Category Archives: Multiculturalism

Europe Turns Right

Democracy, EU, Europe, Islam, Journalism, Multiculturalism

I’m proud to say that my people, those who are based in The Netherlands, turned out for the great Geert Wilders, and are celebrating a tremendous win for the brave Dutchman. “a whopping 17 percent of the vote in the Netherlands went to the Wilders anti-Islamic Freedom Party.”

The Christian Science Monitor preferred a broad-brush indictment of Wilders as a “far-right politician.” To the Dutch who elected him, he’s a hero. I guess his constituents believe in halting the Islamic takeover of the Netherlands. Bad form, I know. My family too is funny that way; they don’t much appreciate the rising assaults on Jews and Jewish businesses that have coincided with an ongoing, generous influx of Muslim immigrants. “Xenophobia” in journalistic parlance.

Unlike the American hard-right, Wilders is a friend of Israel.

About the EU’s efforts to concentrate power while obliterating the ancient nations of Europe, not enough bad things can be said. I tried to cover it in “Adieu to the Evil EU.“

Updated: Media’s Judicial Jiu-Jitsu For ‘Da Big Man’

America, Barack Obama, Democracy, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Law, Media, Multiculturalism, Race, The Zeitgeist

The excerpt is from my new column, now on Taki’s Magazine, “Big Man Obama and His Diversity Princess”:

“We’ve been ‘spared’ warning of Strongman Obama’s Orwellian overreach because a Big Man has big guns: the menagerie of morons that is the American media.

The Chief is working in the same tradition as The Decider, only with even less scrutiny and far more impunity.

…the media’s judicial jiu-jitsu has been unconscionable. Are the legal writings and judicial rulings of Judge Sotomayor being scrutinized? Not on your life. Right away, the usual menagerie of morons took on the construction of a meta-argument invalidating the GOP’s yet-to-be-made case against Sotomayor, if you get my drift.

An argument against an argument!

From NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell to the lowliest Democratic strategist: all are advising viewers, first, that to oppose Sotomayor is to risk Hispanic ire. And second, that in order to dodge death by demographics, Republicans must continue to court Latinos slavishly.

For example, making too much of Sotomayor’s Wise Latina Woman cretinous comment is unwise for Republicans, the talking twits tell us. Judge Sotomayor suggested in 2001 that ‘a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’

The consensus among the commentariat is that this is no time for the GOP to come to the defense of paleface: white judges or white firefighters. (Sotomayor washed her hands off the white, New Haven firefighters, and upheld racial discrimination against them.) The so-called incontrovertible truth at which the Obama media minions are getting is this:

The GOP’s powerbase hangs on Hispanics.

Dogged demographer Steve Sailer has been dispelling this manufactured dogma convincingly for close to a decade …”

The complete column is “Media’s Judicial Jiu-Jitsu For ‘Da Big Man.'”

Miss the weekly column on WND? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine, every Saturday.

Update II: Lady La Raza (Sotomayor: Spanish For Racial Set-Asides)

Affirmative Action, America, Barack Obama, General, Justice, Law, Multiculturalism, Pseudo-intellectualism

Update I (May 29): Go Tancredo! “ALL FOR THE RACE; NOTHING FOR THE REST” is how Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo encapsulated La Raza’s mission. On CNN, Tancredo went on to call La Raza, to which the newly nominated Lady Justice belongs, a Latino KKK. As I write, the heroic Tancredo is hammering David Shuster, an MSNBC hombre—who tried to pin him up against the wall—refusing to back down, backing-up his words impeccably with a tale of La Raza’s honoring of a gentleman whose cri de coeur was “eliminate the Gringo.”

And you know what? When meek WASPs refuse to turn the other cheek, bullies back down. Likewise, Shuster was shushed.

Update II (May 29): Margaret Warner of the PBS’s News Hour talked to legal scholars Emma Coleman Jordan of Georgetown University Law School and Paul Cassell of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah about Sotomayor’s judicial record. Coleman, an African-American woman, called Sotomayor brilliant. What else? Cassell, who actually could be a candidate for this liberally applied designation, said he had read very many of her decisions and that she “breaks to the Left,” sides with the plaintiff in so-called sexual harassment cases, and has a pedestrian mind that is no match for Antonin Scalia’s. That’s the good news.

As readers have noted in this space, one doesn’t wish for a formidable liberal legal theorist, but, rather, for a plodder; someone who can barely digest the facts of a case, much less find the intellectual wherewithal to apply critical race theory to the facts. You don’t want a woman capable of expansive theoretical formulations. However, it is quite clear that this is a double-edged sword; it portends a gravitation toward group think. I am Latina hear me roar, and all that stuff. Sotomayor is Spanish for racial set-asides. It is quite clear from Staurt Taylor’s stellar coverage (National Journal Online) that Sotomayor thinks racial groups ought to be represented in a society’s institutions commensurate with their percentage in that society. An absence of such representation, in this post hoc illogic, indicates discrimination. A subtle mind indeed.

(May 28): In a previous post I said that Obama, who is married to an intellectual pygmy — a mediocrity who graduated from an Ivy League university — seems wedded to the idea of entrenching her ilk everywhere. Pat Buchanan’s on the same page, although Mr. Buchanan is more positive than I am about the Republican’s capacity to counter Obama:

“The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama’s America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a ‘two-fer.’ Affirmative action start to finish.

Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them ‘notable’ for ‘lack of depth.’

Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.

The lady is a lightweight.

What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?

Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.”

Updated: Pro-Afrikaans Action Group Praises … Jacob Zuma

Africa, Britain, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, South-Africa

Our friend Dr. Dan Roodt, founder of the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group (PRAAG), is nothing if not original! His rightist organization is applauding Jacob Zuma, a different kind of original, for the overtures Zuma is making toward the much-maligned and disenfranchised Afrikaners.

I like this tack. It’s unexpected. So few are the truly interesting minds around, and Dan certainly is one. Sure, I’m flummox. But I’m also intrigued. Read on:

PRAAG (the Pro-Afrikaans Action Group) joined in the standing ovation that Jacob Zuma received from the assembly of Afrikaner delegates at yesterday’s meeting at the Hilton Hotel in Sandton. For perhaps the first time since the early nineties, Afrikaners had spoken frankly about the many issues bothering them in the new South Africa, such as the domination of English monoculture, violent crime, land reform, the new gun laws, corruption and the dilapidation of state resources such as the SABC, SAA, Eskom and others.

After the gathering, Dr. Dan Roodt, leader of PRAAG, told reporters: “I feel very positive about the outcome of the meeting and have the impression that foreign, especially British, influence on the ANC is diminishing. It is almost as if Zuma has some pangs of nostalgia for the old, Afrikaner-run South Africa, with its discipline, sense of patriotism, successful agriculture, frugal public salaries and respect for law and order.”

Roodt continued: “There was never any reason for conflict between Afrikaners and blacks in the past as we have understood each other and cooperated for almost two centuries. However, outside elements, ranging from Britain and Sweden to the die-hard English communists of South Africa, incited conflict in our country so as to place us on the same path as the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, with its radicalism, ethnic strife and failed states.”

Under Mbeki Afrikaners were vilified as “settlers who failed to depart”. In his speech to the assembly, the leader of PRAAG stated that “after 1994 the ANC had lacked a model to deal with a large indigenous Western minority, speaking its own language and not English, French or Portuguese”.

He went on to say that “Zuma is wise in appreciating that the radical Africanist model is a failure, as seen in Zimbabwe and many other postcolonial African countries. From his statements during the meeting, Zuma is clearly an admirer of the Afrikaner model of development with its emphasis on discipline, education, hard work, caring for the poor and successful agriculture”.

The president of the ANC has accepted an invitation to visit the Voortrekker Monument, as well as a camp of the Voortrekker youth movement. Dr. Dan Roodt said: “I think Zuma’s interest in Afrikaans culture is genuine. He should also visit the Afrikaans Literary Museum in Bloemfontein to discover perhaps the greatest cultural edifice in all of Africa, the prodigious output of Afrikaans works and translations in the twentieth century but which has been sadly neglected and even threatened during the rule of Thabo Mbeki.”

Roodt also responded to a statement by the DA that Zuma had displayed an “ethnically and racially blinkered world view” in calling Afrikaners the only “true white South Africans”.

“The DA is itself blind in its colonial liberalism that denies the multiethnic character of our state.”

No doubt, Bantu and Boer might have been better off without the British. (The same can be said of the Israelis and Palestinians.) Still, Dan knows as well as I do that the proof is in the pudding. Unless Zuma brings back the death penalty, and stops the racially motivated culling of whites in South Africa and the appropriation of commercial farms—it’s all talk.

But Zuma and Dan are shaking things up.

Check out PRAAG (where my column is occasionally featured).

Update (April 12):”Zuma Insulted Afrikaners: Zille.”

Helen Zille, quite an impressive woman, heads the Democratic Alliance: the liberal, minuscule, opposition to the South African One Party State. By her telling, Zuma was “patronisingly trying to ‘curry favour'” with Afrikaners.

If so, it’s long overdue.

The reason for Zuma’s pro-Afrikaner tack, claims Zille, is this: “By seeming to flatter, I can actually fool you all into forgetting about the corruption allegations against me. By pressing the ethnic button, I can also distract your attention from the ANC’s power abuse.”

Moreover, “It is the well-known ‘divide and rule’ tactic, which authoritarian racist governments always use to divide their opponents,” she said in her weekly newsletter on Friday.

All very plausible. However, what Zuma said about Afrikaners being the only true South Africans among whites is indubitably true. And rather perceptive, I might add.

This is what undergirds the BBC’s David Harrison’s fine book, The White Tribe of Africa.