Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Shooting in a college library by a Christian lawyer!

He was a multiculturalist

A student believes a book he was carrying in his back pack saved his life during a shooting at a Florida State University library.

Two students and an employee were wounded in the attack by gunman Myron May, a lawyer convinced that the government was 'targeting him', who opened fire at 12.30am on Thursday morning.

The paranoid 31-year-old, who officials said was in a 'state of crisis' at the time, was then shot dead by police outside of the Stozier library which was full of students studying for their exams.

Since the incident police have unearthed journals and videos that showed May believed he was being targeted. A former girlfriend also believes that he had developed a severe mental disorder and was taking medication.

According to a Las Cruces, New Mexico, police report last month, May was a subject of a harassment complaint after a former girlfriend called to report he came to her home uninvited and claimed police were bugging his house and car. Danielle Nixon told police May recently developed 'a severe mental disorder.'

'Myron began to ramble and handed her a piece to a car and asked her to keep it because this was a camera that police had put in his vehicle,' the report said.

The report also said May recently quit his job and was on medication.

However there is still no indication as to why he chose to return to the university and why he decided to attack.

May had been working for the DA in Las Cruces, New Meixo, before deciding to move back to Tallahassee.

His old law school room mate from Texas Tech told Fox News that May sent her a cryptic Facebook message the day before the rampage, saying she should expect something in the mail.

She added that she was not aware about any break-ups of fractious relationships, but said he had lost a lot of relatives over the summer. 

On his Facebook page, he often wrote biblical verses and made a number of references to Christianity.  His last post. two days before the shooting, read: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. ~ Matthew 5:3.'


The Wrong Stuff

Mankind lands rocket onto a comet, in a brilliant statement of revolutionary 21st century technology. Badass scientist who helped make it possible forced to publicly grovel because of his choice of shirts:

One of the scientists responsible for successfully landing the Rossetta probe on a comet millions of miles away on Friday responded to outrage directed at a shirt he wore earlier this week during the televised landing.

“I made a big mistake and I offended many people and I am very sorry about this,” the scientist, Dr. Matt Taylor, said during a press briefing, choking back tears and struggling to speak.

As news of the probe’s successful landing shot around the world, so did outrage directed at Taylor’s shirt, which featured images of provocatively dressed women with guns.

“No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt,” The Atlantic’s Rose Eveleth complained in a tweet.

Really, the Atlantic, you say? The home of excitable Andrew Sullivan at the peak of his uterus detective phase, infomercials promoting Scientology and bad Photoshops comparing John Boehner to an IRA terrorist? Not to mention this recent sexist cover?

Could America have won World War II if the Army Air Force had to waste time dealing with a left throwing hissy fits over all of the provocatively dressed women being painted onto B-17s and B-29s as nose art?

As Sonny Bunch writes in his chapter on “Forbearance: Opting Out of the Politicized Life,” in the new anthology of conservative writers on The Seven Deadly Virtues, The Two Minutes Hate of George Orwell’s 1984 “is real today. Here’s how it works:”

An enemy is identified, a crime is announced, and vitriol spews forth. The specifics of the crime don’t really matter. It could be someone saying something nasty—or just unpleasant, or even suspiciously nice—about a protected group. It could be a business executive donating to an outrĂ© cause. All that matters is that we are presented with a face to hate. But our Two Minutes Hate is actually worse than Orwell’s, because (1) it’s not directed at constructs like “Eurasia” and (2) the government doesn’t orchestrate it. No, the modern Two Minutes Hate is directed at living, breathing people. And its targets are designated by a spontaneously created mob—one that, due to its hive-mind nature, is virtually impossible to call off.

One of the most unsettling aspects of the politicized life is that those who embrace it are not un-self-aware. They know what they’re doing and they believe it is right, just, and necessary. Impulsivity is no vice for the self-righteous. And for the self-righteous, forbearance is no virtue. After all, these people are trying to fix the social order! And the sooner they can fix it the better. Patience? That’s for the privileged. “Be patient” is what the powerful tell the marginalized to keep them quiet. As the bumper sticker says, “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” And bumper stickers are never wrong. (You might even think of them as the ancient progenitors of Twitter.)

How many of these twitter-based Alinsky-style attacks from leftwing social justice warriors (aka, the John Birch Democrats) will society take before the form wears itself out?

Update: “Just to be clear, Rose Eveleth of The Atlantic is a horrible person, who took what should have been one of the best days of a man’s life, a day of doing something no human beings had ever done before, and ruined it in order to feel important,” Glenn Reynolds writes. “She should be apologizing, not taking Twitter victory laps.” Exactly.


'Lads' have become the most hated people in Britain

Twenty years since the birth of 'laddism' the enemies of lad culture are more vocal than ever, but are fighting a battle they can't win

Lads! Panic on the streets! They’re the cancer at the heart of British society! They’re drinking, raping, pillaging! Quick! We need to ban them! RIGHT NOW!

History has a funny, if depressing, way of repeating itself.  Twenty years ago, loaded – the magazine I edited for seven and a half years – was debated in Parliament for its corrosive effect on young men – or “lads” as they had been christened after the magazine’s very first cover line. Today, we’re in exactly the same boat, as the Home Secretary bans toxic pick-up artist Julien Blanc from entering the UK.

And, of course, after much liberal rumination, it was concluded that Blanc’s very existence is propped up by today’s lads, who once again are fast becoming the most vilified sector of British society.

For if you believe Twitter, the liberal press or your more toxic feminists – never a wise idea – you’d think young, white, heterosexual males were the root of all evil in Britain.

To seasoned observers of British culture, it’s Groundhog Day: it’s 1994 all over again – but with internet access. Only this time, it feels much, much worse.

It seems hard to imagine now, but thanks to loaded’s huge success – it sold 500,000 mags a month at its peak – by 1997 it felt like practically everybody in the UK was a card-carrying lad, even the girls (affectionately known as ladettes).

The new Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was a lad, and his new, top-lad mate Noel Gallagher sniffed Charlie in the bogs at Number Ten during that infamous New Labour election party.

You couldn’t move on late-night BBC arts shows for luvvie-lads. Liberal comedians like David Baddiel donned their England tops and EVERYBODY shouted “lager, lager lager!” without fear of career suicide thanks to a petition.

Laddism’s only detractors were a small, grizzled coven of old-school feminists, mostly employed by the Guardian and Independent newspapers. Of course, they protested loudly, as is their wont, but struggled to be heard over the collective popping of corks and blaring of Now That’s What I Call Britpop CDs.

But fast forward a mere 17 years and the bovver boot is now firmly on the other foot – and set on revenge.

So it is that in 2014, the most widely hated sub-section of British society aren’t jihadists, child rapists or even politicians, but young, white, heterosexual men who drink too much, make ill-thought-out but usually harmless jokes and occasionally use the word “moist”.

The lad had become a lightning conductor for all that is wrong with our country – and it would be almost funny if it weren’t such a tragically misplaced deployment of energy.

Because what the lad’s critics fail to recognise is, like acne, being a lad is just another phase the overriding majority of young men grow out of.

In my job as the longest-ever serving Editor of “lad’s bible” loaded, I was once somewhat embarrassingly labelled “the King of the Lads”.

I left the title four years ago, and now I choose a family, choose Farrow & Ball paint, choose to educate young lads on the pitfalls of pornography and sometimes even choose to attend feminist seminars.

Despite being exposed to more “lad” stimulus than perhaps anybody, ever, I got out more or less completely unscathed.

The same is true of practically all former lads out there, for laddism is not some weird brain virus that consumes previously free-thinking men and turns us into misogynistic rape zombies. It’s not like being in the Hitler Youth.

