The comment threads have been busy the last few days. Way too busy to have to keep redacting school yard taunt-level name calling – e.g., “Obongo”, “Hitlery”, “Turdeau”, etc., ad nauseam, ad infinitum. And for heaven’s sake, “Mooslimes” stopped being amusing in 2003, if it ever was.
I have spent several hours on this miserable work today. No more. If you refuse to be civil, then your comment will be deleted. Such as it is, this site serves as a historical archive of sorts. So quit sticking your tongue out and crossing your eyes for the class picture.
I could have been reading Tommy Robinson’s book instead of cleaning up after people who find repetitive derision amusing.
It’s not.
you are a classy guy Mr Barron ..
oh no .. D, i mean .. or both of you .
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you Dymphna, and the Baron, for your hard work through many difficult years. You are performing a service to humanity.
Thank you for your hard work and commitment to excellence. One of the things I like about this blog is the lack of childish banter in the articles and comments, long may it stay that way.
I may come from the “Other” side, but civility allows for useful illumination, whilst savagery results in wasteful heat. Bravo.
Now listen – there are a lot of people – more than you can imagine ( not every one clicks on the website – but hears about the issues over morning coffee from a friend) that depend on you and your website.
Truth is hard work and you are doing it.
Do it.
You only need the respect of the people you respect.
You have it.
What’s wrong with using profanity and strong language for the things you hate and the things that deserve to be mocked?
It may not be the best way to handle your emotions or thoughts, but each and every one of us present ourselves differently…seems just like another unnecessary form of censorship to me.
Here’s what’s wrong with using profanity, rude words, name-calling: it makes comment threads go sideways, increasing the heat and reducing the light.
Profanity is meant to incite others and it does. Telling another person their argument is “nonsense” or b.s. is insulting: it’s meant to be. I have never seen a case where the use of such insults improves the conversation.
Having to state an argument on its merits rather than resorting to name-calling makes a person think. There are plenty of other sites where you can say what you want; this isn’t one of them and it never will be.
Dymphna, your answer reminds me of a Mark Twain quote.
“I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”
It took me a few minutes to understand what he was saying.
In line with other comments, I’d like to thank you and the Baron for your tireless efforts and to agree with with the sentiment expressed above.
Basic civility in any discussion should go without saying- ad hominem loses the debate every-time.
With Islam, mass immigration and multiculturalism the plain truth is shocking enough, no hyperbole or pejorative required.
Getting the unvarnished truth out there is the challenge, as I’m sure you well know in this age of deceit.
All the best,
I.
“Here’s what’s wrong with using profanity, rude words, name-calling: it makes comment threads go sideways, increasing the heat and reducing the light.”
That’s [information that I deprecate] and you know it. This is a [superflous insulting adjective] response to the poster’s valid addition: that profanity, in and of itself, is a protected form of expression. If you’re really interested in protecting free speech (which I will go ahead and assume that you are), then you must protect ALL speech that is considered “offensive”. If not, wel,l then go ahead and edit my previous posts that said “Moslems”, to make way for “Muslims”. This is just nonsense. I have a Doctorate, and I’m, frankly, disgusted by the kow-towing to sideways MOSLEM sensibilities, by, for instance, suggesting that “Mooselimes” is, somehow, to be thrown out as a mildly derogatory moniker to describe what you do every day on this site in round-about manners.
Let people say what they want – minus the F word, the C word and that’s about it.
Otherwise, just forget it. This is war, and soldiers use supposedly foul language regularly. Trim your [pejorative characterizations] and get used to it – we’re going to find a way to say what we like, on this site or somewhere else.
And the fact that you somehow, seem to suggest that profanity magically makes comments sections “go sideways” is, again, horribly subjective, magical thinking – as is quite evidenced by this thread and its sycophantic, choir-like echoes.
Some of the most foul-mouthed people I know have PhDs. They’re prone to ad-hominem attacks, insulting over-the-top language, and arguing to authority.
In my own (limited) personal experience, they are over-represented relative to their proportion in the general population, and do not compare well with their more ignorant doctorate-less compatriots.
Funny about that.
I find it extremely interesting and disturbing that you modified my term “nonsense” and inserted “superfluous insulting adjective”. You’re acting just like a Moslem – you, apparently, cannot be criticised, by using the term, “nonsense”, which, in no way could be considered profanity.
This is precisely what I am referring to. So it’s now “insulting” to regard the comment to which I referred as being “nonsense”. [redacted] – you’re not making sense. I hope you know this.
And as to your (strawman) regarding “your personal experience with Phds being the most foul-mouthed”, you are, interestingly asking us to buy into exactly that which you claim to argue against – an appeal to authority. You claim to appeal to a “damaged authority”, in your supposed “knowledge of Phds”. Do you see where you have trapped yourself?
And how do you have knowledge of “the general population”? Have you polled them?
You’re in deep here, Sir, and your sideways ad-hominem regarding my credentials serves only to weaken your case – but hey! Keep floundering, if you like.
You haven’t addressed any of my real arguments regarding the nature of Free-Speech under the law – you have only sought to disparage my credentials, in a strawman/false appeal to authority – as if an appeal to authority is always to be discounted.
Two points, to be taken up separately in two comments:
(1) I am not making an argument, merely a personal observation. I assert nothing beyond my own experience, nor do I cite that experience as an “authority” for any conclusions. It is what it is.
