Category Archives: Free Speech

Don’t Be Conned By Con-servatives & Their ‘Ism’ Talk

Conservatism, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Political Correctness, Sex

No different to liberals, mainstream conservatives are a party of isms, not individualism. Like liberals, conservatives diligently examine controversial speech for signs of the prohibited “isms”: sexism, racism, ageism, etc. Were they devoted to the principles of freedom; conservatives would refuse to even debate the legitimacy of impugning a man’s character, or expunging him from polite company, for the words that roll off his tongue.

Yet any debate these characters conduct on speech is never a principled debate about debate. Self-styled, mainstream conservatives seldom recuse themselves from the act of policing speech. Rather, they join in dignifying the media circle jerk.

James Rosen is best known for having been the victim of the head of Barack Obama’s Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder. For doing his job as a reporter, this Fox News Channel reporter was framed by the same department for the crime of conspiracy to leak classified materials.

Now, from being a credible reporter at Fox News, Rosen has gone on to reinvent himself as a sometime commentator.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and her deputy, Marie Barf, are studiously dumb chicks. Bill O’Relly was quite diplomatic when he said about the first that she was “way out of her depth” and lacked the “the gravitas for that job.”

Rosen could not let that stand. Via Mediate:

On Fox News yesterday, reporter James Rosen defended State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf from what he deemed vicious attacks that would never be directed their way if they were men. Harf in particular has gotten lots of conservative ridicule (to put it mildly) over her comments last week that 1) the U.S. can’t just kill its way out of war with ISIS; and 2) factors like job opportunity should be considered when examining the root causes of terrorism.

Rosen said, “It won’t please my social media followers to hear me say it, but I’ve been dismayed by the treatment of Marie and Jen on Twitter and other social media.” And not only are they mocked online, he said, but it’s done “in intimately person [sic] ways that I think bespeak a certain amount of sexism.”

Rosen went on to call Tweedledum and Tweedledumber very accomplished women.

American Thinker is insufficiently scathing about the quality of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber’s accomplishments—the two embody everything that is repugnant about womanhood in America—but it’ll do:

… Marie Harf sounded like a cheesed-off sixteen-year-old the morning after the big party when she dissed O’Reilly for saying, “…that woman [Jen Psaki] looks way out of her depth.”

For teenage girls the clique is of utmost importance. When they go all panties in a wad it’s often for their BFFs. Harf don’t stand on her jays, she stands behind her blud, Psaki. Harf not only lacks gravitas, she appears to lack conscience to grasp the international purpose and life-and-death seriousness of her job, that people live or are murdered on the turn of her flippant, self-referential phraseology. Stop the world! O’Reilly called my BFF “that woman.” It is hideous that she wasted one second in these desperate times ranting about imaginary sexism. Her bosses want Harf to spout domestic sex politics. And after all, that is the only item on her resume.

Harf is indeed hideous to behold.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Since When Do Words Speak Louder Than Actions?

Free Speech, Human Accomplishment, Intelligence, Political Correctness, Race

The Bell Curve authors, Charles Murray—an American Enterprise Institute Scholar and the 2009 recipient of the Irving Kristol Award—and the late Richard Herrnstein, a Harvard professor, used multiple regression analysis and other perfectly conventional and uncontroversial statistical methods to arrive at some irrefutable correlations, linking the G Factor (general intelligence) to other social and demographic indices.

Frank Borzellieri, a dedicated educator in “a predominantly black and Hispanic Catholic elementary school located in the Bronx, New York,” spoke and wrote of the same facts, for which he lost his job and was expunged from our increasingly Sovietized society, accused of a thought crime: a belief in “white supremacy.”

Via Jack Kerwick:

Borzellieri is the author of six books, some of which treat racial and cultural issues. His great sin seems to consist in the fact that he dared to note that there are interracial IQ differences that correlate to some extent with other social indicia. …

… Borzellieri chose—he chose—to ply his craft as an educator tending to the needs of New York City’s black and Hispanic students. He was also elected thrice to the New York City school board where he resisted efforts to replace literature on such Western heroes as Columbus and Washington with a curriculum requiring children to read books on homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and birth control.

“Today,” writes Jack, “Borzellieri lives a lonelier—and dramatically harder—existence. The man who wants for nothing more than to resume his duties as an educator is jobless. Branded with the “R” label, he’s been shut out in the cold.

Mike Abel, the caretaker of an orthodox church, has started a ‘Go Fund Me’ page for Borzellieri. Please consider helping this casualty of Political Correctness.

As Mike Abel says, Borzellieri could be any of us.”

[SNIP]

Let me add this: The substance of Borzellieri speech is irrelevant. As this column has explained, policing what people say for political propriety is … “a dance adopted by the political establishment to cow contrarians into submission. By going on the defensive—allowing themselves to be drawn into these exchanges—libertarians are, inadvertently, conceding that speech should be policed for propriety, and that those who violate standards set by the PC set are somehow defective on those grounds alone, and deserve to be purged from ‘polite’ company.”

Help Frank Here.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

More Thematic, Media Spin From CNN

Critique, Europe, Free Speech, Islam, Jihad, Left-Liberalism, Media

A previous post, “In The Media, It’s All About The Angle, The Spin,” alerted you to the need to be aware of the overarching themes that generally infest each and every news story in mainstream media. This is the media’s meta-narrative. Be hip to it.

To add to the example given in the post I offer up another story with a particular “angle,” spun by CNN retard Fredricka Witless (whose intellectual prowess I chronicled in “Joan Rivers: Antidote to PC Totalitarianism”). Ms. Witless asks leading questions of a man she introduces as “controversial Swedish artist Lars Vilks” (who in a free society, would never be considered controversial for harming no one in the fulfillment of the requirements of his benign profession).

… He survived Saturday’s deadly shooting at a Denmark forum on freedom of expression. Vilks is no stranger to threats. He has survived two previous attempts on his life after his controversial sketch depicting the prophet Mohammad with the body of a dog in 2007. Al-Qaeda placed him on their most wanted poster, and since then, Vilks has had to travel with bodyguards and check his car for bombs. I spoke to him exclusively about the attacks in Denmark.

Essentially, Witless wants to know if this innocent cartoonist feels responsible for crimes perpetrated by others, in response to his drawings.

WHITFIELD: And I realize as an artist, your drawing of the prophet Muhammad was many years ago in 2007, and there are other artists who have rendered pictures of the prophet Muhammad and angered many in the Muslim community. There are authors, Salman Rushdie among them, and then of course, the most recent with Charlie Hebdo being targeted as a result of the same sentiment. Do you feel responsible or do you feel that you have contributed to the sentiment that have inspired some people to resort to violence, to express their anger about how the prophet Muhammad has been depicted?

MORE Witless.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Heresies About The Hebdo Headache

Europe, Free Speech, Islam

“Heresies About The Hebdo Headache” is the current column, now on WND:

WINNING IN THE WEST. A French “documentary maker”—a title everyone with a camera assumes these days—told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that the West was winning. The docu-dude felt that the people of Europe were displaying a winning resistance to the imposition of Islamic blasphemy laws.

How was the West vanquishing the enemies of free speech? In response to the craven, yet characteristic, massacre of staff at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, hundreds of thousands of Europeans—in Barcelona, Brussels, London, Paris, Nice, Lyon—came out en masse to plonk teddy bears on sidewalks and point pens and pencils to the heavens.

“Winning,” as Charlie Sheen would say.

The winners also flaunted their feelings with placards that read: “Je Suis Charlie” and “Not Afraid.” The CNN signatories to the dhimma “pact of surrender” celebrated the triumphant “outpouring of art in response” to the executions in Paris. Meek, wishy-washy drawings popped up everywhere. An example: Patrick Chappatte’s New York Times cartoon, in which a sunken-chested white male sheds a tear, holds a flower. The caption: “Without humor we are all dead.” Fierce.

The terrorists in the midst of the winners were in for more blows. A plural option was added to the rallying cry “Je Suis Charlie”: We are Charlie Hebdo—Nous Sommes Charlie. “Say no to terrorism” was another winning slogan.

Then there was the showy and meaningless parade of parasites in Paris, from which Onan No. 1 was absent:

The world’s leaders united against murder, an insight that was already well within the ken of leaders of the ancient world (Ten Commandments?). The charade of charlatans featured the very people responsible for legislation that authorized the round up, around them, of “54 people … for hate speech or other acts insulting religious faiths, or for cheering the men who carried out the attacks.”

THE SWORD IS MIGHTIER THAN THE PEN. No wonder author Martin Amis spoke of clichés of the mind and the heart. The orgy of sentimentality and helplessness came with its share of clichés. Particularly enveloping in its preposterousness was “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

Remember the iconic scene in the film “Raiders of the Lost Ark”? Challenged to a duel by a scimitar-wielding, keffiyeh-clad Arab, Indiana Jones draws a pistol and dispatches the swordsman without further ado.

In my (allegorical) more accurate adaption, the roles are reversed. The Prophet Mohammad’s avenger faces his somersaulting Western offender, who comes at him with a pen, convoluting about freedom of expression, inquiry and conscience. How does Mohammad’s mercenary respond to the penman’s lofty ululations? As Indiana Jones did: He aims his automatic weapon and drops the prophet’s offender.

Before Charlie Hebdo came the 12 Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoons. In 2005, JP drew cartoons that joined Muhammad to the violence that disfigures the Muslim world. While clucking about the sanctity of free speech, countless commentators climbed into the Danes. The illustrators were called juvenile, obnoxious, Islamophobic, even immoral. They were accosted for doing nothing to advance enlightened argument; of acting in “terrifically bad taste”; and indulging in “gratuitous provocation, not worthy of publication,” to quote some of the pieties disgorged by politicians and pundits.

Having been where Charlie Hebdo finds itself today—a catalyst for eruptions across the Islamic Ummah (now innervating the West)—Flemming Rose, JP’s cultural editor and publisher, knows of what he speaks. He informed BBC’s HARDTalk that the sword is mightier than the pen. “Violence works.” The great Danes of JP will not reprint “Charlie Hedbo’s post-attack front cover.”

Winning. …

The complete column is “Heresies About The Hebdo Headache”, now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

In Paris, A Parade Of Parasites; Charade Of Charlatans

Barack Obama, Europe, Free Speech, Media, Politics, Propaganda, Terrorism

President Barack Obama was a no-show at the showy and meaningless parade of parasites in Paris, where world leaders united against murder, an insight that was already well within the ken of leaders of the ancient world (Ten Commandments?). NYT:

More than a million people joined over 40 presidents and prime ministers on the streets of Paris on Sunday in the most striking show of solidarity in the West against the threat of Islamic extremism since the Sept. 11 attacks.

“A storm in a D.C. tea cup” is how CNN has chosen to depict the absence of their favorite onan from the parade. David Gergen of the Obama Channel commented on how “refreshing” it was for this administration to “admit [he] messed up.

To paraphrase the Paul Simon lyrics about an old lover: Still crazy about him after all these years.

Myself, I don’t give a tinker’s toss about the march of our tormentors in Paris. The only thought that crossed my mind at the charade of charlatans had to do with al Qaeda’s incompetence. Why do they only ever hit on innocents? … But since unfettered speech is no longer a natural right in the West, because of legislation passed throughout the free world—I shall remain mum.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Best Commentary So Far About Charlie Hebdo Headache

BAB's A List, Britain, Europe, Free Speech, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Paleolibertarianism, Terrorism

Penned by friend and fellow paleolibertarian Sean Gabb of the British Libertarian Alliance, the following piece is simply the best commentary so far on the Charlie Hebdo headache.

Hot Air and the Paris Atrocities
By Sean Gabb

For the avoidance of doubt, I will begin by saying that the murders this week at Charlie Hebdo were a barbarous crime, and deserve the strongest punishment allowed by law. This being said, the smug chanting of the politicians and media people is getting on my nerves. Here, without further introduction, are the more objectionable mantras:

Je suis Charlie

I will repeat that this was a barbarous crime. But there seem to be barbarous crimes and barbarous crimes. Suppose the attack had not been on a cultural leftist magazine, but on the headquarters of the Front National, and the victims had been Francine le Pen and the party leadership. Would all those city squares have filled with people reciting Je suis le Front National? I hardly think so. Nor would the media have given blanket and uncritical coverage.

Indeed, we had our answer before the gunmen had opened fire. When Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh and Lee Rigby were murdered no less barbarously, we were all urged to moderate our response. In the first two cases, we were told, with more than the occasional nod and wink, that the victims had brought things on themselves. As for the third, the protest demonstrations were broken up by the police.

Cultural leftists have the same right not to be murdered as the rest of us. So far as the present lamentations indicate, they are seen by the directors of public opinion as having a greater right.

We will Never Give up Our Right to Freedom of Speech

The continuing hymn of praise to freedom of speech would sound better if it were seriously meant. I believe that the writers and cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had the moral right to say whatever they pleased about Islam, or anything else. But I also believe that Luke O’Farrell and Garron Helm should not have been sent to prison for being rude to or about Jews. Nick Griffin should not have been prosecuted for saying less against Islam than was published in Charlie Hebdo. The Reverend Alan Clifford should not have been threatened with prosecution in 2013, when he handed out leaflets at a gay pride march in Norwich. Almost every day, in England alone, someone gets into trouble for opening his mouth. Where for them are the defenders of freedom of speech, now more fashionably than bravely holding up pencils or waving candles?

I and my colleagues at the Libertarian Alliance can praise freedom of speech, because we are there for the people mentioned above. Just about everyone else I have seen on the television is a hypocrite. In general, we are free to say only what the authorities want to hear. Even when the law does not cover dissent, there are administrative or economic punishments. See, for example, the UKIP members who were denied the right to foster children, or the difficulty that dissident writers have to find paid work.

These were Cowardly Crimes

The men who shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices are not cowards. They took a considerable risk, and it is generally believed that they will not let themselves be taken alive. This is part of what makes them and their like so dangerous. The Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists were cowards. Their speciality was to plant time bombs in shop toilets, and then run away before they went off. These killers seem to regard themselves as already half way to the company of the seventy two virgins they were promised. There is nowhere they will not go, and nothing they will not do – they and those like them. To call them cowards is a comforting falsehood.

These were Senseless Crimes

The only senseless crime is one that has no evident purpose, or is unlikely to achieve it. The purpose of the Charlie Hebdo killings was to punish outrages against Moslem sensibilities, and to deter their repetition. Can anyone say they failed, or will fail? Some outlets of the mainstream media have republished some of the less offensive cartoons. But it was difficult not to, and there is safety in numbers. From now on, Moslems abroad and in Europe can expect a still more delicate handing of their sensibilities than is already the case. No one wants to be murdered, and one of the surest ways to avoid being murdered will be not to say anything untoward about Mohammed or his alleged teachings.

I now feel obliged to comment on mass-immigration from the Third World. Anyone who said this would be other than a disaster must have been a fool or a villain. It has forced down working class incomes. It has raised housing costs for everyone. It has increased crime and welfare dependency. It has Balkanised politics and administration and law. It has been the excuse for a police state. I am not a violent or an uncharitable man. I am committed to an abstract and universalist ideology. I do not object to a certain porosity of borders. But, like most Jews in Israel, or most Chinese in China – or like most people in all times and places – I regard every square inch of my country as the birthright of my people, and do not look favourably on levels of immigration that seem likely, within the next few generations, to dispossess us of that birthright. Yet this is where we now are, in England, in France, and in many other European and European-settled countries. I have no convincing answers to the problem we face. All I can do is predict one of two outcomes:

First, present trends will continue, and growing weight of numbers, and a greater willingness to resort to violence, will bring about the transformation of our societies in the image of the newcomers.

Second, there will be a nativist reaction, attended by expulsion and the removal of citizenship rights for those allowed to stay, and an authoritarian political settlement.

I do not look forward to either outcome. But, thanks to the conscious or negligent treason of our rulers, it seems likely to be one or the other of these. Anyone who can suggest a less unpleasant outcome that is other than wishful thinking will have at least my gratitude.

The question now outstanding is whether these killings will only contribute to the breakdown of the multicultural illusion, or whether they will be seen, by future historians, as one of its key events. Are they in the same dividing category as the defenstrations in Prague or the Oath in the Tennis Court? Or will the continued chanting of the mantras discussed above keep everything under control? Does the continuing uproar in France mean that something has begun there of wider significance than the murder of a dozen cultural leftists?


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint