The Liberal Intifada


This essay was published yesterday by BreachBangClear.



When I was a UN cop in Kosovo, I read Serbian literature about the war. The Serbs sometimes referred to the Albanian resistance as an intifada, a Muslim uprising. This was right after the Palestinian intifada began in 2000, when the West was becoming increasingly concerned with Islamic terrorism. The Arabic word intifada fit the view we had of Muslim extremism.

But the word didn’t make sense. Albanians never referred to their resistance as an intifiada. Almost none speak Arabic. Their war was NOT “Islam vs. Christian”, it was Albanian vs. Serb. One Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army leader even rejected the services of experienced mujahedin volunteers, and proclaimed “This is not a religious war”. About 10% of Albanians are Catholic, and all Albanians seemed proud of their Catholic monastery in the city of Peja. Some Albanians I knew outright rejected religion, and most who professed faith in Islam still drank alcohol, didn’t fast during Ramadan, had sex before marriage and never went to a mosque. Pakistani police officers went nuts because Albanians routinely ignored prayer call. It’s not an exaggeration to say Albanians are the least devout Muslims in the world.

There was no intifada. There was a vicious, brutal war between two ethnic groups with a long history of mutual hatred and abuse. But by using the word intifada, Serbs were making a deliberate (and transparent) attempt to link Albanian resistance with Muslim extremism. Intifada defined the war in a specific way: Muslim terrorists against brave, righteous Christians.

Thirteen years later, as controversy swirls around anti-gay comments made by Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson, I see liberals making use of the same tactic. But their word isn’t intifada. It’s “phobia”.

A recent Huffington Post article was titled “Phil Robertson Homophobic Past Resurfaces In 2010 Sermon”. Us magazine published “Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Makes Homophobic Remarks, Groups Gays With ‘Terrorists’ and ‘Drunkards’”. Eonline.com has an article titled “Clay Aiken on Phil Robertson’s Anti-Gay Controversy: Society Still Accepts Homophobia”, in which Aiken is quoted as saying, “Homophobia, racism, all of it’s built out of fear, and if you grow up in an area like Louisiana and you’re not exposed to diversity, then you can be afraid of things.”


What’s striking about these articles is their unanimous voice. No question seems to exist in the writers’ minds about Robertson’s alleged “phobia”. His fear is an article of their faith.

Recently I had a discussion with a very liberal, intelligent and reasonable friend. We discussed several conservative concerns: illegal immigration, political correctness, the War on Terror, etc. My friend insisted all those concerns were rooted in some type of fear. Fear of change, fear of harm, fear of “others”. None of our concerns were rational.

Fear. Phil Robertson, possibly the most self-assured born-again Christian in America, is really just terrified of homosexuals. When a gay man comes within a mile of Robertson, he panics worse than a cartoon elephant running from a mouse. And if anyone shares Phil’s incredulity at gay male desire, or repeats their religion’s prohibition on homosexuality, it’s not because they simply disagree with homosexuality. It’s because they’re “afraid”.

The discussion has been engineered thusly: if you object to anything homosexual, you’re afraid. Scared people aren’t rational. If you don’t support gay marriage, or you think homosexuality is a sin, you can’t possibly be an intelligent, reasonable person. You’re scared. You’re defensive. You needn’t be listened to. Your opinion means nothing. In a debate your only worth is as a target of derision, an example of how fear makes us animalistic idiots. The very term “phobic” is a pejorative, a way to paint us as lesser beings than elitist progressives.

I’m not anti-gay, although I generally oppose gay marriage (and at least one gay writer, Brandon Ambrosino, recently wrote in Time magazine, “It’s quite possible to throw one’s political support behind traditional, heterosexual marriage, and yet not be bigoted”). I don’t have an issue with homosexuals. I’ve studied, lived and served with them. I thought gays should have been allowed to serve openly in the military even before President Clinton passed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I’m devoutly agnostic and don’t view homosexuality as a sin. I think Robertson’s religiously-based comments were stupider than they were offensive.

I have no qualms with gays in American society. But I have a big problem with anyone who defines me as afraid just because I disagree with them.

This is, of course, not the first time progressives have tried to define their way to moral victory. They also labeled anyone legitimately concerned with Islamic terrorism as an “Islamophobe”. Progressives painted themselves almost as modern-day Dr. Frankensteins, kind-hearted and intelligent, defending the innocent-yet-misunderstood against a terrified mass of uneducated, pitchfork-wielding peasants.

I lived and worked with Muslims in Kosovo. I repeatedly put my life in Muslim soldiers’ hands in Afghanistan. I still maintain contact with Muslim friends overseas. I recently helped a Muslim woman write her first novel. And I’m extremely concerned about the long history of Muslim terrorism against my country.

What does that make me? An “Islamophobe”. I’m not a reasonable guy who spent years comfortably living and working with Muslims. I’m actually scared of them. Really.

Likewise, my years of hanging out with gay friends mean nothing. I have no problem with “civil unions”, I think those unions should be legally the same as marriages, but I believe “marriage” should be between a man and woman. That makes me “homophobic”. The gay soldiers and police officers I’ve befriended and sometimes risked my life with aren’t actual friends. I’m afraid of them. My beliefs are driven by fear, not reason. Really.


Progressives, please read the following. I’m going to make a probably-vain attempt to reason with you. I expect most of you to dismiss it because I’m a “[insert progressive sacred cow]-phobe”. But anyway, here goes:

When I hear Westboro Baptist Church members spout their hateful nonsense, I hope someone beats them all senseless. But I’m not being Westborophobic. I just don’t like them.

When I see Code Pink protestors on TV dancing and singing while blocking the doors of military recruiting offices, I consider them stupid fools who are all show and feelings but no real action. But I’m not being CodePinkophobic. I just don’t like Code Pink.

When I hear gangster rappers preaching murder, robbery, drug use and misogyny to their own race, I blame them for doing more damage to the black community than the Klan ever even tried to. But I’m not being gangstarapophobic. I just detest gangster rappers.

When I see a Muslim man wearing western clothes in downtown Austin followed by a wife covered head to toe in black as if she was in the Saudi desert, I get angry because I think female subservience is completely counter to American ideals and freedom. But I’m not being Islamophobic. I just don’t like the way some people practice Islam.

When Stephen King insulted soldiers by suggesting the Army and wartime service are only for illiterates, I decided never to read another King novel. But I’m not being StephenKingophobic. I just think he’s a jerk.

I’ve never watched an episode of Duck Dynasty and have no plans to. When Duck Dynasty comes on, I change the channel because I have zero interest in a scripted reality show about self-described bible-thumping rednecks. But I’m not DuckDynastyophobic. I just don’t like Duck Dynasty.

When the Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) reinforces stereotypes of hysterical, hypersensitive gays by shrieking in protest until a deeply religious man is fired for honestly answering a question about his beliefs, I think GLAAD is desperately trying to bully all of us into agreeing with them. But no, I’m not being GLAADophobic. I just think GLAAD sucks.

None of the aforementioned people or activities should be restricted. Westboro morons have every right to keep being morons. Rappers can keep encouraging the destruction of their own communities. Stephen King can go on insulting guys like me. Muslims can dress however they want. Duck Dynasty can keep pretending it’s a reality show. GLAAD can keep throwing tantrums. Nobody deserves to be fired just because I don’t like their opinions. I have no fear of anything these people say or do, even if I don’t like them.

Maybe progressives needs to abandon their intifada. Because conservatives aren’t acting scared. But progressives, by trying to silence dissenting voices, and by falsely painting their opponents as “phobic”, certainly are.


28 Responses to “The Liberal Intifada”

  1. 1 Vendetta

    Hey Chris, I’m probably one of the more more liberal people on certain issues to follow your blog, and I just wanted to say that I agree with you on political correctness issues of this sort – it’s one of several areas, along with gun rights and abortion, on which I stand apart from most American liberals, and one of the reasons I don’t really feel comfortable self-identifying as liberal.

    There seems to be a lot of projection going on here, the gays and their friends basically projecting every experience they’ve had with persecution onto individuals like Robertson who turn themselves into targets of opportunity. Robertson’s statement of his opinion hurt no one; and it is no real shocker that a guy plays up a hillbilly persona food TV isn’t too fond of homosexuality. I don’t blame gay people for being a little over sensitive to this sort of thing; they do, after all, tend to face a lot of hardship in their own lives. But for the rest of us to play along shocked and outraged? It’s a little embarrassing.

    I also find it embarrassing when liberals do that “conservatives are fearful” thing, or any other attempt to caricature their opponents (also embarrassing when done by conservatives to liberals). Fear, paranoia, and other emotional drivers can often be behind conservative viewpoints – as well as liberal ones. We’ve seen plenty of lynch mob style behavior from the liberal crowd, plenty of fear from them as well.

    As for “Islamaphobia,” there’s a whole different can of worms. Chiefly, the problems with that come from the ignorants and the simple-minded on both sides, the idiots among conservatives who don’t understand the Islamic world at all and see any interaction between the West and Muslims as civilization vs the savages, freedom vs terror, and the idiots among the liberals who don’t understand the world as anything beyond “evil US imperialism vs the exploited, misunderstood Third World” and who will cheer for anyone that opposes the US agenda.

    Syria is an interesting war to watch these idiots try to make sense of; Assad is a Muslim, against Israel, and an ally of Iran, which makes him the enemy according to the ignorant conservatives, but he’s also a secular leader who’s protecting the Christian minority and fighting against al-Qaeda, which should make him…an ally of ours. Meanwhile, Assad’s a dictator who’s responsible for a few too many deaths on his hands for the ignorant liberals to support, but he’s the one who opposes Israel as well as al-Qaeda, plus his regime actually upholds women’s rights and religious pluralism, so…shouldn’t they also be supporting him?

    Rather than exercising their brains or their moral judgment a little bit though, both sides choose to buy into the belief in a (mostly fictitious) moderate democratic option who will check all the good-guy boxes: friendly, freedom-loving, democratic, secular, fair to the minorities, etc.

    We need a dialogue between the people from both sides who know the world enough to see things in more than two dimensions in order to exercise a smarter foreign policy than the one we’ve had for the last 20+ years. The most fundamental tenets of our foreign policy need to be re-examined. Who are our real enemies? Is our number one enemy, as I believe it is, Sunni Muslim extremism, as seen in al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the movement of jihadis, as we’ve seen most prominently in Syria but in countries ranging from Nigeria to Myanmar, from Russia to Somalia? If so, why are our most important Muslim allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the biggest propogators of Sunni extremism? Why are we allowing the Israelis to get away with not allowing Palestinian statehood when the absence of a Palestinian state is the number one recruiting tool for jihad? Why are we choosing to antagonize Russia and Iran when they are the most powerful states in the region who share our opposition to Sunni extremist terrorism? Why are we taking down secular leaders like Gaddaffi and Assad who also oppose Islamic terrorism and rule?

    Questions we need to answer with an intelligent debate where no one is afraid to bring controversial new ideas to the table, or limited by the black-and-white thinking of either side.

    • While I can agree with some of your points, to say that Assad and Gaddaffi oppose Islamic terrorism is completely wrong. Assad and his (Iran’s) supported of Shiite terrorists killed over 300 (248 Americans) peacekeepers in Beirut. Don’t forget the 270 dead in the Lockerbie bombing ordered or allowed by Gaddaffi. Both leaders (at minimum) allowed terrorist training facilities in their countries. Both Shia and Sunni have committed and supported terrorism. To draw the line between the two as you do shows an equally low level of brain use.

    • Vendetta,

      I also hesitantly self-identify as “conservative”. I tend to think conservative, but I also have views that don’t really fit the typical conservative mindset (being agnostic and pro-drug legalization, for example). I think it’s wrong to caricaturize either side; unfortunately, there are real-life examples of every extreme caricature, from both sides.

      You make a lot of good points about the Middle East, although like Buddha I don’t exactly agree that Gaddafi and Assad were enemies of extremism. One thing I’ve learned from serving overseas is that our many enemies are also enemies of each other. Sometimes the Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin, two of our worst enemies, tore into each other and left us alone. The fact that Assad and Gaddafi fought extremists doesn’t mean the were in any way anti-extremist anymore than the Taliban and HiG fights meant HiG was anti-Taliban. Yes, both of them (I think) protected Christian minorities, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they were/are in any way pro-Christian. It just means that’s what they had to do at that time to maintain power.

