What's the point of whinging?

What's the point of whinging about "liberalism" and its concomitant PC-mind-control, and the damage-unto-destruction these are working upon our nation, if you will not free your mind from the empty and socially-lethal platitudes of it? What's the point of opposing the effects of the lie if you will not oppose the lie itself?

Ilíon said:

It seems to me that one small step we all can do to help fight PCism is to stop using the word ‘Muslims’ to denote the Slaves of (the demon) Allah. We have a perfectly good English word which we have used for centuries: ‘Moslems’

The common use of ‘Muslim’ in English goes back no further than PC-speak.

The Hyacinth Girl replied:

Actually, I think that the term “Muslims” is just fine. Calling a Muslim “Moslem” is like calling an Asian “Oriental.” And I’m definitely not calling anyone a slave to a demon. People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, and I don’t think that’s a “PC” sentiment. The Founders seemed to think it was the way to go.

"Actually, I think that the term “Muslims” is just fine."

This doesn't address what I said.


"Calling a Muslim “Moslem” is like calling an Asian “Oriental.”"

Really? And calling them "Asians" isn't an insult?

This is just another reflection of PC bullshit; in this instance invented by that infamous apologist for "Arab extremism" (which is to say, for terrorism and murder), Edward Said.

Is it an insult to refer to *us* as "Westerners?" Is it an insult to refer ro us as "Occidentals" (i.e. "Westerners")? No, and no. So, rationally and honestly, how does it become such a gross insult to refer to all the peoples and cultures who live to the East of our cultural historic homeland as "Orientals," which is to say, as "Easterners?"

Only in PC-coocoo-land is this an insult; only in PC-coocoo-land is it an insult when *we* do what *all* persons and cultures do and have always done: refer to other persons and cultures by reference and in relation to oneself or one's own culture.

Conservatives realize that there is no "center of the world" -- which is to say, that *all* cultures and persons are equally the center of the world. "Liberals" believe that there really is a "center of the world" ... just that it never can be "the West" (even as they tend to believe that their own precious snowflake self is at the center of all time and space).


"People have the right to believe whatever they want to believe ..."

This is nowhere near the truth.

People have the freedom to believe any damned fool thing they wish to believe. But they do not have the right to do so; rather, people have the duty to do their best to ensure that their beliefs are true.


"... and I don’t think that’s a “PC” sentiment."

Then you really ought to think more carefully.

If people really had the right to believe any damned fool thing they wished to believe, than *any* attempt to correct their false beliefs, even so mild as to mention that there are other views on the subject, would be a violation of their rights as human beings.

That sounds familiar of late, doesn't it?


"The Founders seemed to think it was the way to go."

The Founders make me look like a cuddly kitty cat.


"And I’m definitely not calling anyone a slave to a demon."

If you will not speak the truth, no matter who pouts and/or throws a tantrum, then the "liberals" -- who are merely inconsistent leftists -- will always be able to roll you. On any matter. And you will be part of the problem which is destroying us.

Islam is all about making oneself -- and, of course, forcing one's neighbor to be -- a Slave of Allah; hell! that's what is at the heart of the words 'Islam' and 'Muslim' -- "surrender (to Allah)," in the sense of "surrender abjectly or we shall kill you!"

And Allah is not God, though he claims to be. And his religion is demonic, whether or not there is a being behind the name.

Why in the hell do you bother with the content of that last link if you are not willing to speak the truth of the matter? Is this just the "conservative" version of the "Free Tibet!" bumper-stickers that "liberals" feels so moral and righteous about when they put them on their Prius (even as they condemn anyone who dares to speak the truth about the regime in China)?

'Think of the Poodles!'

The real victim here are poodles everywhere.

Blogging for Cathy

Blogging for Cathy ... Or, It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

Over at April's (the Hyacinth Girl) blog, Cathy made a comment which I wish to share with Gentle Reader --

Now, and of course, April has far more readers (and commenters) then I -- for I have only you, my Gentle Reader -- but comments may easily be lost in all that bustle. Here, in the undisturbed peace and quiet of my tranquil (i.e. dusty) little corner of the blogosphere, one may more easily reflect at leisure.

First, for context, we need April's post:

While it would be superawesome if this guy were right, (the guy Steyn quotes, not Steyn), I’m not holding my breath. Perhaps I’m too cynical, but with our near-permanent welfare class and a generation of kids who’ve been told that they are children into their late 20’s, I cannot imagine a prolonged revolt against Obamacare. As I’ve said before, ultimately. free candy wins. Of course, there will still be the core of the Tea Party, but when the outrage wanes, a lot of people are going to tell themselves that, well, if the government is giving things away, they might as well get in on it.

I mean, why fight it? If it’s going to happen anyway, might as well benefit from it. Culturally, we readily accept the idea that we must follow the whims of our “betters”-how else do you explain the thousands of “Rachels” roaming the country throughout the ’90’s? How else do you explain the persistence of Hollywood to dictate public policy and influence presidential elections? Barack Obama is our first cool president, put into office by the endorsements of our self-appointed betters. Celebrities are our new royalty, and sadly for this nation, the opinion of Jennifer Aniston is a lot more important than cold, hard facts.

We are a lazy, spoiled, ADHD culture-soft and uninterested in thinking for ourselves. At least my generation is. I’ve met women my age who are almost proud of “knowing nothing about politics.” A mom told me once, “Can you just write up a list of people we should vote for?” Her playdates, soccer games, and story times at the bookstore were much more important. Obviously.

Sooner or later, the outrage runs out. The relentless media rebranding of the “Teabaggers” as angry, racist, uneducated, violent militants becomes mainstream knowledge and a pushback against the gaping maw of massive government and taxpayer debt becomes the last gasp of the marginalized, unnecessary white male. (Which is, paradoxically, sometimes led by an attractive, young, strong and well-spoken woman. But it’s best not to think about that for too long.)

As a society, we’ve accepted the idea that the famous are better than the normals. certain educational levels render one more or less credible to form a coherent thought, where one’s diploma is from further underscores the previous point, the wealthy are inherently smarter than the poor, and that journalists have our best interest at heart, and since they’ve got degrees, we should really listen to them.

So I’m not buying the idea that Obama is effing up in phenomenal fashion and taking the Democrat party with him. If a coordinated attack on the American mainland and the deaths of over 3,000 civilians doesn’t rouse (and maintain the interest of) a sleeping giant, what makes you think that the (relatively) instant gratification of unsustainable, expensive entitlements will?

First, a side comment about the "teabagger" smear of which the "liberals" are so fond: like most normal persons, I'd never heard of "teabagging" before Anderson Cooper decided to make the smear. Nevertheless, I'm fairly confident that I understand what "teabagging" -- as a social phenonenon -- is about: it's a display of dominance and submission.

SO: if the leftists see *us* as the "teabaggers," that must mean that they see themselves as the "teabagees." They call us "teabaggers" because they're afraid of us. They call us "teabaggers" because they *know* we can win this battle for the soul of America.

And now, without further adieu, Cathy's comment:

OK, so here’s what I’m thinking.

April is half-right (wait!), and so are we ALL when we say things about “the American People”, “the voters”, “our society” ETC.

As dissatisfied as we may be with the current administration, we just discourage ourselves when we say “This is what we did to ourselves,” when actually, it was only a little over half of the electoral college that did it to all of us.

When we say “the people want” we are generalizing inaccurately, just as the majority of the media, with their “mainstream knowledge”-inducing relentless repetition of spin, “suggestion”, un-checked-gossip-as-news, and occasional blatant B.S. (corrected on page 17), intend.

It may be “half true” that Americans are” soft and uninterested in thinking for ourselves.” But if we convince ourselves that this is true for everyone, instead of the maybe-half of the society around us, we forfeit the battle, unfought, to those who want to see ALL of us “infantilized” - dependent on, and uncritical of, an increasingly socialized system.

It’s not as though all the other people who voted for Not Obama left the country. Admittedly, there may be a variety of reasons “Tea Partyers” gather to protest legislation and denounce politicians. As Ilion points out in a comment at his blog:

If the people showing up are simply protesting the hit to their own pocketbook, the nation is doomed; if the people showing up are [] protesting on *principle* we may ride out the Obamanation storm.

But the fact that they DO gather, means that they share common ground; they DO think, they DO care, and they are NOT NECESSARILY going to give up and decide “If you can’t beat ‘em…”.

And the fact that those who do attend the meetings, and rallies, and “town halls”, statistically represent many others who feel as they do, means that a reversal in the leftward trend in this country’s institutions is still possible.

But no matter how long the outrage holds out, the battle cannot be won on outrage alone.

The hard part will be recognizing that an election in seven moths, or in two-and-a-half years, might not be all it takes to put things right. The hard part will be creating a slow, steady program of reasonable, rational persuasion, by conservative voices who have not undermined their credibility with hyperbole and histrionics, and by conservative politicians who have not already demonstrated the fragility of their convictions. The hard part will be finding leaders who can draw together Americans worried about the Constitution and Americans worried about their pocketbooks; American concerned about the availability of medical coverage for their children, and Americans concerned about the tax burdens their children will bear.

The GOOD part is, the job for those leaders is already half done.

Remember this, always: just because many American should-be citizens have already sold their minds (and liberty) for the chimera of statist promises of "security," does not mean that all have. Just because many should-be citizens wish to sell your and my liberty for those worthless and empty promises, does not mean that all do.

There are still Americans!

And the Fat Lady doesn't even want to sing.

(Michael W. Smith: 'There She Stands')

In which I disagree with the Hyacinth Girl

I can't recall when I have ever really/deeply disagreed with the Hyacinth Girl. Till now.

