Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Let's say one of Germany's many states, perhaps Munich, elects a local government that openly veers towards Nazism. Let's call them the MNSDAP.
They produce literature that declared the German government illigitimate, threatens the overthrow of the Federal State and indicates that all non-MNSDAP-loving Germans will be booted out of the country or imprisoned (or worse).
They then, facing down international condemnation, start lobbing missiles at other parts of Germany. What would the correct response be? To invade? Send in the UN?
Well, this is pretty much the situation Israel faces on a daily basis. And it puzzles me that leftists in particular can't get over their own hatred of Israelis to face the facts on the ground. The Israelis, as I see it, can't wait to give the Palestinians their own state, their own land and government, if only they wouldn't elect Hamas-Nazis into power to immediately launch missile attacks against Israeli civilians.
The fact is, Hamas are the only ones bent on genocide in the Middle East. Borne of a mixture of yearning for the historical Islamic empire, and pure hatred of Jews (and Christians), Islamofascism as represented by Hamas is as intolerant and fanatical as you can get. Many Israelis are equally intolerant and fanatical, but Israel is bound to a certain extent to international law and the approval of its allies. Hamas is not, and this makes them infinitely more dangerous.
Western "human rights" groups are fanatical in their support of the Palestinian cause. There are a variety of reasons for this, not least of which is, ironically, Israel's "Western" credentials. just as Hitler knew that in a Democracy, such as Britain, the public at large would not tolerate too much hardship, encouraging him in his "blitz" campaign, so Western liberals know that they can actually have an influence over Israel, which is not a Fascist dictatorship. Like Iran.
Were Western liberals actually to have a go at some real "human rights" abusers like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and even Venezuala or Cuba, they would be promptly told to go and **** themselves by General Sheikh Mohammed Janjaweed or some such. What else explains the pathological love affair European and American leftists have with the Palestinian 'cause'?
That is sometimes referred to as formal equality. ie; It's ok if the Sikhs can do it, so long as everyone else gets exactly the same consideration with respect to whatever THEY want to wear.
It's been over 20 years since Canada has adopted a model of equality that recognizes that people do NOT have to be treated in a precisely similar way in order to respect equality.
I've been asked why I bother following left-wing sites, and the reason is quite simple. It's a sort of "know your enemy" type thing, combined with a concern about the direction the world is taking and the desire to know how the other side thinks.
The above statement - in red of course - marks a terrifying departure from the idea of equality. Equality, as has been stated at this blog many times, is not equal-ness in the sense that everybody must be exactly the same (whether or not this is the communist ideal) but equality before the law. The Law treats all as individuals, and that is why Lady Justice holds the scales blindfolded. It is the basis of Western Law.
What the above statement - which is not unique, and has become common currency throughout the Western world - is saying is that "equality" does not have to mean equal treatment under the law. So, equality can mean something else.
This is a departure from the true meaning of Equality because it replaces equal rights with special rights. A law which states that "all motorcyclists must wear helmets - except for Sikhs and Muslims who dont have to" is a law that has strayed from the principle of equality.
The recent ban on niqab-wearing in Quebec is another example. Female Muslims (and male ones too I have no doubt) demand the right to cover their faces in public because it is their 'religion'. The State does not agree. But, in order to be fair, the State creates a law that is 'neutral' in its wording.
It does not say, "Muslims cannot cover their faces in public", but says, "nobody can cover their faces in public". Actually, the recent French ban follows the same lines. Neutral language is employed so that no one group can feel aggrieved, even though everyone knows which group is really being targetted.
What looks weaselly at first glance is really an attempt to be fair. We, the non-Muslim sector of society are deemed willing to give up our right to wear masks in public so that Muslims can be forced to remove theirs. Many feel this is a step too far, and I almost agree, but the alternative is a law specifically aimed at preventing one cultural group from wearing what they want to wear.
What we could do is create a law that says no man can force his wife to wear certain clothing against her will. This is different because it is clearly an issue of liberating someone from oppression, and offers the wearer a choice: let it be assumed that she covers her face by choice, or do not wear niqab and have the protection of the state for her choice.
However, the statement at the start of this article shows that Canada, and many other countries, already strayed from this way of thinking. Instead of requiring nobody to be forced to wear a motorcycle helmet, everyone except Sikhs are forced to. So, given that certain religious or cultural groups are already exempt from certain laws, and have "special rights" over and against "equal rights", then why not have a law that specifically targets certain groups' practices that are deemed undesireable.
To reiterate. If liberals want to create special rules for special people, casting aside the concept of equality as we understand it, then why not single out "special people" for other types of laws as well? Special rules cut both ways. Why not have a law that specifically bans certain types of Islamic dress? Why ban certain "large crosses" as France has done, just to be "fair" and neutral.
And why not just remove the legal requirement for motorcycle helmets. If Sikhs are too special to have to wear them, then why aren't I ?
France moves forward on veil ban:
What is interesting in this debate is how few people have mentioned that both Turkey and Tunisia strictly control the wearing of the veil in their predominantly Muslim - but secular - states. The reason for this is their understanding that the purpose of the veil is male control of women, and that such control has no place in a modern country.
According to the source:
"Habib Bourguiba, the founder and first president of Tunisia, for instance, made the legendary statement to young Tunisian women after he became president in 1957 that "it is intolerable that girl pupils should go into school rigged out in a dishcloth!" Modernists across the Arab world rejoiced at these new words.
It would be ironic if the Europeans were to permit in "civilized" Europe what the most visionary leaders of the Muslim world -- men like President Bourguiba and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder and first president of modern Turkey -- lived their life to reject as horrible symbols of the repressions of the past."
My comments in blue.
Hate crimes ahoy! Jordanian doctor removes British testicle.
Having no doubt heard of our legendary virility and manliness, an envious immigrant takes advantage of a nurse's momentary lapse of attention to advance the cause of Islam by amputating the British bollock! The hate crimester is now back in Jordan, happily surrounded by only Islamic wedding tackle.
Surgeon Cut Off Testicle 'By Mistake' At Bury Hospital
The story gets odder from there:
Dr Sulieman Al Hourani was only supposed to cut out a cyst, but removed the whole right testicle instead...
Sarah Prichard, counsel for the GMC, said the mistake was made as a nurse helping the surgeon turned her back to get a stitch.
When she turned around the testicle had been removed.
There follow some fascinating glimpses of life in the NHS:
"Such was the level of concern they immediately realised it could be a serious medical incident and took steps to complete the relevant documentation."
A month later it is alleged that the doctor, who qualified after studying at Jordan University of Science and Technology, stole two boxes of dihydrocodeine from a treatment room on a ward at the same hospital...
The GMC was told of another incident in August 2006, when Dr Al Hourani had consulted a colleague and was advised to inject a patient with 10 milligrams (mg) of midazolam, a powerful sedative drug.
He then gave the patient 8mg and injected himself with the other 2mg, the hearing was told.
Dr Al Hourani is now back practising in Jordan. It is not known if this is the only infidel testicle he removed or whether he now has an attractive arrangement of novelty paperweights on his desk.
As you can tell, I'm fighting the temptation to see this as the latest front in "soft jihad", or at any rate as some kind of civilizational metaphor.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Those people who enjoy the great privilege of coming to Canada, and to Quebec, that is of enjoying an advanced Western society, its medical care, its educational system, and everything else it provides, and the political freedoms that, along with its advancements in education and medical care are the fruit of a mental freedom that could not exist for one minute under Islam, are not entitled to demand changes in the social arrangements and understandings of those societies, nor in their legal and political institutions, nor anything else.
The refugees from the Nazis came to North America and warned against, and fought against, the Nazis. The refugees from Communist societies did the same, with Communists and Communism. But those who flee the despotism and backwardness and wretchedness, political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral, of Muslim societies, and come to the well-functioning and amazingly generous West, tend to bring Islam with them, and because they do not understand, and cannot possibly recognize, all the ways that Islam itself explains those political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states and societies, try to spread, try to make more and more powerful, try to bend those among whom they now live to accommodate in every way, Islam -- the uncrecognized source of woe in the lands they come from, and to which they do not, above all, wish to return.They should be permanently and deeply grateful to the Canadians, to Canada, to -- in this case -- Quebec. But they are not. They are hostile, they are demanding, they are meretricious, they are sinister in what they wish to change, in what they wish to do. They should be opposed at every step.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
"U fuckinb iodit…he was killed coz he waz black dat was it…..if he wasnt blkack he would still be alive……so next time a ‘nigger’ is killed by one of your white fooll…keep ya fucked up plae ass comments to yourself,,,ok…ur fuckin pig"
I'm not sure what language it is but maybe someone could translate?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian asks whether David Cameron will
"commit a Tory government to reducing the gap between rich and poor"
The question is in one way a fair one, as Cameron - stupidly, and pointlessly - challenged Labour's record on 'inequality' since 1997.