I might as readily observe that “Most of the smokers I know drive foreign cars.” That is not an “argument”, nor an assertion beyond my personal experience, which may or may not be representative of the larger population.
(2) You have evidently not read the rest of this comment thread, so I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere in it in response to another commenter:
This site is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a private forum; the First Amendment only protects public fora from any restrictions on freedom of speech.
If you were an American, you would have the same rights I do. You could set up a blog or website, and impose upon commenters whatever rules you wished. Or no rules at all. It would be your choice, and your right.
Many people labor under the misconception that the First Amendment somehow guarantees that they can say whatever they like in a private forum, but it doesn’t. You may no more use foul language and nasty invective here than you might in our living room.
If someone were to burst into our living room and subject us to obscene and spittle-flecked invective, we would eject him from the premises. And no prosecutor would indict us for violating his constitutional rights.
Let’s not confuse private and public spaces.
Oh, and by the way – “nonsense” is not an adjective, Sir, superfluous or not. You might want to get back to that grammar primer before you start “editing” my speech.
“… You have evidently not read the rest of this comment thread, so I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere in it in response to another commenter:
“This site is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a private forum; the First Amendment only protects public fora from any restrictions on freedom of speech.”
Actually, you’re only half-right.
“If you were an American, you would have the same rights I do. You could set up a blog or website, and impose upon commenters whatever rules you wished. Or no rules at all. It would be your choice, and your right.”
Let me tell you a few things, right now – you are dead wrong, in a couple of respects. First of all, you say, “If you were an American…” Get it straight. I am an American, born in California and I have profound knowledge of issues of free speech and supposed private and public spheres.
You claim this is a “private blog” and it is “not protected under the 1st amendment”. That’s true – but that only applies to THE GOVERNMENT. Your whole statement, above, rests on RESTRICTING free speech, which is entirely antithetical to the founders intent – that we ought to be able to say what we like, private or public. Only the government is bound by the 1st amendment – so your argument – whether you like to admit it or not – is specious and hollow, because, inevitably, your private blog will have no say in matters in the end, and your specious fallback to, “well, it’s my ball and you can’t play unless I say so” is so terribly disappointing.
” I am not making an argument, merely a personal observation. I assert nothing beyond my own experience, nor do I cite that experience as an “authority” for any conclusions. It is what it is.”
Oh, stop it. Just stop it. Of course, you’re making an argument. ALL conversation is an argument. Now you’re talking weasel words. I leave it to your readers to make their own decision – if they possibly can after you’ve redacted so much
Yes, I had gathered that you were an American. But I pasted the whole thing without editing it to make it appropriate to the person I was addressing. That was rude of me, and I apologize.
“I might as readily observe that “Most of the smokers I know drive foreign cars.” That is not an “argument”, nor an assertion beyond my personal experience, which may or may not be representative of the larger population.”
Oh, but you DID make a representation of “the larger population”:
“In my own (limited) personal experience, they are over-represented relative to their proportion in the general population, and do not compare well with their more ignorant doctorate-less compatriots.”
_______________________________
Your supposed analogy fails, Sir, as well as your logic and argumentation, whether you wish to admit to involvement in argumentation or not.
Like I said. I think you’re in over your intellectual head and ought to show some humility to one who has studied these things for four decades and has a Doctorate – NOT a Phd as you falsely assumed.
It seems that I jumped to conclusions when I assumed that your doctorate was a PhD, and for that I apologize. I neglected to consider the possibility that you might be a Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD), a Doctor of Divinity (DD), Doctor of Humane Letters (DHL), Doctor of Phrenology (PhrD), etc.
You’re quite right; I can see that I’m in over my intellectual head.
“Yes, I had gathered that you were an American. But I pasted the whole thing without editing it to make it appropriate to the person I was addressing. That was rude of me, and I apologize.”
Nahhh…it wasn’t rude. Don’t worry about it. No need to apologize – I just got a little testy…I’m sorry.
Hope you have a nice late evening…or is it morning there? Crap. Don’t know, Baron – it’s 10:25 pm here in Ankara.
Best Regards.
PJ
Dymphna:
“Profanity is meant to incite others and it does.”
That’s – again – pure [material that I deprecate]. If that were the case, then every F-word in a bar at a pool table with close male friends (brothers, etc.) would have to be considered “incitement’. That clearly is not the case. And what does it matter if free-speech is printed or spoken? And how do you know – [superfluous insulting characterization] – what is meant by the occasional instance of profanity? The answer is, “You don’t and you can’t.” Your [derogatory adjective] analysis is precisely what’s wrong with commentary these days, and is exactly what will lead to the full curtailment of ALL of our God-Given rights to Free-Speech, including examples of that which you so decry in this thread…”bad words describing MOSLEMS or Obama”.
The be-all and end-all is that profanity does not necessarily incite others. What if I mutter profanities to myself? Am I inciting myself? [Pejoratives redacted].
I use profanity all of the time because I LIKE IT, and it expresses EXACTLY what I wish to convey to my close associates, in private. It, in NO WAY, is meant to incite them to think or do anything.
You’re [ad-hominems redacted].
And finally – there’s no law – per se – against incitement of emotion, or protest, or anger, or disgust…only imminent violence.
Your argument [in my opinion fails] in this regard, so you better think it through.
Ok. Let’s see what’s really going on here. The above post has been “modified”. Let’s see if the “modifiers” have the ethics to let this post go through, unadulterated, so as to show the truth.
You changed, “nonsense” to “material that I deprecate”.
You changed, “magically” to “superfluous insulting characterization”.
You changed, “sophomoric” to “derogatory adjective”.
Then, you “edited”, finally: “Your argument [in my opinion fails] in this regard…”
Well – isn’t it quite obvious that my opinion is an opinion, just like everyone else’s? What’s your point? That you’ve run out of argument, and are resorting to identifying opinions as opinions?
I find your commentary incredibly weak and lacking any substantive matter. How’s that for “self-censorship”?
Excellent! You’re finally getting the hang of this. Congratultions. 🙂
“Excellent! You’re finally getting the hang of this. Congratultions. :)”
You didn’t answer anything. I’m really disappointed in you, and I hope your readers take note of this exchange, because what I see is a mind trying to make excuses for itself with smiley faces and exit strategies.
Have a good evening, Sir – I wish you no ill intent. I only seek clarity and truth, as I hope you do.
Regards,
PJ
Ankara, Turkey
Precisely right: in your opinion, to which you are fully entitled.
However, you’re not entitled to express your opinions on this website using words that – in my experience – will degrade a comment thread.
We own the blog. We pay the hosting costs; we also pay for a firewall. We’ve invested many hours over the last decade in maintaining it. That maintenance is seven days a week, ~ fourteen hours a day.
Thus, this particular iteration of a blog/website is our property to do with as we will while still taking into account our readers’ preferences.
As an instance of our readers’ preferences, we do not run ads because they voted loud and clear to do without them. In exchange they contribute to our upkeep every quarter.
Obviously, not every commenter contributes to our work, but enough do that we’ve remained a going concern. Interestingly, the majority of donors are not active commenters, though some do establish email communications. NOTE: emails are a venue where the rules regarding profanity, etc., do *not* apply.
So far, you’ve invested a lot of words in your attempt to change my opinion, but in this case my experience trumps your opinion on this issue.
DR
It is all about decorum. You state, correctly, “It [profanity] may not be the best way to handle your emotions or thoughts, but each and every one of us present ourselves differently”. We do. But this website is not a forum for “presenting” ourselves; one can present themselves in a myriad of places. It is a forum for the raising and ventilating of ideas and thoughts on an extremely serious subject. In another era I regularly visited a now moribund site called Little Green Footballs. I stopped in part because increasingly it seemed to become a venue for angry, ranting adolescents who enjoyed presenting themselves with unclever profanity. Mostly to see their “work’ on a webpage, I suspect.
It is not censorship per se, it is the upholding of standards.
Bravo Dymphna, bravo!
When I see that kind of comments on other sites, I never reply and rarely read what they have to say. You would think adults would understand this by now. So sorry that that happens here, too, but very glad not to have to wade through that.
Here’s what’s wrong with using profanity, rude words, name-calling: it makes comment threads go sideways, increasing the heat and reducing the light.
Profanity is meant to incite others and it does. Telling another person their argument is “nonsense” or b.s. is insulting: it’s meant to be. I have never seen a case where the use of such insults improves the conversation.
Having to state an argument on its merits rather than resorting to name-calling makes a person think. There are plenty of other sites where you can say what you want; this isn’t one of them and it never will be.
Poor Dymphna, I do feel for you! Until just now, I never realized how much work is involved in “publishing” people’s comments when they refuse to keep their language civil. In a civilized world, such as we think we live in, people should know how to express themselves in a “civilized” manner. Oy!
Robert E Heinlein observed that a civiliastion is in decline when people stop being courteous.
To read the comments people leave on internet sites (sadly, ESPECIALLY the “conservative” sites) is to understand the fall of Western Civilization. Of course, many of the sites themselves are little better! Continue your good work-
Oh, Lord: “…is to understand the fall of Western Civilization.” All too true, and found on websites from far left to far right.
First time looking at this site. I rarely participate in forums anymore. Sometimes it can be educational, but it’s usually only good for raising blood pressure. In any case, the “Rules” post was edifying. I had to look up what “mooslimes” meant. Doh! I feel so naive.
” I had to look up what “mooslimes” meant. Doh! I feel so naive.”
You’re naivety is indicative of [ad-hominem redacted].
PJ
Ankara, Turkey
Jc, you have come to an intelligent website which concentrates on western civilization and the protection thereof — from the hordes of uncivilized people (who sometimes seem to be ever-growing).
Not only that, ie the civilized reporting on how the world is imploding, but there is much intelligent content. I learn something everytime I visit. You don’t have to participate, I seldom do, but I am today (probably due to a family member visiting, one who drives me crazy and into my room).
You bring up an important, secondary point which I hope to address some time. It’s one I’ve researched and thought about a lot: the relatives who drive us crazy and make us retreat from them. As our culture becomes more polarized, small uncivil wars are happening in families and they end up in permanent rifts. These “cut-offs” resonate down the generations, impoverishing kin groups. Remaining in “civil” contact with sometimes unbearable people is crucial for the well being of family groups. Sometimes estrangement is necessary when one member is so out of control that the strife is crazy-making, but even then if one can manage an occasional phone call it goes a long way toward contributing to the health of extended family groups.
I am reminded of this when I see our Vice President making stuff up and acting like the crazy uncle in the attic.
C S Lewis fans will remember “The Magician’s Nephew” where the character of Uncle Andrew is painted so concisely. U.A. meddles with ‘magic’ but does not really understand it. His exploitation of the children (the ends justify the means after all) results in the conjuring up of the White Witch who really can manipulate ‘magic’.
http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/lewiscs-magiciansnephew/lewiscs-magiciansnephew-00-h.html
U.A. = BHO playing with things he does not understand and then living in denial of the unintended consequences.
I make it a policy never to discuss politics with the (numerous) leftist members of my family. If they make comments designed to “bait” me, I just shrug my shoulders in a “whatever” fashion.
“Remaining in “civil” contact with sometimes unbearable people is crucial for the well being of family groups. Sometimes estrangement is necessary …”
Contradictory.
[Insulting imperative redacted]. We’re at war here. [Insulting imperative redacted]. Your family won’t help you. Ask the girls in Cologne.
PJ
Ankara, Turkey
PJ
Please look at your comment again and ask yourself: what am I trying to achieve here?
And download Monty Python’s “Argument” sketch from Youtube,
It is because of your principled stand on civilised argument that I am able to recommend this website to friends.
Hear, hear.
“It is because of your principled stand on civilised argument…”
Actually, the moderator claims he’s he isn’t arguing – with me, at least (reference my posts in this thread).
[insult redacted].
You do understand that the moderator referred to, Dymphna, is a woman don’t you?
This website is recommended by me to anyone who has a brain and is prepared to use it to understand what is going on. Keep it up, you do great work.
Dymphna, thanks for your effort. The tone here IS a relief.
“The tone here IS a relief.”
How so? Are you easily disturbed by varying “tones”?
Pffft!
I for one get a kick out of reading the editor’s text and trying to figure out just exactly what has been redacted. A favorite was [excrement striking the air circulating device].
That was on one of my posts, I am English and grew up in a working class area so can be a bit salty at times. My apologies for creating extra work for the Baron and Dymphna, I will try to do better.
In all fairness, some people (such as relatives) can prove rather irritating (cheeky), can’t they? At times I confess to a desire to experience a significant interface between my right ambulatory appendage and their posterior seating apparatus.
Me too, I actually enjoy it!
The Baron can be very clever.
Actually, it disturbs the heck out of me. Completely [without rational attributes].
Rick
C’mon! “excrement striking the air circulating device” is one of the easiest ones to decipher, but a favourite of mine too!
Dear Baron
While it’s true this is your site therefore your rules apply, it’s also true that we who are committed to fighting back against our governments, the left wing press, other media and muslim cultural and violent terror are having to swallow far too much [offensive material] and restrictions on our speech when and only when that counters the official narrative.
Is it wise to be another who seeks to screw the stopper down tighter ? Won’t that action cause a rise in resentment and another grievance ? Do we need another ?
Remember, what may be offensive to you is anothers exasperation and free expression, your dislike is subjective. This is a rough game, sticks and stones etc etc, consider whether your action will bring forward the time some take other direct actions against those bent upon OUR destruction out of pure frustration, after all, what would the reaction be on the web should the other side plant a bomb IN a western school ?
I say let the discourse flow where it will, so far, it’s harmless, but it’s also a barometer,
when the instrument registers a steep and sudden fall, do we cover it up, or pay closer attention to it’s warning ?
I must point out that you are addressing me, but this post was written by Dymphna. I recommend reading more closely.
Now we’ve got that out of the way, I’ll address some of your points with my own opinions.
Won’t that action cause a rise in resentment and another grievance ?
No. Just the opposite: enforcing civility tends to dampen down resentment and grievance. When people can no longer scream at each other and throw mudballs, they have to start listening and forming intelligent, fact-based responses. Or they go elsewhere, someplace that allows them to scream and throw mudballs.
…your dislike is subjective.
Yes, this is quite true. Your point?
I subjectively find uncivil discourse to be dispiriting and enervating — or, to put it in the Vulgate, a real downer. It saps my energy for the task at hand. Dymphna has similar feelings. Therefore we enforce these rules, in order that we may perform our functions here most effectively. People who dislike these rules are free to write in the manner they prefer on other forums, or better yet, on their own blogs.
I say let the discourse flow where it will…
So do I, but without incitement to violence, personal insult, or vulgar language. The first is dangerous due to the plans of the Loretta Lynch Mob, and the other two add no substance and reduce our effectiveness.
If this policy grates on you, then so be it. Fortunately, your freedom of speech is by no means thereby curtailed, since you may go to other venues and express yourself in full, invective and all. And I vigorously applaud your doing so — let a thousand flowers bloom!
I don’t know who you send your articles to, under your real name, but I send by post or E mail articles which describe the situation [avoided by the MSM] to political leaders, city councilors, royalty, churchmen, journalists as well as handing out the printed truth with my own comments to those I feel would gain the most from being so informed, [ I have the police cautions as well, do you?] I am always polite and my passion restrained.