April, the Hyacinth Girl, writes:

How many women and girls have to die before our society realizes that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated? They will reoffend-the numbers support this. It’s too early to say if the monster who killed Chelsea King also killed Amber DuBois as well, but I wouldn’t be surprised. He gamed the offender registry system, he was unapologetic about his previous offense, and the area from which Amber disappeared was apparently Gardner’s hunting ground.

The year-long hell Amber’s parents have been through is not over, it has just turned into a different kind of hell. It is now the hell of knowing. It may be somewhat of a relief to be able to bring her home, but there is no true peace to be had. I’ll be praying for them. This sort of loss is so brutal, so unfair, so excruciating as to be unimaginable.

Sex offenders must be taken out of society. I’d prefer that they were executed after conviction, but I understand that this will be hard for the bleeding heart crowd to stomach, so I’m thinking long-term medical experimentation as standard sentencing for offenders. We can test various medications and surgery techniques on them, as well as the effects of radiation exposure. There are plenty of uses for sex offenders, as long as we keep them out of society.

Once we as a society see the benefits of vivisecting child molesters, it will be much easier to put them away for life after the first offense. We could even use them as organ donors, a la Ninni Holmqvist’s The Unit.

I’m the farthest from kidding I’ve ever been. These bastards cannot be trusted. Take ‘em out before they destroy any more lives.

This is the response I posted on April's blog:

Rapists and child molesters have placed themselves outside society.

But they are still bearers of the image of God ... to use them as you suggest demeans us!

And, even if it didn't, how do we distinguish the *real* rapists from those some wicked female has falsely accused because she knows with a high degree of probability she can get away with it?

And, even if it didn't, how do we distinguish the *real* child molesters from the innocent men (and women) whom wicked politicians use as stepping-stones to advance their careers?


I suspect you're too young to recall the daycare molestation hysteria of the 1980s, in which *obviously* innocent men (and women) were sent to prison, and their lives ruined, in prosecutions for which a civilized society would have sent the prosecutors [themselves] to prison for even attempting to prosecute the[ accused].

I frequently disagree with Lawrence Auster (especially in his race-obsession), but in this I agree with him. While it is true that specific wicked persons (usually of male sex) murder the girls and young women who regularly turn up raped and murdered, on a deeper level, it is "liberalism" which murders them. And, it is "feminism." For it is "liberalism" and "feminism" which trains them and their parents to be blind to, and to deny, reality.

And, it is "liberalism" which gives us the therapeutic approach to "criminal justice," in place of the proper just approach to "crime and punishment," toward the enormity of which therapeutic approach April is initially expressing a proper and righteous outrage.

Not just for women anymore

The Hyacinth Girl: Hysterics: not just for women anymore:

What an hysterical ninny. Ah, the age of the gelded man, for whom independent thought is as scary as a non-hybrid car. Though Mark Steyn is a bit taller than you’d expect, he’s hardly scary. I suppose that it’s the aforementioned independent thought that freaks this Tweeter out.

Sad.

I wanted especially to draw Gentle Reader's attention to April's excellent summary of the present age -- "Ah, the age of the gelded man, for whom independent thought is as scary as a non-hybrid car."

One of the things I long ago noticed about “liberals” (and, naturally enough, mock) is that they imagine to shriek that this or that is “frightening” or “chilling” is to make a decisive and utterly compelling argument.

Five-year old girls are more manly, and more rational, than the typical “liberal.” Seven-year olds, tops.


edit (where are my manners?); this is what April is talking about:

Mark Steyn is a truly scary man. Pseudo-intellectual thug who sounds good while saying bad things.

Even an atheist knows better

Vox Day: "Even an atheist knows better"

Here is April, the Hyacinth Girl's, take: Pathetic

An Interesting Choice of Words

April, the Hyacinth Girl, has a little item about something Justice Ruth Bader Ginsgurg said recently: Excuse me?

Here is Ed Whelan's post on NRO's "the corner" blog, about which April is commenting: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Sotomayor and Abortion for Undesired 'Populations':

2. Speaking of something that maybe “didn’t get out quite right” (but maybe did): As part of her broad-ranging discussion of abortion, Ginsburg offers this, er, interesting comment why the Court’s 1980 decision in Harris v. McRae, which ruled that the Hyde Amendment’s exclusion of nontherapeutic abortions from Medicaid reimbursement was constitutionally permissible, “surprised” her:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Gee, Justice Ginsburg, would you like to tell us more about your views on those populations that “we don’t want to have too many of”?

Here is the New York Times Magazine article in which Ginsburg's interesting comment is reported: The Place of Women on the Court



Now, of course, none of this is *news;* none of this is something which we just didn't happen to know previously about the abortion regime. What's newsworthy is that Ginsburg slipped up and admitted the truth which we all knew. That's a serious "gaffe" in politics.