Tag Archive for anarchy

The Tail Wagging the Dog Nightmare gets worse.

it's a firefox cake! Rakka via Compfight

Yesterday Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla, and leave the company he co-founded.

Why?

Because in 2008 he donated $1000 to an anti same-sex marriage campaign.

It is ludicrous that in a supposed democracy which trumpets the virtue and right of free speech, a man can be forced to resign for expressing an opinion.

An opinion that is shared by a significant percentage, in some areas, a clear majority, of the population.

An opinion that has been the dominant opinion on which the legal, philosophical and natural laws of marriage have been based for thousands of years.

An opinion that has nothing to do with his ability to perform his role as CEO. It could be argued that as a man with the courage of his convictions, it enhances his role.

Another example of political correctness gone berserk, the dark side of social media exposed.

Why is it that a serving US President did not have to resign after the sordid details of an affair with a junior employee made him the subject of international ridicule. Nor after his earlier denials of the affair brought his integrity into question.

I am not suggesting he should have been forced to resign over the affair itself, that might have established a precedent that could have decimated the ranks of politicians and corporate executives.

Denying it is another matter. Both errors of judgement infinitely more serious than Mr. Eich making a small donation to a legal and popular, cause. A cause that was supported by 7 million Californian voters.

Why can celebrities, fading stars and members of the lunatic fringe be not only forgiven, but in liberal circles, celebrated for unpatriotic comments and actions against companies trying to reduce the cost of energy and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

I don’t recall a single case of a celebrity being asked to resign for making ridiculous allegations against, for example, Canadian Oil, GM crops or gun control.

Some of the attacks on national companies and institutions would have been judged as treason not that long ago.

The answer of course is that the liberal left has hoodwinked the media and many people who should know better with it’s campaign of take from the successful and give to those who want it all without having to exert any effort to produce themselves.

Various estimates put homosexuals at between 11 & 19% of the North American population. Sources Smithsonian.com  and Pacific Standard

Just as some heterosexual couples do not get married, it is logical to assume that a significant number of homosexual relationships would not result in same-sex marriage.

Therefore, whichever estimate of the number of homosexual couples, reduced by any further estimate one chooses to use, of those that would not want to enter into a marriage, results in a very small part of the general population.

Why should such a small minority dictate to the majority? Why can a CEO be hounded out of his job for expressing his opinion on a matter that has no bearing what so ever on the company he runs?

Why have the majority of solid, ordinary citizens been cowed into silence by the radical left who cannot accept that there are other opinions in this world?

Why do corporations and worse, local governments aid and abet these views abandoning any backbone they may have had by, for example flying the “rainbow” flag over town halls during the winter Olympics? A direct insult to the majority of taxpayers.

Why do some corporations take it further and try and capitalise on this trend by organising boycotts? OK Cupid allegedly blocked any users of Mozilla’s browser, Firefox, from using it’s website until Brendan Eich resigned.

Because socialist propaganda has convinced too many good people that the tail can wag the dog.

For a group that whines continuously and vociferously about the unfairness of discrimination, it is bizarre that it should be the weapon of choice to be used against any one with a different opinion.

My personal philosophy is one of live and let live, I have as little interest in any one else’s sexual habits or preferences as I have in publicising my own.

I believe that those involved in same-sex relationships can be protected without a “marriage” of the same status as that for ordinary marriages between a man and a woman.

That’s my opinion and I could assemble pages of facts to support it. Just as proponents of same-sex marriage can raise compelling arguments to support it. It is my right to disagree with that opinion as much as it is theirs to disagree with mine.

Neither of us have the right to destroy the other’s careers, businesses or even lives because of that disagreement.

I have a great interest in fairness and minimal interference in the private lives of others by both government and mobs of social media vigilantes flying a liberal flag.

This mob violence – digital or real – may well come back to bite the hands that feed it. Already there is at least one counter boycott from a Christian group blocking Mozilla users.

What will be the next cause these vigilantes adopt? It might be directed against you or the values you stand for. Will you have the fortitude to resist it?

We had better hope that enough of us do find the courage otherwise we will soon realise that we no longer live in a democracy, mob rule will have triumphed. Anarchy will prevail.

peter-wright

Ukraine, Peaceful Protest, Revolution or Mob Rule?

 

consequences

Peaceful Protest or Anarchy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When the protests against the government of the Ukraine became increasingly violent it was not surprising that they invited an equally violent response from the forces of law and order.

The overwhelming reaction from commentators and political leaders in the West was support for the protesters and condemnation of the government for stopping “peaceful” protests with violent confrontation.

Can protests be considered “peaceful” when barricades are set up in streets to stop the police doing their job as well as preventing free access to other law-abiding citizens? When police are shot at, stoned, petrol bombed with many injured and some killed.

When government buildings, vehicles and other public assets are invaded, burned and the occupants prevented from doing their jobs.

I have always been wary of the right to peaceful protest. The moment the number of protesters becomes high enough, or their actions violent enough, to interfere with the ability of others to enjoy freedom of movement, ability to work or use their property, a line has been crossed.

That line should not be crossed in a democratic system.

The first time a brick or more dangerous missile, is hurled at a policeman, public or private property damaged, the protesters must accept the risk of being seriously injured or killed.

I have no sympathy for recently deposed President Yanukovych or his government, however I have little enthusiasm for mob rule.

Why do we in the West automatically side with the protesters? Even when the government that is the target of the protesters was freely elected and by some standards no worse than others? – That was not necessarily so in the case of the Ukraine.

The Western leaders and media fell over themselves to praise the protesters in the “Arab Spring”. The result, certainly in Libya, Egypt and Syria, less stable countries with more casualties than before under the old autocratic regimes.

What would happen in North America or Western Europe if freely elected governments were faced with massive and violent revolution? We saw how Greece experienced a taste of it at the start of the austerity measures.

It was ugly, but the government had no alternative to using force to contain the situation, protect lives and property, prevent a revolution.

We saw a much more wishy-washy response to protesters during the “Occupy” movement when crowds illegally invaded private and public property, used private gardens as camp sites and toilets and prevented thousands of people going about their legitimate business.

That is not democracy at work, that is the action of a selfish minority attempting to replace a government it does not like by revolution instead of the ballot box.

Why should your and my tax dollars be wasted on replacing burned police cars and paying for thousands of hours of police overtime because the authorities are too timid to use force to maintain law and order?

The new interim government in the Ukraine is now calling for the arrest and trial of President Yanukovych. That may well be justified and he certainly invited retribution by is actions and by the recently revealed opulence of his residence.

That creates the concern that other presidents and prime ministers will be too nervous about their own futures to use force to stop revolutions. The job of being the leader of a country will become more dangerous, less attractive. Weak governments will result, anarchy will prevail.

There is a great danger in glorifying revolution. Yes some revolutions are just and eventually result in better governed countries with better conditions for most citizens. The French Revolution of 1789 – 1799 is probably the best example.

Other revolutions have had more sinister outcomes.The Russian revolution in 1905, being a prime example. One oppressive regime being replaced by a worse and more deadly one that affected the lives of millions of people inside and beyond the borders of the country itself.

The danger is that accepting increasing levels of violence and destruction as the “right of peaceful protest” opens the door to insurrection and chaos every time a segment of the population becomes dissatisfied with the government of the day. Irrespective of whether that government was democratically elected or not, good or bad, effective or not.

In Canada, Australia and most of Europe, the population has largely been disarmed, ordinary citizens will be unable to defend themselves, their families or their properties when weak leaders fear the consequences of firm action and mob rule is allowed to become the norm.

A sad state of affairs and one deliberately engineered by successive levels of increasing “big government”.

The USA, Israel and Switzerland alone in the West have allowed their citizens the security of legal possession of fire arms to defend themselves against the results of mob rule.

peter-wright

 

 

 

Graphic by Artvex.com