Rather, being a lad is just something to do: a way of making friends at uni, of fitting in at the football, a perhaps unsavoury rite of passage before we grow up, something we dabble with before we realise we actually prefer carp fishing, triathlons, steady relationships, getting on at work, being a dad or watching Countryfile.

Lads’ many critics would also be wise to note that if you publicly attack something loudly enough it not only creates huge intrigue – loaded’s success was sealed the day it was vilified in Parliament – but demonise it for long enough and it becomes a call to arms.

Loaded’s original lads were a two-fingered salute to the papoose-wearing, New-Man-cum-castrato the liberal newspapers extolled the virtues of, yet whom hardly any of us wanted to be.

Today’s lad is no more than a superannuated variant with access to the internet, where they spend their time watching porn between acute outbreaks of Twitter Tourette's.

Hating today’s lads helps justify their very existence. The current explosion in numbers – and their extremes of behaviour – is directly proportional to the venom with which they are attacked by non-believers.

Every God needs its Satan: an antagonistic force to kick back against. And feminists need lads. What else would they rage about? Without lads, they’d be out of work. They can’t “solve” serious feminist issues like FGM, rape, or equal pay any time soon, so they fritter away energy on minutiae like getting sexist comedian Dapper Laughs sacked, banning Julien Blanc, or making Rosetta scientist Dr Matt Taylor publicly cry after wearing a “laddish” shirt.

These hollow, token victories not only make modern, online feminism seem increasingly toxic, petty and anti-man: they further fuel the lad’s persecution complex, add to their anger and drive them to more extreme acts of anonymous Twitter hate.

And so the cycle depressingly repeats.

If we just ignored laddism, it might go away. After all, it almost happened in the noughties. But with a plethora of angry women lambasting lads' every politically incorrect act on social media, and drawing angry return fire, there’s zero chance of that happening any time soon.

As a fully reformed and rehabilitated former lad, it makes me sigh wistfully.

Their venomous critics need to wise up to the fact that lads are the cockroaches that cannot be squashed. There are simply too many of them, and every fresh attack spawns a fresh wave of radicalised LadBible followers. In that sense, you can “win” the war on lads no more than you can win the war on IS.

By demonising lads and attempting to ban their entertainment – porn, Page 3, the London School of Economics Rugby Club, Dapper Laughs or even Julien Blanc – you perversely make the lifestyle choice just that little bit more attractive. Prohibition has never – and never will – work.

Twenty long years on from the birth of laddism, it seems today’s vocal enemies of lad culture haven’t learned a bloody thing from history – namely that they are fighting a pointless war they cannot win.


Fairness – is it really so hard for our snobbish political elite to understand?

The most shocking thing about Labour’s spectacular mishap is that it should have come as a surprise to anybody. Did it really take the Thornberry “just-look-at-these-ridiculous-proles-ha-ha-ha” tweet not only to illuminate the gap between the Labour Party leadership and working-class voters, but also to illustrate what is wrong with the whole self-obsessed Westminster establishment? That revelatory little episode summed up precisely why Ukip is doing so well, and neatly justified its claim to be the only party in touch with ordinary people’s feelings and views.

Yes, in case you were in any doubt, Mr Working-Class Voter, the party that used to belong to you really does despise you. It thinks you are absurd, ignorant and probably a bigot – as Gordon Brown famously made clear in his encounter with poor Mrs Duffy in Rochdale. It may have a commitment in the abstract to what Ed Miliband describes as people “who work really hard”, but it generally prefers them in the forms that its ideology finds manageable: either in unionised public-sector employment or in low-paid insecure jobs that make them grateful for the in-work benefits that Labour is happy to dispense. Self-employed tradesmen with their white vans, bloody-minded independence and resentment of imported cheap labour do not compute.

For Left-wing intellectuals, this is about more than snobbery. The totemic White Van Man is a traitor to class solidarity and socialist ideals: his vulgar materialism and determination to get on in life under his own steam are an affront to the concept of the collective good.

