Trevor Loudon's New Zeal blog has moved to

redirecting you there now

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

How PCism Kills

The Fort Hood massacre is yet another example of the dangers of PCism.

The West is thoroughly infiltrated by people intent on destroying our civilization.

Racial profiling laws and PCism means that most Western nations bend over backwards to give our enemies the benefit of the doubt.

Our enemies don't respect our tolerance-they regard it as weakness.

There needs to be a concerted effort to root out radical Islamists and their leftist allies from all important Western institutions.

The enemy is not "over there". It is here.

We need to recognize that fact and take appropriate action.

Anything less is irresponsible cowardice.


Blogger 1776 said...

I really don't know what it is going to take. It is mind boggling. Red flags have been everywhere for a very long time and are being ignored. We will keep having these terrorists attacks whether it's the loner or the cell. It won't be long before the suicide bombers surface in America.

5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a leftist, does Obama support radical Islamism?

6:25 PM  
Blogger 1776 said...

He sure doesn't speak out against it.

6:41 PM  
Blogger Lisa G in NZ said...

What is going in USA and Europe: Islam is NOT compatible with the West. Period.

Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs explains well. She's worth a listen if you haven't been to her blog or heard her: she is good.

cheers, I'm an American gal living in Auckland...


10:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right cause America wasn't founded on immigration was it? Or is it only white christian immigration that you are in favour of? As a "libertarian" you should be able to come up with a better argument than this? Aren't you in favour of the free flow of capital (and with that people)? But no trev and soon and things get a bit tricky you run back to your conservative safety blanket.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Lisa G in NZ said...

to brave no-name anonymous:

Immigration only works a) when people come in legally and b) when the people assimilate into the prevalant culture of their new 'homeland' including laws, language, etc.

In the case of Muslims, instead of following shar-iah law (however it is spelled), they would eg need to follow American law.

So sorry, boys: no more stoning or beheading of your wives, girlfriends and children. No more killing of innocents/others to please Allah / Muhammed (or whatever) and become the martyr who gets virgins (or something).

See how it works?

How about another question: how is the immigration of Muslims working out in France? England?
...seems quite crappily since they've gone the appeasement route. They are in deep doo doo.

At least Australia lays down the law (correctly in my book).

American better take notice. Have you seen how American lamestream mainstream media have fallen all over themselves this week to NOT say it was a jihad? (give me a friggin' break "vicarious PTSD" does not exist)...

P.S. name a county where Islam is the dominant ideology and what contributions do they make to the world? how are the human rights? education? treatment of women...?

10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow - you're really stretching it trying to blame this on "the left" or "PCism" aren't you Trev?

The US government is desperate to avoid its policies being seen to have a religious or anti-Arab basis in order to keep its allies in Saudi, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere sweet and you're advocating playing into the hands of militant Islam by turning everything into a "West vs the rest" conflict. Who's side are you on again?

"The enemy is not "over there". It is here."

Fort Hood isn't in New Zealand, Trev. We need to recognize that fact and take appropriate action.


Sam Buchanan

11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trev this is a bunch of racist shit

"There needs to be a concerted effort to root out radical Islamists and their leftist allies from all important Western institutions"

What the hell are you talking about? You do realise you are promoting racism and discrimination on the basis of religion? What the hell happened to your libertarian values?

There are radical crazy nutbag christians out there that carry out stupid acts all the time, that doesnt mean we need to root out christians and their sympathisers.

"We need to recognize that fact and take appropriate action.

Anything less is irresponsible cowardice."

What the hell are you suggesting, real smart leaving it ambiguous, allowing people to draw their own meaning from the message no matter how hateful that that is.

Up until now I thought you simply had a different perspective on the world but were fundamentally a decent person. This latest post is sick. Its reactionary crap.

11:39 AM  
Blogger Lisa G in NZ said...

Islam/muslim is NOT a race therefore being against it cannot be racism.

It is an IDEOLOGY.

Go rant elsewhere, we aren't buying your snake oil.

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Dominique said...

I just love your blog. It is funny that you covered this because my article for tomorrow is titled Fort Hood: Deadly consequences of Political Correctness. Seems you and I came to the same conclusion on this one!

1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racial profiling involves race - maybe you could learn to read Lisa???

7:43 PM  
Blogger 1776 said...

There is something called secondary PTSD, but it doesn't apply in Hasan's case though, and I get really pissed when I hear people use 2nd PTSD as an excuse for him. It's PC BS.

I find it interesting that thousands of suicide bombers overseas that follow Islam are not considered people that just snap, they are terrorists; but when one does it here he is a lone nut case that snapped. All the facts known to date prove his heinous act was done in the name of Islam. In my mind that puts him in the terrorist category. Any normal American Soldier that would snap and want to get out of a deployment would have just quietly committed suicide, just how it is.

I am no expert of religious studies, but I have been wracking my brain to think of another religion that instills the belief if you aren't one of us we will blow you up to take out as many as we can, and the religion is hell bent on infiltrating and ruling the world through murder and fear. Wiccans, Jews, Christians, Hindu, Mormons, Buddhists & Taoists (not a religion, but a practice) don't go around killing innocent people in the name of their Gods or beliefs. There is that one group of homophobe crazies that harass the fallen at funerals, but still, they don't mow people down or blow them up. They are just plain ol' psychos.

And I will give that there are indeed a few fundamental Christian types that have lost it over abortion, but the line pretty much stays drawn w/abortion, they don't go around attacking the general population. And it is a lone few not an entire network of people. I have no concern that they want to take out 3,000 people. It is an oxymoron to kill a human being in the name of life of a fetus, both are murder. However, abortion isn't my biggest issue, so I don't really pay much attention, but I do pay attention to fundamentalists that thrive on using their religion as an excuse, or belief to do terrorism around the world. So in my mind there is a BIG difference when referring to radical crazy nut bag Christians as opposed to Islam. It's an insult to lump them in the same category.

In Iraq when AQ wanted to persuade a village to not work w/Americans they would kidnap a child, invite the village to a meal and serve the child that had been baked like a roasted pig. Needless to say it was an effective tool. They would go around chopping off innocent people's head and line them up down the street, they look like pumpkins. A 12 year old boy accepted a soccer ball from an American Soldier so they chopped his head off to send a message to not take anything from Americans. I just can't think of any of group of religions that do this type of terror to persuade people that their religion is the right one and only one. Can you? I simply don't see that as that being a religion of peace.

There may be so called "moderate Muslims" that don't go running around taking out other people in the name of Allah, but they sure don't do a damn thing to speak out against those that do. A few weak attempts have been made over Hassan, but somehow I just can't buy that it's sincere. You are who you hang out with. A whack job Christian that takes out an abortion doc, will not get support from fellow Christians, perhaps forgiveness, but not cheering and declaring him a hero. Muslims come to our country and others, and expect and demand we change our laws, our way of life to accommodate them, accept their religion...what do they even leave their homeland for? The USA has absolutely nothing in common with all their principles. You want to live that way stay in your own damn country be happy freaking shira baby.

So ya know I just don't care for or like Muslims, or Leftists for that matter, so if that makes me an evil bad discriminating person, then I guess I am one. You can call it profiling, stereotyping, whatever you want, but damn, if the shoe fits, it fits.

9:01 PM  
Blogger Lisa G in NZ said...

To anonymous-the-coward, here is a little documentary about what is in the koran:

I'll repeat slowly, it isn't "racism" to be anti-Islam. It is not a "race". Do your research.

9:17 PM  
Anonymous Trevor Beck said...

When the Russians invaded Afghanistan was Trevor Loudon rooting for the so called terrorists or the money is on him backing the Muj. The Muj is cool when they're killing commies see...

11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Lisa G I was angered by Trev's reactionary posting that conflated several issues - racial profiling which is racist.

An attempt to conflate anti discrimination laws with violent extremism. It is attemps like thes which result in racist treatment of people that appear of arab descent as well as harrasment of muslims.

I think this latest post of trev's is silly and dangerous. Sure speak out against the dangers of extremism and your abhorrence for terrorism. However using that anger to justify racist treatment on the basis of appearance and discrimination on the basis of religion is sick and goes against Trev's often espoused libertarian views.

10:03 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

"I think this latest post of trev's is silly and dangerous. Sure speak out against the dangers of extremism and your abhorrence for terrorism. However using that anger to justify racist treatment on the basis of appearance and discrimination on the basis of religion is sick and goes against Trev's often espoused libertarian views."

So I guess if some crazy white Christian terrorist did just about the same thing a terrorist at Fort Hood who just happen to be Muslim did, would you oppose any profiling of white Christians who share the same message?

11:30 AM  
Blogger Lisa G in NZ said...

OK anonymous, I got ya. I still say Islam is not a "race" but perhaps we can agree to discuss commond ground

I believe Trevor's point was echoing how "political correctness" kills. Muslims are demanding Western countries bow down to their 'religion' (which is a conquering ideology). Western countries (eg UK and elsewhere) have already bent down to their demands... but all they get is more violence and more islamic extremism in their countries!

The Fort Hood shootings was down by an Islamic extremist bent on his religious Jihad. His mosque leader was involved in 9/11 planning. Mr. Hasan did not 'snap' but purposefully planned his terrorist attack.

This needs to be called what it is! A terrorist attack on a USA military base.

The W.House and USA media has gone so far down the road of placating muslims for the sake of political correctness, they can NOT call it a terror attack. Instead ABC news says Hasan and Islam are the "real victims".

Now do you understand what death by political correctness means? It means actual death... especially to Islamists who "love" death: that is their goal!

hopefully this was helpful...


4:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I note that Timothy McVeigh was a libertarian. Would you have supported profiling of white libertarians after the Oklahoma City bombing, Mah? Should they have been "rooted out"?

4:28 PM  
Blogger Lisa G in NZ said...

This site will blow you all out of the water... juuuust a bit of reading + some cool Bond music...

9:37 PM  
Blogger MEC7991 said...

Dear trevor
You are absolutely right ! We need to stop screwing around and really focus on taking out the terrorists! I have said for a while that when we start giving our enemies freedoms and rights to come into our land we might a well be planting a bomb on our own buildings ! We need to stop with the political correctness that is driving our country into the ground so lets stop messing around with not offending terrorists and get to taking them out of our country!!!

5:04 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

"I note that Timothy McVeigh was a libertarian. Would you have supported profiling of white libertarians after the Oklahoma City bombing, Mah? Should they have been "rooted out"?"

McVeigh wasn't a Libertarian. He was involved with neo-Nazis. What Libertarian messages did McVeigh promoted?

12:22 PM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

I also wonder why "anonymous" also ignores how McVeigh may have had help, not just from neo-Nazis, but al-Qaeda terrorists in the Philippines.

Dare I not suggest the obvious connection between the Nazis and radical Islamic terrorist link back to World War II?

12:30 PM  
Blogger Trevor Loudon said...

Amazing isn't it.

I advocate that the security services should be able to target groups that are known to harbor terrorists and that is somehow un libertarian.

If the KKK were murdering blacks, the FBI would be right to infiltrate white supremacist organizations.

If islamic terrorism is a threat, surely the security people should be monitoring and infiltrating and
profiling radical Islamic groups.

Makes sense to me.

Perfectly Libertarian to my way of thinking.

9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So do you or don't support racial profiling? And do you think racial profiling is consistent with libertarianism?

8:12 AM  
Blogger mah29001 said...

"So do you or don't support racial profiling? And do you think racial profiling is consistent with libertarianism?"

Why don't you ANSWER MY question, do you like to be an obvious hypocrite and only racial profile terrorists whom happen to be white Christians like what McVeigh was?

No other white Christians whine about profiling people like McVeigh. Why? Because they know that people like McVeigh don't represent their religion or views. But why is it people like you have the nerve to be so defensive over terrorists whom just happen to be Muslims?

Are you offended of the word "Muslim terrorist", but not "Christian terrorist"? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

10:01 AM  
Blogger Trevor Loudon said...

Anonymous-yes I support racial, ethnic, gender, reigious, political, age related and any other type of profiling by police or security authorities, to combat terrorism and crime.

Yes, i think this is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

Clear enough for you?

10:23 PM  
Anonymous Migel said...

Database focused policing is high risk, and the payoff is minimal compared to the loss of civil liberties. It does not prevent terrorism or organised criminal activity, but rather it hardens them.

The end result is that individuals receive a risk factor based on their political beliefs, random statements on facebook/bebo, random associations which may or may not be of any real significance, DNA profiling and eventually the discrimination that results from that level of state scrutiny.

This arbitrary approach of databasing a population begins with the extremist sectors, then filters to criminal gangs, then to crims, then to people with strong political opinions and then, well then there aren't that many left who are not profiled.

The problem then appears as a matter of means. The 'terorists', 'gangs' and 'organised criminal groups' who were used as the quasi-strawman to have such powers extended to law enforcement, learn a thing or two about countering surveillance because they are politically/religiously and economically motivated to do so. So the only groups that suffer under such regimes in the long run tend to be the 'normal people' going about their private business.

A quick look at DNA databasing, the first of the large scaled profiling databases shows that it was quite affective when only serious criminals were databased, but now that it has been extended to as many people as they can database, the quality of the results has dropped significantly and are now experiencing more and more false positive results, resulting in...much higher percentages of innocent people being dragged before courts purely based on the database compiled perception of evidence.

I do not see much libertarian views in that societal shift in policing and governance.

7:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home