Wednesday, April 3, 2019

AM I MISSING SOMETHING.



We are prohibited from seeing the selfie go pro from the nutter perpetrating his assault on the two Christchurch Mosques because the "Chief Censor" says so, therefore no opportunity for any further attempts to try and understand what happened apart from what dear leader and her supplicants deem necessary and officially disclose.

There are also bans in place to prevent any unofficial analysis of his "Manifesto" under pain of sanctions.

In a week the experts will make possession, of what they deem to be weapons and parts of weapons that fall within the official doctrine of "Assault" weapons, not withstanding that such a list will inevitably include supplementary parts for bits those same Crats deem lawful (so far) weapons.

There are clear signals that Mr Little will make moves to create "hate speech" laws that will all carry draconian sanctions.

It would appear to me the Foreign National Tarrant is succeeding beyond the wildest dreams of his fevered mind.

We must be approaching the day when some demented soul will defy the baying for blood and begin the catalogue of offences being perpetrated by the state against the mentally ill Australian, in his treatment since the 15th of March.

Meanwhile the Mongrel Mob long time users of "Sieg Heil", Nazi Regalia, and storm trooper mimicry, evidently  temporarily subsumed by their munificence in 'Guarding Mosques', will give up the weapons of the seemingly endless supply that diminish a little  at every drug bust.

AfaIk there was zero involvement of any NZ citizen in the senseless slaughter by Tarrant yet our lives are being changed forever. Fortunate indeed I guess that the regular killings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Somalia, Syria, Turkey or the US dont have such impact or we could head off to the mountains and return to discover we were suddenly in a strange land .
Then perhaps that is what really did happen?

40 comments:

Andrei said...

Of course he is winning - our pathetic Government and chattering classes are doing exactly as he intended. The number of so called "experts" that are being wheeled out and put before the cameras to tell us how terrible and insensitive our culture is defies belief

The Crusaders are in the gun tonite on our STATE OWNED progadanda outlet which makes the Soviet version of Pravda looked balanced in comparison

They had some Somali spokesman to tell us how offensive the namer Crusaders is. Not that the Crusaders had anything to do with Somalia - It was the British and the Italians that beat the Somalis up - well actually the Arabs did it long before them of course, took them as slaves and converted them to Islam. Today it is the Americans trashing Somalia - whatever.

The Latin Crusaders also beat up Orthodox and Pagan Slavs which most people don't know but Slavs don't find the name offensive as far as I know. I guess Slavs have thicker skins than the delicate little muslim flowers from East Africa and the ME for whom violence against "infidels" and their own in recent times is not unknown. But that is our fault as well I guess

I'll tell you this for nothing the fact that Canturbury has a Rugby team called the Crusaders had exactly nothing to do with why a psychopathic Australian perpetrated a massacre against innocent people at prayer in two Mosques. It would have still occurred if the team was known as the Flower Fairies and played the game in pink tutus

pdm said...

`It would have still occurred if the team was known as the Flower Fairies and played the game in pink tutus'.

I agree 100% Andrei.

Psycho Milt said...

We are prohibited from seeing the selfie go pro from the nutter perpetrating his assault on the two Christchurch Mosques because the "Chief Censor" says so...

...based on the legislation under which he operates, which is fairly clear about prohibiting videos of people being murdered. If you'd prefer the Chief Censor to ignore the legislation applying to his role, that might work for you but it's unlikely a NZ government of any stripe would find it satisfactory. Also, there are no quotation marks around the title Chief Censor because that's his official title, just like the Chief Justice, or for that matter the Prime Minister.

There are also bans in place to prevent any unofficial analysis of his "Manifesto" under pain of sanctions

Again, because that's what NZ's legislation says the Chief Censor should do with documents that incite violence. And again, the Chief Censor doesn't get to take Gravedodger's preferences into account when making decisions, just the relevant legislation.

