»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Saturday, February 06, 2016 ::

Affirmative Action in Film 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 6:51 PM

Spike Lee and other black actors are demanding more racial or ethnic “diversity” in film, especially in films that win Oscars, regardless of whether or not  anyone wants to see them or their films, or even if the films in which “minorities” appear deserve an Oscar or any kind of recognition.

What Lee and other claimants of entitlements want is much like anti-smokers demanding that all restaurants and bars be made smoke-free by law. That is, for the government to favor their voting bloc or pressure group and to “socialize” private property and private associations. To “socialize” private property and private associations, however, is to seize them. Or, compare that with Muslims demanding that supermarkets create a special section for halal food products.

What no one seems to understand is that affirmative action in film – which is what #OscarsSoWhite is demanding – will mean affirmative action in literature. Most films today are based on novels or on adaptations from novels (mostly bad adaptations, and a handful of decent ones). Or on film scripts. “Diversity” in employment has always been linked to political correctness in speech and even in imagery. One can see it in television and print advertisement. It also means “rationing” casting parts to blacks and other minorities. It means forced social associations.

It means the collectivization of artistic and moral values based on race, gender, and even disabilities.

There is a minor character in Ayn Rand’s prophetic novel, Atlas Shrugged, which, among other things, chronicles the destruction of America at the hands of statists, egalitarians, career parasites (politicians and bureaucrats), and other looters-by-law. The character is Balph Eubank, a failed writer who nonetheless has political pull in Washington

Wikipedia has a special site for breaking down Atlas Shrugged by plot and character. Here is the section on Balph Eubank:

Called "the literary leader of the age", despite the fact that he is incapable of writing anything that people actually want to read. What people want to read, he says, is irrelevant. He complains that it is disgraceful that artists are treated as peddlers, and that there should be a law limiting the sales of books to ten thousand copies. He is a member of the Looters. Balph Eubank appears in section 161 (“The Non-Commercial”) (Italics mine)

And what does Balph Eubank write? Books that no one wants to read. Books that are eminently non-commercial. Unsalable. Ballast for the bookstores’ remainder and bargain tables. But Eubank (and his brain brothers in other realms) want to repeal the trader principle.

Eubank declares that suffering is the essence of life, and that free will, achievement, and happiness are laughable concepts of old literature. Plot, he says, is a primitive vulgarity in literature. Moreover, life is about suffering and frustration, that the only thing to live for is brotherly love. He later says that the machine age has destroyed man's humanity, observing that Dagny Taggart runs a railroad rather than practicing the beautiful art of the handloom and bearing children.

Maura Pennington, in her Forbes article of August 3rd, 2013, “Atlas Shrugged’s Balph Eubank Long ago, Predicted the Impoverished Future for Writers,” wrote:

In Atlas Shrugged, in the scene at the Reardens’ anniversary party, the satirical character with the bombastic name Balph Eubank proposes an “Equalization of Opportunity Bill” for literature, as had been suggested for industry earlier in Ayn Rand’s novel.  Applied to literature, it would stipulate that no author would be allowed to sell more than 10,000 copies of a book, opening up the field for more writers because people would be forced to read a wider variety instead of the same popular volumes.

Someone at the party wonders, wouldn’t that be tough on writers?  Balph Eubank responds haughtily, “So much the better.  Only those whose motive is not moneymaking should be allowed to write”…. 

Remember that Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, long, long before terms such as “diversity” and “equal opportunity” became part of the political and social lexicons and were embedded by fiat law in the nation’s “consciousness.” I am not the first to say that Rand’s novel is “prophetic”; columnists and pundits have said it countless times over the last decade. In the current context, however, it is prophetic in the general principles elucidated by Rand, principles that govern the Balkanization of a country into warring pressure groups and noisy, belligerent tribes, into a mosaic of separatist “communities,” a social and political disintegration driven by the abandonment of reason and a deeply-rooted hostility to reality, to individualism, and to objectivity.

But Rand could never have imagined the numerous ugly forms the phenomenon has taken. Racial and ethnic “diversity” in art in her time was not one of them, but if it went unchallenged, it was bound to rear its life-freezing Medusa head as it has today, with a dozen poisonous snakes wreathing on its head: homosexuality, transgenderism, feminism; pedophilia; mental and physical disabilities, and other abnormalcies whose advocates champion “rights.”

