Social Justice: An Analysis (Part 4)

Below is the final part of a four-part guest essay by Richard Cocks about Social Justice. Previously: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Social Justice: An Analysis

Part 4
by Richard Cocks

Who gets to be a student?

In the 1980s in New Zealand, university students tended to be the children of parents who had also been university students. This was at a time when only five percent of the population was admitted to college. Universities were funded by the government at great expense and reserved for the academically capable. Standards were high, with no grade inflation. Every student was literate and/or numerate and tended to be interested in his studies. Nearly every student pursued his own reading agenda and most would take an interest in classical literature and foreign (i.e., difficult) movies.

This fact about the parentage of university students was presented as a problem.

However, far from being unfair, it only stands to reason. The children of academically successful people are likely to have inherited a higher genetically derived intelligence. They are more likely to be exposed to a larger vocabulary from their parents, along with relatively sophisticated concepts. Their parents are likely to read to them and to treat education as valuable and important. There will likely be easy access to books with frequent trips to the library. The parents are more likely to be exemplary role models in their own reading habits. Academic subjects might be treated as interesting and discussed around the dinner table.

Many of these New Zealand students grew up wanting to be educated and knowledgeable. Some of it was just vanity and fear — not wanting to be the only person at the party who did not know about, say, Freud.

In my own case, long before attending university, “The Academic Calendar,” a bound book in which all university courses were listed along with their reading requirements, would be eagerly examined. Practically salivating at the books that would be read and discussed, fantasies of alternative course loads ensued. Imitating a friend of the family meant wanting from the age of seven to be a philosophy professor, before even knowing what philosophy really was.

The advantages of having university-educated parents were ones of class, family and genetic inheritance. Are those advantages fair? They are neither fair nor unfair. They are certainly an undeserved good fortune a.k.a. luck.

Crucially, what is the alternative to such a state of affairs?

Social justice would require “fixing” these advantages. One problem with this is that a student who is less able, less literate, less motivated, less interested, with a smaller vocabulary, having read fewer books would take the other’s place. This is a poor use of resources and creates its own unfairness. The other problem is that social justice attempts a kind of unknowable counterfactual — one of putting someone where they would have been had not social, familial and genetic factors counted against him. Sowell points out that social justice requires non-existent God-like abilities to determine what might have been.

Unintended consequences of social justice

One thing that was attempted in many countries to try to counteract disadvantages acquired “through no fault of their own” was to take children away from parents who were poor, unemployed, perhaps drug- or alcohol-addicted, unsuccessful, with bad attitudes towards education and industriousness and to put those children in more middle-class and successful households. This happened to Australian Aboriginal children and to Native American children among others. This attempt at cosmic justice is now regarded as an abomination, though it was well-meaning. Ripping such children from their birth home changes their likely educational and employment attainments positively, but destroys families and the parent/child bond. It is now completely out of fashion and widely condemned.

However, the desire for cosmic justice continues in other forms and similar sorts of things result from it.

In the 1960s liberal judges argued that amateur criminals often implicated themselves in ways that professional offenders would not. Bizarrely, the judges wanted to even the playing field for the amateurs and instituted the Miranda Rights rule. This means more violent criminals wandering the streets, getting off on technicalities, and more difficulty in prosecuting them. A certain number of extra victims will have died as a result of judges’ wanting amateur criminals to avoid conviction as often as the professionals. Those living in high-crime areas such as inner cities will have particularly suffered, and a very high proportion will have been black. Similarly, justices wanted hard-luck stories concerning murderer’s childhoods to be considered, even though there is no way to tell how much this contributed to their offending. These kinds of considerations mean murder trials commonly extend for three years at great expense, while violent criminals are out on bail.

“Social justice” for criminals means more victims, rapes and deaths, especially among the poor.

Traditional justice means one rule for all. Social justice for vicious murderers means the punishment will vary depending on how bad the killer’s childhood was. This means a different punishment for two criminals who commit the same crime. A criminal who could prove he had a particularly harsh childhood could expect a reduced punishment. Reducing the punishment means there is less of a disincentive to offend. If anything that contributes to his greater chance of offending should mean a lighter sentence, then the rule that criminals with bad childhoods should get lighter sentences will justify giving criminals even lighter sentences, thereby reducing the disincentive to offend, ad infinitum.

Affirmative action programs in California, for instance, were shown to actually reduce the graduation rates of blacks and Hispanics. By putting such students in colleges for which they did not qualify based on their grades, the students found themselves outgunned and at the bottom of their classes. This discouraging state of affairs tends to undermine self-confidence and reduce graduation rates. When the University of California system was forbidden by legal decisions to engage in affirmative action admission policies, the graduation rates of blacks and Hispanics rose by 55%.The number of doctorates among that group in the sciences went up 25% after affirmative action policies were banned. [1]

Continue reading

The UN Migration Pact Will Help Create the Future Islamic Republic of Germany

The United Nations has proposed that member states sign a pact that would regularize illegal immigration and manage the process of global migration.

European Commissioner for Migration Dimitris Avramopoulos is working with the UN to implement the proposed migration plan in Europe. Needless to say, Hungary is vigorously resisting the plan, and says it will not be involved in the process of devising the pact, nor will it abide by it.

The following video from the German-language edition of Epoch Times discusses the UN pact and its likely effects on Germany. It also analyzes the long-term consequences of German asylum laws and procedures, which combined with the inflow of more migrants will turn Germany into a Muslim-majority state within two generations.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The OIC Tries to Stop Geert Wilders’ Motoon Contest

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is — surprise, surprise — protesting Geert Wilders’ planned Mohammed Cartoon contest, which will be held later this year in the building housing the Lower Chamber (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch parliament.

Here’s the OIC press release that came out earlier today:

OIC Strongly Condemns the Statement of a Dutch MP vowing to hold Cartoon Competition of the Prophet Mohamed Peace be upon Him

Date: 24/07/2018

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has strongly condemned the statement made by the Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders vowing to hold a cartoon competition of the Prophet peace be upon Him, at the end of this year.

The Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Dr. Yousef bin Ahmed Al-Othaimeen expressed his deep concern over this provocative contest, which is arousing further incitement and sowing the seeds of hatred among the various followers of religions.

HE Dr. Al-Othaimeen affirmed that as the entire world is facing religious extremism and terrorism and needs peace, dialogue and tolerance, it is time to set up internationally binding legal instruments to prevent incitement, racism and discrimination, religious hatred and respect [sic] for all religions. Freedom of expression does not mean insulting the feelings of others; an attitude which cuts against the universal principle of respect for religions.

Notice that this document is far more than a complaint: it is a call to action, a reminder that the West must implement Resolution 16/18 and criminalize Islamic blasphemy. When it says, “it is time to set up internationally binding legal instruments to prevent incitement, racism and discrimination, religious hatred and respect [sic] for all religions,” the OIC means it wants a new United Nations resolution requiring all member states to pass laws in their national legislatures that criminalize insults against Islam and the Grand PBUH. And since the OIC now owns a controlling share of the UN, such a resolution is more than likely.

Justin Trudeau will be eager to obey, as will Angela Merkel, and probably Emmanuel Macron as well. If Hillary Clinton were president, she’d no doubt be trying to push the appropriate bill through Congress. But Donald Trump and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley have clearly indicated that they won’t allow any of the multiculti tripe from the UN to be pushed down America’s throat, so we citizens of the Great Satan have a short breathing space before we join the sharia-lovers in Europe and Canada.

In response to the OIC’s announcement, Parliamentary questions were presented by PVV MPs Geert Wilders and Raymond de Roon to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the OIC’s condemnation of the contest:

Continue reading

Hamas and Its Lethal Games

This is a snip from the most recent essay of Colonel Richard Kemp (ret.), taken from his website. The note says it appeared today in The Daily Telegraph but this excerpt is from his own website.

Thanks to reader and contributor, Mark H., for mentioning the colonel’s name in our comments. I quickly went looking; quite a fellow is Richard Kemp, and a rara avis: an English Catholic. [He was taken to task for referring to Catholics in Northern Ireland as “taigs”. He said since it was a term he’d often heard used to refer to him, he didn’t realize it was problematic.]

HAMAS ARE USING THEIR OWN PEOPLE AS EXPENDABLE TOOLS. DON’T FALL FOR THEIR GAMES

Article published in The Daily Telegraph, 16 May 2018. © Richard Kemp

On Monday the Iran-backed terrorist organisation Hamas achieved its baleful objective when more than 50 people were killed. This is what it had hoped for when it dispatched thousands of Gazans, including women and children, to the border with Israel under orders to break through the fence. This carefully planned operation – which continued on Tuesday – had nothing to do with protest or the so-called right of return of Palestinians to Israel. It was only about grabbing headlines and creating a situation that the Israel Defence Force had to deal with by lethal force.

Knowing they cannot defeat the IDF by military means, this has been Hamas’s long-term strategy: to cause international outrage aimed at isolating Israel. Previously it has fired rockets and dug attack tunnels, both intended to murder Israeli civilians, leaving the IDF with no option other than to defend its people with force. Hamas’s use of human shields in each of these situations guaranteed civilian deaths.

Hamas has brought these tactics to a new and sickening low in recent weeks, making its human shields the actual weapons of war, with inevitably bloody consequences. This is the first government in history that has deliberately sought to compel its enemy to kill its own people…

[…]

Read the rest at his site. I also recommend his sidebar, particularly for his analysis of the nerve gas attack in April. Given his background in intelligence, his view seems cogent.

There are a number of videos featuring Richard Kemp on YouTube. I may feature more in the future, but here is a short one from a talk he gave in 2016. Plus ça change…

By the way, when the Palestinian representative began to speak at the UN today, the American ambassador to the U.N. walked out. She gave that stormy move some feminine flounce as she made her way to the door.

And here’s an American point of view on the situation in Jerusalem from a retired foreign service officer – Jerusalem: Reality as a Foreign Policy.

Yay, team!

P.S. It seems that Richard Kemp likes Trump. Oh, the horror!

Islam’s Apostates — Captives Behind the Iron Veil

The following essay was originally published by UKIP Daily.

Islam’s Apostates — Captives Behind the Iron Veil

by The Poacher

In Sharia, the worst crime a Muslim can commit is to leave Islam. No ifs or buts — death is the sentence, and that is why eight countries at that feted institution the UN treat apostasy from Islam as a capital crime. Not something much mentioned at their Human Rights confabs, but there it is. Better to pass another resolution against the Israelis for shooting violent Hamas agitators than address the genocidal threat against 1.6 billion Muslims contained in the Sharia and reflected in these national statutes.

So, if you are unfortunate enough to be a Muslim in Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauretania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the UAE or Yemen, then don’t dare mention you kinda prefer that Jesus guy, or Buddha, or you think you could happily wash your hands of all religion. Best you hold on to that thought before going public. Which, come to think of it, is probably why practically none do. Last time one did in Afghanistan, he was quietly extracted and re-settled in the West. Too embarrassing for us to deal with and demand reform. Reform is not a word the Ulema (Islamic scholars) and the Qadis (judges and lawyers of the Sharia) like to hear. No whiff of innovation need be wafted in the general direction of their favoured 7th century practices.

Nonetheless, doubters there are. How many tens and hundreds of millions we can never know until they have that option to choose — without the fear of finding themselves in some dust-blown square with crowds containing silent fellow-sufferers looking on as their head is severed from the rest of their heretical self. Not the way many of us would choose to go.

The Iron Veil of Islam confines its “willing” slaves as covetously as the Soviets once corralled theirs behind their Iron Curtain, as suspiciously as a Dixie plantation owner watched over his, and as profitably as nineteenth century Arab slavers “migrated” tens of thousands of African infidel slaves down the Nile each year. These slave-holders were eventually humbled by the patient, enlightened peoples of the West who attacked the ideology of these barbarous states and fought only where necessary to contain and then squeeze the scheming shacklers.

Leaders today need to understand the ideology driving the apostate-killers and attack that, rather than bomb some poor hill peoples’ huts up some remote valley — at prodigious expense. The offensive has to be based on superior thought, not impersonal unconvincing technology. Islam arms its adherents with a terrible fervour and unearthly commitment, and can outstay the rest of us as long as its ideology — most comprehensively spelled out in the Sharia — retains its death grip on all Muslims who have reached the age of reason.

