Saturday, February 23, 2008

Interlude: Banned, by Jingo!


Two days ago, I had the not unexpected experience of being banned from a blog called What’s Wrong With the World. This is the second time I’ve been bid farewell with extreme prejudice by blog authors, the first having been several years ago now; this time the event had seemed inevitable from the start.

What's Wrong With the World (WWWtW) is a site the central theme of which is that Islam is the evil and eternal enemy of civilization and all that’s good and decent in our world. Circling this massive ideological sun is the satellite notion that liberalism is a companion evil, dedicated to the suicidal task of enabling Islam to destroy our world. To be successful in this Satanic project, liberalism will enlist the aid of cognate evils, including, but not limited to: socialism, multiculturalism, pacifism, feminism (esp. Pro-choice feminism), the teachers’ unions, the European union, secularism, and Affirmative Action. There is, indeed, a long laundry list of other items most Americans have been willing to tolerate, if not support, on the principle that the pursuit of happiness is not defined by Natural Law, as interpreted for the rest of humanity by the auctorial SWAT team at WWWtW. If the WWWtW staff (who in their jingoistic grandiosity fancy themselves to be “crusaders”) had their way, we would all be trading the threat of a Shari’a-dictated existence of humiliating dhimmitude, for its home-grown, nativist, “Christian” equivalent. I previously directed your attention to this threat by providing a link to WWWtW at the end of my post on the topic of Chris Hedges’ book, American Fascists.

That one of the authors of WWWtW should ban me from commenting there is certainly in the best interests of WWWtW. I was present amongst them as a subversive element, and was clearly hitting some exposed nerves with my contributions to the discussions I joined. Ironically, the comment for which I was 86’d was a relatively obvious and non-controversial observation that there is a deep cognitive dissonance at work in people who favor bombing Muslim neighborhoods in order to kill terrorists--and, as the commenter to whom I was responding had already pointed out, their babies--but oppose abortion and living wills. Following is the brief exchange leading to the coup de grâce.

Here is the quote from the original post:

In Iraq, the basic principle has been demonstrated (again) that the Jihad is no match for the force of American arms.

Here is the response of commenter, Russ:

I'm not so sure this is an accurate statement. Southern afghanistan is unraveling. Our UN friends there are too afraid to even go to southern Afghanistan. Also, if one carefully looks at Iraq, things may at any time go awry. We've taken to bombing them five times more than in previous years and have increased innocent civilian causality accordingly. Just a week ago we killed nine, including babies!
Posted by Russ February 21, 2008 1:40 AM

Here is my response to Russ's comment:

"Just a week ago we killed nine, including babies!"

It's A-okay to kill baby jihadists, once they're born.

Posted by Rodak February 21, 2008 5:17 AM

Here comes the knife thrust resulting from my comment:

[And that, ladies and gentlemen, will do it for our friend Rodak.
For the sake of clarity: no matter what your level of disagreement or frustration, there can be no defense of accusing, by caustic insinuation, that your opponents in some debate favor the death of innocent babies.
-- Ed.]

Posted by Paul J Cella February 21, 2008 8:51 AM

Here is the link to the post that generated the discussion.

It was not, I’m convinced, that relatively tame comment that got me banned. My fate had been determined in advance by the comments that I was making simultaneously in on-going discussions here and here, on the topics of euthanasia, abortion, and the hypocrisy of many professed Christians. My comments on the latter were quite clearly taken personally; as well they should have been (I can now say openly).

As fate, or the Angel of Synchronicity, would have it, just as I was being banned at WWWtW, there was a discussion on the topic of being banned going on at Disputations,(2/12 “Three syllables, sounds like…”) concerning a commenter who had been banned at Catholic and Enjoying It!. (see the comments following "My Parish Knows How to Throw a Birthday Party").

It just goes to show, boys and girls, that one should always practice safe blog, ‘lest you come home with a dose of whatever is going around out there.

Enough for now. I am seriously considering introducing a new regular feature entitled “WWWtW Watch” in order to continue to oppose the dangerous ideas being presented there.

4 comments:

An Interested Party said...

This isn't surprising in the slightest and it was surely only a matter of time before it happened...I mean, really, these lovelies have "Dispatches from the 10th Crusade" plastered across their masthead, so it is painfully obvious how they feel about Islam...indeed, it's "Christians" like these that give religion a bad name...although your idea of keeping a watch on them is interesting...sort of a pageantry of horrors, not unlike watching a geoploitical version of the Jerry Springer show...

Rodak said...

It would be worthwhile, if people would go there and oppose them. I can't do that face-to-face any longer, but I would like to point others in that direction.
I would need to keep reading their screed every day, though, to do the "WWWtW Watch" thing, and I don't know if I can sustain that. We'll see.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Apparently, Rodak, you are among what is wrong with the world.

Rodak said...

Kyle--
In that world where dissent is treasonous, I am most wrong indeed.