skip to main |
skip to sidebar
From CNN to The Guardian to Bianca Jagger to legions of Tweeters, Western liberalism fell for a ludicrous hoax. Why?
Because they wanted to. It would be nice if "Amina Arraf" existed. As niche constituencies go, we could use more hijab-wearing Muslim lesbian militants and fewer fortysomething male Western deadbeat college students. But the latter is a real and pathetically numerous demographic, and the former is a fiction – a fantasy for Western liberals, who think that in the multicultural society the nice gay couple at 27 Rainbow Avenue can live next door to the big bearded imam with four child brides at No. 29 and gambol and frolic in admiration of each other's diversity. They will proffer cheery greetings over the picket fence, the one admiring the other's attractive buttock-hugging leather shorts for that day's Gay Pride parade as he prepares to take his daughter to the clitoridectomy clinic. ...
You can learn a lot from the deceptions a society chooses to swallow. "Amina Arraf" was a fiction who fit the liberal worldview. That's because the liberal worldview is a fiction.
Posts
43 comments:
Steyn moving in our direction.
Don't forget the fact that 'Amina' was hot.
If a girl isn't attractive, no one gives two craps about her plight.
I remember when the supermodel Petra Nemcova became the face of the 2004 Tsunami. Granted, she went through a lot, what with hanging onto a palm tree with a broken leg. Still, I suspected people would rather hear about a hot model's survivor story than hear about 100,000 dead Indonesians.
Steyn moving in our direction
Let me know when he questions why we send billions of dollars in aid to Israel every year(and billions more to Israel's neighbors to keep the peace).
Also on the hotness of Amina:
It also played into people's fantasy of an actual attractive lesbian. Lesbians in reality don't tend to look like her.
Don't forget the fact that 'Amina' was hot.
That should have been a tip-off. I live in the SF bay area where the lesbian density is high. I have yet to meet one who is "hot" from a heterosexual perspective.
It was funny, I'll say that much. And the phrase 'Hoisted by one's own petard' seems made for it.
If a girl isn't attractive, no one gives two craps about her plight.
Or even a single crap. Probably very few of those petard-hoisters would be willing to admit that.
But I would more say she was pretty, and not all that hot. Being pretty evokes femininity, which in addition to her blogging suggested she was sensitive, caring. And those bastards just stomped right on all of that.
I can still get a laugh out of this comment lifted from the 'Feministe' blog.
"Let me know when he questions why we send billions of dollars in aid to Israel every year"
Because civilization is worthwhile?
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Britain/flotilla.html
>we could use more hijab-wearing Muslim lesbian militants and fewer fortysomething male Western deadbeat college students<
Sex of one, half a cousin of the other.
>civilization is worthwhile<
I'm reminded of a Gandhi quote. When asked what he thought of Western civilization, Gandhi replied: "I think it would be a good idea."
Is parasitism, treachery, socialism, and territorial aggression to define civilization? May God forbid it.
The best thing about this story was what Tom really looked like.
The Asian hockey nerd and Tom should be posterboys of our age.
Because civilization is worthwhile?
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/Britain/flotilla.html
He should have prefaced that piece with the introduction from his review of Kevin MacDonald's work in The American Conservative where he basically admits that anyone, especially journalists, who holds or utters politically incorrect views about a certain "thing" places their own livelihood in jeopardy.
Most liberals are now reactionary. Their ideology is nothing but being in favor of whatever they think will piss off white Christian suburbanites.
Gay marriage? Sure. Women's rights? Absolutely.
Solicitude of explicitly theocratic fanatics? Why not?
Raise working class wages? We must!
Import millions of unskilled workers to compete with the working class? Certainly. What are you, xenophobic?
Well sure, any good grifter knows if you're going to produce a forgery make it something the people want to be true.
I believe the saying is "too good to check."
"who think that in the multicultural society the nice gay couple at 27 Rainbow Avenue can live next door to the big bearded imam with four child brides at No. 29 and gambol and frolic in admiration of each other's diversity."
Steyn, and a number of other right wing liberals turned immigration skeptics, believe Europe and the US is in the middle of an epic battle between Islamic and Western culture. They're all for gay rights, feminism and sometimes even non-Muslim non-white immigration - they see Islam as the main threat to their liberal society.