      Did you know Donna Brazile, on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” last Sunday, actually praised President Obama because “he kept us out of war in Syria”?

      • 4 Vendetta

        Kept us out, that’s funny. Yes, I was praying that we would not launch that attack on Syria when we were on the verge of it…seems my prayer was answered, but we have our president’s incompetence to thank for it more than his statesmanship. Our government has still put us halfway into the war, indirectly into the war, which means our investment in the rebellion is still getting us blamed for the destruction of Syria without actually delivering any results to offset that.

        Had someone with a modicum of strategic sense been in the Oval Office when we found out the Syrians had breached our red line, we would have carried out our strike the Israeli way: quickly and silently, in one night, no forewarning and no comment afterwards. Of course, had we had that smarter person in the big chair, we might not have found ourselves having to do that because we might not have even issued that red line warning and might have ended our support for the Syrian rebels well before.

        I’m well aware of the history behind Gaddaffi and Assad, but I stand behind my view that losing Muammar has proven regrettable and losing Assad would be much more so. Gaddaffi has taken his turn at playing revolutionary and extremist in the past – and I don’t blame Reagan for trying to whack him in the 80s. It made sense to do so then, but it didn’t make sense to do it three years ago.

        I said “playing at” for a reason: Gaddafi was a serial flip-flopper, always changing ideology and alignment to save his own skin or whenever his latest batch of friends got sick of him. He tried being pan-Arab for a while: Nasser milked him for his money and dumped him when Gaddaffi started trying to take the lead. He tried playing pan-African after that – wasn’t long before the black Africans got sick of his grandstanding and gave him the cold shoulder too.

        His next realignment, his most recent one, was toward us. Gaddaffi’s days of being the sponsor of revolution and terrorism were done when the Soviet Union died. Al-Qaeda and political Islam were Gaddaffi’s only consistent enemies, since they were the forces threatening his rule. He was playing ball for us in the 2000s and was likely to do so for the rest of his life, had it not been violently interrupted.

        Libya has always been notable on the international scene for one thing only: having a lot of oil money to spare, and a lot of cheap Soviet hardware to give away. The Libyans have never been able to fight worth a damn. Maybe it was something they got from having been run by the Italians in WWII. Gaddaffi’s army had a lot of inventory but his soldiers were always a joke.

        Had we kept him propped up on our side, we’d have guaranteed that Gaddaffi’s weapon stocks never made their way into the hands of Islamic jihadis – the only terrorists Gaddaffi had never had a soft spot for, he always backed socialist revolutionaries or nationalist uprisings. In fact, if we felt cynical enough, we could have played Gaddafi as a card against our own enemies.

        We killed him though, and gave Libya to the Islamists. What’s happened since? That huge inventory of Soviet hardware ended up in the hands of jihadists all over northern and central Africa, not to mention Syria – the mercenaries he hired as emergency manpower took all they could carry back home with them, and the lovable rebels, in displays of Islamic brotherhood and good old entrepreneurial spirit, gave away or sold all sorts of stuff to their cousins operating in other countries.

        In the short run, we have Libya in chaos and Gaddaffi’s arsenal scattered across the continent in the hands of Islamic radicals; in the long run, once some sort of Muslim Brotherhood type government stabilizes the country, we can look forward to a second little Saudi Arabia: an ally with worthless soldiers who will never, ever be of any help in our wars, but with a ton of oil money to invest in spreading jihad.

        We can look forward to far worse from Syria if Assad actually does fall. Syria, like Libya, has/had a lot of potential to be a partner in our fight against al-Qaeda. I keep in touch online with several friends in Syria, all of whom are staunch Assad supporters. I read a lot of their news and stories, and let me tell you, these people utterly despise Islamic fundamentalists. They’re secular, progressive, modernist people, they believe in freedom of religion, women’s rights, everything that would make your average liberal smile…except they’d make them squeal about “Islamophobia.”

        Assad’s support of Hezbollah is a recent and current contention, unlike Gaddafi’s support of terror in the 80s, but Hezbollah is an entirely different beast from al-Qaeda type Sunni extremist terror and jihadism. Hezbollah behaves like a state – it’s a tightly organized, centrally commanded operation, with a military grade of discipline. It is very much unlike al-Qaeda, which is more or less a brand name different cells and armed groups label themselves with, or a tribal movement such as the Taliban.