The West has a vision, a noble vision of free peoples — free to choose their religion, their politics, their sexuality — but has apparently forgotten how to defend itself from the truly intolerant as it has itself become intolerant of free speech. We must understand how truly great is our society, a culture that evolved over millennia and was handed down to us by bloodied hands for us to improve upon, not to throw away over some lefty dystopian chimera. We have to fight to defend those rights earned over centuries or continue the coward’s slouch towards the civilizational abyss.

Continue reading

Hungarian Foreign Minister: “These NGOs Were Never Elected by Anybody”

In the video below, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártő speaks on the topic of migration to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This clip was recorded at the UN on March 19, 2018.

In his talk Mr. Szijjártő specifically calls out non-governmental organizations (NGOs) bankrolled by George Soros for their hostility to the migration policies of the democratically elected, sovereign government of Hungary — the same policies that reflect the will of the Hungarian people. He also points out the complicity of United Nations with these hostile NGOs.

Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The Crushing of Irish Culture — It Has Been Decided

The Crushing of Irish Culture — It Has Been Decided

by Michael Copeland

What’s up, Ireland? Feeling left behind?

Not enough brutal rapes?

Not enough mass gropings?

Not enough throat-slitting of priests?

Not enough knifepoint robberies?

Not enough car-burnings?

The “Big Vision” will soon fix all that.

What is the Big Vision? Translated, it is the Big Invasion. Announced with glowing spin as a plan to boost the population of Ireland, “to re-shape Ireland”, it involves inflicting a MILLION extra inhabitants from abroad on the luckless Irish. Ponder well: this will be followed by “family re-unification” — some two and a half million more — as well as all the new children born to these new arrivals. The Irish, population 4.7 million, will be swamped. How can their sense of specialness, their identity, survive? It cannot, and it is not intended to. Irish culture is to be overrun, crushed, and destroyed. That has been decided. Irishness will be just a quaint curio to be found in museums and scratchy old recordings.

The Irish government has issued a propaganda video to explain their policy, grandly titled “Ireland 2040 — Our Plan”. Spot the sly ambiguity straight away? “OUR” plan. Dear Irish people, is it really? No. The hapless Irish were, of course, never asked if they wanted the population to be “boosted” from abroad, if they wanted Ireland to be “re-shaped”. It is THEIR plan, the politicians’ plan. They can say it is “Our Plan” as politicians, but the listeners will conveniently imagine that the people have somehow been party to it. What a mistake!

Dear Irish people, in case you feel like it, your government will not want you to disagree. The authoritative voice-over dictates, almost menacingly, how to think.

We are a country that is diverse, growing, and changing.

“Diverse”? In fact, Ireland is still nearly all Irish. “Growing”: this is a dishonest mis-description. Ireland will be deliberately flooded with a million outsiders: that is not ordinary domestic growth. “Changing” sounds all nice and natural, but it misrepresents what is really happening — having change inflicted from above.

By 2040 our population is expected to increase by one million….

Oh, “is expected to”: how very abstract of it. No. Again, this is not honest. It has been DECIDED. That is why it is expected. It was decided, furthermore, without any consultation with the luckless taxpayers upon whom it is being imposed. Note well that nowhere in this exciting plan is there any mention of encouraging native Irish young adults to have more children, and the plan will be spending 116 billion Euros. No, the Irish are unimportant.

Imagine ELEVEN cities the size of Limerick. That much housing is what is needed to accommodate the ushered-in newcomers. As the publicity material explains:

There will be a need for an absolute minimum of half a million new homes, which is at least 25,000 homes every year.

Ireland is bankrupt, in debt for the next fifty years for having bailed out the failed Irish banks. It seems that Irish leaders are doing what their EU and UN banking masters tell them. These “banksters” have a plan for Europe. They worked it out at those Bilderberg meetings — you know, the ones where world leaders gather to stitch up policy without any tiresome Parliaments in the way, and whose conclusions are never made public. Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, has rumbled this conspiracy:

Continue reading

The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality (Part One)

The essay below is the latest in an occasional series by our expatriate English correspondent Peter on the history of the Socialist Left in Britain.

The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality

by Peter

ONE

Having lived through it, I believe the period from 1960 to 1975, commonly known as the ’60s, was a carefully devised trap into which we all propelled ourselves, willingly and of our own volition, a knot with a multitude of apparently loose strands which, when drawn tightly together, ensnared us all. The summer of peace and love did not happen, at least, not the way they said it did. With the wisdom of hindsight, I believe that what did happen in the 1960s was mass-indoctrination; the first of a succession of generations to move into Communism, not by force, but by stealth, subversion, sex, drugs and rock and roll by way of a process which began many years before.

World War II finally ended on 2nd September 1945 with the signing of the Peace Treaty with Japan on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo harbour, Germany having surrendered to the Allies four months earlier, after Hitler had thoughtfully put himself out of everyone’s misery. As a result, the Soviet Union had acquired East Germany and much of Eastern Europe, upon which by means of the eradication of political institutions, terror campaigns, purges of dissidents, mass murder and other tried and tested methods of enforcing totalitarian control, the Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ruthlessly imposed communist rule in defiance of assurances extracted from him by his allies at Yalta in February 1945 that free elections would be held. He guessed rightly that Western leaders had had enough of war and would not take up arms again — at least, not then, and not over Eastern Europe.

Stalin and his cronies had planned the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe well before 1939, so that when the Red Army had ‘liberated’ those countries, police forces, both conventional and covert Communist party structures were already in place and awaiting activation. In the late 1940s, with the Soviet Empire now a work in progress, Stalin was intent on extending Soviet influence, believing it was only a matter of time before Western Europe fell into its clutches, but there were several restraining influences.

While Western Europe was nearly destitute and primarily engaged on rebuilding what remained of its society and its cities, thanks in a large part to the Marshall Plan, it was still prepared to defend itself, and if it were to fall short in this enterprise, then America stood ready, willing and able to pick up any deficit. Additionally, the Soviet Union had paid a terrible price for its own role in what it called The Great Patriotic War, far greater than any other participating country. Stalingrad was not the only Soviet City to have been reduced to rubble during hostilities. In Western Russia alone, the degree of desolation caused by a scorched earth policy exercised by both sides had all but obliterated 1700 towns and approximately 70,000 villages, along with 32,000 factories and 65,000 kilometres of railway track. In addition, the loss of life suffered by the population of the USSR as published by the current Russian Government totals 26.6 million people, two thirds of which were civilians, but this has been called a conservative estimate by Russian scholar Boris Sokolov, who believes there were around 43.3 million Soviet lives lost, 27 million of which were civilians.

Therefore Stalin’s options for Soviet expansion through direct assault appeared limited, but there was one option, a proxy war in the east. This would require a minimal call on Soviet manpower while ascertaining firstly whether the West still had the stomach for a fight, and secondly whether his newly-acquired Chinese allies would rally to the cause. The Korean Peninsula had been occupied by the Japanese since 1910, and following their surrender in 1945 had been divided along an area just north of the 38th Parallel between the Soviet-backed north ruled by the Communist Kim Il-Sung and the US backed south led by President Syngman Rhee. It would be fair to say that Soviet support for the North Korean leadership was lukewarm, while the Americans regarded Rhee as the best of a particularly nasty bunch, whose only positive characteristics were his fluency in English and his aversion to communism.

Throughout 1949 and 1950 the North Korean military had been receiving large quantities of Soviet tanks, artillery and aircraft as well as intensive combat training, while its numbers had been enhanced considerably by the return of battle-hardened veterans who had fought on the Communist side in the Chinese civil war. By contrast, the South Korean army had little more than small arms with which to defend itself. A North-versus-South conflict appeared to be a very unequal contest, and this encouraged Stalin to give the word for his North Korean client to invade the South, which it did on 25th June 1950.

Although the invasion caught the Americans by surprise, the UN reacted with amazing speed, compared to the lethargic Arab-dominated talking shop it has now become. On 27th June it authorized a US-led multinational force from what would eventually become twenty-one countries to repel the North Korean invasion. After the first months of the conflict, coalition troops were very much on the back foot until a seaborne UN counter-offensive landed at Inchon cut off North Korean troops and effectively altered the course of the war. The retreating North Korean forces were pursued northwards to an area close to the border with China, whereupon in response to an earlier commitment made to Stalin, Mao Zedong ordered the Communist Chinese army into the war, dispatching a massive force across the border into Korea, compelling the UN armies to retreat in the face of its ferocious advance.

Continue reading

Donald Trump’s Speech at the United Nations

President Donald Trump gave an important speech this morning at the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York City. The first twenty minutes or so of Mr. Trump’s remarks were mostly boilerplate, although he did get a chance to refer to Kim Jong-un as “Rocket Man”, undoubtedly causing even more pearl-clutching among the snowflakes who were so appalled at his use of the same designation on Twitter.

In the last third of his speech the president emphatically denounced Socialism, with a special emphasis on Nicolás Maduro and Venezuela. His remarks on Venezuela seemed to induce an uneasy hush in his audience, followed by a smattering of applause — and I was surprised he got even that.

Throughout his speech Mr. Trump repeatedly stressed the importance of national sovereignty and independence, which must surely have brought on dyspepsia among the globalists at the UN who are trying so mightily to bring him down:

Below is the text of the president’s speech, as provided by the White House website:

Continue reading

Interview with Fjordman

Interview with Fjordman

Note: This email interview was first published at the website The Apricity.

I was born in 1975. If I had any Islam-friendly or pro-Multicultural viewpoints in Norway in the 1990s, spending several years in the Middle East cured me of this. I was a student of Arabic at the American University in Cairo, Egypt, in 2001. I was in Cairo during the September 11th terror attacks in the USA that year. Some Egyptians I talked to were happy about these attacks against their American “allies.” Western mass media claimed that almost all Arabs and Muslims lamented the 9/11 attacks. I knew this was not true. I lived in the largest city in the Arabic-speaking world during these events.

In 2002 and 2003, I worked in Israel and the Palestinian territories in a civilian observer mission called Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH). The mission itself is not very useful. However, I continued to learn more about Islamic culture and mentality. From my personal experiences and studies, Islam turned out to be a lot less peaceful than we are being told by the media and mainstream academia.

When I returned to Norway in August 2003, I was convinced that Europe was importing big and dangerous future conflicts because of Muslim immigration. I also took a Master’s degree at the University of Oslo with an emphasis on technology studies and Internet censorship.

I was active on various websites for several years. Eventually, in February 2005, I adopted the pseudonym Fjordman. I have been using that pen name ever since, also after my real identity became known in 2011.

I lived in Oslo between 2003 and 2011. After the mass killings by Anders Behring Breivik on July 22, 2011, I was forced into involuntary exile from Norway for years due to massive media demonization. I genuinely feared for my personal safety at this point. The media presented me nearly as the brains behind a mass murder I had absolutely nothing to do with. I got no aid whatsoever from Norwegian authorities, even though I was forced to leave my home and my job and flee the country. I was homeless for some time afterwards.

The Norwegian police were very hostile during questioning, despite the fact that I volunteered to talk to them and was never charged with doing anything criminal. The police ransacked my home without a search warrant or court order.

ABB had created a very long compendium or manifesto where he quoted many different authors, some of them long dead writers such as William Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson or Gandhi. Yet because I was the only Norwegian on the top ten-list of those who were quoted in his text, the pressure on me was particularly extreme. This public demonization has partly continued until today, albeit with less intensity than in 2011.

I have read Breivik’s so-called manifesto closely, as well as some of the letters he has sent to the media from prison. My view is that Mr. Breivik is a nutcase who is probably medically insane. The first, very experienced forensic psychiatrists who examined him in 2011 declared that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and is insane. His mother was mentally unstable. His maternal grandmother also suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or something similar to it. This fact was downplayed by the media.

Breivik declared that he is the “commander” of a non-existing terrorist organization. He created a uniform and medals for this imaginary organization. He even wanted to wear this uniform in court, but was denied this possibility.

Yet following massive political and media pressure, Breivik was nevertheless declared sane during the trial in Oslo in 2012. This ruling is highly questionable. It was disputed by quite a few observers. The ruling elites wanted a sane, white terrorist to use as a tool to smear critics of Islamization and mass immigration.

Continue reading

Polish Left Calls for International Intervention to Stop the Actions of the Conservative Government in Poland

The leader of a far-left party in Poland is calling for intervention by trans-national organizations to stop new legislation that is being passed in parliament by the country’s conservative government, which holds the majority.

The following article about what happened yesterday is from the conservative news site wprost.pl. Ava Lon, who translated the piece, includes this introduction:

The Polish Parliament is voting in laws that the Left hates. Therefore the progressives have decided that the laws are “unconstitutional”, and that foreign powers must intervene to restore democracy in Poland.

Under the PiS (Party of Law and Justice) government, the Polish Parliament is now majority-conservative. It is changing the structure of the judiciary. The Left is foaming at the mouth. Now they have suggested (based on the presence of protective barriers around the Parliament building — as in most countries in the world nowadays) that the ruling party will “use force” to implement the law.

Ryszsadr Petru is the leader of a far-left party called Nowoczesna. He is making appeal to the OSCE, among other international organizations, to stand in solidarity with him and protect the rule of law.

Note: the letter in question is pictured in English in the text.

The translated article:

Ryszsadr Petru wrote a letter to “his friends all over the world” calling for solidarity concerning judiciary reforms in Poland.

The leader of Nowoczesna [Modern Party] sent his letter to many representatives of the world political scene. President [of the COE] Gianni Buquicchio, Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker, his deputy Frans Timmermans, President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland, Secretary General of the OSCE Lamberto Zannier and US Senator John McCain.

[Tweet] The Democratic World (UN, Council of Europe, OSCE, EU) can not be indifferent to the authoritarian rule of PiS.

We appeal in defense of your law!

“PiS is capable of enforcing the law by military means”

“I am aware that PiS is prepared for everything. The Sejm [Polish Parliament] is fenced off by railings. From what I’ve heard, there is a rented company that can equip the hall in stereo within three hours,” said Ryszard Petru in Koszalin. “PiS is able to enforce this law manu militari. Hence my appeal to world institutions concerned with the rule of law, asking them to appear as delegations monitoring the process of the rule of law in Poland,” he added.

PVV: Why was Saudi Arabia elected to the UN women’s rights commission?

Parliamentary Questions of MPs De Roon and Wilders (both PVV) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the election of Saudi Arabia to the UN women’s rights commission:

1.   Can you explain why Saudi Arabia, a county where camels are better treated than women, has been elected as a member of the UN women’s rights commission?*
2.   Can you find out which European countries supported this absurd election and are you prepared to call them to account? If not, why not?
3.   Has the Kingdom of the Netherlands in any way supported or facilitated the election of Saudi Arabia?
4.   Do you share the opinion that this election is a slap in the face of millions of women who suffer the effects of Sharia law and, imprisoned under an Islamic veil, have been robbed of all freedom?
5.   Are you prepared not to spend any money from the Dutch taxpayers anymore on UN human rights clubs lacking all credibility?
     
*   See the news report in Elsevier.
 

ICAN’T

A commenter on last night’s news feed asked me whether I was going to cover the ICANN controversy — i.e. the termination of American oversight of the DNS system of the Internet as of October 1. It’s a complex topic, off my remit, and I’m too ignorant to write about it at length. But here is my brief reply.

I cover it via the news feed — there have been many items on it. I don’t have time to write about it myself, because I don’t know enough about the topic in depth, and would have to spend hours researching it. But I’ll outline what little I know.

ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), and under it IANA (the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), are to be removed from the control of the Department of Commerce and handed over to “multilateral” (international) oversight, presumably the United Nations.

This has been coming on for many years, since long before Obama was president. There was resistance from Bush, but basically none from Obama. And more likely, active assistance at the behest of the UN crowd.

Now that Congress has totally surrendered its traditional role, there is nothing to stop a President from doing harm to the country. Congress — under the leadership of the REPUBLICAN Party, mind you — could stop this nonsense if it had the testicular fortitude. But it has institutionally gelded itself. So as far as I can tell, we are governed by the whim of the president with the permanent bureaucracy as his eager administrator.

We are to be handed over to the UN, and there isn’t a damned thing we can do about it.

Many thousands of people have been writing their Congressbeings for many months, to no avail. Congress is useless. All it does is roll over for the president. Its major function seems to be to pass continuing resolutions.

Although maybe I’m being uncharitable — it overrode its first Hussein veto yesterday. It only took eight years for it to manage one of those!

ESW to American Patriots: “Hang on to Your Hard-Won Rights!”

On April 21 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was the keynote speaker at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America in Dallas, Texas. Below is the speech given by her for the occasion. Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The prepared text of Elisabeth’s speech is available here.

For previous posts on the “hate speech” prosecution of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, see Elisabeth’s Voice: The Archives.