I've been opposing censorship for a long time and have had a problem with many decisions of the Chief Censor and the relevant legislation, back as far as the 1980s. Is there some reason that right-wingers only seem to have an issue with the OFLC now that it's decided that inciting violence against Muslims also merits a ban?

Psycho Milt said...

I'll tell you this for nothing the fact that Canturbury has a Rugby team called the Crusaders had exactly nothing to do with why a psychopathic Australian perpetrated a massacre against innocent people at prayer in two Mosques.

Well, yes. Have you seen anyone claim otherwise? Because, unless you have, you're peddling a massive straw man.

Tom Hunter said...

Then why change the name? Because a handful of New Zealanders find it "offensive"?

The Crusaders are in the gun tonite on our STATE OWNED progadanda outlet which makes the Soviet version of Pravda looked balanced in comparison
Why do you do this to yourself Andrei? Once again I am so glad I stopped watching these sad, pitiful clowns fifteen years ago.

Actually the Canterbury Infidels has a nice ring to it. I could get behnd that name change.

Kimbo said...

Then why change the name? Because a handful of New Zealanders find it "offensive"?

Um, because the multi-million dollar business that is New Zealand Rugby perceived, probably rightly, that in the current climate retaining the name would likely damage their brand. And as they are the owners, it's their call. That's the great thing about capitalism - if you want to effect social change then forget appeals to morality and goodwill. Instead just point out how it will effect the bottom line.

For what it's worth one of my mates, sadly now deceased, was a Christian but with Jewish heritage. As a result he hated the name "Crusade(r)s" in both church and also secular life including the Canterbury Super Rugby franchise, due to all the militant, triumphalist and anti-Semitic associations that went with it.

So, want to take odds, now, Little Tommy, on how long we wills still have the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, or the Cincinnati Reds, ⚾ much less the (yikes!) Washington Redskins?

Tom Hunter said...

That's "wee Tommy" to you Master Kimbo!!!

And that's one of the many great things about the USA: their capitalist system has a population not as easily cowered as New Zealanders are and many owners and managers who know that hysteria blows over fast.

My bet on those US team names is that they'll be with us for some time to come.

In the case of Canterbury that's all the name that the locals care about, so this will happen.

Psycho Milt said...

Then why change the name?

I'm no rugby fan and generally find their team names ridiculous. When I lived in Christchurch the local team was called "Canterbury," which makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than "Crusaders." However, my assumption is that the people wanting the name changed find it incongruous to be trying to convince Christchurch Muslims that they're welcome there while the local team is called the Crusaders and its mascots consist of horsemen dressed up as knight crusaders of the 12th Century. If I gave a shit about rugby I'd probably agree with them.

Kimbo said...

And that's one of the many great things about the USA: their capitalist system has a population not as easily cowered as New Zealanders are and many owners and managers who know that hysteria blows over fast.


Hmm. I knew there was a reason it took so long for a guy like Jackie Robinson to make the major leagues. And apologies for not getting your franchise branding right - Wee Tommy.

Kimbo said...

Given the general equanimity of spirit with which Christchurch spectators have regarded visiting teams (the 1971 Lions top of the list) and their supporters, I'm guessing "Canterbury Cyclops" will be a much more accurate name, anyway.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Kimbo....If your lot took your heads out of your ar.. I mean US oriented data bases and knew a bit more about rugby than you indicate you would realise that in the English premiership there is a team that I used to watch called the "Sarrys"..

ie. The Saracens, one day they may play the Crusaders.

It seems that Gravedancers little Somali mate is not allowed an opinion, whether he is right or wrong surely like all of us he allowed an opinion or perhaps opinions based on religious beliefs should be filtered.

Anyway don't knock Our Tom, his dad and mine stuck it to Rommel in 1941 and I admire his computer skills for man of his advanced age.

Kimbo said...

So you're not a G and T and cucumber sandwiches in the Twickenham carpark/Harlequins sort of chap, Eggie?


And as the 1971 Lions who beat Canterbury were dominated by players from London Welsh and Llanelli, I'm not sure Saracens make the grade to take on Canterbury's finest. With a nod to the great CMH Gibson of NIFC.


And I think you may find that it wasn't until the end of 1942 your dads stuck it to the Desert Fox. In 1941, admittedly badly led (including at times by Freyberg) the Kiwis - and the Aussies - despite their courage spent most of the time losing, retreating and/or surrendering, in Greece, Crete, Cyrenaica, Tobruk...

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

kimbo.....strategic withdrawal it's called. The British usually lose every battle except the last one.

Kimbo said...

I'm just reading Anthony Beevor's account of the Battle of Crete (with Greece as a introduction), and like Norway and Dunkirk the year before, there was very little "strategic" about any of those withdraws. Mad abject panic more like it.

As with Gallipoli in 1915-16, and fighting for two years in Italy in 1943-45, if it was a "strategic" escapade dreamed up by Winston Churchill to "knock out the props/probe the soft underbelly", it was usually the Aussies and Kiwis he sent to pay the price for "British" tactical ineptitude. Hence, other than the 1971 Lions no Lions rugby team has ever won the battle here. With credit to John Pullin of Bristol's England team of 1973, and Martin Johnstone of King Country and Leicester's team's efforts.


Best story I heard about John Pullin: In the early 1970s wales and Scotland had decided to not go to Dublin to fulfill their scheduled fixture due to terrorist activities from the Troubles in Northern Ireland disrupting the game. Anyway, next year England, with some persuasion from the likes of WJ McBride to Pullin and the likes of David Duckham did turn up, and, as was common of England teams of that era, they lost. Anyway, John Pullin gets up at the aftermatch, and starts of his speech with, "Well, we might not be much good..but at least we turn up!". At that point the room crowded with Irishmen forgot centuries of Oliver Cromwell, Potato Famines and Easter Uprisings, and gave Pullin the sort of reception reserved for only the most honoured of guests.

The Veteran said...

Milt ... I guess as a card carrying Greenie Morris Dancing would be more to your taste.

That aside and responding to the post. We need to be very careful not to overreact to the calls to ban hate speech so called remembering that someones perception of hate speech can be another persons free speech. We must avoid going down the same path as the South Yorkshire Police who made this tweet ... "In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents, which can include things like offensive or insulting comments, on line, in person or in writing. Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it #HateHurtsSY".

'Non crime hate incidents' ... so the public are being asked to report 'non crime'. Clearly George Orwell is alive and well in South Yorkshire.

As for the proposed ban on large calibre automatic and semi-automatic weapons and I have made my position clear ... I support the legislation. But it should not have been rushed through under urgency with just 24 hours provided for public consultation. David Seymour had it right but, in preening himself before the media, he went MIA and just made himself look stupid.

All because parliamentarians want to be seen to be doing something (anything) NOW ... never mind the quality (of the decision making), feel the width.

Andrei said...

When the Francise was established nobody was offended by the name Canturbury Crusaders - nobody

It was a name that added color to the team that's all

As Egbut has stated in England there is a Rugby Club called the Saracens which has existed since 1876 - and nobody gets offended as far as I know but give it time

But my point is this fiddling with the names of Rugby Francises, changing the way we do things in any way is actually pandering to this terrorist - giving him his little victories

If you were allowed to read his manifesto you would realize this - part of me thinks the reason why it has been suppressed is not because it encourages hate whatever that really means but because if us plebs read it and understand that his end goal was to turn our society against itself (which is clearly expressed in this document) then the GODLESS LEFT would not be able to use his atrocity to advance their own agendas

Because the GODLESS LEFT have never been shy of clambering over the corpses of the innocent dead to get their own way

They are utterly shameless in this regard

Tom Hunter said...

@Psycho
I'm no rugby fan and generally find their team names ridiculous.

Well that's the point. They're not supposed to be serious. And none of this is for fans of the Crusaders. I doubt one fan in a thousand (Kimbo's mate) gave two hoots about some allusion to ancient history, and the horses and all that palaver would merely be a reminder of a picture they might have once seen of a Knight in a history book.

And that's how its supposed to be. That's how cultures move forward. If, and frankly it's a big if, there were Muslims in Chch who might have been rugby fans but were put off by the name of the local Super franchise, then frankly they're either trying to exert a degree of minority control over the local culture they've joined that their numbers don't justify or they really are wearing a historical grudge, possibly both.

Either way, that's not a good look for our society - and pandering to such nonsense out of some misplaced sense of guilt or poorly assessed PR because a few local Muslims and a much larger set of European Lefty activists are carrying those grudges and a sense of offense is not going to really going to move us forward at all.

Writing that article on the "Irish Problem" the other day I was reminded of George Mitchell, the US Senator sent by Bill Clinton to try and help with negotiations over The Troubles in the 1990's. Before that Mitchell's big thing in the US had been education, and in particular he'd bemoaned the poor state of history education and knowledge in American schools. Some years later, after his time in Northern Ireland, he said that he'd learned that perhaps there was such a thing as being too good at remembering history.

Tom Hunter said...

@Eggburt
..his dad and mine stuck it to Rommel in 1941..

Regrettably, as Kimbo points out, my dad and his mates spent their time getting their backsides kicked by Rommel in 1941, although 1940 at least gave them some satisifaction as the Italians surrendered in their tens of thousands.

And in my Dad's case he did not make it to Rommel's own butt being kicked in 1942 at El Alamein thanks to total fucking disaster at Sidi Rezegh in early December '41. POW from then until the end of the damned war, along with a good chunk of the rest of 24 Battalion.

Kimbo said...

They're not supposed to be serious.

Fair enough. So why don't we have teams known as the "Rapists", "Paedophiles", "Klansmen", "SS" or (just for Andrei), the "Pogroms"? History/Schmistory. And yes, I can think of some funny albeit tasteless) rapist/paedophile/KKK/Holocaust/pogroms jokes. "Crusaders" mean something, and, in the current and likely future environment, retaining the full-blown reference referencing the sanctified thugs who sacked Jerusalem in 1099 (and burnt down a few synagogues with Jewish congregations in them on the way) is bad for business. Hence Steve Tew has initiated a change. You draw the line somewhere, and in the light of March 15 this is a good one.

... although 1940 at least gave them some satisifaction as the Italians surrendered in their tens of thousands.

Yeah, but be fair. That's like taking satisfaction in beating the (American sporting reference) Washington Generals. 🤣

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Why do these things turn into history lessons that we all know. Is it to show how clever we are at dialling up info. It doesn't matter what the subject Kimbo and old Tom are there with reams of information that go off at complete tangent to main post.

Chunter.......Tui ad.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Veteran....all laws are sometimes misused and sometimes enforced too enthusiastically but to quote one misuse is not an argument.

The unpalatable (to Some) fact is that they work and people now think before they fly off the handle. The legislation of hate speech is is quite precise.

To call someone a spastic is longer acceptable, using a disability as an insult is considered hate speech. The same applies to nationality, race and religion.

To call someone a dirty Kiwi C**t is no longer acceptable as it insults and demeans New Zealanders. A C**t yes but not a Kiwi.

I know some who contribute here should be worried as it cuts their vocabulary by 50%.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

This is a bit of stitch up....someone other than Gravedancer must be writing his posts. His mangled syntax along with his convoluted sentence construction has disappeared.

So what have we got, "nutter", "Mentally ill", "foreign national" all words used to distance the event from the reason.

At the moment the trick cyclists will be crawling all over him absolutely delighted they have a specimen to play with. The fact that he is psychotic is a given that it was not an act of a sane mind..

Nutter? No... Radicalised by right wing white suprematist sites that have adopted Islam, in lieu of Judaism, as the enemy. All movements need an enemy otherwise the reason to exist disappears. In this case the white displacement theory as expounded by the far right has had an effect even though it has been proved a myth.

White displacement and world domination are the kind of claims levelled against Muslim minority populations in China, India, Europe, United States, Australia and elsewhere by political entrepreneurs who lever ultra-nationalistic sentiments to scapegoat the 'Other' as a dangerous threat.

So it's not at all surprising that these efforts are increasingly tracing back to a dominant source: Russia.

Yesterdays fellow ANZAC has morphed into foreign national.






Anonymous said...

This should be read

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111743226/qa-troll-hunter-ginger-gorman-on-the-christchurch-mosque-shootings-and-cyberhate

Psycho Milt said...

I doubt one fan in a thousand (Kimbo's mate) gave two hoots about some allusion to ancient history...

I share your doubt. However, the people pressuring NZ Rugby to change the name are aware that Muslims don't share that sanguine attitude to the word 'crusader,' and that it is a term used by radical Islamists to mean 'an enemy of Muslims everywhere.' Given recent events, some Chch locals understandably wish not to have their local rugby team effectively declaring itself an enemy of Muslims.

Andrei said...

Milt "Crusader" is a modern English word which is often used quite inocculously in contexts that have nothing to do with Islam

For example Batman was known as "the caped crusader" or you might see a headline that reads "Crusade against bullying in schools"

The vast majority of Indonesians, citizens of largest Muslim nation in the world have no idea what it means nor probably any knowledge of Norman expansion into the Levant more than 800 years ago - it is ancient fucking history long forgotten by most and even those in the empty headed chattering classes that bring them up actually know sweet FA about them.

There have been lots of wars and atrocities between the time of the Crusades (modern ENGLISH term for them) and now

This is just another example of the total inanity on 21st century "progessive" thinking

Andrei said...

You know Milt as an example of your and the wittering of our vapid chattering classes total ignorance we should discuss the 4th Crusade

AS I'm sure you are blissfully unaware the 4th Crusade sacked the CHRISTIAN CAPITAL CITY of Constaninople, one of the great crimes of history.

The long term result of this was the end of Christian Byzantine civilization in the East which opened the door to the Turks who invaded Europe eventually reaching the very gates of Vienna

The great Orthodox Cathedral Hagia Sophia built in the 6th century AD was converted to a Mosque.

And I can assure you the behaviour of the Turks in the Balkans as weel as in what is today Southern Russian and Ukraine was not gentlemanly

It involved taking slaves and impaling resisters through the rectum on long stakes

And do you know something else Milt to this very day young slavic women are being trafficed to Turkish and West European brothels (the brothels of NATO Lands) and that worries me far more than the name of a Rugby francise.

But like all "progressives" you concern yourself more over the rights of a little boy who wants to declare that he is a girl to take a widdle in the girls toilets at school than the real horrors of this world

Tom Hunter said...

@Kimbo
Fair enough. So why don't we have teams known as the "Rapists", "Paedophiles", "Klansmen", "SS" or (just for Andrei), the "Pogroms"? History/Schmistory.

Or the Khmer Rouge? I see that painful old Pete George made that sopping wet comparison over on his blog, and naturally he "never liked the name (Royal Sniff)".

We don't have teams with those names because they are regarded as unmitigated, 100% evil. Are you arguing the Crusades were such? There's no doubt some evil things were done during them, but they were effectively defensive wars for Christendom. Losing wars too, in that virtually none of the Christian lands were recovered, which was why Islamic culture wrote very little about them. Why write about such losers. Not until the last two centuries, and in particular since the 19th century, have Islamic writers and historians had much to say about them. And of course that's synchronised nicely with the rise of some Western historical condemnation of them. In my experience the Westerners who do jump up and down about the Crusades are the same type who can only talk about Dresden in relation to WWII.

Guilt! Endless amounts of guilt and shame about Western history and heritage. That's really what this is all about, and in that sense, the bloody shooter is once again getting exactly what he wanted.

... is bad for business. Hence Steve Tew has initiated a change.
I suggest you read the ODT article on it. Doesn't sound like the Canterbury CEO is onboard with change: lots of burbling about research that will have to be done and thinking and so forth. Not to mention the online poll they're running in the article, which was running 76:24 against dropping the name as of last night.

And judging by the crowds I've seen in Super rugby in the last couple of years, I'd trust Tew's sense of what's bad for business about as much as I'd trust that of a Fonterra executive.

You draw the line somewhere, and in the light of March 15 this is a good one.
A stupid one I think. It has suddenly freighted a name with a degree of weight it never had, except in the eyes of tiny groups of people with a cultural axe to grind. And more importantly it's giving weight to their arguments that things like naming a rugby team thusly, contributed to "the general atmosphere of hate that enabled the shooter", which I think is craven intellectual cowardice.

Psycho Milt said...

Milt "Crusader" is a modern English word which is often used quite inocculously in contexts that have nothing to do with Islam

I'm aware of that, yes. I just don't think it's relevant to the argument these people are making.

AS I'm sure you are blissfully unaware the 4th Crusade sacked the CHRISTIAN CAPITAL CITY of Constaninople, one of the great crimes of history.

I was blissfully unaware of it until I took HIST101 at University of Canterbury in 1982, but have known of it since then. It doesn't make the name 'Crusaders' any more appealing though, does it?

...to this very day young slavic women are being trafficed to Turkish and West European brothels (the brothels of NATO Lands) and that worries me far more than the name of a Rugby francise.

True, but the same applies to just about every political discussion in NZ.

But like all "progressives" you concern yourself more over the rights of a little boy who wants to declare that he is a girl to take a widdle in the girls toilets at school than the real horrors of this world

I do? As someone who's been characterised as a "transphobic douchebag" by trans-activist blog commenters, I find that highly unlikely. Can you point to an example of me concerning myself with this? If you can't, please withdraw the accusation.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Well I could wax lyrical about the Crusades and sound really important but I'll let wiki do the talking... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

What does put the subject into perspective is that the word Crusades was was not coined until 1760.

Ferdinand and Isabella's campaign to capture Granada and Southern Spain I know a little about. It is not a simple subject and cannot even be summed up in a post.

What is known is that the moors were a highly civilised society with libraries, universities, advanced medical knowledge, hygiene and women's rights including the ability to attend university. Where as the "Crusaders" were a filthy unhygienic lot and carried preventable diseases with them where ever they went. ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors

What is plain is that apart from extorting the masses religion had fuck all to do with it.......it's always about trade, trade routes and money

Andrei said...

Apologies Milt - I was too harsh on you as an individual, who I know to be a reasonable man and not on the loopy end of the progressive spectrum as a rule unlike some who comment here.

And I actually agree with the later part of Egbut's post above " ...it's always about trade, trade routes and money As true today as in the 12th century.

I really cannot get worked up over the name of a Rugby francise or the symbol of a Crusader Knight on a horse - there are far more important issues to fret over

And I am sick to death of our Nation's chatterati flagellating us over what was in effect a black swan event in Christchurch over which we bear no culpability what so ever.

We don't need to change anything to show our remorse or to try and prevent a reoccurrence - after all there have been a lot of violent deaths globally since the ides of March, including a hospital bombing in Yemen perpetratated by Muslims (the Saudis) using American weaponry and ongoing airstrikes in Somalia...

WTF

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... all I'm saying is that we have to be very careful in defining what constitutes hate speech. Nothing more and nothing less ... although I have to say that in today's (NZ) climate there appear to be many who would applaud the actions of the South Yorkshire police.

Kimbo said...

Yet few in the West react with insouciance when Muslims use the word “jihad”, and that too, like crusade has non-militaristic connotations. Irrespective of how Billy Graham used it. Indeed, unlike crusade which was militant in its scope towards infidels, I think jihad was purely spiritual. Not that the Islamophobes (yes, there are genuine ones) on Kiwiblog will hang around to listen with charity.

Words change. Sir Walter Scott’s novels may have sanitised the word, but now the word crusader is changing. And given Steve Tew’s track record dealing with dissent, so too will the Crusaders’ CEO

Kimbo said...

Sorry, to clarify, crusade was originally militaristic and then took on other meanings, whereas (I think) the Arabic jihad just meant struggle (of any type, including spiritual) and then added the military aspect towards infidels.

Tom Hunter said...

Yet few in the West react with insouciance when Muslims use the word “jihad”

The really important cultural difference is that I don't see or hear of any Muslims apologising for "jihad", merely making the same arguments about it being an internal struggle - in much the same way that I have said that the Crusades were defensive wars of Christendom, flawed and murderous as they were.

The former defence of the word jihad is accepted by the same people in the West who condemn any defence of the Crusades as apologetics and rationalising. More cultural cringe.

I don't mind sticking knives in Western history and culture: that's one the things about our culture. But I get more than a little pissed off at criticism and demands for change from folk who see nothing they need apologise for or change about themselves and their beliefs - and that includes Leftists as much as Islamists.

Kimbo said...

The former defence of the word jihad is accepted by the same people in the West who condemn any defence of the Crusades as apologetics and rationalising. More cultural cringe.

Umm, I think I'd put myself in that category, but I'm pretty sure it's not cultural cringe. I think I can look at our culture, including the mixed legacy of Christendom, and, in the main, see it for what it is, good and bad. Either way, as a Christian, I think the crusades were as much of a coopting and perversion of Christianity as any pogrom. The "defensive" argument is tenuous when you dig down into the details of how the Franks implemented Urban II's call to come to the aid of the Byzantines.

And you may be pissed off at the Left and Islamists, and fair enough. But I get pissed off at all manner of right wing racists trying to coopt the Christian message for their militant purposes. Stave Bannon for example, would be one. I suspect the POS who did the March 15 attack is in the same toxic pond.

I don't mind sticking knives in Western history and culture: that's one the things about our culture.

Indeed, courtesy of the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. Not that pig-headed conservatives take4 that approach. Instead, it's "OMG, PC overload" at any and every triviality that dares to question our culture. So either way, why should it matter what leftists or Islamists say? Or don't you think our culture is robust enough to enable us to walk and chew gum at the same time? (I'm talking theory, not practice here! 😀)

Tom Hunter said...

Or don't you think our culture is robust enough to enable us to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Given the events of the past two weeks and ongoing crap, NO! And that's particularly the case when I observe the very class of people to whom LBJ applied that term - our politicians.

Tom Hunter said...

So either way, why should it matter what leftists or Islamists say?
I'm not concerned at what they say, I'm concerned that their words have a disproportionate power to their actual numbers and I'm more concerned that this power imbalance arises because the response to them is an intellectually and philosophically craven one that makes the actual changes they demand - and led by twits like Steve Tew.

Actual change, not just "say". That's real, privileged power right there.

Psycho Milt said...

Andrei: no worries, we all make an unwarranted assumption sooner or later in blog comments, I've made plenty of them. On that issue I'm with the feminists rather than the trans activists, so I didn't want to leave anyone with the wrong impression.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Just on the Paedo thing...Eleanor of Aquitain who rose to be the most powerful woman in France was married at the age of 12.

This was common as a woman was middle aged at 30 in mediaeval times. Most people were lucky to live to 45.

Andrei said...

Isabella of Valois married Richard II of England when she as six, Egbut and was widowed at ten

She married again and died in childbirth at nineteen

Her younger sister Catherine of Valois later married Henry V and had a son. After Henry's Death she illegally married Owen Tudor and had many children with him including Edmund and Jasper Tudor

Edmund of course married 12 year old Margaret Beaufort who produced a son Henry Tudor at the tender age of 13 and who was widowed by this time

Henry Tudor who was mostly raised by Jasper eventually became Henry VII of England

Fascinating stuff which reveals how hard life was in the fifteenth century and acts as a counter to those who use terms like "pedophile prophet" when discussing Islam