Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind.(Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)
We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948) With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last.(Friends of Israel Initiative)
Showing posts with label Leftwing Hypocrisy and Double Standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leftwing Hypocrisy and Double Standards. Show all posts
Oh, the clueless vandals who think every white man in period costume was a villain whose statues deserve oblivion, what ignorant reverse racists they are. Take, for instance, this egregious example, which may be taken as symbolic of the rest.
Talking of history, do you know your New Testament? In Chapter 8 of the Acts of the Apostles (verse 27 to be exact) there is a reference to "Candace, queen of the Ethopians". Some scholars tell us that Candace was not, as might be thought, the name of a person, but of a dynasty. Others suggest that the term might have meant "queen mother".
No matter. The English Puritans and others who have given their daughters this name have understandably assumed that it means "queen". And who is the best known bearer of it at the present day? Step forward the brave and beautiful Ms Candace Owens, a voice of sense and moderation amid the present race warfare.
Here she is, in a video issued by Prager University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY3zbL7trhE
Meanwhile here is BLM activist Shaun King, who's sounding foolish, fascistic and sinister with his reverse racism.
I mean, look whose statue is in his sights, and why:
Deservedly, he's meeting opposition and ridicule:
Writing in The Spectator, the distinguished British journalist Charles Moore has King's measure, as well as that of the fools who meekly give into them. Inter alia:
'.... I had a cousin by marriage called Lawrence Durdin-Robertson. After ten years as an Anglican parson, he returned to his ancestral home, Clonegal Castle, in Ireland. There he gradually came to the view that God had been (or rather, is) a woman. He and his sister eventually founded the Fellowship of Isis, dedicated to this proposition, whose temple is in the castle basement. Lawrence, who, as the Fellowship of Isis puts it, ‘made his transition to spirit’ in 1994, was hardline, and tended, when he saw statues of Jesus with a beard, to break the beards off. I am glad he thrived pre-Twitter, so that his ideas did not spread much further than Co. Carlow. No such luck with today’s equivalents.
Shaun King is a well-known and noisy activist associated with Black Lives Matter, who fell out with some of them because there was sharp disagreement about how black he really was. Now Mr King is tweeting: ‘Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went? EGYPT! Not Denmark. Tear them down.’ It is only a matter of time before people of Shaun King’s mind scour our churches and cathedrals for depictions — readily available, of course — of the ‘white European’ Jesus, and do as he suggests. How will the bench of bishops react then? I suspect they will express their collective repentance for being what the Archbishop of Canterbury calls ‘deeply institutionally racist’ and take the knee amid the rubble and the dust.
By the way, I suggest Mr King add Michelangelo’s David to his list: there a Middle Eastern king is disgracefully recast by a white European as a white European, uncircumcised penis and all. Tear it down! .....' [Emphasis added]
Strange how anti-female outrages of this sort evoke scarce a whimper of protest from today's feministas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufv0lym6peE
Or how that staunch feminist, Julia Gillard, in 2013 when Australian prime minister, specifically exempted Islam from scrutiny by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that proceeded to probe Christian and Jewish ones with gusto.
This new Prager University video, featuring Heather Higgins, chairman of the Independent Women's Forum and CEO of Independent Women's Voice, takes a wee look at the hypocrisy of the media sisterhood.
Here's a video that the BBC's inadequate "Middle East editor" Jeremy Bowen, and fellow Beeboid Paul Danahar, with their fuzzy conception of the Muslim Brotherhood, might like to watch and inwardly digest.
It shows an interview that Syrian intellectual Hashem Saleh gave on 19 April this year on Sky News Arabia TV (Abu Dhabi), in which he maintains that the Muslim Brotherhood, is "the most dangerous group" in Islam's history, the "mother" of other radical groups such as ISIS,
Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. He argues that the biggest problem facing Arabs and Muslims
is a "theological problem" and that Arab civilization must abandon the Muslim
Brotherhood and its ideology so that it can "rise anew."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzCAQJWWs6g
A Memri.org video
Meanwhile, from The Clarion Project:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6_QK7LbhVw
Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, explains the dangers in breeding child soldiers and why ISIS is successful in doing so. https://kidsthemovie.com/
Talking of the BBC, check out Hadar Saleh's exposé of the Corporation's recent despicably biased (against Israel) offerings on Newsbeat, intended for young adults.
