Saturday, 26 April 2014

All the News that Fits their View

  The comment below was submitted in response to an article which originally appeared in the NY Times, where it was posted without allowing comments. That the premier print news organ of the USA can publish such defective writing boggles the mind. But who's going to stand on mere formality when there's a chance to dis the Catholic church?  

We are requested not to attack the writer, but what can one make of such an obvious attempt at misrepresentation? Trying to construct a false dichotomy between the present pope and his immediate predecessors, Vallely writes, “To counter that, [i.e., liberal trend] John Paul spoke of a “culture of death” that attacked modern attitudes to abortion and contraception . . . ” Firstly, a faulty sentence structure leaves it uncertain if the “culture of death” itself is not attacking modern attitudes, an obvious absurdity. But it lends itself to the further implied absurdity that somehow John Paul was actually advocating a ” culture of death,” instead of assailing it. (!!!) We then learn that, by contrast, “Francis embraces a culture of life.”
In point of fact, John Paul ll was implicitly invoking a “culture of life” in his every challenge to the culture of death. If Mr. Vallely wants to make valid points against these sainted individuals, he had better learn to sharpen his own prose first.

Thursday, 24 April 2014

I don't care about Cliven Bundy, but it's worth noting that "n*gro" was a politically correct term in 1970, used by The New York Times, and Bundy is a "senior" citizen.

    • Avatar

      You're right, friend. But, see, the "negro" term was itself a replacement term for "colored," being in turn replaced by "black," which, too, fell out of favor in preference for "African American;" this last designation also seems now to be approaching its own inevitable expiry date. The momentum for all these nomenclature resets stems from the persistent tendency of certain negative associations to accrue to the terms over time, a result of the persistent negative behavior of the people themselves, some of which said behavior being the focus of recent inflammatory comments by Mr. Bundy. Evidently the people in question find it more convenient to simply change their name instead of modifying the behavior which attaches to the name. Contrast the mutability of these terms with the relative permanence of other racial appellatives, say that of the Chinese, for example. Despite the horrendous historical prejudice initially arrayed against them, the Chinese in America were, over the generations, able to make "Asian" a byword of diligence, intelligence and civility, thus proving that WE shape our names, the names don't shape us. BTW, look for a comeback for "colored" on the politically correct horizon - this is the age of recycling, after all, and we're running out of original newspeak.

    Saturday, 19 April 2014

    Buy Buy B.C.

    Another day, another censored comment, this time at the pathetically local booster press, The Tri-Cities News. Any mention of race in the local Canadian media is bound to raise editorial hackles, especially when it impinges on the hallowed subject of real estate. The original story is a transparent red herring, promoting the spurious notion that the young of BC are being pitilessly driven out of the province for want of a five-percent housing down-payment. Who knows? maybe they are; but the point is, there's no lack of young people worldwide ready to take their place. And there's the rub: isn't the item itself implicitly based on a racist perspective? For what does it matter, in a PC framework, who is filling the shoes and the houses of the previous generation, so long as they're being filled? So perhaps the unconsciously implied headline of the item is actually Bye bye, (White) B.C.  
          Not only was my comment suppressed, but any further access to the comments box was effectively blocked. This is par for the course in the Canadian media, aka "realtors in fealty," where the touchy subject of real estate and immigration must never be allowed to rear its hateful head. Part of the perennial narrative of this nation's media is the phony concern over falling home prices. In fact,  real estate valuation has never experienced anything other than a robust upward trend since at least the early seventies, when mass immigration became the preferred mode for propping up both the population and the construction industry.

     Here's the comment; the link, needless to say, goes to an offshore publication. No Canadian outlet would ever dare publish such an incendiary article.
    Curiously, our editors fail to suggest any reason as to why real estate prices are so dear. It's especially curious insofar as the Tri-Cities is an area where the unremitting clang of the developer's pile driver has been the dominant note in the urban soundscape for the past twenty-five years. Somebody must be paying the exorbitant tabs the builders are demanding, and it isn't grandma. "Canada was built on the backs of young people leaving home to make better lives for themselves..." we are told. And so it is today, dear editors, except that the homes which these young people are leaving happen to be in Asia, and the wealth they are bringing into this country and into the housing market is generating more than realtors' smiles. It is generating resentment. And ironically, that resentment is nowhere more pronounced than among Canada's own young and mobile Asians.  

    Tuesday, 8 April 2014

    Vive la Stupidite

          Until recently, Quebecers had been routinely stigmatized in the rest of Canada for two putative failings: being fecund and being dumb. The first was a fact; the second was just a bad rap based on the fact that they spoke a tongue that differed from that of the enlightened race of Anglos who had conquered them.
         Then came the sexual revolution, ironically paralleling the cultural revolution of francophile Quebec. The Catholic church, which encouraged large families and deference to authority, became anathema to the progressive vanguard of the Parti Quebecois. The future was French and to hell with the Anglos and the priestly abetters of servitude.
         But a funny thing happened on the way out of church: the bottom dropped out of the home grown natality numbers. Divorce, abortion and feminism thrived in the shadow of PQ secularism. In the space of one generation the most prolific people in Canada became the most barren. By the turn of the millennium Quebec found itself scrambling for the same pool of made-to-order immigrant population which the other provinces were now relying on to replace their own sterile constituents.
          Problem was, the immigrants didn't give a foreign fig for French culture or the French language. They lived and worked in Quebec, but their allegiance was with English Canada, not because it was Canada but because it was English, the de facto language of the world. So, as Quebecers fought to keep the Anglos at bay, they were actually importing a fifth column of "new Anglos" just to keep the economy going. Diversitee and la difference were on a headlong collision course.
          With yesterday's Liberal crushing of the PQ came the inevitable crash. And while diversitee walked away unscathed, la difference is now in a political coma. Perhaps the PQ will avail themselves of their enforced retirement from power to meditate on their whole raison d'etre. What, in the final analysis, can be the point of trying to foster one's culture among foreign people when your own bloodline is vanishing?  Vive le Quebec doesn't make much sense without Vive la Vie.
           As noted, Quebec has always been famous for two things. But although they're no longer prolific, now they really are dumb.

    Tuesday, 1 April 2014

    A Silly Walk Into Oblivion

      ". . .  you think well, well, well what's going on?" - John Cleese. commenting that London is no longer an English city.

    Ever notice the deafening silence from Britain's celebrity culture when it comes to the ongoing Muslim takeover of their homeland? Where are the songs and skits and films protesting the Islamic invasion? Where are "Sir Paul" and "Sir Mick" when we need them most? There's a mosque in Penny Lane and Time is on the side of the people inside it.
            Most of the "stars" are cowards, they like to say they're "lovers, not fighters," but they really love only themselves and their bank accounts. Nothing must threaten their popularity, and speaking out against the insanity of immigration might result in some loss of cool in the eyes of their loyal liberal fan base, never mind the almost certain outcry it would provoke from the press.
              It's also worth noting that people like Cleese are in some way actually to blame for the current malaise: they were front and centre in the rush to dismantle traditionalist England during the sixties and seventies. Everything connoting the past or conventional mores was mocked and spat upon (literally, if you recall Spitting Image) by them and their media cohorts; and so they in some degree paved the way for the Muslim's own more radical negation of British values. No coincidene that street fighting Jagger has openly espoused anarchism and insulted the queen. A rolling stone gathers no moss and Mick gathers no gratitude or allegiance to the people that made him fabulously rich. He's always toyed with Satanism and now that the people who really believe in Satan have shown up, he's fled to rural France.
               The Stones did their share to wreck things, of course. But if you had to choose one song to embody the entire rush into British self-alienation it would have to be the Beatles' absurdist paean "A Day in the Life." A fantastic composition, to be sure, musically speaking. But in its crashing last chord of drop-out oblivion, I can't help but hear, in retrospect, the insidious echo of adhan.
           Like John Lennon, the silly walk genius was a child of the irony age but the big irony is on them all: most of those "different cultures around London" being ruefully observed by Cleese will never be able to "get" Monty Python or "A Day in the Life." And some day neither will we.