Category Archives: Politcs

Steyn: Celebrate Conformity!

[Ed. note: After reading Mark's essay, click on the title below
and buy a few things from his website. Your purchase will aid Mark in his defense against the lawfare of Michael Mann and the Climate Cabal. This is a most important legal fight, and the forces of darkness (literally) are well funded. Help give free expression a leg up.]

Celebrate Conformity!
by Mark Steyn  •  Apr 4, 2014 at 10:58 am

Mozilla’s chairman unveils the company’s exciting new plug-in

On Wednesday, I wrote about the Mozilla CEO in trouble for a five-year-old donation to Proposition Eight, the successful California ballot measure that banned gay marriage – if only until America’s robed rulers declared the will of the people to be “unconstitutional”. Brandon Eich is a tech genius: Aside from co-founding Mozilla and creating Firefox, he also invented JavaScript. Apparently, the disgusting homophobic hatey-hatey-hateful belief that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman is not incompatible with knowing your way around a computer.

Nevertheless, unlike Hollywood director Brett Ratner, Mr Eich declined to eat gay crow. And so yesterday he was fired. Mozilla’s chairwoman Mitchell Baker issued the usual tortured justification:

“Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech. Equality is necessary for meaningful speech,” Baker said. “And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”

I heard a lot of this stuff during my free-speech battles in Canada. The country’s chief censor, the late Jennifer Lynch, QC, was willing to concede that free speech was certainly a right, but it was merely one in a whole range of competing rights – such as “equality” and “diversity” – that needed to be “balanced”. What the “balancing” boils down to is that you get fired if you are an apostate from the new progressive groupthink. Underneath the agonized prose, Mitchell Baker is a bare-knuckled thug.

~It’s the thuggishness and bullying that ought to disgust people, even those who support gay marriage. My final appearances at National Review Online were a spat with my editor, Jason Lee Steorts, over “two jokes one can no longer tell on American television” that I quoted in a column on Phil Robertson’s suspension for “homophobia”. First, Bob Hope, touring the world in the year or so after the passage of the 1975 Consenting Adult Sex Bill:

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

Second, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin on stage in Vegas throughout the Sixties and Seventies:

Frank: “How do you make a fruit cordial?”

Dino: “Be nice to him.”

Mr Steorts thought my resurrection of these ancient “slurs” was “derogatory” and “puerile”:

People who used them in different times need not be regarded as monstrous, nor must the canon be censored; we could instead feel good about having awoken to a greater civility and make generous allowances for human fallibility.

Yeah, just like Brandon Eich “awoke to a greater civility” yesterday morning. What Mr Steorts especially disliked about my column was “the slur in its borrowed concluding joke”. Which was:

How do you make a fruit cordial?

Be nice to him.

Or else.

But isn’t that what’s just happened to the Mozilla guy? Nobody’s asking him to have a genuine conversion. The gay enforcers don’t care if, somewhere deep down in his heart he still believes marriage is the union of a man and a woman; all that matters is that he’s not allowed to say so in public. Billions of people around the world believe as Mr Eich does, and they shouldn’t be allowed to say so in public, either – not if they want to keep their jobs. I’m currently trying to fund my own free-speech battles at the DC Superior Court through sales of my book Lights Out, personally autographed copies of which are exclusively available through the Steyn store – if you like the squaresville hardback edition, that is; but, if you’re part of the Mozilla set, you can also get it on Kindle, Nook and Kobo, at least until those outlets ban on it on the grounds of “respect” and “inclusion” and “balancing” free speech with “equality”. On page 181 of Lights Out, I write:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. But increasingly gays oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. Gay activists have figured that, instead of trying to persuade people to change their opinions, it’s easier just to get them banned.

Those words are not as old as Frank and Dean’s gag, but sad to say they’re likewise prescient. And that’s why, pace Mitchell Baker, what happened to Brandon Eich is not an “equality” issue but a free-speech issue.

~Ed Driscoll wonders, if you dump Mozilla’s Firefox browser, where do you go? Over at Free Canuckistan, the Binksmeister has a few suggestions.

~By the way, let’s not forget how all this targeting of “homophobic” contributions started. The IRS leaked “traditional marriage” donor lists to the gay enforcers at the “Human Rights Campaign”. America has a corrupt government – so corrupt that many Americans now think it entirely normal for the state tax collector to target the regime’s political enemies. I don’t, and for the last year I’ve called for the abolition of the institutionally corrupt IRS and its replacement by an agency with far more limited powers appropriate to a free society. Surprisingly few Republican candidates seem interested in joining that campaign. But the IRS’ wholesale corruption is a free-speech issue, too: it’s about using state power – the threat of audits and, ultimately, asset confiscation – to get you to shut up. And the alliance between the IRS and the gay enforcers is a foretaste of where things are headed. If your confidential financial information can be leaked to those who want to take you down, why should your medical information or your vote by “secret ballot” be any more secure?

~Meanwhile, serial litigant Michael E Mann takes time out of preparing for the forthcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century to ReTweet the following:

Remove David #Koch from the Board of Trustees at @wgbhhttp://dld.bz/dhE9c

Michael Mann isn’t really a scientist. Oh, yes, I’m sure he still dabbles in it now and then just to keep his hand in. But the bulk of his energies are devoted to getting people who disagree with him fired, banned or silenced. Real Nobel Prize winners (as opposed to fraudulent self-garlanded ones) don’t do that. But every day Dr Mann is demanding that someone be shut up.

~I don’t want to live in the world of “greater civility” that Michael Mann and Mitchell Baker are building for us. Oh, to be sure, it’s technologically exciting: There will be a thousand different apps on which to download Jessica Alba warning you about Antarctic sea ice. But there’ll be only one Thought App. And it will come pre-installed.

And eventually there won’t be any Jessica Alba apps, either. Because a society that imprisons opinion as tightly as Mann and Baker demand is a society that will cease to innovate, and decline.

© 2014 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc

Ace of Spades HQ: White Liberals: We’ll Say Who the Racists Are

White Liberals: We’ll Say Who the Racists Are,

by Ace of Spades HQ, April 04, 2014
Karl Lueger was the mayor of Vienna at the turn of the century, whose populist politics were often riven with anti-semtism — so much so that he was cited as an inspiration by none other than Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf.

However, there’s a debate about how anti-semitic he actually was, and how much of an anti-semite he pretended to be for the sake of political positioning.

Lueger is famous for an answer he once gave on this issue. He was asked how he squared that fact that many of his policies were anti-semitic, while he counted many Jews among his close friends.

“I decide who is a Jew,” he said, apparently creating his own definition of Judaism.

This flexible opinion on “who is a Jew” permitted him to both debase himself (and Vienna) with populist politics of hatred while simultaneously carving out a space for himself to consort with the Hated Other, as he might choose.

Similarly, today, White “liberals” have decided to sell out liberalism to the leftist, totalitarian goons of the Progressive Speech Police. They’ll join the Progressives’ hate campaigns against free speech and free thought — but only when those campaigns are directed towards non-liberals.

Playing to the Progressive mobs just like Luegar played to the Vienna ones, White Liberals reserve themselves the power to both traffic in hateful intolerance, and except themselves and their friends from the claims they otherwise inflict on others.

They, and they alone, will decide who the Racists are.

I was trying to figure out my thoughts on the Suey Park/#CancelCobert conflagration on the podcast (and doing a poor job at it). But I think I have now unmuddled my thoughts on this.
In case you don’t know, Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, has created an organization to funnel money to American Indians. It’s called “The Washington Redskins Foundation for Original Americans.”

It’s obviously intended to buy off the rage of the grievance mongering left — but I don’t see what the objection is to that. After all, the left mongers grievances precisely so that deep-pocketed organizations can be pressured into buying them off. It’s the whole point of the racket.

Dan Snyder, then, stands accused by the left of going along with the left’s agenda.

Steven Colbert, who isn’t funny but says things that please his trained seal leftist audience, attempted to parody Snyder’s attempt to do what the left wants (pay the a rent for their feigned outrage). He did a bit in which he played an old clip of a “character” he used to do in 2005 named “Ching Chong Ding Dong,” a deliberately offensive Asian stereotype.

The purpose of this original use of racial humor was, I guess in his mind, to parody Bill O’Reilly’s racial insensitivity. Or something. I’ve never heard Bill O’Reilly do “characters,” whether racially insensitive or not, so I don’t know exactly what was going on in Colbert’s head when he trotted out this fairly offensive bit of throwback, oldschool racism.

Note right here that Colbert relies on his intent as his Get Out of Jail Free Card for doing this bit. While his bit was preposterously racially insensitive, it was also preposterously racially insensitive — he is so over-the-top in his racism that he believes that over-the-toppedness should signal to the viewer that he’s not on the level, and that his intent is to satirize racism itself, and not to attack Asians.

Intent — it all comes down to his intent. If his intent is permissible, it doesn’t matter how fantastically racist he seems to be, trading, as he does, in ethnic slurs that really are tossed at Asian kids as they’re growing up. (“Ching chong” and variants are used as catcalls against Asians.)

That’s the whole theory as to why Colbert is permitted to do this, and you’re not. His intent is pure. His intent is not to demean Asians, but to demean crochety old Asian-haters like, um, Bill O’Reilly.

Now, Colbert’s new bit consisted of replaying this hoary Yellowface act and then issuing a mock apology, saying that, like Dan Snyder, he would start a foundation to placate angry Asians. And this foundation would be called “The Ching Chong Ding Dong Foundation to Help Orientals or Whatever.”

Again, he relies upon the idea that the intent beneath his words removes his words from the category of “offensive,” even though the words, on their own, are in fact, inarguably, offensive.

And you can ask Asians about that. They will tell you they’ve had the Ching Chong thing thrown at them at children, and that epithet was intended to hurt them, and much of the time, it actually did hurt them.

But again: Colbert’s intent rescues this remark. He doesn’t mean anything bad by it, after all.

But think about that. He’s attacking Dan Snyder’s supposedly offensive use of “Redskins” for his team name. And doing so using 1910s era coolie-jokes to do so. But Colbert’s intent must be considered here. After all, he’s just ripping Dan Snyder.

But what about Dan Snyder’s intent? Does that save Dan Snyder?

Does the Washington Redskins’ clear lack of intent to denigrate Native Americans save it?

If Colbert can say the Forbidden Words with impunity — which he asserts, as do all the White Liberals lining up to defend him and attack Korean-American “hastag activist” Suey Park for being such a stupid Gook to not get the joke — because he had a permissible intent in using them, why can’t Dan Snyder keep his team name as the Redskins for the same reason?

Obviously no one names a sports club after something they think is substandard, or shoddy, or weak, or useless. People always object to the Redskins name by using the same example — “Well, what would you say if someone named his baseball team the New York N*****s, huh?”

But that’s stupid. No one does that. No one would do that. Because “N****r” is inherently a demeaning term, and a hateful one, and no one — no one — names their sports clubs after things they hate.

They name them after things they respect, or wish to emulate, or wish to associate themselves with. Thus the large number of teams named after great cats, and bears, and stallions, and even the gee-whiz technology of the 50s (jets, rockets).

And as for clubs named after types of people, all those people have a positive association; in football, especially, a martial-themed sport if there ever was one, those positive associations all have to do with virility and deadliness in battle:

Vikings.

Raiders.

Buccaneers.

Warriors.

Fighting Irish.

Spartans.

You do not see “The San Francisco Coolie Laborers” in the lists of any sports teams, nor the “Boston Drunken Irish Wife-Batterers.” All team names are tributes to the group in the nickname.

Some team names implicitly specify a race/ethnicity — Vikings, Fighting Irish. There is no commotion over this — people understand that when someone names a team the “Vikings,” they mean it a positive way. They are speaking of the fury of the Northmen — and not, for example, their propensity to rape and reduce much of Europe to a constant Twilight in which civilization could never advance too far before being pillaged and raped into rubble.

Nor does anyone seriously think “the Fighting Irish” is really about the Irish’s well-known tendency to over-indulge in alcohol and then get their Irish up. (Oh, what a giveaway.) And that one really does actually step right on up to the line of being a slur against the Irish — but we understand the intent behind it is playful, and positive. (Mostly.)

In fact, White Liberals currently on their jihad against the name “Redskins” make an exception for other teams with Indian nicknames– Braves, Chiefs, Indians, all okay. Not racist, the White Liberals have decided, although it’s unclear how they’ve come to this conclusion.

All three names, after all, do reference a specific race — Native Americans — just as surely as “Redskins” does, and for the exact same reasons.

But White Liberals know the difference. White Liberals can tell you who the Racists are.

Now, I don’t really care too much about whether the Redskins keeps its historic name, to be honest with you. Dan Snyder is not my friend and I have no allegiance to him.

My point is that White Liberals will explain to you, dripping with condescension, sopping with superiority, that Steven Colbert’s racist joke was just a joke and you need to get over it because his intent was permissible, and yet campaign in this endless jihad against the “Redskins” name, this time forgetting altogether to factor in the “intent” part of the analysis.

No, in this case, intent won’t save them — it’s a zero-tolerance, single-factor analysis. If the word is potentially offensive, it has to go.

And yet “Ching Chong Ding Dong” is defended as having important social value.

What I’m getting at is this: Progressives are pushing for strict-liability, zero-tolerance, single-factor Speech Policing, and they make no bones about it– many have recently questioned the value of Free Speech, and compared it, very unfavorably, to the much more important value of Social Justice.

Liberals, on the other hand, pretend to care about things like free thought and free speech. The trouble is, they are in a joined-at-the-hip political alliance with the Progressives, who are, in reality, just socialist fascists.

So how do White Liberals square this circle, wishing to appease their foaming-at-the-mouth Progressive Thought Police allies while simultaneously convincing themselves that they, unlike the Progressives or the (spit) Conservatives, support actual liberalism in matters of speech and thought?

Well, they manage this balancing trick the way Karl Lueger did: They decide who the racists are.

White Liberals, and White Liberals alone, will decide when context and intent will be weighed in the balance to rescue someone’s words (as in the case of an important White Liberal ally like Steven Colbert), or when context and intent will be jettisoned from the analysis entirely, and the Progressives’ zero-tolerance no-exception rule will be applied instead (as in the case of a 1%-er businessman like Dan Snyder).

They will get to make this decision — and they’ll employ the Vindictive Standard (zero tolerance) against their own political enemies (conservatives), and yet shoot the Vindictive Standard down as childishly silly when Progressives demand it be enforced against a fellow White Liberal.

Progressives say: It doesn’t matter what someone’s alleged “intent” is, all that matters is whether someone felt hurt or demeaned by words.

The White Liberal agrees — so long as that rule is being applied against their common enemy, conservatives.

But when Progressives demand that it also be applied to White Liberals In Good Standing like Alec Baldwin or Steven Colbert, suddenly White Liberals start talking about “intent” and “context” and other such nuances.

For example: Look how condescending and dismissive this White Liberal Male Huffington Post interviewer is when he interviews Suey Park.

If Bill O’Reilly treated an aggrieved minority activist with half the level of sneering dismissal this White Liberal HuffPo guy does, MSNBC’s programming would be all set through June.

You might agree that she’s silly — and that’s your right. But consider, between her and her White Liberal Male interviewer, she’s the one actually being consistent here. I don’t agree with her standards, but she is maintaining her standards, whether the person offering the offensive speech is liberal or conservative.

The White Liberal Male interviewer, on the other hand, wishes to decide, after consultation with his White Liberal colleagues, which standard he will apply to a situation — the flexible liberal one, or the censorious, draconian progressive one — according to whether the speaker of the offensive words is a White Liberal (to be protected in solidarity) or a White Conservative (to be attacked with none of this absurd “intent” business muddying the analysis).

I don’t agree with anything Suey Park says, except this much: She’s right, the White Liberals are flagrantly inconsistent on this, and absurdly hypocritical and principle-free, joining in her Zero Tolerance Outrage when it suits the White Liberal Cause, and treating her like a babbling idiot when she insists that the standard White Liberals have previously endorsed also be applied to White Liberals.

The White Liberal Male interview has never heard something so absurd — why, he’s a White Liberal. By definition, he’s doing the Right Thing at all times. Who is this stupid Korean girl to tell him different?

If Suey Park says she was offended by these words, What does it matter what Colbert’s “satirical intent” might have been?

White Liberals agree with this… so long as they’re not the ones subject to the Vindictive Standard. As soon as they’re the target of it — or one of their allies is the target of it — suddenly we hear White Liberals expressing doubts about this crude formulation of the rule.

So I do think Suey Park has a point, here. And she is being demeaned and dismissed by White Liberals who are absolutely certain that they’re constitutionally incapable of being racist, or even giving inadvertent racial offense — so if some stupid minority is bothered by something a White Liberal says, that’s her problem. She just needs to put on her Big Girl Pants and stop crying about it.

So White Liberals, it turns out, get to be the arbiters of what is and isn’t racist… on behalf of their non-white political confreres.

Speaking of which: Here’s another thing Suey Park is right about.

Why do White Liberals still dominate Liberal Media? Whites are about 75% of the nation, but they’re nowhere near 75% of the liberal/progressive alliance. Almost 60% of all whites voted for Romney in 2012 — making White Liberals a minority group (compared to Minority Liberals) in the liberal/progressive alliance.

So why are they still in almost all the positions of power?

White Liberals are a minority in the liberal/progressive alliance; why do minority leftist have to go begging to White Liberal gatekeepers in the media to make their voices heard?

Why do White Liberals still get to decide, on behalf of Korean-Americans, which ethnic slurs they should and shouldn’t be offended by?

How is it that every liberal outfit still has a masthead that’s 96% Ivory Soap White?

Is that racist?

Why no, the White Liberals will tell you– We decide who The Racists are.

 

Gallery

Ball: IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted Certainties presented to Media, Public and Politiciians, But Remained Silent

Note 1: Reposted from WUWT. Note 2: “IPCC” is the International Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body driving the fearmongering associated with “Catastrophic Climate Change” due to man’s activities, especially the myths concerning carbon dioxide emissions. IPCC Scientists Knew … Continue reading

Gallery

The Parable of the Big “O”, and some Mark Steyn, too.

“Coming up about 6 years ago, there was to be an election in the US. An election to elect a President, to pass judgment on George W. Bush. The Democratic National Congress floated a new candidate to be their banner, … Continue reading

Gallery

Ball: Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information

Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information by Dr. Tim Ball, November 13, 2013. (Crossposted from WUWT) Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, … Continue reading

Gallery

WUWT: A Big Picture Look at Earth’s Temperature

Editor’s Note: The following post is crossposted from Watts Up With That, and is available on WUWT at the link in the title below (note: WUWT has not verified the data contained within, and therefore does not specifically endorse or … Continue reading

Gallery

Schlichter: Maybe Pain Will Teach You Millenials Not To Vote For Your Own Serfdom

“Now get off my lawn” By Kurt Schlichter, November 4, 2013, Townhall.com You Millenials voted for Obama by a margin of 28 percent, which will make it a lot easier for me to accept the benefits you will be paying … Continue reading

Gallery

Steyn: American Banana Republic

American Banana Republic The decay of a free society doesn’t happen overnight, but we’re getting there. By Mark Steyn, September 20, 2013 NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ‘This is the United States of America,” declared President Obama to the burghers of Liberty, … Continue reading

The 4th Annual Free Thinking Film Festival 2013

Discuss.

[H/T SDA]

Afterburner – The Lynching, by Bill Whittle: The de-sanctifying of Trayvon Martin, and why the President of the United States is a pig.

We’ll leave the final word to David Burge @iowahawk