The truth: Islam, while not a very pleasant religion, is not a problem for the West. Lots of mainstream conservatives are critizing it. In Europe a number of politicans have started to attack Islam, say that multiculturalism has failed, that immigrations need to assimilate to liberal, obedient citizens.
Why are they doing this? Because the Western elites want to continue mass immigration. However, they know that people are getting fed up with it. So, they co-opt immigration resistance by making it focus on Islam alone and start talking about culture instead of race.
This serves a number of useful purposes.
1) It limits the possibility that the European peoples awake and support real nationalism
2) Hatred against Islam can be used to stengthen support for Israel and the War on Terror
3) It breaks down the cultural and social structure among Muslim immigrants. You see, the establishment doesn't really want multiculturalism; they do not want a society were different people co-exist with there different cultures. What they do want is a multi-ethnic society without a white majority. They want that future population to do what they are told and not have a culture to rally behind (like Islam).
4) While doing meaningless actions - like prohibiting the hjiab - they can still push through really harmful and meaningful policies: like mass immigration of Christian Africans.
People like Steyn are useful idiots in this process. It's a shame so many people are falling for this charade and going all against Islam, instead of the real core of the problem - non-white immigration in general and the corrupt elites who made it all happen.
So, they co-opt immigration resistance by making it focus on Islam alone and start talking about culture instead of race.
Why should Europeans talk about race? They don't share the crazy American race obsession.
It limits the possibility that the European peoples awake and support real nationalism
What is "real nationalism"? Many of these anti-Islam-oriented parties in Europe have in fact succeeded in reducing immigration to their respective countries.
In general, I think that American racialist types need to realize that Europe is not America, and the "White Extinction" narrative doesn't really apply there, with the possible exception of the UK.
Just want to endorse the comments by Howard Hughes. Absolutely bang on target.
That should have been a tip-off. I live in the SF bay area where the lesbian density is high. I have yet to meet one who is "hot" from a heterosexual perspective.
That's because you're a heteronormative bigot. Duh.
(So say the pathetic dupes who think they've been "educated" these days.)
In general, I think that American racialist types need to realize that Europe is not America, and the "White Extinction" narrative doesn't really apply there, with the possible exception of the UK.
Shut up, idiot. It applies everywhere white people live because it's a natural process, not a political one. The means of racial extinction is miscegenation. That's how it happens. And it's happening everywhere. And everywhere it's "racist" to point it out, to talk about it, to raise consciousness of it. (Consciousness of it can potentially buy centuries of time.) Even Sailer won't talk about it. I mean, he's honest enough to admit to the reality of it* (if someone pressed him, but no one does), but it's not a topic deemed worthy of attention by him. (Or maybe he just doesn't know how to go about sexing it up.)
Florence of Arabia--love it!
Steve Sailer, with his inimitable laid-back SoCal wit, alluding to Noel Coward, with his inimitable sly, dry, Brit wit.
It just doesn't get any better than this.
I live in the SF bay area where the lesbian density is high. I have yet to meet one who is "hot" from a heterosexual perspective.
Meh - I beg to differ, somewhat. While lesbians are less attractive than straight women on average, I've known a few I wouldn't mind doing the horizontal mambo with.
As for Islam, the Left wants them here because 1) they're not white Christians; 2) they can't imagine anyone but white Christians being inherently evil; and 3) violent Islamists legitimize a stronger police state.
Nah, I just picked up "Florence of Arabia" from Steyn's article.
Muslim immigration and the Muslim world in general ARE a huge threat to the West and pretty much everyplace else.
Muslim societies are all massive failures. They cannot feed their own people, have masses of kids, suffer from horrific gender imbalances due to polygamy, hate science and rationality (Muslims hate Darwin and there's a jihad against teaching evolution). Muslims hate all other religions and fight among themselves like scorpions in a bottle.
Thus they will NEVER stop coming to Europe unless there's a massive military operation constantly to stop them. Since the sea is a highway, great masses of the Muslim poor in North Africa and beyond want to essentially conquer Europe. Including Steyn's native England. He'd rather Big Ben still chime, instead of the call to prayer every few hours. Steyn, like myself, would rather there be an England of fish and chips, rugby and cricket, Wimbledon, small towns and villages, and London be filled with the sorts of people who lived there since time immemorial.
Meanwhile an Islamic bomb means that Muslims in say, Pakistan, soon to have more nukes than the UK, can nuke any city in the world if it is not sufficiently Islamic. If a cartoon, or a burqua ban, or a ban on honor killings, or a ban on polygamy, or a ban on say, Concubines/sex slaves (a Kuwaiti "women's rights activist" is demanding prostitution be ended by making sex slaves out of Russian women, no lie) ... well then it's BOOM! and the city is killed to make an Islamic point. Even Kuwait, one of the more "moderate" Muslim nations has a "women's rights activist" a woman herself wanting to make sex slaves out of Russian women.
Muslims are not even within shouting distance of Western culture, base assumptions, or general views on morality, rationality, or much of anything else. And they're plugged right in 24/7, 365, to the Western world via the internet, satellite TV, and world trade. Plus now with nukes! And a perception of total Western weakness. That's a disaster waiting to happen.
It's fine by me if we cut off aid to Muslim nations around Israel. Keeping the peace is impossible anyway now that the Muslim Brotherhood is in power. Cut off aid to Israel? Sure, but realize that doing so removes leverage the US has over Israel domestic politics, including settlement actions, and any military action the Israelis might want to take.
The whole thing will be moot in about five years time, assuming Israel has not been nuked out of existence by the Iranians who long to do so -- the massive gas fields will make any money and therefore leverage irrelevant. But for now it basically the only leverage we have on Israeli action given that no one in Israel save Sarah Silverman ("I have blind faith in Obama") thinks Obama will do anything but work towards their demise.
[Silverman is typical of most Hollywood women -- literally worships Obama as a god incarnate.]
Or put this another way. Since roughly Napoleon's time, the West has had a massive advantage over Muslim peoples. Mass conscription, technology, and a unified culture made the West basically unstoppable. This was Kemal Ataturk's conclusion seeing the massacre by the forces under Allenby at Meggido, the Turkish forces being nearly all wiped out. The Turks had no airplanes, few trucks, little artillery, and no means to make them, transport them, and use them effectively.
Well, now you need only a shipping container, a bill of lading, and a nuke or three from a failing state that cannot even keep raw sewage off the streets in front of the Presidential palace during Monsoon season, or a state if you prefer where the President is seriously accused of "witchcraft" and consulting with Jinn.
What Oppenheimer did was remove the Western Industrial advantage and let anyone and any failed society play at mass destruction. No army, air force, and navy needed. Pakistan and Iran are basket cases of corruption and incompetence. And they have or will have nukes.
Nah, I just picked up "Florence of Arabia" from Steyn's article.
That makes Kylie's comment even more hilarious.
It applies everywhere white people live because it's a natural process, not a political one. The means of racial extinction is miscegenation. That's how it happens. And it's happening everywhere.
Look, your racial existential paranoia schtick is interesting on an intellectual level, but you really need to keep it out of serious political discussion.
I repeat: Europeans slaughtered each other by the tens of millions solely because of culture. If that's "real nationalism", I don't know what is.
In my 20s, Reading this kind of story, I would get a good laugh at the expense of the fools who were hoaxed. In my 40s, my enjoyment is dampened by the thought: What similarly silly but ideologically comfortable stories are fooling me, right now?
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
"Nah, I just picked up 'Florence of Arabia' from Steyn's article."
Yeah but you knew what to pick up and how to use it.
"That makes Kylie's comment even more hilarious."
How so? Alluding to Coward's wit in an article sputtering with righteous indignation isn't funny; doing so in a casual throwaway style is.
But if you find my previous comment hilarious, you probably don't get that distinction.
Look, your racial existential paranoia schtick is interesting on an intellectual level, but you really need to keep it out of serious political discussion.
Says the guy posting from an explicitly racialist nation-state.
"Muslim societies are all massive failures. They cannot feed their own people..."
I don't know of many (or any) Muslim countries currently suffering from famine. The populations are growing in all of them. That means they're feeding their kids.
"...suffer from horrific gender imbalances due to polygamy..."
How does polygamy create a "gender imbalance"? It certainly leaves you with a lot of unmarried men, but the birth ratio of boys/girls is still the same as everywhere else, sans selective abortion or infanticide.
"Thus they will NEVER stop coming to Europe unless there's a massive military operation constantly to stop them."
I agree that they will keep coming unless we stop them. That, however, doesn't require military action. It requires policemen at the border, preventing entry by would-be illegal immigrants.
"the massive gas fields will make any money and therefore leverage irrelevant."
Let's hear more about these massive gas fields.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/while-posing-as-a-syrian-lesbian-male-blogger-tried-to-get-a-book-deal/?hp
"I am seeking legal advice regarding potential copyright violation cases involving these posts. I am also considering potential libel cases here in the U.K. involving publications and Web sites that published false information regarding me (including fake quotes and a fake interview done by an individual claiming to be me). Any further information on this matter, should Ms. Hajratwala not remove the materials from her website, will be dealt with by my legal representatives."
Rotfl. Pot calling the kettle black x 100000.
But is this guy's hoax any worse than Hollywood's image of itself as an All-American institution?
>Can I declare Godwin's law invoked upon the "Jews are parasites" line of argument? Tough call.<
You may not. I refer to Israel's determined dependency on United States support.
"[Former US Ambassador to Israel Martin S.] Indyk warned that Israel has to be careful since it was so dependent on the US, and that Israelis 'shouldn't think they’re such big shots' in this respect." - from JP
"Why should Europeans talk about race? They don't share the crazy American race obsession."
I'm European. Nordic, actually, Swedish to be exact. I wish to protect the people I belong to and they civilization we are a part of. It is racial differences that creates the vast differences between Europe and Africa, Europe and Asia, Europe and South America. I talk about race, because I do not want Europe to fall to barbarism, chaos and corruption.
White people create great societies. We want them to rise even higher, not surrender.
"What is 'real nationalism'?"
Real nationalism. Ethnic nationalism. A national spirit fighting for the people, for our genetic and cultural heritage. Not the sort of nationalism that only means idiotic, and often humiliating, Muslim-baiting. (The Danish 'nationalist party' Danske Folkepart want to forbid Danish citizens from watching Al-Jazeera, for example. That's just stupid, and wrong).
"In general, I think that American racialist types need to realize that Europe is not America, and the 'White Extinction' narrative doesn't really apply there, with the possible exception of the UK."
Why should white people accept worsening living standars, more crime, more corruption, etc? White people will probably survive as a minority in Europe - like South America - but why would we want to live like that? Why accept non-white immigrant, and therefore a weaker society, when we can build greater countries on our own?
"I repeat: Europeans slaughtered each other by the tens of millions solely because of culture. If that's 'real nationalism', I don't know what is."
Sure. Europeans have fought Europeans countless times. Hopefully never again. But does mean that race and genetics are meaningless? Of course not. Neither does it mean that we should welcome the Third World invasion.
Personally, I believe - without denying the differences betweeen different European peoples - that all white nations ought to work together.
"You may not. I refer to Israel's determined dependency on United States support."
Right, every racist thinks his racism has a point.
Why is it "racism" to point out the parasitic relationship Israel has with the USA?
From a little Googling, Israel has a GDP of $206 billion, and around a $91 billion government budget. I believe we give them around $2.5 billion per year in aid, though there may be other money classified as something else.
So it makes no sense for us to be giving them money, but at least in terms of dollars, the relationship doesn't look too parasitic to me.
You can make more of a case along those lines in foreign policy terms--we've surely made ourselves a lot less popular among Arabs by routinely backing Israel. I have no idea how to measure that, though, and our foreign policy in general is pretty adept at making enemies, so maybe they'd all hate us anyway.
>From a little Googling, Israel has a GDP of $206 billion, and around a $91 billion government budget. I believe we give them around $2.5 billion per year in aid, though there may be other money classified as something else.<
How much does Israel make off the sale to China of sensitive US missile technology?
>Why is it "racism" to point out the parasitic relationship Israel has with the USA?<
"Racism", n.: "the state or quality of someone's winning an argument against me and thus making me petulant and desirous of summoning the gendarmes."
In Europe this whole wordgame is different because we live in nation states. Swede for example is also a name for an ethnicity. So is european, but maybe to a lesser extent. No need to talk about whites ever:)
Post a Comment