Rabble/Babble Denies Reality Again *updated: banned from Babble!*

My trips across the Rubicon to Rabble/Babble have become much less frequent of late, but it's hard to resist a thread entitled "Oslo, extreme NeoConism, the role of media". The OP seems quite an independent-minded fellow who holds back from outright blaming of "NeoCons" for the Oslo shooting/bombing but many other commentators are not so charitable.

For those unfamiliar, Canadian site Babble is a microcosm of the extreme left and adopts a strict censorship code for opinions it finds unpleasant, on the grounds that the forum is a "safe space" where left wing folk should not have to defend their views against Nasty People such as yours truly.

One wrote the following:

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric agaisnt abortion providers, and abortion providers start getting shot.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against government, and the Murrah building in Oklahoma is bombed.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric-- to the point of putting "cross hairs" on a political oponent, and we have the Gifford's shooting.

The right wing ratchets up the rhetoric against socialists, and socialists are hunted and murdered.

I hadn't realise elements on the left were still blaming Sarah Palin for the Gifford shooting but it seems I was wrong. I replied in kind, and in obvious half-seriousness:

The left ratchets up the rhetoric against Capitalism: "anti-globalists" go on the rampage.

The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against Israel: Jews get attacked and, like Ilan Halimi, even killed.

The Left ratchets up the rhetoric on the environment: the Unabomber starts blowing stuff up.

The Left ratchets up the rhetoric against "Islamophobes": Kurt Westergaard gets attacked by an axe-wielding nutter.

Fun isn't it? Anyway, after getting threatened with a ban for it I thought better of presenting any actual counter-arguments, which is always a problem when you're getting attacked and insulted.

I thought it was only sporting to point out that, particularly in the US, unkind rhetoric is part and parcel of political discourse and, for better or for worse, it is not going to change anytime soon, particularly considering there is so little actual political violence in the US. I suggested that both sides might want to desist with the death threats and extreme talk and maybe politics would be a more civilised sphere of debate.

Not having any of that were the Babblers, for the most part.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

No one is blaming Al Gore for the Unabomber because there is absolutely no connection between them. Ted Kaczynski never quoted Al Gore as Breivek has quoted so many leading neo-con radicals and bigots.

Actually, the connection is exactly the same.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

You may think both sides are equal but that is a lie. The right are oppressors and the left are trying to get food for their tables and decent houses.

... in spite of that fact that "right wing" ideas have put more food on more tables in more houses than ever.

A poster named Erik Redburn completely loses the plot:

For example, why is it that certain rightwingers continue to be employed as pundits on suppsedly mainstream stations, -even when they repeatedly call for the deaths of 'liberals, socialists, Muslims, athiests,Feminazis, etc', and incite the violent overthrow of the supposed 'nanny' state. While liberal-left voices are regularly ignored, muted or treated as dangerously radical in the MSM? (and news stories supporting their views regularly downplayd or suppressed)

I'd also like to know why you think it's valid to compare political violence on the left with the right? It seems to me that the vast majority of 'extra-judicial' assassinations and murders are committed by 'crazies' inspired by rightwing ideology, not left. Some not so far from supposedly mainstream views heard regularly on every MS station -ie, that Musims are untrustworthy and the Quran teaches violence, while Christians are only defending 'our values' and the Bible preaches peace, etc etc.

What, no liberal voices in the mainstream media?!
That aside, on what planet does the poster live while claiming the political assassinations are inspired by right wing ideology? All U.S. presidential assassinations (with the possible exception of Lincoln's, although the jury is out) were carried out by leftists. Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist, Sarah Jane Moore (who tried to kill Gerald Ford) was trying to start a revolution. Hinckley was just nuts.

And who has forgotten the Weathermen?

Erik returns to spread some more wisdom with the following:

Now, I don't entirely disagree that there are militant leftists and hotheads, who sometimes say misanthropic things in public and break windows for no good reason, but what I have noticed most strongly is how almost ALL neo-cons posting about this seem most concerned about distancing their own own anti-Islamic and pro-vigilante views with that cowardly child-killers open expression of it --FAR more than expressing any real regret or heartfelt sympathy for the victims.

Well, lad, they wouldn't have to distance themselves if others weren't accusing them of complicity would they? And if they didn't distance themselves, the accusations would just go away?!
I haven't read one person who was mentioned by Breivik not condemn his actions. It seems that, for some people, even their doing so is an admission of guilt.

Erik signs off with some final thoughts, in reply to me and my suggestion that we all try harder to get along and act civilly:

I'm glad to hear you neocons believe in civilized and rational debate too. Then I will repeat the points in which you keep bluntly ignoring. "We" are NOT "equally guilty".

.....

ETA: And any hostility you might meet on the left is not only reaction to the frequently violet rhetoric emplyed but the reactionary beliefs you neo-cons endlessly promote, regardless of consequences. What really makes me smell "nazi" (fascist) is how no matter HOW much you succeed in dragging the rest of us backwards you still feel YOU are the victims, until any shreds of liberalism or charity are seen as needing eradication. Thats not just the view of a tiny lunatic fringe on the left -and the anti-everyone but us right are no longer tiny at all. They/you are now very well funded and organized and represented everywhere power is established. And you sir are very much part of it all.

Ah, so now we're clear. Leftist hostility is only a reaction to right wing hostility! Makes perfect sense to me.

Lots of handwashing and denial going on there it seems.



It reminds me of a point I recently made on politics.ie , namely that it is very difficult to point out hatred without identifying the source of that hatred as a potential object of hate. "That person did some hate speech" can be viewed as hateful and vindictive in itself.

*update*

Thread is here.

Babbler tries to get some serious Orwellian newspeak going, wants to have the Oslo Killer dubbed a "neoconservative extremist" and is prepared to write to some seriously important liberals to get it done!

"I tried editing the Oslo Killer's wikipedia entry, but was blocked from using the term neoconservative extrmist because no recognized authority has evey used it. So I exchanged an email with Norm Finkelsteinasking him to write an article using this term. He is too busy, so I asked him to forward my request to someone who isn't busy. I also sent the same request to letter to Noam Chomsky's MIT email where someone might read it one day and probaly delete it."

*UPDATE*

Banned from Babble!

(again)

For the following statement:

I think you will find that all sides demonise the other in more or less equal measure, and you can't seriously be complaining about the term "feminazi" when every conservative has probably been called a Nazi at some point in her life! Anyone who calls for anyone to be killed, or seeks to dehumanise them by making up mad accusations simply doesn't have an argument, and has comprehensively failed in the area of civilised debate.

(emphasis the moderator's.) Apparently it contravenes Babble policy to point out that Conservatives get called Nazis all the time - as I was at least once on that thread.

I should emend the last sentence to:

"Anyone who uses a dubious excuse to ban someone from a political forum simply doesn't have an argument, and has comprehensively failed in the area of civilised debate."

Caroline Glick Replies

Great essay from Caroline Glick:

Aside from Kaczynski, (whom he plagiarized without naming), certain parts of Breivik's manifesto read like a source guide to leading conservative writers and bloggers in the Western world. And this is unprecedented. Never before has a terrorist cited so many conservatives to justify his positions.

Breivik particularly noted writers who focus on critical examinations of multiculturalism and the dangers emanating from jihadists and the cause of global jihad. He also cited the work of earlier political philosophers and writers including John Stuart Mill, George Orwell, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill and Thomas Jefferson.

...

As much as statements by Sevje, (or Gore, Walt, Mearshimer, Scheuer or Chomsky), may anger their ideological adversaries, no self-respecting liberal democratic thinker would accuse their political philosophies of inspiring terrorism.

There is only one point at which political philosophy merges into terrorism. That point is when political thinkers call on their followers to carry out acts of terrorism in the name of their political philosophy and they make this call with the reasonable expectation that their followers will fulfill their wishes. Political thinkers who fit this description include the likes of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader Yousef Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Hamas founder Sheikh Yassin, al Qaeda in Yemen leader Anwar Awlaki and other jihadist leaders.

No More Mister Nice Guy

I've had it with lefties.

From time to time, I've thought, let's give 'em the benefit of the doubt, they're good folks but misguided.

It's been a long-held view of mine that while the Left vilifies the Right and questions our motives and morals, we have taken a different stance, accepting that those who support things like universal, free healthcare, a planned (or partly planned) economy, and multiculturalism could be reasoned with because they are immature, uneducated, or just losers.

It may be because I'm in the middle of an Ann Coulter book. It may be because a terrorist holding (some) similar views to mine has just shot up an island in Norway in a dispicable act of child-murder. It may be because attempting to dialogue with posters on a left -wing website is regularly met with insults from people who maintain their anonymity while not having the common courtesy to use my name correctly.

Or it may be none of the above.

But I've really had it with socialists, left-liberals and other losers who can't debate their way out of a paper bag without resorting to slander, insults and misrepresentation. And it's not just a few. Left-wingers regularly propose insane policies that lead to massive social upheaval, not to mention poverty, starvation and chaos for those who dare to implement them.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, inside every leftist is a dictator waiting to get out. This has always been my experience. Every socialist I've ever met believes that when the Revolution comes, they'll be given the task of redesigning society along their own personal lines. In the New Socialist Utopia, it seems, they'll be heavy on ideologues and light on Workers; not so many volunteers for the collective mines amongst them.

And they lie. The Guardian "newspaper" lies for a living. The Guardian described Jared Loughner's views as "Conservative". Taking a swipe at their opponents far more important to them than reporting the actual news, the word "facts" completely unknown to them. Instead they print vile lies day after day.

But anger is not the correct response. Anger just makes them happy, because they know they've managed to piss you off - and that makes a leftist's day. Humour is the only tonic. Taking the absolute piss out of them day after day is the only way to stay sane. The socialists, the multiculturalists, the social engineers, terrorism-enablers, liberals, purveyors of PC dogma, and their fellow travellers deserve to be derided within inches of their sanity, their idiotic ramblings ridiculed to hell and back. That is the new purpose of this blog and it is my sincere hope that positivity will win in the end.

Humour is, of course, an incredibly positive thing.

Justice for Rachel Peavoy

This is a sensitive issue and one which has captured the attention of a lot of interested parties in Ireland where the death of Rachel Peavoy took place. The story is largely covered here.

Basically, a 30 year old woman died at home of hypothermia during what we Irish euphemistically call a "cold snap" in January 2010. The mother of two had also been taking medication for anxiety and there was some suggestion she had another mental illness as well.

Sad in and of itself, the issue is complicated by a simple fact, Ms.Peavoy lived in a council flat. What of it? you might say. Well, because she was technically living in government accommodation there is the suggestion that the council is responsible for her death, as there is a question over whether or not the heating was working at the time of her demise.

At the inquest, however (see link), it was claimed that the heating was fine and that the council was not negligent. Indymedia.ie is of course demanding "justice for Rachel Peavoy", which would seem to me to be a little pointless as she is no longer alive, and would no doubt consist of the appropriate measures being taken to apportion blame to individual council employees along with a fat cheque of taxpayer's money to, probably, her children.

The "World Socialist Web Site" has also taken up the cause alongside Indymedia.ie and other socialist organisations which I would normally associate with the so-called 'fight against capitalism'.

But my question would be, why are all these socialist organisations taking on a cause in which capitalism is in no way involved? A Capitalist such as myself would be at pains to point out that it is the State which has failed in this instance, and that greater government provision of housing is exactly what organs like indymedia.ie are constantly struggling for.

The brutal fact is, if you wait for the government to supply your heating, you will die of cold, and that's exactly what happened here. The culture of dependency created by government housing has been laid bare - and the socialists can't (or won't) see it.

Rachel Peavoy was failed by a system for sure. A socialist system that took away her independence and let her die at the hands of the kind of cold, uncaring bureaucracy that socialists drool over.

Socialists take note: This is the system you want. Your ideas and policies will lead to more dead Rachel Peavoys.

Ann Coulter on Single Moms. Again

Ann Coulter is easy to disagree with, being one of those Social Conservatives that blames "liberals" for all the world's problems, but she is bl**dy funny and I did quite enjoy her last book "Guilty". In this article she revisits some of the subject matter therein. Enjoy:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44680

"A 1990 study by the (liberal) Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime rates disappeared."

"And yet, between 1979 and 2003, we went from about 600,000 babies being born out of wedlock, with about a quarter of them put up for adoption, to 1.5 million illegitimate births with fewer than 1 percent of them (14,000) given up for adoption. That's why Angelina Jolie and Madonna are constantly having to break up tribal wars to adopt Third World children."

I'm definitely on board with the idea that we need more kids put up for a adoption, particularly given the astonishingly high number of couples within my own social circle who are professional, responsible people who have trouble conceiving.

One (caucasian) friend of mine and her husband recently adopted a black child from some third world place - Detroit, I think - because white ones were in such short supply and were actually more expensive to adopt. The way it works is, you find some pregnant teenager, pay her medical expenses and have her checked regularly in case she smokes crack while pregnant, and then when baby is born, it's yours. Unfortunately this particular mother decided that this was too demanding and took some drugs, but the adoption went through anyway, followed by the kind offer to, if the adoptive parents so wished, "make another one" on demand.

They declined.

Canada Still Too Liberal, Says Cat.

Harper's supposed goal of de-Trudeaupianising Canada is not going so well :

http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2011/07/tim-hudak-has-lost-my-vote.html

6th Century Fashion Meets 21st Century Technology

gotta love this

Fintan Lane is a Pussy, chapter two.

By now all of you know that the Saoirse, the Irish Gaza war-enabler ship, was damaged mysteriously while in port in Turkey.

Immediately blame was cast on Israel - in fairness, it looks likely - but the war enablers wasted little time in calling a protest and - get this - an outside sit-in at the Israeli embassy (in less enlightened times we'd say there was something very "Irish" about an outside sit-in).

The IPSC wasted so little time calling a protest, that they didn't bother providing any evidence at all.

"Full details of the extent of the sabotage, including photos and video of the damage will be made available to the press later today."

What was in fact released were three poorly-angled photographs of what looks (to my untrained eye) as a ding caused by some flat-bladed cutting instrument, and a slight bend in the propeller shaft which, obviously, would do great damage to the boat's propellor in no time.

I'm completely throwing my hands up on this one and not offering any explanations, and being a bit of a fuddy-duddy, am going to wait a bit longer than the IPSC did before coming to their conclusion - in that, I'm actually going to wait for someone who knows what they're talking about to give us some real facts.

Most amusing is the first video here, which shows my favourite war-enabler, Dr.Fintan Lane, whinge about how the damage was actually "life-threatening" (can we assume that Dr.Lane's doctorate is not in maritime engineering?) and the crew "certain" to have "lost lives". He then trots out the old favourite about it having been an attack on a "humanitarian aid" ship, a lie so discredited it's amazing he can keep a straight face. Botox maybe? Watch the clip and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway. He is "outraged" that Israel considered the flotilla a provocation. Really? Where did they get that idea from? Is it because there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and even if there were, the New York Times published this on June 25th :

“Things are better than a year ago,” said Jamal El-Khoudary, chairman of the board of the Islamic University, who has led Gaza’s Popular Committee Against the Siege. “The siege on goods is now 60 to 70 percent over.”

The flotilla's stated ambition is to "break the siege", hardly what you'd call the language of peace. And while Alice Walker dreams about being gunned down by the IDF in the name of peace, Fintan Lane cries about having his life put in danger. By a bent propeller shaft.

What kind of peaceniks are these? Lane describes the alleged Israeli act of sabotage as "terrorism", but has he ever spoken out against Palestinian terrorism? The kind were people actually get blown up, not the kind where boat propellers (allegedly) have chunks knocked out of them.

So, I am not thrilled about the Irish involvement in this, and a lot of Irish people wonder why we Ulster folk don't want to be a part of their country. Well, it for things like this. In Dublin, on the 28th June, was a solidarity march with the people of Palestine. Video here. Angry crowds sing "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free". Free of Jews, that is. Because as everybody knows, the implication of a "free" Palestine "from the river to the sea", is one without a Jewish state called Israel parked on it.

But it gets better. The loons are also protesting - you'll love this - Riverdance. Why? Riverdance is heading to Israel!

"Riverdance: Not in our name! You do not represent us!"

cries Raymond Deane (from 2:20).

Well at least that part is true.