Tag Archive for mob-rule

The tragic human cost of political correctness.

Terrorism and political correctness

Terrorism and political correctness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A friend recently sent me this link to a Fox News article with an example of how the media is blurring out images in its reporting of the terrorist attacks in Paris this week.

To avoid offending Muslims!

13 people (or perhaps more by now) dead from Islamist terrorists and the liberals are worried about offending the religion that spawned these murderers.

Disgusting, spineless and immoral.

The deaths of these innocent victims, civilian and police, along with those in recent incidents in Australia, the UK and here in Canada can be directly blamed on successive liberal governments too afraid to institute responsible immigration policies or to enforce compliance with local laws and customs.

Appeasement has never worked.

Equally guilty are those in government and the media that conspired to disarm the law-abiding population and severely punish those that do use their legally owned weapons for protection of themselves, their families or their property.

The final nail in the coffin of freedom is the condemnation of anyone who dares to criticise anyone else who is of a different race, religion or sexual orientation from the established majority.

It is no longer acceptable to be a politically and socially conservative white, Christian or Jewish, heterosexual male or female speaking one of the main-stream European Languages. Conservatives of other races are often even more unacceptable.

The liberal lunatic fringe has hijacked social media to elevate mob-rule and character assassination by “virtual lynching” to an art form.

What happened to the policy of “live and let live”?

Your views on gun ownership might be different to mine and I accept that there are many nut cases who should never be allowed to possess guns. However this attack, the one in Sydney recently, the two in Canada  on military personnel both on and off duty and many of the mass shootings in schools and shopping centres in the US happened partly because the terrorists (and maniacs with a grudge at the schools), knew the victims would be unarmed.

It is one of the shameful consequences of disarming the law-abiding population in Australia, Canada and Europe and restricting the carrying of weapons in schools and cinemas in the USA.

I accept that handguns are not a good match for AK47s, and there may well have been some casualties in these incidents. But I am convinced they would have been far fewer had there been competent gun owners around to provide a defence.

Contrast these incidents with the experience of our terrorist wars in Rhodesia & South Africa when much higher numbers of terrorists did not break into homes and offices to kill the occupants because they knew that most of the people carried guns, knew how to use them effectively and were determined to use them to save lives, protect property and support the police in upholding the law.

The terrorists did cause casualties with bombs and landmines and by attacking the defenceless tribal population. One could argue that they were neither as rabidly brainwashed nor determined as Islamist fanatics or deranged students, but an armed and aware population was a huge deterrent.

The fact that I had guns and would use them, saved my life on more than one occasion without having to fire them.

My 65-year-old father was able to save his and my mother’s life when they were ambushed by 9 terrorists with AK47s because he had a gun and returned fire.

There was a report of an attempted armed robbery at a jewellery store on our local television news last night. It was foiled when an armed guard shot the robber in the leg, leading to his arrest.

The reporter was shocked that a security guard at a jewellery store had been armed. No congratulations that by his action he may have saved the lives of the staff, prevented a robbery and taken an armed criminal off the street.

A police spokesman was quoted as saying that the shooting would be investigated and that the guard may be charged with a firearms offence!

The mind boggles at that sort of attitude, is it any wonder that these terrorists and other nut cases think they can get away with their murderous acts.

Western culture, its Christian and secular values are under attack. We are allowing the enemy to use the advantages of our societies to launch their attacks. We are allowing the liberal fringe to protect the bad guys while emasculating the law-abiding population through political correctness and handicapping  them by taking their guns away.

If our voters and leaders do not wake up soon, we will follow the Roman Empire into oblivion.

Aggravating racism by poking a stick in a festering sore.

Bandage it, don't  poke it with a stick

Bandage it, don’t poke it with a stick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does North America have such an unhelpful and unhealthy attitude to racism?

The reaction to the comments by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Stirling’s comments goes beyond ludicrous.

His comments, if they were correctly quoted, were not the most sensible considering many of his team and fans are black. They may have upset many people, but on the long list of serious problems in the world today, no reasonable person can rate them near the top.

However, they were made in a private conversation. One that was not intended to be made public.

For a country that claims to be against racism and for freedom of speech, the escalation of this incident and the resulting punishment of Mr. Stirling borders on the insane.

As a victim of far more serious racism than a derogatory comment in a private conversation, I am appalled at both the hysteria that this incident has generated and the reverse discrimination visited on Mr. Stirling.

For the record, my father was murdered, my mother crippled for life.  Later, I was thrown in a police cell while my farm and all my assets were illegally taken from me by the Zimbabwe government. All because we were white. That is the sort of racism every one should be concerned about.

Do I blame all black people for that? Of course not.

The most irresponsible and malicious actors in this sad saga are the person who “leaked” the conversation to the media, the media channel that publicised it and all those in both public and private office who have used it to make themselves look good.

Here’s why:

It was a private conversation.

Who among us can honestly say that they have never made a derogatory comment about a group of people in a private conversation. I cannot and I don’t think many others can.

How many times do we hear criticism of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Bankers, Oil executives, the Rich, the poor, the homeless, Southerners, Newfies, Italians, Germans, Russians or any other nationality?

What about criticism of religions, Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists? Or sports teams, the police, the military?

As a former white resident of Southern Africa, now living in North America, I frequently have to ignore allegations of my obviously “terrible attitude to, and treatment of, black people”.

I know that these comments are made from ignorance by people who have no idea of the real situation in my former countries and who have been subjected to anti South African and anti Rhodesian propaganda for most of their lives.

While I may not like the comments, I understand that people are as free to make them as I am to publish my opinions and Donald Stirling is to express his in a private conversation.

The comments were not illegal

At the time of writing there has been no indication that the comments broke any laws.

Donald Stirling is a wealthy man who may be quite happy to sell his team for the $600 to $700 million it is reported to be worth. It’s poetic justice that he will realise a huge profit on his original $12 million investment if he does sell the team.

It would be supremely ironic if he chose to disband the team, but I doubt if anybody would walk away from that sort of money.

Will he go on the counter attack and sue who ever he can? Again much as I would like to see it, I think the deck is stacked against him.

Unethical manipulation of an owners association

If the man has not committed a crime, it is entirely unethical for the NBA to exert pressure on the owners association to expel him. It is also wrong for him to be expelled from the association and banned for life while he legally owns a team.

This treatment establishes a dangerous precedent akin to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in the 1930’s. Then it started with smashing shop windows. Now it’s by banning an owner from enjoying free use of his assets.

It establishes other dangerous precedents, underhand methods for sabotaging successful teams, alienating sponsors and supporters, crippling them financially.

It gives unsuccessful businesses the ability to raise charges of racism to unfairly eliminate competitors in the knowledge that even if the charges are completely unfounded, the media will ensure that damage is done.

Other than the reversed shirt incident, it does not appear that any team members have expressed their disapproval by walking away from the team. Their outrage is not sufficient to jeopardise lucrative contracts.

What would the NBA do if the team expressed solidarity with the owner and demanded that he continue as owner?

The USA trumpets the virtues of the free market system. The market should decide Donald Stirling’s fate, not the self-righteous advocates of totalitarianism that seek to control the thoughts and comments of a nation.

The end of free speech

It is an unacceptable use of thought and speech control, the same mob rule mentality that hounded Brendan Eich from his job a few weeks ago has struck another victim.

Who will be next, will it be you because you said something that a politician or someone in the media did not like?

Why this attitude is unhealthy

When a child comes to his or her mother with a minor scratch, she treats it with the appropriate amount of first aid and leaves it to nature and time to heal.

She does not poke it with a stick to make it much worse and then call the media to show the festering wound to the nation.

That’s what the over hyped reaction to incidents like this does, turn a minor scratch into a festering sore.

Like minor scratches, incidents like these should be left alone for time and nature to heal, not used to provoke racial tension and victimize people.

Why should incidents like this provoke such over-reaction? More hysteria than in some countries with histories of interracial conflict?

Is it lingering guilt over slavery? Or guilt over the almost total annihilation of the indigenous populations of North America and their reduction to powerless minorities? Or the success of the politically correct liberal left in dividing the moderate majority and stifling any opinion other than its own.

Be aware, you could be the next victim.

peter-wright

 

 

 

mage courtesy of Stuart Miles / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Ukrainian Government’s Dilemma

Brian via Compfight

elexorien sword of vaelen

Those who live by the sword die by the sword

The interim government in Ukraine is becoming acutely aware of the saying derived from the biblical parable in The Gospel of Mathew, verse 26:52.

“Those who live by the sword, die by the sword”.

It’s ironic that the new government’s successful installation in Kiev, has encouraged the pro Russian activists in cities in the East of the country to use the same strategy.

A strategy of widespread resistance using tactics of roadblocks in the streets and illegal occupation of government buildings.

In a post on 25 February Ukraine, Peaceful Protest or Mob Rule, I pointed out the dangers of mob rule.

It appears that those dangers are now coming back to haunt the new government.

The same factors are now almost certainly hindering the West’s ability to effectively respond to the Russian annexation of Crimea and fomenting of demands for autonomy in Eastern Ukraine.

While most reasonable supporters of democracy will approve of the ousting of former President Yanukovich, the means by which it was achieved were anything but democratic.

It’s somewhat illogical to celebrate mob rule in one part of the country and then condemn the same actions in another.

The new government is now becoming painfully aware of the consequences of its takeover as it contemplates its options in the East.

There were calls for the former president and some of his officials to be tried for war crimes because some protesters were shot.

Is that why the new government is so scared of using force to evict the illegal occupiers of government buildings in Eastern towns?

It is a real predicament, use too much force resulting in casualties, alienate the pro-Russian population, risk accusations of war crimes, invite an invasion by Russian troops.

Don’t use force and see an increasing number of Eastern towns and regions become lawless, controlled by mobs and ripe for annexation by Russia.

Governments have to govern, as distasteful as it may be, the government in Ukraine must take resolute action to regain control of the whole country quickly.

The alternative is a partitioned Ukraine and increased risk of Russian sponsored agitation in other countries which were formerly part of the USSR.

The big question is why the new government did not take immediate steps to bolster the security at its buildings and defence of cities in the East as soon as the Russian activities in Crimea commenced.

Was it concern over the loyalty of its troops?  Was it the naivety of a new government? Was it inexperienced leadership?

 

peter-wright

 

 

 

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

Egypt and The Law of Unintended Consequences

 

unintended-consequences

Egypt in chaos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back in 2011 when the mobs of the Arab spring were busy overthrowing President Mubarak of Egypt, the liberal left and the media were celebrating the rise of democracy across the Middle East.

People power, the leverage of social media and the dawn of a new, happy, prosperous future was forecast for the whole region.

It looks as if the dream of a better future has turned into a nightmare of mob rule and a reinstatement of military control in Egypt, civil war, huge numbers of casualties and massive destruction in Syria and an uncertain future in most of the other countries.

I am overjoyed to see the Muslim Brotherhood removed from power, but concerned at the way it was done by mob rule and a subsequent military coup. Whether we liked it or not, the government of President Morsi was democratically elected. There were no credible allegations that the election was not free and fair.

Allowing an elected government to be overthrown by mob rule is a dangerous precedent with serious implications for some of the struggling Southern European countries. If enough Greek protesters get out on the streets, would that country’s military feel obliged to stage a coup?

The country with the least unrest, most stability and an efficient economy in the region, Saudi Arabia, is also the most autocratic. Attempts at overthrowing the rulers in that country would be resisted quickly and with massive force. Mob rule would be stillborn.

I am not an apologist for Saudi Arabia, I think their treatment of women is awful. But I also think that there is a very good reason that the relative stability in most countries in the region before the “Arab Spring” was only possible with strong dictators as leaders.

For all his faults (and the world is a better place without him) Saddam Hussein kept Iraq functioning without the continual sectarian strife, suicide bombers and rising chaos now developing since the departure of Western troops. He confined his murderous activities to a war with Iran, gassing Kurds and dealing with small numbers of dissidents

Afghanistan is showing similar tendencies. Pakistan has been a much more dangerous place for both its own citizens and those in neighbouring countries since the removal from office of the last military strong man Pervez Musharraf as President.

More parallels in Africa. Harsh tribal rule and no economic development replaced by relative peace, creation of infrastructure and developing economies under strict, efficient, colonial rule. Corruption, brutality and wrecked economies after independence.

Rhodesia, one of the only two countries on the continent with a viable, first world type, economy and a responsible government, thrived for years despite a terrorist war, sanctions, no foreign aid. Then descended into chaos after being forced to hand over power to a corrupt and murderous terrorist government.

30 years later, after record rates of inflation, emigration of 25% of the population, thousands murdered, a ruined economy and its currency abandoned, the former life expectancy has been halved and there is still no semblance of democracy.

The other, South Africa, now heading down the same slippery slope into chaos, currency devalued, a huge brain drain of many of the best and brightest from all population groups, murder rates higher than under the former government. Important industries crippled by political interference in hiring practices and labour unrest.

Why does democracy, with all its faults, work reasonably well in the West and is now working better in many parts of Asia, South and Central America, but not in the regions mentioned above?

The passage of time.

It has taken European societies over 2000 years to nurture and refine systems of government developed by the ancient Romans and Greeks. There were many backward steps on that long road, descents into chaos, invasions by other groups. Religious interference.

It is unrealistic to expect societies that have known no system other than tribal, feudal or dictatorial rule to adopt democracy overnight. When power has been reserved for only the strongest leaders for centuries, often exercised with brutality and cruelty, compassion is seen as weakness.

It is ironic that former ruler Mubarak is about to be re-tried for using force against demonstrators when over 50 of the current crop of demonstrators (demonstrating for the continuance of a more autocratic ruler than Mubarak) were killed by the military this week.

How much better off would Egyptians be today, how many fewer deaths, and how much better the wrecked Egyptian economy, if Mubarak had not been abandoned by his former allies in the West. But instead gently influenced to introduce change at a rate the country could withstand.

Certainly for the liberal proponents of the Arab Spring, a clear demonstration of the law of unintended consequences in action.

 

peter-wright