9/11 made me
finally break with the left-liberal worldview
and start agreeing with conservatives
on foreign policy
(I had already long ago agreed with the right on economics).
I finally converted from liberal-left
to libertarian-right once I read the latter's arguments
in 2001-02.
What does "right" mean in the modern world?
Let me suggest a definition:
By "right" on this page I mean people that generally support the west
against its enemies.
Not all of the links on this page could be called "right-wing".
(I'm not even necessarily "right-wing" myself.)
But none of these are anti-west.
According to this definition, there are many right-wing groups and individuals
I disagree with and oppose, such as religious conservatives.
There are even self-described "right-wingers" who do not
support the west against its enemies,
such as isolationists and Israel-haters.
For a full discussion see:
Fancy a 50 minute introduction to what the right is, and how it differs from the left?
Here is one, covering a range of topics, from the brilliant
Thomas Sowell.
But unfortunately, he lost his marbles in 2016 when the orange toddler messiah Donald Trump came along.
Merely
criticising Trump
in 2016
led to him
blocking me.
Incredible.
It is sad to see a fine mind (not the only one)
debase itself by
joining the worthless cult of Trump.
Radio, TV, video
Qube TV
- Video sharing site for anti-jihad videos, etc.
The religious conservative
Ed Morrissey
defends the religious pseudo-science of creationism
on grounds of "intellectual freedom".
(But he does not extend the same courtesy to the pseudo-history of 9/11 trutherism. Why not?)
Many conservatives like this talk sense on war and politics,
but talk rubbish on science and religion.
It's an imperfect world.
"First of all, as a historian of civil society,
of the millennium-long struggle in the West to achieve this extraordinary marvel of the modern world,
this experiment in human freedom, I want to say:
European democratic civilization can fall before the Islamic challenge.
Something similar happened before, in the 5th century, when a culturally superior Roman civilization
fell to a primitive tribal Germanic culture."
"Second, this is going to get worse before it gets better.
...
Once these movements, which in the past have killed 10s of millions, "take," they are like forest fires.
They cannot be stopped, at best they can be channeled.
We are in for a long and unpleasant conflict"
"Third, modern media play a critical role in Global Jihad's success.
...
Let me cut to the chase. If this wondrous experiment in human freedom that was launched on both sides of the Atlantic in the late 18th century survives to the middle of the 21st century, historians will look back on the performance of the MSM in the first decade of that century
...
and give the journalists' "first draft of history" an F.
...
when historians look back, I think they will identify the MSM's appalling performance as one of the main sources
of the West's vulnerability to Global Jihad at the beginning of this century"
One thing I like about Rusty is he is a true libertarian.
Here, May 15, 2010, he opposes any law restricting mosque building:
"Why is it government's business whether or not Muslims build
a mosque near Ground Zero?
It isn't. It's called liberty.
Whether or not Muslims should build it is another matter alltogether. They shouldn't.
Liberty must, by definition, means the freedom to do stupid things - like build a mosque in the most inappropriate place on the planet.
As stupid as this is, it is far more dangerous bringing to bear the power of government to stop organized religions from doing stupid things.
...
The real answer is to get rid of zoning permitting boards alltogether.
That way, we can open The Museum of the Islamic Holocaust next door to the mosque documenting the tens of millions killed in the name of the mosque next door."
And more, July 24, 2010:
"I have no sympathy for Islam. ...
Religious freedom, however, must mean that people are free to believe stupid and even evil things.
...
This means that governments have no right to forbid the practice of religion or political assembly.
...
As I've said before, the answer to the Ground Zero mosque is not the government forbidding it from being built. Those that oppose it should stop agitating for government action and start raising funds to buy the building next door. Then they should open a museum dedicated to the millions of people killed in the name of Islam starting with Muhammad himself and continuing all the way to Osama bin Laden.
Offensive? You bet. But just as political and religious offensiveness are not grounds for stopping the mosque, the same neutrality principle would protect our museum of Islam.
...
This is America. If you want the government to outlaw offensive ideas then move to Riyadh. Or Europe."
Mainstream media lies about the Jawa Report, Oct 2010:
The Saudi-funded Martin claims that:
"The Jawa Report .. proudly describes itself as a "weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas"."
As Rusty replies,
this is a lie.
The website does not describe itself thus.
Someone hostile to it
describes it that way.
The Saudi-funded
Martin is quoting this hostile person, not the site itself.
The hostile description seems to be inspired entirely by this
2004 post,
which is a somewhat incomprehensible Star Wars analogy as to the difference between
most people in the Islamic world
and Islamist jihadis.
It does not talk about Muslims in the West at all.
It does not say people in the Islamic world are sub-human, and in fact says some of them could be allies.
And that's it.
And yet the Saudi-funded Martin,
based on no evidence,
implies that the Jawa Report routinely compares Muslims to sub-humans.
The Saudi-funded
Martin says Jawas are:
"the "typically short rodent-like" sand-dwellers of Star Wars who are described in the film as "disgusting.""
It is unclear where these quotes come from.
No link is provided.
It is implied that they come from the Jawa Report, but they are not found above.
In fact, it seems they come from
this site,
which is nothing to do with the Jawa Report.
The Saudi-funded
Martin goes on:
"A section on the website is entitled "my pet Jawa" implying, (but only satirically, of course!) that Muslims are sub-human creatures suitable to be kept as pets."
This is a lie.
There is no section called that.
There is nothing describing keeping Muslims as pets.
If there was, he could link to it.
But he can't.
The Saudi-funded
Martin goes on:
"The Jawa Report .. likens Muslim opponents to real-life animals like monkeys".
Again, no link is provided.
Is it just made up?
Maybe it is a ludicrously distorted reference to
this July 2010 post
insulting the sadistic killers of the Taliban.
But if
Martin said "Look, this wicked blog insults the Taliban!"
it wouldn't sound so good.
If the Saudi-funded
Martin thinks insulting the Taliban is wrong, he should have the guts to say so.
So you just make stuff up, with no supporting links?
That's your argument?
Is this what passes as "scholarship"
once you get funded by the gay-hating, atheist-hating, Jew-hating,
7th century religious tyranny of
Saudi Arabia?
(Left) From Google.
(Right) From Star Wars Wiki.
Neither from the Jawa Report.
The Saudi-funded
Frankie Martin knows nothing about the Jawa Report blog,
so he Googles it, finds a hostile claim that it is a "weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas",
and reprints this as if it is the blog's self-description!
He then Googles Jawas, finds this
Star Wars Wiki,
which is nothing to do with the Jawa Report,
and reprints its descriptions of Jawas as
"typically short rodent-like" creatures, and "disgusting",
as if the Jawa Report used this language when talking about Muslims!
This apparently is "scholarship" when you are funded by Saudi Arabia.
A Western Heart
by Mike Jericho and others
- "We are a diverse collection of people who are united in our shared belief in
and advocation of modern western civilization."
That's me too.
My loyalty is not to Ireland.
It's to the West.
Just like
Christopher Hitchens,
he can't stand Sarah Palin.
"Had there been a McCain-Lieberman ticket ... I would have supported it."
But apparently the VP pick (since when are VPs so important??)
means he must support the left-wing defeatist.
He says: "Like Christopher, I'm a single-issue voter",
meaning the war of the West against its enemies.
Yeah, right.
If he was, he would never support the man who opposed the surge.
There is a beautiful reply in Kamm's own comments section:
"To précis: I'm a single issue voter except when I'm not."
By "right" on this page I mean people that generally support the west
against its enemies,
for lack of a better term.
Not all of the links on this page could be called "right-wing".
(I'm not even necessarily "right-wing" myself.)
But none of these are anti-west.
John Connolly scored the first great victory for the Irish blogosphere in July-Aug 2011 when he
destroyed front-runner David Norris' presidential run
by digging up facts that any Irish journalist could have dug up (but didn't).
Norris never recovered from this.
On blogging
- "I can see how
this medium is going to be to Irish society what talk-radio was to America in the nineties
- the place where popular political opinions suppressed by the mainstream media get a hearing"
boards.ie has had no less than 3 threads about me:
Thread:
"markhumphrys.com", Oct 2011 to July 2012.
Some anonymous user called "meditraitor"
is incredulous that my site could exist. He thinks I must be a troll (i.e. not serious).
This seemed rather boring, so I ignored it at first.
Eventually I replied, and got into a sometimes interesting debate with a variety of people.
Thread now closed.
Thread:
"markhumphrys.com", Oct 2012.
Some anonymous user called "dttq"
is angry about my site, but he never quotes me.
Instead he makes a little speech.
He declares that America invaded Iraq for oil.
He also declares that America is threatening to bomb Iran and Syria for oil.
He then claims these loony conspiracy theories should not mark him as anti-American in any way!
Too stupid to reply to.
Anyway, the thread quickly closed.
Thread:
"Mark Humphrys ???!!!", Apr 2015.
Some anonymous user called "BuilderPlumber"
is appalled that I could be
"anti-Sinn Fein, anti-Iran, anti-Saddam".
He thinks my site should be banned.
This site seems to attract the Irish far right.
Some dreadful people.
Thread:
"Mark Humphrys is a Snowflake and a Fawning Zionist", Feb 2018.
A lot of anti-semites, neo-Nazis, and deranged Trumpist Russia Today viewers
do not like me.
An actual Nazi complains I blocked him!
The thread was started by a fan of the anti-Western, Islamo-socialist, terrorist dictator Gaddafi.
He even has a Gaddafi picture to make it easy
to see what he stands for.
He complains that I do not like him. Correct!
I am happy that these people hate me. They are dreadful people who understand nothing about the world.
(Hugh Hewitt)
