Category Archives: Human Rights
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Why ‘Equality’ Must Die
By Selwyn Duke
Take a look at the following list and tell me if anything strikes you:
Viewing these, the Seven Cardinal Virtues, anything make an impression? Okay, now try the Seven Heavenly Virtues of:
Anything? What strikes me is that equality is not among them.
Scour great works, such as the Bible, and you won’t find talk of equality. Not one bit — that is, unless you consider The Communist Manifesto a great work.
One thing about virtues — which are defined as “good moral habits” — is that their exercise doesn’t require the cooperation, or compulsion, of another person. I can cultivate prudence, temperance, courage and the other virtues in myself, and I can do it all by myself. So while a virtuous society is desirable, virtue can also be a purely personal goal. And this is one time when focusing on the self needn’t be selfish, for we should take the log out of our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our brother’s.
But equality is far different. Just as there can be no numerical equality without at least two numbers, there can be no human equality on an island with a population of one. And while you could increase patience through personal change, increasing equality necessitates societal change; it involves raising people up as much as they’re able — which requires their cooperation — and insofar as they’re unable, it involves bringing others down. This is where compulsion enters the equation. The point is that, unlike with virtues, increasing equality is always an endeavor of the collective.
Another quality of virtues is that, as Aristotle noted, their cultivation is necessary for a happy life. And lack of virtue in the collective can make life harder, such as when the government stifles just economic freedom (excessive regulation), suppresses truth (hate-speech laws) or imposes some other aspect of tyranny. We also want our survival needs fulfilled: enough food and water and a roof over our heads. And we’d like the opportunity to pursue proper pleasures and dreams and exercise our creative capacity. But is actual “equality” necessary for happiness?
A long time ago, in a “previous life,” I was an aspiring tennis player. I wanted to be the best. Alas, though, it just wasn’t in the cards — I didn’t have the talent of a Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal. Yet the cards also taught me something: being a famous athlete just isn’t that important, and it certainly isn’t necessary for happiness. And what would it say about me if my happiness (or what I fancy such) were dependent upon those more talented fellows being brought down to my level?
Using a more common example, consider income inequality. If Bill Gates had never made his billions, it not only wouldn’t have put one more cent in your pocket, society would be poorer because we wouldn’t have the jobs and productivity-enhancing products he created. Moreover, when the rich invest their money in stocks, companies are provided working capital. The rich may put it in banks, too, and banks aren’t just money warehouses; they provide loans to businesses. So both these activities facilitate economic growth and more job creation. Given this, what does it say about a person when he nonetheless wants the rich cut down to size? Well, it reminds me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s line in Thus Spake Zarathustra: “If there were Gods, how could I bear not to be a God? Consequently there are no Gods.”
The class-warfare warrior may claim fellowship with the poor, but often something else lies deep in his heart: “If there are rich people, how can I bear to not be a rich person? Consequently, there must be no rich people.” Like Nietzsche, he is what he is; that his ire’s targets are greater or have more doesn’t make him less. Regardless, he’s only satisfied to be what he is if those who would have or be more don’t exist. This is because of one or both of two deadly sins: pride and envy. The cures for these, by the way, are the corresponding virtues of humility and kindness — not “equality.” Equality is the voodoo medicine of the vice-ridden man blind to virtue.
Be thankful equality isn’t necessary for happiness, too, because it is completely contrary to nature. Some species are more dominant than others; some unsuited to survival become extinct; and within species some members are bigger, stronger or faster than others. And animals have their dominance hierarchies; a silverback leads a gorilla troop, a wolf pack has an alpha male and female and chickens actually do have a pecking order.
People are no different. There are natural-born leaders and followers, alpha and beta personalities, and individuals have different gifts and capacities. The world had always recognized this, too. In fact, when young Therese of Lisieux was bothered by the idea that people would have different places even in Heaven, she was instructed to get her thimble and her father’s tumbler and fill them with water. She then was asked, “Which is more full?” Of course, secular modernists will criticize this as a Christian justification for prejudice and discrimination, but what does their world view imply?
The reality is that there’s a huge contradiction between belief in cosmic-accident evolution and belief in human equality. First, when even just one couple has a child, there are a whopping 3.1 billion possible combinations. Then there’s group variation. Do you really believe groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years — subject to different environments, stresses and adaptive requirements — and wound up being the same in every respect? This is a mathematical impossibility and a brazenly unscientific notion. As G.K. Chesterton put it, if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.”
Whatever your belief about creation, group variation in physical being and capacities is apparent. A gynecologist once told me that black women didn’t suffer as frequently from descended uteruses because they have stronger abdominal walls. And Dr. Walter Williams tells us here and here:
Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. …Male geniuses outnumber female geniuses 7-to-1. …[D]uring the 1960s, the Chinese minority in Malaysia received more university degrees than the Malay majority — including 400 engineering degrees compared with four for the Malays, even though Malays dominate the country politically. …[Jews are] only two-tenths of 1 percent of the world’s population. Yet between 1901 and 2010, Jews were…22 percent of the world’s [Nobel Laureate winners].
And is the last statistic any surprise? Ashkenazi Jews have the highest I.Q. of any group.
Because this is an inherently unequal world, the actions of equality dogmatists such as today’s liberals can be understood as rebellion against nature. This also helps explain why they — from the French Revolutionaries to the communists to today’s liberals — practice tyranny. When your agenda is so contrary to nature and, more to the point, man’s nature, people will quite naturally act contrary to it. In fact, they will quite naturally be contrary to it. And since people can only be what they are, the agents of unnatural agendas will often say they are not to be. For no one likes having his plans spoiled, and these social engineers, enraged, will lash out at those not “good enough” to conform to the program. This of course is everyone, and killing fields are the ultimate result.
We’re not there yet, but the cultural killing field is all around us. We have government decrees stating that if groups perform differently on a test (e.g., a police exam), it is by definition “discriminatory”; and that students must be punished in racially proportional ways. We see quotas and affirmative action and lawsuits and destructive discrimination, as we tear ourselves apart fighting nature. And why? Among other things, if you believe all groups are equal in all ways, it follows that you’ll attribute different performance outcomes among them to discrimination.
One might now wonder why liberals don’t apply their diversity tenet “Embrace differences” to what really matters. After all, if you watch golf on TV, do you want to see “equality,” where everyone would have to be a duffer, or the best? Do you want “equality” in an art museum or ethereal beauty? Gifts displayed by others are to be relished, reveled in and revered. And the only thing preventing this is, again, those twin demons of envy and pride.
And what of equality dogma? It gave us the drab, cookie-cutter projects of communist Eastern Europe. It breeds ugliness and mediocrity.
Equality is not a virtue.
It is not a laudable goal.
It can never be a reality, as some will always be “more equal than others.”
And if anything deserving of the name civilization is to live, equality, as an aspiration, must die.
“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild.
“It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing.
“For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
“Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.
“It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.
“The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
“I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Posted by Defend the Modern World
As I wrote in my post ‘Muslim Social Terrorism’, the most significant consequences of allowing Muslims to reside in the free world are not political, but social. The vague (and over-advertised) issue of Muslim ‘terrorism’ is, in-truth, likely to affect no more than 2-3% of Western citizens, and of these, most will live in major cities and so be already accustomed to the risks involved.
The social tragedies enabled by Islamic immigration are much more frequent and (for me) just as morally offensive as explosions on a subway.
Of all these social tragedies, perhaps the most widespread and horrific has been the ‘Muslim rape-wave’, also known as the ‘Rape-Jihad’; a phenomenon that has traumatized thousands of European and other non-Muslim women across the European Union.
There is no way I can think of to sugar this pill. In every Western European country, innocent women have been raped (on a massive scale) for ideological reasons. Females of all ages (including mothers and minors) have been subject to indescribable defilement by the worst human elements the earth has yet produced.
Although it predates the attacks, this project accelerated rapidly after 9/11 and the subsequent mainstreaming of Islamist thought in Muslim communities. By 2010 at the latest, the word ‘epidemic’ was being openly used in conservative journals. As things stand now we should have no qualms about using the term ‘rape war’.
And these rapes are not the ‘lesser’ kind of rape (whatever Kenneth Clarke may have meant by that). They are typically angry affairs; sex mixed with assault. In many cases, should the victim have wandered alone into a Muslim ghetto, the rape will involve many different men (from the very young to the very old) and will leave the victim with severe internal injury and blood-borne infection.
In other cases, an initially willing female, after having had sex with a Muslim for the first time, will be plied with sedative drugs (especially highly addictive benzodiazepines) in order to make her more likely to agree to future sex, this time with paying associates of the original male. Such a process is known in the UK as ‘grooming’ and is estimated to have affected thousands (yes, thousands) of girls (predominantly those from broken backgrounds – orphans, runaways, those in social care etc…) across the country.
In Oxford, the green, ancient home of Anglo-Saxon learning, a group of young girls (all white English) from local care homes fell prey to a network of Pakistani pimps and sexual opportunists. In one case, reported in detail during the trial of the offenders last year, an 11 year old girl was lured to addiction on both alcohol and tranquilizers. By her own estimates she was penetrated by more than five men an evening, often as she travelled in and out of consciousness. According to the BBC, on one occasion she vomited repeatedly over the side of the bed during intercourse, but even this didn’t grant her any mercy. She was quickly cleaned and prepared for the next Muslim in line.
After many weeks of this process, the same girl was branded (using a heated pin) with an ‘M’ for Mohammad; not the Prophet, but the name of her new Muslim ‘owner’. She later (aged 12) became pregnant by this same tormentor, and was forced to have a backstreet abortion using crude and disgusting implements. She would only escape fully after turning 15, having endured four long years of incarceration and medieval torture.
Although it is a Europe-wide project, the main focus for the Rape-Jihad in recent years appears to have been Scandinavia.
The countries of Scandinavia have long pursued some of the most senseless immigration policies in the EU area. As a direct result of these, prospective Muslim colonists are increasingly choosing Nordic countries over traditional settlement targets like England and France. The social cost of this has already been appalling. Daniel Greenfield wrote the following (harrowing) summation of the situation in Sweden in Frontpagemag:
“Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.
In 2003, Sweden’s rape statistics were higher than average at 9.24, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2. Now they are almost certainly even higher as Muslim immigrants continue forming a larger percentage of the population.
With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.”
Now, I am aware of the dangers of believing statistics from Sweden on this issue. Sweden has a notorious problem with militant feminism and what constitutes ‘rape’ in Stockholm may not even earn a reprimand in New York and London. Nevertheless, even if we adjust the statistics to focus exclusively on the most sensible definition of rape – ie. unwanted penetrative sex – then all Nordic countries still have a social crisis the scale of which is bewildering.
ii. Why do they do it?
The way Muslims rationalise their predation on women is as follows:
Because Western women wear short skirts and mingle with people of the opposite sex, they consequently have no virtue. They are slags, who, by their behaviour define themselves as sex-objects. Consequently, for someone to rape or molest them is no more than their behaviour invites and probably something they’ve experienced before. It may even be something they secretly desire.
This logic has a rough equivalent in a phrase used by violent pimps: “You can’t rape a prostitute’. By this, the pimp means that ‘his’ women have fallen voluntarily (by their being prostitutes) through a moral floor and that since they have done so, they have lost the right to complain about certain types of treatment.
While Pimps imagine this moral floor to have been broken by the woman allowing herself to be penetrated for money, the Muslim believes it to be broken by the wearing of high heels, or by making innocent jokes about sex with male friends.
As a woman then, you won’t fully know that you’ve ‘fallen’ in a Muslim’s estimation, until he’s forcing himself on top of you.
I am not a feminist. I do retain the unfashionable belief that men have a responsibility to protect women. Consequently, I believe we all deserve a portion of the blame for this scandal. Our reaction to date has been timid and inadequate. If one (just one) Afghan Muslim Woman was raped by a European soldier today, we would lose a hundred troops in the cause of her avenging. Yet thousands upon thousands of European women have already been traumatized by the enemy in our own countries and we have failed to respond.
The guilt may be theirs, the shame is our own.
D, LDN. From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, receives numerous death threats via Twitter. When he retweeted some of them, the Bedfordshire Police took prompt action to track down the threatening tweeters, arrest them, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law…
A few days ago Tommy tweeted the following:
@bedspolice just called me to say don’t retweet death threats or I’d be arrested as they cause people distress? I ****ing kid u not!
A Facebook post on the same topic was put up at about the same time, but before I could acquire a copy of the text, it was gone. Not only was the post removed, but the entire group was taken down by Facebook.
Tommy can’t show the world all the death threats that have been made against him on Twitter, but Vlad Tepes lives in Ottawa, and is therefore less at risk of being arrested. He has compiled a brief selection of some of the threatening tweets aimed at Tommy.
Note: Obscene language is used in any number of these tweets:
Comment: Civilization Damages Liberty
“Liberty and civilization are incompatible. That the more comforts, ease, and safety you get from civilization, the more liberty you must surrender. That the first casualty of civilization are the virtues that enabled the civilization to build and prosper to begin with. That the social contract moves too far into the shared benefits and safety and too far away from the liberty all men are born to, as time goes on.
“A hundred years ago you might have been shot for suggesting you couldn’t build a campfire on the beach. Now people are surprised you can even attempt it. A hundred years ago all you needed to start a business up was the ambition and cash to do so, now you can’t even begin to plan it without consulting the government for permission, licensing, and tribute paid to the proper authorities.
“We’ve become so steeped in this life, we don’t even notice what would have caused John Adams to go berserk. – Christopher Taylor on The Limits of “Control:”
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Marxist Racism and Bullshit Don’t Make Crops Grow – Don’t Ya Know – Genocide is Ok as Long as You Do it to White People
To get an idea of what Conan O’Brien’s audience is cheering when it enthusiastically applauds whites soon becoming a minority in America, look to South Africa, a country built by Europeans who immigrated to the region over the course of several centuries, which was coerced into jumping off a cliff into an abyss of political correctness:
From legally mandated race-based economic discrimination against whites to the thousands of farm murders targeting Boers across the nation, the problems are only getting worse. Poverty and unrest are spreading quickly as well.
The world’s most prominent expert on genocide, President Dr. Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch, already warned last year that the Afrikaner population could be on the verge of a government-linked extermination campaign.
During a fact-finding mission to South Africa, Stanton, who helped fight against apartheid, found evidence implicating the ruling African National Congress (ANC)-South African Communist Party (SACP) government in a plot to eradicate whites as part of a scheme to foist Marxist tyranny on the nation.
But, but… I was told that the communist terrorist Nelson Mandela’s party were the good guys!
According to Stanton,
“There is thus strong circumstantial evidence of government support for the campaign of forced displacement and atrocities against white farmers and their families. … There is direct evidence of [South African] government incitement to genocide.”
Is genocide still bad if you do it to white people? I am guessing that according to the moonbats who constitute our intelligentsia, the answer will be “no” right up until they face death themselves.
Due to the same Affirmative Action on steroids that we will have here when whites are a minority,
Hundreds of thousands of economically excluded Afrikaners now live in squalid squatter camps throughout South Africa without so much as running water or electricity.
Hundreds of thousands more have fled to Western nations seeking a better life.
They did the same when political correctness prevailed and Rhodesia (a.k.a. the Breadbasket of Africa) became the starving socialist hellhole Zimbabwe. Eventually whites will run out of places to run. By then it may be too late for self-defense.
The liberal media played a major role in bringing down apartheid, so it has little to say about the vastly worst system that replaced it. However, a recent BBC report did admit that
“Virtually every week the press here report the murders of white farmers, though you will not hear much about it in the media outside South Africa. In South Africa you are twice as likely to be murdered if you are a white farmer than if you are a police officer — and the police here have a particularly dangerous life. The killings of farmers are often particularly brutal.”
These murders often involve the death by torture of women and children. The Regime winks in tacit approval.
“The government has so far been unwilling to make solving and preventing these murders a priority,” the BBC report continued. …
The horrors have included drowning infants in boiling water, raping children, disemboweling whole families, dragging victims for miles behind a vehicle and other unimaginable atrocities.
If you aren’t fighting the “fundamental transformation” of America into a Third World country, you might be helping condemn your grandchildren to a similar fate.
Meanwhile, over 90% of farms stolen from whites are now failing, by the government’s own admission. It appears that shouting Marxist slogans imported from Western universities does not make the crops grow. The result in South Africa will be the same as it has been in Zimbabwe:
On a tip from DJ.
Posted by Defend the Modern World
I am not a moderate on the Islam-in-Europe debate. I do not want ‘European’ Muslims reformed, still less integrated. I oppose any kind of Muslim presence in Europe on the grounds of security and the preservation of liberal society. In my more sentimental moments, I long for a sublime evening of victory, when young Englanders toast with drinks and fireworks, a new, Muslim-free London.
So you see, my position has at least clarity on its side. What it lacks, still, is popular understanding or support. Who in Europe speaks openly such ideas?
“Lots of people!” might come back the answer, so let’s redesign the question.
Who in Europe with any power speaks such things?
The answer here is ‘a few’; a tiny clique, most members of it already familiar to one another, and to the rest of us. One of them is a Dutch politician named Geert Wilders.
Since 9/11, only Wilders has spoken clearly about the endgame of our confrontation with Islamism. While most are happy to state in a variety of new, tedious ways the nature of the problem, Wilders strides ahead into the (altogether more perilous) domain of how to fix it.
Who has the stomach to join him?
Not the Dutch apparently, who lamentably knocked the flame-haired hero out of the political mainstream in the 2012 election. The BBC said, at the time, that the Dutch had ‘bigger’ things on their mind than Wilders and his ‘fringe’ concerns….
Really? Like what? Europe, Taxes, Unemployment?
All of these will be become meaningless if Wilders is not re-embraced.
You see, the Islam/Europe battle is winner-takes-all. If the Muslims win, the Christians will be made extinct. If the Christians are to win, then Muslims must be made extinct from Christian nations. This understanding motivates the truest type of opposition to Islam in Europe. All others, however admirable, are falling short.
When Wilders elucidates his manifesto, mouths are typically left long and open. The politician is direct like a bullet, sharp like a meat cleaver and (most troubling for the bourgeois) entirely unconcerned with the sentiment of political correctness.
But however ‘horrifying’ they are, Wilders’ political views have behind them a very sensible moral realization – one that we must all, in time, heed for ourselves, and this is it -
Given that there are still many more Christians than Muslims in the Netherlands, the vital ethical measure concerns which option harms the greatest number – the forcible Islamisation of the 80% who do not currently profess Islam, or the Christianisation or expulsion of the 20% of the population who do, and the only sane, rational answer to this is the former. The second, though unpleasant, rescues us from the first.
Christopher Caldwell in his admirable but incomplete book ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’, went so far as to defend the idea that native Europeans have a moral right to say who should enter their countries and who should not. Perhaps predictably, reviewers were violently shocked by this. Caldwell you see, is not some fringe lunatic, but a lead writer for the Financial Times of London. And yet here he was, openly promoting a selective immigration policy!
Such outrage as greeted Caldwell’s book, demonstrates how much work still has to be done on this debate. If people are shocked by the suggestion that future immigration must be modified for the sake of social cohesion, how distant they must be from the idea that previous immigration must be modified.
Perhaps they understand that there is only one way of modifying immigration that has already taken place, and that is deportation. Wilders, alone in the political class, has recognised this, and has spoken of his intentions to work towards that end.
If you find Wilders shocking now, then brace yourself for a surprisingly ‘shocking’ future. Islamisation in Europe is an entirely safe prediction, or as safe as can be made. The sturdy force of mathematics supports it. We know that the number of Muslims will increase, and because of those increasing numbers that the number of converts will also grow, and because of those conversions that the number of excited Islamists taking up arms will rise too. Information like this should terrify anyone who believes in a liberal, tolerant society.
After the 2012 elections, Wilders is politically alone. He is jogging on ahead, as if in a different race to those behind him.
But he isn’t, and if he loses, we all do.
From Defend the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
April, 10, 2013 — nicedeb
Mark Levin spent a good portion of his show, Tuesday combatting the notion that the Second Amendment is not under attack as Senators prepare to vote on the Democrat’s (as yet unseen) gun control package on Thursday.
He argued that the federal government does not have the power to propose any law that abridges or constricts the Second Amendment of the United States.
“The 2nd Amendment like the rest of the bill of rights is part of the constitution”, he explained. “It exists as protection against usurpation by against the very congress that is now debating its very existence! The 2nd Amendment belongs to you and me! ….Like the rest of the Constitution. It’s not up for grabs! Is the Senate holding a Constitutional Convention?!”
He went on to say, “it’s important to realize that this Thursday, the Senate intends to vote on changing the 2nd Amendment without any pretense of going through the constitutional Amendment processes. The Senate is meeting as if its a Constitutional Convention and it can do whatever it damn well wants to do!”
An up or down vote on 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional,” Levin fumed. “There are no up or down votes on the Constitution!”
“On top of that, we have no idea what specific law is even being proposed”, he continued. “It’s Tuesday evening. We have no idea what they’re going to debate on Thursday. And yet, you have Democrats of course, and Republicans as well, insisting that we pass this law or that law without the benefit of a single hearing. Without the benefit of public notice of any kind. This is not ‘little r republicanism!’ He thundered, ”this is Democratic tyranny!”
From Nice Deb: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/
02 Tuesday Apr 2013
“Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam. And Italy is an outpost of that province, a stronghold of that colony…In each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Quran. A stage of Islamic expansion.”
The most beautiful, talented and inspiring political writer of the millennial age was an Italian named Oriana Fallaci.
Her name, so musically pleasant to hear and say, unlocks a reputation of beauty, courage and indefatigability (let’s not allow that last word to be forever tarnished by Mr Galloway).
Fallaci wrote, before most of us had found our bearings on the issue, the two greatest books about the Islamisation of Europe ever written – “The Rage and the Pride” and “The Force of Reason”.
These volumes are not like any other book on the subject published before or since. They are written not by an academic, or a soapbox agitator, but by a witness to history of the first rank. The language used in the expression of their content is so passionate, well-chosen and spiritual, it easily ascends to poetry. While the books aren’t particularly complex, they reward slow and thoughtful reading and settle eventually more as philosophy than journalism.
Praise for Ms Fallaci (particularly in her native Italy) often takes on a tone reminiscent of Saint-worship. This is easily explained. As a polemicist, she wrote with an emotional, Latin urgency which tends to either greatly repel or greatly endear.
When her writing repels, it shocks. When it endears, it turns one from an admirer into a devotee.
Fallaci’s prematurity created a strong and strange mystique, much like that which attaches to George Orwell and his lonely stand against prevailing orthodoxies. Fallaci like Orwell, got to the point of the era before the intellectuals. She had the correct answer before the question was widely known. To protest against Muslim immigration now is common-sense, but when Fallaci wrote those books, it was regarded as outrageous racism. Her willingness to be misunderstood in this respect truly deserves the epithet ‘heroic’.
Fallaci was instrumental in waking up the Western intellect to the horror of Muslim immigration (and not just terrorism). Her books predate those which made the anti-Islamisation position easy and fashionable. Her volumes never topped the bestseller stands either here or in Europe. She tragically died of cancer before her opinions were vindicated or broadly accepted. As terrible as such facts are, they have served to embalm her reputation from the arrows of her (numerous) critics.
Fallaci’s physical beauty greatly amplifies the effect of her writing. This brilliant, beautiful, empowered Italian woman when compared against the house-bound wretches of the Islamic World adds great emphasis to our struggle. How could we give up the cultural foundations which allow for this superior kind of womanhood?
Age and ill-health never completely diminished Fallaci’s appearance. At 75, she still looked like a film star. The fight for liberty never looked so dignified.
Leftists – of course – continue to despise her. For as long as they do this, I will despise Leftists. On dozens of occasions liberals have trotted out the same Fallaci quote in which she complains that Muslim immigrants ‘breed like rats’ and held it up as if it was a bleeding knife, hard evidence of some kind of nascent National Socialism in her personality.
But this is ridiculous. As a metaphor, it is nicely to the point and entirely correct. Muslim immigrants are breeding like rats. Rats, rabbits, bacteria…whatever you might want to compare it to, that is what they are doing, and should it continue, we will end up with a continent burning with hatred and war.
Fallaci’s tone was often furious, even – some say - ’fanatical’, but since our enemies are so easily enlivened by the dictats of Sharia law, we could do worse than become fanatical about our own beliefs and virtues. The Muslims are fanatical about the need for women to be veiled. We can (and should) match that fanaticism with a desire that they should remain free. Let’s not be afraid of anger, even less of passion.
As we go forward in the struggle to avoid the destiny she forewarned us of, Fallaci’s books must be our manifesto. I will continue to read her and take encouragement from her words. I hope that she will not be forgotten now that her views have become widespread. No-one has yet matched her tone of moral anger, her poetry, her cruel exactness. Her words still perfectly define our challenge….
“There are moments in Life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation. A civic duty, a moral challenge, a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape.”
From Defending the Modern World: http://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/
Thursday, February 28, 2013
At Hot Dish Politics, “Gruenhagen: Homosexuality is a ‘sexual addiction’“:
One of the [Minnesota] Legislature’s most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage says homosexuality is a choice and form of sexual addiction.
“It’s an unhealthy, sexual addiction,” state Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen said Wednesday.
The Glencoe Republican said he has a friend who ran a sexual addiction clinic. “He helped many homosexuals and other people come out of the lifestyle.”
Gruenhagen made the statements after advocates unveiled their proposal to legalize same-sex marriage, which would make Minnesota among nearly a dozen states that allow gays and lesbians to wed.
“When we talk about gay marriage, we are not talking about an immutable characteristic, like the color of your skin.” Gruenhagen said. Referencing a decade- old genome study, he added: “There is no gay gene. The concept that there is a gay gene is an unscientific lie.”
More at that top link.
PREVIOUSLY: “Yes, Homosexuality’s a Lifestyle Choice.”
The direct result of Britain’s suicidal “multiculturalism” policies.
LONDON — Fringe Muslim television channels in the UK have been reprimanded for allowing extremists to say their views unchallenged, such as gay people should be tortured.
Regulatory watchdog OFCOM has found the stations broke the broadcasting code by allowing the extreme opinions to be aired.
In one case, a female presenter said homosexuals should be beaten and tortured for the ‘evil, shameful act’.
The Radio Asian Fever host, named ‘Sister Ruby Ramadan’ said: ‘Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.’
Radio Asian Fever, based in Leeds, England, was fined £4000 ($6300, €4600) for allowing it to air.
Another broadcast by Noor TV was criticised by Ofcom for ‘serious breaches’, and highlighted how inflammatory talk can incite violence.
The show said: ‘There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one disagrees about this.’
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The English Defence League has just posted an update on Tommy Robinson’s situation. The most important thing is Tommy’s new address at Wayland Prison. People are encouraged to send cards and notes to that address, and also money orders, since he lacks all ready cash to spend inside:
Remember: DO NOT address mail to “Tommy Robinson” or mention the EDL, as these actions are considered grounds for withholding correspondence.
The latest news on Tommy is not encouraging, but hardly unexpected. The prison authorities have clearly been instructed to make their well-known guest as miserable as possible.
Visiting time has been cut from two hours to 70 minutes, so that Tommy’s children get that much less time to spend with their father. Scheduled visits have been reassigned from the customary 2pm to 9am, forcing his family to get up before dawn on the days that they travel to see him. Then, when they arrive, the abbreviated visiting period makes the circumstances that much more difficult and painful.
As the EDL report notes:
The more anger they generate, people become more determined, more resolute, and more likely to fight harder than ever before. The EDL is not something to be subdued or pressured into capitulation which is why they are dong their upmost to cause Tommy maximum upset for the remainder of his sentence.
Tommy reports that a Muslim inmate spits through his cell door on a daily basis, while the guards look on and do nothing. When he remonstrated with one of the guards, referring to the Muslim prisoner as “a dirty tramp”, the guard was concerned only that the Muslim’s feelings might have been hurt by Tommy’s words.
Tommy resorted to blocking his door with tissue paper to keep the spittle out, but was disciplined for doing so.
As the EDL says, “The prison system really want to break him and are certainly going the extra mile to make that happen.” They urge their supporters to make complaints on Tommy’s behalf using this letter as a model, making appropriate adjustments to the text in light of recent updates.
Read more at the English Defence League website.
From Gates of Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.net
AUSTRALIA: New legislation could make it unlawful to wear a cross if another person (i.e., Muslim) is offended because of that person’s religion
The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012
An unprecedented threat to freedom of speech and thought
On 20 November 2012, the Commonwealth Attorney-General made public an Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 (‘the Bill’). The Bill was referred to an inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Submissions to the inquiry close on 21 December 2012, with its report due by 18 February 2013.
The Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 makes a number of significant changes to anti- discrimination law in Australia, including:
• broadening the definition of discrimination to include conduct that ‘offends’ and ‘insults’ (clause 19-2)
• making it easier for a person to claim they were discriminated against, by requiring them to establish only that they were personally offended, not that a reasonable person would have been offended (cl 19-2)
• expanding the range of personal characteristics against which it is unlawful to discriminate, to include not only matters such as disability, race, and religion, but also ‘political opinion’ and ‘social origin’ (cl 17-1)
• reducing the legal protection of a person accused of discrimination, by: declaring them guilty unless they prove their innocence, i.e. the ‘onus of proof’ is reversed (cl 124-1) restricting their right to legal representation (cl 110-4) requiring them to pay all the costs of their own defence even if they are found to be innocent (cl 133)
If passed into law, the intended consequences of such a draconian Bill are far-reaching.
Impact on freedom of speech and thought
• Almost any comment about anything has the potential to offend someone under the Bill. There would be a chilling effect on freedom of speech and thought if someone could claim the expression of a political viewpoint insulted them and was therefore discriminatory.
• The consequences of the Bill go beyond restricting speech. Flying the Australian flag would be unlawful if a person felt such an action insulted them on the basis of their political opinion.
Impact on freedom of religion
• The Bill would make it unlawful for a person to publicly express their religious belief (for example, by wearing a crucifix) if another person was offended because of that other person’s religion. (How about wearing a burqa or headbag?)
• The Bill would also make it unlawful to debate religion and religious practices if another person was offended because of their religion.
Government officials gain enormous power
• Both the potential grounds of discrimination in the Bill—such as a person’s political opinion or their social origin—and the defences against claims of discrimination—such as the conduct being ‘in good faith’ and having a ‘legitimate aim’ (cl 23-3)—are unclear and vague. These ambiguous terms give bureaucrats and judges broad discretionary power to determine the boundaries of lawful behaviour.
• Discrimination on the grounds of political opinion and social origin is unlawful if it is in connection with ‘work and work-related areas’ (cl 22-3). These terms are so broad as to potentially apply to spheres of activity well beyond the workplace. Furthermore, the government intends to take a ‘broad’ interpretation of what constitutes ‘work- related areas.’
Process and penalties
• An accusation of unlawful discrimination starts a legal process that could last years. Complaints are heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Federal Magistrates Court, or the Federal Court of Australia. Penalties for unlawful discrimination range from a forced apology, to the payment of monetary damages, to court-ordered censorship (cl 125).
To read the IPA’s submission visit Freedom Watch IPA or for more information contact: Simon Breheny, Director, IPA Legal Rights Project, 0400 967 382, firstname.lastname@example.org
From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Obama’s second inauguration speech consisted largely of platitudes and meaningless double talk to pad out the red meat moonbattery, but even some of his most seemingly nonsensical duckspeak will inspire authoritarians and chill the hearts of Americans. For example,
“Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”
If that means anything, it doesn’t mean anything good — especially coming from a guy who has made obvious his extreme hostility to our most fundamental individual liberties: the rights to life, to acquire property, and to defend ourselves.
Image compliments of Sean C.
Obama will need to keep greasing the slippery slope if we are going to catch up to Belgium:
Two deaf twin brothers in Belgium were euthanized by their doctor after realizing they were going blind and would be unable to see each other ever again, their physician says.
The 45-year-old men, whose names have not been made public, were legally put to death by lethal injection at the Brussels University Hospital in Jette, on Dec. 14.
Their condition was not terminal — at least, not until it was treated by euthanasia.
Still the masterminds push boldly forward into our utopian progressive future:
Belgian lawmakers are considering a law that would extend euthanasia to dementia patients and children, whose families and doctors consented.
The next step after this is predictable: just remove the consent. After all, under socialized medicine, useless eaters are a burden to everyone, not just their families.
On tips from Muddypaw and Matt L.
The Wise Words of Churchill – It is Being Played Out Again By Those Who Will Render The USA Defense-less
THE MUNICH AGREEMENT – 1938
Excerpt of the speech given by Churchill in response to this agreement with Germany
Barrack Hussein Obama is willfully and purposely neglecting and dismantling the defense and protection of the United States of America and retreating from our enemies that he was sworn to defend this country from – the same way that politicians did in England prior to World War II and now the United States is being reduced to such a state of weakness that we may never recover. Obama is a lying tyrant and hell bent on the destruction of the United States of America. May God have mercy on us and raise up another Churchill to wake the people of this great country out of their, as Churchill put it, “Chloroformed acquiescence” and stupor administered by a state run press that Obama and his communist cronies control. It may already be too late. ZTW
…It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years – five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power, five years of neglect of our air defences.
Those are the features which I stand here to expose and which marked an improvident stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. We have been reduced in those five years from a position of security so overwhelming and so unchallengeable that we never cared to think about it. We have been reduced from a position where the very word “war” was considered one which could be used only by persons qualifying for a lunatic asylum. We have been reduced from a position of safety and power – power to do good, power to be generous to a beaten foe, power to make terms with Germany, power to give her proper redress for her grievances, power to stop her arming if we chose, power to take any step in strength or mercy or justice which we thought right – reduced in five years from a position safe and unchallenged to where we stand now.
… They should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defences; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies:
“Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.”
And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
We do not want to be led upon the high road to becoming a satellite of the German Nazi system of European domination. In a very few years, perhaps in a very few months, we shall be confronted with demands with which we shall no doubt be invited to comply. Those demands may affect the surrender of territory or the surrender of liberty. I foresee and foretell that the policy of submission will carry with it restrictions upon the freedom of speech and debate in Parliament, on public platforms, and discussions in the Press, for it will be said – indeed, I hear it said sometimes now – that we cannot allow the Nazi system of dictatorship to be criticised by ordinary, common English politicians. Then, with a Press under control, in part direct but more potently indirect, with every organ of public opinion doped and chloroformed into acquiescence, we shall be conducted along further stages of our journey.
From Winston Churchill.Org at: https://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/101-the-munich-agreement
Found at American Digest:http://americandigest.org/
London Evening Standard Sussex Police said “real anguish and anxiety” was caused to worshippers who witnessed the incident as they left the mosque at around 4pm last Tuesday.
Eating pork and products made from it is strictly forbidden in Islam. The arrested teenager, who is from the local area, has been freed on police bail pending further inquiries.
Sergeant Jim Collen, of Sussex Police, said: “This was a very unpleasant incident which has naturally caused real anguish and anxiety amongst worshippers at the mosque. (Oh please, grow up)
“Sussex Police take all reports of hate crime extremely seriously and this investigation will be no exception.” (That’s right, ignore all the Muslim sex groomers of young white girls and focus on the ham throwers)
Disorder which broke out following the incident was also being investigated, police said. Mr Collen said: “We are aware of a relatively minor altercation that we hope to resolve using our restorative justice programme. “It must not be allowed to take the focus away from our investigation of the hate crime as this remains our priority.” (And you wonder why your country is turning into an Islamic hellhole)
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/