Okay, so they are NOT Quakers

They are, wait for it…….Muslims.

They are from the Caucasus and their answer to the “world view”, as announced on on of their facebook page, is “Muslim”. CNN quotes a friend of theirs as saying they “are as American as I am”, a friend who had known from high school. “Normal”, “successful”, “a walking angel”.

So, if the two of them are so nice, how come Islam, the doctrines and social conditioning of the religion of peace, can turn US high school graduates, mostly raised in the United States, into mass killers?

Look, people, you do not need to have a doctorate in Islamic studies from the University of Cairo to understand Islam from the sharp end. Operationally, as opposed, perhaps, to theologically, Islam obviously causes some young males to believe it is warranted, justified, normal, socially-approved (within narrow circles) to plan the slaughter of one’s non-Islamic neighbours. Stop trying to tell me the “root cause” is something other than Islam. The commentariat keeps professing amazement at what has by now emerged as a consistent pattern over time by dozens if not hundreds of young men. The reason for their behaviour is their religion. No one will mention the elephant in the room because of severe social sanctions for attributing jihad to the Islamic religion.

Which is like denying a stereotype is valid because it is “stereotypical”. If it were not statistically valid, it would not be a “stereotype”. All Muslims are not jihadists, but all jihadists are Muslims.

______________________________

The Chechen-American uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, of the two nephews on the TV speaks volumes in favour, praise, really, of the United States. Says he is “ashamed” for his family and for the Chechens for the way the nephews have disgraced the “entire ethnicity”, that he had broken with the family of his brother, and that they were “losers” who had been unable to assimilate to the American culture.

A sane man has said it.

Boston Marathon suspects, leftist wish and the reality

First the Leftist fantasies.

Barack Obama – Axelrod: Obama Thinks Boston Bombings Could Be Related to ‘Tax Day’

Chris Matthews - Chris Matthews, Democratic congressman suggest Tax Day tie to Boston attacks

Michael Moore – Tax Day. Patriots Day. 2+2 =

Salon.com – Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American.

And the reality, straight from Central Casting. The surviving terrorist is a Chechen and his “World view” is “Islam”. It is almost certain that his brother has the same world view.

That is a tough pill to swallow after finding out yesterday that the Ricin terrorist was one of their own as well.

Quakers implicated in Boston blasts

Cruel stereotypical racialist thinking.

Original Sin

If perceiving differences and acting against the different is the primary sin of man, then babies are all profound sinners.

In an article entitled ”Babies show inherent dislike for those who are different”, it was revealed that babies as young as nine months show preference for those who bring harm to people different from themselves – in this case, the difference concerned a taste for graham crackers over green beans, and vice versa.

Psychology professor and lead author Kiley Hamlin found infants who were as young as nine months old favoured those who brought harm to people who were different than themselves.

She said adults, similarly, tend to like people who harm individuals who are different.

“We wanted to see if we could tell whether infants had that same kind of judgement,” said Hamlin in an interview.

“It was shocking how robust the results were.”

Nothing surprises me about this. Tolerance is a virtue not because it is natural, but because it is an acquired habit of civilization. By contrast, those people who call themselevs “liberals” tend to believe that the natural state of man is acceptance, and only perverse educations make us racist, sexist, nationalist, tribalist, other-ist.

The study, published in the journal Psychological Science, looked at two groups of infants aged nine months and 14 months and the food they preferred — green beans or graham crackers.

The infants watched a puppet show, with two puppets demonstrating a like for green beans or graham crackers.

More puppets then joined the production, demonstrating nice, neutral or mean behaviour towards the original two puppets.

The study showed that the babies later preferred the puppets who harmed the puppet with the opposite food preferences.

One baby even gave a kiss to the harmful puppet.

The study said the desire to treat badly those with differences was more widespread in the age group of 14-month-old infants, suggesting an increase in bias with age.

Hamlin said almost all of the babies tested acted the same, which was an unexpected result.

“(Babies) like nice puppets really strongly. That’s in line with our intuition. Other studies have shown they like punishers if somebody was bad before, but that’s also in line with our intuitions.

“If someone’s bad they might deserve punishment. This one is not in line with our intuitions.”

Lady, it is not in line with your “intuitions” because you think people are naturally good, tolerant, accepting. They are not. They are naturally racist, tribalist, differentist, nationalist. They think people from the next valley are feckless swine, unless they have cousins over there, in which case they may know that some people in the next valley are okay, or not, on the basis of real knoweldge.

Man’s innate “differentism” is not something that is going to be fixed by talking about the problem differently, or by different social arrangements, though improvements are possible. Discriminations are at the core of existence. Every cell of my body is locked in a life and death struggle to determine what belongs in that cell and what does not. They all discriminate. I can only hope they discriminate in a way suitable to my survival. Likewise, every person discriminates, and has to for the organism to survive. One can only hope that discrimination takes place on bases suitable for the survival of civilization. That is the best we can do.

The Whatcott decision

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Whatcott decision is bad in several respects. It thrusts the court into adjudicating standards which they pretend to be objective and which are intensely subjective. It puts their opinions at the centre of the question of boundaries. You will have as much freedom of speech as these people think reasonable in the circumstances. Nowhere do they sing the praises of free speech as an essential element of liberty. They decline to tolerate offensive speech in the name of social peace. They consider themselves capable of arbitrating these matters, which is bad enough, but they show no regard to the role of the human rights tribunals who have less intelligence, good will, or benign inclination than their Lordships do.

Everyone concerned with public policy needs to consider this fact: the rulings may issue from people with several university degrees, but they are enforced by people with, at best, degrees from training colleges. The generals may issue orders but the interpretation is left to sergeants and corporals, and carried out by privates. Far better to remove the question of adjudicating claims to truth versus claims to preserving social peace from Human Rights Tribunals in the first place.

The best argument comes from Mark Steyn (of course!), He says he rejects not so much their ruling as their claim to jurisdiction over the matter. Dalwhinnie, J. concurring.

The legacy media

An entertaining exchange occurred between Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna and a reporter for the New York Times concerning the legacy media and the alternative media- the blogosphere.

Bodissey writes:

Our view of the legacy media might be summed up this way:

1.It creates a bubble of shared assumptions, whose inhabitants remain largely unaware of those assumptions.

2.It enforces this shared uniformity through a combination of monetary/professional incentives (“You’ll never work in this town again!”) and the fear of shaming (“What you said in your article borders on racism!”). Those who step outside the boundaries may be consigned to a small ghetto of people who share similar opinions, or experience legal problems (e.g. Andrew Bolt, Ezra Levant). Some exceptions are those who are too famous and too shrewd to be suppressed, with Mark Steyn being the most obvious example.

3.It stigmatizes information obtained through sources other than those within the bubble. This is true even when the material in question is first-hand, original reporting — which is generally of higher quality than that of the legacy media.

4.Because of its immense financial resources, its protection by governments, and its virtual lock on popular awareness, practitioners in the legacy media do not have to hold themselves to high standards — in fact, the opposite is true: those outlets that hew consistently to the august high principles of journalism may not do well.The blogosphere, on the other hand, is ruthless in culling out mendacity, obfuscation, short-cuts, etc. I learned this the hard way early on in my blogging career — when you make a mistake, you get eaten alive by your readers (assuming you allow comments) and your fellow bloggers. After a while, I learned not to publish things that weren’t well-sourced, and to issue prompt and prominent corrections and retractions when I made mistakes.

Starving African boy tells ““faux humanitarian posers” like Madonna to “go fuck herself”

Too good to be true? Internet hoax? A reality check for limousine socialist.

Dakarai Molokomme, a 15-year-old starving child from a small village in Zimbabwe, has just told Madonna, one of the most famous pop stars in the world, to go and f*** herself, the local media are reporting exclusively.
“Yes, it’s true, I told Madonna to go f*** herself. Do you want to know why?” Dakarai asked. “It’s the same thing every time with these snobby rich Americans. Every once in a while they come to show us their support for the so-called eradication of poverty by adopting a child from a starving family, but they actually do more harm than good. Transracial international adoptions are part of the white savior industrial complex,” Dakarai explained.
In further discussions with journalists from the media, the kid stated that “none of the children here actually want to be taken away from their family and friends so they can be displayed as some kind of trophy in the homes of self-righteous singers or actors who want to score some points with the media and Oprah.”
“If they really want to help us, they should get Big Pharma to ship us some anti-retroviral drugs for the AIDS epidemic, or build schools and hospitals. If they don’t want to do that, then they can all go f** themselves!” the child told reporters.
The 15-year-old also stated that he would say the same thing to any one of those American or European “faux humanitarian posers”, except for Bono, whom he said he would also kick in the groin.
“Bono’s efforts to save the African savage from itself prove that the colonial imperative is alive and well,” Dakarai said as he walked with other village children collecting sticks to build a tree fort.

This link claims that the boy is 7-years old so the whole thing might be a hoax.

Latinos to the left of me, Muslims to the right…

…here I am, Stuck in the middle with you.

First it was the Muslims with their Muslim patrols, created ‘No Go Zone’, “where the state cedes all sovereignty to hostiles and accepts the moderately paced erosion of the nation state, selectively applying all of its own laws only against the indigenous Western minded people to the advantage of the violent invaders.”

Not be left out Latinos in LA now follow suit. In LA “Latino gang is intimidating blacks into leaving the city that was once an African American enclave. ”

The resident blogger Dalwhinnie asked, in a post relating to “identity politics”, if “you can figure a way for identity politics of this nature to be a good thing, please let me know.”

Well we can all sit back with a bag of popcorn and watch liberal politics degenerate.

Apologia for repression of speech

In the name of victimhood. A Carleton student tears down a “free speech” wall, in the name of holding people to account for the consequences of free speech, which is hurtful to the oppressed.

Arun Smith, the perpetrator, explains himself:

we rely on buzzwords like “free speech” to help us either ignore or perpetuate the gross suffering that our words and actions can cause. We forget, often deliberately, that the damage we do to individuals in marginalized communities, and to those communities themselves, is inhumane and unjust, and that responding to it with more meaningless platitudes about inclusion and equity is doing nothing to fundamentally alter the status quo. Given this, I consider this action both a moral imperative, and one entirely in line with the mandates of the positions that students on this campus have chosen for me to hold….

In organizing the “free speech wall,” the Students for Liberty have forgotten that liberty requires liberation, and this liberation is prevented by providing space for either more platitudes, or for the expression of hate. Further, to organize for this “wall” to be erected during our Pride Week, where our communities are supposed to be able to seek liberation and celebrate our diversity, is offensive, ill-considered, and dangerous.

…there can be no safe(r) spaces where there is potential for triggering, the invalidation or questioning of the identities of others, and/or the expression of hatred.

When one has little to no institutional support, and where those who are supposed to protect abrogate or abdicate their responsibilities, there is little recourse beyond acts of resistance.

Remorselessly, and with the utmost sincerity,

Arun Smith
HBA Human Rights and Political Science: International Relations, minor in Sexuality Studies; expected 2013

Challenge Homophobia and Transphobia Campaign Coordinator – Carleton University
Human Rights Representative – Carleton Academic Student Government
Activist/Organizer

As I said in The Enemies of Discourse,

the claims being made here are based on victmhood;
which victimhood generates rights to deeds not available to those defending privilege (absence of victimhood), such as violence against the expressions of others;
that hate is the only conceivable motivation of those who disagree, rather than disagreement about the nature of the rights in dispute,
which rights are held indisputable; in consequence of which
it is impermissible to question any assertions by any person of the self-proclaimed sexual identities, which is the basis of their “victimhood”, or claims of privilege.

The reasoning is circular and rests on the assertion of privilege in the form of victimhood. Once victimhood is asserted, then any action which threatens, or seems to dsipute the assertion of victim status, is ipso facto, illegitimate and may be met by “resistance”.

The two most closely fitting descriptions of “post-modern” discourse I mentioned were:

• lacking “means by which to negotiate or accommodate such intractable differences within its mode of conversation,” it will “typically resort to the most fiercely antagonistic, demonizing, and personal attacks upon the opposition”;
• “will typically try, not to answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely as ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.”;

The greatest presumption of Mr. Arun Smith, the fascist creep, are his claims to immunity from disagreement. He seems not to be aware that politics is possible at all, that the civil handling of disagreement is the business of life, and especially of universities. He should be expelled for failure to understand this is what university life is about.

I notice, by the way, that “resistance” is the term used both by Islamists and special pleaders like Arun Smith to legitimize acts of aggression.

_______________

More on this precious example of an oppressor masking as a victim, and here, here and here. Satire of Arun smith has already been investigated as a “hate crime”. His future in Canadian politics is secure.

A good analysis from David Thompson of the same Arun Smith and his entitlement through victimhood.

Gates of Vienna

Gates of Vienna has been, along with Vlad Tepes, one of the premier blogs discussing the Islamic threat. On my daily scroll through the blogs today, I found it is in violation of “Blogger’s Terms of Service”. I await an explanation from Google. Another victim of political correctness. The censorship is enforced through terms of use. Next thing you know, you will not be able to criticize Christianity, or the Roman Catholic Church.

Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Category Archives: Political Correctness