Thoughtcrime of the Day: a woman doesn't have a "right to choose"

because there is no such thing.

Here's a new series.

Pro-Life 101: abortion slogans debunked.

"She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none, that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her."

Orwell, 1984.


For a brief time a few years ago, I gave talks to students in Catholic schools about the life issues. It was fun, sometimes. One of the things I did was to ask them to tell me what they heard in the media or wherever, about abortion. What is the first, the very first thing that pops into people's heads when they hear about abortion in the news or in movies or TV?

It was always interesting to see that, like everyone else, they had heard all the slogans and more or less accepted them, but never actually thought about what they meant. Very often, the kids would have their eyes opened after we had taken a closer look. I think it helped them think more clearly about other things too.

The first one they invariably came up with was the old "right to choose" chestnut, which while being the most pervasive, is probably the easiest one to knock down.

I used to explain this to students: it's simple grammar. You don't even have to get into discussing rights or medicine or law. The slogan itself doesn't make sense grammatically.

"Choose" is a transitive verb, which (...I then invariably had to explain...) means it requires an object. There are two kinds of verbs; transitive and intransitive.

You can't just "choose" in the same way you can just run, or work or cook. You have to choose a particular thing. There has to be an object. You choose a career. You choose a husband. You choose a colour for your bathroom. You choose things all the time. But you don't, and can't, just choose.

So whether you have a "right" to choose something, depends entirely upon what the thing, the missing object of the slogan, is.

The sloganeers were pretty clever with this one because it sounds good. Of course you have a right to choose which university to attend. You have a right to vote (unfortunately). You have all kinds of natural rights to choose things. What the Newspeakers have done with this slogan, by knocking the object off the sentence, is to imply that anyone who opposes them is trying to take all rights of choice away from women.

Gramatically, "A woman has a right to choose," means that she has a right to choose absolutely anything. It is a statement of total solipsistic license and as such, is more or less the operating principle of The New Society we, or I should say our parents and grandparents, launched in the 1960s.

This little manifesto of the New World came from the website of an artist and more or less sums up the whole package:

The “right to choose’ means women control our own bodies. We will decide to have a baby or not–even if we’re young, single, or poor! To really “choose” we need abortion services, health care, and child care! Many states have Parental Notification laws. They try to stop teens from having abortions by making us tell our parents first. What’s up with that? Teen sex is healthy and natural. We need birth control and safe sex information. We demand health care and child care for teen moms. Abortion must be safe, legal, and affordable for women of all ages. Fight to keep abortion legal! Not all women think abortion is cool for themselves, but all women have the right to make their own choice.

Do your own thing, man. Groovy.

And more to the point, shout down, bully, and silence anyone who tries to tell you different.

We have been so programmed in the last 50 years to think only of our rights and freedoms (licenses) that the idea of someone opposing the total liberty to do anything and everything one wants all the time is utterly anathema. In the all-or-nothing new world any restriction on any action is an affront. Anyone making a such a suggestion must simply be beyond the realm of rationality and can be instantly dismissed as either a crank with severe mental problems or as an evil megalomaniac bent on destroying everyone's fun.

I recommended to the kids that any time they heard anyone repeating this slogan they should ask "choose what?"

Orwell taught us that slogans work not by giving information but by taking it away. A slogan is not an expression of an idea but a noise meant, with a certain amount of training, to elicit a powerful emotional response either of outrage or shame. A response strong enough to overwhelm rational thought. A person who opposes the sloganeer is supposed to be cowed with shame at his opposition, as many people were who did not agree with the legalisation of abortion.

Believe it or not, I have heard a lot of pro-life people (or perhaps simply people who are generally afraid of rocking the boat in either direction,) say "How can we oppose women's rights?" This is the response of shame that prompts the weasel position, "I don't like abortion but I wouldn't impose my opinion on anyone else." (This, btw, leads directly to the Stockholm Syndrome Pro-lifer of which I have written extensively elsewhere. It turns you into a turncoat, but more on that later.)

An effective slogan is not meant to arouse discussion, but to squash it. It is not meant to be analysed or discussed. It is meant for one thing alone: to whip up a mob. And on abortion, (as well as so many other things) the mob won.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: Women should have the vote taken away from them

while there is still a Western Civilization left to save.

Socialism. Where did it come from? We see it eating like an acid into the foundations of our entire civilisation, corroding initiative, personal responsibility, individual and corporate courage, family life... it is everywhere. But how did we end up with it in nearly every western country? We could look at the history of the Great Change in western countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, N. Zealand,) from governments based on individual liberties, Common Law, objective reality...all that manly stuff, to what we have now: the nanny state.

But I think we have it wrong. I think we shouldn't be calling it the Nanny State. I think it should be called the Daddy State.

I was discussing this with a friend the other night and he said something that he knew I already agreed with, that it is the fault of the female vote. When did all this Fabianism get itself hooked into the political structure? When did we start thinking that government should hold your hand and do things for you? Even when you've grown up, left home and got your own apartment, the Daddy State should be coming over and fixing things for you and buying you groceries.

Socialism is a chick thing. As a private characteristic of the feminine mind it is right and good for women to want to be looked after. It's wired into us from our hunter-gatherer days. We need men to do the heavy lifting. It's a good thing for women to have the instinct to want to be looked after by a big strong man who can ward off cave bears and hunt the mammoths.

But feminism has used that natural need, the thing that makes us like and want men and that makes marriage desirable, and turned it against both men and children and ultimately against women. Feminism, you will note, has not actually accomplished anything but misery and destruction. A counterfeit freedom, exchanged for all the things we used to think made our lives real and meaningful.

I mentioned that one of the triumphs of feminism is to teach women that they should not get married to an individual man. Marriage, so the legend goes, is slavery, particularly after the kids come. Feminism reveals its Marxist origins when it says that women should instead marry the State. Men leave, we are told, and leave us holding the child-rearing bag alone. Much better to be married to the state. The state will never abandon you.

Indeed, women who divorce are often encouraged by social workers to either take up welfare as a replacement marriage, or send their ex-men taken through the various government-sponsored wringers like Ontario's Family Responsibility Office. Institutions like the FRO are designed for a two-fold purpose. They enslave the woman to the state, make sure she depends on the FRO and the welfare office for all the defence and support we once expected a husband to provide, and to punish, impoverish and disempower men.

And when did such structures start being put into place? About the same time women got the vote and started taking over the driver's seat in politics. Socialism is woman's politics. Indeed, we call it the nanny state because it tends to infantilise entire societies. But really, the new state that the woman's vote has created should more properly be called the Daddy State.

It comes from and is powered by the natural instinct of women to be looked after. Feminism is doubly insidious because it plays on that need and turns it into terror. I know from my own experience that women have been trained to be terrified of men, of wanting a man, of marriage and most especially of motherhood. It is an ideology of fear and hatred that teaches women their lives will never be secure until they give themselves and their children to the state.

Socialism, the Daddy State, comes from feminist panic attacks. Feminism whispers that men leave, they abandon women and their children, so it is best to replace the entire edifice of family life with the state.

The Daddy State was created by the woman's vote.

Oo oo!!! Please miss, pick me! Pick me!

"I'm not perky. But I want to be".

I think I feel a meme coming on!

This:

Home Office name hate promoters excluded from the UK

plus this:

I Want To Be Banned From England Like Michael Savage

equals this:

Let's play a game.

The "I Want to be Banned from Britain Too" game.

1) List your Thoughtcrimes.

Here's mine:

I believe that Jesus Christ, a male Jew who lived in 1st century Palestine at the time of Tiberius Caesar, who was born to a woman who remained a virgin before, during and after His birth, is the only Son of the living God and that He died on the cross for our sins. And that a piece of bread becomes His body and blood (soul and divinity) when a duly ordained, male, member of the Roman Catholic Church says the right words over it.

I believe in the devil and hell and that people go there who disobey God.

Including people who disobey him "sincerely".

I believe that "error has no rights" and that "outside the Church there is no salvation".

I believe that babies do not come from the stork but from inside their mummies and that when a lady has an abortion, the baby is killed.

I believe that Adam and Eve really existed and were man and woman, respectively, and that their union, in accord with the observable laws of nature, is the model for all marriages.

I believe in the logical principle of non-contradiction: that two opposed things cannot be "reconciled", "balanced", or nuanced to find a "third way" between them that will make everyone in the world happy.

I believe that really bad criminals should be executed.

Publicly.

2) Email them to Jack-boot Jacquie Smith, Gordo's Home Secretary,

public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

with the following note:

Dear eminent mouthpiece of our Dear Leader,

With regard to your most recent efforts to rid our nation of wrongthinkfulness, I wish to submit the enclosed list of thoughtcrimes, to which I freely and willingly admit.

I have come to see the innapropriateness of my ways. I hereby certify that I wish to be helped to realise a more tolerant and diversity-minded lifestyle.

I therefore request immediate retrieval by duly authorised agents of the state and transport to the nearest facility for re-education.

Thank you for your consideration.

[signed]

3) pass it on.

I tag:

Fr. Finigan
Steve Skojec
The Carolina Cannonball
Mary Alexander
and Dale Price

Thoughtcrime of the Day: The international AIDS Industry is trying to kill off the brown people with condoms

Who's going to win the global demographic sweepstakes, do you think?

Uganda

Median age:
total: 15 years
male: 14.9 years
female: 15.1 years (2008 est.)

Birth rate:
48.15 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)

Total fertility rate:
6.81 children born/woman (2008 est.)


France

Median age:
total: 39.4 years
male: 38 years
female: 40.9 years (2008 est.)

Birth rate:
12.73 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)

Total fertility rate:
1.98 children born/woman (2009 est.)

So, the rich white people from North America and Europe who run the world's AIDS/Population control industry are distributing condoms as fast as they can in the only countries in the world who are still having children.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: Western civilization has become a vast suicide cult.

Well, yes. I think it's something we've been trying to tell people for some time.

I'm not the one who came up with the idea:

It was then that I came to realize how, in the name of progress and compassion, the most terrible things were going to be done, preparing the way for the great humane holocaust, about which I have spoken. There was, it seemed to me, a built in propensity in this liberal world-view whereby the opposite of what was intended came to pass.


Take the case of education. Education was the great mumbo--jumbo of progress, the assumption being that educating people would make them grow better and better, more and more objective and intelligent. Actually, as more and more money is spent on education, illiteracy is increasing. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if it didn't end up with virtually the whole revenue of the western countries being spent on education, and a condition of almost total illiteracy resulting therefrom.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: "Black history month" is a government-sponsored exercise in racism

Heh.


Nope, no double standard under here. Dunno what you're talking about. Racism is just a white vice, isn't it?

Matthew Collins from anti-fascist organisation Searchlight, said: “This odious campaign reveals the BNP’s true colours. Their views on history have always been selective...

Know what else is "selective"? The media's willingness to identify the ideological origins of certain groups.

But I'm always willing to lend a hand.

Searchlight Magazine (and Searchlight Educational Trust):The magazine is published by political activist Gerry Gable and edited by Nick Lowles, and was founded by the late Maurice Ludmer, a lifelong Communist and longstanding anti-racist and anti-fascist.

Gerry Gable: As a youth, Gable was a member of the Young Communist League and the Communist Party of Great Britain, and worked as a runner on the Communist Party's Daily Worker newspaper, leaving after a year to become a Communist Party trade union organizer. He stood unsuccessfully for the Communist Party on May 10, 1962 at Northfield Ward, Stamford Hill, North London.

Maurice Ludmer: As a young man he was interested in sport and joined the Young Communist League... A Manchester Anti-Nazi League activist recalled that 'Maurice was a firm part of the Labour movement. He was a Communist, and the President of Birmingham Trades Council.

Back in the days before people started forgetting what words mean, we understood that the term "anti-fascist" was a journalists' euphemism for "communist". We also understood that communism was bad.

But of course, in those days we also understood that it was bad to grind babies into sausage meat and kill our grannies when they can't make us cookies anymore. We knew that two and two always equalled four, even when we really really didn't want it to.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: Culturally speaking, "Asians" are whiney, spoiled, manipulative, perpetual teenagers

with chip on their shoulders the size of Surrey.

Ten years ago, on Feb. 9. 1998, Chopra was in the audience when his incoming boss, one André Lachance, introduced himself to colleagues with the declaration that — horror of horrors — “he liked visible minorities.”

Chopra declared this to be “a racist remark,” and used it as Exhibit A in his ongoing human-rights nuisance suits.

So, saying you're not a racist means you're a racist. And I suppose pointing out the logical contradictions of the HRCs and their Complestants also makes you a racist. Does having the capacity for rational thought make you a racist, I wonder? Maybe wondering if the capacity for rational thought makes you a racist, makes you a racist.

I wonder: does the HRC think that if a woman says no, she really means yes too?

Apparently John Ralston Saul, Canuckistan's Philosopher King, thinks that thinking too much about racism makes you a racist:

John Ralston Saul argues that Canada is “a Métis civilization” that owes all it has (except for the nasty racist bits, of course) to “Aboriginal inspiration.”

The question of how, exactly, a bunch of warring, pre-literate aboriginal hunter-gatherer societies can claim credit for the creation of a modern, democratic, capitalist, industrial powerhouse built entirely in a European image is one that, alas, I must leave for others. That’s because I could not get past Saul’s ridiculous introduction, in which he claims, Deschamps-style, that white, liberal sympathy and guilt regarding the plight of Canada’s natives are merely manifestations of — you guessed it — racism.

Does thinking about people thinking too much about racism make John Raulston Saul a racist? Maybe wondering if John Raulston Saul is a racist makes me a racist. Oh right, I forgot. I'm already officially a racist.

My head hurts.

...

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (HRT) adjudicator became the first jurist in recorded human history to convict someone of racial discrimination for praising visible minorities.

Let's give 'em a big hand.

Chopra was frustrated by a career stalled in middle management. He was particularly incensed when he was passed over for acting Division Chief — even though he went on to flunk a test that was a prerequisite for the post.

A Punjabi Hindu who’d emigrated to Canada in the 1960s, Chopra decided there was a racist conspiracy against him.

Yeah, "visible minorities" ("Asians" in BBCspeak) are like that. It's pretty much the reason no one likes them in the soap-loving countries where people are supposed to know how to behave and don't usually rely on the mutaween to help them prove how manly they are by bullying women and Christians.

I worked with a guy once who'd come over from some godforsakenhellhole and obviously thought it was a big come-down in life to work with his hands in a bakery...and with a bunch of women to boot. Particularly women who refused to do his work for him and thank him for the privilege.

I think what really got under his skin was the contempt we held him in. He insisted it was racism. We just thought he was a jackass who, at 50-odd, seemed to be stuck in a permanent state of whiney adolescence.

From his early years as a drug evaluator at Health Canada, he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Colleagues complained he was authoritarian and confrontational — not the sort of scientist you wanted running a department.

Oh, how well I remember.

Everyone applauded the day he stomped off the job in a huff shouting about how no one respected him.

During 37 days of HRT hearings over the last two years, he let loose with a slew of theories about why he’d been denied the job — some so unhinged that even the otherwise sympathetic Deschamps chastised Chopra for undermining his own credibility.

Yeah, that's the guy.

Well, it looks like that Mutaween is finally coming through for them in Canada:

But in the end, Deschamps still came down on Chopra’s side — awarding him $4,000 in damages, plus a few thousand extra in interest and extra wages.

Mr. Kay concludes:

Aside from being another advertisement for why we should be closing down Canada’s human-rights commissions, the episode nicely illustrates the absurd lengths to which our society’s elites will now go to demonize Whitey. Used to be that us white males had to actually say or do something racist to get put on the human-rights dock. That criterion has now been downgraded to “preferred, but negotiable.”

Thoughtcrime of the Day: Well-defined class distinctions are a sign of a healthy society

"The right conspires to hide it, but this is no classless society"

I'm so glad to hear it. It's the little things that give one hope.

(Watch out dangerous link: Toynbee Crazed Shrieking Leftist Feminazi Alert)

Thoughtcrime of the day: Nazi eugenics was a movement of the left

and still is.

it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement.

The exhibit is important, accurate but, regrettably, long overdue. It also fails to stress just how much the socialist left initiated and supported the eugenics campaign, not only in Germany but in Britain, the U. S. and the rest of Europe. Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population.

It is deeply significant that few if any of Douglas's left-wing comrades in this country or internationally were surprised or offended by his proposals. Indeed the early fascism of 1920s Italy, while unsavoury and dictatorial, had little connection with social engineering and eugenics. The latter German version of fascism was influenced not by ultra conservatism in southern Europe but, as is made clear in the writings of the Nazi ideologues, by the Marxist left.

...and it is also significant that Canada, a country in which the public information systems are entirely controlled by the left, voted recently voted Tommy Douglas "Greatest Canadian". Nothing could have been more appropriate in the socialist state he helped to create in which there is no such thing as a free press and thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in courts in which there are no rules of evidence of procedure.

The philosophical origins of the Eugenics movement are not widely known of course, because they have been so thoroughly buried in the simplistic political sloganeering that has replaced serious debate and investigation. But the evidence is clear enough for those willing even to do a little Googling, that the modern eugenics movement (free abortion for "defective" children up to birth, Planned Parenthood "clinics" in every black neigbourhood in America, pre-natal hunter-seeker technology for Down's syndrome babies, pgd, the work to "improve" the human race through monkeying with IVF) that all of its tools continue to be fought for on the southpaw side of Parliaments.

When I started doing research into this ten years ago, I thought what everyone thought: that "conservatives" were evil and if you pushed them just a little, they turned into jackbooted brownshirts. It was my look into the history of the Eugenics Movement that made me realise I had gone my whole life blindly accepting a bunch of slogans that had been formulated specifically to prevent me from thinking clearly about this subject.

Thoughtcrime of the day: Rachel Carson was a twit

and banning DDT has been a disaster.

Thoughtcrime of the Day: "Martial Races"

Wiki:

Martial Race or Martial Races Theory is an ideology based on the assumption that certain ethnic groups are inherently more martially inclined than others. It was a term originally used by the British, who observed that the Scottish Highlanders were more fierce in battle than others on the British Isles, and extended this concept to India, where they classified each ethnic group into one of two categories: 'Martial' and 'Non-Martial'. A 'martial race' was typically considered brave and well-built for fighting but was also described as 'unintelligent'.[1] The 'non-martial races' were those whom the British believed to be unfit for battle because of their sedentary lifestyles. Of late, this concept has been dismissed as Imperialistic and based on racial stereotypes.

ie: true but deeply embarrassing to modern sensibilities.

Thoughtcrime of the day ~ Being Dogmatic is good

It's normal and natural and nothing to be ashamed of. Everybody does it, in fact, even, or especially, the people who most loudly protest against it.

We all know that the word "dogmatic" is now only used in the pejorative sense it has been given by leftists and secularists, those most dogmatic of all dogmatists.

I can't tell you the hours of fun I've had in pointing out the rigid and intolerant dogmatism of people who assert that no one should ever be dogmatic and try to force everyone to adhere to their dogma of anti-dogmatism.

But Dorothy Sayers said it:

"It is the dogma that is the drama - not beautiful phrases, nor comforting sentiments, nor vague aspirations to loving-kindness and uplift, nor the promise of something nice after death - but the terrifying assertion that the same God who made the world, lived in the world and passed through the grave and gate of death. Show that to the heathen, and they may not believe it; but at least they may realize that here is something that a man might be glad to believe."

The dogmas of the Church are simply what we believe.

The fact that our believing them deeply wounds and offends the current sensibilities, separates people and creates strife is really just a bonus.

H/T to Fr. Owl

Thoughtcrime of the day ~ Material advancements have not been good for humanity

Because it seems clear that human beings are incapable of avoiding being corrupted by material comforts. As Steyn (may he be forever in print) put it, we seem more willing, every time, to trade the higher things for the lower, the primary for the secondary.

I know that some things are wonderfully better than they used to be: the new miracles of surgery, public attitudes to the disabled, the health and well-being of children, intelligent concern for the environment, the massive strides in science and technology.

Yes, there are material blessings and benefits innumerable which were unknown in our youth.

But much has deteriorated. The United Kingdom has begun to look more like a Third World country, shabby, littered, ugly, run down, without purpose or direction, misruled by a typical Third World government, corrupt, incompetent and undemocratic.

George MacDonald Fraser, OBE

Thoughtcrime of the Day: English food is REALLY good!

I've just spent ten days in a large beautiful house chock full of old English ladies. The cook is from Yorkshire and is of the old school. I can't say I was happy to revisit my childhood memories of cooked-to-a-paste brussels sprouts, but no one should go through to the end of life without having at least one real English Bread and Butter pud.

Oh baby! I am so in favour of English puddings!

Thoughtcrime of the day: Things were better when Britannia ruled the waves.

When all those bitter little leftists gripe about the US being the world's policeman, what they frequently seem to forget is that the world really needs one. There needs to be someone out there telling the savages, no, it's not OK to kill, rape and steal, enslave whole nations and generally be insufferable bullies.

What I recall from my time in the hippie world was that, as children, the kids who liked to bully and menace everyone, not the teachers, were really the ones who ruled the roost. The weird theories that ruled our dumb hippie parents' and teachers' brains asserted the glowing goodness of all mankind if only he were freed of the constraints of rules, laws and religious prohibitions.

The kids weren't dumb at all, however, and knew this meant that rule-by-fists had come in. Think about it. If, as the "progressives" lefties, hippies and socialist do-gooders believe, we could create a utopia on earth when everyone is just allowed to do his own thing all the time (as in my little social-experiment school in 1974) what is to stop half the world simply bullying the other half. Not everyone just wants to live in peacelovegroovy land and grow tomatoes. What quite a lot of people like best is being extremely unpleasant to everyone else, particularly everyone weaker than themselves.

In this country, we have seen close up what happens when the hippie theories take over the brains of the police. When the cops try to be the bullies' best buddies, they can't be police anymore. I remember quite well what sort of response I used to get from the "teachers" in the hippie Free School, when I was sent as a delegate from the bullies' subjugated victims. "But that's just Charlie's way of expressing himself." Being a fairly peaceful child, and not yet trained in logic, I failed at that point to take up the nearest lead pipe and "express" my displeasure at the response.


Warren:

Britain had ruled the waves through the previous century, and taken upon herself the role of “world policeman.” On her watch over the high seas, piracy and the slave trade had been diminished, almost to nothing, for the first time in recorded history. And, a sea-borne international system of trade and communications had been secured. As the 20th century wore on, that torch, lighting the way to freedom and order, was passed from London to Washington.

