I Just saw this on Truth Revolt (where I’m banned for using the term “cuckservative,”) and I had to share it with y’all. Watch this clip:
I Just saw this on Truth Revolt (where I’m banned for using the term “cuckservative,”) and I had to share it with y’all. Watch this clip:
A gay couple has been viciously attacked in Arnhem, Netherlands. I found this “news” article randomly on Yahoo.
AMSTERDAM (AP) — In a simple act of solidarity, same-sex couples and many others across the Netherlands have held hands this week to protest the beating of two gay men — an attack that shook a nation that has long prided itself on its tolerance.
The beating in the eastern city of Arnhem was far from isolated in the Netherlands, long seen as one of the world’s most welcoming to same-sex couples. The city’s mayor conducted the world’s first gay marriages in 2001.
But it has touched a raw nerve in this nation whose tolerance on other fronts has eroded in recent years with the rise of anti-Islam and anti-immigrant populism and a crackdown on the country’s famed liberal drug policies…
Police said the men told officers they were verbally abused by a group of youths because they were walking hand-in-hand over a bridge. In the confrontation that followed, both men were injured, and one had his front teeth smashed out.
“I find it really absurd, unbelievable, and this is feeling like we are going backwards,” said Sjag Kozak, an Israeli who married his husband in Amsterdam and has lived in the freewheeling Dutch capital for 21 years. “So that’s why we’re here: To make a statement to let people know that we are moving forward and not going backwards.”
“Group of youths.” As soon as I saw that, it was obvious that we’re not dealing with Dutch youths here, but Arab or African youths. Indeed, it didn’t take much effort to find this:
When they reached the Nelson Mandela Bridge they were confronted by a group of six to eight young men. “I think they were Moroccans. They began to shout: disgusting, dirty, homo, such things. We shouted something back and walked on, but all of a sudden they came after us.” Jasper said to RTL.
So, a couple of gay men, one of whom is Jewish (presumably), were attacked in Holland, at the Nelson Mandela Bridge – by a group of Arabs. And then the U.S. press (not just Yahoo, by the way) omits the fact that the attackers are Arabs. This is the bizarre reality we now live in. This why we voted for Trump, and this is why we hope Europe can get its act together before it’s too late.
In an interesting twist on journalism, Alex Bollinger, in the LGBTQ Nation, writes:
Jasper wrote on Facebook that the attackers were Moroccan, but he did not say how he knew.
I’ll venture a couple of guesses: They had accents. They didn’t look Native European. There are a lot of Moroccans in Netherlands, and they have a bad reputation. Alright, we can admit that they might be of some other North African persuasion.
Thinktank warns stricter immigration rules could hit service after stats show 11% of all staff and 26% of doctors are non-British…
Figures obtained by the Guardian have shown the most complete picture yet of the reliance by the NHS and community health services in England on foreign nationals, with people from more than 200 countries employed.
The statistics, produced by the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), show that 11% of all staff for whom data was available and who work for the NHS and in community health services are not British.
The proportion of foreign nationals increases for professionally qualified clinical staff (14%) and even more so for doctors (26%), prompting the British Medical Association (BMA) to observe that without the contribution of non-British staff, “many NHS services would struggle to provide effective care to their patients”…
“People are still attracted to work in the NHS,” he said. “Without them we’d clearly be short – it would be very hard to replace that number overnight.
“If the single thread of immigration policy is just to get the overall figure down by any means, you’ve got to look at the consequences of that on the NHS.”
Finch said that while the NHS benefited from foreign nationals, health services in the countries they had left could suffer.
He added that as the economic fortunes of some countries providing large numbers of staff to the NHS improved, people might become less inclined to leave, potentially creating problems for Britain, albeit not in the near future.
Finch downplayed the prospect of foreign nationals preventing British people getting a job in health services, saying that under the government’s points system for non-EU migrants, workers would not gain entry unless there was a vacant post they were needed to fill…
While the figures help illustrate the contribution of migrants, they do not paint the whole picture, as many will have taken British nationality since arriving.
It never ceases to amaze me how simplistic open-borders people can be. You’d think the only concerns, about having foreigners tend to Britain’s sick, is brain-drain on the countries of origin, and a loss of jobs for native Brits.
It never even occurred to them that the quality of service might not be quite as good, or that foreigners might simply not care as much about sick Britons.
I’m not saying there’s definitely a link, only that further investigation is necessary. Look at this more recent headline:
The NHS is investigating claims by an undercover reporter that suicidal people calling the NHS 111 helpline are being left on hold until they hang up while staff are asleep on duty.
The Sun placed a reporter at the NHS 111 call centre at St Charles Hospital in Ladbroke Grove, west London, which provides 24-hour support for callers from 11 boroughs in north, west and central London…
The newspaper said it found call handlers asleep at their desks or describing themselves on “busy” on the internal computer system to avoid new calls and new patients.
Technical glitches reportedly ended with one handler hanging up on at least three patients, including one with heart palpitations.
Workers were told to tell callers they were experiencing technical failures when they may have been struggling to work the system, according to The Sun.
There are conscientious and caring people of all nationalities; we all know that. But I’ll pose a question for you leftists/ open-borders proponents (and I know you’re out there):
Do you really believe that, overall, there’s going to be just as much concern from Ghanaian 111 operators, toward Native Britons, as from Native Britons themselves? Looking at the big picture, would you actually expect equal results if you somehow tested the overall empathy of a thousand Pakistanis toward ailing white Britons to the overall empathy of a thousand white Britons toward other white Britons? If your answer is “yes,” then tell us how it is you are so naive.
Maybe others have a different perspective on this, but to me, it seems like the above behavior is linked to a lack of concern toward the people who are calling for help.
London is now majority non Native Briton. I tried, but couldn’t come up with statistics to cross-reference ethnicity and age. I suspect that the remaining whites of London tend to be older than other groups. That’s how it is in the U.S., due to lower birthrates among whites. It will be interesting to follow this story; were the errant 111 employees of immigrant background? Were the victims Native Britons. Maybe not, but I find it hard to believe that NHS’s massive infusion of “Diversity” will leave the quality of its services unscathed.
If you’re still in denial over the persecution of whites in the United States, this should wake you up from your slumber. Hat tip to Mekong Delta69 (in a comment at Amren).
According to Eyewitness News ABC a school is facing budget cuts because it has too many white students.
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES (KABC) —
Outrage has grown at Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, as the school faces layoffs and increased class sizes due to a law limiting funds for schools with a higher white student body.
The Los Angeles Unified School District provides more funding for schools where the white population is below 30 percent.
In a letter to parents, the district noted the highly regarded middle school had been above the percentage for the past couple years.
The racial formula was a condition imposed by court decisions dealing with desegregation in the 1970s.
When a government uses its money or resources to penalize institutions for having too many of a particular ethnicity or race, it’s hard to deny that genocidal policies are in place. Could you imagine the uproar if a school were to lose funding due to having too many black, or Hispanic, students? We’d never hear the end of it. Here’s an excerpt from the definition of genocide from preventgenocide.org:
“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group…
Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.
Of interest here is (e) “Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” We might interpret “transfer” as something absolute and irreversible. In other words forced adoption and kidnapping. Can coercing children to attend public schools be considered “forcible transfer?” More on this later.
You can read many accounts of American boarding schools for Native Americans, both in the United States and Canada. There are several accusations that are made: That children were subject to physical and sexual abuse. That they were sometimes dehumanized, and referred to as numbers rather than by name. That the education they received was rudimentary, focusing on vocational skills as the expense of more academic subjects. But the greatest concern seems to have been the forced estrangement from their native cultures. As one account puts it:
In 1945, Bill Wright, a Pattwin Indian, was sent to the Stewart Indian School in Nevada. He was just 6 years old. Wright remembers matrons bathing him in kerosene and shaving his head. Students at federal boarding schools were forbidden to express their culture — everything from wearing long hair to speaking even a single Indian word. Wright said he lost not only his language, but also his American Indian name.
“I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, ‘Grandma, I don’t understand you,’ ” Wright says. “She said, ‘Then who are you?’ ”
Wright says he told her his name was Billy. ” ‘Your name’s not Billy. Your name’s ‘TAH-rruhm,’ ” she told him. “And I went, ‘That’s not what they told me.’ ”
According to Tsianina Lomawaima, head of the American Indian Studies program at the University of Arizona, the intent was to completely transform people, inside and out.
“Language, religion, family structure, economics, the way you make a living, the way you express emotion, everything,” says Lomawaima.
Lomawaima says from the start, the government’s objective was to “erase and replace” Indian culture, part of a larger strategy to conquer Indians.
If we were to ignore all the other accusations, and focus exclusively on the theft of their cultures, would it still be considered “genocide?” I think so; any policy whose goal is to degrade. diminish, marginalize or dispossess a specific group of people is, in my opinion, genocidal.
Even in the absence of overt brutality, for a government to say “we’re going to reduce your funding because you have too many students of such and such a race” is a genocidal policy – even if reducing white students to minority status had NO effect, whatsoever, on their safety and wellbeing.
But, even though individual experiences will vary widely, forcing white children to attend school with large numbers of blacks and Hispanics does reduce their safety. Black and Hispanic crime rates are far higher than those of whites and Asians. This was my own personal experience, and the experience of many others. Just ask this 14-year-old girl.
Then there’s the issue of anti-white curricula. There is a lot of emphasis, in public schools, on the history and culture of non-whites, but no corresponding emphasis on white American culture (most American whites are mutts, with no specific European national origin). Assemblies are held in honor of non-white groups. My brother, who was a high school teacher, told me of one such assembly, which was for “boys of color.” It specifically excluded whites. He told his students that any of them were welcome to attend, and that’s great – but there was no such assembly in honor of white boys. A high school near where I live recently assigned “white privilege” homework to its students. How do you suppose this made white students feel, especially the ones who happened to be poor, and were NOT privileged? Going back to my earlier question: Can coercion to attend public schools be considered “forcible transfer” in the context of genocide? In my opinion, the answer is “yes” if a goal and result of such schooling is to alter the child’s perception of his own heritage for the worse. American public schools are obviously geared toward this end when it comes to white students.
What would it take for the elites of this country to make the connection between how whites are denigrated at schools and the high suicide rates among white adults? If Native Americans continue to suffer from the abuse of boarding schools decades after the fact, why would whites be any different?
When I saw this story in the Oregonian, I thought the journalist had taken some liberties with the story. He wrote:
Noting a recent spate of anti-Semitic “hate incidents” in the Portland area, Democratic U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley have introduced legislation to clamp down on hate speech and prejudice-fueled attacks.
But then I found similar wording on Senator Jeff Merkley’s official website:
Washington, D.C. – Following a national surge in hate crimes, Oregon’s U.S. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley joined Democratic legislators in the House and Senate to introduce legislation that would strengthen federal laws combatting hate speech, threats and attacks….
“Americans of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds have time and again spoken out to warn that hateful rhetoric fuels and emboldens a culture of intimidation and violence,” Wyden said. “That truth proved out yet again in the recent election cycle, which was characterized by animosity toward racial, ethnic and religious groups. As Americans, we must stand up against harassment, intimidation and attacks on people in Oregon and across this country based on their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and other personal characteristics.”
I’m not an attorney, but I’m fairly certain that there are already laws on the books against incitement to violence, so I don’t think he’s talking about that. There have been attempts to criminalize “hate speech“:
Since the 1980s, a number of laws have been passed that attempt to regulate or ban “hate speech,” which is defined as utterances, displays, or expressions of racial, religious, or sexual bias. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally invalidated such laws on the ground that they infringe First Amendment rights. In R.A.V. v. City ofSt. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct.2538, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992), the Court invalidated the city of St. Paul’s hate-crime ordinance, ruling that it unconstitutionally infringed free speech. The defendant in that case had been prosecuted for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family’s residence.
As Leftists love to say, “history matters,” and the history of attacks against “hate-speech” has been almost exclusively out of concern for those who are not white, straight males. Rarely are bias crimes prosecuted as such if the victim is not of a “protected group,” and one of the main organizations that promotes the concept of “hate speech” as a quasi-crime is the SPLC (cited in Merkley’s website).
Perhaps the senators can be forgiven for being unaware of the true nature of the SPLC, but they should certainly have been aware of the contents of the Constitution, which they made an oath to uphold upon assuming office. Freedom of speech is, arguably, the most precious thing that sets the United States apart from most of the rest of the world. Just recently, the United States accepted the asylum request of a teen blogger from Singapore. He had served jail time there for criticizing the government, and for “wounding the religious feelings” of Christians and Muslims.
It wouldn’t take a great leap of imagination to define the teen blogger’s words as “hate speech.” If Wyden and Merkley have their way, which country would grant asylum to American bloggers accused of “hate speech?”
The Jew-haters were right, and not for the first time: A Jewish man has been identified as the source of a series of bomb threat directed at Jewish Community Centers. From Good Morning America:
A 19-year-old Jewish man who is an Israeli-American dual citizen was arrested early this morning in Israel in connection with a series of bomb threats made against Jewish community centers and Jewish schools in the United States and other countries, police and sources told ABC News.
The suspect’s father has also been arrested for the same charges, an Israeli government official said.
Police believe the man made fake bomb threats in New Zealand and Australia and against scores of Jewish institutions across the U.S.
He also allegedly called in fake bomb threats to two Delta flights at New York City’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2015, according to Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.
It’s with great embarrassment and sadness that I acknowledge this. But also out of a sense of duty. Jews must come to terms with the bad apples in our midst. The suspect’s attorney claim that:
“This is a young man without a criminal record who suffers from serious medical problems from a young age. There is a concern that his medical condition affects his cognitive functions. In light of this, we asked the court to order the young man to undergo a medical examination. The court accepted our arguments and ordered the police to examine the young man’s medical condition.”
Par for the course, I suppose. Maybe he is mentally unstable, but this doesn’t excuse us from examining his motivations; even crazy people have reasons for doing what they do. Whatever his motivation, it couldn’t be wholesome.
If it were up to me, I’d strip him of his Jewishness and turn him into a goy.
In a recent op-ed piece on Massachusetts Live, Joseph Levine writes:
States that violate rights can be legitimately targeted by boycotts and sanctions, while ethnic/religious identities cannot. That was the principle underlying the BDS movement against apartheid South Africa, is the basis for the sanctions on Russia (whatever one thinks of the specific political situation there), and underlies the legitimacy of the BDS movement to defend Palestinians against the actions of the Israeli state.
One simple question comes to mind: If we cannot target/boycott religion entities, then why is it generally considered alright to do so to ideological entities?
Among the questions new immigrants were asked, upon their arrival at Ellis Island were “are you a polygamist?” and “are you an anarchist?” I heard about an Arab who, upon his arrival in the U.S., was asked if he’s a polygamist. His answer was, “yes, I’m Muslim.” He was allowed in – which makes me wonder why they asked him in the first place. It could be that being Muslim is considered a valid excuse for being a polygamist, and, if not for that, he would have been denied entry.
Communism is an ideology that would have gotten you in a lot of trouble in America during the McCarthy Era. These days, it’s just another word for “Democrat.”
So it’s pretty clear that, historically, one’s ideology is not protected in America. But one’s religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution.
Dictionary.com defines “ideology” as:
“Religion” is defined as:
A religion doesn’t have to include a deity, nor must it involve rituals. In fact, definition #2 is not much different from the first definition of “ideology.”
The Church of Scientology has this to say:
Scientology certainly meets all three criteria generally used by religious scholars around the world to determine religiosity: (1) a belief in some Ultimate Reality, such as the Supreme or eternal truth that transcends the here and now of the secular world; (2) religious practices directed toward understanding, attaining or communing with this Ultimate Reality; and (3) a community of believers who join together in pursuing this Ultimate Reality.
If we accept this definition, then we should ask why this set of beliefs (and no others) should have special legal status in the United States. We should wonder why Pastafarians are a legally protected religion.
When the Constitution was written, religion played a much more prominent role in human affairs than it does today, at least in the Western world. Over time, ideology has eclipsed religion as the prime power behind human interactions and customs. Ideologies tend to adapt to scientific advances more readily than do religions. With the advances of Science, religion has been scaled back, and ideologies have taken its place. For many people, their ideology is their religion.
But there is no Constitutional amendment to reflect this; we still don’t have a legally recognized freedom to practice our ideologies unhindered and unmolested. While ideologies vary in the degree to which they’re bound to logic, it can be argued that, overall, they’re more rational than religion.
Personally, I think the real reason that religion has protected status, while ideologies do not, is that religion tends to be closely linked to ethnicity and nationality. Historically speaking, religion is tied to geography, as are race and language. Hence, to discriminate against a specific religion was tantamount to discriminating against an ethnic group.
But in an age of Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monsters, perhaps it’s time to challenge old notions, and to recognize new realities.
If believing in a big man in the sky affords one special privileges, then why should a lesser status be the lot of an ideology based upon reflection and reason? This question is especially relevant to atheists.
One of my brothers is a vocal atheist, yet he goes out of his way to show how much he respects the religions beliefs of Muslims, and even Christians. To put it bluntly, neither of those two faiths make much sense – at least not to the casual observer. They involve a belief in miracles, Heaven and Hell, the suspension of the laws of Nature based on the whims of a supernatural being – and a rejection of solid scientific discoveries. I’m pretty sure my atheist brother understands how irrational these religions are.
Surely, they’re less rational than the beliefs held by the Alt-Right, even those held by neo-Nazi wannabe Alt-Rights.
It really shouldn’t matter how we define a set of beliefs or practices. The only reason it does matter is that governments have chosen to sanctify certain sets of beliefs as (protected) religion, while ignoring, or actively condemning other sets of beliefs as (non-protected) “hate” or “pseudoscience.”
In a perfect world, governments would extend their protection of religion to include all ideologies, as long as those ideologies don’t preach violence against others, and don’t infringe upon the rights of others. In this regard, many ideologies are superior to major religions.
In such a world, the measure of an ideology/religion would be its contributions to community, personal growth and well being.
I’ll conclude with a quote from the official site of Pastafarianism:
But nonbelievers are overreaching when they dismiss the phenomenon of religion as wrong and useless because it so often lacks a basis in evidence. The fact that millions of people get something positive out of a religion – even if it is based in superstition – *does* mean something. But that’s not to say it’s True, only that it has Value. For many people, religion is about being part of a community and being part of something bigger and more important than themselves. These transcendent experiences are something we want to emulate.