        Difference number one is that Hezbollah is not in a state of constant war – it acts under the command of its central leadership, and has proven itself capable of negotiating and honoring ceasefires, even with Israel. Difference number two is that it does not enforce extreme religious rule over its constituency – Lebanon is one of the more Western-leaning, modernist Arab states, strict sharia does not go well with many Lebanese. Third is that it has shown itself capable of tolerating other religions – they pretty much partner up with some of the Maronite Christian factions to run Lebanon, and they have not waged war on Lebanon’s Sunnis either.

        All of which points toward the possibility not just of Assad being a potential partner for us, but also Hezbollah. Hezbollah, unlike al-Qaeda, can be reasoned with; we couldn’t do it without making Israel scream, since Hezbollah is the one thing that puts the fear of God into the Israelis, but frankly, this is a time for us to be doing some harsh cost-benefit analysis on our alliance with Israel, which looks like more and more of a liability every year. Genuine friendship with Hezbollah is a pretty far-fetched idea, but I can see a lot of potential for some behind the curtain diplomacy with them when it comes to fighting the “takfiris” and jihadists. Hezbollah are the best damn soldiers the Arab world has to offer; if there’s a chance we could get them fighting on our side instead of against us, we’d be stupid not to pursue it.

      • Does anyone else ever get the feeling Winston Smith is alive and well and dropping info down the memory hole at MinTrue?

  2. Amen, brother, amen!

  3. 8 Stuart the Viking

    Maybe my dislike for leftist politics is progressophobia… or is that just my fear of canned soup?



  4. Re Islam and Muslims you no doubt have a lot more personal experience than I have. That said I have read about Islam quite a bit. Don’t know if what I read always matches reality, hence my comments.

    I see cars with bumper stickers that spell “Coexist” with each letter coming from some symbol of a major religion. You have probably seen it too. The “C” is usually the symbol for Islam, a crescent moon I think. From what I have read if one is in fact a faithful Muslim then tolerance and willingness to peacefully coexist with other religions is pretty much at the bottom of one’s priorities. To the extent that real Muslims are willing to coexist it seems they are largely ignoring the tenets of the faith the claim to hold.

    As I understand Islam the people in the world are divided into three camps.

    1. Muslims – the only people who will be allowed to live on earth when their “end of days” arrives.

    2. People of the Book – Jews and Christians who are inferior creatures that can be allowed to live in Islamic countries as long as they pay a “tax” and don’t in any way say anything that can be taken as an insult to Islam.

    3. Everybody else who has no right to live, except perhaps as slaves (until the end of times). Muslims probably murdered millions of Hindus (category 3 above) when they invaded India not too many centuries after Mohammed.

    Some people have said to me that Islam like other religions has a “golden rule” and they point to a particular quote in their holy book, the Koran, that seems to verify that claim. But then I find out that Islam has another teaching. When there is a contradiction in the Koran whichever teaching comes last in the Koran is considered to be the definitive one, overriding the early one (a later “revelation” therefore more correct). The “golden rule” saying in the Koran is overruled by later, and much harsher sayings in the Koran later on. All the really intolerant stuff in the Koran is in the 2nd half or so. I think that is the part of the Koran the terrorists are reading.

    I think Islam does have a golden rule of a sort – but it only applies to fellow Muslims, not to categories 2 and 3 above.

    My understanding in reading the New Testament is that Jesus comes out pretty squarely on the side of Christians telling the truth (thinking particularly of Matthew 5:27).

    From what I’ve read Islam doesn’t teach that, except to other Muslims. In Islam lying to unbelievers to advance the cause of Islam is a virtue. Deceit is a virtue in Islam if it advances Islam to greater power in the world (and the accomplishment of the Islamic “end of times,” belief in which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

    I have had Muslims give me the “golden rule” line and point it out to me in the Koran and I knew as they were saying it to me they were lying through their teeth and knew it. To them lying to me – a person of the Book – was a virtue if it made Islam look good.

    So I think the “Coexist” bumper stick is largely a monument to politically correct illusion. Islam is not a religion of peace. It has always been a religion of violence, intolerance, and deceit.

    Just my view, and really speaking of the religion itself, not many of the people who claim to practice it. I have known Muslims who seemed to be decent people and have worked with some. But I think they are decent not because of their religion, but despite it.

    Again, just my view.



    • lwk,

      I think you’re right about the actual rules of Islam. Fortunately, not many Muslims here practice it exactly according to the rules. I’d say the same thing for people who practice other faiths. When I was in Catholic High School we frequently heard the term “cafeteria Catholics”, people who professed Catholic faith yet picked and chose whatever rules they wanted to follow and which to ignore. One of our teachers, when I asked if he was Catholic, answered, “I was automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church when I got divorced.” That was a little shocking, since no other Catholics I knew followed that rule.

      I won’t claim Islam isn’t more strict and openly hostile than other religions. But I just don’t see most Muslims following the rules that would make them personally hostile to us. Interesting points though, thanks for commenting.

      • “But I just don’t see most Muslims following the rules that would make them personally hostile to us…”

        In my limited personal experience that is true – don’t see hostility with those I have known in person and I expect, like many people, they may technically be members of a religion without actually practicing exactly what that religion teaches, or picking and choosing what to practice and what not to. Fortunately a lot of humans, regardless of their religion, value just getting along, working and saving up to advance themselves and their families.

        We know that both Christians and Muslims at times have conquered other people and forced them to accept their religion. The major difference I see is that a Christian I think would be hard pressed to take the words of Jesus to justify that – at least in complete context – whereas a Muslim would have absolutely no problem because that is precisely what their holy book tells them to do.

        Somewhere in your comments here you said you are sort of a conservative with some exceptions. That sounds somewhat like me. Maybe Libertarian with Conservative tendencies would fit? Although some Libertarians are as kooky as them come to. 🙂

        Regards, and have a Happy New Year,


  5. Chris,
    Excellent post and thank you for your service.
    “Proof Of Our Resolve” was excellent, thank you for sharing. If you are ever in Houston, I owe you a beer.

  6. Thank you for this great essay.

    When our forefathers fought for our freedom they didn’t do that for their own particular belief; they did it to live in a country of true freedom for all. Anyone who tries to name call or label another person is a bully attempting quiet you and suppress your freedom. This doesn’t work in America, it doesn’t work for me either. Beware of those who try to stop the voice of others.

    We’ve all heard this quote:


    It seems these days many are afraid of speaking their mind as they don’t want to be ridiculed or labeled as this or that.

    It only makes sense these days that it takes more guts to express your feelings on a subject than it does to say nothing.

    I for one refuse lay down and be stepped on by bullies who use psychological warfare in an attempt to erode my rights as an American.

    • Patrick,

      I read a very interesting article on Recoil recently, about a gay contestant on Top Shot (I think). He works for Google, and he said he has coworkers who have no fear of being open about their homosexuality but are scared to admit they own guns because of expected discrimination. That’s a pretty good indication of what level of intimidation some of us face from progressives.

      Thanks for commenting, and I did receive your emailed document today.

  7. 17 RandyGC

    Good post sir. I’ve had conversations with progressives on these subjects, and they seem to get a little testy when I tell them they are using the wrong word, not “phobic” or “fear”, but rather contempt, disgust and disdain to describe my feelings about some of the groups you listed.

    Now we can debate whether those feelings are justified or rational based on the facts, but just dismissing them as “fear” does nothing to advance their cause.

    The other problem is that I have always found that helping people deal with their fears (such as water, firearms, sharp objects, fire, etc) through education and demonstration under controlled conditions is a lot more helpful than derision an dismissal.

    Of course the Code Pink/GLAAD/CAIR etc types don’t really want acceptance. They want unconditional approval with no back talk from anyone with a differing viewpoint or their having to do any real work. Their concept of diversity runs only skin deep.

    • Many years ago, early 90’s I think, I was having a conversation about the 2nd Amendment and gun rights with a girl I knew from high school. She was absolutely against private ownership of guns. I made a comment about the danger posed by criminals who own guns, and she responded, “What’s the difference between a criminal and someone who owns a gun?”

