1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Even NOW falls out of favor among the PC gestapo...

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ThaBigP, Mar 8, 2009.

  1. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    http://www.wkbw.com/news/local/40751492.html

    It's about time NOW finally realizes...it's never been about equality for women. Of course, all they had to do was ask Sarah Palin about that.

    It's never been about racial equality...just ask Clarence Thomas about that.

    It's been about one thing, and one thing only: the advancement of Progressivism. And "Progressivism" as a political movement spawned the Itallian Fascists, the Nazis...and even the Communist government of the USSR a few decades prior. It is about unity as defined by the power-brokers, and requires the abandonment of individual identity and liberty for the "good of the collective". The only major difference between Communism and Fascism is that Communism considered itself an international "new order", whereas Fascism tends to view itself as a national "new order". Hence, the Nazi party's full name was "National Socialist German Worker's Party", and the USSR's full name was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".

    NOW is coming under fire for doing one thing: standing on principle that runs counter to caving to the West's enemies. Remember, in the world of political upheaval, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". This is why Progressives have pornographic love-affairs with the most murderous of tyrants and regimes...so long as those tyrants and regimes also hate the US. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Yes, I'm saying that American Progressives hate the United States...at least what it has represented thus far. Their aim is to destroy the institutions of this nation so that the pieces can be reassembled into shapes of their choosing. If it means tossing NOW under the bus because they raise eyebrows of our enemies, then so be it.

    Your access to the culture has a litmus test...the degree to which you fall in lockstep with the pre-defined "correct" way of thought. Nobody is a sacred cow...all are expendable in the end. Power is the end, as well as the means.
  2. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I didn't hear a peep from them when that muslim guy in Buffalo beheaded his wife.
  3. masomenos

    masomenos Less is more

    5,971 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The NOW Press Release

    http://www.fifty-one-percent.org/in...-now-ny-about-a-woman-beheaded-by-her-husband

    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] ALBANY, NY (02/16/2009; 1237)(readMedia)-- On February 12, 2009, in Orchard Park, Buffalo, NY, forty-four year-old Muzzamil Hassan, a prominent Muslim businessman, was arrested for having allegedly beheaded his wife, thirty-seven year-old Aasiya Z. Hassan. What was Aasiya's crime? Why, Aasiya was having Muzzamil served with divorce papers. And apparently, on February 6, Aasiya obtained an order of protection which had forced her violent husband out of their home.

    NOW New York State is horrified that Erie County DA, Frank A. SeditaII, has referred to this ghastly crime as "the worst form of domestic violence possible." The ridiculous juxtaposition of "domestic" and "beheading" in the same journalistic breath points up the inherent weakness of the whole "domestic violence" lexicon.

    What is "domestic" about this violence? NOW NYS President Marcia Pappas says "it is high time we stop regarding assaults and murders as a lover's quarrels gone bad. We further demand of lawmakers that punishments fit crimes. We of NOW decry the selective enforcement of assault laws and call for judicial enforcement of our mandatory arrest policy, even when the axe-wielder is known by his victim."

    And why is this horrendous story not all over the news? Is a Muslim woman's life not worth a five-minute report? This was, apparently, a terroristic version of "honor killing," a murder rooted in cultural notions about women's subordination to men. Are we now so respectful of the Muslim's religion that we soft-peddle atrocities committed in it's name? Millions of women in this country are maimed and killed by their husbands or partners. Had this awful murder been perpetrated by a African American, a Latino, a Jew, or a Catholic, the story would be flooding the airwaves. What is this deafening silence?

    And exactly what do orders of protection do? Was Aasiya desperately waving the order of protection in Muzzamil's face when he slashed at her throat? Was it still clutched in her hand as her head hit the floor?

    You of the press, please shine a light on this most dreadful of murders. In a bizarre twist of fate it comes out that Muzzamil Hassan is founder of a television network called Bridges TV, whose purpose it was to portray Muslims in a positive light. This a huge story. Please tell it!
    [/FONT]
  4. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Unless I'm mistaken, I think that's the very episode that has caused this row. NOW has come under fire for acknowledging (and decrying) the prevelance of acceptance of this sort of behavior among a swath of the Muslim population.
  5. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,005 Messages
    126 Likes Received
    That's Artie for you....
  6. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,005 Messages
    126 Likes Received
    Very monlithic thinking there BigP. Like there's a guy who decides what 'the Progressivists' position is. Or, as you would probably prefer, a board somewhere who does it. This tendency to lump everything into one group is counter productive, IMO.

    NOW caught this flack because there are groups that here that are pretty sensitive to negative stereotyping of muslims (even if it may be accurate). Do you really think that if someone approached a similar type of murder, say an OJ style 'En Flagrante Delecto' killing as an example of Christian acceptance of violence, that there wouldn't be a chorus of groups complaining?

    I see it all the time here: The Communists, The Muslims, The Left, The Liberals, The Right, The Conservatives. The broad swath, while conveniant, is not really accurate. Your unchallenged assumption that these Progressivists include anyone who might think they are 'progressive' sure seems to be in this vein. As if anyone who might complain about US misdeeds is part of some vast authoritarian conspiracy. The USA does make mistakes, and it is an error to ignore them. I note that there are many on the board complaining about what they see as 'errors' happening presently.

    The Soviets may have talked the talk of internationalism, but it was all about Russian National Power. Same with the Chinese, etc.


    One interesting bit about the NOW statement: Since the passage of various domestic violence laws, arrests of women for assault in domestic violence have shot up tremendously, in part because the police are no longer allowed discretion in the situations, and when the women in question admits something like, 'I threw an iron at him, or I punched him', the police are pretty much required to arrest. I recall a NOW statement at one point decrying this, as unintended. Sigh.
  7. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Remember when we met those three girls and?...oh wait you were not there.
    Remember that Megadeth concert you and I went and?...oh,hold on,you were not there.
    Remember that road trip Martin,Alvin you Hector?...oh sorry you were not there either....

    You were not there because YOU DO NOT KNOW ME!
    You are old enough not to make assumptions about people...are you?
  8. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I'm just going by what the early 20th Century Progressives said themselves...before WWII blew up and the nature of the fascist regimes bacame apparent, of course. After that, Progressivism lost favor (at least by name) due to their cozying up with those regimes. And don't let the "early 20th century" bit fool you into thinking that "progressivism" then and now have no bearing in one another. Even Hillary Clinton said that she identifies with the early 20th century Progressives. At the core of all of those results of "progressivethink" was this: that government not only could, but should be used to its fullest extent to perfect society. What "perfect" looked like of course was different depending on whose idea it was, hence various interpretations of what "perfect" was. In some cases you had welfare, Prohibition, and political prisoner camps (here in the states - the political prisoners were courtesy of Wilson and Roosevelt, two big Progressives), or forced-labor collective farms and Gulags (USSR), or concentration camps quickly retooled to death camps (Germany). I'm not making any of it up, you can look it up yourself.

    By the way, don't think I'm only relating Progressivism with Democrats...it was a nation-wide (actually, world-wide) movement at the turn of the 20th century. Republicans had their progressives too, such as Teddy Roosevelt.

    Ultimately, there were a few common hallmarks of "progressivism" in almost all its forms - that the central government (federal government here) should have the power to sculpt society down to the minutest of details; that their ideas were "more evolved" than the "outdated" concept of democracy and individual liberty; phoney "science" such as phrenology and eugenics were manufactured to "prove" "scientifically" that their ideas were "more evolved", etc.

    If you were to actually read what the progressive movement believed, it would probably frighten last-night's dinner out of you.
  9. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    As for my constant railing against "progressivism", and some scratching their heads as to why I would tie fascism in with it, when fascism is supposed to be a conservative scarlet letter...or so sayeth the progressives who've been in full denial mode since WWII, here's an excellent article by Professor Thomas Sowell about the matter. He writes it in defense of the book "Liberal Fascism", so I expect some spitwads to be thrown at it from the peanut gallery. But, as they say, facts are stubborn things...

    What is Fascism and Who is a Fascist?

    by Thomas Sowell (February 18, 2008)


    [IMG]
    Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis. This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time -- and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.
    Because the word "fascist" is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that "Liberal Fascism" begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.

    The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.

    Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run. They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States. Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate. Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.

    Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics." Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini -- as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.
    Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s. W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.

    Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order." As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."

    In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions. Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs. Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

    If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today. The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement. Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is too rich a book to be summarized in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions about who is on "the left" and who is on "the right." It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.
  10. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    19,066 Messages
    487 Likes Received

    Opps. :lmao2:
  11. tyke1doe

    tyke1doe Well-Known Member

    19,066 Messages
    487 Likes Received
    What's so ironic about the broad-brush characterizations is that you have some here bemoaning that the group in power now calling themselves Conservatives aren't true Conservatives.

    Yet the very bemoaners don't mind lumping all liberals and Democrats into the same category. Everything progressive is liberal. Does that mean everything status quo is conservative? If progressiveness is liberal and represents every extreme force does conservative represent every attempt to perserve the status quo like slavery and racial discrimination?

    That's why it's disingenous, if not dangerous, to lump everyone into the same category.

    Yes, liberalism gone too far can be dangerous. But we've seen so can conservatism.
  12. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,214 Messages
    1,336 Likes Received
    NOW lost all ethical and moral leadership when it refused to demand stern action against Clinton. Anyone with a brain could see that it was nothing but a liberal shill group.
    THEY sent out a press release on the beheading. Did the head of NOW then make the rounds of the morning news shows or do anything else significant?
    Have they taken any real action since?
  13. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    True dat. I'm just enjoying the irony. I do support NOW's position on *this* issue...but seriously, the schadenfreude is hard to resist ...must....resist....trying...to.....resist....
  14. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Short post,full of failure.
  15. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    This post gets a standing ovation.

Share This Page