An angry husband in Quebec doused his ex-wife with gasoline and set her on fire. The unfortunate woman survived the attack, but the extent of her injuries is unclear.
Despite the fact that the alleged perpetrator is a culture-enricher, the incident has a Mohammed Coefficient of 0%.
Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
This week’s installment of Dymphna’s Greatest Hits chronicles the shenanigans in our neighbor to the Frozen North, where cultural dementia — possibly cryogenically induced — perpetually reigns.
It makes me want to quote Shel Silverstein again:
Margo says that Rudy Felsh is a nasty vulgar kid.
Someday he’ll go to Hell or jail or Canada.
Once again, most of the links in this post seem to be dead. However, the links to Sissy Willis’ site still work.
More Than One Way to Spell Stupid
by Dymphna
Originally published on August 28, 2005
Remember how Adam was given the power — the permission — to name things? It’s in the story because we deeply understand that naming things bestows a kind of authority on the one passing out the labels. At least this is so if the label sticks, and this one ought to have glue all over it.
By now, we’re familiar with the Islamic idea of dhimmitude. It’s repugnant to the Western ideal of equality and brotherhood. Bat Ye’or has described only too well the dhimmitude of Eurabia. One prays that her predictions are too dysphorically tuned to be correct. Meanwhile…
…in Canada, they have dummitude, a neologism coined to meet the need to address the diminishing wits of our neighbors to the North. Sisu points out the latest hilarity (it’s hilarious if you don’t live in Toronto. If you are one of its benighted denizens, you might consider moving. If there is any safe place left. Ottawa has got another lock on the rapidly shrinking cultural IQ):
You’ve heard of dhimmitude — the denial of equal rights and dignity to infidels under Sharia law. Now there’s dummitude, the denial of human nature under Canadian law.
At issue is the presence in Canada of Natalie Glebova, this year’s Miss Universe. A nice coup, no? She’s gorgeous. She’s Canadian. What’s the problem?
Here’s the problem. In the place where feminists and Islamicists meet — and it’s obviously not any place you, dear reader, would want to visit — beauty pageants are bad. Awarding beauty for its own sake is so politically incorrect it makes the peecee meter melt. Thus, while Miss Universe does not yet have to wear the hijab, it is against the law for her to show up at any public function in Toronto wearing her tiara and sash:
Regular readers are familiar with the films of Michael Hansen, the Danish-American journalist who made Killing Europe, Killing Canada, and Killing Free Speech, among others. Showings of Mr. Hansen’s movies have been shut down by various venues, and a public library in Canada even shut down a discussion about the shutting down of his movies. It seems the Powers That Be are determined to suppress Michael Hansen’s reports on the Islamization of Europe and North America.
The latest entity to comply with sharia and join the suppression is Amazon, which has removed the film Killing Europe from its Prime Video service. Below are excerpts from the news report at Breitbart:
Amazon Removes Danish Filmmaker’s Islam Documentary
A documentary by independent filmmaker Michael Hansen about mass migration and Islam in Europe, entitled Killing Europe, has been removed by Amazon from its Prime Video service. Amazon cited “quality assurance” concerns — despite the fact that the documentary had been hosted on the platform since 2017 without issue. Amazon’s censorship came shortly after Breitbart News covered Hansen’s new documentary, Killing Free Speech, which addresses the rise of Antifa and big tech censorship in the United States.
In its message to Hansen, Amazon said his previous documentary (which is still available on YouTube) does not meet “customer content quality expectations.” Amazon would not respond to repeated requests from Hansen for the company to specify what content failed to meet its criteria. The documentary had previously been hosted on Amazon since 2017. Amazon did not return Breitbart News’ request for comment, but its full email to Hansen was obtained by Breitbart News and is copied below:…
Read the rest at Breitbart.
Last week Vlad Tepes made a guest appearance on an InfoWars segment hosted by Matt Bracken. The video below shows their hour of discussion (with the commercials removed). As you may notice, the video has been hosted on YouTube, but not on Alex Jones’ channel — as far as I know, the InfoWars YouTube channel has been permanently taken down.
