Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 11     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #76 
There's an abundance of evidence, produced here and elsewhere, to show you that the SPLC clearly targets the entirety of the conservative movement with baseless accusations of promoting hatred and extremism. They are treated as if they were objective researchers when they are in reality an ideological and partisan smear machine. Furthermore, as I mentioned in previous posts, their smears have been shown to potentially endanger the lives and property of those being smeared.

Furthermore, there is a very clear cynicism behind this operation. They only "discovered" or invented new categories of "extremism" (e.g. anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-women, etc) out of expediency. It is very much related to their desire to expand an already substantive donor base, which enriches the group to a degree that has raised questions from experts in the industry.

Lastly, the fact that even some prominent liberal and left-wing journalists - Ken Silverstein and the late Alexander Cockburn among them - have publicly criticised this method of operation and have pointed out that at the end of the day, the SPLC is a money-making scam.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #77 
To Wessexman, 'material'? It was a sentence! To David, fact is that every one of your blizzard of accusations I have troubled to look into turned out to be questionable at best and baseless at worst. I do not feel a need to investigate the SPLC thoroughly enough to form my own solidly-grounded opinion of their merits, or lack thereof. But if you want me to take the latter view, there is a need for you to build a better case for it.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #78 
But do they have such sentences about third wave, hard left feminists? I'm not sure that it was only a sentence really excuses such smears. If we are going to say these are single pieces or reports, it is telling they all go the same way and that such tactics are very common from the SPLC. They don't make such smears of left-liberal causes or figures. Let's not also forget that people from the SPLC saw fit just recently to forward it to that radical feminist mentioned in the article - so it wasn't a throw away sentence, or even report, to them!

What they do say about Christina Hoff Sommers and those like her is so silly, exaggerated, and one-sided that, though it might not technically be lying, it is essentially dishonest:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27628/southern-poverty-law-center-hits-factual-feminist-paul-bois

The point is to clearly make out a classical liberal feminist like Hoff Sommers, or similar people, is enabling some kind of extreme, nefarious, but only vaguely described, anti-woman radicalism, simply for not towing the third wave feminist line.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #79 
That's precisely the point - they don't do the same reporting about Leftists or Islamists because it doesn't suit them, rather it's because they are in league with them on the basis of a shared agenda. Their inclusion of Black Nationalist groups (e.g. Nation of Islam) and a few small and inconsequential Islamic groups would seem to be pure tokenism, as the far more insidious and influential minority organisations are those purporting to promote civil rights and social justice.

The smears of "anti-immigration" groups include those who simply want a sane and rational immigration policy, highlight the fact that crime is disproportionately committed by illegal immigrants (the Remembrance Project) or simply want to require all Americans to at least be able to speak English (ProEnglish). I don't think any of these things is unreasonable at all.

Likewise, their smear of "anti-Muslim" groups on the basis of mild and generally factual criticisms of Islam and the Muslim community, and more specifically of Muslim activist individuals and organisations who have dubious links to say the least. For instance, the suggestion that the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups are actively working to advance their agenda on various fronts is dismissed as a "far right conspiracy theory", despite the fact that it is known in the Middle East (and it has been confirmed to me on social media by sources there) that this is in fact the case. In short, the SPLC is smearing conservatives who hold views which are in fact shared by many in the Islamic World, including its traditional religious establishments.

So you see the point - the SPLC is simply targeting groups that stand in the way of the agenda of it and its allies - whether it is in favour of uncontrolled immigration and the increasingly sinister "diversity" cult, or the advance of radical Islamist ideology in its most insidious and allegedly "non-violent" form.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #80 
Accusations that Asians are embracing the "Far Right" and "white supremacy" in Canada have now appeared:

http://thedailychrenk.com/2018/09/21/congratulations-asians-youre-now-honorary-caucasians/

This would seem to be the culmination of a process going back some time, as evidenced by the LA Riots of 1992 when Korean-Americans, one of America's most successful and integrated communities, bore the brunt of rioters. In more recent times, the Left has circulated the idea that the "Far Right" or "Alt Right" (well, really the conservative movement) has some kind of "Asian fetish".

Now let's get this straight. Many conservatives DO have a positive view of Eastern Europe and East Asia, because of their comparative cultural homogeneity, social conservatism, rejection of Political Correctness and, at least in Japan, apparently a lack of guilt for history.

But in reality, the identity politics Left's recent inclusion of Asians (along with Jews) as a "privileged" group is rooted in their racialised Marxist socioeconomic discourse. It is because the Left is basically all about envy. This envy is not exclusively directed to anyone on the basis of race or class but some social construct of group or individual "privilege".

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #81 
It seems that the Kavanaugh farce is drawing to a close, and I fear it has caused real damage to the American body politic. We may never know what transpired. Ford could be telling the truth, but there is absolutely no corroboration, and some holes her claims. All we can do is suspend judgement. But what is true is the Democrats and media have acted appalling, including to Ford herself. Kavanaugh is highly likely to be confirmed after his strong and justifiably angry performance:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/after-kavanaughs-stand-republicans-abandon-him-at-their-peril/

He should be confirmed. To rule someone out of a position like this on an unsupported allegation (and others more problematic still, or just false) is a very bad precedent, and would also reward the atrocious Democrat-media behaviour. The talk about possible impeachment of Kavanaugh by Democrats is down-right sinister, and would be a terrible blow to the American body politic. I literally saw the utter hacks on CNN basically justifying that, or court packing, or whatever.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #82 
An update on possible lawsuits against the SPLC:

https://pjmedia.com/trending/update-on-the-60-separate-defamation-lawsuits-against-the-splc-under-consideration/
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #83 
Let me know when someone files (as opposed to talks about filing, sometime, maybe). Hasn't happened yet, although there's been plenty of time for it to. In the case of Liberty Counsel, the only organisation quoted, it never will unless they feel like wasting money in a hopeless cause. They fit every reasonable definition of a hate group and would have no prospect of success in a suit against the SPLC for listing them as such.

Kavanaugh has passed his first hurdle, though very much as damaged goods, and now awaits confirmation by the full Senate. Which he will receive if the vote is on purely partisan lines, as it may very well be. The accusations against him seem convincing, as does the accuser. And he has not carried himself at all well. Combined with his not especially stellar legal record and well-known biases, a poor nomination is now looking terrible. Still, if he gets through, at least he hasn't the intellect to be another Scalieri. Or even another Clarence Thomas, a man similarly soiled by his approval process. A judicial nonentity on the Court would not be a great thing, but still better than Scalieri mk 2, or Thomas x 2.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #84 
In what sense is the allegation convincing? Ford carried herself reasonably well, as did Kavanaugh. But that means little in either case. There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face. Besides, her allegation is based on recovered memory, which is notoriously dubious, so she could believe her claims whilst they are false, at least about Kavanaugh. But there is no corroboration - indeed, the three witnesses Ford named all denied being there, even her close friend. The only intellectually and morally honest stance is to suspend judgement. Otherwise, that puts the bar for unsupported allegations dangerously low, and is bad for due process.

The other allegations are even more problematic. The so called Creepy Porn Lawyer's one is bordering on the absurd. Are you seriously saying Swetnik's allegation is convincing? I'm sorry, but I must wonder if you are fully acquainted with that allegation, at least. The Ramirez one may be true, of course, but it has serious problems. Ramirez wasn't clear it was Kavanaugh just a week before making the allegation public, and even the New York Times couldn't get corroboration , either from the ten or so witnesses Ramirez mentioned, or anyone else. These are convincing allegations? No, the Ford one is the only one so far that deserves consideration, but it lacks any evidence, except her word, so we must suspend judgement.

What is needed are more Scalias, a court full of them! We need judges who treat the constitution as law, and care about original intent and precedent. That's the only way to depoliticise the court. The real issue is that for more than half a century, left-liberal judges have treated their role as that of super-legislators - whose job is to use the law and constitution as a jumping off point for whatever ideological cause they support - rather than sober jurists. But not only is that absurd in itself (if you are going to dispense with the written constitution in a meaningful sense, why would you have nine unelected superlegislators decide what the new constitution will be, and not at least the actual legislator, like in Britain?), but obviously means the court will be politicised, given there's no reason the Republicans should let themselves be stymied by such unelected and unaccountable ideologues. It is actually a credit to the Republicans after Reagan they have generally supported judges who want to treat the constitution and law as written and with original intent, and respectful to precedent, rather than mirror right wing ideologues to match those of the left. Scalia, Bork, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are all high quality jurists. The likes of Bader Ginsburg or Kegan are nothing in comparison - just ideologies in gowns.

In some ways it is a shame that there will be an FBI investigation. It is extremely likely to find nothing new and will just delay things, and it is likely the Democrats will try more tricks. We know, for example, there are others ready to throw up dubious allegations because even the Creepy Porn Lawyer, the hackiest of hacks, said he received multiple claims even he found dubious. One accuser has already recanted. You know the Democrats are dishonest (even if you of ignore the rest of their disgraceful action in this farce) because, if no more evidence is found against Kavanaugh, they would still never vote for him if they take the senate in November - Kavanaugh's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. But I suppose it won't hurt if the FBI investigation is done in a timely manner.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Let me know when someone files (as opposed to talks about filing, sometime, maybe). Hasn't happened yet, although there's been plenty of time for it to. In the case of Liberty Counsel, the only organisation quoted, it never will unless they feel like wasting money in a hopeless cause. They fit every reasonable definition of a hate group and would have no prospect of success in a suit against the SPLC for listing them as such.


Is there any "reasonable" definition of a "hate group"? Or is it a purely subjective term to smear anyone you or they find disagreement with. In your mind, many perfectly normal conservatives would be considered "hateful", including religious leaders like the Dalai Lama. Do they and we deserve to be lumped together with neo-Nazis, white nationalists, Holocaust deniers and the Nation of Islam? Do we deserve to have our security, our lives and property threatened by Leftist, anarchist and Islamist thugs? Or is it just your own feelings that are offended by the groups and individuals the SPLC defames? This is one of the very problems of identity politics - it's all about emotion, about feelings and the insane idea that someone's hurt feelings deserve more protection than the legal and constitutional rights of the majority.

Interestingly, you might have the same reservations if not the same generally negative view of Islam that many of these hold. Would it not make sense to actually be defending their right to express themselves in public, rather than face censorship for their views at the hands of the SPLC and their radical Left and Islamist allies?
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #86 
Scalia, of course. Horrible man. I haven't looked at the other two accusers' cases in detail, but they do when combined with Dr Ford's testimony constitute a consistent and credible pattern of abusive behaviour. I wouldn't like to see anyone locked up on the basis of testimony of this kind, dealing with events of decades ago, but the evidential value seems to me to be sufficient to take into account in the confirmation vote. Whether it will be is another matter. Anyway, now we have to wait for the FBI investigation, though the restrictive mandate provided makes it seem likely to be a token effort. My understanding is that recovered memories are not involved, Dr Ford has never suppressed her memories of what happened. If they were recovered memories then, like you, I would feel that this introduced a significant area of doubt to the testimony.

These are the ten organisations the SPLC characterises as anti-LGBT hate groups. Clicking on any of the headings takes you to a detailed listing of the reasons for the particular organisation being so characterised, including extensive quotation from leaders and spokespeople for the organisation. To me, there is nothing subjective here and no identity politics involved. All these groups transparently seethe with hatred for gay people, endlessly and shamelessly repeat utter and proven lies about them, and actively seek to do gay people harm, whether by removing their civil rights or by getting them locked up (even killed in one case) for the terrible crime of having, you know, sex. And all vocally advocate and make deliberately lying claims for the completely discredited and, in several jurisdictions, illegal practice of conversion therapy, aka physical and psychological torture.

Oh yes, and they all claim religion as their guiding light. The Christian religion, funnily enough. Here is the SPLC's summary page on LGBT rights. Note this statement: '... our Intelligence Project is monitoring and exposing the activities of anti-LGBT hate groups that disseminate demonizing propaganda and promote a climate of bigotry and violence against the LGBT community.' I defy anyone to say that this does not describe in a nutshell exactly what these ten groups do. In the name of the Christian faith, not the Muslim faith, not the Buddhist religion, not any of humanity's multitude of belief systems apart from the one supposedly founded by Jesus Christ in Palestine so long ago.

Me, I do not prefer Christian bigots to Muslim bigots or any other flavour of bigot. While not believing in the truth of any religion, I am more than willing to adopt a live-and-let-live attitude to religious believers and practitioners. And most of them these days are perfectly willing to reciprocate. It is the exceptions that are the problem, and those exceptions are by no means confined to any one religion. If anything, I would say Christianity has more than its share. So no, in response to your last paragraph, i do not feel that people should be free to tell public lies about me and my kind without fear of censure if they happen to be foes of Islam. Which has its own problems, but let Christians remedy their faults before turning the spotlight on those of others. I believe there was a remark someone or other made about this one time; something to do with beams and motes, but I don't recall the details. Perhaps you will.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,123
Reply with quote  #87 
Well, I wouldn't wish to make windows into men's souls, so Scalia may have been a sinner, or saint, or neither. But he was a great jurist, and only a path like that he took in his SCOTUS jurisprudence can help depoliticise that court.

Peter, you are usually more judicious than that. I strongly advise you to look into the allegations before making such comments. There really isn't a reliable pattern.

Ford's is uncorroborated as noted. You are correct that it may not be a recovered memory in the true sense, sorry. There was reporting she had forgotten about it until the therapy, but I'm not actually sure that is true. There do seem to be indiscrepancies between Ford's testimony and what her or her lawyers have said previously, or some of what we know about her therapy; for example, when she first told others Kavanaugh was her alleged assaulter, or how many were present in the room at the time of the alleged incident.

Ramirez's is even more problematic. Just days before coming forward, she said she wasn't sure it was Kavanaugh - she met with her Democratic lawyers for six days before saying she was certain. She was heavily drunk when it happened (which on its own wouldn't necessarily matter, but she admits to being hazy about it). And all the witnesses she named have said they don't recall it. The only possible witness is an unnamed classmate of her and Kavanaugh who said he heard about it a day or two after, and Kavanaugh's involvement, but wasn't there. Well, that is what the New Yorker said, but the New York Times said they couldn't find anyone to corroborate the allegation, presumably even in such a weak, hearsay manner. The New Yorker has been rightly criticised for terrible journalistic standards for even airing this allegation. Even the New York Times knew of it and refused to proceed. Politics alone removed the barriers of good journalistic standards.

The Swetnik allegation is just absurd. It comes from a client of the so called Creepy Porn Lawyer. It alleges dozens of gang rapes at parties, none of which there is any independent evidence for. The accuser was in college at the time, whilst these were high school parties, and she lived and grew up on the other side of Washington. She alleges she saw these gang rapes going on at each party, but went back for ten parties. And, in the end, she doesn't even say she saw directly that Kavanaugh was involved.

And then there is the allegation about the Rhode Island boat rape, which the accuser has recanted.

To be honest, if this was just an non-famous person being accused, or a non-political celebrity, where there wouldn't be too much of an ulterior motive that could account for multiple, unconnected allegations, I would still not say the pattern here was enough to convince a reasonable person of guilt. The accusations are just too flimsy. Together they just don't add up to enough. But Kavanaugh is famous now, and his confirmation very political. We already know there are many false accusations going around. One that surfaced has been recanted, and Swetnik's is highly likely to be false. Even the Creepy Porn Lawyer himself, the worst of hacks, admitted there were multiple women who had contacted him with allegations that even he thought were too problematic to proceed with. Considering he did proceed with Swetnik's, we can only imagine what these other allegations were like. I think even the smarter Democrats realised that, although Ramirez may have helped them with her allegation, from Swetnik onwards, these new allegations were doing more harm than good to the Democrats' political games. It has all turned into a farce, and we just await learning any day now it was Kavanaugh behind the grassy knoll. Therefore, we can't legitimately use the multiplicity of allegations to say anything against Kavanaugh. Ford's is the only remotely believable one, but lacking any evidence except the allegation itself, justice and due process demand we suspend judgement and that Kavanaugh is confirmed.

I wouldn't call the mandate of the FBI restrictive here, if you mean many restrictions have been put on it by the Republicans. Obviously, the Democrats want to extend the investigation indefinitely. They have made that perfectly clear. But the FBI only has a limited scope for investigation. Ford's allegation doesn't concern a federal crime. She would have to make a criminal complaint in Maryland for that, but it is highly unlikely anything much would be done with that, given the time that has elapsed and lack of evidence (I have heard differing opinions about the statute of limitations). All the FBI can do, considering the time elapsed and lack of specificity (like location and date), is interview Ford, Kavanaugh, and the three alleged witnesses. They can't even come to any conclusions. The other allegations warrant no investigation at this stage, though, of course, the Democrats would like them to be investigated, and any more thrown at Kavanaugh in the intervening week, to just keep the thing going past the mid-terms, with the slim hope they will take the senate. The only restriction the Republicans have put on the investigation is that it only go on a week. This seems sensible, given the clear plans of the Democrats to delay things as long as possible, and that the investigation is almost certainly going to be pointless, beyond possibly helping to convince a few fence-sitters the allegation was taken seriously. Let's not forget the constant refrain of the media-Democrats: why not call for an FBI investigation; it need not take much time at all; it only took three days in the Thomas-Hill case; and so on. Now the media-Democrats are already beginning to talk of extending the investigation, it just underscoress how brazenly, disgracefully politically they have acted from the moment of Kavanaugh's nomination.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #88 
The Democrats have revealed their disregard for the democratic process and rule of law. Why the sudden interest in women's dignity now when they are indifferent to actual oppression of women elsewhere?

Now you see, Peter, the whole goal of the SPLC's smear campaign is to lump in social conservatives with actual extremists like the Westboro Baptist Church and Faithful Word Baptist Church, both of which are denounced by all other Christian organisations. Your main, narrow focus is on the dignity of the LGBT community. Even if you've already noticed that openly gay people have also been the target of the SPLC's smears because they don't toe the line.

It's the same as how people criticising unchecked immigration, multiculturalism, Islam and moral relativism and the whole Left worldview are now lumped in with neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Holocaust deniers. I admit that I'm quite a fan of people like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone and others, as they represent a cultural insurgency against prevailing left-liberal norms and worldview. And the fact that they are people who can resonate with their peers - and in the case of Southern, Pettibone and Owens, happen to be young, female and attractive - is precisely why the Left is determined to destroy them.

And this also plays into the Kavanaugh saga. The modern American left, like its British and Australian counterparts, is utterly demented and corrupted by its own hate.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,906
Reply with quote  #89 
I focus on the LGBT community because I belong to it, as you well know. Seems a fair enough motivation to me. The insidiousness lies in these organisations pretending to be more mainstream and more respectable and demanding to be taken more seriously than the lunatic-fringe Westboro Baptists when the only difference is they use more cultured language to tell the same lies as the Westboro mob. The SPLC has smeared none of these organisations, they have smeared themselves by their own actions. Actually, on this thread at least, the SPLC seems a good deal more smeared against than smearing.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,913
Reply with quote  #90 
And you would surely know that the LGBT community has diverse points of view, not that you'll ever hear it given the Left's determination to destroy dissenting voices. In fact, many Christians and conservatives recognise that while holding steadfast to traditional morality, they now have to embrace some LGBT people as allies which was unthinkable even a decade ago. Times have changed. I myself may be in favour of traditional values and marriage, but I am perfectly willing to respect those in favour of same-sex marriage as long as it is reciprocated.

I find it interesting that none of the LGBT people smeared by the Left - e.g. Milo Yiannopoulos, Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin, Bruce Bawer, Rosa Koire, etc - seem particularly bothered by the views of religious conservatives who they now know are on the same side.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.