Wednesday, September 02, 2009

What Signs of 'Right-Wing Extremism' Law Enforcement Are Trained to Look For?

From Jdamn at the Astute Bloggers:

The most interesting part of this is in the beginning, where he says that the Southern Poverty Law Center invented the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The Southern Poverty Law Center is the wackjob legal defense institution that tried to cash in on the DHS report on right-wing extremism until it came out that they also wrote it and provided 1/3 of the referencesfor it. They get into some really interesting stuff about Morris Dees at the end.

Oh, and the SPLC has been holding hands and making googly eyes at Obama since day 1.

Pro-life people, Ron Paul supporters, Tenth Amendment defenders = terrorists.

Oh, and did you know that the KKK were conservatives? Fascinating, since the Democratic party was founded on slavery and they introduced and propped up every single piece of discriminatory legislation in American history.





Thanks to Americans for Limited Government for providing me with this.

Write your representative and tell him/her to defund the SPLC here.

32 comments:

Damien said...

Pastorius,

The Southern Poverty Law Center receives tax payer funds? I did not know that.

Damien said...

I've been on their website a couple of times in the past. Despite this, stupidity, they have done a few good things in the past. Mostly fighting racists and bigots.

christian soldier said...

great information-thanks--
SO!!How do we organize and fund a counter group---to the SPLC?
C-CS

Pastorius said...

Christian Soldier,
The Thomas More Law Center is the right-wing version of the SPLC and the ACLU.

Send checks to the Thomas More Law Center.

They are the ones who are suing the government for funding AIG when AIG uses the money to promote Sharia banking.

They contend that that is a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

AND THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

Send your money to them.

Pastorius said...

Damien,
I didn't know the SPLC rec'd taxpayer funding either.

I had no idea.

You are right that the SPLC has done a lot of good.

HOWEVER,

they ignore the Jihad.

They are focused on white supremacists, and they ignore the problems presented by the Jihadists in our midst. The massive anti-Semitism, the Homophobia, the degradation of women, all of that seems to be of no concern to the SPLC.

They have basically outlived their relevance, just like the ADL.

We, and other blogs like us are the new SPLC and ADL.

AND WE DO IT FOR FREE.

Damien said...

Also it would be really nice if the ADL and the SPLC would do something to try and fight the stealth Jihad.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Jdamn,

You think, Islam is not a religion because its hate filled and violent. That's problematic at the very least.

When the Aztecs sacrificed people to their God's was it not for religious reasons? Just because Islam is violent at its core does not mean that it isn't a religion. But being a religion does not mean that its adherents necessarily have a right to practice all its teachings. The American government wouldn't let someone sacrifice someone to the Aztec gods today. Luckily at least some Muslims ignore their holy text's hateful passages or try to fight other Muslims who don't. There are far too many people out there who count themselves as Muslims for them to all be monsters. It almost doesn't matter if they are being logically inconsistent. They don't like the hate preached in the Koran, so they ignore it or try to explain it away.

But we can at the very least do what Culturist John and Citizen Warrior would suggest and severally limit, if not put a temporally halt to all Muslim immigration into any western nation.

Also it would be increasingly difficult, but if we had the time and money we could try to amend the USA constitution and make it specifically ban Sharia.

We can do both of those things, if we can only get enough support. The problem is how can we get that support in the first place.

Pastorius said...

Great comment Damien.

Thank you.

Damien said...

You're Welcome, Pastorius

nunya said...

Besides being wholly atheistic, Islam disqualifies itself from being a religion because it is immoral. It has not a single moral teaching to its credit. It has different rules and different standards for different people, but morality is by definition universal. It's not that I think that it's not a religion. That is an objective fact.

Rebecca Bynum explains it pretty well here: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/40040/sec_id/40040

She doesn't even go into how Sura 17 negates any argument that Allah could be a deity, though. He prays, presumably to whatever the real deity is who Mohammedans don't worship, and does what an illiterate child-molesting pirate tell him to do, which is reduce the number of prayers per day from 5 to 7. Furthermore, Islam was never about worshiping Allah. It's about worshiping Mo. The punishment for apostacy is death, but you're given days and multiple chances to repent, but if you insult Mo it becomes incumbent upon all Mohammedans to kill you straight away. Who do you think is at the top of that hierarchy?

Exactly what is the case for Islam as a religion? That it requires militaristic brainwashing exercises, which, like Islam as a religion, don't fit the bill of what constitutes prayer by any definition of the term or stretch of the imagination and whose purpose is not to connect with a deity, but rather, to brainwash oneself even if you don't speak the language you're required to chant in?

Sorry, but an atheistic, ideology which has not a single moral teaching or spiritual aspect to its credit, which centers around worshiping a dead pirate, hardly constitutes a religion. You need a deity, an ideology which is 100% moral, and spirituality to qualify as a religion, and that's just the most bare-bones definition. Islam does not fit the bill.

Damien said...

Jdamn,

Islam is atheistic? Are you joking? Islam can not be an atheistic ideology because, it states that a god does exist. It doesn't matter how depraved their view of God may or may not be.

Plus any religion will not be considered one hundred percent moral by anyone who rejects it. That's even if we ignore the issue of weather or not it were possible for a religion or any other belief system to be one hundred percent moral.

Anonymous said...

It is a religion for purposes of Constitutional separation of church and state.

Epaminondas said...

The SPLC has morphed from the righteous and brave into the sloppy unthinking leavings of a socialist progressive gang rape.

I have over the years since the late 60's contributed a significant amount anonymously

I stopped after seeing their views in the border ..that if you believe in a secure border AND open immigration you are STILL a racist.

Now they are just a branch of Obama inc and they are lost

DONE

Their day is over

Damien said...

Anonymous,

You wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a religion for purposes of Constitutional separation of church and state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I call it a religion because it is one. Again, when the Aztecs sacrificed people to their gods, where they not practicing a religion? Not are religions are remotelly tolerant or peaceful.

christian soldier said...

I've been supporting Thomas More Law since its inception...
C-CS

Anonymous said...

My point was that whatever your discussions related to the definition of "religion," for purposes of the Constitution, the country recognizes it as a religion.

That means one can argue against state support for it based on the "no establishment of religion" clause. That is all I care about.

I don't care whether it qualifies under some definition of "true religion" and was not commenting on whether it is or isn't.

Damien said...

Anonymous,

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't understand what you meant.

Pastorius said...

Damien,
Jdamn is a great contributor here at IBA.

But, your argument with her is enlightening.

I agree with you.

I'm guessing Jdamn is a young person.

She argues from theory, not from reality.

I used to do that when I was a young person.

How old are you, Jdamn? And, please don't try to engage me in any PC ageism? I want to know how old you are.

I also would like to know what your education is.

You are a brilliant person. However, you seem to be living in an Ivory Tower.

That's my opinion. I could be wrong, but it is my opinion.

Thanks, however, for contributing, Jdamn.

Damien said...

Pastorius,

I think that Jdamn is very smart and certainly means well. I've even booked marked her Youtube channel. I agree with her on a lot of things, but to say Islam is not a religion is obviously absurd. Its a religion weather one, is willing to accept the fact or not. We agree there.

Religion is not all bad, but it does have a very dark side.
Religions do not just support charity, encourage good works and going to church on Sunday. They are, and have been historically used to justify evil acts. Every theocracy that has ever existed has been a tyranny. That's one of the reasons why the first amendment to the US constitution forbids the establishment of a national religion. Its a good reason to support the separation of church and state.

Also if is Islam is not a religion, how could one legitimately call an Islamic state a theocracy? But that's exactly what they are. From Saudi Arabia to Iran, to Afghanistan under the Taliban (Arguably it is one now as well) are all theocratic regimes. Any state that puts people to death for rejecting the state religion is a theocracy.

Damien said...

Jdamn

If all religions are always benign, how can theocracies exist? And when they do come into being how come they always turn out to be tyrannical in nature?

Pastorius said...

Damien,
I agree with everything you wrote in that comment, except this sentence which I will adjust to fit what I believe:

"Every theocracy that has ever existed has BECOME a tyranny."

nunya said...

Damien, morality is by definition objective. There are no 'different standards' to apply to it. It is not, nor can it be, subjective, a matter of opinion or perspective. Killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. The Islamic view is that killing and stealing are great, so long as it's Mohammedans killing kafirs. Its narcissistic dynamics are what make it immoral.

And Allah is magical sky-troll at best. Come on. A god who prays? A god who does what Mo tells him to? A god who isn't worshiped anyway? They don't worship Allah. They worship Mo. It's a cult of personality.

Just because it implies (but does not 'state') that a god exists does not qualify it as a religion. The Pledge of Allegiance states that a god exists. So what? Does that make it a religion?

Theocracies are bad because they create a situation in which government legislates morality, and they tend toward tyranny because politicians see themselves as divinely ordained. That's a bad idea. It's absolute power. I never said that all religions were benign, but if they have a moral basis and no political power, then they should be.

Furthermore, for any legal purposes, Islam is political and we can fight it as an enemy political ideology. Practicing it constitutes treason, particularly zakat. Fortunately, their propaganda masters aren't as sly as the KGB.

All of the properties people attribute to Islam as being religious are in reality political. I can't think of a single counterexample and nobody has come up with anything religious about it.

"Any state that puts people to death for rejecting the state religion is a theocracy." That's circular logic. North Korea's form of government is also atheistic and it also puts dissidents to death. Does that make it a theocracy? And how is Saudi Arabia's form of government religious, aside from the fact that they tell you so? Killing apostates and every other aspect of Sharia, and Islam more generally, is 100% political. Having a law because Mohammed says it should be so (and all of Sharia is formed around emulating Mo) is no different than having a law because Marx said it should be so. They're both people, very political figureheads at that.

Pasto, I'm 30 and I just finished grad school. I learned about politics and Islam from my own readings, though. I have an MA in linguistics.

Damien said...

Jdamn,

You wrote,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damien, morality is by definition objective. There are no 'different standards' to apply to it. It is not, nor can it be, subjective, a matter of opinion or perspective. Killing is wrong. Stealing is wrong. The Islamic view is that killing and stealing are great, so long as it's Mohammedans killing kafirs. Its narcissistic dynamics are what make it immoral.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a big believer in moral relativism. People are two quick to excuses something because of a person belongs to a particular group, for example. The point I was trying to make is that if part of your definition of a religion is something that is moral one hundred percent of the time, than just about no one would be able to regard anyone else as having a religion. Every religion has a slightly different concept of morality. Too often they contradict. Even a pagan who was a very moral individual who never harmed an innocent person, and who gave large sums of money to charity, but believed in multiple gods and worshiped statues of them, would be regarded as doing something immoral by pious Christians and Jews. After all, according to Christianity and Judaism it is immoral to worship anything other than the Biblical god. The point I'm making is valid, regardless of weather there is an objective morality or not. Second, I can guarantee that the two of us will disagree about morality at some point, even if it was something very minor.

Damien said...

Jdamn,

you wrote,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Allah is magical sky-troll at best. Come on. A god who prays? A god who does what Mo tells him to? A god who isn't worshiped anyway? They don't worship Allah. They worship Mo. It's a cult of personality.

Just because it implies (but does not 'state') that a god exists does not qualify it as a religion. The Pledge of Allegiance states that a god exists. So what? Does that make it a religion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The belief in a god is not necessary for accepting the message of the declaration of Independence. You do not have to believe in God to support human liberty. But in order for Muhammad to be the prophet he said he was, (which I will agree with you, he was not) Allah would have to be real. If you reject Allah in a pure Islamic society you risk being put to death.

Damien said...

Jdamn,

You wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theocracies are bad because they create a situation in which government legislates morality, and they tend toward tyranny because politicians see themselves as divinely ordained. That's a bad idea. It's absolute power. I never said that all religions were benign, but if they have a moral basis and no political power, then they should be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a problem with condemning a government legislates morality, because could it not be argued that a government outlawing murdering is legislating morality? Also some religions by nature are rather political and not just Islam. The Romans believed the emperor was a god.

Epaminondas said...

"morality is by definition objective"

Nothing could be further from the reality.

If God exists, and if God is the being *****WE**** think he is, THEN such a being can define morality, otherwise morality comes down to what works best giving it's society a darwinian advantage and thus getting to define it.

That is HISTORY.

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Jdamn,

Also when Muslims pray, they pray to Allah, not Mohammad.

Also communist countries put people to death for rejecting the state ideology, not the state religion. A religion is a belief system that involves the supernatural and involves the worship of supernatural, divine entity.

And yes, many of Islam's practices can and should be outlawed, and many of them constitute treason, but that doesn't mean that it is not a religion. Also, just because its a religion does not mean you have the right to practice everything it tells you to do. We can treat advocating Sharia as sedition, which it is. We can also arrest people who commit honor killers or commit acts of terrorism, or try to recruit others for Jihad.

Pastorius said...

Jdamn,
You said: Pasto, I'm 30 and I just finished grad school. I learned about politics and Islam from my own readings, though. I have an MA in linguistics.


I say: Bingo! Especially on the "I just finished grad school" part.

Definition of Religion:

re⋅li⋅gion  [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Pastorius said...

Islam explicitly states that Allah is God.

Buddhism does not believe in God and yet it is a religion.

Hinduism believes every particle in the Universe is God, and it is a religion.

Your degree is in Linguistics, which probably, along with your youth, has something to do with your strict Legalism.

My degrees are in English Literature and Philosophy. I am interested in how ideas drive culture.

As far as I'm concerned, from the humanistic perspective I believe all ideologies are forms of religion. However, as far as I'm concerned, from the Christian perspective (I am a Christian), I think there is no doubt that there is a demonic force behind the religion of Islam.

If I recall, you are Jewish.

The Jewish Bible does not say there are no other gods. It says, only God is God. In other words, he is Lord over all other eternal/yet created things.

If you are not a believer, then this is all fairy tale stuff to you. However, I offer it for your edification if you are a believer.

Additionally, if you would read Carl Jung you would understand the mythic qualities which are part of man's search for meaning in the world, and how those archetypes are the stuff from which religion is made.

Have you ever read William James or Carl Jung?