pin.

    As Tertullian said “…What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? …”

    P.S. – something I found at Psychology Today
    The term hysteria, from the Greek for “wandering uterus,” was conceived by psychoanalysts as a condition in which individuals (typically women) suffer from exaggerated emotional highs and lows, are anxious and preoccupied, and are overly impressionable and impressionistic.

  34. theshadowedknight

    Donal, the Adversary has a strong grip, no doubt. It is not unyielding. Only the Lord is truly all-powerful. The Adversary has been denied before, and it can be done again. When he reaches for me like he did so many others before me, I am going to stab him in the hand and make him hurt. He will recieve my defiance, and he can try to crush me, but I will be damned if I go down anyway but fighting to the last.

    I am not trying to import my culture. I am expatriating with the aim of emmigrating, and that does not mean I get to carry over my culture and tell them they have to live with it. That attitude is what caused all of this.

    The Shadowed Knight

  35. Martel

    @ Jeremy: It’s unfortunately not all that new. It’s rooted in postmodernist philosophy and already rules the day on our college campuses.

  36. Looking Glass

    Odds are GenderIT is backdoor supported by most of the supremely repressive regimes around the world. People always forget that while they’re Evil, they’re rarely terribly stupid.

  37. anonymous_ng

    @TSK – “I am not trying to import my culture. I am expatriating with the aim of emmigrating, and that does not mean I get to carry over my culture and tell them they have to live with it. That attitude is what caused all of this.”

    BINGO!!!

    Where you headed?

  38. Ton

    Truth, facts, logic are the weakest of weapons & have done very little good over the years. People are emotional are emotional not rational. Even men. The average guy only appears rational because they are compared to the even more emotional women.

    Prayer is a weak weapon as we have no idea if the answer is yes, no or get lost. I’m not saying don’t pray but have a plan based on things you can do.

    Latain America is as dysfunctional as the day is long and the catholic church sold out to marxism years ago. Talk about delusional…. That girls hamster must be the size of NYC

  39. Ton

    The people who created america no longer exist, by and large founding stock has been repalced by foreign and hostile people. I too will not carry this rotten culture overseas when I ex pat or will do my best not to

  40. Ton

    I’m with any-ng.

    Reality is we don’t have he right to anything we cannot acquire and maintain with our own strength. Tell the ocean or a hungry lion or gangbanger you have the right to life etc all and see how that works out for you

  41. Feminist Hater

    Is it just me or are feminists making life futile to even live? When the hell did they get the right to tell us what to think and feel?! Go get fucked you pathetic pieces of human excrement!

    The only violence that should be protected against by the State itself is actual physical violence from those seeking to do your nation harm. Posting comments on a website, even if they are laden in threats, are not violence. Violence is the committing of assault and battery on a person. Threats are merely threats until they are acted upon. By all means, protect yourself from physical attacks, everyone has my blessing to do so. However, that’s where I draw the line. If you don’t like what a person has to say, leave the room, turn the PC off, visit another site, you have a number of remedies at your disposal.

    This is one of the reasons I am a Ethnic Nationalist, every nation or group of people need a nation to call their own, a nation where they are free from the harm caused by other nation groups. Too much diversity leads to the problems we have now, where the only way to control violence between different groups fighting for dominance is for the government to over step its bounds and institute hate crime laws to run interference and stifle certain groups.

  42. Black Eyed Peat

    “@TSK – “I am not trying to import my culture. I am expatriating with the aim of emmigrating, and that does not mean I get to carry over my culture and tell them they have to live with it. That attitude is what caused all of this.”

    That’s always been my gripe with so called “missionaries”, as well.

  43. ray

    good follow-up to the Sneetches post

    the net is the ONLY place that the United Sisterhood and PC Politburo havent yet silenced (in the name of protecting womenandchildren of course!)

    this tactic of manipulating and co-opting weak men (i.e. most men) to enforce the Sisterhood’s endless “laws” and codes — lest some female, somewhere on the planet, experience discomfort — successfully conquered all western institutions decades ago, and you are way way past political solutions

    turning dissent against the gynocracy on the internet into criminal violations is a foregone conclusion; these people will not stop until every masculine voice and interest has been eradicated from the planet

    there are THOUSANDS of similar feminist NGOs, misnomered, as often they are funded back-door by the govt arm of the matriarchy, and whether NGO or direct govt, they are typically loaded with money to destroy maleness and fatherhood, utilizing the invulnerable tactic of Female-Under-Threat

    the net really is the last battleground, and our Kontrollers are well-aware of it too, that’s why the two recent posts are v important — so far, the IT Nerds have escaped being overrun by the Whore Whorde, bc of the field’s unique expertise and requirements (obsessive/compulsive guys doing work that women cant)

    that shielding is now falling, as the gynarchy begins to enforce censorship on the web, and brings AA to IT and STEM fields

    if the Nerds arent awakened to onrushing reality, they’ll be subsumed and kontrolled like every other facet of western k-k-k-kulture

    however, if the IT boys finally grok that THEIR ASSES ARE NEXT ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK, and that their days of safety and job-security are numbered, you have powerful allies

    again, it’s not about How Many, it’s always about Who, and it only takes a few de-matrixed Whos to cause big problems for the western sisterhoods

    Satan is Prince (ruler) of the Power of the Air, and among other things, he controls the airwaves (media and atmospheric electronics)

    we’re witnessing multi-headed tactics to consolidate this power (govt with PRISM etc, and NGOs/Academy/Media with any dissent equalling “violence against women” and “hate-speech”)

    the IT Nerds can either continue to play ball with the Wicked Witch and her Satellite Monkeys, and watch as she gradually crushes their professions and lives, or they can resist, and leave Satan and his many well-paid Agencies and NGOs with “no place to be found in heaven” per Revelation

    keep showing the Nerds the inevitability of their future under the Skankocracy — rub their pasty bespectacled faces in that inevitability, in the surety of their onrushing emasculation and enslavement, and force them to make the hard choices they’ve avoided during the decades when they were “hands-off”

    make SURE they know they arent hands-off any more

    the enemy has all the money, power, organizations, etc, but it only takes a few of the right people to shut doors in the mid-atmospheres . . . or to keep doors open

    those of you with expertise or friends in IT — you need to slap some faces and wake folks up, this is one of the few areas left where the gulag is vulnerable, Scripturally and practically

    cheers

  44. theshadowedknight

    Any_ng, I have not decided. I have years until I am going to be ready, so I am going to spend time exploring my options and doing research on where to set up. Then, and only then, will I start to rebuild.

    The Shadowed Knight

  45. Black Eyed Peat

    “This is one of the reasons I am a Ethnic Nationalist, every nation or group of people need a nation to call their own, a nation where they are free from the harm caused by other nation groups.”

    I’m an Ethics and Values Nationalist. I would love to share a geographical space with other people who shared my ethics and values.

  46. theshadowedknight

    Ray, no one rules the signal, because everyone does. The one who has the power to destroy a thing controls it, and anyone willing to put in a years or two of work could cripple the entire digital infrastructure of the world. Making the people that run that infrastructure miserable is a great way to make them enemies.

    The Shadowed Knight

  47. nightskyradio

    Ton – People are emotional are emotional not rational. Even men. The average guy only appears rational because they are compared to the even more emotional women.

    So true. I can’t even talk to most people anymore because they just will not consider any point of view that challenges their emotional investment in their existing POV.

    Even when someone gets bitchslammed to the pavement hard and has to finally accept that they were wrong, they still don’t change their minds on anything. For example, a liberal who is forced to change his mind on one issue, and later another, and later another, but never allows himself to think that the entire platform may be flawed.

  48. nightskyradio

    If I were black, or gay, or a woman, I would want people to freely speak about how much they hated me. That’s how I know who to avoid, and who I may need to eventually defend myself against.

    That and there would also be a paper trail to point to later.

  49. Miserman

    Here’s some hate speech for reference:

    When I wanted to have a child, I had a woman, I did not turn to my neighbor. I refuse to marry two men. No homosexual weddings will be celebrated in Arcangues.

  50. Escoffier

    Nova, that comment was like a light-switch. Click!

    Of course this is all going to go away, isn’t it? Now that you have said it, it seems obvious. But I had more or less taken for granted that the I-Net was the new Agora, where “each could hold and defend any opinion he wishes.” Of course not. Silly me.

    I wonder what, and to what extent, the pontifex and the censors will seek retribution against blasphemers. As Richwine shows, there is no statute of limitations.

    [ssm: Yes. Those of us blogging under our real identities have to consider that. This is one reason why comment moderation and redactions are heavier on my new blog than they were on my old.]

  51. Cranberry

    and one really cannot be expected to place women under the category of minorities as we represent more than half of the world´s population.

    White males make up less than half of the world’s population. Where are the considerations for White male rights to not be discriminated against? Whites are a minority in the sum total of world population.

    Hence, internet corporations do have an important role to play in taking measures to ensure that human rights are not infringed. This includes women´s rights to live a life free of violence.

    I swear the next time my wi-fi beats the crap out of me, I’m suing Century Link for violating my human rights. $$$$$ bitchezz!

    also, hierarchized? I know it’s a real word, but it is clumsy. Where is her style manual???

  52. Black Eyed Peat

    “If I were black, or gay, or a woman, I would want people to freely speak about how much they hated me. That’s how I know who to avoid, and who I may need to eventually defend myself against.

    That and there would also be a paper trail to point to later.”

    I dunno. As an introvert I couldn’t care less who “hates” me or not. I don’t really need to know nor do I want to fill my mind-space with hateful words. People generally only choose to associate with those who share their values and ethics anyway, so “avoiding haters” is already done.

    Beyond the so called “right to free speech” and anti-hate speech laws the bigger question is why do so many people have such negativity festering inside them to start with?

    Why is crassness, anger and hateful attitudes nourished in American mainstream pop culture?

    Why is there such a lack of beauty, depth and empathy in American mainstream culture?

    These are questions that have plagued me since childhood and part of the reasons I left.

  53. Martel

    @ nightskyradio: “So true. I can’t even talk to most people anymore because they just will not consider any point of view that challenges their emotional investment in their existing POV.”

    That’s why I go straight for the emotions. We don’t like emotion-based logic, so we try to work around it ino thers by appeals to reason.

    Instead I attack the BS head-on. I coax, create comfort, push/pull, attack and frame the emotional envoirnment of the interaction. When I have their hearts under my control, infusing them with my ideas is easy.

  54. Feminist Hater

    What they don’t realise is that the less they allow different groups of people to vent their frustration via words, the more actual violence becomes commonplace. Humans have breaking points, it’s just the way it is. I’m one of those types that prefers to face that and thus value the ultimate truthful speech, even if it is angry. What I don’t understand, and this really gets my goat, is that half the speech these ninnies complain about isn’t even verbal abuse in its intent, it merely conveys an idea or ideal that they don’t agree with? Since when did disagreements become ‘hate speech’?

  55. Martel

    Remember, I can only see the first line of what I type when I comment on this computer. I meant “we try to work around their emotions with appeals to reason.”

  56. Ton

    BEP…. you are wrong at every level. One of the key problems for
    the west and most assuredly the usa is the notion you can build a nation based on something as changeable as ethics and values. That kind of delusional magic thinking lead to the wave immigration that shifted american politics to the left and allowed for the huge influx of resource draining third world immigration plaguing all White nations in the here and now

    I’d call you foolish but instinct tells me you know exactly what you advocate

    [ssm: Yes, it has become increasingly obvious what BEP is. I have allowed him/her to continue commenting here under heavy moderation; I delete about a quarter of his/her comments, but I leave the rest because I know my commenters will not be swayed by him/her and it is amusing to watch. I will tire of it soon, though, and that will be that.]

  57. Black Eyed Peat

    “What they don’t realise is that the less they allow different groups of people to vent their frustration via words, the more actual violence becomes commonplace. Humans have breaking points, it’s just the way it is. I’m one of those types that prefers to face that and thus value the ultimate truthful speech, even if it is angry. What I don’t understand, and this really gets my goat, is that half the speech these ninnies complain about isn’t even verbal abuse in its intent, it merely conveys an idea or ideal that they don’t agree with? Since when did disagreements become ‘hate speech’?”

    While I agree that disagreement and deconstruction of ideas is not “hate speech” – there seems to be no mainstream forum by which opposing ideas can be civilly debated.

    I’ve noticed since an early age that we Americans do not have a rich intellectual culture. Debate, the exchange of ideas in order to further understand each other and come to a consensus, or not, but at least parting on civil terms, appreciative of the fact that we have become intellectually enriched by hearing another perspective, well, this does not exist in mainstream American culture.

    What exists is opposing sides slugging it out in the most uncultured of ways.

    And we should also remember that the Porn Industry exists in a way accessible to our children because of this worship at the alter of the god of free speech.

  58. Black Eyed Peat

    “BEP… One of the key problems for
    the west and most assuredly the usa is the notion you can build a nation based on something as changeable as ethics and values.”

    My values and ethics have never changed. I had them since a child and that is why I left the USA at age 18, because mainstream American culture and my internal values system were at odds with one another.

    “That kind of delusional magic thinking lead to the wave immigration that shifted american politics to the left and allowed for the huge influx of resource draining third world immigration plaguing all White nations in the here and now”

    In my case my standing by my own ethics and values allowed for me to ex-pat.

    “I’d call you foolish but instinct tells me you know exactly what you advocate”

    You are right about that. I know EXACTLY what I advocate.

  59. theshadowedknight

    Ethnicity already covers those shared values, or else Korea and Japan would not have fought, the Serbs and Croatians would have been fine together, etc. Ethnicity is the juncture between race and values. Trying to build on either alone is a recipe for war.

    The Shadowed Knight

  60. Martel

    @ Ton: Actual ethic are objective and don’t change. People’s response to them can change, but Good and Evil are unalterable.

  61. FuzzieWuzzie

    @Feminist Hater
    “What I don’t understand, and what really gets my goat, is that half the speech these NINNIES complain about isn’t even verbal abuse in itts intent, it merely conveys an idea or ideal that they don’t agree with. Since when did disagreements become ‘hate speech?’”

    Right on point!
    Now that their viewpoint is established, they will brook no dissent. That’s a pretty tall order of hypocrisy. It won’t stand up to reason or nature and they aware that it is vulnerable.

  62. Black Eyed Peat

    “Ethnicity already covers those shared values”

    Most people of my ethnicity in the US do not share my values. Some do, but so do some people from other ethnicities.

    I said before I left this country at age 18 and never looked back. There’s a reason for that.

    I’m back now to take care of family responsibilities and yes, I have met more people now than back then who share similar values to me. Still doesn’t mean I’m going to stay for very long because its not yet reach the tipping point where I feel totally at home.

  63. Fred Flange the Munificent

    This indeed needs watching ,and the tone is genuinely alarming. But you can take some solace that this kind of initiative is by no means the first time this tactic has been tried, and it failed. Also don’t be fooled by the tone of “inevitability” or hints they can crush opposition with gazillions in money – that is a common tactic used by both communist rulers and fascist regimes – they may say “resistance is futile” but it’s only true if you believe them.

    Examples of other censorship epic fails: in the 1970′s some activists, including Julian Bond, tried very hard to ban the so-called “n”word as “indecent” speech and therefore punishable if broadcast. There was a lot of money behind it and considerable clout. It still failed. Then there was the whole 1980′s “backmasking” and “naughty rock lyrics” panic hearings of the PMRC, which were touted as “non-government action” while taking place in a Senate chamber. Not much came of that except WalMart refusing to stock music bearing Parental Advisory stickers, which were voluntary anyway so if you didn’t affix one, WalMart would still sell your CD with 50 shades of f-words. Then there was the FCC’s effort to punish broadcast outlets who mistakenly failed to bleep a single expletive; that also failed, and seems especially pointless with the rise of cable and media streaming.

    The focus on Facebook as a “private” company who can be “pressured” to censor by activist groups is also not a new tactic. It too has antecedents: the old Catholic League, which effectively banned privately-owned studios and publishers from issuing mature movies and books like “Ulysses” and “Naked Lunch” purely by acting on an “advisory basis”, but which had the force of law in places like Boston, hence the old joke about “Banned in Boston.”

    Point being: these ideas are not new and can be beaten. No UN group-shame will ever be able to tame the wild-west sewer that is 4Chan, or sites like it beyond the reach of any government or NGO. And Facebook and other such social networks cave to too much pressure at their peril. If they are so diluted they are no naughtier than Club Penguin chats, people who want to cut loose will go elsewhere. That is already happening. Young folk now think Facebook is for old people, because their parents have glommed onto it.

    Europe is different, there is good and bad in that regard. Germany has bans on Nazi hate speech for a good reason (Nazis keep trying to re-establish themselves there). The bad can be found in places like Sweden or Iceland, where what is described here MAY get the force of law, due to free-speech advocates being asleep at the switch. That is by far the real danger.

  64. Black Eyed Peat

    “Western degereration began with the West turning its back on its own foundational beliefs.”

    What are the foundational beliefs? There is never a universal answer to this when I ask it.

  65. freebird

    Theoretically it would not be too late to withdraw from the net and conduct life free from it.

    However measures are bring taken to regulate the ‘real world’ also,witness SCOTUS ruling on taking DNA before conviction as legal,also a police roadblock in Alabama where folks are stopped and ‘requested’ to give DNA mouth swabbing and blood samples by the roadside.

    Resistance is futile.
    Assimilate or be destroyed.

    Actually,you will be destroyed by assimilating,but you’re not supposed to know that until it’s too late.

    P.S> firearms are very bad things.
    They are threatening by their
    very existence and nature.

    The ‘givers of life’ have no need for such implements of death.

    (sarcasm?)

    Kinda glad I did not have kids,it looks like the future is gonna be rough,very rough.

  66. The Scolds' Bridle

    Eve’s Curse:

    To be the Devil’s stooge in the undermining of her man, her children and eventually, her whole life.

    This type of ridiculous social privilege is always “bought on credit”. The social decline will eventually create a world that is a living hell for the average woman, and the cost of their belligerent attitudes will be high.

    Women are so gullible, I can scarcely believe it sometimes.

  67. Feminist Hater

    Ha, look at Nansi Pelosi!

    She’s a Catholic, don’t you know? And she will be damned, damned I tell ya, if she were to ever allow a woman’s right to kill… ehrm, abort her child… ehrm, foetus, to be abolished!

    Nothing like calling yourself Catholic to get the abortion ball rolling, eh Nansi? Now tell me if this makes sense to you? Words on a screen from a person you don’t know is VIOLENCE, grrrrrrr! However, aborting a 20 week old foetus is a RIGHT! Not as if a baby is like really dying or anything, hey Nansi?

    [ssm: Exactly right. Words (from men) are violence. Destroying a baby? Meh, no biggie. Sickening.]

  68. Martel

    @ Peat: I’ll have to go into detail later (I’m at work and can’t see what I type), but Christ’s refutations of the first two desert temptations (Matthew order) sum up the first two. He doesn’t go into detail on why He rejected the third, but Satan picked that temptation for a reason, too.

