Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Berkeley's Confused Children Unite in the Struggle to Defend Radical Islam

Kudos to Zombie for another great report. It is a must see.

"Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" is a nationwide series of lectures and presentations organized by conservative writer David Horowitz and his various organizations. On the evening of October 22, dozens of famous speakers gave lectures at universities around the country, mostly on the subject of Islamic extremism. The presenter at U.C. Berkeley that evening was Nonie Darwish, an Arab-American author and feminist who has become a Muslim apostate and vociferous critic of radical Islam.

Her appearance at Cal was sponsored by the Berkeley College Republicans, and strongly opposed by several left-wing groups and Muslim organizations, including World Can't Wait, the Muslim Students Association, and Students for Justice in Palestine. Her speech was even condemned by the ASUC, the official student governing body at Berkeley.

The Unabomber's Manifesto explains why the modern leftist can't help themselves - they are compelled to rise up and defend any group they feel is repressed (even if it is a disgusting ideology they have to defend). The struggle itself is as far as the left can see - it is their vision-less end game. Sick and sad and disgusting.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Owell's 1984 - “What a great idea!”

I just enjoyed a comment from reader "MattR" responding to this post on Andrew Bolt's blog:

"It’s like the moonbat media read nineteen eighty four and thought “what a great idea!”"

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Reuters shows their economic ignorance as Quebec institutes a global warming tax

Quebec province slapped the country's first carbon tax on energy firms on Monday, as Canadian business leaders urged "environmental taxation" to rein in greenhouse-gas emissions.


It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada and Imperial Oil, would pass along the cost to consumers.

Such taxes are ALWAYS passed back to the end consumer. Always.

It is also implied in the article that businesses are behind this 100%.
Separately, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives said Canada should become "an energy and environmental superpower," and suggested higher energy prices to help cut emissions, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported on Monday.

No context is given regarding the nature of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and their pro-State advocacy going back almost 30 years. The CCCE is made up of 150 CEOs, many of whose businesses are directly tied to the Canadian State. No where in the article does Reuters offer an opinion on how this might affect the other two and a half million businesses in the country. The non-questioning reader may walk away assuming everyone is behind this new tax. Ignorance or bias or both?