Theresa May: no more ‘safe spaces’ online

Tiberge at GalliaWatch reports that Theresa May issued a communique in Arabic, of all things. A translation is at that blog.

Here’s one of the salient parts:

“Third, while we need to deprive the extremists of their safe spaces online, we must not forget about the safe spaces that continue to exist in the real world. Yes, that means taking military action to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But it also means taking action here at home. While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.

So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out – across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations, but the whole of our country needs to come together to take on this extremism – and we need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom.”

What jumps out here is not just the call for some kind of censorship of the Internet, but also the carefully parsed language which condemns ‘extremism‘ — not Islam, of course, and not just ‘Islamic extremism’ or ‘extremist Islam’, which are favorite weasel-phrases of our politicians, but extremism per se. Whatever that may mean to people like Theresa May, and however they define it. Obviously they are implying that the rightful people of the UK, the indigenous White people whose country the UK is, are also among those in the sights of the government — if they dare to criticize Holy Diversity (particularly, but not limited to, moslems) or immigration. We’ve seen how the governments in Europe have gone after their native indigenous White citizens if they so much as questioned immigration policy, or said an unflattering word about immigrants themselves. Twitter (and probably other social media sites) have colluded with the totalitarians in charge to zero in on people who said impolitic things online.

If Theresa May is proposing this, likely all the Western governments are going to act in concert to clamp down on the free speech of their own citizens who are deemed ‘extremists’, and that would include dissident bloggers and commenters.

I’ve said it before, and never yet got an ‘amen’, but I am becoming more convinced that most Western leaders, those in Europe especially, have already surrendered to Islam. Look at May herself, with her headscarves, her obsequious attitude toward her Islamic ‘constituents’, and now, communiques in Arabic. More and more it looks to me like surrender is a done deal, a fait accompli, (how does one say that in Arabic, Madame May?) and the hapless citizens who are to be made dhimmis are going to be the last to catch on, the last to be told.

Even Italy, which Italian-Americans have often boasted would never tolerate what the weaklings in Western Europe have allowed, is ferrying ‘refugees’ to their country, not just fishing them out of the Mediterranean for humanitarian reasons, as we were told. Italian ships are still going obligingly to North Africa to fetch these ‘refugees’ and deposit them in their new home in Europe.

So far, Eastern Europe appears to be a holdout against this kind of insanity, but will that last? Will the globalist powers-that-be truly be content to let Eastern Europe alone, or are they just biding their time, or getting Western Europe subjugated first, hoping that the rest will fall in line in due time, when they too are targeted for dhimmitude?

In any case it looks like much of Europe has in fact thrown in the towel, and the quislings are firmly ensconced as the puppet ‘leadership’, May and Merkel being pre-eminent.

May speaks ominously of “one truly United Kingdom.” There can be no naturally united kingdom in Britain that is a hybrid of Islam/Sharia Law and the true English tradition. Oil and water cannot mix. Kipling was right in saying (of East and West) that ‘never the twain shall meet.’

The ‘preppy’ totalitarians

The story about Charles Murray and his speech at Middlebury College in Vermont is being discussed around the Internet. The fact that a (typically leftist) professor at that college was also assaulted by the ‘student’ thugs adds a twist to it. Surely she is ‘one of their own’, having the correct politics and the kinds of views which are the only kind these apostles of ‘tolerance’ will tolerate.

One thing I’ve noted in the various online comments on the incidents: many are referring to the ‘preppy’ character of the school and the student body, as if it adds to the shocking nature to imagine WASP-y, wealthy students behaving this way. No doubt some of the worst of the ‘social justice’ brownshirts are White students from wealthy homes in the supposedly very White Northeast. But just look at the photo in the linked article; that audience does not look ‘hideously White’ nor very ‘preppy.’ It does not look all that different from the mixed crowd at the community college in the college town near me. So I looked up the demographics of the student body. For a start,  the student body contains only 4% Vermonters. Students come from 42 states, plus the District of Corruption Columbia. They come from no less than 40 countries.

So the student body does not reflect the demographics of the setting, of rural Vermont or New England, or even much of America, come to that.

One other factor: not all the students at that college need be wealthy, considering the prevalence of financial aid. And if diversity is mandatory and of the utmost importance (as these colleges all say it is), then by all means be generous to students without the money to pay the high tuition, but with the requisite amount of ‘vibrancy’, to entice them to come and enrich the diversity-deficient Whites.

