I feel it necessary to repeat that: Dawkins = Fraud
Before Richard Dawkins hurts anyone else, it is time to call him by his characteristics. He is a fraud. He is a confidence man. He is not competent as either scientist or philosopher much less logician. He is a danger to those who aren’t trained to spot fraudulent thought processes. It is time to call him out.
Dawkins has certainly published a lot of stuff. Some of it was called science, but was actually just fatuous speculation. The popularity that he enjoys comes not from any brilliant scientific experimental discovery, but from his willingness to step far outside the realms of experimental empiricism (or even forensics) and to make truth statements based on no evidence whatsoever. (That is the definition of Philosophical Materialism, after all). Beyond that he is absolutely willing to condemn those who think outside the bounds of his particular flavor of Philosophical Materialism. It is his excoriations and intolerance of the non-Brights, (the non-Dawkinsian Elites) that have made him the prince of Atheism… certainly not his science, much less his logic. His false veneer of “science” provides the excuse that is needed by the Atheist community which has no other justification for existing.
Dawkins’ influence amongst the ill-educated is far beyond his personal self-image as a deathless philosopher. His function is more of an agitator, an obfuscateur, a rational deviant waylaying sophomores.
I invite any seeker who has any questions about Dawkins and his panoply of fallacy to query me here. We will investigate any or all of the “God Delusion” or any of the Dawkins “science”, using known logical and rational methods, which will be outlined in full – something that Dawkins dares not ever do.
Ask and let’s analyze.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Dawkins Induced Suicide
A young Christian reads Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion", and then commits suicide in anguish. What more can be said? Atheism is not a pleasant place to go. By removing the purpose for living with false logic and phony "science", Dawkins has created a cult of his own, one of darkness, self-deceit and self-focus. Unfortunately the secular-educated are totally unequipped to think their way through the morass of fallacies that Atheists like Dawkins rationalize. And being rationally unequipped leads to devastation, when the victim doesn't wish to join the Atheist cult in their pursuit of self, yet believes that his universe has been deconstructed and demolished.
No doubt Dawkins will reject any and all responsibility for the suicide of his new young protege. Perhaps he will claim mental illness on the part of the young suicide victim. But the mental illness wasn't present before the young man read the book. So the content of the book must have induced the mental illness.
Dawkins has consistently failed to take responsibility for the errors in his own logic, the erroneous basis for his computer simulations, and for his rabid intolerance of non-Materialist worldviews. His campaign against the "others" is one of pure hatred. So in a sense, the "God Delusion" is itself a hate crime. There is no reason to believe that Dawkins will feel any need to even acknowledge that this incident even occurred. Let's watch and see.
No doubt Dawkins will reject any and all responsibility for the suicide of his new young protege. Perhaps he will claim mental illness on the part of the young suicide victim. But the mental illness wasn't present before the young man read the book. So the content of the book must have induced the mental illness.
Dawkins has consistently failed to take responsibility for the errors in his own logic, the erroneous basis for his computer simulations, and for his rabid intolerance of non-Materialist worldviews. His campaign against the "others" is one of pure hatred. So in a sense, the "God Delusion" is itself a hate crime. There is no reason to believe that Dawkins will feel any need to even acknowledge that this incident even occurred. Let's watch and see.
Punishing Palin
Just a couple of weeks after I predicted the political punishment of Alaska, probably by using environmentalism to prevent development of natural resources, this Herald Tribune / Reuters report makes it official. Shell has been prohibited from using their leases, for "the next administration to decide how offshore drilling would be conducted in the nation's Arctic region."
Keep watching, more to come I imagine.
Keep watching, more to come I imagine.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Ethics and Saul D. Alinsky
I have just finished reading “Rules for Radicals”, Saul D. Alinsky’s 1971 guide book for directing the efforts of the radicals of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Alinsky had forged a feared name for himself as an agitator and organizer during his long career. He had written a previous book, "Reveille for Radicals", (1946) that he found was being used as a tactical guide by radical “organizers”; but they were missing the point by looking for tactics there: thus a new book was needed.
Although Alinsky died in 1972, his organizational web of community organizers continues to influence the outcomes for many neighborhoods which are otherwise without a voice. Can this be a bad thing?
There is no doubt that there still exist large segments of the population that are poverty stricken, hopeless, and which regenerate themselves into yet more poverty and hopelessness, denied basic rights by congealed knots of power which maintain an onerous, repressive status quo. This is the entire world as Alinsky sees it. His purpose in life is to do something about it. This book outlines how this might be brought about. The question is whether the cure is real, and whether the cost is worth it.
Alinsky makes several points that tie into one common thread: by collectivizing the numerous repressed humans – the sole resource in areas of extreme poverty – a leverage can be brought to bear on the existing power base that can cause the base to work against itself, and in favor of the collective. This Alinsky calls “jujitsu” in reference to the art of helping a larger attacker throw himself with just a little leveraged help from the defender. The collective threatens the power base, the power base reacts (badly), and the collective wins more power and concessions.
The first page gives notice of what is to come:
In these ways the similarity of Alinsky’s approach to secular humanism and the humanist experiments of the early 20th century is striking. While at several spots he urges the radical community organizers to desist from offensive behavior, he also calls for nothing to be out of bounds, there being no bounds to be outside of. By lionizing the “community” and demonizing the knots of power, Alinsky sets the stage for the idea that the overall populace is more important than any individual – while simultaneously denying that precept! It is an exercise in relative thought that produces the obvious paradox. But the paradox doesn’t matter, so long as the objective is still in sight. As he points out early on, it is more important to the radical to adequately rationalize motives after the fact than it is to devise rational motives up front.
The denial of rational motives, the prioritization of humanity over human, the use of any means that will produce, these are enough to discredit the methods of Alinsky. Barack Obama not only accepted these premises, but taught them during his two stints in Chicago’s ghettos (which are still there, unrecovered). These principles are in keeping with his mother’s secular humanism and his grandfather’s Marxism.
Why should we believe anything that an Alinsky disciple says? Where do we think that an Alinsky disciple will take us, once he has seized power? What shall we do to protect ourselves from him? Are principled actions as effective as unprincipled actions? We shall see.
Although Alinsky died in 1972, his organizational web of community organizers continues to influence the outcomes for many neighborhoods which are otherwise without a voice. Can this be a bad thing?
There is no doubt that there still exist large segments of the population that are poverty stricken, hopeless, and which regenerate themselves into yet more poverty and hopelessness, denied basic rights by congealed knots of power which maintain an onerous, repressive status quo. This is the entire world as Alinsky sees it. His purpose in life is to do something about it. This book outlines how this might be brought about. The question is whether the cure is real, and whether the cost is worth it.
Alinsky makes several points that tie into one common thread: by collectivizing the numerous repressed humans – the sole resource in areas of extreme poverty – a leverage can be brought to bear on the existing power base that can cause the base to work against itself, and in favor of the collective. This Alinsky calls “jujitsu” in reference to the art of helping a larger attacker throw himself with just a little leveraged help from the defender. The collective threatens the power base, the power base reacts (badly), and the collective wins more power and concessions.
The first page gives notice of what is to come:
“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away”.The stark philosophy - Alinsky claims no philosophy, merely tactics and action - quickly folds in on itself. While claiming the high road of pursuing the “democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, co-operation, equal and full-opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life”, Alinsky goes into a denial of ethics altogether:
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma. To begin with , he does not have a fixed truth – truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.“As for the ethics of means and ends:
“The man of action views the question of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of the ends and principles.” [emphasis added].In his ten rules of the means and ends, is this statement – rule three:
“in war the end justifies almost any means”.And rule 8:
“The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”And rule 10:
“You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments”.These are justified by a new virtue:
“Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of “personal salvation”; he doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them”.As for tactics, anything goes. Of course some things – ridicule for example – work better than others, but on the whole, the course of action is opportunism coupled with constant pressure on the power base; using the reaction of the power base against itself. But any tactic is justified, since there is no fixed ethic, certainly no overarching moral component other than the success of the mission.
