Someone has to tell the truth about the “orgy of guilt-tripping and pseudo-Christian penance, one that seems to become shriller and more robotized with the passing of time”: Martin Luther King, JR. Day. Someone has to expose the unanimity with which this “post-Christian form of Lent” (MLK Day) is celebrated by both “the establishment Right … and the Left.” Trust Prof. Paul E. Gottfried to do the dues, pointing out, first, that “the rapturous tribute” Martin Luther King (1929-1968) receives is “no longer extended to the founders of our country,” or to such figures as “the gallant Southern leader Robert E. Lee, whose birthday coincides with King’s.”
“King’s birthday,” writes Gottfried at AltRight, “is the only national holiday devoted to an individual American whose public observance has been commanded by Congress, and in 1983, this honor was accorded, with more or less bipartisan support.” This “sacral calendar” “goes on through Black History Month and is then resumed for another putative victim group during Women’s Month.” Oy vey.
When it comes to MLK, don’t expect theological or historical illumination from “GOP operatives and neoconservative journalists,” as they sing from the Left’s hymn book here. Glenn Beck has succumbed too. In fact, nobody will contort in greater agony, on January 17, than Beck.
“… America’s solipsistic opinion formers and television program-makers do not provide any serious, ongoing analysis of what’s afoot in the ‘new’ South Africa. …
Indeed, the ethnic cleansing of the Afrikaner has failed to cloud pinched horizons in America.
Perhaps it takes a Jew to bear Christian Witness.
As Adriana Stuijt reports, a ‘pro-Boer Israeli human rights activist’ by the name of Avigdor Eskin visited South Africa on a fact-finding tour in October. Mr. Eskin has,
kicked off the Christian New Year by demonstrating in Jerusalem on Sunday against the ANC-regime’s ‘silent genocide’ of the … Afrikaner-Boers in South Africa. He said the Boers have ‘for the past 100 years always been the friends of the Jewish people. We must support and help them in their present plight. What is happening in South Africa cannot be tolerated and we will not remain silent.’
Bravo. Mr. Eskin is living up to the standards of great Israelis past. The Jewish State was perhaps the only friend the old South Africa had. Theirs was a firm relationship forged in the fires of international excoriation and excommunication.
Against the decree of the United States, Israel’s Labor and Likud governments chose barter over boycotts.”…
UPDATE I (Jan. 7): In answer to the reader below. The Afrikaners are a nation. The English of South Africa are not a “tribe” (i.e., a nation) in any meaningful sense. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, was pretty perceptive when he recently acknowledged, moreover, that only the Afrikaners are true Africans. The English have always held onto that British passport.
UPDATE II:“Invictus,” the grandiose title of a Clint Eastwood idealized film about South Africa, is not the right source of information about that country (for heaven’s sake!). Our reader thinks of Mandela as a cuddly democrat and a Christian! News to me. Need I remind you that Hollywood does not edify and is seldom a good source for reliable data?
UPDATE III: The closest you’ll come to the “truth” about SA in mainstream media: “I only know that my daughter—a world traveler—says South Africa is the scariest place she’s ever been,” writes David Thomsonfor the The New Republic. Why so scary? He doesn’t say.
“According to the authors of ‘Streetwise: How Taxi Drivers Establish their Customer’s Trustworthiness’ (TLS, May 12), it transpires that in deciding whether to ‘stop for a fare,’ cabbies give preference to ‘whites’ over ‘blacks.’ But they also select older over younger passengers; women over men; individuals over multiple passengers, wealthier over poorer; callers over hailers; and ‘friendly and calm over aggressive and agitated.’ As it is in the taxi driver’s economic interest to refuse ‘as few fares as possible, they can no more be guilty of racism than they are of reverse sexism or ageism because they prefer older and female passengers,’ say the authors.”
“Since there is no way of knowing whether those passengers the drivers screened out were in fact dangerous, it’s difficult to assess the effectiveness of these strategies. Still, not even the most ardent rights-violator would dare suggest cabdrivers be penalized for their prudence. For one, it could cost the driver his life.”
And it did. “Chilling video released yesterday by police shows a life-and-death struggle between a gunman and livery driver moments before the thug shot the cabby in a botched robbery in Queens.
The dramatic confrontation was caught on a surveillance camera installed in the gold Chevy Impala being driven by Trevor Bell, 53, in South Ozone Park on Saturday night. Bell was critically wounded in the attack. …”
“The head of the New York State Federation of Taxi drivers is encouraging racial profiling,” reports ABC.COM:
“Sometimes it’s good that we are racially profiled, because the honest to God truth is that 99 percent of the people that are robbing, stealing, killing these drivers are blacks and Hispanics,’ Fernando Mateo said.”
The law, of course, proscribes the life-preserving measures advised by Mr. Mateo. These poor cabbies are expected to throw open the cab door to the Grim Reaper himself.
UPDATE: As you can see, Mateo, the man advocating racial (or rational) profiling, is a member of a minority as well. The victim, I believe, is black
The arrest of 19-year-old Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Somalia, for planning to set off a bomb in Portland, Oregon, smacks of FBI entrapment; the FBI is notorious for the wickedly smart traps it lays for slow youth (such as the Miami Seven).
Even if the FBI has narrowly avoided the legal definition of entrapment in MOM’s case, it is rather ludicrous to hear media megaphones mouthing the mantra about this arrest providing proof, once again, that “they are out to get us.” Yes, it proves your government is out to get you—with its immigration policies.
Who let this guy in?
No one is saying—and the matter will remain submerged. Not even Google will give up MOM’s “immigration success story,” but you and I know that his folks are not plucky H-1B or O-1 visa holders. They’re probably visa lottery winners or refugees.
I had just blogged about the revocation of Brandon Huntley’s refugee status by the Canadian Court, which was “guided” by the Canadian Immigration Department, which, in turn, took orders from South Africa’s ANC goons. The latter oleaginous officials were backed by legions of house-trained liberals. “133 academics from 13 South African and 6 overseas universities,” all united to rob a man of a bit of luck; of some mercy.
What cowards!
Huntley is a South African (of the WASP variety).
In the Comments Section, another white South African gloated. Huntley had it coming. He isn’t a very nice guy. This is indeed the liberal mindset. The white, liberal man (even when he calls himself a “conservative”) is a deracinated creature, completely without the ability to see the bigger picture that is the South African reality.
It was argued that the Canadian government would have been “deluged by South African asylum seekers jumping at the chance to get into a country they wouldn’t otherwise have a prayer of getting into.”
Our reader never asks himself why it is that Canada and the US routinely reject (even deport) South African WASP immigrants, who are known for their wicked work ethic, happen to share the same ancestors and faith, and do not harbor Jihadi ambitions.
You are more likely to come upon a Mohamed Osman Mohamud in an American suburb than bump into a van der Merwe, in other words, a South African homie. But the liberal mindset (prevalent among most conservatives) forbids such inquisitiveness. Doesn’t occur …
Yes, Brandon Huntley was denied that meager thing called mercy because he acted like a bit of a blowhard, says one white bloke.
Yes, if Brandon had only been sepia tinged and harbored ambitions to blow things up, he’d have been a citizen of Canada or the USA already.
And HERE: Somalis “are unassimilated Muslims who follow violent sharia law, practice polygamy and slice off the private parts of their little girls (aka FGM, with a prevalence of 98% in Somalia).”
[SNIP]
So why are 85,000 Somali immigrants a good thing, but a “deluge” of WASP South Africans cannot be countenanced or coped with? Afraid the latter will work too hard for their money? Don’t we need more productive individuals in order to support all those Somalis?
