Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls. Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership. I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him (even in the comments at National Review on this piece, some clown says that the article should have highlighted Richard Spencer’s remarks on white nationalism, not his criticism of Islam; in reality, he is the one who writes about white nationalism, and I am the one who writes about Islam, and we are two completely different people): he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him.
So while I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be. Like the Nazis, she wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She doesn’t want them to breathe. This is quintessentially Nazi behavior, and is in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.
While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, and there is no excuse for that, as long as he is not breaking any laws he has as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has. But not as far as Christine Fair is concerned. She has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and forbidden to speak, and screamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.
National Review writer Jeremy Carl brings me into this because I have been on the receiving end of Fair’s wrath before, and have found her to be a shockingly rude, unkind, angry, and remarkably unpleasant individual — all while she preens as an exponent of “tolerance” and “peace.” Carl is a bit hasty, in my view, to accept the claims of my critics without evaluating those claims or my work on their merits, but his anxiousness to distance himself from me is perhaps understandable in a piece that appears in the publication that Ann Coulter so famously observed years ago was run by “girly men.”
I would happily debate Jeremy Carl, or Christine Fair, or any serious analyst on the nature of Islam or any of the assertions I have made in my work, and I am confident that the claims about my work that Carl so readily embraces here would, in that event, be proven false. It’s certain, however, that neither Carl nor Fair will agree to debate me, and so that is that. Whatever the undeniable flaws of Carl’s piece, he is dead-on about the Left’s increasing authoritarianism and thuggery. Mark my words: I won’t be the last enemy of the Left that Leftists will try to kill.
Addendum: I just noticed that in her hate screed against Richard Spencer in the Washington Post, Christine Fair cites as factual the thoroughly discredited study claiming that “right-wing extremists” pose a greater threat than Islamic jihadists. This is what an academic is today: not a thinking individual, but a propagandist for the hard-Left.
“Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech,” by Jeremy Carl, National Review, May 24, 2017:
…Let’s stipulate that Richard Spencer is a man who has embraced values that are anathema to America’s, and that his vision is quite obviously not one that conservatives or Republicans share. But Fair publicly claims that Spencer’s very presence in the gym, because of his political views, creates an oppressive environment, which is a much more dramatic and potentially dangerous claim. If you are still cheering on Professor Fair, consider the case of another Spencer — Robert Spencer (no relation to Richard), a persistent critic of political Islam and a favorite of Steve Bannon and other figures in the Trump administration.After he spoke to a large audience last week in Reykjavik, Iceland, a leftist approached him as he was dining with companions and managed to slip a combination of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) and Ritalin into his drink, causing him to become ill to the point that he was hospitalized. Fortunately, police seem to have identified the perpetrator. But despite Spencer’s relative prominence and the dramatic nature of the crime, this political poisoning attracted almost no attention from the mainstream media.
As Spencer put it ruefully, “The lesson I learned was that media demonization of those who dissent from the leftist line is a direct incitement to violence. By portraying me and others who raise legitimate questions about jihad terror and Sharia oppression as racist, bigoted ‘Islamophobes’ without allowing us a fair hearing, they paint a huge target on the backs of those who dare to dissent.”
Spencer, the author of two New York Times bestsellers on radical Islam, is certainly controversial — and has his fair share of critics even on the right. But one should be able to be controversial without being poisoned. In the wake of the bombings in Manchester, are critics of political Islam really the people who should be beyond the pale of civil discourse?
hat does all this have to do with Professor Fair? Well, it turns out that Robert Spencer too has had his share of run-ins with Professor Fair, who according to Spencer called him a “lunatic” and likened him to Charles Manson while “refusing (of course) to debate me on questions of substance.” Robert Spencer says he has never met Fair in person, which has not saved him from being a repeated target of Fair’s ire.
Very well, you may say, but Spencer’s harsh and cherry-picked criticism of Islam may have stirred up legitimate anger — there’s no reason to defend him.
Well, how about Asra Nomani, a liberal Muslim immigrant woman, former Wall Street Journal reporter, and Georgetown professor who committed the mortal sin (to Christine Fair) of voting for Donald Trump and then writing a piece in the Washington Post explaining her decision. In response, she was brutally harassed by Professor Fair on Twitter for the better part of a month. As Nomani subsequently wrote to Georgetown in a formal complaint against Fair: “Prof. Fair has directed hateful, vulgar and disrespectful messages to me, including the allegations that I am: a ‘fraud’; ‘fame-mongering clown show’; and a ‘bevkuf,’ or ‘idiot,’ in my native Urdu, who has ‘pimped herself out’ . . . this last allegation amounts to ‘slut-shaming.’”
But while a quick perusal of Fair’s public statements reveals her to be an extreme case, a virtual parody of liberal intolerance, she is hardly the only liberal behaving badly. In just the past year, many conservatives, libertarians, and other assorted right-wingers, from Ann Coulter to Charles Murray to Heather Mac Donald to Milo Yiannopoulos to Ben Shapiro, have been shouted down and prevented, often by violence, from sharing their views, most often on America’s campuses. And so far, almost without exception, those universities have declined to give any significant punishment to the perpetrators. It is all well and good for conservatives to point out that there is a yawning gap between the Richard Spencers of the world and the Charles Murrays and Heather Mac Donalds. But for the Christine Fairs of the world — and an increasing number of her ideological soulmates on the left — they are all the same. None should have the right to speak — and increasingly, they are not even free to lead private lives free of harassment and threats. All of the people named above have been called “Nazis,” “white supremacists,” and similar epithets. If the Right, through silence, decides it’s okay to harass or physically attack Richard Spencer because he is a “Nazi” (a video clip of an Antifa member sucker-punching Spencer has become a favorite Internet meme on the left), they should not expect that the punchers will stop at Richard Spencer — or Robert Spencer, or even Asra Nomani. If we won’t fight for the free speech of those who anger the Left, no matter how distasteful we find their views, because we are afraid that the Left will wrongly ascribe their views to us, then conservatives are little more than feeding red meat to the ravenous left-wing lion in vain hopes that they will be the last ones eaten. And the lion is getting stronger and hungrier.
In his comments on Fair, written long before his poisoning incident, Robert Spencer wondered, “Why are the loudest proponents of ‘tolerance’ and ‘peace’ so frequently ugly, hateful people?” It’s a question the Left doesn’t want to answer — and too many on the right, afraid of being labeled as bigots by the most intolerant voices on the left, are scared to even ask.
Ben Kennedy says
Few personal problems are as severe as having to withstand false accusations. I think responsibility is the counterweight to freedom, which keeps the scale in balance.
The people you refer to distinguish themselves only in rejecting any responsibility for themselves. In this disgusting fact, they are as repulsive as the Mohammedans.
mortimer says
The Leftards are SADOMASOCHISTS and they want all of the TOILING MASSES to be MASOCHISTS and endure all the pain the invaders will inflict on them while the CREAM OF LEFTISM lives in Hollywood or wealthy enclaves in gated communities protected from the riff raff.
Vishnupaundraka says
Robert i disagree with you on this count. Katie Perry, Lillie Allen the British pop singer, Meryl Streep, Madonna and the entire galaxy of Hollywood stars and also in India people like Alia Bhat of Bollywood, are people whom you would not call ugly!!!
Robert Spencer says
Vishnupaundraka
I am not using “ugly” to refer to their physical appearance. People such as Christine Fair are deeply, deeply ugly within.
Kris T says
You failed to mention that in the article – but other than that I applaud your brave efforts (you have skirted death on more than one occasion) over the years to expose the truth about Islam. You are educated, and intelligent.
Jeanette says
Read the first sentence in the article again.
Mark Swan says
“Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls.”
Thanks Jeanette
Linda says
It was the opening sentence of the first paragraph.
JIMJFOX says
YOU FAILED TO READ IT. Now apologise, stupid.
gravenimage says
I believe that Robert Spencer added this line when several people failed to grasp that “ugly” clearly does not refer to physical appearance here.
I considered the meaning quite clear initially, in any case.
Kris T says
If she was a supermodel then that would be obvious, but she’s not.
JIMJFOX says
Kris T- being a non-reader, you should have no right to comment. Total Ignoramus.
Daniel F X Dravot says
“Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone.” Dorothy Parker
bipedant says
Oh dear
Poor Christine copped the double whammy.
Shmooviyet says
Bravo!
One of DP’s best.
Dawn says
Yes , correct there is a difference between ugly on the outside and ugly on the inside its called being hateful.
Vishnupaundraka says
Thanks for the clarification Robert. Thanks for your great work. I’ve learnt a lot about the “Religion of peace from JW.
Ravi Krishna says
Christine Fair is very popular in India because she hits out against Pakistan military so well. She is good in that. I have read her books and papers.
Where she falters is explaining the reason behind Pakistan’s deep-rooted hatred for India (and the US too). It’s Islam you stupid.
Under the garb of atheism and all-religions-are-equally-stupid rant, she completely whitewashes the ideology of Islam which breeds this hatred. For long I could not find the reason as to why such an intelligent person could not zero in on the root cause. Then one day I read Robert Spencer exposing the funding of Georgetown Univ and Brookings Institute. Both funded by Qatar and Saudi. … Dang (palm hitting forehead). That explains it.
After that, I lost respect for her. I still read her articles, but not longer with the same respect as before.
Bill W. says
That is the problem with the progressives , that grab the banner of Islam and hold it high because it is anti Christian and anti Jewish. They think that by advancing (Islam) they will crush the 2 belief systems that the West is founder on they can destroy the West. They see the West as evil because of wrongs commit in the past. The difference between West though and Islam is the Western though will admit guilt and try to change ,owning slaves and slavery is an example of change for the West. Islam is frozen solid it cannot and will not am admit guilt it has not change in 1400 years. What the progressives do not understand is Islam has no room for other belief systems, may they be Christian, Jewish ,Buddhists , Hundus, and all other faiths. Islam is a belief system and a political ideology, we that are not part of it,we are all Kafir third rate people in the eyes of Islamics. They the Islamics advance Sharia law because it give them special rights over all people that are not moslem. If the Islamics get there way the progressives will be the first people they kill because the progressives do not believe in any God the worst sin to Islamics.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the additional information, Ravi.
gravenimage says
I thought it was clear that the “ugly” reference concerned character, and not looks.
Jeanette says
That is what the first sentence of the article says!
gravenimage says
Jeanette, I believe Robert Spencer added that when some people failed to grasp his rather obvious point.
Kyra Nelson says
She’s a dog. Through and through. No apologies here.
le mouron rouge says
Vishnupaundraka says
May 25, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Robert i disagree with you on this count. Katie Perry, Lillie Allen the British pop singer, Meryl Streep, Madonna and the entire galaxy of Hollywood stars and also in India people like Alia Bhat of Bollywood, are people whom you would not call ugly!!!
********************************************************
V,
Maybe Mr. Spencer should have put the 1st sentence of his article in Bold, Red, Capital Letters?
“Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls.”
It’s very clear from the very 1st sentence that Mr. Spencer was speaking about the left’s mindset vs their physical appearance.
“Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”
– Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Kris T says
If you mean PHYSICALLY “ugly” then I’d condemn you for bringing up what a person looks like – their looks don’t matter in this debate – their looks matter exactly as much in this debate as, say, which soccer team they like the most.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer has *never* criticized anyone for their looks. He is not so shallow.
Jeanette says
Didn’t anyone read the first sentence of the article?
JIMJFOX says
Kris T- you MUST be a troll- nothing else explains your absolute imbecilic attempts at self-justification.
Robert Spencer says
I didn’t mean physically ugly, and will clarify in post.
Davegreybeard says
Your meaning was made clear in your very first sentence, Robert: “Not physically ugly, but ugly deep in their souls.”
The problem is some people just don’t pay attention when they read.
Norger says
I’m not complaining or criticizing but I will observe that JW did choose a particularly unflattering photo of the good professor to accompany this article. Although I will say that apart from anything else, her essential “mean spiritness” appears to fairly leap out of the photo.
berserker says
What is the big difference between Malcolm X and Richard Spencer?
Robert Spencer says
Malcolm X was a hateful individual as well.
LR says
Me thinks Harb is the kind of ‘nice’, polite guy who would be standing next to the Nazi pushing a Jew into the gas chamber, or standing there during a torturous medical experiment without much repulsion of the sadism, and actually, possibly, quietly applauding it…All the while justifying his negligent concience because HE didn’t have anything to do with the action itself.
In other words, a ‘closet’ Nazi pretending to himself he really is a logically minded, decent human being…
gravenimage says
Now the grotesque Harb is reveling in the supposed depravity of humankind. I am not going to address the entirety of his long and hideous post–I already need a shower from my reply above–but will just note this:
Do you know what that means? – I’ll tell you. You are a Nazi. Had you been there, you’d shot Jews as often and as many as your commander ordered you to. You may have delighted in that – or drunk yourself into blissful forgetfulness every evening. Or stoicly shouldered your burden. You have that in you. You are – a true monster.
……………………………
This is, of course, utter b*llshit.
Even in Nazi Germany–one of the sickest societies in history–the idea that most people were slaughtering Jews is simply inaccurate. Most Germans–and even most Nazi Party members–never did so.
This also does not explain all of those who *did* resist Nazi savagery–members of the White Rose, members of the resistance all over Nazi occupied Europe, good people who hid their Jewish neighbors, figures like Oskar Schindler, or the liberators of the death camps.
Many of these brave and principled people suffered and even died for their beliefs.
More:
Like every human. So loosen your grasp on your sacrilegious arrogance and see humbly that you are only pretending to be a logically minded, decent human being.
……………………………
Now the mask falls completely, and Harb glories in what he believes is the natural state of man–and reacts in the manner of the “crab pot” if anyone dares to crawl out and take a moral stance.
I grew up in an abusive home of petty criminals. Even as a small child, I made some moral distinctions; I lied for my family, but would not be cruel or commit violence. I would shoplift from large supermarkets, but not from the corner store where I knew the proprietor and was friendly with him.
When I was fifteen, I ran away from home. I rejected the ugly “values” I had been taught by my family, and vowed to live a good life. I have largely been successful in this.
The idea that everyone having foibles and weaknesses–which is true–is tantamount to everyone being a Nazi is, of course, grotesquely false.
One of the main reasons that Anti-Jihadists here oppose Islam is that Islam teaches brutality and violent savagery–against women, against children, against unprotected Infidels, against anyone who is vulnerable.
We *reject* this ugliness. We know that man can be better than this.
LR and other good people are not “pretending” to be logical and decent–they *are* logical and decent, something someone like Harb is unable to grasp.
One thing that always strikes me with those like Harb is how quickly they drop the mask and reveal their full awfulness. I suppose this should not surprise–it cannot be easy for them to impersonate a civilized person.
gravenimage says
Harb wrote:
This will be my last reply to this thread.
My point is that for about 90% of people (and that finding of the Milgram experiment has been stable) what makes them moral is lack of opportunity.
……………………………..
Sloppy academics have a made a cottage industry out of this vicious bs–Philip Zimbardo at Stanford had his Stanford Prison Experiment, as well.
The fact is that *everyone* has the “opportunity” to immoral.
What a sickening view of the world–especially to flog this here at Jihad Watch, where Anti-Jihadists, Robert Spencer most of all, are not just opposing evil, but are sometimes risking their lives to do so.
More:
I am not gleeful about that, but I think it ought to be acknowledged. And there are ways to make oneself less vulnerable to that: Developing one’s character, Individuation, the strength of conviction. Both strongly religious people and determined atheists have hence been found to be less likely to apply the highest voltage.
……………………………..
All true. Embracing a decent and rational ideology helps, as well–adherence to creeds that *teach* violence and oppression, like Fascism and Islam, retard decency.
More:
Sure, there was resistance. But it was pretty small. In all honesty, read ‘Ordinary Men’. It is a good book. The police men were reserve, they were ordinary Germans. Fathers, sons, brothers. They were good representatives of the population. Resistance was the exception to the rule. So don’t be so sure of your moral impeccability.
……………………………..
I did not grow up in Nazi Germany–but I did, as I noted, grow up in a criminal family, and and in a very rough, crime-filled neighborhood. It *is* possible to resist evil.
But you are right that it helps if people are at least exposed to goodness and decency.
To the extent that some people do uncritically adhere to the values of their societies, no matter how immoral–this does happen–presents another reason we here at Jihad Watch resist Islamofication.
There is a reason why Nazi Germany, hard-core Communist countries, and Dar-al-Islam were or are so hideously oppressive and violent–they are ruled by violent creeds that *punish* decent behavior.
More:
I don’t mean that there is nothing like logic or decency – I think I’d behave quite differently then. But that we do well to take note of our dark side, which, undoubtedly, exists. And it lurks closer to surface than we are comfortable to admit.
……………………………..
A fascination with Fascism does not help anyone in dealing with their dark side–just a little tip from me.
More:
In any case, a particularly horrifying finding of the Polish Milgram experiment was that women were three times less likely to be administered the highest voltage. I think that is appalling sexism. In that sense, you mentioning women and children, but not men, leaves a sour taste.
……………………………..
The idea that being less likely to harm more vulnerable people is a bad sign is highly questionable.
Given how soundly I have condemned barbarism of all kinds on this thread, the idea that I condone violence against men is disingenuous in the extreme. The fact it that most people who take a special delight in hurting women and children *seldom* stick at harming men, so long as they think they can get away with it. Certainly, we see this with Islam.
More:
My intention is to warn people of the danger of easy vilification and a manichean worldview in which they are emissaries of justice and moral infallibility. There are few things worse than that.
……………………………..
Uh huh. Few things worse than consistently opposing savagery…sarc/off
Of course, there are indeed issues that are morally difficult. One we are faced with right now, for instance, is what form military resistance to the Islamic State should take, or if it should be used at all.
On the one hand, there is no doubt that ISIS is the most appalling Jihad terror group in the world today. On the other hand, there is broad support for the Islamic State in the regions–this should not surprise, since the are is heavily Muslim-majority.
Many in the region hate Infidels more than they hate ISIS, and would not appreciate Infidel influence. Many of the groups fighting ISIS are not doing so on moral grounds, but just as a power struggle. Most of the other factions in the region are themselves Jihadists.
So–to intervene or not? It is horrible to let the sanguinary Islamic State stand unopposed, and this further emboldens them–and yet this could very quickly become a quagmire for good Infidels. Much the same thing has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, I am hardly incapable of being torn or uncertain of the most moral course of action.
However, that is *very* different from believing that one should waffle over their moral estimation of ISIS itself, which I condemn without reservation, as every decent person should.
I could, of course, give many other examples.
More:
Oh, and the last point:
“One thing that always strikes me with those like Harb is how quickly they drop the mask and reveal their full awfulness. I suppose this should not surprise–it cannot be easy for them to impersonate a civilized person.” Yeah, yeah.
Look: In the Holodomor, the government publicly reminded its citizens to not eat their children. So terrible was the famine. There is truly no knowing how anyone would behave in such a situation. But one assumption I think is fair to make: It would be highly probable that anyone drops the mask of a civilised, logically minded person.
……………………………..
Just look at *this*.
Now, I don’t know Harb’s personal circumstances, but I find it *very* unlikely that he is in such dire straights, nor that his ugly antisemitism and creepy apologia for Fascism are a response to some crisis in his own life.
And here is an even more salient point: Harb chides the *victims* of the Holodomor–this was the terrible famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s–without mentioning those who *caused* it. This was not a natural famine, nor was it brought about by poor agricultural practices. Instead, it was a deliberate policy by the Soviet Union to bring the Ukraine to heel.
Harb has not a word of criticism for Stalin or the Soviet Union here.
More:
In fact, in many people civilisation is but a thin veneer. A very faint taste of that can be gained from discussions in this comment section.
……………………………..
Well, that is just grotesque. The idea that Harb getting pushback for his repellent apologia for savagery is a faint taste of the Holocaust or Holodomor is just morally sickening.
More:
But how readily people will point at the other and accuse them of being an avatar for malice congealed and made manifest in the world…
Again: If you want to express disdain for me: Good ahead! But know of the snake in your own heart.
……………………………..
Oh, the humanity! Being mildly sarcastic to an apologist for barbarism reveals my own snaky heart…
But the fact is that one is not bound to maintain politeness when dealing with such ugliness, nor is it necessarily a virtue to do so.
Yet more:
And a small correction: I meant to write ‘Yezhov’ in the addendum after the asterisk.
……………………………..
This is not really the problem…
More:
There is also something strange about you, Gravenimage. You seem utterly devoid of humour. Now, surely, my answer to LR is not very inviting, but that is a impression I have of you that goes through the totality of our interactions here.
……………………………..
How terrible that I haven’t been able to joke along with Harb here–what an awful failing! In fact, I am often known for my humor here–if Harb were to poke around the archives he would see that this is true.
But no–I don’t generally joke around with barbarians–nor do I apologize for this.
More:
If you decide to reply, Gravenimage, I’d be interested in your rationale and reasoning for your hostility. I am genuinely curious, since I don’t think I gave any justification for such a level of antipathy. But don’t worry, I won’t reply.
……………………………..
Yeah–as I noted, I doubt Harb expected any pushback here. If only the Infidels here were more ‘open-minded’ about fascists and antisemites…
And I don’t mind if Harb replies. His endless implications that I am trying to silence him are quite false.
I certainly won’t be holding him to his vow not to reply. If he does, I am fine with “putting the smackdown” on him again.
gravenimage says
Nothing new from Harb here.
LR says
Malcolm X did start to change his mind, and started ‘softening’ in his hard heartedness before he got assassinated…
I think that is admirable. Who knows how much more he would have changed.
MasQueNada says
From what I read, after his hajj Malcolm X began to turn away from race-based politics and toward normative ISLAM. Not necessarily an improvement.
Regarding our “friend” Harb (who may be Norwegian, based on the mistakes he makes), best to ignore him as a tiresome time-waster, I think.
Singh The Sikh says
Years of ugliness, nastiness, vindictiveness, hate are clearly etched on her face. She is not aging gracefully. She looks scary – like someone spoiling for a fight/quarrel – a poised, snarly cat. A cougher in a different sense. Someone who could chew/spit you out in a jiffy and not think twice about it. She looks unpleasant and gives out unpleasant vibes too. Seems her character has shaped her looks and matches it.
Norger says
Yes, exactly. The facial expression mirrors the essential ugliness inside.
Ace-of-Clubs says
How sad I was recently at a family occasion when a relative said to me that they thought Donald Trump posed a far greater threat to world peace and stability than did ISIS and other Islamic terrorists. A middle aged person who has been totally brainwashed by the lefty liberals in the media. If only that relative would read this excellent website and learn the truth, in fact reading Jihadwatch and similar websites should now be compulsory for all westerners.
Jim J says
I recently came across a you tube video produced by Dr. Steve Turley in which he speaks about the concept of emancipation politics. After listening to his explanation of the concept, I was struck how completely it described the position of leftist regarding their acceptance of Islam and their utter disdain of Christianity and other mainstream position of the dominant Western cultures. I would invite everyone at Jihad Watch to listen to his video titled “Why the left apologizes for Islam”.
Jim
LR says
Ace-of-Clubs,
I understand that in the context of how much power the Prez. of the U.S. has…
Next time someone says that, I suppose you could ask them if they would rather have Trump in charge of the nuclear codes, or al-Baghdadi…
I don’t care how left they are, they would have to be completely daft to not state the obvious.
Jayke says
I would objectively classify her outward appearance as unpleasant to look at.
gravenimage says
That is not the point. I don’t care if someone like this is physically attractive or not; it is character that is important.
Kepha says
Beauty is only skin-deep, but ugliness goes clear to the bone. snark snark
Jeanette says
That isn’t untrue, but I agree with gravenimage.
People don’t think about it during this type of discussion, but Mother Theresa was no raving beauty.
gravenimage says
Very true, Jeanette.
Winston Churchill was not Brad Pitt, either, but that in no way lessens my great admiration for him.
gravenimage says
More from Harb:
You just can’t – can’t – make this stuff up
…………………………………
The smiley emoji here is particularly perverse.
More:
So Gravenimage, you, who so persistently slighted and slandered me, you ‘greatly admire’ Churchill? I assume you are aware that he was a cruel, ruthless imperialist?
…………………………………
Harb is here citing the nasty Richard Toye, who has also said that Churchill did nothing to inspire Britons to fight the Nazis.
My mother and aunt were young women who joined the British army and both went through the London Blitz. They have both said how inspired they and most of the populace was by Churchill’s speeches.
Toye has dedicated several of his books and much of his career to trashing the memory of Winston Churchill.
By the way, Toye has also sneered at the idea that Jihad exists.
This does not mean that I agree with Churchill on all matters–I do not. For instance, I do not share or defend some of his less than enlightened views on race.
But this is the man, who more than other single figure in history stood against the threat of Fascism, and who bravely spearheaded its defeat.
The idea of condemning Churchill’s less than perfect views on race while ignoring the genocidal racial supremacy of the Nazis whom he opposed is sickening.
Moreover, he ultimately prevented Hitler’s slaughter of those the Nazis considered “untermenschen”–“subhumans”. Millions of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs were saved from mass murder.
So *yes*–I do indeed greatly admire Winston Churchill.
More:
And you do know he has less than innocent hands in the air raids on German cities, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians?
…………………………………
Of course I know the history of WWII. The implication that the Allies gloried in the deaths of German civilians is grotesque.
As soon as the Fascists laid down their arms and stopped attacking *us*, the air raids ceased. At that point, we rebuilt Germany and the other Axis nations–the Marshall Plan was the most generous in history.
And Harb cites the appalling Richard Overy, who has castigated Britain and France for declaring war in response to Hitler’s invasion of his neighbors.
He wrote:
“I think we need to put the question the other way round really. It’s clear that Hitler wants to overturn Versailles, it’s not very clear what he’s going to do then because the free hand in the East just doesn’t exist because the Soviet Union’s there. The big question we need to ask is why do Britain and France declare war? That is what makes the Second World War, not Hitler’s invasion of Poland which he might have got away with, settled with Stalin, and then some different war might have emerged in the 1940’s.
The important thing, it seems to me, is identifying why Britain and France go to war…”
This revisionist history is grimly gaining traction with some Nazi apologists–the idea that poor Hitler was forced to invade his neighbors, run death camps, and commit genocide against the Jews.
This is also very much like what we hear with Jihad–that Jihad itself is not a problem; that it is only a war *if we dare defend against it*.
More:
And if you know that and still admire him ‘greatly’ I suggest you moderate your spite and venom in regards to me. Could you perhaps possibly entertain that potentiality, if you please?
…………………………………
If I admire a man who bravely stood against Fascism then I am supposed to cut some slack to someone who basically defends this savagery? How does that work?
And condemning barbarism is not “spite and venom”. Harb does not understand about taking a principled stance against evil–but then, why would he?
More:
Gravenimage, did you know people could *melt*?
There is something to be horrified about. I wonder: I condemned Hitler, the Holocaust, Islam and Jihad. Will you condemn Churchill?
– Who wanted to play that silly game first?
…………………………………
Again, the idea that Churchill and the Allies relished German suffering and bombed them out of sadism is grotesque. Were this true, it would have continued long after the Fascist surrender, which it clearly did not.
And describing condemning evil as a “silly game” is reprehensible–but given Harb’s claims that everyone at heart is a savage this should not surprise.
More:
I speak sincerely and without a trace of mockery or scorn now: I think we might reduce our level of vilification of the other. I see little need for it It is always very dangerous when people believe to be perfectly and eternally right and without the need for transcendance, humility and wisdom.
…………………………………
Said by someone who just said this above:
Do you know what that means? – I’ll tell you. You are a Nazi. Had you been there, you’d shot Jews as often and as many as your commander ordered you to….You are – a true monster.”
Does *that* sound like someone advocating “transcendance, humility and wisdom”?
More:
Hence the willingness to engage in honest dialog and to negotiate, learn and understand is our only option short of sticking knives into one another or burning the other to nothing more than a little heap of ash.
I urge everyone to not forget that.
…………………………………
The idea that we we have to accept and “learn” from and show understanding to every savagery or else we are “sticking knives into one another” could not be more perverse. In fact, it is taking a principled stand against such barbarism that most often prevents its being put into action.
Also, this is essentially a threat–that if we do not accept his chilling idea that this may force those who think like him to turn to violence. *Ugh*.
gravenimage says
Yet more from Harb:
Alright, last reply here too.
I don’t particularly care what you think of these historians.
What matters is in how far their claims I refer to are true.
Churchill initiated the bombing of civilian cities in Germany and hence evoked the equivalent response from the Nazis. In that sense, he is to blame for the British casualties too.
……………………………..
Yeah, we’ve heard this before from apologists for Fascism. If only the nasty British had avoided opposing Hitler, the poor fellow would not have been forced to invade most of Europe, try to destroy Britain, and commit genocide against the Jews.
Does Harb even realize what he sounds like?
More:
“He [Churchill] then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three “savages”.
“When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced “the minimum of suffering”. The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his “irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men”…
……………………………..
An unsourced quote. At this point, I am not going to track this down.
More:
Look, Gravenimage, were I administer your venom back to you, I’d roundly and absolutely condemn you for ‘greatly admiring’ such a person. I would try to smear and slander you every way imaginable, and every attempt you make at defending him is you cheering for a racist, imperialist, antisemitic, ruthless murderer.
……………………………..
Well, of course he would. How *dare* someone oppose the Nazis?
And yes–Churchill was somewhat antisemitic, just some of his racial views were less than perfect, as I have already noted.
But the idea that Churchill should be castigated for his antisemitism *in the face of the genocide of the Jews from the Nazis* is just grotesque.
In 1937 he also urged support for Jews, “suffering from persecutions as cruel, as relentless and as vindictive as any in their long history.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/world/europe/11iht-winston.4873300.html
By the way, this article was unearthed by Richard Toye.
The fact is that the many of the Jews who survived the Holocaust did so because of Churchill. If he had not fought Hitler the death camps never would have been liberated.
More:
And if you were to try to show these quotes are wrong and this and that historian is invested in tarring Churchill, I’d accuse you of denying or minimising the indeffensible, yes, indeed, of being a fanatic advocate of concentration camps. A Nazi in method and temperament, only hostile to the Nazis for they threathened (sic) Churchill’s own cruel interests. I could easily infer Churchill’s delight in the suffering of others from these quotes.
I don’t say that, to be explicit. But you might want to consider what that means.
……………………………..
Basically, it means that Harb is utterly perverse. No wonder he is incapable of understanding that it is possible for good people to oppose savagery–he thinks it is due to some dark urge. *Ugh*.
More:
“Do you know what that means? – I’ll tell you. You are a Nazi. Had you been there, you’d shot Jews as often and as many as your commander ordered you to….You are – a true monster.”
Does *that* sound like someone advocating “transcendance, humility and wisdom”?”
In case it was not obvious: This is my stance on anyone, including me. Now, that does not imply the highest virtues aren’t part of human potential – they are, and I try advocating for them. But given the comment I originally responded to said:
“Me thinks Harb is the kind of ‘nice’, polite guy who would be standing next to the Nazi pushing a Jew into the gas chamber, or standing there during a torturous medical experiment without much repulsion of the sadism, and actually, possibly, quietly applauding it…All the while justifying his negligent concience because HE didn’t have anything to do with the action itself.
In other words, a ‘closet’ Nazi pretending to himself he really is a logically minded, decent human being…”
I have a big problem with LR’s demonisation of me, completely ignoring his own capacity for evil and projecting it unto me.
……………………………..
What crap. LR was never advocating for Fascism.
The only projection going on is on Harb’s part.
More:
And besides, his words are quite insulting. I find my words perfectly reasonable, trying to make him aware of his arrogance.
……………………………..
Yes–anyone opposing barbarism is “arrogant”–how grotesque.
More:
I should also note, Gravenimage, that the knowledge of one’s shadow could be seen as the beginning of wisdom.
……………………………..
This *can* be the case–but not always. Some who recognize that all people are flawed and that even the best can be petty or thoughtlessly uncaring at times take it as carte blanche to indulge in the most repellent savagery, telling themselves that they are no worse than anyone else.
More:
When you know that you, and anyone else, could be a camp guard in Auschwitz or a member of the Cheka, or a Jihadist, it is a profoundly humbling insight. Hence one is strongly prompted to aim for transcendence and wisdom.
……………………………..
What utter b*llshit. No–most people were *not* guards at Auschwitz, or Soviet Secret police, or blowing up children in Manchester or flying passenger planes into office buildings.
That Harb believes that that they are is grotesquely telling.
More:
“The idea that we we have to accept and “learn” from and show understanding to every savagery or else we are “sticking knives into one another” could not be more perverse. In fact, it is taking a principled stand against such barbarism that most often prevents its being put into action.
Also, this is essentially a threat–that if we do not accept his chilling idea that this may force those who think like him to turn to violence. *Ugh*.”
I explained already that I condemn violence. Would you please condemn it too?
……………………………..
I have condemned violence save in self defense this entire thread.
More:
In any case, this is not a threat. And the idea that anyone with certain characteristics is a valid representative of the thus specific group is very flawed. Since I am not elected, I certainly can’t speak for anyone except myself.
……………………………..
What does Harb’s posting history on this thread say about himself? Nothing good.
More:
My point is that your ‘principled stand’ consists of misconstruing and demonising me and preventing a sincere discusssion (sic) at eye level by simply refusing to be open to any argument whatsoever.
……………………………..
I am open to many arguments–not the ugly apologia for Fascism from Harb, though. Positing this ugliness as ‘open-mindedness’ is sickening.
More:
I’d like you to answer what evidence you’d need to be convinced that I am not hateful, bigoted, antisemitic or racist and that my views may be of some worth.
……………………………..
A little less sympathy for Hitler and not going on about the Jewish problem might help–but I certainly don’t expect it at this point.
More:
But since you seem exceptionally resilient to rational argumentation, I will elucidate my point again:
……………………………..
Where has Harb argued rationally?
More:
If a sufficiently grave issue can’t be discussed or mentioned, it pushes discontent and opposition into the underground, where it radicalises. If a system keeps a lid on it for a long enough time, violent recurse will inevitable be taken. That is not something I condone, although I certainly understand it. But I don’t think it is an appropriate or reasonable response, since it is likely to increase suffering and not solve the issue long-term.
……………………………..
Yes, I got this the first time. Firstly, as I have noted many times, I am hardly preventing Harb from spewing his ugliness. He has dominated this thread with it.
And then, the idea that if antisemites and racists are not given an uncritical platform for their savagery that they will turn to violence is just disgusting.
What about Jihadists? Do they have to be given a platform and lauded lest they target the Infidels even more as well?
More:
But you a priori are not willing to engage. I can’t talk to you. You simply won’t deign to consider my points.
……………………………..
I have engaged with Harb at exhaustive length here. I have addressed most of his points.
What he means is that I won’t *uncritically accept* his viciousness.
More:
Do you know what people you can’t talk to are? Enemies. Which is not something I like.
But if you and I were to have a disagrement and we could not or would not both back of, we’d fight. We’d do that, would you continue the behavior you’ve exhibited so far. Because there is no way to peacefully resolve differences if there is no real dialog.
……………………………..
Is Harb saying that he’d physically attack me if we met? *This* is disturbing.
I would not physically attack him, nor would I condone anyone else doing so. In fact, I condemned Richard Spencer being punched. It is wrong to initiate physical violence. I have always said this.
If I did meet him, I would continue to expose his ugly views–just as I am doing here.
More:
You could think this reasoning might apply in some measure to different groups in a given country, too.
……………………………..
What is this a reference to? What “different groups”? What “given countries”?
If he is referring to neo-Fascists, I say again that I do not agree with violence. But I think that exposing their ugliness is highly moral.
More:
I don’t think the character assassination you have at least up to now engaged in is a stellar example of your principles – or maybe your principles may be somewhat lackluster. I hope you will realise somewhen (sic) what your behavior here was like.
……………………………..
It is not character assassination to note someone’s own words.
I don’t believe that exposing savagery is unprincipled–just the opposite, in fact.
MasQueNada says
Was it Albert Camus who said that from age forty, everyone is responsible for their looks?
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Interesting. George Orwell (Eric Blair) said, “At fifty, everyone has the face he deserves.” I’m not sure who expressed it first. You never know when it comes to attributing quotes; usually some old Greek or Roman said it first. It would make sense that they (Blair and Camus) would express the same sentiment. Ironically or perhaps tragically, neither made it to fifty.
entropyrider says
The scary part is that she teaches “Security Studies” and was even hired by West Point for their “Combating Terrorism Center”. While I have no respect for Georgetown, I am very disturbed that West Point would hire someone who has no respect for civil liberties and whose understanding of terrorism is as deep as the talking points and platitudes you hear on MSNBC.
gravenimage says
Yes–suicidal insanity.
Diane Harvey says
RS wrote, “Not physically ugly.”
I see her pictures, Ya might rethink that one.
She is gonna have one busy season this October – haunting houses.
Jeanette says
He wasn’t saying that she is not physically ugly; he was saying that physical ugliness was not what he was talking about.
Aye Mok Mann says
“Why are the loudest proponents of “tolerance” and “peace” so frequently ugly, hateful people?”
1 – Because without tolerance, no one would put up with their liberal BS.
2 – Because without peace, they would get beat up over their liberal BS.
Richie says
Leftists are by nature bullies, and particularly in academia, they know they can bully to their heart’s delight and will not be held accountable. And Christine Fair is disgusting inside AND out- utterly full of hate and bile. I hope her many victims she her into oblivion
Richie says
That is I hope her victims SUE her into oblivion. Can you image the hell her students must endure?
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Being a former socialist, I can say that one of the first things I noticed was that people on the right are a lot nicer (in general). One of the reasons I fled the left was I found myself surrounded by a lot of arrogant, intellectually lazy, virtue posturing, self-serving people. If I were to politely and tactfully call someone on a minor misdemeanor then I would receive an earful in response. How dare I call her/him on such-and-such; who am I to do so? They are always justified; always in the right. A lot of nasty, nasty people. Odd considering they purport to represent the best interests of everyone.
Once I had entered the conservative camp it was like night-and-day. People are down-to-earth and directed by common sense. Politeness and tact.
I don’t know what the source of this is. Is the left mostly populated by ideologues who care more about the abstract than they care about actual real people? Is the right populated by individuals who are accustom to communities that engage in the real small scale acts of kindness and sharing: barn raisings and the like. I don’t know, but there is a real and palpable difference.
True that there are good and bad in all groups but it really does speak to the general dishonesty of the left. They posture as if only they care for downtrodden and yet in their day-to-day interaction with their fellow men/women they behave badly.
gravenimage says
Thanks for your post.
Jeanette says
+1
Kepha says
Flavius: I went right in my late teens, and for some of the reasons you list.
Perhaps the Left cares very deeply about humanity, but really could care less about individual people. After all, it was one of their own, Jean-Paul Sartre, who said that Hell is other people.
Karina says
I used to be liberal and idealistic to an extent (though nowhere near as far-left as many liberals) then I became a conservative in university. I was raised in two countries, one is the US and the other in a country that doesn’t have many Muslims—hence I’ve escaped the far-left brainwashing that afflict many youth my age.
I’ve noticed that my conservative friends are more tactful, polite, and logical, with very little infighting. The same for conservative websites, groups, individuals etc.
On the other hand, my liberal acquaintances are overly emotional, deny reality, overly idealistic, quick to jump on people who deviate from them, tend to be prone to infighting, and so on. The same for liberal/left groups, websites, and so on.
LR says
It depends on the personality of course…and how politically ‘activist’ they tend to be…
I know wonderful people on both ‘left’, and ‘right’ so to speak….I do hate those labels, it just keeps us divided.
Keep finding people that are open to listening and dialoguing who don’t necessarily agree….We need to do that more…Sometimea, you can be surprised…
mike ryan says
I have taken the time to clarify Richard Spencer’s views, which are indeed abhorrent in my estimation. He still has a right by our American laws to express them.
gravenimage says
True.
LR says
Yes, and thank goodness….a most amazing reality of our system…
I’m wondering when people will be able to publish Mohammed cartoons again without fear for their lives?…
gravenimage says
Yes, LR–I have the greatest respect for our defense of freedom of speech.
The First Amendment is our greatest bulwark in protecting all of our freedoms.
gravenimage says
More from the egregious Christine Fair:
“‘F**K YOU. GO TO HELL’: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/27/fk-you-go-to-hell-georgetown-prof-loses-it-on-muslim-trump-voter/
This sort of thing is *very* common, where those who constantly scream about tolerance are vicious to anyone who disagrees with them on any point.
Richie says
There will a tipping point where the pendulum will swing back from the left.Colleges employ Marxist professors for quite an ironic reason; its big business- but when colleges lose money, they will (hopefully) cut the Marxists loose.
no_one says
She looks evil. There is no love in this creature.
jewdog says
I always thought that Jihad Watch was hosted by that Islamophobe, Edmund Spencer, the poet who wrote “The Faerie Queene”. From the sounds of it, he’s probably gay, which maybe explains his dislike of Sharia Law and Islam. I’ve heard he’s pals with that Islamophobic Roto Rooter man, Daniel Pipes.
gravenimage says
Jewdog, that is *hilarious*. Thanks for the moment of levity–much needed.
Joeyn says
People like Robert Spencer, P,amela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel, Anne Marie Waters, Nonie Darwish and Bill Warner are the most lovely and beautiful people to me. True beauty is truly within. Thank God for people like this
Joeyn says
Sorry I meant ‘people like these’.
gravenimage says
*So true*, Joeyn.
JayT says
I’m seeing a common denominator when these alarm screamers, like those ones from the movie The Body Snatchers, start screeching at Robert Spencer is the backdrop of Georgetown University.
Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with GU being unofficially “purchased” by Saudi Arabia so to speak? When does construction of a colossal mosque on campus begin? That ministry in the basement just won’t do, I’m sure.
Eric Novak says
I hate to yell you this Robert, but you and Richard Spencer share a significant number of followers. I am one of those in the Venn diagram overlap.
gravenimage says
Uh huh. Never mind that Robert Spencer is anti-racism and anti-fascism, and a great proponent of freedom. Occasionally some racist, antisemite or neo-Nazi shows up here, but they seldom stay for very long.
And why would they? Jihad Watch opposes Jihad because it is anti-human and anti-freedom–just as is fascism.
R. Louis Engelbrecht says
This in cident of the ugliness of the liberal fraction I once experienced in my study of theology in Germany. I went with a fellow South African to an anti-Apartheid meeuing. I experienced the hatweful remarks of the student present in the meeting. I then stood up and told the audience about the atrocities committed against the white population, sawing them lengthwise in ac sawmill and many more. Than one student remarked that is the other side .right so to Apartheid is not only ugly many positive things were created the Universities erected and Baraquana Hospital et.c When we lef the meetinghtb my fellows South African stdent said did you see perceive how aggresive thney were.To have ;peace at home is more difficult than the peace one proclams fpr another country.-
elizabeth dickman says
Sorry, Robert, you are wrong. . . . The real feminists are butt ugly in their appearance as well as their souls.
Katy Perry et al are FAKE feminists. They just want to be popular, so they say stuff like they were in kindergarten, ie “no walls, no borders, just love on each other.” They are soooooo tolerant.
Wonder if she would “love on” a terrorist who had a bomb strapped to his chest.
The real feminists like to look tough, au natural, talk about their body parts and female problems and like their hair stringy, seldom wear makeup and I suspect they have hairy armpits. They wear pant suits exclusively. 🙂 They obviously conflict with women who are actually feminine and pretty.
Just sayin.
duh swami says
Hollywood beauty comes out of an expensive bottle of face cream…
According to a religious leader…”It’s not what goes into a mans mouth that defiles him, it’s what comes out of it that defiles him’..
D. Brubaker says
Good article, Robert. Everybody loses when the speech police step in.
It is a sign of how far academia has fallen that the free exchange of ideas is no longer a given, nor even a value, in many academic institutions and among many professors. Universities, which were once places where any idea no matter how offensive could be expressed and engaged, have today become bastions of crusty progressive totalitarian orthodoxy where “You will conform – Or Else.”
And yes, the hateful attitudes are hard to miss and quite unattractive.
I won’t defend the opinions of the other Spencer guy (never heard of him before) – sounds like he’s got real issues but that is beside the point here.
Tom says
“Judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character” Dr Martin Luthor King
This well known sentence so aptly applies in todays highly charged political environment where the majority of the flawed characters are of those on the left who use hatred, vitreolic language and violence to silence free speech and anyone who opposes their views.
Especially guilty of this are the so called academic leaders who are supposed to champion free speech and critical thinking in universities which were once bastions of free speech but which today have become nothing more that perpetual proponents of communist and radical Islamic propaganda.
There must be a purge of our universities if our society is to survive.
Icefront says
I actually wanted to comment about the new America Foundation study.
Going through the comments section of that article (which was published a year ago), I didn’t notice anyone mentioning this.
The study was based on a poll of police officers in precincts in various states.
https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Schanzer_Law_Enforcement_Assessment_of_the_Violent_Extremist_Threat_final.pdf
While most debunkers of that study focus on the aspect of comparing the number of fatalities from both forms of terrorism, I believe there are three additional major factors why that study was bogus:
1. Most police precincts participating in the study are located in areas where Muslim population is scarce. The poll tells us explicitly that
“Of the 382 agencies, 26 percent said they believed the national threat posed by al-Qaeda
inspired extremists was severe”, however, we can’t correlate those agencies with specific states and cities. But, since the poll also states that “Rural Agencies Perceive a Lower Terrorist Threat than Agencies in Mid-Size and Large
Cities”, one can draw a careful, inexact and speculative conclusion that perhaps the Muslim extremists’ terrorist threat is higher in states and cities where Muslim population is higher, such as the northern eastern coast. Again, It’s not conclusive and might be wishful thinking on my part, but there’s an obvious bias here in the original study that ignores the population distribution.
2. Polls are inexact tools. It’s now more apparent than ever before. However, what I found highly amusing is the following quote from the study: “The national threat perception is probably driven by
media coverage”. I think that quote alone suffices to debunk the study.
3. Eventually the study concludes that right-wing terrorism is more dangerous than Muslim terrorism. However, the differences in the perceived thread are not that big. Taking into account that the size of the population from which Muslim terrorists might emerge is almost negligible in comparison to the American domestic…. errmm….right wing enthusiasts population, we can come to a completely different conclusion.
David Conell says
There is an answer to the question posed as the title of this segment. It is found in the foundational error of Marxism, that is that history is guided by evolution, teleology, and that dialects is its engine.
The Black Book of Communism catalogued the butchers bill from that error during the past century. I’m afraid that accounting may yet be incomplete.
Kyra Nelson says
Ms. “Fair” opened with ad hominem personal attacks and was relentless. You’d think someone with her educational attainments and purported/assumed intelligence would be at leas intellectually curious about his political views. But Wymyn………..
Ravi Krishna says
In Twitter, Christine Fair attacks Hindus (under the garb of attacking RW) and spells out all deficiencies in Hinduism. Fine. However, when Indians point out Islam, she cops out with “I am an atheist” reason. The more I think about her, the more dishonest she appears to me.
common sense says
Wow airing the sub human qualities of my own CA family members here. OK fine everyone has a right to speak out against sneering ugliness. OH Wait! This is about the GU prof Fair! Got it! (Sarc)
My own Liberal brother married a 350 lbs pound Nazi fembot. Ugly person inside and out and a bully. I was accomadating and welcoming toward her yet other Democrat family members didn’t really like her. Then the election came, I let her have truth during of course and they didn’t like it. I can’t believe it still, my own brother married a horrible self hater that punishes herself relentlessly. Now all my incredulous feelings about this particularly rude sibling are answered by the past 8 years of Obummer. He hated our Catholic upbringing, despised the day our parents met (told me so, our Dad was not worthy somehow) and even thinks “war is good for population control”, boy did I rebuke him on that! That’s as ugly as it gets right? I mean c’mon who in there right mind believes that kind of bile? Almost my entire family is military and/ or police! On and on he touts the dem party line, votes for Obummer twice and then worships him. Does nothing but talk S about every other pollitician and even my own Mom his Mom to, who is a great and decent wpman, truly. Never did drugs or abuse us, saw we were fed, loved and educated. Then has the audacity to tell me he is not far left hah! I’m venting here yet these are things have been unfolding before my very eyes my entire 48 years and it’s valuable info as much as Robert Spencer’s article here. You think the tweets of Ms. Fair (really unfair) are difficult to deal with or her criticisms? I’ve heard a life time of it albeit not quite that extreme. Luckily I have many other bros to replace the one that makes rude, stabbing, childish comments about everyone and everything around him and then of course when confronted with the facts rarely does he recant. I have no idea how this phenom of denial and witless sarcasm originates in people. Another brother of mine a republican through and through used to fight constantly with the lib brother when we were growing up. All siblings battle but these were REAL fights until someone got hurt. It’s bizarre to even think about and air it in cyber space yet I am compelled. I read a post above that described a here and now family situation followed by many others with similar experience so thanks for that JW people, truly it has been difficult to say the least, so it really is cathartic to speak on it although its about my own family. You know what I deal with, it’s vitally important to me.
This is why I despise people like Ms. Fair, look what they do to people that may have a tiny issue within themselves that is now magnified by the so called intellectually superior being projected upon others with growing ferocity. When my liberal brother met his spouse that was when the knives really came out. It took me a while to put it together and I could say Trump helped with that a bit. These particular type of liberals can really cause damage and deep resentments while only concerning everyone with their own feelings.
Republicans and middle of the road types are really truly much nicer people and they don’t bitch and show up on time, I’ve aired my contempt for Liberalism many times here and it’s most difficult to live in CA with those types being the majority yet it’s still the best place on earth (the US) and if you want a training ground for argument with libs (and lots of winning) the failed policies of the far left, CA is the place to get it. For that I’m grateful, truly.
I’m well aware of Liberals on this sight that can actually conduct a sane discussion that I don’t consider leftist/communist maybe just socialists, although I’m going to agree to disagree with liberal/socialist politics up and down.
gravenimage says
I think a lot of us have some family members who are in complete denial of the threat of Islam.
davej says
A hateful ideology plus 14 Centuries of inbreeding produces some very ugly and stupid people.
Lydia says
Because they are the new nazi’s.
Richard Courtemanche says
Poison in the education system. Professors with such unbalanced and left-wing reasoning should have no right to pass on their “knowledge” to students paying outrageously ridiculous fees.
MasQueNada says
Lying sack of shit “Harb” successfully derailed the comments section from the topic of the article. There can be legitimate reasons why one would want to read the writings of David Irving or Kevin MacDonald. Why entertain them as hand-me-downs from some Internet troll?
And how many more times will the lying sack of shit announce that he is leaving for good? Maybe management should help him into his coat?