      That’s what I see far too often among progressives. If we own guns, we’re fearful, violent and unstable. If we don’t support gay marriage, we’re fearful and hateful. There are definitely conservatives who demonize the other side, but conservatives aren’t the majority in the media and entertainment industries. So progressive voices get more emphasis than conservative voices.

      • 19 Mike

        One thing I find so interesting in these discussions is that ostracism and bullying are all local.

        Progressives will say that Conservatives want to stifle knowledge about atheism, homosexuality, Islam, evolution, sexuality etc. And they’re right in some places – where I grew up, you didn’t talk about any of these things or you were a bad, immoral person. I almost got kicked off of a gun forum for defending some of the Rev. Wright’s views on blowback and US foreign policy.

        Conservatives talk about having to be in the closet about guns, about actually following their religion, about homosexuality… and they’re right, too. The mainstream media, any college, and large parts of the coasts definitely don’t approve of that kind of talk. You say something that isn’t on the approved list and you get boycotted and kicked out of polite society – or dismissed as a poor ignorant redneck who just wasn’t brought up to know any better.

        I think it’s very useful to call out people who are trying to prevent anything but their opinion from being heard… but I also think that trying to argue who gets shut out more just distracts from the real asshole.

  8. 20 jj

    In regard to the Kosovo Albanians and other Balkan Muslims: they have been and are being recruited to take part in Syria’s current war. Several have lost their lives fighting there and been listed/named. Others have been (more) radicalized by having fought in that war (and there will be more to come from that war and other wars involving Muslims).
    There was a recent attack (November 2013) on Mormon sisters (U.S. citizens) in Kosovo by Kosovo Albanian men (they were hit on their heads and thrown down a stairway, which required hospitalization of one of them). There was the killing and injuring of U.S. airman at the German airport in Dusseldorf by a Kosovo Albanian about 2 years ago. His name is ARID UKA and he was angry over Iraq or Afghanistan. Also the “Fort Dix Six” were mostly Kosovo Albanians and there have been others arrested in plotting terrorism in the U.S. (there was one in Florida about 2 or 3 years ago).

    So, even though killing off Serbs so they could have Kosovo (and as much land as they could grab) for themselves is/was their #1 priority, there is a certain percentage of them with ambitions against non-Muslims in general. It was also a Bosnian Muslim teen Suleman Talovic (sp?) who committed the mall massacre in Utah in February 2007.
    There have been plenty of other incidents in the Balkans and Europe, such as the attempted attack on the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo last year (or early this year).
    And many of the non-Balkan bombers/terrorists had been to Bosnian training camps during or after that war (you can find it in their “resumes” – or by reading about what they’ve done and where they were before). Despite NATO occupation, these camps and foreign Mujahideens weren’t/aren’t usually touched. I think because usually they are often used as tools against people/countries the U.S. (& Britain & France, etc.) are targeting. You did have the CIA help establish the Taliban and Osama bin Laden was a close ally of theirs in the war against the Soviets/Russians. Only after the Embassy bombings in Africa (1998) did they turn against him. And one of the first places they looked was in Albania.
    Osama bin Laden also was funding many of those training camps in
    Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, and visited them in the middle of the war.
    In Syria, the U.S. is against Assad, so is training and helping (with Turkey and other allies) to funnel them into Syria. The former KLA (Kosovo Albanian paramilitaries) have been training the Syrian rebels – there’s even been news stories of it since a year ago or more. KLA was itself aided and trained by CIA.

    • jj,

      I’m not disputing most of what you wrote. However, I was in Kosovo from 2000-2002, before extremist influence had any real effect. It was in fact happening though. At that time Albanian friends used to complain that while western organizations were rebuilding homes, building schools and handing out food and clothing, Saudis were just building mosques, distributing Islamic literature and paying women to cover their heads. From the time I arrived to the time I left Kosovo, I saw an increase in the number of people at mosques and number of men with full beards wearing high-water pants (because Mohammed wore them, to set himself apart from rich guys who wore long pants). Yes there was an extremist influence in later years, but I don’t think it had an effect on the 1999 war, which is the time period I mentioned in my essay.

