We’re endlessly browbeaten by the so-called liberals in politics and the MSM into having a ‘civilised debate’, or a ‘decorous discourse’ on the issues that divide us. A good example lies with US Attorney General Eric Holder, a black interloper from the Caribbean, who referred to his benefactors as ‘a nation of cowards’ for not having the courage for such an interaction.
They also warn us against jumping to conclusions and targeting any ethnic or religious group. Thus even after the Ford Hood assassin was shown to have been a regular correspondent at jihadi web sites, and triumphantly shouted ‘Allah akbar’ after the killings, we were sternly enjoined from drawing premature conclusions or ‘stereotyping any religious or racial group’.
Ah yes. It could easily have been the Quakers I suppose.
Yet the victims in the recent Arizona massacre had hardly hit ground before the establishment were clambering over their bodies to link the perp with American Renaissance. Which they described, of course, as a white nationalist ‘hate site’. No problem here, notwithstanding the complete lack of any evidence, with drawing premature conclusions or ‘stereotyping any religious or racial group’.
Any unfortunate soul brave enough to venture onto the peecee reservation and point this out is howled down by these civilised discussion seekers. The Huffington Post or Daily Kos features dozens along the lines of ‘how dare you come onto this site to spew your hate’, followed by calls for the moderator to delete the unwelcome comments.
Such is their commitment to ‘a civilised national debate’.
I'm in Slovenia as the moment doing some work for a very large corporation. During a break I tried to log on to this (Irish Savant) site. Red flashing lights. I asked a colleague to translate.
Here’s what it said.
“It is contrary to [company X] Internet policy to access this site which features hate and discrimination. Additional access attempts will result in disciplinary action’.
Yeah – some debate, isn’t it?