I won't be around for the next week at least, so this is my last post for some time. And to celebrate it here's a clip of an amazingly energetic and powerful performance by one of my absolute favourite bands, Nightwish. The song is called "Planet Hell"; it's the live version and has a new keyboard solo which is better than the one on the album version. The intro to this song has to be one of the best ever; I just love that drumming when it kicks in. Brilliant stuff.
Anyway, enjoy and have a good Easter. Play safe.
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Busting The Myth of Islam
As promised here is a little something I've cooked up on Islam and why it is most definitely NOT a Religion of Peace.
I guess first we better first go over the main argument concerning the Qu'ran and Mohammed. The Qu'ran is, according to Islam, the literal word of Allah, sent down as revelations to his chosen Prophet Mohammed over many years. Allah claimed to be the same God Christians had worshipped for many hundreds of years before this. Indeed, Islam does consider Abraham and Jesus to be Prophets of Islam. In the beginning, Islam was indeed fairly benign.
However, when Mohammed tried to present himself to the Christians and the Jews as their new Prophet, they turned him away. This angered him greatly. From this point on, his teachings gradually became more and more hateful and violent towards these groups and towards non-Muslims in general. These are just a few of his actual teachings as they are written in the Qu'ran:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (9:111)
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; (5:33)
As you can see, Mohammed quite clearly commanded that all non-Muslims be fought in violent jihad until they were subjugated under Islamic rule, living in second-class dhimmi status, and that those who fought and died slaying infidels would be rewarded with a place in Paradise. Many similar teachings can also be found in the hadiths, Mohammed's official biographies. These are the passages that modern-day jihadists use to justify their actions.
Now then, there are several common criticisms apologists for Islam come up with when presented with the above facts. One is: If Islam is so violent, why are so many Muslims non-violent? The answer is that, as with any religion, many people do not take the words of their Holy Texts literally and do not practice the religion in every way possible. This is the same as the way many Christians do not subscribe to every fundamentalist or out-dated teaching in the Bible, and disapprove of evangelists and other forms of fundamentalism. Also, in Islam there is not much importance placed on understanding the religion; in many British mosques the worshipers simply recite passages from the Qu'ran in Arabic with no clear idea of their meaning. Those of us who are critical of Islamic ideology do not pretend that all Muslims are terrorists; in fact we realise that this is not the case; but we also recognise that Islamic core teaching IS fundamentally violent and that even a "tiny percentage" of "extremist" Muslims still amounts to an inordinately huge number, given how many Muslims exist in the world today. It is not "racist" to point this out; firstly because Islam is a religious and political movement, not a race; and secondly because we are only pointing out the depredations of the jihad ideology, not inciting hatred against anyone.
Other critics, often Muslims themselves, will attempt to point to the more peaceful passages of the Qu'ran as a form of counter-evidence. For example:
Do not take life - which Allah has made sacred. (17:33)
However, this tactic does not hold water; firstly because they still do not explain the more violent passages, and secondly because they do not take into account the Qu'ranic concept of naskh, or abrogation, which is accepted by all major Islamic scholars and theologians. Simply put, this states that any of Allah's later revelations which contradict earlier teachings automatically abrogate and render invalid and defunct the earlier passages. And, shucks, the violent passages came later chronologically than the peaceful ones, therefore they take precedence as the "true" word of Allah. It should be noted that, unlike the Christian Bible, the Qu'ran is not arranged chronologically. Apart from the first chapter, it is simply arranged from longest to shortest. So peaceful and violent commands are spread all over the Qu'ran, but chronologically the orders to kill and enslave and subjugate all come later in history and are the core of true Islam.
Another question thrown our way is: what about the violence in the Bible? Again, this is a really bad deflection of blame and shows a clear lack of understanding of both religions. Firstly: where are the Christian suicide bombers rampaging across the Middle-East killing in the same of God? Secondly, and more potently, the two Holy Texts simply have NO moral equivalence. The Old Testament is undoubtedly violent, but there is nothing in it which orders all Christians to take up their duty and fight or subjugate all non-Christians on a generalised and indefinite basis. Admittedly, God did order the Israelites to wipe out the odd nation on occasion, but he only did so after he had warned them for hundreds of years to quit their sinning and they refused. When he finally sentenced them to their deaths, he did not glory in it; it broke his heart. There can also be no equivalence made between Jesus and Mohammed. One was strictly non-violent. He wept for the Pharisees who he knew would go to Hell; he did not try to kill them or forcefully convert them to his point of view. The other was a genocidal warrior who ordered thousands killed and slew many with his own sword, often simply for disagreeing with him on trivial issues, kept numerous slaves and married (and had intercourse with) a nine-year old girl named Aisha. No equivalence can be drawn between the two religions or the two people.
Another question sometimes raised includes the mention of the Crusades - traditionally seen as a Christian invasion of Islamic lands - as a legitimate basis for Islamic hatred of the West and Christians. However, despite what historical revisionists would have you believe, the Crusades were actually a response to hundreds of years of attacks by Arabs on their soil, a pre-emptive measure, if you will. This is made clear in the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" by Robert Spencer.
Finally, some point to Western colonialism and cultural decadence as the reason for the jihadists' hatred of us. However, as outlined above, Mohammed's command to kill or subjugate all non-Muslims until the entire globe is living under Islamic rule pre-dates all of those things.
So is it fair to paint Muslims as potential terrorists, and what can be done about this problem? Well, as for the first part: no, of course it is not fair to discriminate against individual Muslims based on a generalised picture. Many of them really are moderate. However, ALL the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that Muslims have a religious duty to make war against unbelievers. The only thing they disagree on are technicalities such as whether infidels should be given the chance to surrender before being beheaded. There is not a single major Muslim group in the world that teaches that violent jihad is wrong. Even groups that claim to be moderate, such as America's Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Council of Britain are funded by extremist Saudi groups and pursue agendas to make Westerners comply with Islamic law and ideology, even in their own non-Muslim countries. They also refuse to flat-out condemn organisations such as Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organisations. Does this mean that all Muslims who profess moderation are being deceptive? No. But it does mean that we have a right to be suspicious and to delve deeper into their true motivations.
Can Islam be reformed? The simple answer is that if so-called moderate Muslims are truly serious about ending friction with the West they should be considering the aspects of the Islamic faith that give rise to the jihad ideology and attempting to change or remove those passages and teach Muslims not to obey them. Very few do this, however. Instead, they prefer to cry that we are "racist" and "Islamophobic" and nobody gets anywhere. In other cases, they fear to speak out because of the death threats they will receive from those Muslims who take heed of Mohammed's Qu'ranic order that: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (9:57) While this remains so, I'm afraid Islam will not reform in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetimes.
