Right Wing News and a request for information

Good luck fighting the Kneejerk leftwing reactionary protocol .

"Hate and Discrimination." My God.

You WebWasher people have got things twisted.

We have been here before in American history. It is remarkable how little change occurs in time with regard to human nature. The 30 years prior to the civil war was a period in which the Slaveocracy (as John Quincy called it) attempted to impose "gag rules" in Congress and elsewhere on the issue of slavery. Adams fought like a tiger to repeal the "gag rules".

The Slaveocracy was very effective at shutting down discussion of the issue in the Old South, but when they attempted to silence everyone in America on the issue-the issue became one of human liberty for all people. The "gag rules" were a very powerful component among the causes of the Civil War.

It is remarkable how Calhoun and others used the same arguments re critical analysis of slavery as many Muslims use re critical analysis of Islam. They accused the Abolitionists and others of fomenting "hate" and "divisiveness" (even Lincoln got that charge from opponents).

But James Russell Lowell understood the real issue with regard to the attempt to silence all those who were critical of slavery when he said, "...what they demand of us is nothing less than that we should abolish the spirit of the age. Our very thoughts are a menace". The issue went beyond speech then and the issue with Islam goes beyond speech now.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:su5ZmIxhBx4J:members.aol.com/jfepperson/lowell.html+%22What+they+demand+of+us+is+nothing+less+than+that+we+should+abolish+the+spirit+of+the+age.+Our+very+thoughts+are+a+menace%22.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Robert, It's interesting that the techies where I work (the head of the department being a Muslim) does sometimes block JIHADWATCH.ORG, but it seems to be related more to a word that might be found on the home page for the day as opposed to the site itself. So that's a possible scenario for some blocking.

Webwasher?

There's something that's just plain creepy about that.

So, Frank, you are saying that the TruthTellers about Slavery were also met with silencing and muzzling tactics? As we JW TruthTellers are meeting with the same?

Appreciate your expounding. I do seek parallels throughout history concerning our current situation about Islam.

So, Frank, John C. Calhoun of SC sought to suppress any criticism of slavery? Did he own slaves and so this was to his benefit?

Just like the Islamists and PC Apologists seek suppression of criticism of Islam? Obviously no criticism of Islam is to the Muslims' and PC Apologists' benefits.

Always ask: Who benefits?

darcy,

The issues may change but there will always be those who fear critical analysis. That's why we have a First Amendment that is meant to protect minority thought and opinion, all opinion that may upset a majority or a minority view. Simply because such critical analysis speech creates "divisiveness" does not make the critical analysis any less factual and true. Sometimes the truth hurts.

Calhoun did have slaves. But the "gag rules" were imposed because the truth re slavery was a tight shoe that bit into the conscience of many slaveholders. Ultimately, the Democratic convention of 1860 (held in Charleston, S.C.) split when the Slaveocracy demanded that slavery be declared "moral" and "good". This was even too much for the ambitious Democratic party presidential candidate Stephen A. Douglas and the Slaveholders walked out and ran a third party candidate. The result was the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln as president of the US.

Calhoun died in 1850 but his ghost was at that convention and he was the cause of the jihad that began when the enemies of the US and the Constitution opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 not long after Lincoln was sworn in as president. (It is interesting that Andrew Jackson, on his death bed in 1845, said he only had two regrets in life: that he did not have faster horses and that he did not hang John C. Calhoun in 1832 re Nullification. Jackson saw into the future.)

In many ways it takes a competent psychiatrist to unravel the frightened anger of Calhoun and those like him. They would literally do anything to silence critical analysis on the issue. Many Muslims have a similar problem when the shoes on their head are so tight that they bite.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959261/posts

Going by the above it would seem that the software has been infiltrated, modified or even designed by the leftists who are using it to block many conservative websites.
Go see for yrself.

Whoa, Frank, that was very, very helpful. The "Slaveocracy" (those in favor of slavery) actually demanded that slavery be called "moral" and "good." OMG - that's an exact parallel to the demands by Islamists and Islamic Apologists that Islam is the "religion of peace" and other lies.

I don't think it takes a psychiatrist to unravel peoples' anger concerning critical analysis of issues important to them. The critical analysis is not to their benefit is all, and so they fear it and seek to stop it.

Thanks for all of your input which I will be writing down. I want to remember it so I can use it in conversations with PC MoonBats!

Any other parallel examples?

P.S. I haven't studied American History since high school. Thanks for reminding me of things I know I studied but have forgotten the details of in the intervening years.

from that site here is the link to the company
https://www.webwasher.com/enterprise/home/contact/index.html?lang=de_EN

Darcy,

I'm a Newsletter Editor for a Civil War Round Table and I didn't know that!!!

Frank,

Thank you for giving us this comparison. VERY insightful.

(I guess this explains why I've always called myself a Confederate Abolitionist!)

Robert,

Ever see this site?

http://www.examinethetruth.com/attacks_from_the_quacks.htm

I know, Miss_Anthrope - Frank's comparison to what's happening now is super. I'm glad to have it in my arsenal, and you are too!

Anyone who attempts to stop critical analysis of a subject has something to fear from that critical analysis.

Like the "Slaveocracy."

Islamists' - you listening?

Looks like cair has a problem with this thread.
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=351&theType=AA

New Laws?
http://newsbusters.org/node/12290

I'm sure this has been asked before, but is it possible the administrator just sees the word "Jihad" and assumes it some lunatic islamic site and bans it.

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/jihadwatch.htm

Hatesite......
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/jihadwatch.htm

Webwasher is a company based in Germany. They claim to ban sites based on images and text through their supposedly super-sophisticated program. They are doing this worldwide. Big corporations use them so as not to have to take responsibility themselves for choosing sites to block.

This is the contact information for their U.S. representative:

webwasher USA
Frances Schlosstein
Vice President Business Development USA
New York, NY, USA
(800) 305-4986
frances.schlosstein@webwasher.com

An IT friend (who admits that this is outside his field), does have this to say: First, he said once you're on one of these banned site lists, it's incredibly difficult to get off. Second, he says that Web Washer and such sites rely on multiple databases of sites that should be banned, and that someone must have submitted Jihad Watch for inclusion in such a database. He also says that these filtering software companies are not usually at all upfront about where they got their information or how they made the decision. It looks like someone found a way to "submit" JW to be included in a database for web filtering software to use, and that some decision maker--we'll probably never know who it was--agreed and added it to such a database. Then Web Washer and maybe other filtering software companies just picked that right up as part of the database they were using.

Webwasher is a company based in Germany. They claim to ban sites based on images and text through their supposedly super-sophisticated program. They are doing this worldwide. Big corporations use them so as not to have to take responsibility themselves for choosing sites to block.

Interesting.

A handful of people in another country can dictate what you can and cannot access.

So, then they can be guilty of libel, no, if they erroneously defame someone as "hateful" when they are not?

Perhaps it is time for JW legal staff to make a phone call or two to the CEO of Webwasher if this is all true?

Robert,

This showes JW in 3 databases.
http://www.securecomputing.com/sfwhere/index.cfm

You can request removal here. I thought it would be better if it was addressed by you personally.

You should review this site as well.
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/jihadwatch.htm

Abrog8

The tall Armenian tale website seems to have a primary goal of denying the genocide of Armenians by the Turks - a fashionable pursuit of even moderate Muslims like Mustafa Akyol. Given the casual way in which they try and dismiss that event in history, it's no wonder that they are waging their jihad against JW.

Just wonder whether Sedar Argic - an Usenet newsgroup spammer from the 90's who was obsessed with the Armenian genocide of Turks (his invention) - is behind this one.

In any case, this site is a polemic one, and not worth anybody's time.

darcy, miss annthrop

Re the 1860 Democratic Party Convention in Charleston, S.C.....from "The Oxford History of the American People", page 603

".....Nothing less than the active protection of slavery in every territory, present or future, would satisfy the Southerners. Jefferson Davis demanded a plank in the platform requiring congress to apply a "black code" to all territories. William L. Yancy of Alabama insisted that the Democratic Party declare flatly "that slavery was right". "Gentlemen of the South," replied Senator Pugh of Ohio, "you mistake us-you mistake us-we will not do it". Nor did they; and on April 30 1860, after the convention had rejected an extreme pro slavery platform with the Davis plank, the delegations of the eight cotton states withdrew".-The Oxford History of the American People, page 603

This attitude, and the long and ugly battle re "gag rules" had the air electric with bitterness and anger. Reason could not be appealed to on the matter. As Lincoln noted (I think to Herndon), they wanted everyone to be silent on the issue and submit to their ideology-beliefs. They would permit no critical analysis, no criticism of their beliefs. They wanted the equivalent of modern multiculturalism-but they intended to eventually to impose their beliefs on all.

Here is a link that touches on Sen. Pugh's reply to Yancey (and the rest of the Slavocracy)..

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:jNkk0XH9PswJ:historicaltextarchive.com/books.php%3Fop%3Dviewbook%26bookid%3D30%26cid%3D4+%22Gentlemen+of+the+South,%22+replied+Senator+Pugh+of+Ohio,+%22you+mistake+us-you+mistake+us-we+will+not+do+it%22.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Abrog8,

That looks like the source of the trouble--those three databases.

Is there a reason why all of us shouldn't go there and use their form to suggest changes to the categorization of JW or e-mail them? They have an e-mail address and also an on-line form where you can suggest an alternative categorization for a given URL. JW could go as "politics/opinion" for example, which is a neutral categorization and shouldn't be filtered, as far as I know (but what do I know?). Or it could go as "news."

I would think this might be a great opportunity for a bunch of us to use those ways of communicating with SmartFilter or whatever they are called.

On the other hand, it said something about "the version you are using," whereas the page can be viewed and used by people who aren't _using_ any version of their software.

Robert, folks, what do you think? Shouldn't the rest of us voice our opinion to these guys? They seem to be saying that they are the ones doing the categorization and bragging about all their high-tech, high-quality ways of making these decisions. So they seem to be the ones to make contact with.

Re: Frank,

Thank you for giving us this comparison. VERY insightful.

(I guess this explains why I've always called myself a Confederate Abolitionist!)

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at July 5, 2007 11:40 AM

They were there in the South and very many fought in the Union Army. The whole western portion of Virgina (now the state of West Virginia) refused to go along with the Slaveocracy. There were similar sentiments expressed in North Carolina and Texas (where the Gov. declared martial law, though Davis later resended that). In Tennessee there was very strong support for Lincoln and the US government (hence Abe later chose Andrew Johnson of Tenn. VP in 1864). Conversely, in the North, there was a massive group called "Knights of the Golden Circle" that harassed and threatened supporters of the US government.

The extent of the Slaveocracy jihad support in the north was so great that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus against them and the "peace movement" in the North. President Lincoln had 13,000+ people arrested and held in detention. He was accused of being a tyrant and much else as military tribunals were set up to put the peace crowd on ice. The whole group (peace people, Slaveocracy supporters, etc.) were lumped together under the name "copperheads" by supporters of the US government and the Constitution of the US.

In any event, there is a lot of similarity between current PC and the "gag rules" (though it is not as intense-yet). Human nature is self centered and selfish/predatory motives of people are often hidden under religion-ideology. That is especially true re Islam. Many Muslims have good reasons to want "gag rules" re critical analysis of Islam. They hide their self-interest and selfish motives under a costume of religion. They fool many-they even fool themselves.

Maybe it's tripping over the frequent use of the word "Islam." Substitute "COM" (Cult of Mohammed) for every instatnce of "Islam" and the ban should go away. On second thought, maybe not..

Yes, I work in the UK and have had the same problem. I have asked for it to be removed.

Yes, jihadwatch is about hate and discrimination... but not FROM us!!

The left only backs off here when exposed to a wave of objections that make them look like the kooks they are...
...the same ilk who ban anything-not-leftist also have no problem with allowing extreme leftist-beyond-illucid sites...even kiddie porn & such gutterslag.
This has been going on way before JW even existed, so it's not just isolated to us here...just ask David Horowitz @ http://www.frontpagemag.com/