Category: Politicorrect

Okay, here we go. Gravol? Check. Barf bucket? Check. Piggies on the runway? Check. I sooooo don’t wanna do this…

Everybody who spends any time here already knows that I have no love whatsoever for Billary “I love country music” Clinton (google it if you can’t figure it out). I agree with Gary Hubbell when he says that “the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock.” I had no idea that Gary even knew me. 😛 The real problem here is that I also like to think of myself as someone who acknowledges common sense, regardless of whose mouth it comes out of.

So you can imagine the conundrum that I find myself in when Billary up has herself a “don’t Falk with me, Argentina” moment and blurts out the only realistic answer on the question of how to deal with a potentially nuke-packing Iran: (more…)

… for no reason at all, other than that it’s illegal to just walk up and put a bullet between their eyes. A perfect example of just such a useless bag of camel shit is Naeem Muhammad Khan from Toronto. The fact that we can’t stick this ungrateful little turd on a slow boat to nowhere also provides some handy proof of both the great lie that is multicultism, and just how far out of control our immigration system has gotten. This little sonofaslut even has the gall to proudly proclaim that… ah hell, read it for yourself… (more…)

… then I don’t know what the hell will.

We all, whether we want to admit it or not, have serious misgivings about the intentions of increasing — and increasingly belligerent — Muslim populations in western nations. El Inglés, a contributor over at the Gates of Vienna, takes a good long look at things we’d rather not have to think about, let alone discuss, and drags some of the monsters lurking under the bed of the western psyche into the light of day while he’s at it. Being no fan of the Multicult Koolaidâ„¢, I’ve done this sort or writing myself before, but not quite to the extent that this fellow has.

You likely won’t agree with most of the essay (I don’t) and you sure as hell won’t like it. The problem is that it’s one hell of a compelling work, and disagreeing with it is a job and a half unto itself. The essay begins with a simple, and damned grim, assertion:

A few months ago, I wrote “The Danish Civil War”, a fictional scenario which served to structure a consideration of various issues relating to the rise of Islam in Europe and the likely consequences thereof. The essay finished with the conclusion that Islam constituted an existential threat to the survival of European civilization, and that Islam’s influence on Europe therefore needed to be eliminated. It further concluded that, logically speaking, the various ways of achieving this goal could be broadly subdivided into three categories:

1. inducing Muslims to leave of their own free will,
2. mass deportations, and
3. genocide.

(Hereinafter referred to as options one, two and three, respectively)

[…]

Having now had several months in which to further consider this issue, it seems to me that my conclusions in this regard can be considerably refined. For reasons that I hope to make clear in this essay, I no longer believe that it is possible to solve the problem that Islam has become by means of option one, and I have little confidence that even option two could constitute an effective tool in this regard. I therefore predict that Europe is being swept into a position where it will be forced to choose between relying overwhelmingly on option three and surrendering. (more…)

I want to start out today by thanking Dave for the email that tuned me in to this book. I’ve never heard of Mary Lefkowitz before today, but after reading this review in the Wall Street Journal, I think I might just take some time to investigate more of her writings. They definitely seem to be worth the time.

For those of you who (like me) have never heard of her, Mary was a classicist at Wellesley College in the early ’90s, when she began to notice that some “Afrocentric” types were trying to rewrite history. This didn’t sit too well with Mary, what with her being one of those brick-headed “facts-are-good” types and all. Here’s a bit of what John Leo over at the WSJ had to say about it:

During this whirlwind of dubious scholarship, the academic world mostly remained mum, hiding behind the curtain of academic freedom and withholding its criticism lest a statement of simple truth be branded “racist.” For a 1991 column in U.S. News & World Report, I phoned seven Egyptologists and asked whether the ancient Egyptian population had been “black.” Of course not, they all responded, but not for attribution, since, as one said, “this subject is just too hot.”

The scholar who did the most to break this silence was Mary Lefkowitz, a mild-mannered classicist at Wellesley College. Without fully understanding the abuse she would invite by speaking out against Afrocentrism, she accepted an assignment in the fall of 1991 to write a long review of the second volume of Martin Bernal’s “Black Athena” for the New Republic magazine. She was shocked to discover that the Bernal volume, and a stack of other nearly fact-free books on Afrocentrism, had made headway in the schools and even in the universities.

She concluded that the Afrocentric authors regarded history as a form of advocacy: Like other postmodernists, they believed that truth is impossible to know — that all “narratives” are socially constructed and thus possess an equal claim to legitimacy. At the time, traditional scholarship was generally under assault, but the classics were particularly vulnerable, because they purported to study the foundational texts of the West. Attacking the classics as a complex system of lies was emotionally important to those who wanted to take Western culture down a peg. Feelings and politics mattered, not scholarship. As Ms. Lefkowitz puts it: “[Bernal] seemed to be saying that the most persuasive narrative was the one with the most desirable result. In effect, he was preaching a kind of affirmative action program for the rewriting of history.”

Read the whole review. I don’t know about you, but I definitely plan on reading this.

I may not have had a lot of time for my usual practice of ranting my face off lately, but I have had time to be poking around the world wide weird and finding some good stuff by other folks out there.

Some of what I trip over is pretty good, some is kind of mediocre and some of it just plain pisses me off. Take a poke around and see for yourself…

Fjordman over at the Brussels Journal makes some good points about Eurabia and the colonization of Europe — with some hard questions for those in charge on the far side of the pond; some with tongue in cheek, some not so much:

Western Europeans have in recent years accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than any society has ever done peacefully in human history. If we want a break we have the right to do so. What we are dealing with is not “immigration” but colonization, and in the case of Muslims, internationally organized attempts to conquer of our countries. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization then so do Europeans. Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Norway hardly have any colonial history at all. The Germans had a colony in Namibia. Why should they accept millions of Turkish Muslims, who have a thousand years of brutal colonial history of their own, because of this? There are hardly any Britons in Pakistan today, so why should the Brits allow huge numbers of Pakistanis to settle in Britain? And if the Algerians can demand independence from France, why can’t the French demand independence from Algerians?

[…] The one thing I will not do is surrender my land, which is not mine to give. I do not see anybody else quietly accept being turned into a minority in the country where their ancestors have lived since the end of the last Ice Age, and I cannot see why I should have to do so, either. I don’t care if white Westerners are “scared of being called a racist.” I will not leave a ruined land behind to my descendants because I was afraid of being called bad names. If you think it is “racist” for Europeans to preserve their heritage and protect their children from abuse, then I’m not the bigot here. You are.

Meanwhile, Rick The Dick has gone after a short chick (because short chicks are such a scary threat to our way of life, ya know):

Richard “The Boy Named Sue” Warman has finally filed his statement of claim.

Canada’s busiest litigant, serial “human rights” complainant and — the guy Mark Steyn has called “Canada’s most sensitive man” — Richard Warman is now suing his most vocal critics — including me.

Maybe he’s going after Kathy because going after Ezra’s turning out to be such a colossal pain in the ass (Kate’s pissed, too). Maybe he figures if he can just fling enough shit, some will stick and turn into gravy…(grab a coffee before you read this one; it’s longer than John Holmes):

Today I was sued by Richard Warman, Canada’s most prolific – and profitable – user of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As readers of this site know, Warman isn’t just a happy customer of section 13 and its 100% conviction rate, he’s a former CHRC employee, an investigator of section 13 thought crimes himself. In fact, he was often both a customer and an investigator at the same time.

[…] But, as I promised to do when I was first served with a Libel Notice by Warman, I can tell you that I’m not just going to play defence here – I’m going to use Warman’s lawsuit to put his conduct, and the very conduct of the CHRC itself, on trial.

This is the kind of stuff that I like to see. No time this morning for a long rant here, so just read it for yourself (taken from the CNW Group newswire yesterday):

Attention News Editors:
Commission Issues Statement on Decision in Maclean’s Cases
TORONTO, April 9 /CNW/ – The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided not to proceed with complaints filed against Maclean’s magazine related to its publication of an article “The future belongs to Islam.” The complainants alleged that the content of the article and Maclean’s refusal to provide space for a rebuttal violated their human rights. The decision means that the complaints will not be referred to a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Denying a service because of race or creed can form the basis for a human rights complaint. However, the Ontario Human Rights Code does not give the Commission the jurisdiction to deal with the content of magazine articles through its complaint process.

Even though the Commission is not proceeding with these complaints, it still has a broader role in addressing the tension and conflict that such writings cause in the community and the impact that they have on the groups that are being singled out.

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being
inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.

“Clearly more debate on this issue is required in Canada,” commented Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall. “That’s why we issued a statement today.”

To read the full statement, please visit our website: www.ohrc.on.ca.

Aussi disponible en français
For further information: Jeff Poirier, Manager, Communications Policy & Education Branch, (416) 314-4539