I hope this has been informative and I'm done now. Promise. Thanks for reading.
I guess first we better first go over the main argument concerning the Qu'ran and Mohammed. The Qu'ran is, according to Islam, the literal word of Allah, sent down as revelations to his chosen Prophet Mohammed over many years. Allah claimed to be the same God Christians had worshipped for many hundreds of years before this. Indeed, Islam does consider Abraham and Jesus to be Prophets of Islam. In the beginning, Islam was indeed fairly benign.
However, when Mohammed tried to present himself to the Christians and the Jews as their new Prophet, they turned him away. This angered him greatly. From this point on, his teachings gradually became more and more hateful and violent towards these groups and towards non-Muslims in general. These are just a few of his actual teachings as they are written in the Qu'ran:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (9:111)
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; (5:33)
As you can see, Mohammed quite clearly commanded that all non-Muslims be fought in violent jihad until they were subjugated under Islamic rule, living in second-class dhimmi status, and that those who fought and died slaying infidels would be rewarded with a place in Paradise. Many similar teachings can also be found in the hadiths, Mohammed's official biographies. These are the passages that modern-day jihadists use to justify their actions.
Now then, there are several common criticisms apologists for Islam come up with when presented with the above facts. One is: If Islam is so violent, why are so many Muslims non-violent? The answer is that, as with any religion, many people do not take the words of their Holy Texts literally and do not practice the religion in every way possible. This is the same as the way many Christians do not subscribe to every fundamentalist or out-dated teaching in the Bible, and disapprove of evangelists and other forms of fundamentalism. Also, in Islam there is not much importance placed on understanding the religion; in many British mosques the worshipers simply recite passages from the Qu'ran in Arabic with no clear idea of their meaning. Those of us who are critical of Islamic ideology do not pretend that all Muslims are terrorists; in fact we realise that this is not the case; but we also recognise that Islamic core teaching IS fundamentally violent and that even a "tiny percentage" of "extremist" Muslims still amounts to an inordinately huge number, given how many Muslims exist in the world today. It is not "racist" to point this out; firstly because Islam is a religious and political movement, not a race; and secondly because we are only pointing out the depredations of the jihad ideology, not inciting hatred against anyone.
Other critics, often Muslims themselves, will attempt to point to the more peaceful passages of the Qu'ran as a form of counter-evidence. For example:
Do not take life - which Allah has made sacred. (17:33)
However, this tactic does not hold water; firstly because they still do not explain the more violent passages, and secondly because they do not take into account the Qu'ranic concept of naskh, or abrogation, which is accepted by all major Islamic scholars and theologians. Simply put, this states that any of Allah's later revelations which contradict earlier teachings automatically abrogate and render invalid and defunct the earlier passages. And, shucks, the violent passages came later chronologically than the peaceful ones, therefore they take precedence as the "true" word of Allah. It should be noted that, unlike the Christian Bible, the Qu'ran is not arranged chronologically. Apart from the first chapter, it is simply arranged from longest to shortest. So peaceful and violent commands are spread all over the Qu'ran, but chronologically the orders to kill and enslave and subjugate all come later in history and are the core of true Islam.
Another question thrown our way is: what about the violence in the Bible? Again, this is a really bad deflection of blame and shows a clear lack of understanding of both religions. Firstly: where are the Christian suicide bombers rampaging across the Middle-East killing in the same of God? Secondly, and more potently, the two Holy Texts simply have NO moral equivalence. The Old Testament is undoubtedly violent, but there is nothing in it which orders all Christians to take up their duty and fight or subjugate all non-Christians on a generalised and indefinite basis. Admittedly, God did order the Israelites to wipe out the odd nation on occasion, but he only did so after he had warned them for hundreds of years to quit their sinning and they refused. When he finally sentenced them to their deaths, he did not glory in it; it broke his heart. There can also be no equivalence made between Jesus and Mohammed. One was strictly non-violent. He wept for the Pharisees who he knew would go to Hell; he did not try to kill them or forcefully convert them to his point of view. The other was a genocidal warrior who ordered thousands killed and slew many with his own sword, often simply for disagreeing with him on trivial issues, kept numerous slaves and married (and had intercourse with) a nine-year old girl named Aisha. No equivalence can be drawn between the two religions or the two people.
Another question sometimes raised includes the mention of the Crusades - traditionally seen as a Christian invasion of Islamic lands - as a legitimate basis for Islamic hatred of the West and Christians. However, despite what historical revisionists would have you believe, the Crusades were actually a response to hundreds of years of attacks by Arabs on their soil, a pre-emptive measure, if you will. This is made clear in the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" by Robert Spencer.
Finally, some point to Western colonialism and cultural decadence as the reason for the jihadists' hatred of us. However, as outlined above, Mohammed's command to kill or subjugate all non-Muslims until the entire globe is living under Islamic rule pre-dates all of those things.
So is it fair to paint Muslims as potential terrorists, and what can be done about this problem? Well, as for the first part: no, of course it is not fair to discriminate against individual Muslims based on a generalised picture. Many of them really are moderate. However, ALL the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that Muslims have a religious duty to make war against unbelievers. The only thing they disagree on are technicalities such as whether infidels should be given the chance to surrender before being beheaded. There is not a single major Muslim group in the world that teaches that violent jihad is wrong. Even groups that claim to be moderate, such as America's Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Council of Britain are funded by extremist Saudi groups and pursue agendas to make Westerners comply with Islamic law and ideology, even in their own non-Muslim countries. They also refuse to flat-out condemn organisations such as Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organisations. Does this mean that all Muslims who profess moderation are being deceptive? No. But it does mean that we have a right to be suspicious and to delve deeper into their true motivations.
Can Islam be reformed? The simple answer is that if so-called moderate Muslims are truly serious about ending friction with the West they should be considering the aspects of the Islamic faith that give rise to the jihad ideology and attempting to change or remove those passages and teach Muslims not to obey them. Very few do this, however. Instead, they prefer to cry that we are "racist" and "Islamophobic" and nobody gets anywhere. In other cases, they fear to speak out because of the death threats they will receive from those Muslims who take heed of Mohammed's Qu'ranic order that: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (9:57) While this remains so, I'm afraid Islam will not reform in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetimes.
I hope this has been informative and I'm done now. Promise. Thanks for reading.
Wednesday, 28 March 2007
What's The Connection Here?
A brilliant comedy sketch from America, and eerily close to the reality of what happens in the Western media:
Racism In Texas?
OK, I know this comes from the rather loaded "Socialist Worker" website, but a black girl in Texas has been sentenced to seven years - for pushing a school monitor. The article claims this is racist as, apparently, months before a white girl was found guilty of burning down her family's house and was only put on probation.
Meanwhile, the arrest caused a mass protest against racism in the small Texas town of Paris.
Personally I find this difficult to believe. I think they must be something we're not being told here. Seven years for pushing someone; there's no way they could get away with that.
Whether this is racist or not is a decision I leave up to you.
Meanwhile, the arrest caused a mass protest against racism in the small Texas town of Paris.
Personally I find this difficult to believe. I think they must be something we're not being told here. Seven years for pushing someone; there's no way they could get away with that.
Whether this is racist or not is a decision I leave up to you.
Tuesday, 27 March 2007
Stay Tuned
Before the end of the week I'm going to post a long piece on Islam and why we must expunge the myth that it is a Religion of Peace from our heads. Stick around for that in the next couple of days...
Recognise Israel, Arabs Told
Condoleeza Rice has urged the Arab nations, particularly Palestine, to recognise Israel's right to exist.
Considering that Hamas' main aim is to wipe Israel off the map, there is no chance in HELL that they're going to listen to this. If they were civilised they would, but they're not so they won't. The time and place for diplomacy passed long ago. Israel may well soon have to defend itself militarily.
Considering that Hamas' main aim is to wipe Israel off the map, there is no chance in HELL that they're going to listen to this. If they were civilised they would, but they're not so they won't. The time and place for diplomacy passed long ago. Israel may well soon have to defend itself militarily.
Monday, 26 March 2007
Religion Of Peace And Tolerance (TM)
When a French gas plant worker in Yemen threw a copy of the Koran on the ground, angry Muslims protested in their own unique way - resulting in five people (including the Frenchman) being injured, vehicles (including a helicopter) being set aflame and government troops having to be called in to restore order.
Why a non-Muslim Frenchman had a copy of the Koran on him in the middle of a factory I have no idea. But this just goes against the "peaceful religion" doctrine we are constantly fed. If Islam is so peaceful, why do its followers do things like this in its name every day?
Why a non-Muslim Frenchman had a copy of the Koran on him in the middle of a factory I have no idea. But this just goes against the "peaceful religion" doctrine we are constantly fed. If Islam is so peaceful, why do its followers do things like this in its name every day?
Cornershop Jibe Sparks Racism Row
Now this is a great story!
TWO men have lodged a complaint of racism against a top Coventry supermarket after being quizzed about a pile of cakes.I'm conflicted about this. Part of me recognises that this seems to be an unfair and racist comment by the store manager. Another part of me just finds it downright hilarious.The pair say that when they bought £32 worth of muffins, fairycakes and flapjacks from the Morrisons supermarket in Holyhead Road, the manager wanted to know if they were planning to sell them "in their corner shop".
In fact, Moomie Choudhury and Divyesh Patel both work for an internet bank in Coventry city centre and bought the cakes to sell to workmates to raise money for Comic Relief.
They raised £1,000 for the TV appeal.
Friday, 23 March 2007
Friday Share
Something a little more mainstream again this week, a beautiful and powerful song by Snow Patrol: "Run".
Elsewhere, I'm taking a break from racial stories today. Enjoy.
Elsewhere, I'm taking a break from racial stories today. Enjoy.
Thursday, 22 March 2007
Desecrate And Die
Muslim pupils at a Nigerian school attacked a teacher and beat her to death for "desecrating the Qu'ran". At this stage, it's not clear what she did to upset them so.
The Religion of Peace and Tolerance, remember that, folks.
The Religion of Peace and Tolerance, remember that, folks.
Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Uhm...yeah...
About 700 Belgian couples have symbolically wed in a Flemish town where three couples had refused to let a black official marry them. Deputy Mayor Wouter Van Bellingen was the first black councillor elected in St-Niklaas in northern Belgium. In response to the snub, Mr Van Bellingen decided to organise a mass wedding as an anti-racism protest.On a cold, wet night, the couples shouted "yes" when Mr Van Bellingen asked if they were ready to marry.
The day's events - chosen to coincide with the International Day against Racism - kicked off with a group hug before the assembled couples exchanged or renewed vows. There was then a huge wedding photo, a "multicultural dessert buffet" and a wedding dance.
As Doctor Evil would say: "Riiiiiight..."
So the three couples were racist...can't we just get on with things for once? You know, the racist couples find someone else to marry them, the black official continues to marry non-racist couples, the 1400 residents of the town get on with their lives and don't let it bother them? Why couldn't that happen?The Off-Topic Post
I haven't done an off-topic post in a while so here's a couple of my ruminations on recent popular culture...
- Firstly, I've just recently heard the new song by Avril Lavigne. You can check it out here; I don't even want to post it here. It's terrible. Truly awful kiddy-punk. Lavigne gets a lot of stick for making this kind of music but her reputation is somewhat unfair and, I suspect, based on early songs such as Sk8er Boi. Her second album was actually very good, filled with better, more mature, rock songs. If this new song is anything to go by it's a conversion back to almost manufactured pop standards. I checked out the writing credits for the song and noted that it is co-written by Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, who has written and produced for such magnificos as Missy Elliot, the Backstreet Boys and Paris Hilton, among others. And it shows. Very disappointing.
- Book-wise, I've just finished reading the Deathstalker saga by Simon Green. Consisting of five books (Deathstalker, Deathstalker Rebellion, Deathstalker War, Deathstalker Honour and Deathstalker Destiny), it's an epic sci-fi space opera in the vein of Star Wars, only ramped up times ten, with futuristic technologies, sword fighting, aliens and battles. It's also very funny, at times. While it has many flaws, such as its often bad and repetitive writing, it is designed to entertain and it surely does. I guarantee you will not find a series more downright fun to read in the sci-fi genre, and it comes recommended to Star Wars fans, in particular.
- Firstly, I've just recently heard the new song by Avril Lavigne. You can check it out here; I don't even want to post it here. It's terrible. Truly awful kiddy-punk. Lavigne gets a lot of stick for making this kind of music but her reputation is somewhat unfair and, I suspect, based on early songs such as Sk8er Boi. Her second album was actually very good, filled with better, more mature, rock songs. If this new song is anything to go by it's a conversion back to almost manufactured pop standards. I checked out the writing credits for the song and noted that it is co-written by Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, who has written and produced for such magnificos as Missy Elliot, the Backstreet Boys and Paris Hilton, among others. And it shows. Very disappointing.
- Book-wise, I've just finished reading the Deathstalker saga by Simon Green. Consisting of five books (Deathstalker, Deathstalker Rebellion, Deathstalker War, Deathstalker Honour and Deathstalker Destiny), it's an epic sci-fi space opera in the vein of Star Wars, only ramped up times ten, with futuristic technologies, sword fighting, aliens and battles. It's also very funny, at times. While it has many flaws, such as its often bad and repetitive writing, it is designed to entertain and it surely does. I guarantee you will not find a series more downright fun to read in the sci-fi genre, and it comes recommended to Star Wars fans, in particular.
Happy IDERD!
Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. How will you celebrate it?
Not On Target...
A Welsh MP yesterday claimed that the Armed Forces are failing to hit their "recruitment targets" because they are institutionally racist. Apparently, only 10,000 of the UK's 200,000 servicemen are from ethnic minorities.
Good. That's what I would expect. This is the British Armed Forces we're talking about. You have to be loyal to Britain and willing to defend Britain. I would argue that the reason we are only seeing 10,000 people of ethnic minority origin in the British Armed Forces is because only 10,000 of the total feel loyalty to this country over their own. Sad but true.
The real crime here is that we are introducing "targets" at all. Recruit the best people for the job; not the most foreign. Positive discrimination is BAD.
Good. That's what I would expect. This is the British Armed Forces we're talking about. You have to be loyal to Britain and willing to defend Britain. I would argue that the reason we are only seeing 10,000 people of ethnic minority origin in the British Armed Forces is because only 10,000 of the total feel loyalty to this country over their own. Sad but true.
The real crime here is that we are introducing "targets" at all. Recruit the best people for the job; not the most foreign. Positive discrimination is BAD.
Tuesday, 20 March 2007
Common Sense Prevails
At last, a small victory in Britain's war against our greatest enemy - no, not militant Islam but political correctness. Schools will be able to ban pupils from wearing full-face veils on security, safety or learning grounds under new uniforms guidance set to be issued.
They realise that teachers need to be able to see their pupils' faces. This is very, very good news.
They realise that teachers need to be able to see their pupils' faces. This is very, very good news.
Monday, 19 March 2007
Using The Weak-Minded...
Here's confirmation of something many of us have suspected for ages: that Islamic jihadists use the Internet to manipulate the thoughts of "weak-minded" Americans using web forums and video-sharing sites to disseminate their propaganda and influence Western thinking on Islam and Iraq. A member of the Al-Mohajroon Islamist website instructs members on how to raid forums, pretend they are Americans, invent stories about American soldiers having a torrid time in Iraq, and how to make Americans feel frustrated with the Bush government, thus provoking them to vote for the Party which will pull troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.
As always, militant Islamists and militant leftists go hand in hand.
As always, militant Islamists and militant leftists go hand in hand.
Dhimmitude Is Back
This is interesting. Muslims are forcing Christian Assyrians in a Baghdad neighborhood to pay the Jizya. If you don't know what that is look here, at this Islamic website, for the definition and one of the Qu'ranic verses that justifies it.
When people follow the fundamentals and core teachings of Islam, this is what happens.
When people follow the fundamentals and core teachings of Islam, this is what happens.
Thursday, 15 March 2007
Thursday Share
Another Finnish metal band (and there will be more of these in the next few weeks, too).
Charon with "Little Angel":
Charon with "Little Angel":
They Can't Even Get Sensitivity Right
A British school has changed the name of "The Three Little Pigs" - their school play - to "The Three Little Puppies" to avoid offending Muslims.
Not only is this more crazy, dhimmified political correctness, but it is also inaccurate and not as sensitive as the authorities believe, since Islam traditionally sees dogs as impure, as well. They can't even get "sensitivity" right, and here they are making decisions. Unbelievable.
Not only is this more crazy, dhimmified political correctness, but it is also inaccurate and not as sensitive as the authorities believe, since Islam traditionally sees dogs as impure, as well. They can't even get "sensitivity" right, and here they are making decisions. Unbelievable.
Round-up
1. We had a case of the Golliwogs' Return in Lancashire this week as police seized two of the dolls on charges of the shop owner being racist after a visitor to the shop complained the golliwogs were racist. Fortunately, common sense prevailed in the end and the dolls are now being sold in the shop again.
I genuinely feel sorry for the moronic "visitor" who reported this to the police. It can't be easy to be so short on both brain cells AND a properly-developed sense of morals. I think the fact that she sees black men whenever she looks at these featureless, cartoonish, androgynous children's dolls shows who is the real racist in this situation.
2. Reginald Jones doesn't blame the woman on the plane. Jones, a former musician who now tours the country as an inspirational speaker, told Bates College students Wednesday night of his first experience flying first-class. A woman seated next to the well-dressed, well-spoken black man asked him which team he played for. Seeing his perplexed reaction, the woman realized her gaffe and then asked if he was a rapper. "I'm five-foot-eight, and I weigh 160 after dinner. What pro team could I possibly play for?" Jones said. "She couldn't possibly believe that I might be the CEO of a Fortune 400 company."
I think in this case we're just looking at a really dumb and possibly racist person more than anything else. I don't think it's necessarily right to blame anyone else but this woman. However, I did find it funny that the article makes its own racial gaffe by describing Mr Jones as a "relative oddity" because he is a successful black man.
I genuinely feel sorry for the moronic "visitor" who reported this to the police. It can't be easy to be so short on both brain cells AND a properly-developed sense of morals. I think the fact that she sees black men whenever she looks at these featureless, cartoonish, androgynous children's dolls shows who is the real racist in this situation.
2. Reginald Jones doesn't blame the woman on the plane. Jones, a former musician who now tours the country as an inspirational speaker, told Bates College students Wednesday night of his first experience flying first-class. A woman seated next to the well-dressed, well-spoken black man asked him which team he played for. Seeing his perplexed reaction, the woman realized her gaffe and then asked if he was a rapper. "I'm five-foot-eight, and I weigh 160 after dinner. What pro team could I possibly play for?" Jones said. "She couldn't possibly believe that I might be the CEO of a Fortune 400 company."
I think in this case we're just looking at a really dumb and possibly racist person more than anything else. I don't think it's necessarily right to blame anyone else but this woman. However, I did find it funny that the article makes its own racial gaffe by describing Mr Jones as a "relative oddity" because he is a successful black man.
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Round-up
1. Quebec's human rights tribunal has fined a Longueuil bar 16-thousand dollars. The Le Surf bar refused to serve two black men in 2003, saying it would be bad for business.
It's hard to defend something like this but I would like to hear the explanation of why they consider serving blacks to be "bad for business". It also seems weird to me that these two men were the only two to ever complain. Either way it still appears racist and I hope it all gets worked out in the end.
2. The Metropolitan Black Police Association has decided not to take legal action after a white detective was awarded £40,000 for discrimination. Detective Chief Superintendent Barry Norman was awarded the money by the Metropolitan Police Authority. He alleged that his career suffered after leading a corruption investigation into Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei. Mr Dizaei was cleared in 2003 of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. The association initially condemned the payment as a “reward for racism”, and threatened to take legal action. It also said that it would “disengage” from working with Scotland Yard.
I've read this a few times and I just can't see where the racism was, when exactly it occurred or who was guilty of it!
3. In nearly four out of five cases, a French employer will hire a white job candidate over a North African or black African with similar qualifications, according to a study made public on Wednesday.
So is the entire French nation racist? It would be funny if that were so but I suspect there is some kind of employment law in France which African people happen to be susceptible to breaking, for whatever reason. Again, no one seems willing to investigate the reasons for things; they just leap to the conclusion that it's racism. Well, it might not be. It also might be but let's not cut off all the possibilities, please? The statistics are alarming but can't we have some proper analysis for once?
It's hard to defend something like this but I would like to hear the explanation of why they consider serving blacks to be "bad for business". It also seems weird to me that these two men were the only two to ever complain. Either way it still appears racist and I hope it all gets worked out in the end.
2. The Metropolitan Black Police Association has decided not to take legal action after a white detective was awarded £40,000 for discrimination. Detective Chief Superintendent Barry Norman was awarded the money by the Metropolitan Police Authority. He alleged that his career suffered after leading a corruption investigation into Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei. Mr Dizaei was cleared in 2003 of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. The association initially condemned the payment as a “reward for racism”, and threatened to take legal action. It also said that it would “disengage” from working with Scotland Yard.
I've read this a few times and I just can't see where the racism was, when exactly it occurred or who was guilty of it!
3. In nearly four out of five cases, a French employer will hire a white job candidate over a North African or black African with similar qualifications, according to a study made public on Wednesday.
So is the entire French nation racist? It would be funny if that were so but I suspect there is some kind of employment law in France which African people happen to be susceptible to breaking, for whatever reason. Again, no one seems willing to investigate the reasons for things; they just leap to the conclusion that it's racism. Well, it might not be. It also might be but let's not cut off all the possibilities, please? The statistics are alarming but can't we have some proper analysis for once?
Tuesday, 13 March 2007
Round-up
1. In an echo of the David Irving Holocaust Denial trial, a prominent Turkish politician was been convicted of breaching Swiss anti-racism laws by saying that the early 20th-century killing of Armenians could not be described as genocide.
Simply put, whether right or wrong, this is not racism.
2. A sixty year old black man in America claims that he has been suspended from refereeing basketball and baseball games because he is black. The two local boards that govern these things say he has been suspended for not following their procedures or regulations regarding meeting attendance or certification, but he said they are using this as a cover to deny him assignments.
Once again we see how willingly black people will play the race card. Mr Oliphant has absolutely NOTHING to back his claim up with; he just finds it easy to say it's racism. Perhaps he should attend the meetings and not be so lazy? After seeing the amount of times black people cry racism over nothing, I am left to draw the conclusion that they must just be really lazy and crave attention. Why else would this man lie like this?
Simply put, whether right or wrong, this is not racism.
2. A sixty year old black man in America claims that he has been suspended from refereeing basketball and baseball games because he is black. The two local boards that govern these things say he has been suspended for not following their procedures or regulations regarding meeting attendance or certification, but he said they are using this as a cover to deny him assignments.
Once again we see how willingly black people will play the race card. Mr Oliphant has absolutely NOTHING to back his claim up with; he just finds it easy to say it's racism. Perhaps he should attend the meetings and not be so lazy? After seeing the amount of times black people cry racism over nothing, I am left to draw the conclusion that they must just be really lazy and crave attention. Why else would this man lie like this?
Monday, 12 March 2007
Black Men Only, Please
Today I was at London Bridge train station. I went to the toilet and entered one of the cubicles. As I relieved myself I looked down at the toilet roll holder, and saw that somebody had written their mobile phone number on it. Then, below this, they had written, "Black men only, please".
Well, I thought it was funny, anyway.
Well, I thought it was funny, anyway.
The Racism Ploy
Here's a great piece by Dorothy Anne Seese at Etherzone about the way the word "racism" is being used a) incorrectly, and b) to perpetuate the liberal multi-culturalist fantasy and destroy any trace of national identity and pride. Here's an extract:
Now, if certain people of Mexican descent and probably nationality come and take over 40 acres of property that I own under the laws of our land, is it "racist" to dislike that act and take action against it? Let's test it not by just the issue, but by another, more modern standard: would I be just as angry if the people who came and grabbed off 40 acres of grazing land to which I own title are Finnish, is that "racist?" If you answer yes to the first and no to the second proposition, you have a big inconsistency and furthermore, a ridiculous answer. Neither you, whoever you are, nor I, are going to like a person or a group of people who come nabbing 40 acres. It just happens to be a way to defeat my objection to yell "racist" if the people belong to one group as opposed to another. It diverts attention away from the real issue, which is the nabbing of 40 acres of my land, to a supposed feeling I have against the nabbers because they have a different ethnic background and are perhaps of a different color. It shifts the crime from them (land-nabbing) to me (racism).
Isn't that a clever way to becloud the issue and shift the crime from the perpetrator to the victim? Of course. That's why it is being used in multiple nations, in numerous cases, for countless reasons, in increasing incidents, all over the Western world. Legal issues such as immigration according to the laws of the land have been made subservient to the supposed attitude of the landowners and citizens toward certain "races" of people, such races being in fact nationalities, religions or various skin colors.
Saturday, 10 March 2007
SIAD
There will be a protest on September 11th this year outside the European Parliament building: Stop Islamification of Europe, by SIAD, who are are based in Denmark.
Read the whole thing.
Read the whole thing.
Friday, 9 March 2007
My Good Deed Of The Day
I was walking up the High Street today and as I walked past a couple of cash dispensers I heard a beeping sound coming from one of them. This got my attention as ATMs only make those noises when a transaction is being made, but there was no one in sight. I did a double take and saw that there was a credit card sticking out of the machine. Someone was obviously in a rush and had taken their money without taking the card. I immediately handed the card in to bank.
It got me wondering how many people out of a random sample would have handed the credit card in, and how many would have made off with it. At least I can pride myself on being a good, moral, honest citizen.
It got me wondering how many people out of a random sample would have handed the credit card in, and how many would have made off with it. At least I can pride myself on being a good, moral, honest citizen.
Friday Share
A band this week that I don't actually like all that much...but I do like this song so I'm gonna post it.
"Our Truth" by Italian female-fronted metallers Lacuna Coil:
"Our Truth" by Italian female-fronted metallers Lacuna Coil:
Hypocrisy Embodied
Filipino Muslims held a protest at which they made the oft-used call to "Behead Those Who Insult Islam"...they were protesting against a Christian leader who says Muslims are killers.
Work that one out if you can.
Work that one out if you can.
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Racism In The Pharmaceutical Business
America's largest pharmacy chain has been sued by the government for alleged discrimination against black workers.
Walgreen illegally sent black staff to low-performing stores and shops in black communities, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) claims.
African-American employees - including pharmacists and managers - were also denied promotions, the EEOC claim adds.
There isn't much information to verify these claims, either way. One to keep an eye on.
Caliphate Alert
At The American Muslim, a very old article from 1993 (you mean BEFORE 9/11? But I thought jihadism against America and the West only happened because we responded to that!) has recently been reposted. In it, Issa Smith calls for Islamic sharia law to be implemented in America.
This is the ultimate goal of Islam, to spread the religion until the entire globe is living under Muslim rule, as decreed by Mohammed.
This is the ultimate goal of Islam, to spread the religion until the entire globe is living under Muslim rule, as decreed by Mohammed.
More Shocking Denial Of Truth
A Tory MP has been forced to quit his frontbench role after making comments on race in the Army which party leader David Cameron called "unacceptable".
What's even more disgusting is the way this man has been treated for simply telling the truth, and not for saying anything remotely racist or hateful. I am absolutely appalled by this.
Shadow homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said he had met "a lot" of "idle and useless" ethnic minority soldiers who used racism as a "cover".
Read the whole thing to actually get the feel of Mr Mercer's full comments.
David Cameron's line stands out for me:
He added that "racism is disgusting and has no part in any part of our society".
What's even more disgusting is the way this man has been treated for simply telling the truth, and not for saying anything remotely racist or hateful. I am absolutely appalled by this.
First Email
I received an interesting email today from my first known reader (one I can put a name or attribute a comment to), about a story I commented on in my March 5th Round-up about a supposedly racist comment made by a Texas radio DJ. Here it is in full:
And actually, Ben, this DJ in Austin, Texas is a well known ass, old and in his 70's, who says stupid things all the time.
Ben:
You write that you "find it difficult to believe Allred is racist when just before the 'darky' comment he says of Obama, 'He's a likable guy.'"
You are gullible, Ben. Yes, he said Obama was likable. But he was dripping with sarcasm, which should have been apparent to you even without hearing the audio, because immediately after saying Obama was likable he called him a "clean darky." Get it?
You also write: "It could be a joke, in which case it's absolutely fine, despite what PC tosspots will have you believe. The man said after the commercial break: 'See, I was making fun of politicians who say things like that.' Of course, the columnist writing this up doesn't seem inclined to believe him."
Here's what that's about: A Democrat U.S. Senator from Delaware running for President, Joe Biden, a man with no history of racism in his political background, said of Obama that he was "articulate and clean." This cause Biden some discomfort because some took it to mean that Obama wasn't "dirty" like, say, a typical black person In fact, Biden had clearly meant by "clean" that Obama didn't have any political baggage or scandals in his background or skeletons in his closet. That was apparent to anybody who knew of Joe's politics and heard what he'd said. Still, he had to explain it after it came out in print.
The two DJ's on the radio knew perfectly well what Biden had meant by his use of the word "clean." But of course, it didn't stop them from making a joke and calling Obama a "clean darky." Darky is a totally unacceptable and derogatory term for black folks. It is right up there with "nigger." Completely and utterly beneath contempt to say those words. But he did, just for laughs.
And actually, Ben, this DJ in Austin, Texas is a well known ass, old and in his 70's, who says stupid things all the time.
He just went a little too far this time, although it clearly didn't translate across the pond to where you are.
I'm happy that I've at last got a response to something I've written and discussion and debate on these issues is always welcome. I am also happy to be made aware of the facts as this gentleman has kindly done so.
Nevertheless, I still have trouble with the point being made. It seems to be accepted that Allred was making a joke based on the misunderstanding surrounding Biden's remarks. The main issue of contention is the use of the word "darky".
I'm split on this. On the one hand the words "darky" and "nigger" are not nice words that I would use. But a couple of points should be made. Allred, according to this email, is in his seventies. Look back to his heyday and these kinds of words were a lot more acceptable than they are now. We know old people are slow to change. I can recall an incident last year in which my own grandmother referred to black people as "darky people". I know there was no malicious intent in it, and in fact at the time we all laughed and gently corrected her on modern etiquette. It's simply a force of habit for people of this age.
Again, that does not mean that the word "darky" is a nice one, but I would certainly say that it is simply the product of a generation to whom it was not an issue.
The other point is the larger one I've raised here a few times before: that of the way race-related words seem to take precedence over others on the Offence-o-meter. Why SHOULD "darky" or even "nigger" be offensive to any reasonably civilised black person? It is only a word. Are they so thin-skinned that they are unable to rise above such language?
If I was to walk down the street and call someone a stupid fatty, a stupid baldy, a stupid four-eyes, a stupid anything else, not a thing could be done to prevent me. However, if I was to call them a stupid darky I would quickly find myself in court. Why is this? Not that I would do any of those things, but RACISM IS AS LOW-DOWN A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION OR BULLYING AS ANYTHING ELSE. It's not big and it's not clever, but if it is to be considered taboo in this day and age then I suggest that other non-racist words which could be taken in an insulting way are also made taboo.
Or preferably, they all remain "legal". That, my friends, is freedom of speech, and I defend it whole-heartedly.
It would be nice if this e-mailer could continue to come to the site and post comments. I have made comments open to anyone; not just BlogSpot members, so he is welcome to stop by, as is anyone else interested in discussing these issues. I'd like to thank him for the insightful email and wish him a good day.
I'm happy that I've at last got a response to something I've written and discussion and debate on these issues is always welcome. I am also happy to be made aware of the facts as this gentleman has kindly done so.
Nevertheless, I still have trouble with the point being made. It seems to be accepted that Allred was making a joke based on the misunderstanding surrounding Biden's remarks. The main issue of contention is the use of the word "darky".
I'm split on this. On the one hand the words "darky" and "nigger" are not nice words that I would use. But a couple of points should be made. Allred, according to this email, is in his seventies. Look back to his heyday and these kinds of words were a lot more acceptable than they are now. We know old people are slow to change. I can recall an incident last year in which my own grandmother referred to black people as "darky people". I know there was no malicious intent in it, and in fact at the time we all laughed and gently corrected her on modern etiquette. It's simply a force of habit for people of this age.
Again, that does not mean that the word "darky" is a nice one, but I would certainly say that it is simply the product of a generation to whom it was not an issue.
The other point is the larger one I've raised here a few times before: that of the way race-related words seem to take precedence over others on the Offence-o-meter. Why SHOULD "darky" or even "nigger" be offensive to any reasonably civilised black person? It is only a word. Are they so thin-skinned that they are unable to rise above such language?
If I was to walk down the street and call someone a stupid fatty, a stupid baldy, a stupid four-eyes, a stupid anything else, not a thing could be done to prevent me. However, if I was to call them a stupid darky I would quickly find myself in court. Why is this? Not that I would do any of those things, but RACISM IS AS LOW-DOWN A FORM OF DISCRIMINATION OR BULLYING AS ANYTHING ELSE. It's not big and it's not clever, but if it is to be considered taboo in this day and age then I suggest that other non-racist words which could be taken in an insulting way are also made taboo.
Or preferably, they all remain "legal". That, my friends, is freedom of speech, and I defend it whole-heartedly.
It would be nice if this e-mailer could continue to come to the site and post comments. I have made comments open to anyone; not just BlogSpot members, so he is welcome to stop by, as is anyone else interested in discussing these issues. I'd like to thank him for the insightful email and wish him a good day.
Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Israel As Bad As Iran?
A majority of people believe that Israel and Iran have a mainly negative influence in the world, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.
It shows that the two countries are closely followed by the United States and North Korea.
So in other words a majority believe that Israel, Iran and the US are all morally equivalent to each other. Never mind that one of these countries wants to blow another off the face of the Earth (clue: the US isn't involved in this). If this is truly a representation of global opinion it is a disgusting indication of the way the Western mainstream media, supplemented by Middle Eastern jihadist propaganda, has been able to twist the minds of the people to their immoral, dhimmified liberal stance. The idea that so many people think George Bush is as evil as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is so repulsive it makes me want to vomit.
Racy Idol Pics Spark Racism Debate
More absurd non-thinking reactionist drivel:
Frenchie Davis, dumped by "American Idol" in 2003 for lingerie shots posted on a website, moved on to Broadway success and thought she had buried a humiliating chapter of her young life.Look harder at that bit I've bolded. Case solved.That changed in the last few days, after contestant Antonella Barba was allowed to stay on the top-rated Fox series despite the emergence of racy online photos that purport to be of Barba but with no verification.
The first big controversy of the show's sixth season swelled Tuesday when fans and a civil-rights activist rallied to Davis's side, saying she was the victim of unfair and potentially biased treatment. Davis is black; Barba is white.
"We object to having one rule for black contestants and a different rule for white contestants who exhibit the same behaviour," said Najee Ali, community activist and founder of Project Islamic H.O.P.E.
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Sporting Round-up
No, this blog hasn't suddenly become the online continuation of Grandstand; it's just that today the two racism stories I've found are both football-related.
1. Police have said they are investigating allegations of racist chanting by a number of West Ham supporters before the 4-3 Premiership defeat to Tottenham at Upton Park. Footage of anti-Semitic chanting appeared on the Internet yesterday, but has since been removed at the request of the Police.
We all know my opinion: racist chanting is no worse than any other form of abusive chanting that happens throughout a match. If there are deep-seated prejudices among a significant portion of West Ham fans this should be investigated but I think racism is so overblown these days it can just become pointless to deal with it.
2. A football supporter accused of racially abusing Jason Scotland, the St Johnstone striker, has been banned from all football grounds in the United Kingdom.
Again, the idea of being banned for racist chanting when, as far as I know, no one was banned for the vile and disgusting abuse hurled at David Beckham after the 1998 World Cup, just assaults my sensibilities as FLAT OUT WRONG.
1. Police have said they are investigating allegations of racist chanting by a number of West Ham supporters before the 4-3 Premiership defeat to Tottenham at Upton Park. Footage of anti-Semitic chanting appeared on the Internet yesterday, but has since been removed at the request of the Police.
We all know my opinion: racist chanting is no worse than any other form of abusive chanting that happens throughout a match. If there are deep-seated prejudices among a significant portion of West Ham fans this should be investigated but I think racism is so overblown these days it can just become pointless to deal with it.
2. A football supporter accused of racially abusing Jason Scotland, the St Johnstone striker, has been banned from all football grounds in the United Kingdom.
Again, the idea of being banned for racist chanting when, as far as I know, no one was banned for the vile and disgusting abuse hurled at David Beckham after the 1998 World Cup, just assaults my sensibilities as FLAT OUT WRONG.
Monday, 5 March 2007
Round-up
1. Black rap-star Kelis - of "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard" fame - has been arrested after screaming "racial epithets" at two prostitutes - who turned out to be undercover policewomen on a sting operation. It's not clear what the comments were or even what race the women belonged to, though.
But should she be arrested? In my opinion, no, if she had simply shouted abuse at them. If it's racist, who cares? But the report says she tried to attack them so that's understandable regardless of the race of the victims. That's really all there is to this story, the attack. I expect she'll be released before too long, though.
2. This Huffington Post column details a supposedly racist statement made on a Texas radio show:
The guy involved has apparently been suspended.
It's difficult to tell whether this is really racist or not without hearing the thing in context. It could be a joke, in which case it's absolutely fine, despite what PC tosspots will have you believe. The man said after the commercial break: "See, I was making fun of politicians who say things like that." Of course, the columnist writing this up doesn't seem inclined to believe him.
I also find it difficult to believe Allred is racist when just before the "darky" comment he says of Obama, "He's a likable guy".
But should she be arrested? In my opinion, no, if she had simply shouted abuse at them. If it's racist, who cares? But the report says she tried to attack them so that's understandable regardless of the race of the victims. That's really all there is to this story, the attack. I expect she'll be released before too long, though.
2. This Huffington Post column details a supposedly racist statement made on a Texas radio show:
Allred: "What happened to Bama Rock or whatever his name is?"
Cole: "He's moving up in the polls. Obama."
Allred: "He's a likeable guy."
Cole: "He's 'clean' is what what's-his-name said. Joe Biden told us that."
Allred: "Clean darky."
Cole: "Sammy!"
The guy involved has apparently been suspended.
It's difficult to tell whether this is really racist or not without hearing the thing in context. It could be a joke, in which case it's absolutely fine, despite what PC tosspots will have you believe. The man said after the commercial break: "See, I was making fun of politicians who say things like that." Of course, the columnist writing this up doesn't seem inclined to believe him.
I also find it difficult to believe Allred is racist when just before the "darky" comment he says of Obama, "He's a likable guy".
Saturday, 3 March 2007
Islam Could Be Europe's Dominant Religion
As the Anglican Communion continues to fight over homosexuality and as church attendance plummets, experts say that Islam is well on its way to becoming the most dominant religion in Europe.
Friday, 2 March 2007
More Racism In Schools
Black pupils are three times more likely to be excluded than white, and five times less likely to be on the official register of gifted and talented students. Why? Because, according to a Whitehall report, teachers in England and Wales are unconsciously prejudiced against Caribbean-origin pupils.
What nonsense. NO evidence is presented to show us that teachers are collectively racist, and no one considers the possibility that these findings may be influenced by factors completely out of the teachers' control. As I covered in my first month in the blogosphere, different races come in different positions in the school achievement charts. What no one wants to acknowledge is that there are factors within the black community that MAY have an effect on these things, rather than just racism which MAY also have an effect. Such as the absence of fathers for black children, among others. The fact is that all races of people have traits that CAN be generalised to large quantities of their population. Not everyone from that cultural group is the same, of course, but we are deluding ourselves if we deny that the stereotypes DO have some basis in fact.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that what I'm about to say is definately the case, but WHAT IF black people are on average less intelligent than white people? The first people on Earth, after all, were black and originated in Africa. White people are essentially evolved versions of the original humans. Isn't it perhaps possible that biologically and psychologically, black people ON AVERAGE could perhaps have slightly less evolved brains than whites, related as they are to early man, and that this could contribute to decreased intelligence and thus worse exam scores? Isn't it also possible that black gun and ghetto culture could promote anti-social behaviour which could lead to being expelled?
There are, of course, many very bright black people, but that does not take away the fact that different races do have common traits. For example, working at a bank for many years, my dad noticed that all his Nigerian clients would suddenly zone out and stare into space for thirty seconds in the middle of a conversation. Is it racist to point this out? I think not. What we need to do is, instead of crying racism at every available opportunity, actually examine culture differences and how they affect academic achievement and other aspects of everyday life.
Don't get me wrong: all of this COULD be down to subconscious racism by teachers. But my point is that people are too quick to close down debate by saying this from the off, preventing serious analysis being made. If black people are biologically less intelligent, don't you think it's fairer that we accept this and try to help them? If that was the case, deciding it's "racism" and remaining ignorant of the root causes isn't doing them any favours at all, is it?
Friday Share
There of a lot of things I find to criticise this band for: the pointless fast drumming in many tracks, the singer's high-pitched voice, the over-reliance on lightning fast guitar solos...but they've released something like 11 albums to date, so amongst all that music I have found maybe thirty songs I do like, which is fairly impressive for one band. This is one of them. Not one of their best by any means, but a decent song and they tend not to release their best songs as singles anyway.
"Maniac Dance" by Finnish power metal outfit Stratovarius:
"Maniac Dance" by Finnish power metal outfit Stratovarius:
Round-up
1. A White council worker who was sent "racist" jokes by text message is trying to sue for racial harassment - even though the jokes were not directed at her or anyone in particular.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with race-related jokes. If we forget the over-exposure by the media, someone's race is EQUALLY valid to be made fun of as anything else about them. I doubt the people who send the texts really mean the things they say. They're just not stuck in PC Land and fancy a laugh at someone else's expense; and if that includes race then so be it - perfectly normal.
Secondly, how can you possibly hope to win a claim for harassment when no one is being harassed? Ludicrous and I'm sure this won't succeed.
2. The UN says India is a racist country because of it's caste system (the nearly-whites hold the most power and treat darker-skinned Indians like dirt).
At last, REAL racism is finally being addressed somewhere.
3. There seems to be some racism going on here as a Police Chief stands to lose his job because he hired a black assistant chief.
It does appear racist but but perhaps the council have other motives.
4. Online student groups at Ryerson University are raising concerns of racism because they are devoted to white students. Examples are the groups "I'm a White Minority @ a Toronto University" and "Equal Rights for Whites".
Now, there COULD be some white nationalism going on here. But I think it's far more likely that white people at this university simply don't think they are being treated fairly as a minority race. Of course, if they were any other race these groups would be hailed as a triumph for diversity and equality but if you happen to be white and do the same thing you should expect to get burned.
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with race-related jokes. If we forget the over-exposure by the media, someone's race is EQUALLY valid to be made fun of as anything else about them. I doubt the people who send the texts really mean the things they say. They're just not stuck in PC Land and fancy a laugh at someone else's expense; and if that includes race then so be it - perfectly normal.
Secondly, how can you possibly hope to win a claim for harassment when no one is being harassed? Ludicrous and I'm sure this won't succeed.
2. The UN says India is a racist country because of it's caste system (the nearly-whites hold the most power and treat darker-skinned Indians like dirt).
At last, REAL racism is finally being addressed somewhere.
3. There seems to be some racism going on here as a Police Chief stands to lose his job because he hired a black assistant chief.
It does appear racist but but perhaps the council have other motives.
4. Online student groups at Ryerson University are raising concerns of racism because they are devoted to white students. Examples are the groups "I'm a White Minority @ a Toronto University" and "Equal Rights for Whites".
Now, there COULD be some white nationalism going on here. But I think it's far more likely that white people at this university simply don't think they are being treated fairly as a minority race. Of course, if they were any other race these groups would be hailed as a triumph for diversity and equality but if you happen to be white and do the same thing you should expect to get burned.
Thursday, 1 March 2007
Something Quite Bizarre
This is...odd. After Lordi won Eurovision last year, the Israeli entry this year is this little number called "Push the Button" by a group called The Teapacks, which has a political message about terrorism. Check it out; it's very very peculiar.
More Annoying Than Racist
I see the TV advert for Trident chewing gum showing a Jamaican guy running around shouting has received a hundred complaints for being racist.
Is this ad "mocking the Jamaican accent"? Isn't it possible that the actor involved really does talk like this?
Either way, I would support a ban of the ad - not because it's racist, but because it's very VERY irritating and goes on for far too long.
Is this ad "mocking the Jamaican accent"? Isn't it possible that the actor involved really does talk like this?
Either way, I would support a ban of the ad - not because it's racist, but because it's very VERY irritating and goes on for far too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)