Political Correction was the creation of gay thinkers who supported totalitarian fascists

December 21, 2013

I know I’m going to be called a homophobe, but the feminist CamillePaglia agrees with me. the liberals use Hitler’s philosopher to justify censorship for those who oppose gay marriage… and they use a gay French philosopher (Foucault) who enabled Shia Islam. The basic idea is that truth needs to be revealed through meaning and that the sum of the parts (penis and vagina) don’t give the final meaning because of sheer will.

PC and cultural relativism are the godchildren of Martin Heidegger and Michel Foucault, the philosopher apologists, respectively, for those most totalitarian of leaders (and great supporters of homosexuality… yeah, right) Adolph Hitler and the Ayatollah Khomeini. I know this flies over the heads of A&E executives who are unlikely to have read much, if any, Heidegger or Foucault, or know anything of the philosophers’ relationships to those dictators, but they should know how their minds have been manipulated, because what they have done is outrageous and reactionary.

Heidegger‘s Opinion on Gay Marriage

….Heidegger‘s notion of “worldhood.” What is so compelling is the idea that, as humans (as what Heidegger calls Dasein), we do not live in a world where we start with bare facts and then build meaning from them. We do not construct our world from the flotsam of objects, whether those objects be rocks and trees, tools and buildings, or even words and ideas. Rather, we live first and foremost in meaning, inside of meaning. A world is not a geographical locale or a collection of people and things. It is rather that within which our actions can have meaning… 

Whatever… nonsense… Hitler’s philosopher. Meaning becomes detached from reality …so the reality Martin Heidegger ignores because the meaning is hidden… therefor we blind ourselves of anything that offends us? …Fascists


Caroline Glick on why the Obama administration is putting women in combat units

January 31, 2013

Caroline Glick has a different perspective on the Obama administration’s plan to put women in combat units than do most prominent women in the media. She spent five and a half years as an officer in the IDF, and she was an embedded reporter with an all-male American infantry unit during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. So what does she think about putting American women in combat units?

As to the US military, as David Horowitz wrote back in 1992, the movement to assign women to frontline combat unit is not about advancing women. It is about destroying the US military. The fact that Obama didn’t even need for Hagel to enter office before taking his first swipe at the military shows just how grandiose his plans for gutting US military capabilities in his second term are. 
To be clear, as a woman who served as an officer in the IDF for 5 and a half years, and worked as an embedded reporter with an all male US infantry unit in Iraq, I have to say that I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with women serving in combat. But the purpose of last week’s decision wasn’t about permitting women to fight on the battlefield. They already do. It was about social engineering and weakening the esprit d’corps of the US military. As Saul Alinsky taught his followers the goal is never what you say it is. The goal is always the revolution.
Delegitimizing and weakening Israel is only one part of the “revolution.” Israel will survive Obama and Hagel and Kerry and Brennan. 
But that doesn’t mean we and our supporters in the US should keep silent about their hostility just because we know we can’t block their appointments. By pointing out their radicalism, we are at a minimum sending out the necessary warning about what their future plans will likely involve. And that is important, because the more they are criticized the weaker they will feel. 

Read the whole thing


FOX Claims Penélope Cruz Will Bear “Anchor Baby,” Latino Republicans Protest

December 19, 2010

Our political discourse suffers from an impasse prohibiting genuine progress. That impasse is political correctness or, more accurately, cultural Marxism. It is the priority of emotion over reason. It is the assertion that, if someone is offended by an argument or the language used to articulate it, the argument is inherently incorrect. It is a retarding force upon intellect.

Political correctness is an effective force because most decent people do not want to offend and will make what seem to be reasonable concessions in order to maintain civility. There is also a tendency to confuse arguments based on emotion with arguments appealing to emotion. For instance, the argument against the Ground Zero Mosque appeals to the emotional impact its construction will have upon survivors of the Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001. That is not the argument’s basis, however. If Imam Rauf’s claim that he desires to build bridges between the West and Islam is correct, his insistence upon a course which agitates is illogical.
Political correctness is used like a sucker punch to unduly handicap one side of a debate. It is a tactic which emerged from the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century, with the objective of destroying our existing culture. We must therefore wonder why an ostensibly conservative organization would employ the tactic.
¡Somos Republicans!, a Hispanic group, has taken issue with Fox News Latino’s use of the term “anchor baby” in a headline referencing actress Penélope Cruz. She and husband Javier Bardem are opting to deliver their son in the United States rather than in Spain.

[Journalist Christina] Tárrega explained that the actors’ wish is for their son to have dual citizenship, and since the two own an estate in Hollywood — and Spain grants citizenship to foreign born if a parent is born in Spain — it is quite a convenient situation.

The citizenship status of Cruz and Bardem is not reported. Their status is relevant toward determining whether or not Fox News Latino’s use of the term “anchor baby” is accurate. However, ¡Somos Republicans!’ objection is not based on this criteria.

The term “anchor baby” is equivalent to other defamatory terms such as “wetback”, “pickaninny” and “tar baby”.  Media outlets should never use these demeaning terms in connection with precious babies, and it is unfortunate that we have to inform FOX News of this when they are typically viewed as conservative.

Next: The difference between defamatory and descriptive…

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous


Leave a Comment » | anchor babies, anchor baby, Cultural Marxism, Hispanic Republicans, Hispanics, Immigration, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz, Political Correctness, Somos Republicans, Tactics of the Left | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Comedy Central Caves to Jihadi Intimidation [Updated]

April 28, 2010

There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard’s home in January carrying an axe and a knife.

typical http://xrl.us/FOXNEWS and Saudi invested http://xrl.us/NEWSCORP says not to criticize Islam. RUPERT IS PATHETIC!

Check Boston Globe for a report, “‘South Park’ vs. Revolution Muslim.”
And Ann Althouse, “Comedy Central cowers in the face of a murder threat/warning against “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.” (Via Memeorandum.) And at Gay Patriot:

Those in our media élites have been taught to see “the other” as the victim of Western cultural hegemony, hence they excuse the violent posturing (and actions) of those deemed spokesmen for (or representatives of) the Third World and/or the “oppressed.” By contrast, any attempt to stand up for the ideas which made this nation great are seen as retrograde, reversion to their perverted image of what our nation’s past was. (Perverted because they define our past by its worst aspects, oblivious to the fact that at least since Reagan, conservatives don’t want to turn back the clock.)

Plus, some video background:

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | Bill O'Reilly, Democratic Party, Islam, Mass Media, Political Correctness, Radical Left, South Park, terrorism, War on Terror | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon