Minitrue
Read Robert Stacy McCain's piece on the AP memo re Ground Zero Mosque coverage.
What is encouraging is that up until recently, average folks outside the news biz wouldn't ever learn of these kinds of shenanigans.
Now, in the post-Journolist environment, the good guys in the news biz are getting the Ministry of Truth's directive out into daylight almost immediately.
And thus, the mainstream media continues to spin itself into oblivion.
Good riddance.
posted by Concerned American | 12:30 AM
10 Comments:
The "A Socialist Press," as I have called them for years.
Every mistake -- or propaganda nugget -- they disseminate gets repeated in 95% of the newspapers and broadcast media, and if those are the only places you get your information, of course you're not aware of any mistakes. Just the way they like it.
Just as state and local law enFORCErs follow the federal model of behavior, so to do local journalists imitate THEIR heroes. Conversely, local spin or ignorance stays in stories the AP picks up for national distribution. Witness the LIE that Appalachian School of Law students "tackled" multiple murderer Peter Odighizuwa. No, two of them pointed their handguns at him and he didn't want to get shot.
Most media ... er, WELCOME comments from their audience on their websites. They don't want to hear what they're doing to bring about their own demise, though, just fan mail.
What they WANT doesn't matter. It's what they NEED.
Only the left was calling it the Ground Zero mosque. No one, including the victims' families, was claiming the mosque was being built "on Ground Zero."
Anyway, who the f*ck cares? The idea that Muslims want to build a mosque anywhere in the near vicinity is ridiculous, and Muslims know it. This is a calculated insult, and further proves that Islam is not a religion of peace or reconciliation.
I would be very surprised if this mosque finally does get started, and even more surprised if it ever got finished. Take that for what it's worth.
I'm starting to have a Minority Report moment.
While it may be true that the AP is getting central policy directives...
Really? Do the Mohammedans (I will not call their religion "Islam/submission to God's" because I do not believe their religion was inspired by God, as that would be a contradiction of scripture, and therefore, their cult is not a submission to God's will, but a contradiction of God's will) not have the right to build whatever they want on their own private property? It's poor judgment for them to build it there at best, and malicious at worst, but damn, people, it's their property, and last I checked, this was still America, though an America under a fascist state.
Aegis:
As a thought experiment, if it could be demonstrated that
a) Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian political system antithetical to the values and principles of Western civilization, and
b) the GZM is part of the worldwide Islamic campaign to demoralize and defeat the West
would you say the same?
Think a National Socialist German Workers' Party cultural revival and cultural center being built in Tel Aviv.
Or a brace of barges permanently anchored to starboard and port of the USS Arizona memorial in Pearl Harbor celebrating the revival and advancement of Nippon's Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Or a memorial to Stalin and the inevitable triumph of Soviet Communism in the woods of Katyn.
Or a Japanese Self-Defense Force Advanced School of the Bayonet and Comfort House in Nanking, China.
Islam delenda est.
"As a thought experiment, if it could be demonstrated that
a) Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian political system antithetical to the values and principles of Western civilization, and
b) the GZM is part of the worldwide Islamic campaign to demoralize and defeat the West
would you [still defend their freedom of religion]?"
I'm not Aegis, but anyone who wouldn't defend their freedom of religion is a liberal. Liberty is an integrated, interrelated whole. Infringing on the 1st amendment is no better than infringing on the 2nd amendment. Do you support reasonable regulation of weapons? How about automatic weapons? Unregistered homemade weapons? RPGs? Artillery? Cruise missiles? Nuclear ICBMs carried on nuclear submarines? Many people trust the collective State to be on average less evil than individuals. History shows this is a mistake.
If your worldview says that truth comes down through a hierarchy of authority, but you've put a man labeled "pharaoh" or "king" or "pope" or "president" in the top spot on Earth, what features remain to distinguish between a religious or political system? Fundamentalist Islam IS a totalitarian political system antithetical to the values and principles of Western civilization. Of course, so is fundamentalist Christianity, fundamentalist eco-green, etc. Any worldview that says truth is determined by any means other than comparison with physical evidence.
"Islam delenda est."
You're barking up the wrong tree. Islam isn't the entity regulating guns or running up unsustainable debt in the US. Islam isn't the entity banning a Japanese victory monument at Pearl. I'm not saying a former enemy's victory monument on a battlefield isn't an outrage. I'm claiming a morally correct legal system stands mute about it.
Concerned American,
Insofar as Mohammedans are members of a cult that was founded by a man (probably with the help of a demon: after all, "Allah" refers to himself in the plural several times in the Quran, and the Mohammedans are not trinitarians), and was and still is primarily spread by fear and force, and mandates a State to keep it going, then it is absolutely a political cult and not a religion. But there are many Muslims who believe they are worshipping the One True God. I'm not going to fault them for that until they start throwing rocks at adulteresses and blowing themselves up for "Allah," meaning, "The god."
Islam must be destroyed, yes. But you can only destroy an ideology in two ways: one, by destroying every one of its adherents (and not even 40% of Mohammedans are the true Mohammedans, out to slay the infidel wherever they find them. They're lukewarm, and hence, not dangerous.) Such an effort would not only be heinous genocide, but it would also backfire.
The second way to destroy Islam is to convert them all, and the best way to do that is by living an exemplary life, as a true follower of Christ. Islam is an ideology. It is a bad ideology. You cannot destroy any ideology itself with violence. You can only destroy a bad ideology by replacing it with a good ideology. You can only fight lies with the Truth.
Now, as for your examples: yes, my answer would be the same. If the vile KKK, as much as I despise their slimy organization and think they're a bunch of punks, wanted to buy a building in Oakland and set up a meeting house, I would not prohibit them from doing so. If they bought the building, it's theirs. If people really wanted to do something proactive instead of fume about this, they'd put their money where their mouths are and buy out the lease from under them.
Telling other people where and what they can't build on their own property is not an American trait. It's a fascist trait, and it will come back to bite anyone who embraces it.
Someone pointed out that there are MILLIONS of square feet of commercial property available in Manhattan. Certainly much of it is less expensive, more conveniently located, etc.
The Cordoba House -- named for the Moorish Caliphate in Spain that nearly conquered western Europe entire -- is a political statement and a vicory dance.
I respect private property rights too, but if they're looking for sensitivity and tolerance, they should SHOW SOME.
If Islam were merely another religion, there would be little debate over the proposed mosque. Sadly, Islam is far from being just another faith. Religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and in practice, Islam is a system of government first - a brutal, militaristic, totalitarian system of government - and a religion - a government religion - second.
The argument that approximately 60% of Muslims are "lukewarm" is of little comfort, if one bothers with the obvious math: the remaining (approximate) 40% - the acknowledged fanatics and their ardent supporters - number somewhere north of 400 million. Beyond that, 600 million lukewarm followers (consent) are far more dangerous than 600 million standing united against the oppression (dissent). Western civilization cannot, as claimed above, prevail against 400 million enemy fanatics by "leading an exemplary life, as a true follower of Christ." It is at best naive to think that any group of humans can lead an exemplary life anyway. (We had a better chance at this than most, and look what we've done with it.) Then comes the obvious truth that there are times when such passivity is not just inappropriate, but immoral. As His crucifixion drew near, Christ himself admonished his disciples to buy swords, even if it meant selling their clothes. This is just such a time. Turning the other cheek accomplishes nothing beyond exposing the jugular. Christianity is not a suicide pact with evil, regardless of perverse insinuations to the contrary.
The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact either. It's actually quite the opposite. Only a jackass can claim to be honoring the First Amendment by welcoming practitioners of an enemy doctrine that spawns precisely the oppression it was written to prevent. It is not in any way contrary to the First Amendment to deny an oppressive state religion a foothold in America.
This is the difference between being legalistic, which we see everywhere these days, and being moral, which we hardly see at all. Any nation can write laws (they all do) but very few have ever produced a legitimately moral code. We did, and that's what once set us apart. America was built on that moral code, by the controlled immigration of people who wanted to actively live by that code and enjoy the freedom it produced. Quotas were set, and the importation of our enemies was once recognized for the madness it is. Such people came here, of course, but if they hated the place or couldn't make it, they mostly went back home. If they stayed, it meant they had found some measure of success and had succumbed to societal pressure to become part of things. No more. The notion that immigrants should assimilate has been replaced by a cowardly willingness to let them annihilate. Now we not only import the hostile, we look the other way as millions more sneak in. Once here, we educate them, subsidize them, build them foot baths at our airports and pretend it's OK that they impose themselves and their dark ways at any place and in every place, including ground zero.
It's not OK. Not at all.
Islam is not our greatest threat. Legalistic acceptance of the oppression it represents is what frightens me. I dread what's coming in America. With all the legalistic thinkers among us, embracing one form of oppression or another, we're gonna need real blind luck to avoid ushering in another police state after the current one collapses.
III
FPG
"If Islam were merely another religion, there would be little debate over the proposed mosque. Sadly, Islam is far from being just another faith. Religion and government are joint tenants in Islam, and in practice, Islam is a system of government first - a brutal, militaristic, totalitarian system of government - and a religion - a government religion - second."
A totalitarian regime with little distinction between government and religious authority is nothing new or unique to Islam. The Spanish Inquisition did this for Catholicism. The Nazis did this for Paganism. The Soviets did this for atheism! Current American liberal watermelons are doing this for eco-green Gaia worship. Clap your hands or the polar bears will die.
"The argument that approximately 60% of Muslims are "lukewarm" is of little comfort, if one bothers with the obvious math: the remaining (approximate) 40%"
And half of Christian America is rah-rah about American military colonialism. Nothing new or unique to Islam here.
"Only a jackass can claim to be honoring the First Amendment by welcoming practitioners of an enemy doctrine that spawns precisely the oppression it was written to prevent. It is not in any way contrary to the First Amendment to deny an oppressive state religion a foothold in America."
Your statement assumes that government will convert people to a religion by the sword. However, remove the compulsory conversion, and believers in nutty religions will suffer the consequences of their error in the marketplace.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home