But the question is a scam. Inequality is a measure of nothing. Inequality is how much richer the rich people are than the poor people. So what? If the poor have their basic needs met, let's say, who gives a monkeys' what the rich are doing?
To phrase the question in a better way, what does inequality of wealth actually say about society? It says exactly nothing about the richest or the poorest and how either are doing, and it also makes it true to say that "equal" societies - like North Korea - are enviable for having eradicated "inequality".
One of the biggest problems with talking about inequality, is that it creates a false way of looking at society. It encourages us to look at those at either end of the economic spectrum in a particular way, and suggests a link that is just not there.
A fellow blogger recently made the statement that the most dangerous and false claim to be taken for fact is "I am poor because you are rich". The relationship between the richest and poorest in society is not a straightforward one; But it is certainly not a causal relationship.
In a Capitalist society there is absolutely no way to get rich unless a substantial segment of society has enough means to invest in the system. A supply of cheap labour is of no use whatsoever unless there is someone to buy the finished products.
Those who talk about inequality are trying to create a link that is not there, but that does not mean they are short on solutions. The answer to equality is, of course, redistribution, which must by necessity be overseen by the state.
There is precedent here, Pol Pot found an ideal way to achieve equality in Red Cambodia; he just murdered anyone who differed from the norm.
When the state tries to create "equality", it invariably tries to bring the average down rather than up. If my house is twice the size of yours, it's far easier to break mine down than to build yours up, and which option will the state choose?
"Inequality" is not just a pointless non-gauge of society, it is the worst type of fraud. It sounds like a big problem - nobody likes "inequality" - but in reality it is not. It is an argument for state intervention of the worst kind.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
According to the text:
2.—(1) It shall be an offence for a person—
( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material—
(i) in any place other than inside a private residence, or
(ii) inside a private residence so that the words, behaviour or material are heard or seen by persons outside the residence,
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,
if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred.
( 2 ) ( a ) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), if the accused person is not shown to have intended to stir up hatred, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material or recording concerned and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that the material or recording was threatening, abusive or insulting.
( b ) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) (b), it shall be a defence for the accused person—
(i) to prove that he was inside a private residence at the relevant time and had no reason to believe that the words, behaviour or material concerned would be beard or seen by a person outside the residence, or
(ii) if he is not shown to have intended to stir up hatred, to prove that he did not intend the words, behaviour or material concerned to be, and was not aware that they might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.
(3) In this section "private residence" means any structure (including a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or moveable structure) or part of such a structure used as a dwelling but does not include any part not so used or any part in which a public meeting is being held; and in this definition "public meeting" means a meeting at which the public are entitled to be present, on payment or otherwise and as of right or by virtue of an express or implied permission.
I had no idea such a law existed, actually. Most free-speechers are wary of such things, but this has weasel words like "likely" and "having regard to all the circumstances" which most of us accept as vague enough to prevent the suppression of free speech but, worryingly, it does include the word "insulting" to describe prohibited speech.
Of course, what constitutes "insulting" speech is highly subjective, but a particularly dramatic plaintiff may be able to produce enough crocodile tears to send someone to jail (for up to six months) and this is cause for concern.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Ireland is probably the most anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian country in Europe, partly because Irish nationalists see some parallel with the 'plight' of the Palestinians, but also because the Irish seem to be irredeemably anti-American in sentiment and all other loyalties are divided accordingly. Thus, there are Cuba solidarity groups in Ireland, and, of course, lots of pro-Palestinian ones.
It is not even reflective anymore, just a knee-jerk reaction to anything Israeli. It exhibits no logic, and it certainly not open to debate.
Christopher Caldwell noted how Europeans, who have been discouraged since World War II from taking part in their own nationalisms, have taken on the nationalisms of others, almost by proxy. Palestinian nationalism should be seen in this context, and, says Caldwell, pro-Palestinianism provides an outlet for Europe's now unfashionable but yet largely unreformed historical anti-Semitism.
I recently joined a pro-Israel Facebook groups - not exactly "activism" I admit - and suffered immediate condemnation for it - from several of my friends! Anti-Israelism runs deep in Irish culture for sure.
Some say it is because the Irish abhor war, and naturally seek to support the underdog, the oppressed. There is no real evidence for this, however. The first part of that sentence is laughable, and the second, well, the Irish state is notorious for not having taken part in World War II, and indeed its president offered the Nation's condolences to Germany upon the death of Hitler.
Not a good record so far, then.
So, naturally, in such a "pro-Palestinian" environment, the Israelis must be the Fascists. The meaning of this frightening conclusion is entirely lost on the likes of Splintered Sunrise, who gleefully point to an Israeli flag as evidence of its carrier's "obvious" Fascism.
And yet the Islamofascists act with complete impunity amidst all this. Never mind what Hamas is actually like, what policies they seek to enforce - both within their State and against Israel - they are the eternal victims in the eyes of the Left, in Ireland and everywhere else.
What short memories we all have. A generation or so ago, the founding of the State of Israel was marred by a unique occurrence; an immediate attack by all its neighbours in an effort to wipe it from the face of the earth - an ambition that Hamas happily condones to this day.
Whereas Israel is a model of modern democracy, with equal rights for men, women, gays, transsexuals, Hamas stands for more or less the opposite, and is loved by the Left for it.
I believe that "Anti-Zionism" is Anti-Semitism; it's just a funky new term for it. And one that Leftists and Islamists can all get together and agree on. Ireland in particular, never had to deal with its antisemitism, which likely explains the widespread and zombie-like support for it.
Ireland has spend years justifying its own terrorism, it must come naturally to try to justify everyone else's. Suicide bombs in Tel Aviv? Well, the Israeli civilians deserved it didn't they? After all, suicide bombers are "desperate" (favourite leftie catchphrase) and not at all hateful and disgusting. Right?
I could go on about this all day. I become so enraged with blog posts like the one at SS (oh, how appropriate!) . One of the commenters had this to say:
"In the Thirties the fascists went after Jews. These days they’ve figured out that anti semitism is no longer respectable but there’s some mileage in Muslim bashing. "
Anti-Semitism is no longer respectable? It's practically compulsory! I feel ashamed that, as Europeans, we have added insult to injury to our Jewish population by importing -in large numbers- member of a religion who hate them - the majority of violent attacks on Jews in Europe come from Muslims, and yet our "Anti-Fascists" (what a joke!) are still trying to hunt down a few Hitler-loving nancy boys who live in their mother's basments. It has excaped the Left's attention entirely that Europe's New Right have completely abandoned anti-Semitism and have taken up causes that the Left seem to have forgotten about.
Another genius writes:
"the EDL are into fighting the cops, which most left-wingers would baulk at."
What what what? 5 minutes on YouTube will find you any number of videos packed with left-wing nastiness and thuggery. From a number of countries.
Oh wait, says the left. Claiming that anti-Zionism is antisemitic is itself antisemitic because not all Jews support Israel. To which I reply: That's true. But it's funny how all militant Muslims support Palestine and hate Jews!
Give me strength....
How Race, Ethnicity Questions On Census Boost Anti-White Quotas
By Steve Sailer
I’m always being asked why I study identity politics issues such as race, ethnicity, sex, and age.
The implication is that those aren’t appropriate topics for respectable discussion.
Yet the Census form that recently arrived in your mailbox shows that the U.S. government is quietly obsessed with those same questions.
The Constitution defines the decennial Census as an "enumeration"—i.e., a count of everybody. Therefore, the questionnaire is kept relatively short. (The Census Bureau asks more detailed questions on a vast variety of subjects on its monthly American Community Survey sample of 250,000.)
What questions are considered so critical to the government in 2010 that the Census has to ask them of every single resident?
Of the ten questions on the 2010 form, five are concerned with enumeration (for example, asking your name and phone number) and one with whether you own your home (with or without a mortgage). The other four deal with identity:
6. What is Person 1's sex?
7. What is Person 1's age and Date of Birth?
8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
9. What is Person 1's race?
In contrast, there are—of course—no questions asked about whether the resident is a citizen or is even in the country legally.read the rest here