Several things I read this morning. First Geert Wilders:
Visiting Hungary is a fantastic experience for any Western politician resisting the Islamic invasion of the West. In Hungary, there are barely any signs of Islamization. The Hungarians make no secret of their resolve to keep it that way. The attitude in Hungary and, for that matter, in Central Europe in general, is entirely different from that in the West. In Central Europe, people do not hesitate to speak out to express their attachment to their own national identity, rooted in the Judeo-Christian principles of Western civilization. They also make it quite clear that they are willing to defend their heritage.
It was also a strange sensation to see my book, which warns against the dangers of Islam, so openly in the Hungarian bookstores. I originally published my book in English in the United States. I did so because America has a First Amendment, which allows people to speak out, even when a message is politically incorrect. The Hungarian translation is the first translation of the book. In my own country, no publisher has the courage to publish it.
A German publisher, who was interested, backed out when it proved impossible to translate it into German without transgressing Germany’s stringent speech laws. Hence, the publisher asked me to have the term “Islam” systematically replaced by the weasel term “Islamism.” I refused because the message of my book is exactly that Islam itself is the problem.
Another Academic Gets the Jordan Paterson Treatment from His University
This time, in Australia. But this time, the academic in question is taking the matter to court.
His name is Peter Ridd, a Professor of Physics at James Cook University. He has been told by the Uni to stop talking, because what he said on a Sky News discussion was not ‘collegiate’, whatever that may mean. He has appealed for crowd funding, having paid AU$20,000 into the fund himself, which he does not want to recover. IE, his payment is not recoverable. He asked for $90,000 but the fund has now reached $97,000 has now been closed to further donations. Any surplus will go to charity….
…what is important is that we here have a situation where another academic has come forward to publicise the bullying and silencing. The Uni even went so far as to try to dictate to him that he must not talk about the ‘Final Censure’, even to his wife.
The subject matter, over which this furore has blown up, is the Great Barrier Reef. Rudd has been studying the Reef for 30 years, and has opined that the damage of climate change is non-existent. He further opines that much of the science about the Reef (and science in general) is not being conducted according to ‘the scientific method’ – no proper inspection or efforts at replication.
Both the stories are about censorship. The censorship of a Dutch politician, and of a university professor.
Yet I personally don’t seem to ever meet with this sort of censorship. I’ve never had WordPress censor me (that I know of). And even though Facebook (to which I copy this blog) is supposed to be highly censorious, I’ve not seen them deleting or editing or otherwise restricting my posts. Nor does anyone ever come into the Smoky Drinky Bar and say: “You can’t say that.”
Perhaps it’s that the censors restrict their efforts to silencing people who are more influential than an almost-unknown blogger like me? Which would suggest that they haven’t got the resources to shut everybody up.
Have any bloggers reading encountered censorship?
The subject of censorship also arose on my blog today. Some irate antismoker tried to post 10 or 11 comments under one particular post of mine: The Disgusting, Illiberal, Interfering, Busybody, Antismoking Habit. They were all caught by WordPress’ anti-spam facilities.
Should I let the antismoker’s 11 comments through?
Antismokers are not welcome on my blog. It’s an antismoking-free zone. The most I’ll ever do for any antismokers is to allow them a brief word or two before I show them the door. I don’t mind whether people post left wing or right wing comments, pro-Brexit or anti-Brexit comments, pro-Trump or anti-Trump comments, pro-Christian or pro-Islam comments. But I do mind antismoking comments.
But in accordance with my policy of at least allowing them to get a few words in edgeways, here’s a verbatim sample of what “Lag” was trying to post:
It seems everyone here has given up hope of ever overcoming their addiction, so instead they embrace it, encourage it and despise the man that lives in freedom unfettered by the hideous stench of addiction, they live in denial claiming itsa choice and a pleasure to relish, they sear their own conscience as they watch loved ones whom they encouraged die hideous deaths, they encourage their children to choose as they please, but if you ever quit these inconsiderate agents of HELL,men without conscience lacking in moral and discipline will lure you back into their den of insecurity and addiction.
NOBODY ENJOYS SMOKING A CIGARETTE, absolutely no one,.,., maybe your first of the day could give one that deluded allusion, but thats the evidence of an addict without hope serving a life sentence forever in debt to his profiteering taskmaster
Don’t encourage future generations, atleast admit to yourselves its WRONG, and the dealers intent is every bit evil.
So long, Lag. The rest of your comments are going in the trash.