However, I will never denounce those younger or less eloquent than myself out of any misplaced cultural snobbery. That younger man or woman who may make your nose wrinkle on here may have suffered badly at the hands of Muslims, am I going to tut tut like some maiden aunt because he calls a child rapist a Mooslime ?
Grow up man.You need to live a bit closer to the problem.
NO, I will defend him or her because one day, when you can no longer see to defend your self, the younger man YOU censored on here might be the one to turn up with a small arm to shoot your intended assassin or use HIS fire extinguisher to save your backside.
I’m sorry to inform you, I take no lessons from others about street language on the net, that never killed anybody, I’ve had a gutfull of that from those PC creeps at DISCUS, despite them my approval upticks number nearly 50,000 for my posts as Gleaner 1 and poppey.
Perhaps you have not had your 17 year old daughter kidnapped for sex slavery in a Turkish holiday resort, I have, and understand me well, anybody who crosses me about this issue needs to be careful, like tens of thousands of other British people, I have taken a view on these matters.
Perhaps you would care to refresh your memory about the birth of the PC world view, watch a Dirty Harry film.
Over the last 21 years, when I call a public meeting and speak to invited MPs or professional men, I hold my own because my position is honest and informed , I am willing to jump into the cold trenches of cruel hard debate and SLUG it out and I always win.
My point about the barometer remains valid, like a compass at sea, the only thing you need either for is the truth, you have a first amendment, I don’t, honor it, value it more.
The world IS big enough and grown up enough to stand name calling when expressing disgust and revulsion at the unbearable, names like Lickspittle and Toady mark less than a bullet or rope, their lifespan is limited but while they linger in the memory of those they’re aimed at, they usually serve to inform some of the limits of the appeal of their actions.
In that guise, they may serve.
Sir, your points are well-taken.
There is just one issue I’d like to address: This site is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a private forum; the First Amendment only protects public fora from any restrictions on freedom of speech.
If you were an American, you would have the same rights I do. You could set up a blog or website, and impose upon commenters whatever rules you wished. Or no rules at all. It would be your choice, and your right.
Many people labor under the misconception that the First Amendment somehow guarantees that they can say whatever they like in a private forum, but it doesn’t. You may no more use foul language and nasty invective here than you might in our living room.
If someone were to burst into our living room and subject us to obscene and spittle-flecked invective, we would eject him from the premises. And no prosecutor would indict us for violating his constitutional rights.
Let’s not confuse private and public spaces.
Oh, I see that you gave the same, flawed, “form letter” response that you gave to my riposte, above.
Is that all you got? – claiming that your site can censor anything it likes, because it’s private? How does that serve the greater issue of Free-Speech?
And your analogy of a person coming into your house, spewing profanities – that that gives you the “right” to throw them out…NO – you don’t have a RIGHT to do that under the law. You have a lawful action that is possible under the law – not a RIGHT.
“No. Just the opposite: enforcing civility tends to dampen down resentment and grievance.”
That is [material that serves as evidence of a lesser intelligence]! Now censor THAT!
Tell that to the Mohammedans!
Enforcing civility with monsters in Cologne?
[insulting imperative redacted]
Civility will not help. Force is the only thing. I have lived and worked amongst these people in the ME for 10 years.
Get it through your head. They don’t understand civility.
PJ
Turkey
Thank you from this newby as well!
I have a request to make. I have only come to all this recently. I read the various files on Eurabia by Fjordman and a few others. I have been unable to find more information on some of the aspects of that theory… for example, while I can see that the French and Arabs have had a “special relationship” and try to have their own sphere of influence, I can also see plainly that the Americans are in bed with the Arabs as well, selling them weapons like insane people, walking with sheiks hand in hand like happy brides (viz Bush), escorting them from the country while everyone else was grounded after 9/11, on and on.
Is it more that the Arabs own *everybody* in the west? Is it that the oil issue simply holds not only EU but America in an abject position, being blackmailed? I am baffled. Even alternative news usually refers to the rich Arab states as “satrapies” of the west but I wonder. I would love to see a post and a discussion on this, or alternatively, perhaps people can point me to sources? Many thanks.
Yes, the Fjordman Files are the best place to start. He has written extensively on these matters.
Some specific posts:
The Twin Myths of Eurabia
The Eurabia Code, Part I
The Eurabia Code, Part II
The Eurabia Code, Part III
The Eurabia Code (complete)
European Leaders Agree to Create Eurabia
The Birth of the Eurabian Empire
Organization of the Islamic Conference and Eurabia
The Eurabia Code – 2008 Updates
Defeating Eurabia, Part 1
Preface to “Defeating Eurabia”
Defeating Eurabia, Part 2
Defeating Eurabia, Part 3
Defeating Eurabia, Part 4
Defeating Eurabia, Part 5
The Camp of the Saints meets Eurabia
My comments are never rude or profane. I believe genetics has a profound impact on beliefs, preferences, cultures and civilizations. You and Baron seem to believe that Islam is a belief system that could just as easily infect anyone under the right circumstances. I believe it only resonates with people who fit a particular genetic profile.
Now, it is OK with me if you do not share my beliefs. But if you are going to delete my comments then I need to go elsewhere.
I dunno…I’ve only been here a year and three days (Charlie Hebdo). Your statement seems provocative, but not crude or profane. Why would anyone delete it?
The purpose of the rules is to set the TONE, not the CONTENT. Even if the two website owners didn’t have personal preferences against profanity and name-calling, something they usually also mention but haven’t this time is that many home-schooling families use this site for student reading in various subjects.
If *minors* are going to be reading the site, additional levels of courtesy surely must apply. Walking into a classroom, I could well imagine some parent’s head exploding if the teacher were talking to the class with short, four-letter words of Anglo-Saxon derivation! (to mention only a few…)
The waste products would surely hit the ventilation device! 🙂
“The purpose of the rules is to set the TONE, not the CONTENT. ”
[Statement lacking in meaning]. My content has been been radically “improved”, as is evidenced in this thread, by the “moderators”. My “tone” has been entirely gentlemanly, without profanity.
Interesting bit from The Australian newspaper blog yesterday:
“A young woman called Sabine told German radio she had scratch marks between her thighs where a man had groped under her skirt. Other women reported their purses had been snatched, and some told police they had seen gang leaders directing the assaults.”
This lends support to the theory that these attacks were, at a minimum, semi-organized. Many “refugees” from war-torn countries have significant military experience. Perhaps they were soldiers or commanders back home. What strikes me is the quasi-military nature of these attacks. Clearly, there is organization, with various military-style tactics employed. What’s more, we see the outlines of a command structure, with some issuing orders and others following.
Are these nascent foreign armies operating on German soil? If nothing is done, and if more soldier-refugees are allowed in, I would expect capabilities to improve over time.
The Trojan horse was sly, right? Not as sly as what we’re seeing right now, not by a long shot…….hmmm, inviting young Islamic soldiers in as refugees? Well, there was the picture of that drowned little boy, wasn’t there?
Now, there’s a systemic campaign of rape getting started. Well, there’s going to be two sorts of men who show themselves……those who fight, and those who won’t. Some who won’t don’t have a reason to, you know, like a reliable woman and family.
What you mean is the bicycles won’t risk themselves for the fish.
Excellent, Dymphna. No doubt I’m also guilty of overly venting. But I have a suggestion: Keep the word count of each post to about 300 or so. I feel that some of these postings are too lengthy and say nothing. Thank you for providing this informative blog.
Dymphna and Baron,
What a day! I have to add to it, though — sometimes I just can’t help myself. I would love to meet you two — the first time I read here you were taking a walk of some kind and it was so nice and friendly feeling that I kept coming back (years ago). This is a very educational site and I wish, really wish, that PC wasn’t so all-pervasive that this country can’t just discuss the dangers we are facing. But that is wishful thinking.
Keep up the good work!
Oh, and Dymphna, it’s my sister! I love her because she’s my sister and Mom said to keep an eye on her (I’m the older responsible one, she is the more adventurous, shall we say, one) but. . . how far can you go? I remember some of your posts about your childhood and family. But only vaguely at this point — is there somewhere where one can look back into the past of the posts that have been posted here in the past?
Sorry! I was just having fun with that sentence. But I do wonder if it’s possible.
Bottom line: You both do good and needed work and I will always support you in that effort. I want you two to be as popular as CNN!! Or something like it (no I don’t watch that stuff).
I really just wish there were some way to educate the public about the dangers we face today. Back in the 50’s or so, we all knew about Communism and its dangers but today we seem to not know about current dangers and why is that?
That would be a worthy post — explain it to us (or me). . . why don’t we know anything at all unless we troll alternative (so-called) media?
Why are the Germans being told lies about New Year’s Eve or Sylvester night, as they call it? WHY? My head hurts.
Although your post wasn’t addressed to me, I feel I can answer some of your inquiries. Hopefully you won’t mind that.
At the top of the website, the various tabs there allow you to access some previous posts. The only way I know of other than that is to click the older posts link that comes up at the bottom of the homepage.
Interestingly, there is a book by Diana West called American Betrayal which talks about how Communism infiltrated America more deeply than was previously thought and links this to the phenomenon of people lying constantly about the totalitarian nature of Islam. She also writes regular blogs on her website that are quite good. The link to the book is there as well. ( http://dianawest.net/ )
The reason the mainstream media doesn’t talk about the topics this website deals with is because they are owned by large corporations or very rich people, all of whom have their own agenda to pursue. Talking about Islam and the like would mark them as being outside the ‘progressive’ bubble. Many fear being criticised in this manner because they might lose out on business. For example, The company Macy’s stopped selling Donald Trump’s clothing range. In the UK, where I live, the government of Scotland took away his status as a business ambassador. Luckily he had sufficient funds to prevent that having an impact. And he doesn’t have an audience to keep happy, like newspapers do.
Also, the majority of the media is filled with progressive types who simply won’t believe anything on this website or other alternative websites such as Breitbart News ( http://www.breitbart.com ), no matter the (massive amounts of) evidence.
Germany has a very special problem. They are one of the most progressive liberal countries in Europe. Much of the population doesn’t think that Islam is a problem or that massive immigration numbers could possibly cause trouble. The government are very controlling of anything remotely anti-Islam or anti-immigration. This is partially driven by the Chancellor there, Angela Merkel, having been an ex-Communist. Communists of course don’t like the existence of opposition, let alone an opposition that tries to voice its concerns. The German people, like liberals everywhere, believe that websites like this can’t possibly be truthful ( as with the journalists and media people )so they simply won’t look at it. Hence they are kept in the oblivion of ignorance. However there are dissidents in Germany that dare to challenge the consensus. Unfortunately they are usually silenced by intimidation or terribly inaccurate/rude/nasty etc media portrayals.
Hope this helps!
ArchMage
Diana West and her book “American Betrayal” are entirely unknown to the proprietors of this site, its essayists and regular commenters.
I couldn’t resist.
My, aren’t you in a mood 😉
American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character
The reviews are wonderful. I love this one:
—–
And this from a Russian in Petersburg:
Read more of this comment, here:
http://smile.amazon.com/review/R14BIGOS55L9W3/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B008BU71BM&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books
Parts of it are heart-breaking, especially the evidence he saw of American military having been in the gulags, left there to labor and die.
I was indeed!
So Obama and Ebola can no longer co-mingle in the comments section? They seem to have been made for each other and the Prezzy has done so much to bring Ebola to America! In fact, it seems he only started importing all those precious refugees after the Ebola outbreaks were contained, he must have been sooo lonely….
My apologies for past comments, including my usual way of referring to Obama (recognizable to someone else who may know some Hakka Chinese) and to Hillary Clinton.
Apology accepted, gladly. Just saw another muzz that I made go away. Sigh.
I HAVE to finish Tommy’s book. I don’t have to read comments from people who continue to ignore the rules.
“Just saw another muzz that I made go away.”
Don’t you see that you just “violated” your own specious rules, by announcing your censorship?! You just used that same word! [Ad-hominem redacted]?!
[Profanity], I tire of this…
Dear Dymphna, I think that there is another annexation going on as well. The insidious creep of arabic words into the English lexicon with many of us not knowing the true meaning or what they mean by their meaning.
For years they said that islam was the religion of peace. Islam translates as submission, salaam translates as peace.
I now search and use the English translations of these words and names. Ramadan is the month of intense heat which is curious as their lunar calendar cycles back by about eleven days per year and can, therefore, be at any time of the year.
There is a new arabic phrase in European papers today – tahharush gamea – multiple men sexually assaulting women in a public space. See Cologne.
Ugh. I do use their doctrinal terms – sharia, taqiyya, etc., but the ugly physical stuff they do? Nope. I don’t want to know the Arabic for decapitation or pushing a wall over on homosexuals as the preferred perversion of execution.
I wonder who came up with that one? Islam came out of the Arab desert tribes. Barbarians, all.
“Islam came out of the Arab desert tribes.”
Extremely limited thinking. It came from ONE tribe – the Hashemites.
I’m glad you are doing this. All the rancor and ad hominems merely reflect badly on those who use them and generate much heat and little light. The issues raised here are serious, and you won’t win the battle with schoolyard taunts, but with well reasoned arguments and facts.
“All the rancor… merely reflect(s) badly on those who use [it] and generate(s) much heat and little light.”
Oh, well – excuse me while I exercise a little rancor. I am NOT interested in [insulting characterizations redacted].
I am interested in defending the women of Cologne, for instance,
I agree with your policy on ad hominem and insult instead of argument. We need to convince, and explanation with reasons stand to persuade more than name-calling, which the leftists do so well. With only insults you only know something is bad. If you know why, you can fight longer and harder, which is why the Republican armies in the Spanish Civil War had Political Officers to explain the “why”, and why Americans taken prisoner during the Korean War had a hard time resisting Communist Propaganda.
That being said, when frustration gets bad enough, it can be satisfying to sing “Der Fuehrer’s Face.”
“…and why Americans taken prisoner during the Korean War had a hard time resisting Communist Propaganda.”
Huh?! This is ISLAM we’re talking about – not Communists! [Insulting imperative redacted].
PJ, please get over yourself. Swearing, like shouting, weakens your credibility, shows disrespect to all of us, and I daresay Dymphna has enough to cope with, not that she needs my help.
PJ
Home unexpectedly early, I have trudged wearily through your numerous comments on this thread, objecting to your being “censored” (and contradicting pedantically, eg “It’s not ‘tribes’, it’s one tribe, the Hashemites!”, wherever conceivable). This site upholds standards of decorum for the benefit of readers who enjoy such and eschew vulgarity. Very simple.
You are new to this site. If you don’t like those standards, don’t visit it. The proprietors have built it from scratch at their own expense and as a private forum they can enforce whatever rules of behaviour they wish because it is owned and operated by them. They can ban people with an Irish background if they want. Or a Jewish one. Those who have been visiting the site for many years do so precisely because of those standards of decorum. See, for example, the comments of Robert Morgan, StraightShooter, skzion, Belisarius and Sleepyjohn. And yes, the regulars here do like the “tone”; a notion you disparage, even as a non-musical concept evidently.
I note that you assert that the male co-proprietor of this site is out of his intellectual depth. Quite a claim, given that you have had a very limited exposure to his work – unless you have been reading this site for eight years whilst restraining yourself from offering a single comment, a state of affairs I very much doubt based on the number and content of comments you have made on this thread.
Apparently you make this “intellectual depth” claim because that co-proprietor redacted your word “nonsense” to “[adjective …]” You are indeed correct: “nonsense” is not an adjective – my congratulations on your mastery of the language – “nonsensical” is the adjective. “It is nonsense” is incorrect English, correct English is “It is a nonsense”. Alternatively you make the claim because: it’s bold and assertive; you feel good doing so; or you’re just being the strong, proud, black woman that you indubitably are. How gracious of that co-proprietor to acknowledge to you that he is out of his intellectual depth. I see that you were chuffed by this and accordingly became momentarily gracious (Jan 12, 3.26pm). Yet you failed to detect the inherent sarcasm, the tongue-in-cheek quality. Perceptive fellow aren’t you?
In addressing the same co-proprietor, you write:
“And your analogy of a person coming into your house, spewing profanities – that that gives you the “right” to throw them out…NO – you don’t have a RIGHT to do that under the law. You have a lawful action that is possible under the law – not a RIGHT.”
The distinction you attempt to, badly, draw here is a bankrupt one. And your last sentence is [material without meaning]. Read it again, carefully: “You have a lawful action that …”? It is a freedom to engage in an action made possible by the law. In short, a right.
You write, appropos this site’s rules on civility:
“Civility will not help. Force is the only thing. I have lived and worked amongst these people in the ME for 10 years.
Get it through your head. They don’t understand civility.”
I agree (apart from the use of the word “through” instead of “into” – we wouldn’t want ideas going through someone’s head would we? Better that they stay in people’s heads, agree?), but it is a non-sequitur. Do you not appreciate that there is a yawning chasm, in fact a complete non-connect, between being required to being civil in one’s written contributions on a “Counter-Jihadist” website such as this and being civil in policy and personal actions towards Muslims?
I note that you invoke the claim: “I’ve studied these things for more than four decades …” (or words to that effect) and by implication you are asserting you axiomatically know better than someone who hasn’t studied them for four decades. Anyone who “studies” anything for over four decades, assuming that studying is all that one has done professionally speaking, has wasted their life. Unless they have done so in the “hard” sciences: genetics, immunology, polymer chemistry, mechanical engineering, epidemiology etc.
I’m guessing that you are a legal academic – given your breezily confident assertions such as “You’re half right” and your stark contradiction of the co-proprietor’s assertion regarding this site being beyond the constitutional parameters of the US’s free speech laws by reason of it being a private, voluntarily visited forum and thus exempt. Why don’t you test your proposition in the courts? One can just see the SCOTUS ruling that a website must publish/cannot delete or cannot redact any comment submitted to it.
You seem to have taken delight in your “riposte” – evidently a ‘gotcha’ moment for you – that you never claimed to have a “PhD”, but rather, having a “Doctorate”. If indeed you have any one of the species in that genus of qualification (the co-proprietor ran through the gamut of them, but, from memory, omitted Doctor of Laws; abbreviated to LL.D for those who may encounter LL.D one day and wonder), you have a “doctorate” not a “Doctorate”.
In my experience, people who bother to obtain doctorates in the social sciences, law, divinity, etc, generally do so because they crave the instantly recognizable status and are prepared to devote four years of their lives to get that “Dr” appellation before their names. Very often they are the first person in their family to have acquired a tertiary qualification – grandpa was an illiterate coal miner and grandma a pit pony. Dad had a car dealership. Does this ring a bell PJ? One told me it, ie getting a “Dr” before your name, was very useful with airlines in getting upgrades and deferential treatment from clerks and stewardesses. An admirable purpose for using society’s tertiary educational resources.
I also note that you seem to be very keen on precision in language, grammar, etc, in others. Yet you write the following: “How does that serve the greater issue of Free-Speech?” Why the upper casings? Why the hyphen? There are many more … oddities … for someone with a doctorate. And the whole words in upper case? In government, when people write letters to Ministers/Cabinet Secretaries containing such, they, the writers, are deemed “Shouties” and their correspondence gets placed in special in-tray emptied nightly by the janitoriat.
You responded to Jc’s comment by quoting a part of it:
”[sic] I had to look up what “mooslimes” meant. Doh! I feel so naive.”
and then stating with ineffable superiority and disdain only:
“You’re naivety is indicative of [ad-hominem redacted].
PJ”
Now that’s a weighty, intelligent, thought-provoking comment isn’t it? One guaranteed to generate debate and contribute generally to the enlightenment of readers. And, oh yes, protect those girls in Koln. I trust by the last example of yours that I have extracted that, if not you, then other readers can see why this site has rules on civility and grants itself the right to redact comments. I suspect it was published /not deleted for this precise purpose. Mark H has suggested that you “get over yourself”. An apt use of that colloquialism/vernacular expression if ever there was one.
Righty ho then, you fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic proprietors of GoV! In the 5th paragraph of my comment you redacted my “a nonsense” to “[material without meaning]”! How dare you! The gall! The effrontery! I am outraged! Raged out! Infringe my First Amendment rights would you!? (En passant: do Australians have such rights in the States? Even though they are not physically IN the States? Do dual UK-Oz citizens?) I’m taking my bat and ball and going home. To Windex my framed PhD, LL.D and, with special affection, my Doctorate in Phrenology. You can’t miss them when you come to my place: I had purposefully constructed a short return wall in the hallway, two metres in from the front door, had my three Doctorates enlarged by a factor of five and then hung them in a column on that wall. The couriers who deliver stuff here are always impressed.