Oh, and for hypocrisy, check out this Twitter thread, regarding recently deceased former Aussie prime minister Bob Hawke, a man who was serially unfaithful to and ultimately left his long-suffering wife Hazel, mother of his five children (one deceased in infancy, one aborted in order to convenience his career), who "cavorted" with topless go-go dancers and used the obnoxious c**t word.
Now just imagine how Jezza, Mike and the lefties would react had that been Donald Trump!
In the wake of the Christchurch atrocity, New Zealand's female (and feminist!) prime minister, along with the female mayor of Christchurch, covered their heads with hijabs out of "respect" for their Muslim fellow-citizens, and numerous of their non-Muslim countrywomen followed their example, including a policewoman and several news anchors.
Aussie columnist and Sky News host Rita Panahi, American-born of Iranian parentage, knows a thing or two about the oppression of women that the hijab represents, as pointed out here and here and here,
'Sky News host Rita Panahi says World Hijab Day, celebrated on February
1, is a betrayal of the most oppressed women in the world.
Ms Panahi says a woman celebrating modesty culture like the hijab, ‘is
like a slave celebrating their chains’ and it shows how regressive
modern feminism has become.
She says celebrating the hijab and burqa ‘is utterly perverse and has no
place in a civilised society that values equality’.....
Women in New Zealand are being encouraged to wear hijabs to show solidarity to the Muslim community after the Christchurch massacre.... [T]he hijab is being forced on millions of oppressed women across the world and was invented by men to be imposed on women to ‘control, separate and subjugate’ and that the NZ campaign is 'misguided and counterproductive'.... [T]he garment is 'imbued with deep symbolism' and represents a pernicious 'modesty culture.'....
New Zealand women who donned the hijab following the Christchurch massacre were "well-intended, but ill-considered and ignorant".... {W]omen in some Muslim nations are being beaten and locked up for fighting against the hijab and "we have a responsibility as free women in the West to stand by our subjugated sisters rather than give comfort to their oppressors". [T]he hijab is "not just a piece of cloth", but rather "imbued with deep meaning" and "at the centre of a fight for equality and human rights".
Ruchika Sharma, a doctoral student at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, is also aghast at the New Zealanders' actions, and in this article she explains the misogynistic reasoning behind the hijab (lit. "curtain") and its imposition on Muslim women. Her article concludes:
"The oppressive origins of hijab, have made it an active a tool to
subjugate Muslim women. In countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia
forced veiling is practiced that has led to scores of protests by women
in these countries. The lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh has only recently been
sentenced to 38 years in prison, and 148 lashes, for representing women
who defied Iran’s hijab laws.
As if the upholding of an oppressive symbol was not damaging enough,
New Zealand’s Scarves in Solidarity movement also stereotypes Muslim
women, many of whom do not wear the headscarf. It presupposes, in the
most orientalist manner, that hijab-clad women are the norm in the
Muslim community.
Considering the hijab as a synonym for the Muslims not only
disadvantages women actively fighting against its enforcement but also
has a deleterious effect on womanhood in general. It marginalizes women
as merely a property of the community.
Proponents of New Zealand’s Scarves in Solidarity regards hijab as a
neutral symbol of Muslim identity. Yet, if symbols of oppression could
be purged of their exploitative histories in a day, feminism would have
already triumphed. Associated with the hijab is centuries of suppression
and body policing. Using it to show solidarity is to marginalize the
women actively fighting against its enforcement and yearning to break
free."
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical
allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such
as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish
conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or
other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people
of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a
single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or
intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of
National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during
World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
"[O]n Israel, on the Jewish State, suddenly freedom of speech becomes important to them. The Corbyn crew is reluctant to adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism because they think it will undermine the freedom to denounce and mock and ridicule Israel. This is literally the only time I have heard Corbynistas defend freedom of speech. The only freedom that excites them is the freedom to say Israel is foul, Israeli leaders are Nazi-esque, and British Jews might be a tad disloyal to Britain.
As I say, double standards. Jews and Jewish issues are always treated differently by Corbynistas. And there’s a word for that: prejudice...." [Emphasis added]
Double standards appear to be discernible in these interviews by the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire, who closely quizzes and frequently interrupts Mark Lewis (a prominent lawyer) and Mandy Blumenthal (whom she ludicrously describes as a member of the non-existent UK Zionist Party!) regarding their perceptions of antisemitism, in contrast to her interview with three Muslims regarding "Islamophobia".
To quote a certain indefatigable pro-Israel activist, commenting on Facebook:
"Derbyshire's interviewing of Mark Lewis and Mandy Blumenthal was appalling. She pretended there was no antisemitism in Labour. She simply read out Corbyn's statements. She was like his press spokesperson. Shameful. She even told Blumenthal she is a member of the 'UK Zionist Party'! Such ignorance. There is no such Party."
At top left, an anti-Israel Aussie academic's take on Gothenburg University student Elin Ersson's much-publicised action in holding up a passenger plane to prevent the deportation from Sweden of a failed asylum seeker back to Afghanistan.
I'll sweep aside for now the noisome reality of increasingly islamicised Sweden and what it portends for people with two X chromosomes such as such as Ms Ersson herself, but the Danish woman in this video nicely indicates the problem facing Swedes in general and the female of the species in particular.
It's that "white privilege" trope that's so utterly bizarre.
After all, there's nothing privileged about being the white victim of an "Asian" Muslim rape gang.
We see this bizarre mindset in the numerous western feminist condemnations of misogyny committed by white men and the same women's studied neglect of, and consequent failure to condemn misogyny committed by non-white men against women of all colours.
And we see the double standard it engenders in barrister Dafydd Enoch QC's defence of a Muslim father living in the UK city of Leeds, who with his wife tricked his teenage daughter (UK-born, westernised and hoping to study at university) into travelling to rural Bangladesh, where she was married off against her will:
“These events are not borne [sic; BBC spelling] out of malice, hate, greed or prejudice. They were borne [sic] of deep-seated culture.”
(Reminiscent of a "progressive" young male schoolteacher who indignantly told my then schoolboy son, when the lad compared the oppression of women in most Middle Eastern countries to the Apartheid in South Africa that the teacher was talking about, that the Arabs' attitude to women is "part of their culture" and dismissed the misogyny as of no importance.)
All praise, therefore, to Jacinta Price, a councillor in the famous Outback town Alice Springs and an aspiring parliamentarian, who on last night's The Bolt Report on Sky TV, denounced the current leftist trend to blame the very high level of violence against women in aboriginal communities to the enduring impact of white colonialism on aboriginal males.
Ms Price, of joint aboriginal and Celtic heritage, did not resile from laying a large part of the blame for that violence on the misogynistic elements inherent within traditional aboriginal culture. That's heresy in leftist eyes, but as Ms Price pointed out, to deny the aboriginal people responsibility for their own actions and portray them only in terms of white victimhood is to infantilise and insult them.
Nor she been slow to call out the ABC (Australia's answer to the BBC) for its approach to the question of Islamic misogyny, as in this social media post involving ABC darling Yassmin-Abdel-Magied, who on the ABC's QandA program described Islam as a feminist religion. What a breath of fresh air Ms Price brings to the public arena: long and strong may she flourish!
A rather complicated examination of globalist Left-Liberalism here. From about 12:25 we hear Sargon Akkad regarding Jews, and declaring that "Jewish people have to stop the identity politics. I'm sorry about the Holocaust but I don't give a shit." A clip featuring Alan Dershowitz follows: "We have earned the right to be heard".
Invoking, inter alia, Labour Party antisemitism and Saudi Arabian antisemitism, a UKIP member of the London Assembly, David Kurten, runs rings around London mayor Sadiq Khan regarding the latter's attitude towards President Trump.
What a rum lot! It sounds like a dirge to me, a wail of derision against the execrable Labour leader. But alas, it's a tribute to him, on the part of old and not so old lefties, anti-Americans and unilateral nuclear disarmament advocates at a "Don't Bomb Syria" demo in London recently:
The screengrab at left is from a video that the Vlad Tepes blog uploaded on Youtube some hours ago.
To quote Vlad himself: "Youtube pulled this video and gave me a “community guidelines” strike on my channel .I guess we aren’t to know how things are in Germany today."
He then posted it to Bitchute, and you can see the brief but disturbing footage here
Meanwhile, a brave young woman, Freya from Cologne, talks frankly and fearlessly about the menace that the mass migration of unvetted Muslim males into Europe is having upon the continent's girls and women.
It's not the sort of talk we hear too often from Western "feminists".
Nor from Western liberals in general, all too prone, it seems, to sacrifice the rights of women, including Muslim women oppressed by their own culture, on the altar of political correctness. (Instructive if depressing article here)
To quote the wonderful Professor Emerita Phyllis Chesler, a Jew and a Zionist and one of a mere handful of high-profile Western feminists who have not betrayed the cause in the face of creeping islamisation:
'.... My generation of feminists believed in universal human rights. We were not multi-cultural relativists. We called out misogyny when we saw it and did not exempt a rapist, a wife-beater, or a pedophile because he was poor (his victims were also poor); or a man of color (his victims were also people of color); or because he had an abused childhood (so did his victims)....An honor killing is the cold-blooded murder of girls and women simply because they are female. Being born female in a shame-and-honor culture is, potentially, a capital crime; every girl has to keep proving that she is not dishonoring her family; even so, an innocent girl can be falsely accused and killed on the spot....
In honor killings, murders are carefully planned conspiracies and may be perpetrated by multiple family-of-origin members. Brothers, uncles, fathers, and other male relatives usually commit the murder, although mothers have also been known to collaborate in the murders of their daughters; sometimes, they are hands-on perpetrators.
Batterers who murder in the West are usually acting in an unplanned and spontaneous way. They alone are the perpetrators. Their own families do not assist them nor does the victim’s family-of-origin. In the West, fathers rarely murder their teenage daughters. This is what happens in a classic honor killing.
Honor killings in the West are sometimes marked by excessive violence, such as repeated stabbing, raping, bludgeoning, or being set aflame. Such killings are similar to what serial killers do to unknown, often prostituted, women.
In the West, batterers and wife killers are not celebrated—they are shunned. If possible, they are also prosecuted. Hindus in India, and Muslims, worldwide, who commit honor killings, are viewed as heroes who have saved their family’s honor. Thus, they feel no shame or remorse....Only those who believe that it is shameful to expose anything negative about Muslims, especially if it is true, silence such exposure by “shaming” it as racist and “Islamophobic.”....'
A brave man speaks out on the evil wrought by the so-called Progressives in the West who are destroying all that the Enlightenment stood for, seek to silence and criminalise opinions with which they do not agree, slur their opponents as far-right fascists and racists, and try to destroy careers.
Yes, it's Pat Condell, with a damning indictment of the anti-Israel islamophile "cultural Marxists" who have betrayed real liberal values including the right to free speech and women's rights ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trAyp5XXQgo
Meanwhile, an Aussie Jewish progressive writes ...
And another anti-Pipes Progressive, of the female islamophile variety, writes ...
Both on the ABC's (akin to the BBC) website, of course.
I wonder what those Progressives have to say about this
What strange dudes lefties are. I mean, really! Justin Trudeau and his family don their versions of Indian garb and manage to offend their hosts in the process.
Isn't this sort of thing what lefties normally call "cultural appropriation" anyway? Hoist by their own petard!
Here, while visiting a Delhi mosque, the Canadian prime minister wears western dress while the female chattels daughter and the missus are fully wrapped up in misogynistic Islamic fashion.
Such over-the-top hypocrisy! Such a betrayal of women and girls. More fool the wife for going along with it.
A not irrelevant new article from Giulio Meotti, here:
A 24-minute look at the anti-white agenda that with the Left's blessing is destroying Swedish civilisation, symbolised by the treatment of ancient artefacts, but not confined to them alone, as the tenets of another "culture" fills the vacuum caused by a country indoctrinated with self-loathing, one prepared to suborn the rights and safety of women and Jews to a misogynistic and antisemitic mindset that the warped Left has placed above criticism ...
(Hat tip: Vlad Tepes blog)
On the "feminist" Swedish government's horrifying sellout to Islamic misogynists see Bruce Bawer's powerful article here
Yesterday (26 January) was Australia Day, a public holiday Down Under, when many people surf, swim, picnic in the parks and on the beaches, and of course chuck another shrimp on the barbie. And talking of beaches, here's a snapshot that's just gone viral on social media, attracting numerous adverse comments:
I don't know what beach this sign went up on, nor who made it. But one thing's certain: it's not a sign under official auspices, for there are no official bodies by the titles given. It's a fake. So all the people getting their budgie smugglers in a twist can relax.
Far more worthy of condemnation was the violence and anti-white racism on display at some of the indigenous and pro-indigenous rallies demanding an end to Australia Day each 26 January in commemoration of the First Fleet's arrival in Botany Bay on 26 January 1788, marking the beginning of European settlement.
Many Australians have sympathy with those who believe that celebrating Australia Day on what indigenous people consider and dub "Invasion Day" is divisive. Many Australians take the point entirely of people who believe that 1 January (the day in 1901 that Australia became a federated nation) is more appropriate. One of the numerous supporters of the latter view is respected political figure and aboriginal leader Walter Mundine, a member of the Bunjalong people of northern coastal New South Wales, but he was not slow to condemn some of the participants in yesterday's Invasion Day marches as extremist troublemakers.
Take, for instance, the "Invasion Day" rally in Melbourne yesterday which degenerated into an anti-white hatefest at which the organiser ranted "F**k Australia, hope it burns to the ground" and at which spectators at the official celebrations were jeered at, insulted, and spat upon.
The history of aboriginal-European relations in Australia is fraught with controversy, with historians (Geoffrey Blainey, Keith Windschuttle) who have dared to present a view at odds with the prevailing view of white-inflicted deliberate genocide castigated if not virtually demonised. It's become fashionable to deride Captain Cook, the gifted British navigator who "discovered" Australia in 1770, as a harbinger of genocide and the post-1788 settlers as colluding in genocide, in a way that smacks of anti-white racism and holds up the British collectively as a race of villains.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-42813211
It's a component of that anti-white racism that, as seen, inter alia, in the Black Lives Matter movement, continues to gather pace. Indeed, this presentation of whites as almost inherently evil is becoming odiously common. (With some left-liberal Jews on the bandwagon. They should look at this Australia Day video and think again.)
As popular conservative columnist Andrew Bolt wrote here, universities are subscribing to the perfidy.
'Serious explorations into race should focus on the problem of whiteness and be grounded in the claim that it’s a hegemonic “power apparatus,” a Fairfield University professor suggested at a recent conference aimed at pushing “radical social change” in higher education.
The remarks from associate professor of philosophy Dr. Kris Sealey, who spoke about her strategies for discussing race in the classroom, were presented at a diversity conference for employees of Jesuit colleges.
“So more and more, the courses that I teach on race have become courses in which I expect my students to engage in the hegemonic power of whiteness,” said Sealey, who’s taught courses such as “Black Lives Matter” and “Critical Race Theory.”...'
In August California's Stanford University foreshadowed
'a class this fall called “White Identity Politics,” during which
students will “survey the field of whiteness studies” and discuss the
“possibilities of … abolishing whiteness,” according to the course
description.
Citing pundits who say “the 2016 Presidential election marks the rise
of white identity politics in the United States,” the upper-level
anthropology seminar will draw “from the field of whiteness studies and
from contemporary writings that push whiteness studies in new
directions.”
Questions to be posed throughout the semester include: “Does white
identity politics exist?” and “How is a concept like white identity to
be understood in relation to white nationalism, white supremacy, white
privilege, and whiteness?”....'
In October Australia's Deakin University held this exercise in reverse racism, flushed out by Bolt:
'Don’t Talk to white People: On The Epistemological and Rhetorical
Limitations of Conversations with white People for Anti-Racist Purposes:
Productive dialogue with white people for anti-racist purposes is
precluded by the political limits prescribed by the “principle of
interest convergence,” (Bell 1980) occluded by the epistemological
condition of “white ignorance,”... Nevertheless, much popular effort is
spent—dare I say wasted—in attempts to talk white people out of their
racism... Consequently, I propose that we stop talking to white
people—or as I will describe them throughout this paper, following James
Baldwin, ‘those-who-think-of-themselves-as-white.’ (Baldwin 1998). This
paper examines why we should refrain from engaging in such
conversations, noting the difficulties and problems associated with the
discursive orientation toward whiteness.
[and]
Playing Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds: Racist Anti-Racism in Academia:
This paper examines anti-racism in academia by way of a close reading of popular tropes around the epistemic liberation of people of colour in academic contexts. To this end, I examine several films, beginning with Dangerous Minds, and deconstruct their narratives, which I argue are all reducible to a variation of ‘the white saviour’ narrative...
With action deemed to be white, anti-racism is taken to be dependent on generous or virtuous white action. Even in academia, I argue, the dominant understanding of anti-racism is predicated on a racist white messianism - a more just future is taken to be predicated on white administration, white theorisation, white publications, white generosity, white patronage. I offer in its stead a model of epistemic justice that rejects white salvation.'..."
'A two-day professional development conference [which] aimed to help white employees deal with their “whiteness” so they could become better equipped to fight for social justice causes, according to organizers.
The whiteness session utilized the “Privileged Identity Exploration Model” to help white participants explore the “discomfort” of their “white identity,” according to organizers....
[University of Iowa professor Sherry]Watt states there are eight defenses people use to avoid recognizing their privilege. Examples of defenses include “denial,” where someone simply refuses to admit their privilege, and “minimization,” where someone trivializes the impact of their privilege.'
And there are a lot more where those came from, including this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDWn0Q7tqg
Here's recent social media post by an (anti-Israel) Australian academic:
Nobody on the left calls it out for the prejudice that it is. People who dare to point out that misogyny and wife-bashing were and often are characteristic of what used to be termed "Third World" cultures risk obloquy.
And, of course, anti-white racism directly informs sections of the anti-Israel movement:
For a variation on which theme see Dr Mike Lumish's article here
“Every day we have people who are hurt, every day we have people who are insulted," French Jewish leader Richard Abitbol has been quoted as saying recently.
"We can be hurt by words, but we don’t mind, but when we are hurt by a knife, a gun, you can’t say I don’t mind. In a few decades, there will be no Jews in France. And there is also a problem in Europe. There are almost no Jews now, they are leaving. So, it’s terrible what I will say, but Europe is continuing in peace what Hitler had done by war."
And now comes this report, of a kosher store near Paris being set alight. That's cultural enrichment for you.
The threat to European civilisation, to the values of the Enlightenment, to Jews, and to women's rights, posed by the inexorable mass migration of Muslims into Europe, does, of course, agitate many minds concerned for the future of the continent, with foreboding expressed by numerous well-informed and decent people including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Melanie Phillips, and Mark Steyn, to name a mere handful.
Their warnings, which should make free peoples everywhere pause for thought, seem to cut no ice with the Australian-based so-called Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI), a high-handed censorious thought-policing organisation about which I've blogged several times before.
What would appear to be its increasing focus on right-wing "hate speech" seems to be borne out by a recent article by the OHPI's CEO (and, whisper it softly, sole staffer?) Dr Andre Oboler on the Jewish website J-Wire:
'After Charlottesville American attitudes on Hate Speech are shifting....
The gap between violent extremism and hate speech has narrowed after the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017.
The rally which became violet, ultimately led to the vehicular attack by a 20 year-old far-right activist which killed Heather D. Heyer and injured 19 others. President Trump’s refusal to call out right-wing extremism following the attack became a tipping point in American attitudes to hate speech....'
The article goes on to explain that under new rules Twitter has closed a number of right-wing accounts, but those of 'military or government entities' will not be affected.
'The new rules seek to “reduce the amount of abusive behaviour and hateful conduct”, a move which still seeks to create some sort of distinction between “speech” and “action” even as it enlarged the scope of what crosses the line into unacceptable activity on Twitter. A spokesperson explain that, “If an account’s profile information includes a violent threat or multiple slurs, epithets, racist or sexist tropes, incites fear, or reduces someone to less than human, it will be permanently suspended”. When it comes to Tweets, hateful imagery will be hidden and users will have to click a button to see it. Such imagery includes “logos, symbols, or images whose purpose is to promote hostility and malice against others based on their race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin”. This sends the message that those promoting hostility and malice against minorities can continue to use Twitter for this purpose provided their account isn’t clearly setup exclusively for this purpose....
Finding hate symbols like swastikas or racial slurs with such approaches is straight forward as the context in which they appear seldom matters. Other hate speech which uses more general language is harder to detect....
Twitter has taken an important step to tackle online hate, but there is a growing concern that rather than tackling the online hate which has the most impact on society, the focus is instead drifting to those forms of hate which are the easiest and cheapest to find. If we want to stop the spread of hate, we need to do better.'
Unfortunately, the OHPI has become known for meddlesome mischievousness and double standards.
Take a look at its latest report,
concerning the recent Flinders Street outrage in central Melbourne shortly before Christmas, in
which a driver mowed down pedestrians in cold blood (one of the badly
injured, a gentleman of 83, has since died).
Notice how, referring to a number of tweets by "islamophobe" Amy Mek, the OHPI seeks to downplay or even deny the oppression of women in Islam (Dr Oboler abhors "islamophobia"):
And notice how the OHPI is now (is that the royal "we" its CEO is using, incidentally?) liaising with the police, already, in the state of Victoria (where violent crime by youths of South Sudanese background is spiralling out of control) in thraldom to political correctness:
No wonder so many people abhor the Online Hate Prevention Institute's meddlesome mischievousness and double standards.
We see this abhorrence in the three comments that Dr Oboler's J-Wire article attracted:
1.
Do we really want a privatised censorship?
Do you all understand that one day pro-Israel speech could be deemed “hate speech”?
2.
Sorry, but I don’t agree with “hate speech laws”. What a person
thinks doesn’t hurt anyone: what they say can lead to someone being
hurt, but it is what they DO that can hurt people, and that is
punishable by law, as it should be.
I have seen many
good people hurt by these “hate speech laws” simply for telling us news
we are not hearing, and expressing a concern for the safety of innocent
people – and that often includes Jewish people. To be labelled “far
right” these days is merely to be proud of your race, faith and country,
and unwilling to throw it all away for some disastrous Utopian fantasy.
Freedom
of speech is the most important asset we have, and we must not
sacrifice any of it in the false hope of protecting innocent people.
Rather, we should meet any hateful speech we hear with a deafening
crescendo of disapproval and ridicule.
3.
Readers may well not be aware that Dr Oboler is the self-appointed censor of online “Hate Speech.” What is “hate speech”? No one knows – it is whatever he thinks “hate speech” is. I and others have repeatedly asked him how he defines “hate speech,” and he has consistently refused to answer. In matters of defining “hate speech,” he is the prosecuting attorney, judge, jury, and executioner, and the court proceedings are secret. Sounds like North Korea? You bet it does. And how many examples of, say, leftists calling Israel “genocidal” or “an Apartheid State” has he zapped? How many online Islamic sites denouncing the Jews in anti-semitic terms has he zapped? Maybe zero is the answer? Only right-wingers need apply. Frankly, if it is a choice between some ratbag online nonsense and a self-appointed private censor answerable to no one, the latter is the more dangerous. America has a First Amendment to protect its people from self-appointed censors.
Yep. As someone once said, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" ...
Instead of hunting for real criminals, including perpetrators of female genital mutilation and the grooming gangs which prey on underage girl, British police, in thraldom to the forces of "progressivism" and now tools of so-called "progressives" bent in moulding society into one that fits their agenda, are monitoring social media and ate increasingly liable to come knocking on someone's door if they offend against the progressives' politics.
Consequently, law-abiding Brits could find themselves with a "criminal" record. And without the need for "evidence"!
Accordingly, many Brits opposed to high levels of immigration and the islamification of society are afraid to voice their opinions.
So warns Pat Condell in his inimitable way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXd4G2j9NGU
Meanwhile, this highly detailed Pew Reseach Center study, which demonstrates that no matter whether levels of Muslim immigration into Europe maintain their present high rates or fall by 2050, the non-Muslim population is on the inexorable decline relative to the Muslim one, can only chill the non-"progressive" heart.
Have a couple of stiff whiskeys and then take a long hard look.
From Jerusalem, on 27 September, Marvellous Melanie talks to Australian journalists Rowan Dean (read his recent pro-Israel remarks here) and Ross Cameron on Sky TV.
The conversation runs from her take on the morally compromised Left through the destructive foolishness of American Jewry's universalistic outlook and thrust ("Jewish values are not universalistic, they are particularist ... they have universalist applications") to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I wish this 20-minute interview with a wise and courageous woman, a Jewish heroine of our time, could be mandatory viewing for the current crop of leaders of Progressive Judaism in Australia, who seem have hitched their wagon to every leftist political position going, regardless of the end result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=GuTQc9WrAkc
(The sound quality improves after the first few minutes.)
Ten minutes of sheer good sense. Left-leaning Swedish intellectual Göran Adamson, who was sacked from his academic post as a political sociologist for offending the tyrants of political correctness, here gives a searing critique of multiculturalism ("It ought to be a good thing for certain cultures to change") and the suppression of free speech and of truth itself, that its tsars have imposed on western societies ("You no longer have a discussion about things").
