Without addressing the racial angle, the story about the cruel trick played on 87-year-old South African pensioner Ria van Straaten is meaningless. If you’ve reported (as has The Raw Story), shared or provided commentary sans racial context as to how this frail, legally blind elderly Afrikaner was forced to sing for her meager supper, by ANC black state officials—you should speak up now or forever hold your peace.
In other words, shut up if honesty is not your journalistic policy.
Of course, the heroic South African journalist Adriana Stuijt has never made this mistake. As is her custom, she fearlessly reports the unvarnished facts. “[B]lack-state officials laughed uproariously as the old white woman sang ‘Happy Birthday’ in a trembling voice.” The “frail elderly Afrikaner woman, Ria van Straaten, 87, [was] forced to ‘sing for her R1200 pension’ over [a] PA-system at [a] government-agency in Newcastle, 2013-04-10, … before they would hand over her R1200 old-age pension.”
On doesn’t expect much by way of politically unpalatable honestly from The Huffington Post, MSN.COM, or UPI.
Ignorant invertebrates all.
To the libertarians, however, who take feeble intellectual refuge in merely implicating and condemning the abstract entity of the state I say: “grow a backbone.”
The endemic evil of the state is a necessary but insufficient explanation for the joy black affirmative appointees take in socking it to whites in post-apartheid South Africa, a place where full-on racial hatred is a state religion.
Add the sweltering heat to the dangers of a sadistically, racist bureaucracy—and claiming a pension at the social security office is a dangerous excursion for old, white South Africans.
Our good friend historian Nebojsa Malic writes on European Islam and its machinations. I’ve asked him for exclusive comment on The Brothers Tsarnaev and the Chechen connection. (Do consider a one-time contribution or a regular monthly contribution to Barely A Blog. The PayPal buttons are to your right.) Read more about Nebojsa and his work below.
Serbs and Russians evil; ‘Bosnians,’ ‘Kosovars’ and Chechens Good
By Nebojsa Malic
Now that the Boston bombers have been identified as Chechen brothers, the question of their motive will be the next topic of media dissembling. I fully expect a whole battery of excuses, justifications, rationalizations and misdirection to try and make this into anything but jihad.
What other motive would there be? Not anger at US interventionism, for sure.
Almost from the very beginning, the West has been sympathetic to the Chechen cause – carving out an independent, Islamic republic from the Russian Federation. After initial successes, the Chechen rebellion has been rather effectively suppressed by the Putin government, to Washington’s great frustration. Western volunteers – some veterans of the Bosnian jihad – also fought in Chechnya. Leaders of the Chechen rebellion have been granted asylum in the UK and entry to the US. One would think the jihadists would not bite the hand that feeds them – except for the whole history of doing precisely that, from 9/11 to Boston.
Far from fueling an “Islamophobic” hysteria, the the U.S. government and the media went out of their way to spin the attacks over the years as anything but jihad. When Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood, the top Army general said damaging “diversity” would be worse.
When a convert calling himself Muhajid Mohammed attacked a recruiting station in Arkansas in 2009, the media almost didn’t cover it (focusing on an abortion doctor instead), and when they did, the motive was “unknown.”
Similarly, when Bosnian-born Sulejman Talovic shot up Salt Lake City mall in 2007, the lead detective on the case forbade his subordinates to mention jihad. Motive unknown, again, while Talovic was given a jihadist funeral in Bosnia, at Salt Lakers’ expense. The only reason Arid Uka, an Albanian who fired on a bus transporting US soldiers at an airport in Germany in 2011, killed only a couple of them was because his weapon jammed.
In Talovic’s case, the media spun it as anguish over the “Serb genocide” in Bosnia (!). Stories about Uka never failed to mention that Albanians “love America”. No doubt the mainstream media will now dig up some Chechens who similarly profess love for the United States’ in support of their cause. No mention will be made of Chechen suicide bombers who attacked Domodedovo airport in 2011, or the Beslan school siege of 2004, which killed over 150 children.
The Narrative must be preserved at all costs: Serbs and Russians evil, “Bosnians”, “Kosovars” and Chechens good. Islam is a religion of peace. If America champions Islamic causes, the Muslims will be grateful and embrace democracy (Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed the Albanian terrorist KLA fought for “American values”, while Rep. Tom Lantos called on “jihadists of all color and hue” to take note of US support for independent “Kosova”).
The more reality flies in the face of the Narrative, the more denied it will be. This cannot go on forever, of course. To all the innocents murdered in “inexplicable” acts of terrorism, that’s hardly a consolation.
Political correctness does not seem to be a state religion in Israel.
Israel has just crowned its first black beauty queen, an Ethiopian immigrant. She was invited to meet with Presidents Simon Peres and Barack Obama (Bibi Netanyahu is prime minister).
Here a YNet correspondent asks her (in Hebrew) whether she thinks she would have been invited to meet with Peres and Obama were she not black. Perfectly calmly the beauty queen replies in the negative. In the US, the latter (beauty) would have burst out crying, the former (correspondent) would have been sacked for insensitivity.
As this individualist sees it, Sheryl Sandberg is a remarkable woman who holds unremarkable opinions. There is nothing remotely controversial about what the chief operating officer of Facebook, a Democrat, has said about women’s work on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”
Women are too nice. They don’t take credit for their greatness. They don’t raise their hand enough. They don’t “Lean In” (the trite title of Sandberg’s new book) as they should. They “attribute their success to luck, and help from other people,” while men will attribute their success to their own core skills.
Sandberg holds humdrum feminist views. According to this mainstream opinion, society and the patriarchy have conditioned women to be nurturing and apologize for any male-like, go-getter ambitions they harbor.
Interviewer Norah O’Donnell is the very embodiment of banality—and hypocrisy. O’Donnell’s beauty (she is certainly no brainiac) could not have damaged her career on the Idiot Box. Just in case her looks—sorry, “skills”—went unnoticed, O’Donnell has posed as a pin-up.
In any case, O’Donnell the pin-up was having none of it. “But some women will hear that and say, ‘Wow, she’s telling me I’m not working hard enough, I’m not trying hard enough. She’s blaming women…”
Matthew Cooper is another feminist with a Y (chromosome). Cooper took a tougher tack. So sinister were Sandberg’s pronouncements on women that she deserved to be exposed for all the bad (unrelated) things she’d done. Some of these were implied: “She made a billion” was a recrimination of sorts.
Some were asserted: Mr. Cooper saddles Sandberg with the deregulation of the financial sector [where? When?] and the financial crisis. She was only 30 when she helped “repeal the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that had separated investment banking from the commercial, insured kind. This was, in retrospect, a huge mistake,” noodles Cooper.
This is such bad journalism.
To those of use who put a premium on teasing out the issues with precision, there is no daylight between Sheryl Sandberg and her feminist foes.
Sheryl Sandberg is being sandbagged for forgetting the only acceptable meme: Saddle “society” and the “patriarchy” for any and all female failure.
Nobody has picked on Sandberg for failing to blame biology, which accounts to a greater degree for the observed, aggregate differences in drive and priority setting that separate the sexes.
NORA O’Donnell Showcasing Her Professional Skills :
There were many reasons not racist for which to dislike MLK, not least of them was the man’s dalliance with communists. “His associations with communists” is why Jackie Kennedy’s husband, hero of Chris Matthews’ last book, ordered the wiretaps on King.
But then she lived BPC: before political correctness.
Whatever politically incorrect realists like Jackie Kennedy had to say about MLK, he was nothing like the black community’s current, corrupt race hustlers.
“It is a simple matter of justice,” said Martin Luther King,” that America, in dealing creatively with the task of raising the Negro [MLK's words] from backwardness [MLK's words], should also be rescuing a large stratum of the forgotten white poor.
In anticipation, let me say that no, affirmative action is always wrong from my perspective. The point of the post is to point out that MLK did not share the militant Afrocentrism that has become the norm in the US with dreck like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (the son of the shakedown artist is a paragon of virtue too), and the agitators that are slowly replacing them.
I’m in Seth MacFarlane’s corner, despite his smarminess. The master of ceremonies at the 85th Academy Awards managed to annoy the right people.
In “Oscars’ Hostile, Ugly, Sexist Night,” Amy Davidson, an affirmative fem at the New Yorker, kvetched over the “hostility shown to women in the workplace.” The meandering Davidson was moaning about MacFarlane’s “We Saw Your Boobs” routine (I didn’t see it), and its implication:
We saw your boobs, but that’s not even what we find attractive, so you exerted no power in doing so—all you did was humiliate yourself?
Behold the sacred boob! So now if a woman strips and a man laughs he risks accusation of impropriety. Besides, women rule the work place, toots. I know men who don’t dare greet a female for fear of an harassment suit.
Another anemic New Yorker writer whined that MacFarlane insulted those Who’re Always Ready to Receive Offense.
Snivels She Who Took Offense:
MacFarlane came off as kind of a pig, as he made fun of women for being too thin, too old, too naked. How sophisticated is it to call the pretty, popular girls sluts? I had to stand up and move away when he turned his sights on the lovely black nine-year-old Quvenzhané Wallis, nominated for Best Actress. I felt sick imagining where MacFarlane might go. So when he simply made a joke about George Clooney sleeping with her down the road, I felt my body relax.
I’ve now watched “We Saw Your Boobs.” If this is indeed MacFarlane singing, he has a better voice and is more musical than all the other warblers who “sang” last night, except for Dame Shirley Bassey, of course, who can do no wrong.
Here’s her stunning, sexy, original performance of Gold Finger
As I predicted in Annual Oscar Offal, Adel did deliver a monotone. She has no range. Barbra Streisand was appalling. And I owe you an apology. I promised no Jennifer Hudson. But someone did go primal on stage. I suspect it was Hudson.
I recall that Foxman had more to say about Mel Gibson than he had about a Seattle based Jihadist, Naveed Afzal Haq. Haq murdered a Jewish woman and critically injured five other women at the downtown Jewish Federation building in 2006.
The ADL’s website issued only the tersest of statements. It made no mention of the dead, the injured, and the Muslim. A glance at the League’s site and a visitor from Deep Space might get the impression Seth MacFarlane and other marauding Christian Cossacks like him posed the greatest danger to Jewish continuity.
As I said, I caught but a glimpse of Seth MacFarlane presenting the Oscars. He was not terribly funny, but then they never are. Don’t tell me you found any of the multiple appearances of Billy Crystal and Whoopi Goldberg the least bit amusing.
“Family Guy” is quite cute, but this MacFarlane creation has nothing on Mike Judge’s stuff. “Idiocracy” and Beavis & Butthead are sublimely smart.
MacFarlane is certainly not inJoan Rivers’ league when it comes to impropriety. If only she were unleashed on the Oscar crowd. Now that she’s old, she gets away with speaking her nimble mind.
I laughed so loud and hard at a comment she made on her reality show with Mellisa, the insipid but loving daughter, that I missed at least two more jokes. (I would not recommend watching “Joan Knows Best?”. Like all reality voyeurism, it’s junk—and a schlep, as Rivers would say.)
Ms. Rivers walked in on a football party Mellisa was throwing for her young son and his rowdy small friends. Looking on with disdain at the grubby little boys, Rivers blurted out:
like
tweet
google+
recommend
print