Our kids today are taught in school, when they are taught any history at all, that Imperialism “was” an unmitigated evil. Alas, this is an unmitigated lie, and it is to European Imperialism that not only we, but formerly subject peoples, owe lives much longer and less painful than those of our ancestors. For in addition to free trade, and the rule of law at sea, the fleets carried with them ideas, and technology -- most significantly, certain principles of hygiene which, more even than the discoveries and techniques of modern medicine, contributed everywhere to longevity, prosperity, and health.

Thoughtcrime of the day: Racial segregation is a natural human trait

It just occurred to me while reading this bit of Kathy's on Michael Coren's bit for the Sun.

Another murder in a Canadian black community, this time the victim being 11-years old. And it took only moments for white liberal politicians to blame law-abiding handgun owners and, yes, the United States of America.

It's about how in every place where there are a lot of Jamaicans, there's a lot of them killing each other over drugs and prostituting their sisters. These are facts, but of course, in our times, truth is no excuse for political incorrectness.

But it's made me think of something else that's incorrect to say. But it's true isn't it?

In every place where a lot of different cultures mix, like Toronto, they don't.

Mix, I mean.

I've lived in "ethnically diverse" places all my life. Victoria, as I have said, had to ethnicities: Anglican and Chinese. Later we added White Hippie. And none of them mixed.

In Toronto, even in the Parkdale melting pot, the races and groups stubbornly refuse to melt. And immigration system that allows extended families, ultimately entire villages, to come in en masse, you are simply transplanting, repotting, entire cultural ecosystems and plopping them into existing communities who then flee the invasion of the aliens. Parkdale is a perfect example. The only white people who live here are the people that got dumped out when the government picked up the local loony bin and shook out the loose change.

But everywhere in Toronto, we have accepted (and often liked to have) neighbourhoods we call "ethnic". It's great for people who like to get authentic Tamil food, but not so good when we get everthing else that comes with Tamils...if ya get me.

It's not so bad with the Portugese or Italians or even the Chinese whose preferred forms of cultural criminality tend to involve less street warfare. It became a problem when we started thinking maybe we should have Pakistani, Somalian and Lebanese restaurants too.

But the multicultural argument seems to be fairly simple. Other cultures are interesting and good. We like everyone. So we should all live together.

But we don't. We naturally clump together into groups of people. We like to hang out with people who speak the same language, eat the same food, who don't look weird, who have the same conscious and semi-conscious cultural presuppositions. I'm sure the Philipina ladies find it incomprehensible that we white anglos sit in church like statues and flatly refuse to bring a helpful and useful crackly plastic shopping bag of doodads to play with. ("How on earth do they get through an hour long Mass without anything to fiddle with, or holy cards to pray along with, or snackies to give the kids? These anglos are weird!")

I have observered a funny rule on the bus. In close quarters, particularly in hot sticky weather, all the other people, that is, every other human being on the bus, is your mortal enemy. And for no other reason than that they are another human being who is taking up space. It is an offense that other people are on the same bus as you. That they dare to stand or sit next to you. If you are on the bus with a friend, he becomes an ally in this universal enmity. You look at each other and roll your eyes when yet another goddam human being gets on the bus. You and your friend are your tribe in a space that is eight feet wide by thirty feet long.

Take that theory and expand it into enclosed spaces the size of Toronto (or London or Birmingham or Manchester) neighbourhoods, and you suddenly see why multiculturalism has failed so miserably.

The theory is wrong.

We don't like everyone. We think we ought to like everyone, but we really only like people in our own tribe.

And that's the way it is supposed to be.

Thoughtcrime of the Day

"Diversity" is just another bull___t word for "socialism".

Thoughtcrime of the Day

"Human Rights" law is at the heart of a massive effort to abolish national sovereignty.

From Melanie Phillips


Since radical egalitarianism meant that all lifestyles were of equal value, the very notion of a majority culture or normative rules of behavior became suspect as innately exclusive, prejudiced or oppressive. Moral judgments between different lifestyles or behavior became discrimination; and prejudice, the term for discrimination between lifestyles, became the sin that obviated the moral codes at the heart of Judaism and Christianity, which had formed the bedrock of Western civilization.

Thoughtcrime of the day - There are some good things

about war.

Honour of the North
An American friend was asking me the other day about Halifax, a town with which I am reasonably familiar, but he had just passed through. “An odd town,” he called it, “but strangely charming. Is it?”

“She is charming when she is asleep,” I told him, “and she sleeps for decades. But in wartime, she comes to life, and Ho! then she is among the world's most exciting cities.”

It is not the custom, in journalism today, to speak well of war. And I must admit, as Thomas De Quincey admitted about “the fine art of murder,” that it has its weak side. One cannot reasonably advocate blasting and bombardiering as an end in itself, when the targets are living people, whether in or out of uniform. De Quincey's essay was on the aesthetic aspects of murder, a rich field he had found almost unexplored, and perhaps I should explain to those who never read him that, as a writer, De Quincey could be rather droll. By contrast, the aesthetic aspects of war have been carefully investigated, and documented, and the works of war artists banked away in many museums. Yet even aesthetically, I can think of several arguments against war, for war's sake.

To the modern “gliberal” as I call him (a liberal who has lost all purchase on reality), one has to explain that we do not fight wars as ends in themselves, and that the person who thinks we should tends to expose himself as either a humourist, or a psychopath, or both. At least, this is the Christian view, I have no authority to speak for any other religion. So let me specify, for the benefit of the many gliberal readers I seem to have, that I am against starting wars promiscuously.

Yet, “wars happen,” to adapt a popular saying from the 'eighties, and when they do, it has long been the genius of mankind to make the best of them. There are certain aspects of all the Christian virtues that enjoy a special scope in wartime, and I think faith and fortitude lead the way. (Or, shraddha, and titiksha, if my reader is a Hindu; we must not assume an understanding of the virtues is restricted to Christendom.)

Good, moreover, often comes of evil, and the bringing of good out of evil is the very genius to which we are called, in any adversity. Thanksgiving, even and perhaps especially for good found within the prison of evil, is also something to which we are called.

How can I speak against war, when I owe my very existence to it? For Halifax is where my own parents met, in the middle of the last official World War -- he a smart young officer in the Navy, she a capable young nurse, with long red hair. Conveniently for them, they got to meet over sherry aboard papa's ship, instead of over a hypodermic in mama's hospital ward.

Let no one forget, in this season of Remembrance, Rudyard Kipling's lines evoking Halifax, which remain the city's motto today and forever:

Into the mist my guardian prows put forth, Behind the mist my virgin ramparts lie; The Warden of the Honour of the North, Sleepless and veiled am I.

Think of that for a minute, or more if you need the time. “The Warden of the Honour of the North.” Perhaps I am strangely old-fashioned, but that line does for me what A.E. Housman said poetry should do, while shaving. It makes the hairs of my chin bristle.

“Honour”: what kind of word is that? It is a word that may of course be easily misconstrued. It could be applied, wrongly, to dishonourable things. It could be applied, rightly according to definition, but in a circumstance so imprudent as to make it wrong. And yet there are moments when it is applied rightly to circumstance, and it commands our action.

And it is then the guardian prows put forth, from the virgin ramparts. Poetry, including the poetry of war, by its very power to inspire us, also reminds us of a moral order that is deeper than life and death.

The old men know this, for whom we wear our poppies, and the young men and women we have sent to Afghanistan know it still: what we mean by “The Honour of the North.” And we remember, today, so many things, but especially, that we must never turn our backs to honour.


David Warren

Thoughtcrime of the day ~ there are differences

between races sexes and classes.

and only socialists think that's not OK.

Watching an interesting thing on telly yesterday about Napoleon's early exploits while the Revolution was still axing people for being different. While the proto-socialists were busy re-organising France (and the French) to match their ideas, along comes this chap who does not fit anyone's categories.

An interesting line in the movie made something quite clear to me. It was along the lines, "Your Revolution is determined to ensure that everyone is the same. Well, here's a man who will defy all your efforts." And he did. It's the trouble with grand social theories; they're always bumping up against the real humans.

Does anyone remember which essay of CS Lewis' that points out that the goal of the New Way is to make everyone the same? Was it Abolition of Man? Or one of the shorter ones? Can't remember, but it was an analogy where a king instructs someone in the way of governing by taking Someone out to a field and lopping off the tops of every ear of corn that sticks up further than all the others. We must all now be Just Stalks. No one is to be a better or taller stalk than all the others.

An email to a colleague:
you quote: "...and one's life is ruined for pointing out that the American blacks' mean IQ of 85, and not racism, is the cause of their underepresentation in the upper echelons of government, business and the professions."

Now this is interesting. An(other) indicator of the ways Britain has gone down the PC tubes is that it is impossible to suggest that one group of people is smarter on average than another. In the US it is actually possible to say or write it and not be ruined. Of course, you have to be Ann Coulter or someone, but it is possible. The capacity of conservatives to recognise differences and acknowledge their legitimacy is what really sets us apart from the liberals. In Britain the worst sin you can commit is to acknowledge that there are differences between people. You can't point out what is plainly obvious. If you say there are differences between races, you are a racist.

If you say that there are differences between men and women, and that there are some things that men do better or are better and more naturally constituted to do than women, you are a sexist (even if you are a woman saying it.)

Dr. James Watson said it and look what happened to him.

Now why don't I like Watson? I can't support him for saying what he said but not because it was "racist". The difference between Watson saying it and someone like Coulter saying it, is that the former is a leftist eugenicist - the ultimate expression of socialism's desire to remake the human race according to a predetermined set of criteria. Socialists, as we have seen, want to do it the slow way with "edcuation", government regulations etc; the elite scientific leftist eugenicist (of whom there are more than most people suspect) want to do it the quick and easy way, by extermination. (Not, of course that they are ready to set up the camps and ovens again. Oh Nonono NO! they want to do it cleanly and hygenically in petri dishes in laboratories. We can allow the sub-normals, the defectives, the Down's syndrome kids, the disabled and the not-so-pretty to die off naturally, even pension them if we want. Or maybe we will think about euthanasia centres... voluntary of course. But the future of the race is in the hands of the geneticists. )

Watson is of the new school of super-socialist who is, like a conservative and unlike his ordinary leftist confreres, ready to admit what the evidence shows him. The difference between a super-socialist eugenicist and a conservative is that the conservative does not feel any need to force the race into a predetermined set of criteria. We’re OK with people being different.

If you define racism and sexism as any acknowledgement that there are inherent differences between the races and sexes, then I'm a racist and a sexist. These differences are evident to anyone who has eyes and ears. The difference between me, a conservative racist and Watson, a super-socialist eugenicist, is that I'm OK with differences. I don't need everyone to be the same.

The goal of socialism is to make everyone the same. The eugenicists are just willing to follow the evidence to find the most efficient way to do that and are not bothered by how it looks. The reason the lefties went all ballistic on Watson is that he simply showed them where their own ideas ultimately lead if followed to their logical conclusion and carried out efficiently. And it made them look bad. Made 'em look like meanies. And one thing lefties hate it's thinking they might be the bad guys. Their whole worldview is predicated on the idea that left = compassionate, friendly warm and nice to doggies and children; and right = nasty and mean.

The reason all the left-liberal types went all wiggy on Watson was that it reminded them that they are all on the same team and that team isn't the one playing on the side of the angels.

But the bottom line for both the “soft” left and the eugenicist left is that they want everyone to be the same and they're willing to kill to do it. Watson got everyone mad because he was willing to admit it. But if you ask the ordinary leftie man on the street of London, "is it OK for a woman to have an abortion if her child has Down's syndrome," you will, at best, get an uncomfortable silence because the answer is, there are fewer and fewer kids born with Down's syndrome every year, and the leftist establishment is just fine with that...in complete agreement with Watson.

Trouble is, there’s always a difference. Not always of the calibre of a Napoleon, but the differences between individuals and groups won’t go away, no matter how much politically correct wishing we do.

Ever ask a eugenicist what it means to have everyone be superior? He can't answer because it means that we have to make sure no one is superior. If you're trying for the superior race, trying to make everyone superior, you actually make everyone the same. Especially if, as eugenicists tend to do, you are willing to kill off anyone whose existence might tend to disprove your grand theory.

C. S. Lewis said that the conservatives are the ones who can live with differences. That's why we believe in differences between men and women, different roles proper to each. Differences in race present no problem and with the “class” issues, we have no trouble with a hierarchical system where there are superiors and inferiors. (The “class war” was invented by Marxists to create a grievance/victim class to be used for political purposes. The Marxists, and later the feminists, excell at creating a constituency of people with imaginary greivances.) It's the "liberals" as they are now called, who insist everyone be the same and hence label anyone who is capable of discerning differences as sexist, classist, and racist.

Watson differs from his liberal co-revolutionaries in that he can see differences between groups of people and admit they exist, but wants to force the human species to be the same. The prolem with socialism is that it cannot be applied to real people in real life. People just persist in being different. Well, obviously if you want the grand socialist experiment to work, the solution is to radically change the human species. (This is why, BTW, I’ve always thought Brave N. World was more frightening than 1984. In Orwell, people are manipulated, but not fundamentally changed. When oppressed long enough,, as we saw with Romania in 1991, man’s natural instinct for freedom will reassert itself. Huxley’s dystopia was more terrifying because that instinct was removed. And because it is being put into effect today.) Watson’s solution to the socialist problem means, in the end, that he wants to exterminate black people, people with Down's syndrome, girls who aren't pretty enough, etc.

This is the real reason why conservatives are nice and liberals are horrid.