In these ways the similarity of Alinsky’s approach to secular humanism and the humanist experiments of the early 20th century is striking. While at several spots he urges the radical community organizers to desist from offensive behavior, he also calls for nothing to be out of bounds, there being no bounds to be outside of. By lionizing the “community” and demonizing the knots of power, Alinsky sets the stage for the idea that the overall populace is more important than any individual – while simultaneously denying that precept! It is an exercise in relative thought that produces the obvious paradox. But the paradox doesn’t matter, so long as the objective is still in sight. As he points out early on, it is more important to the radical to adequately rationalize motives after the fact than it is to devise rational motives up front.
The denial of rational motives, the prioritization of humanity over human, the use of any means that will produce, these are enough to discredit the methods of Alinsky. Barack Obama not only accepted these premises, but taught them during his two stints in Chicago’s ghettos (which are still there, unrecovered). These principles are in keeping with his mother’s secular humanism and his grandfather’s Marxism.
Why should we believe anything that an Alinsky disciple says? Where do we think that an Alinsky disciple will take us, once he has seized power? What shall we do to protect ourselves from him? Are principled actions as effective as unprincipled actions? We shall see.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Stem Cells without Killing.
The news of a non-embryonic stem cell first is very welcome, especially in light of Obama's promise to institute embryonic stem cell research as a legal and funded entitlement. This success involves the creation of an entire organ from non-embryonic stem cells, the organ being a wind pipe (trachea), necessary for a woman who lost hers to TB.
There appears to be no reason to destroy human embryos in order to gain the benefits of stem cells. In fact, embryonic stem cells have serious problems not associated with adult stem cells, including rejection, tumors and cancer, not to mention trafficking in human embryos. So why would the Left be so anxious to do it? The Left seems obsessed with the right to kill anything human that is yet to be born. Yet they also claim not to be eugenisists. It's a paradox within which they contentedly live; no logic will deter them from that.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Think You Know Who the President-Elect Really Is?
Do you find it difficult to assemble all the facts about Obama in one place and at one time? Especially with annotated source data? If you care about such things, try this website. You will find out more than you likely thought was available to the public about this "community organizer" with 143 days experience in the U. S. Senate. Feel free to try to refute it if you think that you can.
Saul Alinsky, Hillary, and Obama: Undermining the Foundations of Culture
Saul Alinsky was a radical - some say communist - who wrote the book for both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton wrote a thesis on Alinsky; Obama worked in an Alinsky offshoot organization and taught Alinsky techniques. Alinsky wrote an admiring note about Lucifer in his book, Rules for Radicals, and went on to cover the principles for siezing power from the "haves" by the "have nots". Many of his techniques, such as ridicule, personification of targets, and making a "stink", are used frequently and forcefully by the Left. The following list is a condensation of techniques for siezing power that Alinsky published.
See if you see Hillary and Obama in the following exerpts from Alinsky's book:
See if you see Hillary and Obama in the following exerpts from Alinsky's book:
Rules of power tactics
From Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky
Tactics mean doing what you can with what you have.
Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.
For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people's organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then...conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
Second: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
Sixth rule: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment.
Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.
The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his suddenly agreeing with your demand and saying "You're right - we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
In conflict tactics there are certain rules that the organizer should always regard as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and "frozen." By this I mean that in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a constant, and somewhat legitimate, passing of the buck. The target is always trying to shift responsibility to get out of being the target.
One of the criteria in picking your target is the target's vulnerability - where do you have the power to start? Furthermore, the target can always say, "Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?" When you "freeze the target," you disregard these arguments and, for the moment, all others to blame.
Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all of the "others" come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target.
The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract such as a community's segregated practices or a major corporation or City Hall. It is not possible to develop the necessary hostility against, say, City Hall, which after all is a concrete, physical, inanimate structure, or against a corporation, which has no soul or identity, or a public school administration, which again is an inanimate system.
Alinski Jujitsu: Obama's attack on Free Speech
At least one source believes it has identified an alternate tactic that will be used by Obama to silence critics. Relying on tactics devised by Saul Alinski, and taught by Obama himself, relatively innocuous pre-existing regulations which might be nebulous to some degree can be perverted to mean something entirely different than the original intent. In this case it would be "localization" requirements for radio stations, which could be twisted to serve the same purpose as the perversely named "Fairness Doctrine" which had been killed but is likely to be exhumed by Democrats wishing to nuke talk radio and its criticisms of the Left.
This alternate method could be implemented under the radar of the average citizen since it requires no new legislation. It could be implemented immediately to punish Christian radio, and stations carrying right wing commentators. With a single "complaint" the FCC could shut down a station; only three of the five commissioners would need to vote "yes". Packing the FCC with anti-Free Speechers would do the trick.
Obama believes in only positive rights, which are those specifically allowed by the government, and not more. Traditionally the rights guaranteed to U. S. citizens have been the liberties to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law, or "negative" rights in Obama-speak. Free speech is endangered right off the blocks as soon as Obama is sworn in. Any media that is not already in his tank will be silenced, one way or another, with the most difficult being the internet. As I posted earlier, Australia is already implementing an obligatory internet filter test to eliminate "undesirable" websites; the technology is imminent and ominous.
The war on its own population, begun by the Bush administration, will be expanded by a totally Leftist Obama government; it won't be able to help itself, the temptation is too great and the risk of failure is nil. Besides, even Utopia requires that the weeds be mowed down and burned.
The remaining question is how will they stop the free election in two years, when the voters (hopefully) have figured out that just because he's black doesn't make him a desirable dictator. Well, that problem might be solved with another $88 Million injection from George Soros, so that the All-Obama networks can pump the vote into the Left lane again.
This alternate method could be implemented under the radar of the average citizen since it requires no new legislation. It could be implemented immediately to punish Christian radio, and stations carrying right wing commentators. With a single "complaint" the FCC could shut down a station; only three of the five commissioners would need to vote "yes". Packing the FCC with anti-Free Speechers would do the trick.
Obama believes in only positive rights, which are those specifically allowed by the government, and not more. Traditionally the rights guaranteed to U. S. citizens have been the liberties to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by law, or "negative" rights in Obama-speak. Free speech is endangered right off the blocks as soon as Obama is sworn in. Any media that is not already in his tank will be silenced, one way or another, with the most difficult being the internet. As I posted earlier, Australia is already implementing an obligatory internet filter test to eliminate "undesirable" websites; the technology is imminent and ominous.
The war on its own population, begun by the Bush administration, will be expanded by a totally Leftist Obama government; it won't be able to help itself, the temptation is too great and the risk of failure is nil. Besides, even Utopia requires that the weeds be mowed down and burned.
The remaining question is how will they stop the free election in two years, when the voters (hopefully) have figured out that just because he's black doesn't make him a desirable dictator. Well, that problem might be solved with another $88 Million injection from George Soros, so that the All-Obama networks can pump the vote into the Left lane again.
A Needed Smile
I lifted the following from another blog...postdarwinist. As a retired R&D Engineer myself, I found these to be pretty good.
Understanding Engineers - Take One
Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.
One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.”
Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections.”
The last one said, “No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”
Understanding Engineers - Take Two
Two engineering students were walking across a university campus when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?”
The second engineer replied, “Well, I was walking along yesterday, minding my own business, when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike, threw it to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you want.”
The second engineer nodded approvingly and said, “Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn’t have fitted you anyway.”
Understanding Engineers - Take Three
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Understanding Engineers - Take Four
A priest, a doctor, and an engineer were waiting one morning for a particularly slow group of golfers.
The engineer fumed, “What’s with those blokes? We must have been waiting for fifteen minutes!”
The doctor chimed in, “I don’t know, but I’ve never seen such inept golf!”
The priest said, “Here comes the greens keeper. Let’s have a word with him.” He said, “Hello,
George! what’s wrong with that group ahead of us? They’re rather slow, aren’t they?”
The greens keeper replied, “Oh, yes. That’s a group of blind fire fighters. They lost their sight saving our clubhouse from a fire last year, so we always let them play for free anytime.”
The group fell silent for a moment. The priest said, “That’s so sad. I think I will say a special prayer for them tonight.”
The doctor said, “Good idea. I’m going to contact my ophthalmologist colleague and see if there’s anything he can do for them.”
The engineer said, “Why can’t they play at night?”
Understanding Engineers - Take Five
What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
Mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets.
Understanding Engineers - Take Six
The graduate with a science degree asks, “Why does it work?”
The graduate with an engineering degree asks, “How does it work?”
The graduate with an accounting degree asks, “How much will it cost?”
The graduate with a liberal arts degree asks, “Do you want fries with that?”
Understanding Engineers - Take Seven
Normal people believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.
Understanding Engineers - Take Eight
An engineer was crossing a road one day, when a frog called out to him and said, “If you kiss me, I’ll turn into a beautiful princess.”
He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.
The frog spoke up again and said, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week.”
The engineer took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket.
The frog then cried out, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a Princess, I’ll stay with you for one week and do ANYTHING you want. Like, you know ... , ”
Again, the engineer took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.
Finally, the frog asked, “What is the matter with you? I’ve told you I’m a beautiful princess, and that I’ll stay with you for one week and do anything you want. Why won’t you kiss me?”
The engineer replied, “Look, I’m an engineer. I don’t have time for a girlfriend. But a talking frog? Now that’s cool.”
Understanding Engineers - Take One
Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.
One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.”
Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections.”
The last one said, “No, actually it had to have been a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”
Understanding Engineers - Take Two
Two engineering students were walking across a university campus when one said, “Where did you get such a great bike?”
The second engineer replied, “Well, I was walking along yesterday, minding my own business, when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike, threw it to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, “Take what you want.”
The second engineer nodded approvingly and said, “Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn’t have fitted you anyway.”
Understanding Engineers - Take Three
To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Understanding Engineers - Take Four
A priest, a doctor, and an engineer were waiting one morning for a particularly slow group of golfers.
The engineer fumed, “What’s with those blokes? We must have been waiting for fifteen minutes!”
The doctor chimed in, “I don’t know, but I’ve never seen such inept golf!”
The priest said, “Here comes the greens keeper. Let’s have a word with him.” He said, “Hello,
George! what’s wrong with that group ahead of us? They’re rather slow, aren’t they?”
The greens keeper replied, “Oh, yes. That’s a group of blind fire fighters. They lost their sight saving our clubhouse from a fire last year, so we always let them play for free anytime.”
The group fell silent for a moment. The priest said, “That’s so sad. I think I will say a special prayer for them tonight.”
The doctor said, “Good idea. I’m going to contact my ophthalmologist colleague and see if there’s anything he can do for them.”
The engineer said, “Why can’t they play at night?”
Understanding Engineers - Take Five
What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?
Mechanical engineers build weapons and civil engineers build targets.
Understanding Engineers - Take Six
The graduate with a science degree asks, “Why does it work?”
The graduate with an engineering degree asks, “How does it work?”
The graduate with an accounting degree asks, “How much will it cost?”
The graduate with a liberal arts degree asks, “Do you want fries with that?”
Understanding Engineers - Take Seven
Normal people believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet.
Understanding Engineers - Take Eight
An engineer was crossing a road one day, when a frog called out to him and said, “If you kiss me, I’ll turn into a beautiful princess.”
He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.
The frog spoke up again and said, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week.”
The engineer took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket.
The frog then cried out, “If you kiss me and turn me back into a Princess, I’ll stay with you for one week and do ANYTHING you want. Like, you know ... , ”
Again, the engineer took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.
Finally, the frog asked, “What is the matter with you? I’ve told you I’m a beautiful princess, and that I’ll stay with you for one week and do anything you want. Why won’t you kiss me?”
The engineer replied, “Look, I’m an engineer. I don’t have time for a girlfriend. But a talking frog? Now that’s cool.”
The AntiGay Blacklist: Tit for Tat...or Not
During the past couple of years boycotts have been wielded effectively against some of the largest companies in the world. Both Ford Motor Company and McDonald's were successfully boycotted due to their overt and extensive support for homosexual agendas. At first both resisted; in the end, the corporations rescinded their support, and the boycotts were lifted. Boycotts can be very effective and they have the advantage of being legal, peaceful and passive.
The homosexual advocates are now incensed at the loss of single sex marriage due to a new constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) that was just adopted in California. The activists have researched the donor list for people and organizations that donated to the opposing cause, and have listed the names on the internet, requesting that their supporters boycott the donors.
The problem arises in that may of the individuals are difficult to punish with a boycott because they are part of a larger whole. Included in this are donors such as a Catholic bishop, a university professor, employees of the U.S. Federal Government, and so on. One can deliberately NOT patronize say, a dentist, or a roofing contractor, but how does one punish the others? Not by boycott, obviously.
So the cover statement of "boycott" is a deception. The list has been made available to a group of amoral, vicious, vituperative, violent progeny of the entitlement age. The homosexuals having already engaged in destruction, terrorism, violence against even elderly women, it is easy to project that hateful crimes will continue against those who supported traditional marriage. It is only a matter of time before some of the targeted listees are seriously damaged by these spoiled brats. The California powers-that-be, by their silence on the destruction by homosexuals and by their overt continuing support for the homosexual activists, are complicit to the core. If this heated situation continues to escalate, there will likely be an unpleasant backlash.
The homosexuals and their Leftist apologists have demonstrated their complete disdain for the law, democracy and the American culture at large. Their demands are in the process of forming a trip point for rallying those who value traditional morals, ethics and even personal safety. War of a sort has been declared by the homosexuals; how the battle will be joined will be interesting to watch.
The homosexual advocates are now incensed at the loss of single sex marriage due to a new constitutional amendment (Proposition 8) that was just adopted in California. The activists have researched the donor list for people and organizations that donated to the opposing cause, and have listed the names on the internet, requesting that their supporters boycott the donors.
The problem arises in that may of the individuals are difficult to punish with a boycott because they are part of a larger whole. Included in this are donors such as a Catholic bishop, a university professor, employees of the U.S. Federal Government, and so on. One can deliberately NOT patronize say, a dentist, or a roofing contractor, but how does one punish the others? Not by boycott, obviously.
So the cover statement of "boycott" is a deception. The list has been made available to a group of amoral, vicious, vituperative, violent progeny of the entitlement age. The homosexuals having already engaged in destruction, terrorism, violence against even elderly women, it is easy to project that hateful crimes will continue against those who supported traditional marriage. It is only a matter of time before some of the targeted listees are seriously damaged by these spoiled brats. The California powers-that-be, by their silence on the destruction by homosexuals and by their overt continuing support for the homosexual activists, are complicit to the core. If this heated situation continues to escalate, there will likely be an unpleasant backlash.
The homosexuals and their Leftist apologists have demonstrated their complete disdain for the law, democracy and the American culture at large. Their demands are in the process of forming a trip point for rallying those who value traditional morals, ethics and even personal safety. War of a sort has been declared by the homosexuals; how the battle will be joined will be interesting to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)