Sunday, January 18, 2009

[unpopular opinions] cost many readers

The most important thing is to tell it as it is, even if it costs you big in terms of readership. If the truth runs contrary to popular opinion, that's no reason not to tell it.


The President-Elect began the day in Philadelphia, the cradle of American democracy, and travelled by train to Washington DC, seat of the nation's super power. In so doing, he followed in the wheel tracks of the man who enabled the first steps that have taken black Americans from slavery to the world's most powerful office.

Bentsen once said to Quayle: "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy," and anyone could say to Obama: "You're no Abe Lincoln." In fact, the cynical train journey by the non-president is a travesty, an insult to the American people.

As for the American people themselves, they've been hoodwinked in the same way Britain was with Blair.


Stop the rockets and all the rest follows.

Today's agenda

When the American War for Independence came to an end at Yorktown, the British, stunned at their defeat, stacked arms while a band played "The World Turned Upside Down." At the time, the musical selection must have seemed particularly apt. After all, who could have predicted the defeat of the world's foremost naval and military power by the band of rag-tag citizen soldiers fielded by the Colonies?

It's as well to look yet again at the elite's manifesto:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government

Marriage and the family

Pornography, the gay mafia, feminism and the predictable male backlash, along with the tame reconstructed male, domestic violence which is never explored for its true antecedents, the rise of the unsocialized young male and now female, the dumbing down of education, agendas of destructive organizations like planned parenthood and the detested CSA, the controlled MSM, a new generation which knows nothing of ordered society - all contribute to the destruction of the family unit and marriage as its binding glue.

Active assault on their maker

If the notion of a deity is as much a myth as the socialist, atheistic humanists like to make out, why the need to take out ads on the sides of buses? They've got quite a psychological problem, poor souls. One can only smile the way they trumpet the rationale as supporting "free speech".

Er ... exactly the opposite, actually but still - these people never can see this.

They like to portray themselves as the voice of reason but all they're really doing is taking part in the same suppression that they're purportedly railing against and can't see their hypocrisy for what it is. Why does the existence of their maker send them into such apoplexy?


In his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, in April, 1972, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, proclaimed:

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future."

Lovely people, aren't they?


  1. NB, readers - Angus is referring to the first two sections of the post about Obama and Gaza.

    After that, I've now added the lower part of the article and there may well be things he might disagree with there.

  2. That last quote sounds like indoctrination to me!!!

  3. Just because I disagree with some of your opinions doesn't stop me reading your blog. What's the point of only reading stuff one agrees with? Doesn't everyone occasionally shout "bollox" at the monitor when astounded by the crassness of an alternative opinion?
    And as for religion, I agree with point four of this list from Theo Spark

  4. James has added the "lastly" bit after my comments again :)

  5. My love, you make it impossible NOT to read your blog!

  6. I don't see how the train journey is an insult to the American people.
    And "feminism" is NOT a four-letter-word, James! Please stop treating it as though it is.

  7. "who could have predicted the defeat of the world's foremost naval and military power by the band of rag-tag citizen soldiers fielded by the Colonies?" It was the French that won at Yorktown, a fact that Americans have tried to overlook for two centuries.

  8. As for Obama = Blair, that's my fear too, though I suspect that O is much more intelligent than Blair. On the other hand, look at the creeps he's surrounding himself with.

  9. @ Dearieme - I think I'd rather have been defeated by a rag tag bunch of colonists than the bloody French, so I'm happy with the sanitised version.

    @ JH, I'm not sure why religionists claim some sort of monopoly on the idea of the family or stable relationships, I think you are way off piste there, but otherwise agreed.

  10. James- we have been through this before- but how exactly is putting up a campaign on the buses for atheism any different than the kind of campaign that the Alpha centre run on the tube. I'd imagine that free speech protects both- why do you think it doesn't? Do atheists not have rights?

    I disagree quite frequently with what you write about politics- both your argument and your analysis- but I come back to read you because I find quite a lot of the other stuff that you write interesting and to be honest you write well as well. That and the fact that you are a good citizen of the blogging world.

    Oh and Anonymous I wouldn't condescend to Welshcakes- you aren't exactly Albert Einstein you know.

  11. And Welshcakes from everything I've seen has plenty of good sense and a pretty good knowledge of feminism too.

  12. Oh and Anonymous I wouldn't condescend to Welshcakes- you aren't exactly Albert Einstein you know.

    Oh and gracchi, I wouldn't condescend to Anonymous - you aren't exactly Albert Einstein you know.

    And Gracchi from everything I've seen you have zero good sense and zero knowledge of damn near anything too.


  13. Dearieme,
    The creeps that Obama is surrounding himself with, despite his intelligence, which may, or may not be true, will dictate his path.

    This precedent is accepted as part of the process.

    Presidents that fail to follow their game plan seem to fail as Presidents. His freedom of action has already been limited by various moves, including already submitted military budgets.

  14. "It was the French that won at Yorktown, a fact that Americans have tried to overlook for two centuries."

    Americans have always recognized that fact that the Revolution would have failed without our French allies; the only reason some refer to Yorktown as an American victory is because Washington was the commander, though much of the successful strategy they employed was from the French commander. The French had about 4000 troops, and the Americans had about 3000, so the French were actually in the majority during the battle.

  15. The Obama presidentcy has been hyped up so much, it is bound to be a disappointment. He is a fine orator, but a dangerous socialist. Americans have been hoodwinked and will find out their mistake the hard way. It is up to the Republicans to regroup very quickly and come up with a credible challenger to Obama in a couple of years' time. If they don't - and I fear they won't - America will have to put up with the mistake for eight years.

  16. Read all these, interesting too. I removed one comment of Anon's which was too ad hominem but the others I left there as they were more to the point.

    Thanks for those, people.

  17. I am going to add to the feminist comments here only.

    I am a modern liberated woman who recognizes that feminism has done a great deal for women,but am not blind to the great harm also.

    As James once said in a post, there are two types of feminists and one is with a capital 'F'.
    I refer to them as ardent, militant feminists. They are loud mouthed[lol @ irony],anti social why-should-I -have- to-shave-my-legs kinds of women who often exploit women for their cause and destroy the actual feminist movement and what it should mean.

    They want to turn men into women and women into hairy men and denounce all that being a woman is. They are an enemy of solid family values and EQUAL rights.
    They are also hypocrites who would have us all inducted into the army,[ bare breasted as they're not sexual]and won't stop until they have successfully turned every man into an emasculated,impotent mysogenist.
    They hover, waiting for a man to say anything that can be deliberately misconstrued as anti-feminist so they can take out their angst on him/them.

    I hate these types, so I can only imagine what men must feel like.

    As it is socially unacceptable for men to say it, I will. These hardcore militants need to STFU from time- to -time.They are counerproductive to modern ,liberated woman's stance and we will all suffer thee consequences.
    I also resent being mistaken for one, when I do assert my rights because a lot of men can't tell the difference between feminists and Feminists.

    James has some old -fashioned values , as do I, yet he is a very pro -women's rights, modern man in many respects.James IS right about family values , gender roles and the feminists jeopardising that.
    It's not only men who have a legitimate beef with them. We all should.

  18. Blogging in some sort of echo-chamber doesn't sound much like a worthwhile pastime to me, ideas are like scientific theories and need to be tested by peer review.

    BTW : What have rockets got to do with anything?

  19. 'I'd imagine that free speech protects both- why do you think it doesn't? Do atheists not have rights?'

    It's a fact of law that when two rights conflict-freedom of speech say v protection against religious discrimination, the law that does the least harm prevails over the other guaranteed right.

    Atheists voicing their opinion is one thing. To arrogantly, rabidly try to pummel THEIR views ,often in a belittling way,onto the religious creates a moral injustice.

    Even if the Atheist wins in his arguement, what has he accomplised aside from destroying the comfort that the religious person derives from his faith?

    I am an Agnostic ,but that's one arguement I would never even broach nor WANT to win.

    Any Atheist who feels he should have equal rights to essentially destroy someone's faith,not the same as preaching the Lord's word, has not considered the injuries of one side as opposed to none of the other.

    Freedom of speech should not extend this far and it doesn't when it comes to anti-semitism. The religious fervor that many Atheists try to 'covert' religious people to their way of thinking is just as bad as antisemitism .

  20. If you believe that someone has made a mistake, is it not the respectful thing to do to make them aware of this?

    The ads on buses are designed to do exactly that - to raise awareness of atheism and provoke debate. To consider this some kind of "assault" is not only bizarre but also rather disrespectful, both to those who wish to express their opinion and those who may benefit from encountering it.

    Critical thinking - one of the essential elements of individual liberty - requires an active rather than passive engagement with ideas, even those we may initially find distasteful.

  21. Think of this Matt....
    I am very committed to the concept of freedom of speech
    and denounce MOST censoreship.

    Some topics and relationships must over-ride rights to freedom of speech and rightly,do so.

    One can sue for alienation of affection if anyone tries to turn someone against their spouse or child, as they are protected,primary relationships that no man should trespass against.The same should apply to a man and his relationship with his God.

    I am sure most people would agree that the laws governing antisemitic literature along with other hate inciting organizations like the KKK , for example, should ensure people are not directly or indirectly harmed from an unsolicited bombardment of someone else's right to push their views onto others,under 'freedom of speech.'

    An Atheist should be allowed to express his 'positive' views on his stance without 'negative' ones denouncing the other person's.

    To me that is as much a hate crime or even religious persection, as any of the above examples.

    My own personal belief is that religion was created as a moral guideline.
    I am not religious per se , and could probably not list all 10 Commandments,but I am sure I follow them. One does not need to be religious to adhere to the correct moral code.
    I have very strong views, especially on some religions,but as 'big mouthed' as I am,it's one debate I never engage in.

    The potential consequences of someone else's free speech in the matter of religion is too grave to be simply a 'topic' to debate by opposing sides.

    In the end, God's existence is not even the point. If one derives comfort from their belief in God's existence and love [which is a beautiful thing]then that should be sacrosanct.

  22. Lastly...

    O brave new world that has such people in it.

  23. There is a world of difference between criticism, personal insult and incitement to violence.

    The first, of which the bus campaign is an example, is an essential aspect of liberal democracy. The second is merely distasteful and only the third should - in a democracy - be subject to legal sanction.

    That many people hold strong irrational beliefs from which they derive comfort is no reason for indulging in illiberal practices. If someone drew strength from a belief that they were part of the superior Aryan race they should still not be immune from criticism.

    It's true that many religious people react badly to the idea that others disagree with them, and it's often entirely futile and counter-productive to try to engage the closed-minded in debate. But it's equally true that many religious people welcome the chance to discuss and debate their views with others - a number of religious groups have come out in support of the atheist bus campaign as a way of getting more people to think about god.

    We should not allow a minority of zealots to dictate what we can and cannot say in public.

  24. Matt,
    Equating Neo-Nazism with religious beliefs is ridiculous.
    The religious person does not derive his sense of well being by subscribing to a belief system that encourages, even in theory genocide.

    By 'religious person' I am not talking about religious extremists.

    You've proved my point which gave rise to my comments that Atheists exploit'freedom of speech' laws to persecute religious persons under the guise of 'healthy debate.' Your labelling them as 'irrational'
    'close minded' and 'reacting badly' if they object to having to defend,justify and PROVE the worthiness of their faith and right to 'religious freedom',much less be subjected to this denigration,is what I meant when I said Atheists are incapable of debating the issues without immediately demeaning anyone who holds the opposing views.
    It's not exercising 'freedom of speech' it's immoral,debasing and abusive.

    We're not talking about Atheist not having the right to their own opinions. We're talking about them pummeling the religious without regard for potenially robbing them of their very faith, if they were successful in what they attempt to achieve and caught them at a spiritual low.
    HUGE difference.

    There is no potential harm for the Atheist , for they have no 'faith' to shake.Nor do religious persons typically DEMAND Atheists justify,defend or prove the worthiness of their non-beliefs.

    I am not religious per se, but I find both yours and Steve's comments offensive.
    Brave New World, Steve?
    I am an Epsilon for suggesting that Atheists show a measure of respect for other people's opposing views?
    I think this is one issue where people who think they should be allowed to say whatever they like think of the other person's right to BELIEVE whatever they like.
    Blind New World, more like it.

  25. Pre-frontal-lobe mixture of CH4, SO2, H2S.

  26. Ubermouth - I agree with both your comments on Religious/Spiritual belief.

    I was going to reply myself to the earlier comments, but you have done it far better than I could in your latest comment!

  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

  28. Thank you very much Cherry.
    I was sitting here, thinking that maybe I should ban myself until James' return! LOL

    Anon- Are you like my personal heckler? I do hopeso.I do like to have a bit of a following and I am clearly not very discriminating so welcome. We shall go lightly on you, now that you have explained what ails you. :)

  29. Uber.

    Don't preen yourself so.
    Self aggrandizement may be your bag, if so that's your problem, - or are you really so paranoid?

    The location of my post was only semi-related to your rant, - you had plenty of strange company.

  30. Anon- And assuming you are the same Anon who attacks me regularly here,don't pressume to know whether I am either self aggrandizing or paranoid.Neither would be the case. Someone's font hardly sends me into a fearful or euphoric state.
    If you don't want your comments misinterpreted as directed at the wrong person,maybe you should clarify who you are addressing.
    If you are being confused with a more obnoxious anon commenter,maybe you could get an account.
    Above all, get a sense of humour.

  31. Ubermouth,

    I was quite clearly not equating the two - except to the extent that two irrational beliefs are equally irrational. I was simply using the example of Aryan supremacism to show that the fact a belief is comforting does not means that it deserves legal protection.

    Nor am I the one suggesting that all religious belief is irrational.

    You are.

    A belief is rational to the extent that there are accepted reasons for holding it. To the extent that there are reasons for holding a belief, the person holding it can defend it - by articulating those reasons.

    Where religious belief is held rationally the believer may defend their position. Therefore there is no need of any law or social pressure to prevent them from having to do so.

  32. Matt,
    No to everything you just said. :)

    And especially NO to suggesting I have accused anyone's beliefs as being irrational.

    The thrust of the matter is NOT whether or not a religious person CAN defend the rationality behind their belief[which would not satisfy any Atheist],but that they should be exempt from being EXPECTED to by any non beliver who comes along , demanding such proof before respecting his right NOT to be assailed over his faith.

    Who appointed the Athesit as some quasi psychologist/ circuit judge whose role allows him to impose his 'tests' on the religious person ,to determine 'rationality' and establish their eligibility for 'right of protection' under the law?

    Again, justification to exploit 'freedom of speech'laws to abuse other's faith and their own rights under different laws.

    Also, pretty high handed for the Atheist to pressume he is the only one who is rational and anyone who has any religous belief is not.

    The Atheists campaigns are not promoting a religion,they are 'campaigning' to denounce ALL religious beliefs as 'irrational'.

    If a Neo Nazi wanted to take great comfort from believing they will join Hitler in the afterlife, blinded by a sea of nubile blondes, I would respect that,even,providing they are NOT preaching their supremacy over anyone who does not fit the bill, causing any direct or indirect harm to those people.

    It's not for anyone to decide the merits of anyone's religion.

    Most people wouldn't DEMAND to know someone's politics or candidate they voted for under the same rules you purport to apply to religious persons, so that they could be 'disabused' of their personal views and choices.

  33. Ubermouth,

    In what way is the bus campaign "demanding" a response? If someone wants to ignore it they are perfectly free to do so.

    If religious beliefs are held rationally then the believer should have no trouble in entering a debate over them. I've participated in a number of such debates with various religious believers, some of whom I count as good friends. I find the idea that these sort of debates should be considered taboo to be ridiculous.

    Religious believers are not children, to be smothered in cotton wool. They are adults and deserve to be treated with the same respect as the rest of us - which means pointing out when we think they've made a mistake.


Your thoughts on this?