This is an example of what I discussed a couple of months ago in “Samizdat in the Age of Digital Totalitarianism”: the imperative to propagate dissident information through distributed lateral networks. That’s what Matt and Vlad talk about in this clip, specifically as it pertains to bit-torrented video platforms:
When I turned eleven I graduated from the Cub Scouts and moved up into the Boy Scouts. We lived in the southern suburbs of Baltimore at the time, and every year our troop spent a week at a BSA camp in northeastern Maryland. A week of intense heat, mosquitoes, swimming, shooting, nature study — anyone who’s been in the Boy Scouts knows the drill.
Our campsite was medium-level when it came to fixtures and conveniences. In the more primitive sites, the scouts had to dig their own latrines and cook over a campfire. In the more swanky sites there was a little electrified building with a kitchen and a dining room, and not far away a modern latrine building.
Our site was in between. We had a latrine building of sorts, and a big canopy tent with picnic tables and a propane stove for a dining hall. And for hot water we had Herkimer.
Herkimer was a massive thick-walled cylindrical tank that we used as a water boiler. It sat over a fire on four big cinderblocks, and was fed by a water pipe from a well that served all the campsites in the area. I don’t know why it was called Herkimer — for some mysterious reason, that was the boiler’s name.
Herkimer had to be fired up before every meal, because the metal trays we used as plates had to be washed in very hot water. Our troop leaders explained the need for rigorous food hygiene, remarking that a failure to run those trays through boiling water would cause the troop to come down with diarrhea — which at scout camp was not a pleasant experience, even with a latrine building less than a hundred yards away.
So three times a day Herkimer was ravenous for wood. The camp management delivered a load of junk wood every morning that could be used for the fire, but it was never quite enough. We Boy Scouts would be sent out into the woods (which our campsite was in the middle of) to fetch whatever additional wood we could find. We weren’t allowed to cut living trees, but we could take down small dead ones, pick up deadfalls, and gather whatever else we could find. We broke up discarded packing cases and threw in big thick hunks of cardboard. Anything that would burn was fair game — I remember using a shovel to root out a large stump and break it up to stoke Herkimer.
Herkimer came to mind recently when I was contemplating the enormous political and cultural upheavals that are characteristic of our time.
Let’s take a look at the running of that big old water boiler as a process. We could break it down into three parts:
| 1. | The objective. The purpose of Herkimer was to generate sufficient quantities of boiling water to achieve culinary hygiene. One might devise other schemes for reaching the same objective, but at that particular place and time, a large metal tank with water piped into it and a fire underneath comprised the established system. | |
| 2. | The method. One opened the valve to let water into the tank and ignited the fuel underneath. Thermodynamics took care of the rest. | |
| 3. | Praxis. Two major components were required for operation, water and fuel. The former was taken care of by a well and a pump. For the latter a horde of grubby Boy Scouts was required. Again, one can imagine other schemes to achieve the same goal — paying top dollar for truckloads of charcoal briquettes to be hauled in, for example. But scrounging for junk wood was the chosen procedure. |
There’s a socio-political Herkimer currently operating in Western Civilization. We’ve all observed the continuous onslaught against established religion, traditional customs, and cultural institutions that have been built up over the course of more than a thousand years. New rules and practices that would have been unimaginable a generation or two ago are being forced upon a populace that never desired or requested them. I’ll give some specific examples later on in this essay.
This destructive process is painfully visible in its innumerable manifestations, but teasing out the various strands of its three components is a tricky business. Nevertheless, we’ll give it a try.
1. The objective
What is the purpose of all this unpopular cultural coercion? The ostensible reasons — “human rights”, “diversity”, “social justice”, and so on — are obviously only the cover story. The real purpose is generally occluded, and can only be deduced by observing its myriad manifestations within our society.
The apparent goal of all these actions is lysis: the breaking down of long-established social structures. Lytic agents are being deployed throughout society to dissolve cultural membranes and connective tissue.
In the case of Herkimer, the overseers of the process — the camp management and our troop leaders — established the goal. The overseers of our societal Herkimer are of necessity less obvious. They are commonly labeled “globalists”, but a more accurate term might be “global socialists”, since socialism has always been a major component of the one-world utopias conceived by the visionaries of the blood-soaked century that preceded this one.
A new world is being built, and all the components of the old one must be disassembled before the new order can be constructed. That’s what the cultural Herkimer is for.
This morning Mark Steyn testified as a witness at a hearing on “online hate” held in the Canadian House of Commons by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As you might expect, the occasion was one in which sanctimonious progressive pols hectored, badgered, bullied, and otherwise coerced witnesses to fall in line with Party doctrine on immigration, Multiculturalism, Islam, etc.
Mr. Steyn, however, refused to be bullied. He repaid his tormentors in kind, and threw in extra invective just for them.
He was superb. The next time I run into him I’ll say, “Steyn, you magnificent bastard! I heard your testimony.”
No video was allowed at the committee hearing (see Vlad Tepes’ post below for more on that), so the video below is audio-only, to which photographs have been added.
Before you watch it, a word on the cast of characters: Besides the witnesses, committee members are present in the hearing room. However, since I can’t see their faces, I can’t identify any of them. I assume the committee chair, Anthony Housefather, is one of those asking the questions.
Below is a list of committee members, taken from Wikipedia:
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
Anthony Housefather, Chair (Liberal)
Randy Boissonnault (Liberal)
Ali Ehsassi (Liberal)
Colin Fraser (Liberal)
Iqra Khalid (Liberal)
Ron McKinnon (Liberal)
Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary (Liberal)
Michael Cooper, Vice-Chair (Conservative)
Michael Barrett (Conservative)
David MacKenzie (Conservative)
Tracey Ramsey (New Democratic)
You can also find a list of members on the House of Commons website.
The “Mr. Garrison” mentioned in the transcript is Randall Garrison, an MP for the New Democratic Party, who for some unexplained reason was allowed to ask questions, even though he’s not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (he sits on the Defence Committee).
The article by Mark Steyn referenced in one of the questions is “The Future Belongs to Islam”, which was published by Maclean’s on October 20, 2006.
I transcribed and timed this four-minute excerpt, and Vlad Tepes was kind enough to subtitle it:
Below is Vlad’s take on Mr. Steyn’s appearance before the Star Chamber parliamentary committee:
Short segment of parliamentary committee badgering Mark Steyn on ‘hate speech’
This morning an odious procedure took place in Canada’s increasingly Soviet-like parliamentary committee on ‘hate speech’, where three worthy witnesses, Lindsay Shepherd, John Robson, and Mark Steyn, defended freedom of speech, which is to say they are against the Trudeau government’s proposition that Section 13 of the Hate Speech Act be reinstituted into the criminal code of Canada.
A reporter from RAIR Foundation, at the hearings this morning, explained to me that had they committed an actual crime and been on trial for it, their lawyer, and quite probably the judge, would never have allowed the defendant to be treated the way these volunteer witnesses for freedom had been treated.
Before you watch the video, it may help you to understand the intentions and fairness of this committee to know two things.
1. The Committee voted before this started not to televise the video of it. So there is only audio of it. We can only guess as to why they chose not to broadcast video, as it was a “non-debatable motion” not to broadcast to which most agreed not to broadcast, and one abstained. 2. They passed another odd motion: not to name the New Zealand shooter and not to quote from his manifesto, even though it was irrelevant to this hearing. However it does relate to an event last week where a conservative MP used facts from the manifesto to counter a false claim, and for which he was immediately reprimanded. This second motion, as I see it, is Orwell’s last prediction. Loosely quoting: “The future is a boot on humanity’s face for pretty much all eternity”.
Video transcript:
The urge to create the above image was prompted by the latest of uncountably many incidents in which a Muslim perpetrator of an atrocity was identified as having mental problems. In this particular case, it was a Tunisian man in Sweden who was described as having “psychological problems” after he stabbed an elderly Jewish woman and then fled the country.
The general rule seems to be this: If (1) there is a single perpetrator acting alone, and (2) his victims are unrelated to him and not among his acquaintances, then he has “psychological problems”. The incidence of the application of this rule by the media seems to be approaching 100%. When was the last time you read a news report about a “lone wolf” mujahid where he was not described as “having a history of psychological problems”, or words to that effect?
Contrast this practice with the immediate and routine description (often without evidence) of any white non-Muslim who commits an atrocity as a “racist”, a “Trump supporter”, a “white supremacist”, a “right-wing extremist”, etc. In other words, the motive for the deed is always described in ideological terms. But if the perpetrator is Muslim, the initially assigned motive is never ideological — as if adherence to Islam were not in fact evidence of adherence to an extreme political ideology.
Mind you, that doesn’t make the description wrong. Devout adherence to Islam is quite clearly a form of mental illness. Either people with mental problems are drawn to Islam, or being exposed to Islamic doctrine induces mental illness. Or both.
(Feel free to use the graphic for meme pics.)
The mandate for a multicultural society necessitates the removal (or at least the neglect of) national borders. Since citizens are no longer protected at the national level, they must protect themselves at the individual level — creating, as it were, tiny borders around themselves by various means. Women in particular must take unusual measures to guard against rape, sexual assault, and other forms of violence perpetrated by culture enrichers.
In the following video, Vlad Tepes has compiled a useful and thought-provoking selection of these “tiny borders”:
A couple of days ago we posted about the blocking of BitChute in Australia via a process known as “DNS poisoning”. It seems that the emergence of BitChute as a source of uncensored videos was enough of a threat for the Powers That Be in Oz to decide that it must be neutralized.
During the same time period the process of de-platforming dissidents has accelerated. Almost anyone who is well-known and has a slightly right-of-center political opinion can expect to have Tweets and Facebook posts deleted, YouTube videos pulled, and — if he is prominent enough to require complete excommunication — the closing of his account. Dissidents with the greatest celebrity status, such as Tommy Robinson and Milo Yiannopoulos, can expect to lose their accounts on multiple platforms simultaneously, as if their suppression were being coordinated by some trans-national censorship board.
Vlad Tepes is on BitChute and BitTube now, which is why the topic of DNS poisoning came up. His videos are now going up and staying up, thanks to BitChute; hence the establishment’s efforts to cut off viewers’ access to BitChute.
As it happens, all of these methods of censorship and repression are being implemented not by the state, but by private corporations. This gives repressive governments cover so that they can deny responsibility: “Facebook [or Twitter, or Instagram, or Google, etc.] is a private company, and may enforce its terms of use without government interference.” The ISPs in Australia that are sabotaging BitChute’s IP on their domain name servers are also private corporations, as far as I know — the Australian government doesn’t have to do the dirty work.
This doesn’t mean that governments are not arresting, charging, trying, and convicting citizens for “hate speech”. Britain, Sweden, and Germany seem to be vying with each other to see who can rack up the largest number of state prosecutions for hate speech. The rest of Western Europe, Australia, and Canada are no slouches, either. The USA has the First Amendment, so it’s not so bad here, but we’re only hanging on by the skin of our teeth. If Hillary had been elected in 2016, and had thus been able to appoint two Supreme Court justices, we’d probably be following the Canadian model right now.
Nevertheless, private companies are doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes suppressing free speech. Some of them are probably following the inclinations of their CEOs (think Mark Zuckerberg), but a quiet government word about antitrust action or a tax-evasion investigation must do wonders to convince them to help the state suppress Internet dissent.
A few days ago we posted an interview with a French communist MEP from back in 1992. This was one of Vlad’s videos, so it was uploaded to BitChute. However, I happened to find a mirror of it on a minor YouTube channel, and posted that instead.
How was that channel able to post the video? Even if Vlad still had a YouTube channel, that video would have been immediately deleted by Google, because it said naughty things about the European Union. How come the other channel gets a pass?
The answer is obvious: Vlad’s channel was very popular, and had turned into a major influence in the realm of online videos. The other channel is relatively minor, and evidently doesn’t attract enough viewers to warrant being suppressed.
There’s a lesson for us dissidents in that.
A law (Bill 21) proposed by Quebec Premier François Legault would restrict the wearing of religious symbols by public employees. Among the symbols to be prohibited is the hijab, which has predictably caused a fierce controversy about Bill 21.
The video below shows excerpts from a hearing in the Quebec legislature about Bill 21. It features retired Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, who angered the Gutmenschen by linking the Islamic veil with female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and honor killing.
Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
The following video features an interview with three Muslim schoolteachers in Quebec who support the recently passed law prohibiting public employees from wearing hijab. What distinguishes these three women from the zealous proponents of the veil is that they’ve been living in Quebec for a much longer time.
Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
Who knew?
This fine fellow researched the whole tilting-at-windmills brouhaha — including all the internecine fighting that kept that Hunger Generation from succeeding.
It’s here:
The thing is, those fighting Irish didn’t actually want Canada; they simply thought they could use it as a hostage to gain freedom for Ireland and they worked hard to make it happen.
The new Irish immigrants flooded to America in order to work for something to eat. Thus, they fought on both sides of the U.S. Civil War and then kinda, sorta joined forces afterward to secure Canada. The rationale was that if they held Canada hostage then the English would have to let much-poorer Ireland go in exchange.
Several things came out of the attempt. First, the British moved the capital further in from its border with America in order to make it more secure. Secondly, the overdue idea of founding a confederation of Canada’s territories became a reality much sooner than might have been the case otherwise.
‘Tis a fascinating book if you’ve the necessary DNA component which allows one to read gobs of stories about in-fighting and betrayal. Though he mentions it, what the writer doesn’t cover sufficiently, me thinks, is the reality of America’s desire for grabbing Canada its ownself. We had taken Texas from Mexico by then and bought Alaska from Russia. Bringing in Canada had great appeal for many Americans. For Canadians, not so much. They are too peaceable; being part of the rowdy U.S. would cause a profound unease. They weren’t called Loyalists for nothing.
Back during the Irish shenanigans, some of America’s politicians bloviated about the desirability of owning the whole hog, but those who did have an eye on the North wanted someone else to do the dirty work. There was little dirty work the Irish weren’t willing to do to get the English out of the Emerald Isle.
A recent video of the author’s talk in Lawrence Massachusetts about this bit of history is below the fold.
It seems that forbidden information is circulating on paper currency in Canada:
Samizdat on loonies! Who’da thunk it?
Our long-time reader and commenter leCanadien, who sent us the photo of the bill, explains how he came by it:
I just received this interesting $5 Canadian bill from a bank machine.
You could call it: ‘News Dissemination Iron Curtain Style’
It says: Senate Committee on the Trudeau Regime Letting ISIS Terrorist into Canada
On the left side it says: Google You Tube
Just think of the ramifications of this remarkable new medium for expressing dissent. In the Soviet Union, the government inhibited the production of samizdat by (among other methods) making paper difficult to obtain. But there’s no shortage of loonies in circulation — in fact, as the value of the Canadian dollar drops, more of them will be printed. As long as the government continues pretending to pay people, there will be plenty of paper for dissidents.
I suppose the government could always restrict the supply of felt-tip pens, however. In that case the dedicated producer of samizdat will have to draw his own blood and scratch his message on a (CAD) $1,000,000 bill using a toothpick or torn-off piece of fingernail…
As we reported a couple of weeks ago, Vlad Tepes’ YouTube channel was abruptly shut down by Google.
He has other platforms, of course. The most recent one is BitTube. And his
BitChute channel has an archive of all his videos for the last couple of years, so nothing important has been lost.
But the YouTube channel had a huge number of subscribers, giving Vlad an enormous reach. Which, given the politically incorrect nature of his material, is probably why YouTube decided to take him down.
The following interview with Vlad by Amy Mek serves as an instructive sequel to Matt Bracken’s report on his latest Facebook suspension. This is the Brave New World that dissidents are forced to inhabit here in Techno-World.
NOTE: There are problems with the audio in this clip — Vlad’s voice is much quieter than Ms. Mek’s. I advise you to turn up the volume so you can hear Vlad properly, but be prepared to hear a much louder voice when Amy Mek speaks:
