Well, after three days of following the media reaction to the big news at the University of Oklahoma, I had to comment on the hypocrisy and silliness of the American media in reacting to this incident.
1) First of all, I hope that Kieran and Ernie are taking notice of just how nicely their free speech ideal is panning out in Norman, Oklahoma. Ironically, the Oklahoma University president is using the term "zero tolerance" for how his university will treat racist statements on his campus. Zero tolerance, huh? But I thought we were to believe in the ideal of tolerance and free speech? I guess not. So there are restrictions to speech?
To this, I must say, "Poor Charlie Hebdo" - he died for such a confused, muddled, and worthless ideal. Too bad the herd in Paris had to waste their time marching like clowns a few Sundays ago.
2) I thought the Catholic Church was unique in history for persecuting those who disagreed with its dogmas. I guess the bishops of the secular theocracy (media pundits and university presidents) in the modern day are just as bad. So maybe the Inquisition wasn't such a crime after all?
3) To people like murat, I must say that if you observe the reactions to Donald Sterling's comments and now this latest event at OU, with all the attendant handwringing, you see that modern people are no less religious in terms of moral sense and righteousness than they ever were in the past. The post-Christian West has a religion, very clearly, and it is a firm, uncompromising set of moral absolutes based on a hierarchy of historic victims and victimizers (credit to the Yale historian Paul Gottfried for this insight). The victimizers are white heterosexual Christian males, and the victims are all non-white people, women, and gays (and perhaps animals). Any time there is a hint of the victims being victimized again, then people who normally mock the idea of religion become more pious and more righteous than any monk you could find if you searched every monastery in the world.
Man is a naturally religious animal, and, unfortunately, in jettisoning Christianity, the Western world has embraced an utterly hypocritical Christian heresy of antiracism and antidiscrimination as its religion, where the worst sin one can commit short of murder or rape is saying something that is politically racist from the white Christian European historical perspective (or what is perceived as the Platonic ideal of that perspective). This religion has multiple sources and subliminal motivations, but in the end it is based on deception.
The way that a Christian experiences guilt and repentance for the committing of sins is now exactly the way the West wallows in moral anguish over perceived discrimination or racism. For the priests of this religion, there can never be enough Riley Cooper or SAE fraternity incidents, because these sins give endless lessons to preach about from the pulpits. And then when it comes to sinners from the victim side (e.g., Muslim terrorists), even then we must repent for the Crusades and be introspective of ourselves for how we might possibly react toward Muslims in the wake of terrorist acts. Regardless of what happens, we must feel guilty and repent, repent, repent.
The West can't escape Christianity even if it tried apparently, and it most certainly has. The new secular theocracy has adopted the Christian sensibility of guilt and moralistic introspection in full force.
4) Now the hypocrisy of this whole condemnation of the OU students is astounding, and it simply shows how much of a deceitful and diabolical program the whole modern leftist epithet-hurling strategy is and has been from its inception with the Communist Party. The insulting of people as bigoted or ()-phobic is almost never actually an accurate or genuine characterization; rather, it is simply intended to demonize opposing views as a pathology or neurosis while deceitfully covering one's own prejudices and desires as non-prejudiced enlightenment - and this is done for the purposes of imposing them viciously on those who do not share them, without even allowing the possibility that the subjects of this ideological tyranny may fail to be persuaded.
In practice - this is what the double standard means:
- If Lil Wayne recites a line like "if these n----- is animals, I'm gonna make a mink soon" in one of his hit songs, his use of the n-word is rationalized, excused, and even praised by white leftist NPR talking heads and media critics (who are the least capable of all humans of relating to black males) for its cleverness and humor. CNN doesn't run specials on how Wayne's language is "disturbing" 50 years after Selma. Al Sharpton doesn't go to New Orleans and start barking to crowds about how this kind of talk won't be allowed anymore. To those who are critical of rap on moral or traditional grounds, leftists will argue that the lyrics of Lil Wayne and other rappers are "just words" or "just entertainment" and they don't have any meaningful impact on behavior.
