Where Political Correctness Runs Amok: Banned at Red State
I've been a commenter and diarist at RedState for a year and a half. Today, I was banned.
Why?
For calling out a regular commenter there whom I consider to be a racialist cheerleader for the hispanification of my nation and the burial of my ancestral history, that's why. I'll just share the exchange and be done with it. If you'd like to read the broader context, click on the first link and you'll be taken to that point in the discussion thread.:
My only regret is that my unposted response to Neil Stevens was that the historic foundations of this nation do indeed include a strong antipathy for "Papists" on the part of the Puritans and that the Puritan ethic still existed strongly during the mid-1800s. It still remains in some Protestant denominations and churches. It was part of the reason for the formation of the "Know-Nothing" Party. I've always taken it as a given that there remains a cheerleading section in the Vatican for this nation to be made majority Catholic. And it smacks of retribution.
I thought my point was clear that my beef is not with Catholics in general, but with their leadership. Protestants don't have a Pope, or a City-State from which to manipulate their diaspora throughout the world. It's a damned shame the folks running RedState don't have an intellectual capacity for discernment unaffected by political correctness. Social Marxism creeps in some of the even most conservative of places. That's a shame.
So, let's all take note that it's OK to vilify all Lebanese Muslims at RedState, but to even mention that a Catholic majority in America would mean a fundamental change in its enculturization processes is prohibited. It's OK to question whether or not allowing those who would make us dhimmi by the sword should be allowed to mass immigrate here. But God forbid we question the wisdom of some slow takeover via large-scale invasion of another culture beholden not only to other values and a single language, but also to a single, powerful and wealthy nation - The Vatican - is verboten. I suppose I'm not allowed to notice when Catholic Diocese hold hands with communist groups like International Answer in orchestrating those awful marches for illegal alien "rights" a few months back.
The irony in being banned for responding to someone who openly espouses the takeover of my nation by his third-world brethren is very thick. Am I supposed to Goose-step now?
Technorati tags: hispanic vote, illegal immigration, immigration reform, conservatism, red state
Why?
For calling out a regular commenter there whom I consider to be a racialist cheerleader for the hispanification of my nation and the burial of my ancestral history, that's why. I'll just share the exchange and be done with it. If you'd like to read the broader context, click on the first link and you'll be taken to that point in the discussion thread.:
Sandor: You are correct. by PB Almeida
I regard immigration from Muslim countries to be potentially a grave danger. I say this with significant regret, because I know the vast majority of Muslims in the US are peaceful, patriotic, and productive (more so than natives, so I'm told) folks. Moreover, a case can be made for more, not less, immigration from the Muslim world precisely to build up cultural ties that may ameliorate some of the hositility this region feels for the USA. Nonetheless, given the lethality of the Jihadist virus infecting the lands from Morocco to Java, I think simple prudence dictates a wariness on the part of America with respect to immigration from Muslim countries. I wish it weren't so, but I prefer to live in the world as it exists -- not the one I wish I lived in. To lay my cards on the table, I'd sooner a 100,000 illegals from Guatemala than a 100,000 legals from Saudi Arabia. Such talk is no doubt considered shockingly unPC in certain quarters. I think it's plain common sense. (and of course, I'd much prefer 100,000 legals from Guatemala than their legal counterparts from S.A.). I make no bones about wanting to subvert the economics behind illegal immigration via legalizing it.
This last post by "Thomas" is the indication that my account had been nuked. So be it.I don't see that much difference... by KDaddy
...between 100,000 Muslims and 100,000 Catholics.
Muslim citizens subordinate their allegiance to the U.S. in favor of Mecca first, Catholic citizens subordinate theirs to the Vatican. Muslims would like to make us dhimmi. Vatican city would like nothing more than to make us it's lapdog by replacing America's foundational Protestant majority with a more compliant Catholic one.
Either way, we'd no longer be the America for which my ancestors fought, bled, died, prayed and hoped.
The Vatican's interests do not have any regard for what their desires may bring to us in terms of Culture, Economics, Heritage or any other basis for argument those of us who wish to restrict immigration might make. This is as much or more about tithes as it is about faith. Long-standing desire for retribution is also a part of the equation. Just because the "Know-Nothings" are vilified by contemporary historians, it doesn't mean their political positions were completely without foundation.
Those who deny that fact are either liars or fools.I do hope this is satire (nt) by Neil Stevens
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.I thought we put anti-Catholicism by jsteele
to bed when John Kennedy was elected President. Apparently it is alive and well in some quarters. I guess somethings will never change.
John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'RourkeOne of the problems with the site switch by Thomas
...is some data loss, so it was harder to keep track of old warnings from the Scoop days.
Good news, though; your old warning stuck in my mind.
The Contact Form is your friend. Good luck.
My only regret is that my unposted response to Neil Stevens was that the historic foundations of this nation do indeed include a strong antipathy for "Papists" on the part of the Puritans and that the Puritan ethic still existed strongly during the mid-1800s. It still remains in some Protestant denominations and churches. It was part of the reason for the formation of the "Know-Nothing" Party. I've always taken it as a given that there remains a cheerleading section in the Vatican for this nation to be made majority Catholic. And it smacks of retribution.
I thought my point was clear that my beef is not with Catholics in general, but with their leadership. Protestants don't have a Pope, or a City-State from which to manipulate their diaspora throughout the world. It's a damned shame the folks running RedState don't have an intellectual capacity for discernment unaffected by political correctness. Social Marxism creeps in some of the even most conservative of places. That's a shame.
So, let's all take note that it's OK to vilify all Lebanese Muslims at RedState, but to even mention that a Catholic majority in America would mean a fundamental change in its enculturization processes is prohibited. It's OK to question whether or not allowing those who would make us dhimmi by the sword should be allowed to mass immigrate here. But God forbid we question the wisdom of some slow takeover via large-scale invasion of another culture beholden not only to other values and a single language, but also to a single, powerful and wealthy nation - The Vatican - is verboten. I suppose I'm not allowed to notice when Catholic Diocese hold hands with communist groups like International Answer in orchestrating those awful marches for illegal alien "rights" a few months back.
The irony in being banned for responding to someone who openly espouses the takeover of my nation by his third-world brethren is very thick. Am I supposed to Goose-step now?
Technorati tags: hispanic vote, illegal immigration, immigration reform, conservatism, red state
Labels: Immigration