    The West (especially the US) exemplified what Christ advocated by refuting those temptations, and that’s why it was the greatest civilization in world history. The left exemplifies falling for all three of them, and that’s why they’re causing our downfall.

  69. Black Eyed Peat

    Black women can choose to be “Womanists” rather than “Feminists” – or both.
    Maybe there needs to be a Womanism for the White Western female as well.

    What is Womanism?

    “Alice Walker, who coined the term “womanism,” says that womanists are “committed to the survival and wholeness of an entire people.”

    So Womanists do not concern themselves mainly or exclusively with Black womens’ rights and well-being, but rather the rights and well-being of Black women, Black men and Black children.

    That sounds like a feminine Ethnic Nationalism.

    White women could create the same. Or Christian women – “Religious Nationalism” – but from the feminine perpective.

    Here’s more;

    http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2013/02/have-you-considered-womanism/

    I certainly do not perceive disrespectful, crass, coarse, violent lyrics, images and media to be beneficial to anyone; man, woman or child. Do you?

  70. Black Eyed Peat

    Hi Martel!

    ” I’ll have to go into detail later (I’m at work and can’t see what I type), but Christ’s refutations of the first two desert temptations (Matthew order) sum up the first two. He doesn’t go into detail on why He rejected the third, but Satan picked that temptation for a reason, too.
    The West (especially the US) exemplified what Christ advocated by refuting those temptations, and that’s why it was the greatest civilization in world history. The left exemplifies falling for all three of them, and that’s why they’re causing our downfall.”

    I’m copying and pasting here;

    “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

    4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”

    5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

    “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

    7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

    - So you are saying that the USA was founded on a resistance to maintaining the body with food in favor of following “the word of God” and a resistance to testing God?

    I don’t quite follow.

  71. allamagoosa

    So the U.N. supports this drivel, but stands by while actual atrocities happen and does nothing? Why does this not surprise me at all?

    Excuse me while I vomit and contemplate how people can think humans aren’t fallen.

  72. Black Eyed Peat

    One more quote from that Womanist article (emphasis mine);

    ” In a post about the ideology on the blog, Womanist Musings, Clutch contributor Renee Martin wrote:

    Just as feminism speaks to your experiences, Africana Womanism speaks to mine. It allows me to articulate my spirituality, my connection and love of Black men, a genuine sisterhood with other Black women, a connection to family WITH A SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON MOTHERHOOD, a self-defined identity, unconventional gender roles, COLLECTIVE OUTCOMES, GROUP ACHIEVEMENT, self love, NURTURING, and a recognition that all isms effect women.”

    So through strengthening their bonds within the Black family via an emphasis on motherhood, they aim to effect the collective outcomes and group achievement of Black people as a whole.

    This is where I see “porn as free speech” as a problematic concept. It is something that actually works against the collective outcomes and group achievement of American families.

    It seems like this “free speech” concept, when stretched to include porn and other crass, course media, actually works against individual freedom in the long run, but effecting the outcomes and achievement of individuals.

  73. Elspeth

    Most people of my ethnicity in the US do not share my values.

    This is my “problem” too, Peat. Not sure where my family would end up when the lines are drawn.

  74. Martel

    @ Elspeth: That’s why we need to draw lines based on voluntary characteristics life actions and beliefs instead of involuntary ones like bloodlines or what part of the country you were born in.

    But not everybody sees it that way.

    [ssm: I am in agreement with you. No special favors but also no unfair discrimination. Those who are truly with me are welcome here.]

  75. Farm Boy

    we each must play our part in putting a stop to this form of gender based violence.

    If she was referring to the person from yesterday’s post holding the “respect” sign, then I agree.

  76. Black Eyed Peat

    “Most people of my ethnicity in the US do not share my values.”

    Elspeth, “This is my “problem” too, Peat. Not sure where my family would end up when the lines are drawn.”

    Christianity is a Universalist religion in that it seeks for the universe (or at least the world as we know it) to become Christian. All ethno-cultures, all local indigenous traditions and religious belief systems would either have to be subsumed under the umbrella of Christianity OR entirely rejected in favor of a one-world pan-Christian identity/culture.

    This is why Christianity and Ethnic Nationalism do not mix.

    There will be no lines drawn, but hypothetically for fun lets imagine for a moment they are. You will “end up” on the Christian side.

  77. CoffeeCrazed

    @ray
    addressing your nerd alliance speech, right now though, in the form of Anonymous, they are a great enemy. They have given themselves to the cause of stalking predatory males for the purpose of exercising social media justice.

    And they are cheered.

  78. Ton

    I know you suffer from the same delusional magic thinking Martell, but blood matters. This dog’s breakfast of a nation is fucked up beyond recovery is in large part due to the notion any random person on the globe is the same as any other random person, but it is not so. The various White ethnic groups showed up in the usa and got busy trying to reform a nation, and they did. Not for the better either if you hold individual liberties dear.

    The Lord Himslef formed the various nations, languages and ways of doing things, the idea we are all the same and can live under the same national roof if false as false gets. Mix breeds were bared from the temple in the Old Testament. You will not fix the nation you love until you take all the red pills. Yes some.folks will be left out, but such is life. The quest for a perfect way of living is a waste of time and leads you to more marxist horseshit

  79. Julian O'Dea

    I am not too bothered by this. The UN can waste money and pass meaningless resolutions, but it is very difficult to control free speech. In my short experience on Facebook and longer experience blogging, I have never had anyone censor my material, some of which is pretty unPC. On Facebook, much of the unmasking and mocking of our idiotic feminist Prime Minister occurred in the last few days through that social medium and today is Blue Tie Day, intended as a statement against her misandry, and organised through Facebook in part.

    The creeps at Fundies Say the Darndest Things and No More Mr Nice Guy used to troll my blog, but they seem to have given up now. Stupid PC bullies are not a problem.

    Useless feminist bureaucrats would struggle to turn their computers on. In trying to silence the truth they might as well be trying to turn back the tide.

    [ssm: Interestingly, Julian, my husband took the same position as you when he read my post. He believes they will fail in this attempt and is unbothered by it other than to be disgusted that time and money is being spent on their agenda. Personally I am horrified and am not so sure it will fail. You forget that many men in the West now are either white knights, cowards, or both. Feminists can use these men to achieve their agenda, just as the feminists themselves are being used, as Novaseeker point out above, to achieve the agendas of certain other men.]

  80. FuzzieWuzzie

    Julian,
    Happy Blue Tie Day! I had chicken for dinner not consciously, but belatedly, in honor of your much beloved PM.
    She does have quite a mouth.

  81. Escoffier

    “What are the foundational beliefs? There is never a universal answer to this when I ask it.”

    Oh, hell, I posted in the wrong thread. Anyway, I will answer this tomorrow.

  82. an observer

     can’t even talk to most people anymore because they just will not consider any point of view that challenges their emotional investment in their existing POV.

    Friend of mine said almost the same thing the other day, echoed here:

    http://apocalypsecometh.com/isolation/

  83. Martel

    @ Ton: There is absolutely NOTHING in my philosophy or way of thinking that will in any way lead to anything even remotely resembling “Marxist horseshit”.

    Regarding the South’s superior tendencies, he’s correct TODAY, but the South was more consistently Progressive (aka watered-down “Marxist horseshit”) during the entire 20th century until 1980. In 1976, the South was still straight blue:

    http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1976

    So it strikes me as somewhat “delusional” that “southern blood” is what’s keeping us from sliding into a socialist hell when the grandsons and great-grandsons of the “pro-liberty” Confederacy were more eager than anybody else to drive us towards socialism. Were Southern-born presidents Wilson, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton somehow friendly towards liberty in ANY way?

    Check out this “pro-liberty” legacy of the pro-segregationist, “race realist”, Virginia-born Woodrow Wilson:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0205/p09s01-coop.html

    So regarding regionalism, Ton is correct that TODAY the South is the most liberty-loving part of the America, but ironically (or maybe not) the South became so damnably exceptional only AFTER it decided to stop wishing it “could kill [another] scratch o’ Yankees.” Until then, it was a backwater, and our America’s best hope is that the Southerners of today like Ted Cruz (does he count? or is Bill Clinton a better example of a “son of the south” being as he’s white and all?) UNDO the socialistic damage done by their grandparents.

    And another aspect of “Marxist horseshit” that progressives and race-realists don’t mention a whole lot is that the Progressives of the early 20th century were the most racially conscious of all Americans. It’s a myth the the Dixiecrats were “conservative” Democrats. They supported FDR more than anybody–they only formed their own party when Truman did stuff like integrate the military (and they never opposed his other hard left domestic policies except a bit of the pro-labor stuff).

    (And if the South’s “purity” were so much superior to the North’s mongrelism, then why the hell did it loose the war?)

    I got plenty to say on the racial stuff alone, but I have other crap to take care of first. But if somebody’s going to call me “delusional”, I recommend they back it up instead of just making it another ad hominem like every other racially-conscious idiot I come across (most of whom are leftists that simply pick another race).

  84. an observer

    Alcest,

    Your comment probably applies to many of us here:
    . I feel like a stranger in a foreign land. I don’t belong here

    The internet is not home, but it is one of the last places men can speak freely.

  85. Ton

    Again Martell, looking at regional voting records. The proof is right there, and yes you have brought into the very modern an liberal idea blood doesn’t matter only political ideals matter. Which is why you think you belong in the South when you do not.

    The South was blue during that time frame due to racial politics when the democrats where the party of small govt and local rule. It took some time for the South to adjust to the changing politics but…. the big govt idea is from the north ( Hamilton vs Jefferson at the founding) and started before the tyrant lincoln and the gop. It only became more so over the years. Don’t look at the transitional period and sum up 200 plus years of history

    Your idea that political ideals makes a nation is international and Marxist at its core.

  86. Ton

    Ps when has right made might? The north won because of logistics, its genocidal war aims and using slavery late in the war to block international support for the South, not because it had better fighting men. The South was many times out numnered and better equipped. On paper it should’ve been a cake walk for those people, and yet it was not

  87. Black Eyed Peat

    I posted a comment that hasn’t appeared yet (in moderation for some reason – blog mistress?); but either Christianity is a universal religion that indeed seeks to make all people the same, i.e., make all people Christians OR it is one amongst many religions that recognizes the ethno-cultural differences amongst the traditions and religions that evolved in various environments around the world, just as it evolved and served the needs of people in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

    So which is it?

    [ssm: This will be the last comment of yours on Christianity that I will approve. You will continue to remain in moderation. I will continue to delete comments of yours that are purely trolling. You have a very obvious agenda, but once in a while you have a thoughtful comment. It is quickly becoming not worth my time to sort through your enormous number of comments for the few that are of any value.]

  88. Martel

    A couple of quick points, & more to follow:

    “The South was blue during that time frame due to racial politics when the democrats where the party of small govt and local rule. It took some time for the South to adjust to the changing politics but…. the big govt idea is from the north”

    Maybe it came from the North, but it was swallowed by the South in EVERY way except race & the ability to fix elections for friends & cronies. FDR in no way, shape, or form was about local control, but Alabama voted for him with over 80% of the vote:

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php?year=1936

    It doesn’t look like they were doing much “adjusting”.

    “Don’t look at the transitional period and sum up 200 plus years of history”

    I admit, you can’t sum up 200 years of history by only looking at HALF of them.

    “Ps when has right made might?” It doesn’t, but sometimes it’s the other way around.

    The North’s economy was more advanced in every way, in large part because it was able to use the relatively greater liberty of a higher percentage of its citizens to produce such an economy. The North was expanding and industrial, the South was stagnant and dependent on a few crops. The peculiar institutions of the South stifled innovation and had no chance to compete. Were its institutions superior (or considering the exceptional quality of its military) even in the same league as the North’s, it wouldn’t have even been a contest.

    But it was. And they lost.

    And as far as my belonging here goes, I feel perfectly welcome because I believe in the best aspects of the Southern legacy, it’s faith, fidelity to community, and belief that each man has the right to the fruits of his own labor.

    It is now truly the heir of the ideals of “Declaration of Independence” (which you may or may not “hates”).

    Those are IDEAS, and they’re our best hope against Marxism.

  89. Farm Boy

    Is she abusing us or are we abusing her? I can’t tell anymore!

    Perhaps we are co-dependent

  90. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM,
    Considering FB’s equivocal reaction, if you have some tumblr photos in the pipeline,bring ‘em on.My Julia Guillard fried chicken is pretty much digested.
    About her, saw a video of her once and she had occaision to fall. Thankfully her backside was well padded and the ceremony could resume.

  91. ray

    “ray
    addressing your nerd alliance speech, right now though, in the form of Anonymous, they are a great enemy”

    wasnt thinking of Anonymous, coffecrazed, i know their type and yr right theyre an enemy, not a great one however, tho doubtless they imagine elsewise

    no, i was thinking of “independents” who wouldnt even require overt (traceable) commmunications, after all the church uses wireless :O)

    as the Nerdlings come under increasing feminization and their gathering spaces are annulled, there will be defections

    people on the net the past couple months, dissenting against feminism’s latest front (IT etc) lay the groundwork for future repudiations and actions

    upthread, folks discussed Jesus shutting down Satan in the wilderness (where we are)

    how’d he do it? not with tech or organization or politics, but with the Word of truth, in patience

    the nerders are bright but rarely ballsy, so we have to “make it easier” for them, road-clearance

  92. Julian O'Dea

    SSM, I used to be a professional civil servant. A few times I attended some international meetings under the auspices of the UN (on GM plants). I seriously doubt this kind of waffle will have any real-world effect. The UN has been passing motions making all sorts of feminist demands for decades. Nobody takes them seriously since they are unenforceable. It is the politics of aspiration and the feel-good resolution. Intended to give the wives of third-world heavies something to bother their pretty little heads with.

    I shall never forget the young woman representing Colombia at one meeting I went to in Aarhus, Denmark. Gorgeous little thing, if you like that type. One of our delegation was mooning over her. The gossip was that she was married to a man who owned a bank in Colombia. She was about as Indio as you or me, and probably had servants back home. But there she was, representing the Third World. The whole thing is a con. I think the UN does some good work and I even agreed to donate some money to them monthly (UNICEF I think) in a weak moment. But some of their agencies are just jokes. This women’s group would fall into that category, no doubt.

    I have been surprised at the reaction to our PM Julia Gillard;s latest inanity. Men have really had enough, it would seem. The bad reaction to her latest bit of feminist finger-wagging has surprised me. Even top Australian feminists like Eva Cox (God preserve us) have been ashamed of her. As I said recently on Facebook, all the silly woman has done is educate Australians on the meaning of the word “misandry”.

    If she had governed well, for men as well as women, she would have been fine. But her personality has destroyed her popularity.

  93. Julian O'Dea

    I should add that I really wish the American administration would stop throwing money at the international feminist movement in various ways. They really are just exporting unhappiness.

    As I said, I think the money is ultimately wasted. But it can cause considerable annoyance nonetheless.

    It is your taxes, SSM, which ultimately pay for most of this UN stuff.

  94. Black Eyed Peat

    This is an excellent video about fowlness (free speech!) in the media and why it stagnates us, from a male perspective. Before you get your undies in a bunch, the presenter also makes videos about American women and their dysfunctional regression to the mean as well.

    Since media and pop culture is the only “culture” Americans appear to have right now, it is pertinent.

    Visions of Manhood

  95. Pingback: Dread-Locked | Alpha Is Assumed

  96. Martel

    I’m beginning to suspect that Peat has gone by various other names on other blogs like Sexual Marxism and Boys Nite Out (or some other similar nonsense).

    Anyhow, your interpretation of the temptations was (deliberately?) obtuse, so i’m not engaging here. if you’re really curious, there are ways to find out.

  97. Black Eyed Peat

    One pertinent point Lenon Honor makes in the above video is that our culture programs us to remain juvenile into adulthood and if you are listening to music, or taking in other media forms that portray characters acting in ways that you acted when you were a teen, that you will never progress from juvenile into adult mentally and emotionally. For example, if you are an adult father but are listening to songs that do not discuss fatherhood, but rather single man hood, well you will start to think like a single man (more frivolously than a father thinks). The entire music industry is based on this, glorifying sex and “love” and break-ups and relationship drama, rather than stable marriage, motherhood, fatherhood and healthy adult pursuits with meaning.

    I was totally aghast watching a video by Eminem and Rihanna entitled “Love The Way You Lie”. Its on youtube if anyone is interested.

    Basically presenting “trailer trash” dysfunction as the default norm for young people to aspire to in relationships.

    And Martel, no, I was not being obtuse. I really don’t grok how you made any connection between the two and would be interested in how you did and what exactly you’re getting at with that stream of thought.

    I’ve never heard anyone make such a connection before.

  98. Ton

    Before the war of northern aggression the South purchased more mechanical farm equipment then the north, and was branching out to other things like steal. The South was world wide #2 in much of what you listed, behind the north, and sometimes only behind the north and England. That is no black water at all.

    The north tried its hand a plantation style farming and failed. It branched out into other areas because it had to. The South did not, and the South was by far the wealthier section, paying 80+ percent of all federal taxes which was almost always spent up north creating the yankee economy. The South paid the tariffs that allowed the fledgling yankee industry to get going and was repaid by an attempt to take more Southern wealth and transfer it up north via the Morriall tariff.

    Your underlying hostility toward the South, and our traditions, our history and culture comes through on every post. You don’t belong in the South.

  99. freebird

    Hopefully that works,sorry,you gave me all the components and did not expect me to assemble them?

    Elspeth was right, too much man,too much.

  100. Ton

    You also should understand many in the South voted democrat because they understood from eyewitness and 1st hand accounts of what the republicans did to Southern women and children during the war. Do you really expect people who heard those stories and understand what was done to vote for the gop?

    Are you that ignorant of what was done, or how the north fought and conducted what would be considered a war of genocide on the South?

  101. freebird

    Perhaps it’s better that way,failed to imbed the woman with sign pic.

    First attempt at HTML,may well be the last also.

    It would have been funny though.

  102. freebird

    That is a valid point ton,about the War of Northern Aggression.

    Just about the time the international banksters got a serious hold in the Federal Government.

    It was the global re-distribution of wealth that triggered the war more than anything else,it has gotten worse since then.

  103. Höllenhund

    I’m certain that we’ll also see an increasingly coordinated and organized attack on Internet anonymity. It’s another “axis of attack” by the Establishment, so to speak. It’ll be presented as even less ominous, and therefore it’s one with a higher chance of success. Plus, of course, it’ll be carefully packaged and nominally designed to combat “cyberbullying” (which is yet another BS word) and “online harassment”. You know, to protect the interests of women and children.

    If you bother to pay attention, you’ll see that the mainstream feminist argument isn’t really that so-called misogynists should be silenced and censored; it’s that they should be able to say what they want, but only if they suffer all and any social/economic repercussions that result i.e become social pariahs through job loss, public shaming etc. In other words, nobody should able to spread „misogyny” online anonymously.

    And feminists are just one interest group that advocates the legal curtailment and even banning of online anonymity. That’s the real issue. There have been many news stories about such laws passed in South Korea, for example, and pushed in some federal states of the USA. It’s happening slowly but surely.

    The days of online anonymity are numbered, because its enemies are numerous and influential: feminists, lame-ass parents concerned about their snowflake daughters getting “bullied”, the recording industry, other lobby groups against online piracy and so on.

  104. Just Saying

    ‘lame-ass parents concerned about their snowflake daughters getting “bullied”’

    Oh, I’m going to do more to your little “snow flake” than “bully” her – I’m going to bend her over the nearest chair, and have her begging for more before I’m done with her. Ah – so much hate speech without ever muttering a word, and telling it like it is.

    If you don’t like it ladies, you don’t have to beg for more… The fact that you do, and it’s always the ones that aren’t being bent over the chair who are complaining, says everything on the topic that needs to be said… It’s just jealousy, plain and simple. All of those “plain Jane’s” are PO’ed that no man is bending them over the nearest chair and making them beg for more.

    That is what is actually being complained about… So of course it’s all men’s fault – since we’re not bending them over, and pounding them since they are too damned ugly to want to touch them…

    So since I won’t touch them, telling them that I won’t touch them, and WHY, has to be defined as “hate speech”… Of course, I’m “just saying”…

  105. Martel

    @ Ton: The South may have been “wealthier”, but it’s economy wasn’t nearly diversified enough to confront the challenges that a new state was going to have to confront. The first job of a country is to be able to defend itself, but despite having many of the greatest military leaders in all of human history (Lee, Jackson (at first), Longstreet, Stuart), it couldn’t win.

    “Your underlying hostility toward the South, and our traditions, our history and culture comes through on every post. You don’t belong in the South.”

    This despite my high praise for the role of the South today? My support for small government, gun rights, and all the other things that lots of rural southerners like about me seem to mean nothing to you.

    The war rarely comes up in conversation, but when it does I’m commended for believing what I believe because I know what I’m talking about and believe it, not just because it’s what my high school teacher told me I should believe. And other southerners don’t mind giving me credit for agreeing with them on the vast majority of their modern political agenda. You seem like you’d prefer Clinton for blood reasons (even though I’m every bit as white as he is). Also, excepting those whose lifestyles mirror those of their supposed racial inferiors, most southerners seem to like Ted Cruz, Tim Scott, and others who believe the right things despite their impure blood.

    I supported the Confederacy until recently (not that that would matter to you, being a bearer of contaminated Yankee blood). The tariffs were awful, the North was hypocritical in lots of ways, Reconstruction was a travesty which denigrated southern whites while doing almost nothing to uplift southern blacks, and I truly admire the likes of Jackson, Lee, and Breckenridge.

    The war was good vs. good & evil vs. evil, and both good and evil won. It was about economics, but more importantly about competing notions of freedom. What I mean by that I can’t get into here, but it’s not “delusional”, it’s been developed through countless hours of reading and discussion with people on all sides of the issue, including more all-night conversations with an Arkansan than I care to remember. There are ignorant Yankees, I’m not one of them. But simply because I’m a Yankee, my beliefs mean nothing to you (based on what you’ve written before, even if I drove around Chicago with the stars and bars painted in my rear windshield , and that’s what I’m fighting against.

    “Do you really expect people who heard those stories and understand what was done to vote for the gop?” No, but if they support “states rights” I do expect them to not fervently support FDR’s massive federal power-grab with every fiber of their being. Other than race & labor issues, they were in lockstep with the left wing of their party. Even if they couldn’t support the GOP, they could have been a moderating force within the Democratic Party, and they weren’t.

    It was perfectly understandable to not like the GOP and perfectly understandable for grudges to be held for a very long time. But history doesn’t belong to those who do what’s understandable, it belongs to those who do what’s right.

    Yes, there was segregation among the Israelite tribes, but Ruth the Moabitess was an ancestor of Christ who praised the Good Samaritan. Our worth depends on our individual beliefs and decisions. You’ve given me no indication you believe that, even though I probably support 90% of your political agenda, you’d rather pledge your fealty to rednecks on welfare.

    That aspect of Southern Pride I oppose and always will.

  106. Escoffier

    “What are the foundational beliefs? There is never a universal answer to this when I ask it.”

    The question as phrased is incapable of being answered. I suppose that is by design. In any event, here is the correct answer.

    There are TWO foundational beliefs derived from, to use shorthand, Athens and Jerusalem. Churchill: “”No two cities have counted more with mankind than Athens and Jerusalem. Their messages in religion, philosophy, and art have been the main guiding lights of modern faith and culture.” (Second World War, vo. 5, p. 456)

    They agree, and disagree about the highest things. The agreement is crucial. For Jerusalem (i.e., the Bible) the highest is simply God. For Athens (i.e., Socratic philosophy) the pagan gods likely do not exist but there is an eternal order in which the highest thing is the “eidos of the good” (Plato) or “thought thinking itself” (Aristotle). That these basic concepts are compatible can be seen in Aquinas (and elsewhere) and in the way that Aristotelian philosophy dominated the Christian west for more than 1,200 years. The moral teachings are, in the essentials, almost identical though with some important differences, e.g., magnanimity being the crown of the virtues (Aristotle) where the Bible would call that the sin of pride. And hence, for instance, the deistic and anti-Christian Jefferson could call the Gospel “the most perfect moral teaching” (and then Bowdlerize the Bible by scrubbing out every reference to the supernatural).

    But they are also incompatible. The Bible does not accept rational inquiry into nature that does not begin from faith in the truth of God’s word. In fact, it rejects such inquiry as disobedience to God, and insolence. This is the meaning (or a meaning) of the story of the fall. Philosophy qua philosophy cannot accept the revealed word of the Lord simply as a matter of authority but must investigate and find out for itself.

    The unresolved—and unresolvable—tension between these two poles of thought is what made the West, is its “secret ingredient” if you will. Modernity is the attempt to resolve the tension by dismissing the claims of revelation and putting philosophy in charge of what we would call “society” but what is better termed “the human things.”

    The attempt has both succeeded and failed. Its success is all around you and should not require explanation. The failure is also all around you. Modernity failed because its task is impossible. Unassisted human reason—the core of philosophy—cannot refute revelation. And in fact the moderns, at bottom, did not try to. They simply tried to laugh religion out of court.

    That attempt was very powerful and it explains almost completely the faithlessness of the modern West. Yet 500 years later faith, though attenuated, is still here. That is because modernity is false. It is based on false philosophical premises. Falsehoods can be very powerful—and modernity is very powerful indeed. But the truth is ultimately more powerful, if not necessarily in the temporal sense. But it endures. It will outlast modernity and it is always available as a recourse, a remedy, and refuge for those who make the effort to understand and who care.

  107. Black Eyed Peat

    Escoffier, thanks for your input!

    I am great lover of philosophy.

    “For Athens (i.e., Socratic philosophy) the pagan gods likely do not exist but there is an eternal order in which the highest thing is the “eidos of the good” (Plato) or “thought thinking itself” (Aristotle). ”

    Now here’s where we get into the interesting difference between monotheism (as conceived in the middle east) and polytheism.

    In all of the polytheistic traditions I’ve studied, the priori stance is not a demand for a belief in an unprovable as well as un-disprovable (but still possible) “one god”. Rather these traditions started off understanding that this is an area that cannot be proven or disproven with the finite senses. Therefore to demand belief in such is ludicrous. Therefore these traditions placed emphasis on practice over belief. Through various practices, changes in consciousness take place and some metaphysical insights might result, or your day to day life may just be made better through habit and regulation.

    Therefore gods of polytheistic cultures can be symbolic, or they can even be taken as a literal (but unprovable) belief, or a mix of both. What you won’t see is a demand that people in entirely different areas of the world, with their own gods and metaphysical as well as practical ritualistic practices and philosophies, reject their gods in favor of yours.

    Polytheistic gods represent a life of the mind and aid in changes of consciousness. It is totally beside the point whether they exist or not as tangible beings in history, and thus not much, if any, energy is put into arguing that they did or sending archeologists out to “prove” they may have.

    Now, the same argument could be made for the Middle Eastern Monotheistic God of Abraham, but that is not the approach those people took. Or maybe they did take that approach in the beginning, but it has morphed into the approach we see now.

  108. Escoffier

    You are missing the point. Philosophy begins from a rejection of paganism and polytheism. It very quickly figures out that pagan theology is foolish (this critique in its essentials is preserved in Augustine but can also be found in various parts of Plato).

    The main contemporary challenge to Greek philosophy is poetry, not polytheism.

    And, it is incorrect to suggest that pagan gods were somehow understood by pagan peoples to be metaphoric. Belief was literal, and enforced.

  109. Black Eyed Peat

    “The Bible does not accept rational inquiry into nature that does not begin from faith in the truth of God’s word. In fact, it rejects such inquiry as disobedience to God, and insolence. ”

    And the reason why it is incompatible with philosophy and hence why Christians had to borrow heavily from non-Christian Greek Pagan philosophers.

    “That attempt was very powerful and it explains almost completely the faithlessness of the modern West. Yet 500 years later faith, though attenuated, is still here. That is because modernity is false. It is based on false philosophical premises. Falsehoods can be very powerful—and modernity is very powerful indeed.”

    Yes. I wrote a small book years ago on how the natural result of collective monotheism is collective atheism. And we are witness to that today.

    “And, it is incorrect to suggest that pagan gods were somehow understood by pagan peoples to be metaphoric. Belief was literal, and enforced.”

    Not the traditions I studied. But their concepts were very different from either “metaphoric” or “literal”. Metaphoric and literal are concepts from my culture and language and so I may try to fit other, foreign concepts into them, inaccurately. Other concepts can be grokked somewhat by people like me from outside the cultures only when we learn the languages. Language is culture and without knowing a language you cannot know a culture.

    I don’t want to get deep into it here and derail the thread and purpose of this blog. Suffice to say there is a world of amazing and quite inspiring ideas out there that can keep those of us with a philosophical bent busy for a lifetime!

  110. Escoffier

    If you are coming at this question from the perspective of cultural relativism, then the essence of philosophy will always be alien to you. Philosophy rejects relativism. Philosophy is the quest to replace opinion with truth. It discards relativism as untrue very early in the process.

  111. Hannah

    @ Hollenhund:
    “The days of online anonymity are numbered, because its enemies are numerous and influential: feminists, lame-ass parents concerned about their snowflake daughters getting “bullied”, the recording industry, other lobby groups against online piracy and so on.”

    I’ve been wondering why people choose to be anonymous? It’s probably incredibly basic, but I genuinely wonder… do you mind explaining? Thanks in advance!

  112. donalgraeme

    “I’ve been wondering why people choose to be anonymous? It’s probably incredibly basic, but I genuinely wonder… do you mind explaining? Thanks in advance!”

    Because many people work in fields where if they were known to say what they actually believed, they would be punished harshly for it. They would lose out on chances of promotions or advancement at best, and quite possibly lose their job and any possibility of future employment at the worst. Depending on the country, there could even be the potential for imprisonment.

  113. Hannah

    Thanks for that…
    Doesn’t sound much like freedom does it?!

    It makes me grateful that my views are already known by my husband, family and friends.
    I lose out on chances of friendships by speaking these truths, but c’est la vie!
    It’s just like sifting for gold :)
    Not much point in friendships where iron can’t sharpen iron.

    The potential for imprisonment…. in the future? Or from radical disclosure of illegal activity or inciting violence?

  114. an observer

    DG,

    I work in a highly feminised, politically correct organisation. Thanks to equality and jobs for the girls, I am routinely passed over for project work, promotions and temporary transfers, in favour of less experienced, less qualified girls (complete with their tramp stamps).

    Speaking the truth is unpalatable, to say the least.

  115. an observer

    Hannah,

    At wor, I have to be very careful about what I say, and to whom I say it to.

    Julian O’Dea, who used to blog as David Collard, recently uncloaked himself. He has the luxury of doing so because he is retired, and almost beyond reproach. He has no career to threaten, although his wife still works.

    Most of us must work with the reality of the feminine imperative. Our careers and ability to earn a living are protected by anonymity, tor, vpns etc. Whatever is needed.

  116. Ton

    by the time the South voted for FDR, states rights were already dead, killed by yankees in 1860. All else is window dressing. And yes I prefer kin over foreigners. The notion a man shouldn’t is more leftist horseshit.

    You really are thoroughly modern in your thinking which means leftward leaning and indoctrinated

  117. Martel

    If you had concrete rational answers to anything I said, you’d give them. Instead you’re resorting to ad hominem BS.

    You don’t offer rational arguments because you can’t.

  118. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/06/19 | Free Northerner

  119. Pingback: Your Time Is Gonna Come | Alpha Is Assumed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s