Unlike his north London betters, he is inclined to blame those who are poorer than himself for their own disadvantages, which he believes are likely to result from their own bad choices. So he resents those who live on benefits, rather than feeling compassion for their hopelessness, and that resentment extends as much to indigenous British people as to immigrants – which is why he approves overwhelmingly of the Government’s welfare reforms. (Benefit cuts are most popular with working-class and lower-middle-class voters who do not suffer from bourgeois guilt, are proud of their financial independence and resent any kind of paternalism.)

So far as the soft Marxists of Islington are concerned, their instinctive loathing of the wrong sort of working-class people is not just a question of manners and taste. The voters they hold in such contempt are politically dangerous because they reject the basic Labour principle of “social fairness” that seems to mean redistributing wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven’t, which is the exact opposite of what the word “fair” means in everyday language.

And this may be the key to the Great Alienation that now dominates our national political life. Everybody in the Westminster club is going around saying that the “normal rules of politics don’t apply any more”. Well, yes, actually, they do. The most fundamental rule of democratic politics is that when voters find that the governing parties do not respect them, they will look around for somebody who does.

The excuse from Labour and the Left-wing of the Conservative Party for not paying due attention to what Ukip supporters are saying is that what they are saying is morally repugnant: the party is implicitly exploiting racist or xenophobic sentiment and must be repudiated, even if that means that a large section of the electorate has to be disregarded.

Which would be a plausible – even admirable – judgment if Ukip was advocating the rounding up of immigrant incomers for mass expulsion, or a forced sterilisation programme. In fact, the party is so conscious of the danger of being interpreted in this way that Mark Reckless immediately retracted his vague, ambiguous comments that seemed to hint at possible repatriation. What Ukip officially demands is nothing more than the simple – and to most voters, unimpeachable – right for Britain to have control of its own borders.

But this is really giving too much credence to the Westminster verdict that the attraction of Ukip is all about immigration, about resentment of the outsider – for which the benighted British population must be taught to be ashamed.

By treating their concerns as unfounded and unworthy, the major political players miss the real point. Resentment of migrants is just one facet of a much wider anger with the consensus that now dominates respectable political discourse and that revolves around that significant issue of “fairness”.

What is deserved and what is undeserved is at the heart of this. The fact that migrants can receive out-of-work or in-work cash benefits (such as tax credits) as soon as they arrive is a source of considerable bitterness. This is not, as Ukip’s critics rightly say, a problem created by the EU. It is caused by Britain’s unusual non-contributory welfare system and the anger it provokes applies as much to native-born British recipients as continental European incomers.

Then, on top of that, those who have worked and striven hard enough to haul themselves out of poverty are taxed, by a Conservative Chancellor, as if they were officially “rich” in order to pay for it all. Not to be outdone, Labour threatens a “mansion tax”, which would have devastating, life‑changing consequences for many people who are certainly not rich but simply have the misfortune to have lived in a house that has increased in value wildly due to forces that are completely outside of their control. Where is the “fairness” – in any recognisable meaning of the word – in any of this?

A truly fair society is something that it is within the power of government to provide: a society in which everyone has a decent chance to make his own way and do well. But “chance” is the operative word. This common-sense idea of fairness involves people getting from the state what (but not more than) they deserve and contributing what (but not more than) they should. It is because any sense of that balance seems to have been irretrievably lost that the political settlement is in a genuine crisis of confidence.

What is particularly dangerous to civil order is the closing down of argument and legitimate opposition. At the moment, the Conservatives are torn between staying loyal to the pact of the governing elites who want to blame the electorate for their own discontents, and making vague noises about understanding people’s anxieties.

Castigating voters when they refuse to agree that their complaints are unacceptable leaves them nowhere to turn but to the very outsiders who are threatening to fracture the system. Instead of asking what they can learn from this diffuse, complicated frustration that is fuelling Ukip’s rise, the Westminster club simply denigrates it and belittles anyone who gives it the time of day. That is a recipe for disaster.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: