Monthly Archives: May 2017

The Blogosphere Commentariat…To Flame or Not to Flame, THAT is the Question!

I must admit, that as a blogger, it is nice to get feedback on posts (both positive and negative that demonstrate what the readership thinks of one subject or another), so I understand on the more popular posts why the discussion seems to go on….and on….and on…until cut off by the blogger or ‘the next big discussion’ occurs.

Typically though, casual observation of the comments on many, many, many blogs and websites, depending on the ‘group think’ leanings of the blog or website’s ‘regulars,’ will be either down right kiss ups or nitpicks in an article or post’s purpose, complete with a lack of common courtesy and respect for the writer or the point he or she is trying to make.  Interesting to note that whether or not the blog or website is ‘left’ or ‘right’ or in between, the comments typically employ the same Alinsky-like tactics to differ with any idea or other commenter that might be in opposition with another commenter or writer:  Demonization; Conflation; Ad Hominem; Poisoning the Well (a type of fallacious attack), and so on, while not providing reason or logic to dispute an idea.

I believe it drives those who might be like-minded away from not only well-meaning and very instructive/entertaining blogs and websites, but more importantly from the ideology of Freedom and Self-Determination, especially those who may be on the other side and questioning their indoctrination.  It is my opinion that those who don’t moderate the commentariat on their own blogs or websites add to the problem.  But, truth be told, it’s their BBQ, and they can do as they wish, no matter how much of a disservice to the objective of restoring freedom non-moderation becomes.

My own suggestion?

Be polite; be courteous, and back up your comment with logic, reason, and your purpose.

If it were up to me (and it decidedly is not because I’m not in charge of anything but my own blog), I’d universally limit comments to those adding to the conversation.  Gone would be the ‘I agree and you rock’ comments (because these don’t add to the conversation, either) as well as the rugged individualist contrarian for the sake of contrariness comments.  The general ‘fuck you’ comments would not be deleted provided they demonstrated why the writer disagreed, and even if wrong, were logical and well constructed, and were not ad hominem in nature.  If they were a basic flame comment, well, then, ‘Bye’!

There’s a reason for this mindset:  First, too many people use the keyboard to vent their spleens without accountability or consequence and call it, “Freedom of Speech,” without actually understanding that ‘freedom’ doesn’t mean license to say whatever one wishes without consequence.  My perception is that many people see a blog comment section as a ‘chat room’ placed there for personal entertainment.  Maybe some are, but the more relevant blogs and web sites cause me to doubt it.  Secondly, the right commenters seem to scream about, ‘freedom of speech’, ensconced in the Bill of Rights deals with government infringement on that right, not private individuals exercising authority over a private blog or web site.

Hence, the rules here when one decides to comment:

“Feel free to comment! Debates are welcome, so long as they add to the discussion. Ad hominem attacks, accusations, uncontrolled vitriol, thread hijacks, personal threats, or any comment that otherwise detracts from DTG’s stated mission will not be approved or posted. Repeat violators will be banned.”

In other words, add to the conversation, or your comment won’t be published.  Yes, I understand.  That’s not what some commenters are used to….but when you get down to it, it’s very similar to ‘control measures’ on a shooting range.  Everything within the bounds of the controls ensures that the chance for an injury/casualty are minimized to as low degree as possible.

So, commenters can disagree, debate, argue, criticize, but anything submitted must add to the conversation.  Personal attacks don’t qualify.  Saying, “you suck” doesn’t qualify.  Be constructive in any criticism.  Constructive criticism is not simply saying, “You suck,” or “fuck you,” and leaving it at that.  Rather, it’s explaining why the writer sucks by providing reasons or information that proves the writer is in error, and then providing a way for the party being disagreed with to gain some understanding.

It’s impossible to convince people that ‘our’ side is better than ‘the other guy’s’ when ‘our’ side seems to be a slightly different side of the same coin when reading typical statements from the commentariat…we have a choice:  Do we use the blogosphere to help and ‘force multiply’ or stroke our own egos by becoming a ‘fuck you’ chorus?

I think the choice is clear.  What are your thoughts?

Men of the West: Founding Fathers on Islam

Well, so much for the, “Islam has been part of the United States since its founding…” garbage.  Check the original post, here.

FOUNDING FATHERS ON ISLAM

In the modern age, tolerance has been held up as a paramount virtue. Well, at least as long as your personal views are not Christian or characteristic of traditional Western Culture. We have those on the left who argue that this age of tolerance is holding to the American Founding Fathers’ ideals.

Poppycock.

Let’s take one topic, Islam, and see how the Founding Father felt about it. How tolerant were they?

John Adams claimed that Mohammed was a military fanatic who denied that laws were made for him and arrogated everything to himself by force of arms.  Adam’s did own a copy of the Koran, and this is found in the preface of that edition:

This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible …

Adam’s son, John Quincy Adams, wrote:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind …The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature … As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

How about Ben Franklin? He pointed out that “Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

Thomas Jefferson, arguing that peace was not possible with fanatical Muslims, wrote:

“The ambassador answered us that [the right to kill non-muslims] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Jefferson even went to war against the Barbary Muslim Pirates in 1805, demonstrating his views.

Joseph Story, argued for the preeminence of Christianity over Islam:

[I]t is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects….

Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.

Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation…the real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

James Iredell had some thoughts, as well:

But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices…. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

James Madison, arguing against a particular Bill before Congress stated:

Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions.

Elias Boudinot forcefully argued against Islam:

Mahomet aimed to establish his pretensions to divine authority, by the power of the sword and the terrors of his government; while he carefully avoided any attempts at miracles in the presence of his followers, and all pretences to foretell things to come. His acknowledging the divine mission of Moses and Christ confirms their authority as far as his influence will go while their doctrines entirely destroy all his pretensions to the like authority…. And now, where is the comparison between the supposed prophet of Mecca, and the Son of God; or with what propriety ought they to be named together?…The difference between these characters is so great, that the facts need not be further applied.

Ethan Allen stated:

Mahomet taught his army that the “term of every man’s life was fixed by God, and that none could shorten it, by any hazard that he might seem to be exposed to in battle or otherwise,” but that it should be introduced into peacable [sic] and civil life, and be patronized by any teachers of religion, is quite strange, as it subverts religion in general, and renders the teaching of it unnecessary…. [We] are liable to be imposed upon by impostors, or by ignorant and insidious teachers, whose interest it may be to obtrude their own systems on the world for infallible truth, as in the instance of Mahomet.

Jedidiah Morse also shared thoughts on the difference between a Christian culture and one that held to Islam:

The foundations which support the interest of Christianity, are also necessary to support a free and equal government like our own. In all those countries where there is little or no religion, or a very gross and corrupt one, as in Mahometan and Pagan countries, there you will find, with scarcely a single exception, arbitrary and tyrannical governments, gross ignorance and wickedness, and deplorable wretchedness among the people. To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoy. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation, either through unbelief, or the corruption of its doctrines, or the neglect of its institutions; in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom, and approximate the miseries of complete despotism.

OK, while not technically a Founding Father, few men are more “American” than General George S. Patton, who pointed out:

One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity.

 

So it is obvious that the Founding Fathers, and those who carried on their tradition have held to the value of Christianity and what it provides a culture, while considering Islam as a horrible evil.  Some were more strenuous than others in their opinions, but we would be wise to revisit their wisdom. As we have argued on this site repeatedly [see here, here, and here], it is time for Muslims to go home. They have no place in a Civilized, Western Culture.

It’s Coming…We Must Steel Ourselves in Heart, Mind, and Body

What, you may ask?  Simply the 10th* (yes, there actually were 9 of them in the Middle Ages) Crusade.  Each day that goes by, the Invader presses our culture and society with probes to see how much he can get away with.  Europe is under siege and is being taken because, simply, they have no Hope, no unifying belief to defend.

Here, many are under the false impression that Christians must sit and watch their culture, cities, towns, villages, families, women and children be pillaged, raped, and murdered while ‘turning the other cheek.’

Clearly understood Christian faith demands that we defend Christendom.  Get off the fence and off your ass.  Train.  Equip.  Prepare.  Yes, there still is time.  All you need do, Christian, is look to your priorities:  Faith, Strength, and Resolve.

The need for this will be here before long:

And no, it won’t be the romanticized Crusade of centuries ago.  It’ll be more like this:

And this:

And this:

Or this:

Might need some PT, ya know?  Skills training and practice…..all those guys.  Better get crackin’…..

Remember the words in this youtube clip from “Lord of the Rings”…

“Stand, Men of the West!”

Re-Post: Hey, There, ‘Mr/Ms Hard-Core NPT/Survivalist Member,’ Can You Pass the 1938 “Tenderfoot” Boy Scout Requirements?

robert-baden-powell-2

UPDATE:  Re-post due to the post here, at Aesop’s blog, that lauds a reprint of the original 1911 Boy Scout Manual.  In my 1938 copy, the following test was required of beginners.  I wonder how many so-called ‘survivalists’ and NPT members could do this today, just to qualify as a member of a particular group….if you can, great; if you can’t, some PT is in order, right?

…………………………………………………………………

Sure, the Boy Scouts didn’t do a lot of small unit tactics, but they sure knew their way around bushcraft and how to improvise.  Take a great self-challenge and see if you can do what the lowest ranking Boy Scout had to do in 1938 to be classified as a ‘Tenderfoot.’   Some of these requirements have been adapted to current times and circumstances, but all of them can be found in their original form in the 1938, “Handbook for Boys” by the Boy Scouts of America.

  •  Know proper etiquette at training exercises and meetings; know how to properly care for and wear field clothing.
  • Know the composition and history of the Flag of the United States of America (to do that, you’ll have to know a good bit about American history…) as well as how to properly display the flag, fold it, what the flag code is, when it’s flown at half staff, how and when to display on a casket and even what is proper for bunting in decorations.
  •  Know all elementary terms used when dealing with cordage; tie a square knot and any 8 of the following (for a total of 9 knots) correctly.
    • Sheet Bend
    • Bowline
    • Fisherman’s knot
    • Sheepshank
    • Slip knot
    • Clove Hitch
    • Timber Hitch
    • Two Half Hitches
    • Carrick Bend
    • Miller’s Knot
    • Rope Halters
    • Pipe Hitch
    • Stevedore knot
    • Barrel Hitch
    • Girth Hitch
    • Binder Twine Bend
    • Lariat Loop
    • Hitching Tie
  • Know the composition and purpose of your ‘patrol’ (aka NPT or other group); know all identifying accouterments or patches and correctly name them.

That’s just for starters…..they haven’t even mentioned the hikes or packs yet…..of course, some might ‘poo-poo’ these old school ideas, but if you think about it, the Boy Scouts of old knew what they were about and could perform…or they didn’t stay long.

Something to consider.

 

So Much for Non-Discrimination….

So…do you think that a, ‘Protestant or Catholic Girls Only Prom’ would be allowed to happen without a complete meltdown by our intrepid SJW culture (who’s entitlement mindset boggles the logical and rational mind)?

Me, neither.

In fact, this little ‘safe space event’ literally smacks of discrimination based on religion or creed, as prohibited in the Michigan Constitution:  “The civil and religious rights, privileges and capacities of no individual shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his opinions or belief concerning matters of religion.”    Looks as if there’s some privileges being ‘enlarged’ on account of religious belief….read the whole thing, here, in paragraph 6, under the ‘Bill of Rights.’

To employ a phrase learned many, many years ago as a young man, “This is BULLSHIT!”

“With the goal of creating a “safe space” in mind, a Detroit school has set out to hold a girls-only prom to celebrate traditional Muslim customs. It’s being created for girls who would otherwise be prohibited by their ultraconservative Muslim families from going to regular proms, where attendees are allowed to have fun and dance with members of the opposite sex in good old American tradition.”

Read the rest, here.

Know Your Enemies: Socialists

From, “Men of the West,” here.

The Borg: Captain Jean-Luc Picard. You lead the strongest ship of the Federation fleet. You speak for your people.

Picard: I have nothing to say to you. And I will resist you with my last ounce of strength!

The Borg: Strength is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.

Picard: Impossible! My culture is based on freedom and self-determination!

The Borg: Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply.

-Star Trek: The Next Generation The Best of Both Worlds Part 1 ( Quote SourceVideo )

“My how far we have fallen since that episode of Star Trek:  The Next Generation was aired in 1990.”

“We hate socialists just as much as we hate communists.  More so in some instances because Socialists have become the respectable form of Marxism in modern society.  (As far as we are concerned, the only difference between a fascist and a socialist is that one recognizes national borders and the other does not).”

What’s that popular saying?  Oh, yes.

THIS!