I can think of a few groups that would wave both hands so frantically they’d attain liftoff: Feminists, gay rights activists, anti-racist/multicultural fruit cakes, and of-course, organized Jewry. What do these groups have in common? A persecution complex the size of Burj Dubai and a love of censorship aimed at the White heterosexual male. It seems that the Jewish Southern Poverty Law center has set its cross-hairs on Alt Right website Counter Currents and has marked them for financial destruction.
Jewess Heidi Beirich justifies the SPLC’s hate for white America with the following pearls of wisdom:
“Our country, from its inception, until the 1960s, was a white-supremacist country, and that is not that long ago. And we have to be really, really vigilant of not returning to those kinds of views.”
Such a moral stalwart would surely condemn Israeli apartheid would she not? I tried searching that exact phrase on the website’s search engine and found nothing. I also tried searching the phrase “Jewish supremacy” and ended up with reports attacking individuals like David Duke, individuals who exposed Jewish supremacist ideas. That’s Jewish logic for you: that the Jew can tarnish reputations by labeling people racist whereas anyone who accuses the morally upright Jew of racism is also racist. What was that line about Jews supporting diversity and ‘tolerance’ in North America while defending Jewish fascism in Israel?
Anti-bullying and totalitarianism in Canada.
The anti bullying campaign lifted off in Canada amidst a great deal of media fervor and fanfare. I believe the impetus for this movement were the suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd. In traditional WASP culture (ie American/Canadian culture) kids were taught to stand up to their bullies but today kids are taught to lean on authority to solve their problems. The issue however goes deeper than this. When one reads the preamble of the anti bullying bill (bill 13) this part stands out:
Believe that students need to be equipped with the knowledge, skills, attitude and values to engage the world and others critically, which means developing a critical consciousness that allows them to take action on making their schools and communities more equitable and inclusive for all people, including LGBTTIQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning) people;
Recognize that a whole-school approach is required, and that everyone — government, educators, school staff, parents, students and the wider community — has a role to play in creating a positive school climate and preventing inappropriate behaviour, such as bullying, sexual assault, gender-based violence and incidents based on homophobia, transphobia or biphobia;
I suspect this is the true purpose of the anti bullying agenda that has seized Canada; that tolerating gays isn’t going far enough, children must also be conditioned to accept homosexuality as healthy and normal. Children raised in traditional households that refuse to acknowledge such behaviour as healthy will themselves be bullied by being labelled as bullies. Religious leaders have expressed their alarm:
“To force, especially Christian classrooms or schools, to have homosexual clubs would of course be an affront to their family values,” Charles McVety, of the Institute for Canadian Values, told a joint news conference.
“And what does this have to do with bullying? Nothing.”
How does the State respond? From the same liberal source:
Education Minister Laurel Broten rejected the criticisms expressed by the religious representatives as “homophobic,” and said her job was to make sure every child finds school a warm and inviting place, regardless of their sexual orientation or any other factors.
The State has spoken and insists that it will undemocratically imposes the views of 1% on the other 99%. Make no mistake, the real bullies here are elite puppets like Laurel Broten.
Anti-bullying has now been extended to monitor online bullying as well. The “Stop hating online” campaign basically conditions young people to practice self censorship. The official rationale is that intimate photos must not be distributed with the intent of tormenting people. While such a motive is laudable I still fail to see why the state must become involved in what is essentially a dispute between private individuals. Watch the “stop hating online” video below.
This video is tantamount to child abuse as it programs children to fear the law instead of respecting it. Make no mistake, the bullies in the above video aren’t the wide eyed children cowering in fear, it’s the law enforcement officers and the state.
The cases of Parsons and Todd were indeed tragic and their distraught families have every moral right to seek justice. But why must we add new laws? The Globe and Mail Newspaper offers the following explanation:
“Police in northern B.C. are recommending a 13-year-old boy be charged with child pornography for allegedly posting a partly nude photo of an acquaintance on Facebook.
Bill C-13, the proposed federal cyberbullying bill expected to pass this spring, would eliminate the need for such a severe charge in similar cases. It would give the option of lodging the lesser charge of non-consensual distribution of images, which would carry a maximum sentence of five years, compared with 10 years for distribution of child pornography.”
This is obviously the oldest trick in the book: to present an extreme proposal as moderate by positioning it by an even more extreme alternative. Aakar Patel once wrote that civilized societies should have no need for multiplying laws and the same approach is called for here. While I’m no lawyer, I’m fairly confident that current laws can be amended to adequately tackle the issue of cyber harassment. The true purpose of the superfluous anti-bullying legislature is to condition people to self censor themselves and get comfortable doing it.
In a somewhat related incident, a private conversation on Facebook stirred up a hornets nest at the University of Ottawa. Anne-Marie Roy (President of the student federation) became the subject of a sexually course conversation between 5 friends on Facebook. A screen shot of the conversation was anonymously emailed to her and she went public with it decrying “rape culture” (whatever that means). This feminist fruitcake has obviously never visited Pakistan or Afghanistan. Four of the five threatened her with legal action but later withdrew their threats. The usual assortment of idiots (feminists, liberals, manginas) applauded her “bravery” for speaking out against “rape culture”; as if speaking out on a topic that is widely covered by the mainstream media requires courage. Idiots like Roy remind me of people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller who “bravely” bash Islam knowing full well that it is actually fashionable to do so. Granted that some Muslims deserve to be bashed (Pakistanis/Afghans/ Khaliji Arabs) and should be taken to task for collectively stupid behaviour, but I digress. Roy has single-handedly destroyed the reputation of five men that had a private conversation which did her no harm. The conversation contained no threats made against her and was purely private. Yet despite these facts Roy has herself genuinely convinced that SHE is the victim, thereby demonstrating her inability to tell right from wrong. In our culture of excessive victim coddling it would appear that intent is indeed in the eye of the beholder. According to lunatic liberals, American and Canadian universities are saturated with ”rape culture”, women like Roy are victims, and society oppresses and bullies gays. War is peace and freedom is slavery.
I can’t help but think that such developments portend a prelude to harsher forms of speech censorship unless the slumbering masses take matters into their own hands. Unless we confront these trends head on our free voices will be smothered beneath the pillow of oppressive tolerance.