- But if some white fratboy chants a song about hanging blacks from a tree, then the fact that the n-word was used is considered mortifying. Now, it is appalling. Now, it is a disgrace. Now, it can't be tolerated. Now, it requires banishment. Now, it requires ostracizing the one who said it. The "just words" excuse given for rap lyrics? It certainly doesn't apply. A grave sin was committed and the least that can be done is for the university, led by the president, to go to Confession (i.e. give apologies to the media) and then make amends through virtuous penance (mandatory diversity training, endless referencing of the moral ignominy of racism, and using the incident to further the full implementation of the leftist agenda on society).
Now I happen to largely agree with the leftist defense of rap, at least the way I characterized it above. But that is besides the point. What I am explaining here is that a blatant prejudiced double standard is being covered with supposedly objective language of fairness. The simple reality is that the bishops of the secular theocracy detest what they perceive to be traditional Christian culture (that is their prejudice, their "anti- feeling", so to speak), so they will defend what they regard as a non-Western cultural trend (black music) while demonizing episodes of white racism (Sterling, OU, etc.), even if a black musician and a whit fratboy commit the exact same offenses, logically speaking.
5) While I consider fraternities to be meatheaded and cheesy white institutions that I would never join (which I never did), I find it funny that people who so readily quote (out of context) Jefferson's "church and state" remark so willfully pass over this Jeffersonian dictum:
"Error of opinion may be tolerated WHERE REASON IS LEFT FREE TO COMBAT IT."
I disagree with the OU frat's perception of black/African people and I never had the slightest intention of joining a fraternity (which I regarded as a cheesy whiteboy club) when I had the misfortune of attending college, but I don't believe that those people on the bus should be tyrannically coerced into succumbing to views that they don't hold. The true method of converting one's beliefs is to inform and persuade. This can only be done through meaningful contact with the mind and soul and the presentation of facts and ideas. It is not done by frightening someone in the fashion of Lenin or Hitler into going into hiding and being scared to show their face in public. This is not genuine persuasion or meaningful dialogue; it is intolerant psychological tyranny.
1) First of all, I hope that Kieran and Ernie are taking notice of just how nicely their free speech ideal is panning out in Norman, Oklahoma. Ironically, the Oklahoma University president is using the term "zero tolerance" for how his university will treat racist statements on his campus. Zero tolerance, huh? But I thought we were to believe in the ideal of tolerance and free speech? I guess not. So there are restrictions to speech?
To this, I must say, "Poor Charlie Hebdo" - he died for such a confused, muddled, and worthless ideal. Too bad the herd in Paris had to waste their time marching like clowns a few Sundays ago.
2) I thought the Catholic Church was unique in history for persecuting those who disagreed with its dogmas. I guess the bishops of the secular theocracy (media pundits and university presidents) in the modern day are just as bad. So maybe the Inquisition wasn't such a crime after all?
3) To people like murat, I must say that if you observe the reactions to Donald Sterling's comments and now this latest event at OU, with all the attendant handwringing, you see that modern people are no less religious in terms of moral sense and righteousness than they ever were in the past. The post-Christian West has a religion, very clearly, and it is a firm, uncompromising set of moral absolutes based on a hierarchy of historic victims and victimizers (credit to the Yale historian Paul Gottfried for this insight). The victimizers are white heterosexual Christian males, and the victims are all non-white people, women, and gays (and perhaps animals). Any time there is a hint of the victims being victimized again, then people who normally mock the idea of religion become more pious and more righteous than any monk you could find if you searched every monastery in the world.
Man is a naturally religious animal, and, unfortunately, in jettisoning Christianity, the Western world has embraced an utterly hypocritical Christian heresy of antiracism and antidiscrimination as its religion, where the worst sin one can commit short of murder or rape is saying something that is politically racist from the white Christian European historical perspective (or what is perceived as the Platonic ideal of that perspective). This religion has multiple sources and subliminal motivations, but in the end it is based on deception.
The way that a Christian experiences guilt and repentance for the committing of sins is now exactly the way the West wallows in moral anguish over perceived discrimination or racism. For the priests of this religion, there can never be enough Riley Cooper or SAE fraternity incidents, because these sins give endless lessons to preach about from the pulpits. And then when it comes to sinners from the victim side (e.g., Muslim terrorists), even then we must repent for the Crusades and be introspective of ourselves for how we might possibly react toward Muslims in the wake of terrorist acts. Regardless of what happens, we must feel guilty and repent, repent, repent.
The West can't escape Christianity even if it tried apparently, and it most certainly has. The new secular theocracy has adopted the Christian sensibility of guilt and moralistic introspection in full force.
4) Now the hypocrisy of this whole condemnation of the OU students is astounding, and it simply shows how much of a deceitful and diabolical program the whole modern leftist epithet-hurling strategy is and has been from its inception with the Communist Party. The insulting of people as bigoted or ()-phobic is almost never actually an accurate or genuine characterization; rather, it is simply intended to demonize opposing views as a pathology or neurosis while deceitfully covering one's own prejudices and desires as non-prejudiced enlightenment - and this is done for the purposes of imposing them viciously on those who do not share them, without even allowing the possibility that the subjects of this ideological tyranny may fail to be persuaded.
In practice - this is what the double standard means:
- If Lil Wayne recites a line like "if these n----- is animals, I'm gonna make a mink soon" in one of his hit songs, his use of the n-word is rationalized, excused, and even praised by white leftist NPR talking heads and media critics (who are the least capable of all humans of relating to black males) for its cleverness and humor. CNN doesn't run specials on how Wayne's language is "disturbing" 50 years after Selma. Al Sharpton doesn't go to New Orleans and start barking to crowds about how this kind of talk won't be allowed anymore. To those who are critical of rap on moral or traditional grounds, leftists will argue that the lyrics of Lil Wayne and other rappers are "just words" or "just entertainment" and they don't have any meaningful impact on behavior.
- But if some white fratboy chants a song about hanging blacks from a tree, then the fact that the n-word was used is considered mortifying. Now, it is appalling. Now, it is a disgrace. Now, it can't be tolerated. Now, it requires banishment. Now, it requires ostracizing the one who said it. The "just words" excuse given for rap lyrics? It certainly doesn't apply. A grave sin was committed and the least that can be done is for the university, led by the president, to go to Confession (i.e. give apologies to the media) and then make amends through virtuous penance (mandatory diversity training, endless referencing of the moral ignominy of racism, and using the incident to further the full implementation of the leftist agenda on society).
Now I happen to largely agree with the leftist defense of rap, at least the way I characterized it above. But that is besides the point. What I am explaining here is that a blatant prejudiced double standard is being covered with supposedly objective language of fairness. The simple reality is that the bishops of the secular theocracy detest what they perceive to be traditional Christian culture (that is their prejudice, their "anti- feeling", so to speak), so they will defend what they regard as a non-Western cultural trend (black music) while demonizing episodes of white racism (Sterling, OU, etc.), even if a black musician and a whit fratboy commit the exact same offenses, logically speaking.
5) While I consider fraternities to be meatheaded and cheesy white institutions that I would never join (which I never did), I find it funny that people who so readily quote (out of context) Jefferson's "church and state" remark so willfully pass over this Jeffersonian dictum:
"Error of opinion may be tolerated WHERE REASON IS LEFT FREE TO COMBAT IT."
I disagree with the OU frat's perception of black/African people and I never had the slightest intention of joining a fraternity (which I regarded as a cheesy whiteboy club) when I had the misfortune of attending college, but I don't believe that those people on the bus should be tyrannically coerced into succumbing to views that they don't hold. The true method of converting one's beliefs is to inform and persuade. This can only be done through meaningful contact with the mind and soul and the presentation of facts and ideas. It is not done by frightening someone in the fashion of Lenin or Hitler into going into hiding and being scared to show their face in public. This is not genuine persuasion or meaningful dialogue; it is intolerant psychological tyranny.
