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.
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.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
11/10/2009 03:49:00 PM
22 Comments:
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.
As a leftist, does Obama support radical Islamism?
He sure doesn't speak out against it.
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.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/11/video-pamela-geller-in-texas.html
cheers, I'm an American gal living in Auckland...
LisaGinNZ
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.
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...?
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.
Cheers
Sam Buchanan
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.
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!
Racial profiling involves race - maybe you could learn to read Lisa???
When the Russians invaded Afghanistan was Trevor Loudon rooting for the so called terrorists or the Ruskies...my money is on him backing the Muj. The Muj is cool when they're killing commies see...
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.
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"?
This site will blow you all out of the water... juuuust a bit of reading + some cool Bond music...
http://go.to/islamhistory
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!!!
MEC7991
"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?
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?
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.
So do you or don't support racial profiling? And do you think racial profiling is consistent with libertarianism?
"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?
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?
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.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home