The hashtag #OscarsSoWhite is a child of #BlackLivesMatter.  

President Barack Obama is a party to the disintegration; he is one of its chief vehicles. Even during his Baltimore mosque address on February 3rd, he touched on the absence of non-violent Muslims in TV:

….Many [Americans] only hear about Muslims and Islam from the news after an act of terrorism, or in distorted media portrayals in TV or film, all of which gives this hugely distorted impression….

Our television shows should have some Muslim characters that are unrelated to national security -- (applause) -- because -- it’s not that hard to do.  There was a time when there were no black people on television.  And you can tell good stories while still representing the reality of our communities.

Mickey Mouse was not cast in the Coen
Brothers' Hail, Caesar! Was he not black enough?
Or not white enough?



“There was a time when there were no black people on television.” When? In the late 1940’s? The early 1950’s? Beginning in the 1960’s, there were hundreds of black sitcoms on TV. Where was Obama when “The Jeffersons” was running? “Sanford and Son”? Bill Cosby’s several sitcoms, including an animated show, “Fat Albert”? And many more shows, some targeted to black viewers, others to the general viewing audience.

And on the Oscar “diversity” issue, the left-wing British Guardian, in its January 28th article, “Barack Obama on Oscars diversity: are we giving everyone a fair shot?” reported Obama’s nickel’s worth:

US president Barack Obama has spoken for the first time on Oscars diversity, suggesting that the issue comes down to basic fairness and challenging Hollywood to ask if people of all races are “getting a fair shot”.

Describing the furor over all-white lists of nominees for this year’s ceremony as “just an expression of this broader issue” Obama said the American film industry could benefit creatively by championing the creativity of those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

“I think that California is an example of the incredible diversity of this country. That’s a strength,” he told reporters at the White House. “I think that when everyone’s story is told … that makes for better art.” Added Obama: “It makes for better entertainment; it makes everybody feel part of one American family, so I think as a whole the industry should do what every other industry should do which is to look for talent, provide opportunity to everybody. And I think the Oscar debate is really just an expression of this broader issue. Are we making sure that everybody is getting a fair shot?”
 
It seems that Hollywood has given especially blacks more than a “fair shot” in film. There are hundreds of films that feature blacks or that were made by blacks or that were targeted at black viewers. But TV and big screen movies made by American Indians? By Asians? By Hispanics? By the “disabled”?  By gays? By transgenders? By Pakistanis? By Muslims? Not so many of those stories have been told. Have I overlooked any “minorities”? The aged? The feminists? The autistic? The wheelchair-bound? The obese? The blind? The mute? The deaf?

So, one must ask oneself? Where have Spike Lee, Will Smith, Chris Rock, Barack Obama, and Ethan Hawke been all these years? In what alternate universe have they been living? What is their true complaint? Will Smith co-starred in two Men In Black films. What chip sits on his shoulder?

One reader wrote on Daniel Greenfield’s column of February 6th, "’Guam is Tipping Over’" Congressman Demands Black Oscar Quotas: Maybe they should change the hashtag to "#OscarsNotBlackEnough.”

And there’s the nub. The Doberman barks or bares its teeth; Hollywood jumps through hoops. Bridget Johnson in her PJ Media article of February 5th, “Lawmakers Hope Academy Works with Congress to Make Oscars Less White,” reported:

On Jan. 21, the Board of Governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences approved "sweeping" changes to membership rules, such as extending voting terms in regards to how long it's been since a member actively worked in Hollywood, and promised to recruit a more diverse voting membership.

“The Academy is going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up,” said Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs. “These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership composition.”

Greenfield put it simply and brutally: “The entire #Oscarissowhite whine is racist, entitled and stupid.”

The point man for the whole #OscarsSoWhite boycott movement is Spike Lee. Breitbart’s February 2nd column, “Spike Lee Calls Out ‘Progressive’ Hollywood: ‘Step up’ to Fight #OscarsSoWhite,” reported:

During a recent CNN interview with several “Hollywood heavyweights” about the lack of diversity among this year’s Academy Awards nominees, film director Spike Lee chided his “progressive” counterparts in the industry for not being “active” in this “movement.”

“Hollywood has many times in the past been active with progressive movements,” Lee said. “I would like to see more people step up because we’re going to be on the right side of history….We’re not going,” Lee said, referring to the calls to boycott this year’s Oscars ceremony. “Even with the changes the made, which I think are great, we’re still going to be at the Nicks game.”

What Spike Lee and others of his malevolent, no-talent ilk want are: Quotas. They want their 10,000 copies and the guaranteed income and prestige that come with the print run or with the box office.

And if a novelist is fortunate (unlucky enough) to have his work selected by a Hollywood studio for adaptation to film, will many of his characters be appropriated and transformed into black characters? Suppose he does pen a novel with many black or other “minority” characters, will the black casting be treated as “fair enough,” or “not enough”? Will the writer have any say in what happens to his characters? Not bloody likely.

There are many other unaddressed complications. If a film comes out with the “right” quota of white and black roles, should an Hispanic viewer care? Or if a film comes out with the “right” amount of white and Hispanic characters, should a black viewer care? An Asian? A Jew? A gay? A transgender? Will he feel “left out,” “under-represented,” or “snubbed”? Which ethnic, religious, or racial “community” will cry “discrimination”? And if the correct quota of Oscar winners is not of a specific ethnic, religious, gender, or racial class, will a flurry of new outraged, super-sensitive hashtags emerge on Twitter: #OscarsSoLatino? #OscarsTooHeterosexual?  #OscaesSoWhite/Black/LatinaChick? #OscarsSoBlack?

However, failing to get those guaranteed 10,000 film roles, blacks and other minorities who feel under-represented doubtless will accept direct or indirect government film production subsidies, which go by the various names of “tax breaks,” “tax credits,” and “movie production incentives.” There are many articles on the subject of state subsidies. Three of the leading series now on Netflix, “House of Cards” (shot largely in Baltimore), “Orange is the New Black” (shot largely in Rockland County, New York), and “The Walking Dead” (it’s never left Georgia, even though later seasons were set though not filmed in Alexandria, Virginia). They benefit from special tax breaks and other state government-granted advantages, such as the suspensions of state and local hotel/motel taxes, sales taxes, and other government levies while a company is filming on location in a state. Often segments of the series are shot free of charge on government property, saving the producers the cost of constructing sets.
 
Dexter,” a crime series (2006-2013), features one of the most “multi-racial,” “multi-ethnic,” and multi-location TV series on Netflix, shot largely in Miami, Florida and Long Beach, California.

Trigger Warning! There are few black characters in the Cyrus Skeen detective novel series, and none in Silver Screens.  This writer accepts no subsidies, and certainly no “incentives” to produce. He knows that if he did, that would be the end of his writing career.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::

 

:: Thursday, February 04, 2016 ::

“Islam is Just Christianity Misspelled” 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 5:39 PM

Daniel Greenfield, writing in his Sultan Knish column on February 2nd, “Will Banning Muslim Migration Ruin the Anti-ISIS Coalition?” noted:

The Muslim world wants to know what to expect from us. It hates Obama because of his unreliability. To them, his political ideology resembles some species of mysticism which they do not share. It much prefers an arrangement based on mutual interests over our misguided mystical attempts to discover shared values by pretending that Islam is just Christianity misspelled. (Italics mine.)

I couldn’t resist using that last part – “Islam is just Christianity misspelled” – as the thematic title for this column. But it is true. The phrase encapsulates the common notion that Islam “shares” the same humanistic values as Christianity and Judaism. The three faiths are alleged to be interchangeable, distinguished only by their traditions and rituals, with no significant or worrisome doctrinal differences. Christian and Jewish clerics who engage in “interfaith dialogue” with Muslims act under the assumption that Islam is just another religion, basically benign, not out to threaten or hurt anyone or force people to act against their religious beliefs by converting “peacefully” to Islam.

But there is no “peaceful” conversion to Islam. Islam tolerates no other religion. It is fundamentally “anti-coexistence.” To paraphrase Henry Ford’s 1909 dictum, Islam’s philosophy of coexistence is, “You can have any religion you want as long as it’s Islam.”*

I discuss the futility of “interfaith dialogue” in my January 2nd Rule of Reason  column, “Interfaith Bridges to Islam,” which is based on Stephen Coughlin’s vital critique of our current and absolutely anemic and counter-productive “War on Terror” policies, Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad. Coughlin offers a brutal, thorough, but necessary vivisection of the pretentions and fallacies of interfaith dialogue. I noted that:

Postmodernism has allowed Islam unopposed and unparalleled entrée into the minds and values of Westerners. Coughlin discusses how this entrée works and the consequences of Christian and Jewish religionists compromising their own beliefs by agreeing to form a “united front” for peace and coexistence and multi-beliefs with Islam. He correctly identifies the chief culprit and enabler of Muslim Brotherhood-dominated interfaith dialogue as postmodernism. Postmodernism is not incidental to the inroads being made by Islam in the West. It is a key factor.

Without the assist of postmodernism – which Islam did not create – neither the Brotherhood nor the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) could exploit the self-criticism of the West nor inveigle their way into the language and behavior of non-Muslim interfaith participants. Islam would be stopped cold, told to return to the miserable pestholes from which it came, and not admitted through the gates of Aristotelian thought. The shiny shield of reason consistently applied to everything and every idea could not be breached by the underhanded finagling and deft finessing machinations of the Brotherhood and the OIC.

A West that doubts or questions its own value qua West is destined for destruction, either by Islam or by “its own hands.” Islam will provide the rope.

But our political leaders, academia, and the news media all “blank out” the fundamental nature of Islam – that it is totalitarian – and Islam’s primary and steadfast goal: the imposition of Sharia law on the West and on America.

Greenfield continued near the end of his column:

It’s not an immigration ban that poses a threat to the coalition, it’s the insistence that shared values come before shared interests. If we are to have shared values with a Muslim coalition, that requires us to prosecute blasphemy against Islam, provide a special status to Muslims and a lower status to non-Muslims. Such an approach is incompatible with our own values, yet we have begun doing just that. Locking up filmmakers and condemning cartoonists has given us more in common with Saudi Arabia and ISIS. And it would be unfortunate if we had to become an Islamic state to fight the Islamic State.

We can best fight ISIS by being a free nation. There is no use in defeating ISIS just to become ISIS. That will not prevent us from joining coalitions of shared interests with anyone else, but it will stop us from trying to find shared values with Islamic tyrannies of the axe, burka and sword. A ban on Muslim migration will allow us to fight ISIS abroad instead of fighting ISIS and becoming ISIS at home.

President Barack Obama indulged in his own brand of “interfaith dialogue” when he spoke on February 2nd at a Baltimore mosque about “shared values.”

If you listen to Obama claim – or if you read the transcript of his Baltimore speech – with his signature, folksy, bilious bombast, that Muslims contributed greatly to America’s history and growth, you would be left with the impression that Muslims were all over the place, from colonial times to the present, whooping it up with cowboys in North Dakota, “cranking out cars” on Henry Ford’s assembly line, designing Chicago’s skyscrapers – and that Muslims were Thomas Jefferson’s and John Adams’s best friends and regular house guests. Obama insinuated in his speech that without Muslim contributions, America would be so much the poorer. To his hand-picked and highly-screened audience he said:

Generations of Muslim Americans helped to build our nation. They were part of the flow of immigrants who became farmers and merchants.  They built America’s first mosque, surprisingly enough, in North Dakota.  (Laughter.)  America’s oldest surviving mosque is in Iowa.  The first Islamic center in New York City was built in the 1890s.  Muslim Americans worked on Henry Ford’s assembly line, cranking out cars.  A Muslim American designed the skyscrapers of Chicago. 

There was one claim in his speech that piqued my curiosity, that a Muslim designed many of Chicago’s skyscrapers. So, I did a search, and found Fazlur Rahman Khan (3 April 1929 – 27 March 1982; naturalized American citizen, 1967). Khan was from Bangladesh. It is highly doubtful that this accomplished man had been a practicing Muslim. Reading his life story, you can't imagine him taking time out five times a day to perform the self-abnegating Islamic prayer ritual. Further, he can't have been a practicing Muslim when “He believed that engineers needed a broader perspective on life, saying, ‘The technical man must not be lost in his own technology; he must be able to appreciate life, and life is art, drama, music, and most importantly, people.’"

Islam frowns on, if not outright prohibits, art, drama, and music.

But Obama insinuates that Islam was somehow responsible for the man’s achievements. Not the man himself. Obama suggested that Khan was accomplished because he was a Muslim, not in spite of it. Assuming, that is, that Khan was not an apostate or a lapsed Muslim.

In his speech lauding Muslims and Islam, Obama employed all the flattering “puffery” devices invented by Mr. Puff in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s comedy, The Critic, all intended  by Obama to inflate the “self-esteem” of Muslims and the Muslim “community”: the puff direct, the puff preliminary, the puff collusive, the puff collateral, and the puff oblique (or by implication). And also intended to put over a lie and a fraud.**

Pamela Geller, in her February 3rd Atlas Shrugs column, “Radical Speech: Muslims Keep Us Safe,” stressed the evasive deviousness of Obama in Baltimore:

In the wake of the San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Paris and Garland jihad attacks, President Obama visited a radical mosque in Baltimore today.

“An attack on one religion is an attack on all religions,” Obama says as he visits a U.S. mosque for the first time as president.

Pathetic. The only religion attacking, subjugating and slaughtering members of other religions en masse is Islam. The religion attacking other religions is Islam. President Obama speaks nothing of this. Gender apartheid, creed apartheid, cultural annihilation, jihad wars, and enslavement are raging across the world under his presidency. And yet Obama proselytizes for Islam.

This is nothing new. Obama has been engaged in his own brand of dawah since his first day in office.  And Islam has been on the warpath for 1,400 years.
Geller went on:, quoting Obama:

“For more than a thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace,” Obama says of Islam. [Islam has been on the warpath for 1,400 years.]

He neglects to mention that it is at the end of a sword. [Convert, or else.]

He gives Hollywood his marching orders: “Our TV shows should have some Muslim characters that are unrelated to national security,” “It’s not that hard to do.”

Obama’s stunning silence on Christian genocide, Yazidi genocide, and Islamic Jew hatred is criminal and inhumane.

“Muslim Americans keep us safe,” Obama says as he visits a U.S. mosque for the first time as president. “They are our police. They are our fire fighters. They’re in Homeland Security.”

No one takes issue with law-abiding, peaceful Muslims. But there are millions of Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah. What about them? And why is opposition to jihad terror labeled “anti-Muslim”?

As for the Muslims working at Homeland Security, how have they been vetted? By appointing Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Elibiary a senior member of DHS’ Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), then we have serious problems.

This is where I disagree with Geller. Islam is not an incubator of individualism, it is not a fountainhead of independent thought, it is not a promoter of independence from the crowd, from the mob, from the collective, from the herd. It is a totalitarian cult that attracts selfless conformists because it saves them the bother of egoism. It saves the intellectually lazy the effort of thinking for themselves. “Law-abiding, peaceful Muslims” frankly constitute a fifth column of the Muslim Brotherhood’s overall plan to Islamize America. They are oblivious to or hostile to any Freedom of Speech or First Amendment issue. They simply parrot whatever their spokesmen say in public. When Muslim spokesmen speak of “Freedom of Speech” or “Freedom of Religion,” they are talking about a Muslim’s freedoms, not those of non-Muslim.

In Baltimore, Obama touched on ISIS and other “radical” Islamic terrorist gangs:

Now, we do have another fact that we have to acknowledge.  Even as the overwhelming majority -- and I repeat, the overwhelming majority -- of the world’s Muslims embrace Islam as a source of peace, it is undeniable that a small fraction of Muslims propagate a perverted interpretation of Islam.  This is the truth. 

Groups like al Qaeda and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s name.  We’ve seen it before, across faiths.  But right now, there is an organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.  They combine it with false claims that America and the West are at war with Islam.  And this warped thinking that has found adherents around the world – including, as we saw, tragically, in Boston and Chattanooga and San Bernardino – is real.  It’s there.  And it creates tensions and pressure that disproportionately burden the overwhelming majority of law-abiding Muslim citizens.  
  
And that overwhelming majority of “law-abiding Muslim citizens” is largely silent about the mass crimes committed in their religion’s name. Islam has not been “perverted,” nor has it been “hijacked.” The “violent” verses that ISIS and other groups cite as justifications for terrorism abrogated or replaced the earlier, “peaceful” ones. Terrorism, per Sharia and scholarly interpretations of Islam, refers exclusively to Muslims killing other Muslims. However, Muslims killing non-Muslims is condoned and encouraged in the Koran and Hadith.

Christianity and Judaism, while as mystical as Islam, at least offer individuals a chance to live independent lives and to make independent choices. Islam, which means submission;, does not. it does not mean “peace,” or “peace be upon you,” as Obama claimed in his speech. (“And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam -- peace.  The standard greeting is as-salamu alaykum -- peace be upon you” – if you’re a Muslim. If not, then no peace for you.) Islam is totalitarian, root, branch, and trunk, as Judaism and Christianity never were.

Islam is not Christianity misspelled. Islam is Islam.  

Catastrophic Failure:  Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.
* https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Ford -- My Life and Work (1922), Chapter IV, p. 72.
**https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD4p2R_3ziI&feature=youtu.be

:: Permalink | 1 Comments ::

 

:: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 ::

Sergeant Schultz Knows Everything 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 5:29 PM

“I know nothing!”

That was Sergeant Hans Schultz’s favorite and well-known refrain in Hogan’s Heroes, which ran on CBS from 1965 to 1971. In the linked clip, he adds, “I was not here! I did not even get up this morning!”

Suppose you had a chance to chat with the real-life Sgt. Schultz’s in Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. The “interfaith” dialogue would go something like this, after you’ve reported a crime committed by a Muslim.

Sgt. Schultz will claim that he knows everything, he was there, and that you should go back to sleep and pretend nothing ever happened. You were not raped by a Muslim or a gang of Muslims. You did not have your head kicked in by a gang of Muslims. You were not robbed by a Muslim. Or stabbed, or groped, or spit on by a Muslim on a train or on the street. Or even raped and then disfigured by a Muslim. Or by a “refugee,” or by an “immigrant.”

All right, Sgt. Schultz would concede. All or one of those things happened to you. There’s no denying the facts, is there? But if you fought back, and used illegal means such as pepper spray to deter your assailant, then you must be punished. Your fighting back is evidence of bigotry, or racism, of being anti-Muslim or anti-Islam or anti-immigrant. Of your lack of patriotism! Those states of mind are illegal, as well, and must be corrected.

You must allow yourself to be raped, robbed, and spit on. It’s your duty to submit to the diktats of Islam. You must submit to Sharia. Horridly primitive system, yes. But, who are we to judge? You may not survive the experience, but it’s an issue of sacrifice. Of self-sacrifice for the greater good. For the nation. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, even Italy – all of our lily-white societies, have a duty to be invaded and assaulted by Muslims and others. We have a duty to relieve the suffering they endured in the countries from which they came. We have no right to assert that our morals and our society are superior to the cultures of the immigrants. We have no right to impose them on immigrants, even here. That is the height of cultural hubris and civilizational imperialism. Okay, so the perpetrator was Somalian. And he hates whites, even though Sweden was not a party to the downfall of Somalia. Or Ethiopia. I’m a little foggy on the history of that part of the world. So what?

Don’t you understand that when a black- or brown- or olive-skinned male immigrant rapes a Swede or a German, it’s what the Americans would call “payback” for the destruction and looting of the immigrant’s home country? And even if the destruction and looting are purely imaginary, and you or your ancestors had nothing to do with it, you’re still guilty. The purpose is to humiliate and degrade the victim, to demonstrate who’s in charge now. You may call it racism on his part; but from his perspective, it’s reparations. Sure, it’s racism. But it’s justifiable racism. Also, It’s a religious requirement to rape non-Muslim women, and beat up non-Muslim men within an inch of their lives. I suspect that’s just an excuse for a super-excited Muslim to get his jollies off, but don’t tell anyone I said that.

You say you have a right to know what’s going on in the country, about all the crimes committed by Muslims and other immigrants? Gott im Himmel!  How naïve of you! No, you don’t have a right to know! Nobody not in government or the police forces has a right to know! If people knew, there’d be a furious backlash at immigrants, and Muslims, they might be attacked, and hurt, or even killed!

But you say they have a right to attack, hurt, and even kill native Swedes, and Danes, and Germans, without much consequence, just a slap on the wrist? But, that’s their culture, and we can't punish them for acting out their culture! That would be…discriminatory! And that’s unthinkable! We don’t want to be charged with racism, or religious bigotry, or anti-Muslimism! God, if we reported every one of the 5,000 or more crimes committed by Muslims, we’d have to deport the whole lot of them! Or jail them. The newspapers would run out of space to report them all! But, they’ve saved themselves the trouble of being disciplined for reporting news we don’t want reported. They don’t want to start a panic, either!


There’s a fellow in America who ought to be silenced, Daniel Greenfield, he helped to spill the beans on our secret Code 291 policy, which is to secretly compiled statistics on Muslim and immigrant crimes committed in Sweden but not report them to the public. He wrote such slanderous things about our law-enforcement efforts. He made much of that silly goose, Alexandra Mezher, who got herself killed trying to break up a fight between “asylum seekers children.” Poor girl, but that’s the risk you take when you do the right thing and help adult children settle into our lovely country. I feel no remorse for her. Sooner or later she was going to be sexually assaulted, but that’s neither here nor there. So it’s good she’s dead. But this Greenfield fellow, he wrote – and don’t you go broadcasting this to anyone else, not even to your parents, or else you can be charged with hate speech and that carries a heavier penalty than using illegal pepper spray, or Mace:

The people at the top wanted an overview of the crisis, but they did not want the public to know what was going on. That was what Code 291 was for….

Police would not disclose details of the resources spent on work with refugees and migrants.  This despite the fact that the agency kept separate statistics on this using the secret code "291" .

This is not how democracies work. This is not how free countries work. This is how totalitarian states work.

European governments are deliberately hiding information about Muslim migrant crimes from the public. They are covering up attacks, intimidating witnesses and even visiting the homes of people who criticize this on Twitter to intimidate them.

This is what a totalitarian system looks like. Code 291 should be a rallying call to bring down the iron curtain of collectivist bureaucracy and expose the truth about its migrant hordes.

What libelous, xenophobic rubbish! We are not totalitarian! What a nasty slur! We are a caring regime. Sometimes we overdo it, but it’s all for your own good. It’s all for the general good. You can't create a model society of diversity and multiculturalism without breaking a few traditions or taboos or heads.

Are you saying that the Swedish and German and Danish police have become allies of the criminals?? That suggestive libel has earned you extra two years in clink! So what if the Cologne police have erased all visual record of the mass assault on women there on New Year’s Eve? It’s for the public’s own good. That great prophetess Chancellor Angela Merkel, is determined to make Germans and Germany pay for its past crimes, even though most Germans alive today had nothing to do with Nazism, they weren’t even born yet!

Still, it’s the cultural and political heritage thing, you know, and their inherited “white privilege” that must be paid for. And so what if no Somali or Iraqi or Turk or Syrian never discovered a new law of physics or invented new medical procedure (other than beheading!) or composed anything worth listening to. They come from brutal societies with their own cultural heritage. We mustn’t be judgmental now. Or else you spend a night in the box! Love that American phrase! But that Greenfield writer is definitely not to my taste! Our dear friend Mr. Mark Zuckerberg ought to shut him up! Hate speech just causes problems. Hate is contagious, you know, especially if the object of hate is, well…hateful. And you can hate all of these immigrants, but also feel sorry for them.

Now, if you can't pay the 5,000 Euro fine, you’ll have to be cuffed and taken away. We have a new recruit in uniform now. His name is Abdul Rahman Abunasir. He is from Syria…think. He is eager to escort you to prison, and will see that you are comfortably settled in your new cell. But, before you submit to his handcuffs, I advise you to wear a headscarf to cover your hair and wear an ankle-length skirt.

Otherwise, he might be provoked and get mad at you…or something.

I am not a dumb person, young lady. There isn’t anything I don’t know. Sergeant Schultz at your service! Deaf to your screams, blind to your suffering, and mute on policy!

:: Permalink | 0 Comments ::

 

 

» Recent Posts

» Affirmative Action in Film
» “Islam is Just Christianity Misspelled”
» Sergeant Schultz Knows Everything
» A Preview of Manhattan Blues
» Words and Reality
» The Sexual Savaging of Europe
» Obama’s Malice Aforethought II
» Our Gutted and Gutless FBI: Fiction vs. Reality
» Twitter’s Blue Bird of Sharia Compliance
» Some Cheap Shots at Islam

» RSS Feed


» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.


» Feedback
We want to hear from you!

 


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
»
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
»
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
»
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» SCOTUSBlog
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
»
Thrutch
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy


SPONSORED LINKS


 

Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
Email: 
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster