Small comment CENSORED at NCR – Can Pope Francis Help End the Culture Wars?

Censored at NCR – Article: Can Pope Francis Help End the Culture Wars? by Michael Sean Winters  |  Sep. 26, 2013 – Apparently I have been banned at NCR, since I get an automatic message that I’m not allowed to post on the thread. Winters wrote:

In this article at the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog, Robert Christian, editor of Millennial, poses the question and offers the hope that if everyone (yes, that includes the bishops!) really listens to the Holy Father, we might be able to get past the culture wars.

This is my censored comment:

I have no quibble with the Pope drawing attention to any major and minor problem in the world that he feels need more attention. Where I think he has completely failed is in trying to take attention away from major “culture war issues.”

That’s the point of my recent post “The new Pope, the Catholic Church, and homosexuality: a fish rots from the head down” on my blog. Excerpt: “The Catholic Church is finished. Not the Church itself, which will be around for millennia, but that Church and that Catholicism that is the cornerstone of a healthy, wholesome social conservative approach to life, including in the spheres of relationships and sexuality, and which has this approach as one of the cornerstones of its religious principles.”

If liberals adopt a healthy and wholesome ideology regarding sexuality, the culture wars are over. Anything other than that is a complete sellout.


Rod Dreher at The American Conservative teaches by example how to be a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech

On Sept. 13, 2013, Rod Dreher at The American Conservative gave a nice display of his glaring hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech and his often camouflaged aversion to the market place of ideas. Why?

In a recent article (“Campus Feminist Vs. First Amendment”), Dreher decided to launch an attack on a female LSU student, Jana King, portraying her as some rabid anti-freedom of speech nitwit, and himself as her very opposite, an enlightened defender of free speech. Now, that takes hypocrisy, given that Dreher is not in any way different than Jana King. Before we get to Dreher’s hypocrisy, however, let’s take a look at the case itself.

Dreher starts out by painting King as a (liberal) snowflake who is particularly upset about a noxious form of oppression: having to hear opinions she disagrees with. Sounds bad, doesn’t it? Funny thing is, that’s exactly what Dreher’s profile is. Moreover, when we examine the case with King more closely, it seems a bit more nuanced at least in one respect.

King wrote an op-ed and made a video complaining about a recent change in policy at LSU. As a result of a lawsuit from the Alliance Defending Freedom group where the latter prevailed, LSU has recently been forced to allow students express opinions anywhere on campus and not just on this tiny “Free speech plaza.” Now, at first glance, it sounds like the University had confined “free speech” to one tiny square outside the classroom – like something out of Animal Farm – but this policy seems to mostly involve speech outside the classroom, that is, students and outsiders being able to protest or distribute printed materials to LSU’s students all over campus – and not just in one small spot.

I, in any case, completely support ADF’s actions to ensure there is freedom of speech in this regard throughout this campus and other campi. But I have to say I sympathize a bit with a particular aspect of King’s complaint. While one gets the impression that King is actually quite bothered merely by opinions she doesn’t appreciate -something she shares completely with Dreher- the examples she has on her protest video are mostly of aggressive deliveries, a fact that Dreher carelessly if not purposefully left out. Says King:

Most people think of freedom of speech as a constitutionally given right that allows them to say whatever they want, whenever they want, at whatever volume they want, without fear of any consequence because “Ahem, First Amendment.” … What they did not intend to protect was that student’s right to yell at you about a fetus that you may or may not have growing inside of you. … I feel like the Founding Fathers would side with me if I were to tell them about my experience last fall, when a member of the Baton Rouge community came on campus and began harassing me and a friend for being feminists. She went so far as to angrily shake a finger at us and call us “baby murderers.”

King isn’t merely complaining about differences of opinions and their expression, but of their angry and aggressive, in-your-face delivery. We don’t have enough details to know exactly how aggressive this incident was, but I can image if the protesters were truly angry and aggressive that it’s not unreasonable she found them unpleasant. And while I still support the right of people to yell at others in protest, it can also turn into a form of harassment or be borderline. I could see how this type of angry and loud behavior could easily escalate tensions between students to the point that it would break out in some kind of physical violence. On the other hand, I think if such incidents should happen, they need to be dealt with individually, instead of having a campus-wide censorship policy which, in particular, prohibits the more normal (read minimally polite) delivery of pamphlets or speech.

Getting back to Dreher, he continues his grand hypocrisy display in his article by going on to attack the idea of a “safe” space on campuses mentioned by King. His criticisms are all very well and good on the subject, and I perfectly agree with them, but a “safe space” is exactly what he enforces on his blog!

Dreher writes on the fake “safe” concept:

[beginning of excerpt] That “safe” business deserves a bit more commentary. If you watch the short King video to the end, you’ll see that she considers restricting speech on campus to be a matter of protecting her “right to a safe learning environment.” This whole idea of “safety” is often a cudgel the cultural left uses to marginalize and silence its ideological opponents by condemning their opinions as a threat to safety.”

The first time I encountered that was back in 1994, when a self-described feminist at my lunch table, upon learning that I was pro-life (this, in response to my answering a question one of her feminist friends put to me), mildly freaked out, and told her friends that she didn’t feel “safe” with me at the table. I had never seen anything like that before.

But it’s quite common now among gay activists in schools, who (rather brilliantly, from a Machiavellian point of view) sell their highly ideologized approach to education as a method for creating “safe spaces” in schools. The idea is that if you oppose their strategy or proposed policies, you must be indifferent to the safety of LGBT students. …

For example, in this guide, GLSEN compares rejecting its definitions of what constitutes an acceptable school to being on the same spectrum as supporting slavery or being a member of the KKK. In the same guide, it gives this example of “community oppression”:

“Community oppression is oppression that one experiences within a community to which they belong. Example: A lesbian attends a house of worship that preaches homosexuality is a sin.”

You see what’s going on here? To express the opinion within your community that homosexuality is sinful is a form of oppression.

[end of excerpt]

Dreher then cites Greg Lukianoff of FIRE:

“In a sense, I am grateful for her video and article because it’s rare to see a student so clearly and forthrightly make the case against basic political speech on campus. It’s also nice to have someone state so clearly that they think basic political speech could be harassment and possibly deny her a “safe learning environment.” When I tell people the language “safe learning environment” is often used as a code for the supposed right “not to be offended,” they are, ironically enough, sometimes offended by that suggestion.  … On today’s modern campus, safety equates to comfort, which too often means a right not to hear opinions that you dislike. This is precisely the opposite of what campuses should encourage.”

This is the apex of hypocrisy from Dreher. If you’re reading this for the first time, it may be news to you that I was banned from commenting on Dreher’s blog (part of the TAC site). What terrible offense did I commit? His accusation was that I created an “unsafe” environment at his blog! Ideas or facts he is bothered with, in his own little snowflake manner, are swiftly censored.

Dreher justified his banning by accusing me of writing something “inflammatory.” See? There is no safety if something “inflammatory” is written, is there? Clearly, Dreher was only doing a public service on his blog by censoring comments he labeled “inflammatory.” Because we all know how bad “inflammatory” is. It just calls for censorship, doesn’t it? (Rather brilliant, from a Machiavellian point of view, wouldn’t you say?) If Dreher could rewrite the First Amendment, he would change it to: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except in all cases I deem said speech to be inflammatory), or of the press (which should also be censored any time it has the gall to be inflammatory as well, as per my definition)…

So if you ever want to censor an idea or fact, just call it “inflammatory” and censorship is justiified. LSU and GLSEN and Jana King made the mistake of calling the opinions, ideas, and facts they don’t like “unsafe.” Who could censor “unsafe” speech? Only narrow-minded people on the left. But “inflammatory” speech, oh no! That’s a whole different ball game! It must be censored! Just ask Rod Dreher. He would have been all in favor of LSU censoring free speech in the entire campus, including in the classrooms, if students had claimed they were being forced to hear “inflammatory” ideas!

What Dreher really meant is that I was upsetting his little comfort level. And obviously such charges of “inflammatory” are of the kind “proven to be inflammatory because the accuser says so.” Just like when the left claims some statement is “unsafe” according to them.

Let’s fix Dreher’s paragraph above for him: This whole idea of “safety” is often a cudgel that conservatives very cozy with homosexuality, like Dreher, use to marginalize and silence other social conservatives by condemning their opinions as a threat to their “comfortable” discourse bubble.

On the center, right, or left, people often react quite the same way: if some speech makes them uncomfortable, well, its censoring is immediately justified under the guise of defending some lofty ideal.

The censorship Dreher practices on his blog is not any different than what I experienced recently at a liberal cad’s blog who exclaimed: The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious. See? Too unsafe, too obnoxious, too inflammatory – pick your censorship justification label, they’re all the same: they merely serve the same noxious purpose of reducing the market place of ideas to a monopole of ideas. It’s nothing but a way to eliminate questioning points of views within a public forum. While I am not positing that a campus space is perfectly equal to a blog forum space, I am pointing out that Dreher is just as much of a snowflake eager to maintain his little comfort level as Jana King, GLSEN, and all the obtuse, herd-thinking liberals he criticized.

Lastly, paraphrasing Dreher’s own article at the end, Dreher considers himself enlightened and tolerant yet he is no less McCarthyist than these liberals. Such is the nature of illiberal cozy-with-the-gays conservatives. They are not aware that free speech means free speech, not just freedom for speech that’s “safe” or “non-inflammatory” according to the tendentious and manipulative definition they and many other such “conservatives” insist on.


This blog is dedicated to publishing recent comments and discussions that have been censored mostly in conservative venues, but sometimes liberal ones as well.

I started publishing censored comments submitted to First Things/First Thoughts and then added more censored comments as the phenomenon multiplied. As I mentioned I had several comments censored on The American Conservative until I was banned. The false charges for the banning were “inflammatory!” Below is a list of the links to some of the censored comments.

What is an inflammatory accusation? January 22, 2013

This post was redacted by Rod Dreher at the American Conservative. He took out all mentions to how denouncing violence by LGBT people is met with the same levels of cover up as in the CC scandal.


Censored (The American Conservative – Dreher – WaPo: ‘Error Has No Rights’)- Denials and more denials of levels of LGBT violence


Censored (The American Conservative -Dreher- What’s The Big Deal, Anyway?): Another case of a bisexual woman engaging in sexual misconduct


Censored at TAC:

LGBT individuals are beaten largely by LGBT individuals and who think there is nothing wrong with being “gay” – not by social conservatives


Censored (The American Conservative – Why Natural Law Arguments Fail By Rod Dreher): 14 Main Reasons Why Lefties Want Gay Marriage


CENSORED (What Same-Sex Marriage Means by Andre Archie- The American Conservative Blog ): debate on homosexual marriage


CENSORED (The American Conservative – Counterculture Conservatism – Bacevish): Social conservatives should sell out – NOT


Censored (at the American Conservative): Post talking about homosexuals perpetrating violence


Putin and the Decadent West

Censored on the American Conservative 21/1/2013- I was told it was inflammatory


Censored (The American Conservative): Comment highlighting sexual violence, promiscuity, and STDs by homosexuals in reference to the new rules for Boy Scouts


CENSORED at Torah Musings: Can Conservative Religion Survive Gay Marriage? My response.

I recently tried to post a comment to this thread “Can Conservative Religion Survive Gay Marriage?” by on August 28, 2013 at “Torah Musings,” a Jewish blog. It was censored.

While I find the article very well written and researched in many respects, Goldman espouses a pro-homosexuality agenda that is particularly in denial about the harm it does, and is thus quite harmful for society:

Let me make clear that I am in favor of tolerating male (as well as female) homosexuality. But there is a difference between treating all human beings with dignity and declining to make an issue of sexual preference as practiced in private, and sanctifying homosexual practice. There are many homosexuals who in all other respects lead exemplary lives and make important communal contributions, and it is not up to us to pass judgment on their character.

Goldman refuses to acknowledge that people are responsible for their psychological problems in the area of sexuality and relationships, which means they are responsible for investigating them and resolving them – not pursuing them.

Proclaiming that people should pursue dysfunctional and perverted sexualities simply because such perverted desires are generated in their minds is particularly unsound. And yet this is the cornerstone of current liberalism. And the reason why we have so many people with so many harmful and destructive behaviors in the area of sexuality and relationships – once you believe that your perverted sexual desires come first, there is very little to stand in the way for you to sexually harass, make unwanted sexual advances, sexually exploit, sexually degrade, that is, sexually transgress in every way.

Obtaining gratification for perverted desires is today considered sacred. We note as well the extremely bourgeois quality of this kind of attitude – that’s why this sexuality attitude is the one fanatically adopted by our current elites and bourgeoisies – but not only.

The thought that sexual kicks must be pursued “without restraint or examination” and that this is progress is just what everyone with an unethical mind wants to hear.


Here it my CENSORED post:


The fact that you are so connected to FT certainly doesn’t bode well, but here is my answer:

“Can Conservative Religion Survive Gay Marriage?”

No, neither can conservative anything.

Here’s an episode that illustrates why: When I criticized the normalization of  homosexuality in a liberal blog I stumbled upon recently, I was met with only insults and incivility. While I did not respond in kind, I was then told by the blog owner that he was right to behave like a cad because it’s what everyone who questions the normalization of homosexuality deserves. And given that I had not been uncivil, so by his own comment policy he had no grounds to censor me, he then stated that any idea that questioned the normalization of homosexuality is incivility itself (heresy or Anti-Americanism, in other contexts).

Therefore, such ideas and such people must be banned from society. When I pointed out that he was reasoning no different than a petty ayatolah, and simply shutting down dissent because he lacked the capability of debating and sustaining his points of views, this was his response:

“There is a difference between actual dissent and the marketplace of ideas determining that certain viewpoints are so obnoxious that they should likely be kept to one’s self.”

Thus, “actual dissent” is dissent that doesn’t dissent from his homosexuality agenda, something that could have been taken out of Animal Farm.

The “market place of ideas” in his mind has been reduced to him, a very ignorant liberal, who thinks any criticism that reveals his stupidity on any subject is “too obnoxious” and must be censored.

The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious.

The discourse and cultural strategy of homosexuality agenda proponents is to black-civil-rightsalize their movement to normalize homosexuality to its extremes so that anyone who disagrees will be branded a horrible racist, segregationist, anti-abolitinist, etc., with ideas “so obnoxious” that they must be chased from any public forum, aside from every institution, research center, and company. “Tough shit” that you have a moral conscience and an ethical religion. It’s over.

As another commenter on TAC (The American Conservative) very pointedly noted: a social conservative and liberal world view cannot co-exist. Socons who have fallen for the lie that “gay” is OK and that it’s nice to applaud it so that liberals will view them as “tolerant” and “evolved,” are going to be partly responsible for allowing the liberal bull-dozer that’s advancing (culturally, academically, politically, and legally) to shred socons’ rights to pieces.