      And I’m curious just how serious the extremist influence in Kosovo is. We’ve had troops there since 1999 and haven’t lost any. If I recall correctly, the only American police we’ve lost there were killed by a Jordanian police officer. Albanians were extremely protective of Americans when I was there, and there’s even a statue of Bill Clinton in downtown Prishtina. Regarding the two Mormon sisters being attacked, I don’t doubt it happened but also don’t automatically attribute it to extremism. An American or two had their asses handed to them while I was there, but it wasn’t because of extremism, it was because they were being drunken fools. I recall some very pissed off Albanians talking about American Christian missionaries who told a crowd, “America only helped you because we expect you to convert to Christianity. If you don’t, we’ll leave and the Serbs will come back.” I don’t know how true that story was, but I don’t put that kind of BS past some missionaries, and I can see locals getting pretty angry about it.

      Regarding the Albanians who either planned or carried out attacks, you’re correct that some have. However, the Albanian who carried out the German attack was radicalized in Germany, not Kosovo. I don’t know where the Ft Dix guys were radicalized, and it could have been Kosovo, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened somewhere else.

      Interesting points though, and thanks for commenting.

  9. “very liberal, intelligent and reasonable”
    That’s like Good, Cheap, and Fast: Pick any two.
    Counter-examples will likely can be counted on your thumbs.

    A&E and the shrieking harpies just got a lesson in Power Politics from Phil Roberston & Co: He who has the power, sets the politics.
    14 million viewers is power.

    And A&E admitted that their cable network isn’t a 12th century fiefdom, it’s a business with a bottom line, and right now, the stars of Duck Dynasty are holding all the high cards.

    Unless A&E wants to see Dynasty Of Ducks on a rival network 4 seconds after they cancel the show, or fire Phil.

    One of their former PR flacks is probably packing his desk in a cardboard box today or tomorrow, with 15 minutes and a security escort detail. Life in media is unstable and harsh.

    Of course, they could have simply phoned 1957 and asked for a rush shipment of common sense, by stating that this was America, and off-air opinions were everyone’s Constitutional birthright, and inviting the supposedly offended to find or fund their own network if they were so desirous of calling the shots on one.

    But as you noted, they don’t want America. As people like Andrew Klavan have noted, they want anyone they disagree with to SHUT UP, and the lever for that, in almost 100% of examples, is by allocating to themselves unearned moral superiority, and then expanding a beachhead amongst those too stupid to call them out on it, if they even recognize the tactic. They start with their brownshirted fanboys, and expand outward from there.

    Thanks for helping to pitchfork them back into the surf.

    • Aesop,

      I like to think the whole DD debacle has been a painful wakeup call to the entertainment industry, and the progressive movement in general. They just discovered, to their horror, that not everyone agrees with them. They found out that huge portions of America give not one rat’s ass about their ideas of what’s allowed and what’s not. They learned that tens of millions of Americans don’t care if someone feels offended. Progressives have had a stream of defeats lately, (DD, and every last “common sense” national gun control law); maybe they’ll realize that the “tiny minority of extremists” they so look down on is actually the vast majority of reasonable, intelligent people nationwide.

      A&E had their eyes opened. So did Cracker Barrel. GLAAD is suffering their worst backlash in years. Maybe this is an eye opener for everyone on the progressive side.


  10. 24 Isa

    Hi Chris,
    There’s the very same issue in FRance : political correctness is killing our society. This year, the law permitting gay marriage and child adoption by gay couples has been voted by the French parliament. If you’re against gays marriage/against abortion/against women’s getting pregnant and selling their babies to other couples/against euthanasia, you’re said to be homophobic, a bigot, or/and so very backward, a horrible horrible person, really. Our societies are growing into monsters of selfishness and consumerism. It’s very very scary and oh so sad for our children.

    • 25 Nathalie Leclercq

      BS. Children in France are doing fine. Great child care facilities, a good education system, lots of financial support for families, great public service infrastructure, and you can take your children to any social event because there is general acceptance of the fact that children are sometimes noisy… And last time I checked, selling babies and euthanasia were still illegal. You need to relax. It’s a privilege to grow up in France!

  11. 26 Mike in KY

    Note to self: If Chris Hernandez ever passes through west Kentucky and decides to visit for a spell, don’t get out the DD videos.

  12. 28 Angela

    Bravo Bro!

Leave a Reply to chrishernandezauthor Cancel reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: