February 11, 2011

Fischer defends pro-genocide column

In a second column, bigot Bryan Fischer explains why he pulled his first column castigating Indians as animals who deserved killing. According to him, it wasn't because he's a liar and a hypocrite who turned tail and ran when caught making morally reprehensible claims.

Once again, you can read the whole column at the link below.

It appears Fischer has blocked comments this time. Not because he's a cowardly piece of dung who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag, but for another reason, presumably. That may be enough to keep Fischer from showing his yellow belly squealing like a stuck pig removing his column again.

Column pulled--here is why

By Bryan FischerOn Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down.Again, "we took it down" is conservative coward-speak for "we turned tail and ran when caught making morally reprehensible claims."

It's funny that Fischer predicted a "nuclear firestorm" of responses. When that predictable outcome came to pass, he complained about it as if he hadn't predicted it. Here you can see his rank hypocrisy in action. "I'm going to poke people in the eye by making racist comments about Indians," he seems to be saying, "but it's their fault if they react to the eye poking."

I read the comments before Fischer and the AFA removed the column. They weren't profane--unless you think calling someone an idiot, a liar, and a racist is profane. Since these labels are demonstrably accurate, I don't think "profane" applies.

As for the AFA, it hosts the blog and is responsible for its content being there. If it lets a racist "analyst" blog and he blogs about his racist views, it's AFA's fault.

We already know that Fischer and the AFA are homophobes. I can see how revealing that they're also racists, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists would interfere with their mission. Hint: If you're a bigot, it's best to keep your real views under wraps.

If the AFA doesn't like this characterization, too bad. If it disagrees with Fischer's racist views, it can denounce him or fire him. Silence equals agreement.

Fischer wants rational discussion?But the issue I addressed in the column is an important one, and at some point, a rational discussion and debate about it must be held.Someone else apparently will have to hold this "rational" discussion. Fischer hasn't done it in his previous column or this one.

Indeed, with his references to God and the Bible, he doesn't seem to know what rationality is. Religion is irrational by definition, and so is using it as the basis of one's argument.The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence.Yes...so? Is Fischer actually going to dispute these claims with something resembling facts and evidence? Or is he going to keep spinning his anti-Indian, pro-genocide column?So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature’s God, and the law of nations and history.Here we go. We've gone from "international legal scholars" to "nature's God." So much for rationality.

What Fischer apparently means is he's abandoning his previous claims about the legality of conquest because critics whipped his butt on that point. Instead, he's going to retreat to fanciful, made-up arguments about what God intended. Or as a Facebook friend put it:Oh, dear...further schmuckery from Mr. Fischer. I'm sorry sir, but: You need to decide--*either* you want a rational debate of what you wrote, *or* you want a "debate" based on "God's law." One or the other. You pick.What to expect from Fischer

My prediction:

In his next column, Fischer will switch from his "Indians were depraved/Europeans had the right to conquer" to a more standard historical argument. You know, land was practically empty, disease killed the few occupants, Europeans came seeking freedom, inevitable friction, both sides fought, the strong defeated the weak.

The last is what he'll call a law of nature. Lions eat lambs...nothing we can do about it. If he were "clever," he might even cast it in evolutionary terms. I.e., the civilization with better "genes" (religion, culture, technology) won. (Wrong again: See The Myth of Western Superiority for more on the subject.)

And because God supposedly invented nature, he'll claim this is God's will. God wanted (white) men to go forth and multiply. If they kill a few animals or Indians along the way, it's unfortunate, but it can't be helped. The Bible is God's user manual for how to conduct human history.

Indians and Indian buffs like me have heard these arguments thousands of times. No one has ever come up with a valid justification for the European genocide of the American Indian. Will Fischer come up with a "rational"--i.e., irrational--argument we haven't heard before? Don't bet on it.

Here's a couple of clues for Fischer and other defenders of genocide:

1) Columbus and his men began the genocide by enslaving or killing the first Indians they met. That was long before plagues wiped out whole tribes, so you can't blame disease for what happened. The Europeans intended to do evil and diseases merely facilitated their un-Christian aims.

2) Bartolomé de las Casas and others denounced the Spanish depredations while they were happening, so this isn't some case of modern hindsight or moral relativism. If you think you understand the situation better than the eyewitnesses did, explain how and why. Good luck with your answer...you'll need it.

Anyone who doesn't address these questions while defending the genocide of Indians is, again, a coward. I'm guessing Fischer is too ignorant to ask these questions, much less answer them. Look for his next column to be as stupid as his last one.

Someone can't handle truth...guess who?So this is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur. Until it is..."Robust" is funny coming from the crybaby who complained that the responses were too "intense." What he apparently means is that he wants to present his racist views robustly but he doesn't want anyone to challenge them.

"America is not mature enough"...or perhaps he's tacitly admitting he's a liar, a coward, and an ignoramus. Perhaps he'll drop the subject and crawl back under the rock he came from. You know, because he got his butt kicked from here to Sunday and he's afraid of its happening again. We can only hope.

Looking at Fischer's picture, he appears to be about 70. Maybe we can have a rational discussion about the Euro-American history of genocide in 15 or 20 years. Perhaps not coincidentally, Fischer should be gone and forgotten by then.

For more on the subject, see Fischer's Passion for Killing and Critics Slam Fischer's Racism.

Below:  "We didn't mean to shoot these savages dead. God pulled the triggers, not us!"


Anonymous said...

Yeah, I mean, the problem is, people don't do things just to be evil. People do evil either to improve the world or to enrich themselves. So you can't just say that

Neo-Nazis is an interesting charge. The Nazis at least saw the Sioux as Aryan, though the Sioux didn't see themselves as Aryan and in fact refused to betray the United States. (Don't tell Jeff Weise that. Oh yeah, he became an hero already. HA!) So in at least some ways, they're worse. The only difference is that Fischer has little chance, even with the conservative backlash to Obama's election, of actually doing what he plans to do.

But yeah, in addition to being homophobes and sexists (These abstinence-only groups always talk about "men's nature" and "women's nature"), they're racists.

Anonymous said...

I'd not be surprised if he were antisemitic too. That's a least common denominator among racists. They will, however, use code words like "gutter religion", Christ killers, "Zionists", "Those people" who own the banks, and media, and all the rest.