Stephen Crowder speaks to Social Justice Warriors
Category Archives: Moral relativism
A few more battles for the West, media reports as ‘crime’ if at all.
First of all, the French government suddenly seems interested in dealing with ‘The Jungle’, a city made up entirely of illegals or invaders from North Africa and the Middle East for the most part, and nearly all muslims. One can’t help but wonder if the well over half million views, and rush of sympathy it caused, of the woman from Calais who spoke after the demonstration and arrest of the French Foreign Legion leader had anything to do with the sudden dismantling and relocating of many of these invaders.
Here is a look at one of the events they pulled against truck traffic as a form of protest
Imagine if ‘white right wing extremists’ where to burn stuff and throw rocks at a mosque. Do you think the media would refer to it as ‘clashes’?
Any action to actually deal with a serious problem of illegals who are wreaking havoc on the law abiding indigenous people of Calais is treated as tyranny by the media
Activists blamed for trouble in Calais.
(This is actually an accurate report!)
Far left wing groups most certainly are using illegal Muslim migrants as a battering ram against traditional Europe, figuratively and literally like we see in Greece at the Macedonian border today.
Slovenians chant against the Government assisted invasion of Europe and destruction of local cultures. The chants starting at 6:30 are heart warming, and even in a way, amusing.
It feels good to see a group of people clear headed enough to openly accuse leaders who orchestrate the destruction of their own culture as traitors.
More on Calais today
I think thats enough for this post.
Thank you all who contributed. As usual, M., Richard, Wrath of Khan, Maria J., many others who I have lost track of (its getting frantically busy as things get worse) and many new people who’s names I don’t remember yet.
More to come. Please check back later.
They weren’t Mormons…
The Changing Rules of Politically Correct Poker
Not so much that the rules change perhaps, as what constitutes a winning hand. Basically the strong call the wild cards.
First, the video:
Now this article from Nicolai Sennels:
And then this article from Blazing Cat Fur. Don’t skip the comments.
Thank you Nicolai and Liberty Dk.
The Frankfurt School, the far left, and the destruction of a people and a culture.
Recently the news has been flooded with images and stories of a great monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who worked tirelessly with Churchill to fight and defeat the Nazis and more recently, struggles to stay alive every day to save us from having her idiot, leftist, muslim son, Charles from being the next King.
One has to wonder why, all of a sudden, is this loathsome attack on the dignity of her Royal Highness QEII taking place in such a spectacular fashion, and using the most classic defamation of modern times, association with the Nazis. Something which is true of many leftists in both actions and beliefs, but never really publicized in the MSM, while any person who holds an office which is a conservative or traditional icon of the culture is defamed in any way possible.
So I thought I would get ahead of the curve and start in on some of the American’s most sacred icons of traditional moral and family life. Get ready for it. You may have seen it here first, but you will see it and things like it everywhere and often very soon.
Lassie as a 10 month old pup, practices his sieg Heil at Timmy’s direction
Thank you Gates of Vienna for the excellent photoshop on Blockleiter Lassie
Post Script: Check out this Home and Garden from 1938, 5 years AFTER the Queen photo when she was 7 and the German War machine hadn’t started its horror.
Lets take a picnic at Hitler’s lovely country estate
And lastly, everyone’s favorite photo (real actually!) of Herr Hitler in traditional Bavarian folk dress, ready to dance The Bird
Pat Condell: Laughing at the new Inquisition
Dispatches Channel4 show on Islamic infiltration of UK schools
First, here are a couple of links that should bring you to the show.
1. The official one which only works if you are in the UK.
2. This one which kinda works everywhere but you may have to close some annoying adds and try a few times but it does play. (Better links will likely appear sooner or later)
Those of you who know how to use a VPN may want to set their location for somewhere in England and watch it on the original link.
This documentary starts out fairly well and does some reasonable exposing of some of the horror that takes place at schools now run by islamic authority. But it quickly turns on Jewish and Christian schools and tries to make the moral equivalence, if not directly by inference, that not teaching evolution as fact is equivalent to a Muslim school having speakers in who advocate murder of homosexuals and islamic supremacy etc. etc.
Yes, one of the most extreme sects of Jews seem to have underground schools where kids are taught in substandard buildings and probably do not get the standard British education among other things, and, if it is as presented, it should be stopped immediately. But the Christian schools in their example just taught creation in science class, (which is wrong no matter what you believe, as creation is a faith based idea and non-quantifiable and therefore not science even if true) and cannot be compared to what takes place in these muslim schools.
It is unfortunate that in the interest of ‘balance’ they had to pretty much destroy some solid points they made and expose some genuine problems which are a threat to British societies and even sovereignty by comparing it to annoying but relatively banal problems that no-doubt do exist in other faith based schools.
When they can find a Jewish or Christian school that advocates killing of the other, of treating music as a crime or one of the other myriad issues at Muslim schools which are anathema to British culture and history and law, then they can be included. Sadly though, by the end, it looked like a kind of dhimmitude on the part of the video maker as they tried to hard to say that it didn’t represent real islam, and that other religions do this too without any sort of percentage that might give a hint as to how widespread it might be across these faith groups.
In any case, its worth watching even if it makes you angry by the end.
Eeyore for Vlad
A post of two comments. Israel, Hamas and moral equivalence.
A woman posting as ‘Sue’ wrote a comment on the current Israel/Hamas conflict under the post of the forged Netenyahu speech posted yesterday at this site.
Her comment struck me as being so typical of many of the misconceptions that are now the common form of thought, especially amongst university students but in general for many people that I thought it was worth offering a decent answer.
Since I posted my original answer perhaps an hour or so ago, several videos have appeared that deal with a similar issue. So I will post links to them below the text.
First, Sue’s questions:
Comment:
How can anyone thing war is good? Killing children good?
In the past 11 years, rocket fire from Gaza has claimed 17 Israeli lives; in the past three days, Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed at least 81 Palestinians, among them 22 children-and over 550 injured as a result of the air force dropping hundreds of bombs. A driver for journalists was killed, as were Palestinians watching the World Cup at a beach coffee shop.
Israel has an absolute right to self defense but The Occupation is wrong. It is akin to apartheid as John Kerry alluded during the negotiations. The United States should make it clear we do not support apartheid and The Occupation through economic and political sanctions.
Sue
My response:
Sue:
I hope that you will show the patience in reading my reply, that I will show in writing it. This may take a while.
1. Thinking of war as good or not I find kind of childish. The question is, will war obtain the objective or goal more effectively or more economically than some other method? Once you establish that, the next question is, what is the objective you feel you need to achieve? That part certainly should be judged for its moral or ethical value.
Hamas, as well as all islamic groups, as far as I can tell, in the world, has as it’s objective, the extinction of the Jewish people beginning with the destruction of a Jewish state in the middle of a sea of totalitarian Islamic rule. The fact that muslims who live in Israel have more rights, more freedoms, prefer to live in Israel than anywhere else (Israel does have the right of exit unlike North Korea, the former Soviet Union etc) gives some idea of the ethical nature of Israel as a classically liberal state.
I am not saying that Hamas and Islamic groups seek the extinction of Jews by the way. They are. From their various charters (The Hamas charter for one) to their most sacred scriptures to the chants muslims make across the world expressing this desire. The Kybar chant most famously. You will not, by contrast, hear Jewish groups chant for the extinction of all Arabs or muslims, although I myself would like to see the ideology of Islam vanish from the face of the Earth, there are no groups that seek this. You will hear Jewish people and groups chant for the right to their own survival often however and for the survival for their one tiny state. Am Israel Chi I think is the chant.
This would suggest that the two sides do not have morally equivalent reasons for fighting. One seeks the extinction of the other, while the other wishes to continue to exist.
At this point it bears mentioning that Israel has the military capacity to eliminate the threat to itself utterly and completely in about 25 minutes from whenever they want.
The end of the Palestinian threat is one red button push away. For that matter, the end of the Iranian threat, Saudi and so on. Unofficially, the Israelis have had this capacity since the 1950s. But they have never used it nor have they even threatened it, and even when horrifically attacked by enemies, they have not resorted to WMD’s.
I think it is safe to assume that even you know, if the enemies of Israel had a nuke they would use it against Israel at first opportunity.
So this should cover the notion of the goodness of war somewhat. Basically the idea of war being bad is what held the allies back from stopping Hitler before he started something so big it cost 50 million dead and an incalculable cost to civilization. It was in fact, the peace freaks that multiplied the horror of WW2 by 10,000X. Had they just read Mein Kampf and saw what Hitler was doing they could have moved in before he took Czechoslovakia.
2. Killing children as a good thing.
If you have been paying attention to this conflict and frankly all the other ones with muslims on one or both sides, the Israelis have been doing everything in their power not only to save their own children but actually costing themselves opportunity, blood and treasure in their own defense trying not to kill children of the people in Gaza. You may also notice that Muslims, especially in Gaza but ISIS and Al-Qaeda as well have been slaughtering children for being spies or whatever reason, infidels and so on, or have been turning their own children into suicide-bombers feeling this was a great and noble thing to do. There are many MEMRI videos with interviews on this subject from across the islamic world.
Take your time and watch them. Palestinian Media Watch also shows kindergaartens full of kids leaning the art of killing Jews and wearing explosives and training for both killing and dying. I would argue this shows a different ethos than yours. At least I hope so. So lets take that off the table as its too easily demonstrated who thinks killing kids is good, and who thinks its bad.
Now we come to 3. Your idea that a score can be kept of the dead as a moral compass and that the side with the higher number of kills must be the more morally inferior.
I have to say that is a false idea. The question is always who was killed and why, not how many. If a column of 5000 jihadis were marching on a town of 200 people with the intention of killing all the men and old people and taking the young women as life long sex slaves (and yes, historically this happened a lot as well as now in Africa) and then taking the town for Islam, I would be perfectly OK if those townsfolk could hit a button and wipe those jihadis off the face of the earth till not even the stench of them remained.
Seriously, i would donate money to see that happen.
This is because there is no moral equivalence between offense and defense. That a people should have the moral right to do whatever it is in their power to do to defend themselves from that kind of aggression. Because this is a natural truth even to muslims, islam developed complex rhetorical devices to convince each other and their victims that what they do when they attack you, is defending their faith. That is, that by killing you or enslaving you or subjecting you to sharia law, they are defending themselves and their religion against you, because you would stop them from doing it. So their offense is defensive, if you can follow that logic without an Aspirin.
Now the matter of collateral damage. I will concede the part that claims people who should not have suffered did in Israeli response to the hundreds and hundreds of rockets fired at civilian infrastructure, elementary schools and so on and point out that in the entire history of warfare around the world the amount of collateral damage that has been done is so massive that it is measured in the millions when not in the hundreds of thousands. The fact that you can in this case, actually find the individual names and occupations of all the people who may have suffered in this way is the best, yes the best possible testament to the compassion of the IDF.
Again, seriously. I mean that.
Tell me about the people in the last 4 hours that Al-Qaeda, Al Shabab, and other Muslim Brotherhood groups have murdered in Africa and the Middle East and the Maghreb. Tell me their names and occupations. And when you can’t remind yourself that they were not collateral damage but the actual intended targets of these groups. They meant to murder as many people as they could and the weakest people they could. And why? Because of Ishaq:326
“If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies.”
Many more examples of Islam’s scriptural justification for the use of terror can be found with a simple google search. Try the keywords: ‘Allah has made me victorious with terror’
So once again, your choice of examples to try and draw moral equivalence is, shall we say, baseless.
I am curious to know what exactly you mean by ‘the occupation’ and before you answer you better make sure there is no other country on earth with a similar enough circumstance about which you do not use that phrase and have never objected. I also recommend that you read some articles or watch some videos by black men who actually lived under South African Apartheid and then try and explain how that is the case in Israel for anyone at all.
While you do that consider this.
A Jewish man buys land from a muslim man who is the rightful owner. The deed is legal and all is free and voluntary as the Jewish man is offering more money than the land would be worth on an open market. The muslim man’s family finds out about the sale and then murders the muslim man who sold his property to the Jewish man and then proceeds to claim that the Jewish man has no right to live on land claimed to be for muslims.
And now I would like to ask you:
Exactly how is this Apartheid applied?
If you read this far, thank you for your patience.
Below the MORE, a couple of SUN videos from today which also deal with moral equivalence:
Which group behaves more ethically in a crisis? Elephants or Muslims? Let’s find out.
When the air raid sirens sound in Israel, watch adult elephants move to protect their young:
Below, some examples of how muslims in Gaza think in terms of their young during incoming enemy fire:
ABC indulges in a little Reductio ad absurdum when it tries to ‘expose’ the EDL
ABC news last night broadcasted a segment on the EDL with what looks like quite a bit of older footage and which was clearly intended to use Islamic extremists as part of the intellectual shell game of reductio ad absurdum. At least the politically correct version of it.
The scam goes like this:
Yes, there are some muslim extremists who are very distasteful and probably should be ignored with a stiff upper lip but people who oppose them and defend their own thousands of year old culture, heritage, history and legal system must therefore be at least as extreme and at least as big a threat to whatever it is the ideal norm is meant to be.
Notice that the reporter takes every possible opportunity to prove Robinson wrong on the exceptions rather than consider the general truth of anything he says. Her treatment could equally apply to Jews resisting Nazi attempts to obliterate them or any group, for that matter, who wishes to defend the status quo from a hostile invader. ‘If you are fighting a group, you must be the opposite and therefore as bad’
Still, I have to give credit to ABC for showing some of the activities of muslim activists in the UK. It was more than I expected from them. Especially as it was a muslim reporter. I think she was genuinely shocked by what she saw from Muslims in the UK. This likely means she has chosen not to look at what her coreligionists do however, or what her religion in fact demands of its followers.
Below appears to be a related video, possibly a part of the same documentary.
Bill Maher demonstrates a very important aspect of intellectual sleight of hand.
In the video below, Maher does the classic Michael Moore style of intellectual sleight of hand, where one moves to a wholly irrelevant level of abstraction to make a comparison in order to negate the valuable and relevant aspect of the first example given.
It seems intuitively correct that the most important thing about an attack is that people die in it. But of course that isn’t the main point. It is why they died that matters. In the example above, and exactly as Michael Moore does in his films, he attempts to negate the relevant aspect of the Boston jihadi attack by comparing the consequences to car accidents. Yes, people die in accidents all the time everywhere. But this is an accepted risk people take when they decide to use, for example, a car or go where cars are moving. There is no political motive to it.
When people commit violent acts of terrorism they are doing damage and killing people for a purpose for which the victims did not sign on for, did not expect and would not endorse if they did.
Bill Maher really should know better than to resort to this sort of sophistry. Agree with him or no, typically his reasoning is better than this and when it isn’t its at least entertaining.
This kind of thought however is very important in understanding why the enemy makes such huge gains in terms of the degradation and subjugation of Western civilization. Have a look at muslim rape gangs, for example, in the UK and all over the Western world. Yes, there are domestic rapists and we find them, try them and jail them when guilty. But these are people who for personal reasons committed a crime. There was no intention of changing our system in it, nor was it for a political purpose. When it is, its terrorism. The various Islamic rape gangs around the Western world are acting in concert with a philosophy and as part of a general jihad against the civilized world to deconstruct it and replace it with an islamic one. This is not criminal. The distinction isn’t just important. It is everything.
ADDENDUM:
After showing this to Gavin Boby, he offered the following:
Intent is crucial to the definition and severity of the crime. A car accident has no ‘mens rea’, and so isn’t a crime. A murder is usually not part of a wider strategy, and so is not a continuing danger to the whole of society. E.g. most people would say that Hitler was history’s worst criminal, even though others like Mao may have been responsible for more deaths. Becuase Hitler intended those deaths as an end in itself: murder was the objective, as part of a wider scheme of hatred.
Christians collect donations for mosque.
An original translation by Oz-Rita
By Von Axel Richter
from RGA Online
Hartmut Demski confessed that a few years ago, the thought would not have come to him. However, at the annual reception by the protestant (Lutherian) parish, the superintendent asked the 140 invited guests to donate towards a muslim “house of god” sic, the one of the Ditib community who planned to build a mosque in Stachelhausen.
“Islam has long since arrived in Remscheid”, the lutherian cleric said. “We should not hide people who want to pray in the backyards”. The theme of the evening, chosen by the parish for the eve of the Reformation day, is fitting, it is Tolerance and is approached from a muslim as from a Christian position..
Prof. Dr. Mouhanad Khorchide, born in Lebanon, is an islam scientist (sic) at the university of Münster and does no longer wish to accept the overused word of tolerance in the sense of accepting/putting up with. “It’s a question of reciprocal recognition and to accept the other as enrichment”, he declared. Prophet mohamed did not want anything else when he, unwelcome, founded a new religion. “It’s not about what is in the birth certificate”, said Khorchide. “It’s about to let the intention of god become reality: Love and compassion”.
Both were missing for a long time from the side of muslims and Christians. Catholics and Protestants too had to go through a “painful learning process”, the second speaker of the evening declared.
Tolerance can only function under the “Dictatorship of Relativism” Professor Dr. Martin Ohst is church historian and teaches at the University of Wuppertal.
“The reformation has taught tolerance to society”, he declared. “People must learn to live together constructively”. The historian had no doubt that this could only be achieved with what Pope Benedikt called “Dictatorship of Relativism”. Professor Ohst formulated it so: “Who regards his own faith, without any sepsis as the only true one, will not achieve a real respect for the faith of others”.
Sam Harris on relativism in reporting and discussion of Islam
H/T Don Laird
This needs to be sent to every moron who has tried moral equivalency in a discussion on Islam ever.
A Czech living in Sweden sends us this comment on the events recently and the reporting on them from within Sweden.
The following is a slightly edited version of a comment submitted to this site today by Holubi se sleti who is a Czech living in Sweden.
Thank you very much for this Holubi. It is well researched and well stated.
Eeyore.
————————-
1) Recent research shows that Sweden is the least racist country in the world and that the people from the countries from where the immigrants in suburbs, such as Husby comes from, are much, much more racist than the Swedes. And every year, we read reports that the Swedes are becoming more and more tolerant.
2) Research shows that unemployment does not not explain the riots: And that places with much higher youth unemployment and fewer youth recreation centers (fritidsgårdar), etc, don’t suffer the problems of our immigrant suburbs:
3) The “dismantling of public services” in areas such as Husby, as it has been dishonestly reported in Swedish media, is a myth, and the reality is that no areas are assigned as much tax money as so called “disadvantaged areas” (higher staffing ratio in schools, many times more money per pupil/student etc).
In fact – never in the history of immigration – has so much been done, and as much resources been spent on immigrants, to help them integrate, get jobs, etc [‘positive’ ethnic discrimination, “instegsjobb” (immigrant only jobs, where the state pays 80% of the employees salary), “nystartszoner” (tax reduction for business started in No Go zones), SFI-bonuses (a reward of 12000 SEK for those immigrants who are approved in their no cost Swedish learning, that was implemented because so many of the immigrants didn’t put any heart to it, and often failed on purpose and went to Swedish For Immigrants for years and years, because it was financially beneficial), etc].
4) A widespread ethnic discrimination against immigrants, has no research support and research doesn’t support the perception that immigrants suffer wage discrimination either, if they do get a job.
5) The increasing resource gap between people in Sweden, is a result of the (in the Western world) unprecedentedly high immigration per capita – since the main reason for the increase, is that the welfare dependency of the population is rapidly increasing, as there are almost no jobs, which the older immigrants are qualified for.
As an example, 85-90% of immigrants from Somalia are illiterate and what jobs can such people get in Sweden with our minimum wages, collective bargaining, etc?
6) While, for example, a newly arrived immigrant mother with three children, can get 21810 SEK per month tax-free in welfare,
many 65 year olds with a 45 year working career behind them, have to realize that they get no more than 11000 SEK. And in this case, that’s BEFORE tax:
And that is in the country with the second highest tax burden in the world, where a person with 25000 SEK in salary, are paying a whopping 17200 SEK in taxes per month, if the ‘hidden’ taxes are counted also.
Atheist defends critical focus on Islam
Thank god some atheists are clever enough to recognize that because several beliefs may be equally untrue, they are not necessarily equally damaging. Sam Harris has made this point before and in many ways, my favorite being, “The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of Islam”.
Here he does it again. H/T EDL Buck and others.
Independent:
Sam Harris, the prominent atheist, has hit back at charges of Islamophobia levelled by fellow non-believers – insisting that some faiths are more “mistaken” than others.
In a lengthy riposte posted on his website, Harris maintains that some religions, including Islam, deserve closer scrutiny because they pose a greater threat.
The American author was responding to two articles, on the Salon.com and Al Jazeera websites, reported in The Independent on Saturday, accusing him of becoming openly Islamophobic rather than equally critical of all faiths.
Harris says in his response: “Not all religious doctrines are mistaken to the same degree, intellectually or ethically, and it would be dishonest and ultimately dangerous to pretend otherwise. For instance, a dogmatic belief in the spiritual and ethical necessity of complete nonviolence lies at the very core of Jainism, whereas an equally dogmatic commitment to using violence to defend one’s faith, both from within and without, is similarly central to the doctrine of Islam.”