If the students of that University are overwhelmingly indoctrinated leftists, as it appears they are, is this because it is in liberal New England, or is that just the nature of college campuses all over America now? I have acquaintances who sent their child to Christian schools (in a non-diverse community) K-12, at considerable expense, and then to one of the most conservative (supposedly) Christian colleges. That college turned their child into a raving SJW in very short order. So it’s everywhere now.

The people who put much stock in Colin Woodward’s conjectures about the ‘nations’ of America place the blame on the old Puritans for the liberalism of New England. In this case, it seems as though the diversity that has been visited on New England since at least the mid-19th century is still having its effect, and the presence of all the ‘diversity’ at Middlebury in 2017 has its effect too. When you introduce outsiders into what has been a homogeneous culture, you make people more self-conscious about the opinions of those ‘Others’ and soon free speech is not so free; we can’t offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Diversity=death to free discourse and honesty.

No ‘strength in victimhood’

Following minorities’ example in seeking ‘strength through victimhood’ is a losing tactic, according to a good piece by Alexander at West Coast Reactionaries.

The writer explains how the left controls discourse by, among other things, calling banter ‘bullying’, and conditioning Whites in particular to censor their own speech and behavior in relation to minorities and to political enemies. He likens this to putting ‘shock collars’ on Whites, so that they learn, by means of unpleasant consequences, to observe the limitations on our speech and expression.

Read the whole piece at the link; there’s some food for thought there. If only most of the ‘respectable right’, also known as ‘cuckservatives’ would take the advice there to heart. For one thing, Alexander points out the misguided strategy of relying on token black ‘conservatives’ to speak for us, which is obviously (to me, at least) a tactic that screams ‘weakness.’

“This weakness is also on the Alt-Right in how they wheel out black conservatives to fight B.L.M. (e.g. Thomas Sowell). They have their own personal mandingos in reserve because they believe that having a black man support their arguments makes them innocent of any thought crime, but they accept the crime and so are being mentally dominated — the same can be said of Milo Yiannapolous‘ fans. The fact that Milo is a liberal Jewish homosexual with a fetish for black men is perceived as a form of armour in the Alt-Right. God forbid if a straight white traditionalist asserted himself, he’s totally exposed with no victim status. The Alt-Right has accepted the maxim of “strength though victimhood” and “weakness is strength.” P.E.G.I.D.A. view Europeans as victims, and even well known YouTuber Millennial Woes seems to be falling into the trap of “save the white race” nonsense.”

As this piece points out, many Whites, even segments of the Alt-Right, have come to embrace the minority strategy of using weakness and ‘victim’ status as a means of wielding power in an underhand, manipulative way. The subtle manipulative approach is, obviously, often a typical feminine method of wielding power while appearing helpless. To me, it’s disturbing that some of the right, which tends to express masculine energy in contrast to the feminized left, has fallen for this idea. As the writer points out, this does not work for the majority, because the White majority cannot outdo minorities at this game. Some people instinctively recognize this, but the effort to use victim status on the part of Whites persists in some quarters.

The ‘liberals/Democrats are the real racists‘ cliche is still in active use. When will the right learn that this does not work, and that it merely displaces blame onto other Whites, which still leaves Whites in general (not just liberals) in the villain role? It’s conceding, in effect that [some] Whites are to blame for the woes, real or imagined, of blacks and other POCs.

There has to be an effort to try to overcome this mental/verbal domination of the right by the left and their minority minions. We’ve all been so thoroughly conditioned to this frame of mind, that many of us don’t realize that we, too, are not exempt from it.

‘Dixie’ banned at Ole Miss

‘Ole Miss’ has caved again.

The University of Mississippi’s marching band will no longer play any variation of the song “Dixie” – a tradition some seven decades old at football games and other sporting events.

The University’s Athletic Department confirmed to Mississippi Today on Friday that the song, which was the unofficial anthem of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, will no longer be played at athletic events.”

The Confederate Battle Flag gone, ‘Colonel Reb’, the school mascot/symbol gone, and now the song ‘Dixie.’ What next? What will be banned next? Because, I assure you, ‘they’, meaning the South-hating SJWs, and Southern-born ‘cucks’, plus Northern transplants who should have stayed in their home states where they needn’t be offended — plus the ever-aggrieved blacks, will not rest. They go from strength to strength because they are unopposed. Why are Mississippians, real Mississippians, so passive in letting this go unchallenged? Are there no people who simply want to defend freedom of expression as a principle, even if they don’t care about the South?

What will be next to fall?

The songs “Dixie,” “Dixie fanfare,” and a pregame arrangement containing themes of “Dixie” will no longer be played by the band, known as the The Pride of the South.”

The Pride of the South? How have they let that name stand all this time? The South is not supposed to have any pride, according to the heritage-destroyers and the rewriters of history. If there is any pride of the South, or pride in the South and what it represents, it must be PC-whipped out of the Southron people.  That seems to be the agenda. And it seems to be right on schedule.

The article notes that the Band Directors chose not to comment on this announcement. I don’t know who they are, but I would guess that they are probably not Southern-born or Southern-bred, just as with the Ole Miss Athletic Director, Ross Bjork. It seems that few Southron people are in positions of influence and authority so that outsiders now determine their future, people with little to no understanding of the Southron people and their unique history and heritage. And that is probably by design. The South is now occupied territory, since 1865.

My late uncle, a rather tough Marine, told of one time, back in the 1990s, when he was on the highway driving home and the song, I Sang Dixie by Dwight Yoakam played over his car radio. It was the first time he heard it, and he told of how he had to pull over until he could dry his eyes. The song is a tearjerker for those of us who understand what ‘Dixie’, the place and the song and the people, mean to us. I had the same reaction to the song when I first heard it, and it still affects me, even more so, considering that soon, singing “Dixie” will be ‘hate speech’. Probably even the name ‘Dixie’ will be forbidden, eventually.

Our forefathers are turning in their graves. That they fought so hard and so bravely, against such odds, only to have their heritage erased bit by bit and their descendants demoralized and alienated from them would be more than they could endure.



An acquaintance of mine, bless her heart, was irate when hearing the BLM slogan repeated for the millionth time — that is, ‘black lives matter.’ Now, she is not an ‘extremist’ except perhaps in the minds of the far-left extremists, who think that milk-and-water Republicans are ‘Nazis and fascists’, but she was just expressing exasperation over the fact that all other peoples’ lives appear to be devalued by this phrase, as if only black lives matter. This lady then blurted out the now-often heard (in private, at least) phrase: ‘All lives matter!’

Now I read that Shepherd Smith, the effeminate liberal Fox News “personality” took Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal to task for saying the same colorblind phrase that this nice Christian lady uttered to me. Apparently it’s controversial to suggest that in fact, all lives, that is, not just black lives, matter. I would have thought that was a given, that no civilized person would say that only certain lives matter.

“Smith cuts in to attack Jindal:

“Governor, you know, you know that that phrase you just used is is one that’s seen by many as, as derogatory, right? I, I just wonder why it is that you use that phrase when there’s a certain segment of the population that believes it’s a real dig on ’em.”

I know the ‘reasoning’, if such can be said to exist, behind the BLM mantra; they have talked themselves, or been talked, into believing that in the past black lives were treated as nothing; that blacks are and have always been killed ‘just for the color of their skin’, and then there’s “400 years of slavery”, Jim Crow, the back of the bus, profiling, driving while black and all the other outrages and atrocities.

Still, for some years now our society has had a kind of compulsory colorblind philosophy which has taught us all that we must not see color, and that all human beings are our brothers and sisters, children of God, etc. Most White people have for years at least outwardly conformed to this orthodoxy, even when other races have not reciprocated.

And now it’s being called an affront to suggest that all human lives should matter as much as black lives? Since when? I would guess since the likes of Shep Smith and all the rest of his lockstep politically correct kind have had control of public discourse. They, that is, the PC establishment, make the rules as to what is allowable discourse — and not just discourse, but thought — and they enforce it relentlessly via government and the government media extension.

The acquaintance of mine who also used the controversial ‘all-lives-matter‘ phrase is, from my viewpoint, still bound by political correctness. In the article linked above, Jindal was expressing the standard ‘colorblind’ formula, saying that we need to ‘look beyond race’. Though Jindal is a Republican it’s clear he is in agreement with one of the basic presuppositions of left-liberalism: race is a social construct, something we can ‘look beyond’ or ignore, or discount, while in the real world race is something that we are not allowed to ignore or deny away — if we try, we do so at our own peril.

My acquaintance, being a nice Republican churchgoing lady, is in agreement with Jindal. And there are many more like her. This is why as a people we are so slow in responding to the existential threat that faces us; we can’t be colorblind in a hyperracialized world in which race is a greater force than ever for pitting us against each other. Being colorblind in the world today is being a disarmed pacifist in a bad neighborhood full of armed hostiles.

EU war on free speech

The headline here says ‘Death of Free Speech.’ Exaggeration? Maybe, slightly — but this is not a good sign. It is probably a portent of even harsher measures, in my opinion.

The EU has signed a deal with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft designed to curb the use of hate speech online that has been blasted as “ill considered” by the very people who helped draw it up.

Democracy campaigners have warned that the definition of ‘hate speech’ is so vague the EU could end up with the power to get postings critical of the Brussels project removed from the Internet forever in what constitutes a “frightening path to totalitarianism”.

It seems that opposition to the mass relocation of millions of ”refugees” to Europe is the target of this attempt to stop certain kinds of free speech, or as the EU apparatchiks term it, ”hate speech.” And the paragraph excerpted above is correct in noting that the definition of ”hate” speech is vague. It has always been so; that’s nothing new. The people who invented the concept of ”hate” speech as a form of speech that is not to be given protection under the definition of free speech were careful to keep the definition hazy and fluid. So-called “hate” speech may simply be speech which shines a light on the blatant lies told by the EU oligarchy, or speech which is unflattering or insufficiently deferential to any of the designated ‘victim’ groups, who are given special protection under skewed ‘progressive’ policies.

In Europe, at the moment, it appears that criticizing immigration or ‘refugees’ is one of the most taboo forms of free speech. But if this flood of Third Worlders is the great boon that the powers-that-be pretend it is, why do they have to stifle any criticism of it? Would not its benefits be self-evident? Just as with ”diversity” in general, the powers-that-be have to force us to praise it and coerce us into accepting it.  Doesn’t that fact say it all?

This European blogger provides a lot of detailed information on these new edicts, including a link to a PDF file of the new ‘Code of Conduct.’ His commentary is very helpful.

And how long before similar measures are introduced in our country, with the complicity of our ‘friends’ at FB, YouTube, Twitter, and Microsoft?

‘Offensive’ names stricken from federal law

The Hill reports that a bill to removed ‘outdated’ terms referring to blacks and Asians sailed through Congress unopposed.

That’s expected; the people sitting in Congress are, with a rare few exceptions, eunuchs who haven’t enough integrity or guts to oppose anything, if opposing runs counter to the Law of Political Correctness.

According to the ever-changing laws of political correctness, anytime any racial or sexual minority claims to feel ‘offended’ or ‘violated’ or ‘threatened’ by any word or action, the offending word or action or person must be stopped, and in most cases apologies must be offered up at length, lest the charge of ‘racism’ or ‘-phobia’ be laid against the person or thing at issue.

We all remember the old schoolyard rejoinder when someone called us a name: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never harm me.” Oh but names can harm minorities; they traumatize people for life, cripple them emotionally, leave them with scars, in ways that sticks and stones cannot. Or so we are told.

“The term ‘Oriental’ has no place in federal law and at long last this insulting and outdated term will be gone for good,” the author of the bill, Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), said in a statement Friday.

Two sections in the U.S. Code written in the 1970s governing public health and civil rights attempted to define minority groups by using the outdated terms.

Thanks to the new law, references to the term “Oriental” will be replaced with “Asian American” and the word “Negro” will be changed to “African American.”

Mz. Meng says that the term ‘Oriental’ will be gone for good, but it might surprise her to know that the word is still used occasionally, and maybe she should be apprised of this fact so that she isn’t traumatized when she unexpectedly hears it used someday. In a neighboring town, just down the road from where I live, there is a business named “Oriental Grocery.” The business sells food items from various Asian nations, including Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. And the town is a college town, its population very liberal — I suppose that business will eventually have to change its name to satisfy the legions of the perpetually aggrieved. The Asian customers of that store don’t seem to mind the ”offensive” and ”outdated” name, Oriental. I guess the word hasn’t filtered down to ordinary people that Oriental is a taboo and racist word.

And what’s this: aren’t Asians the “model minority”, always mentioned by ‘race-realists’ as co-partners of Whites vs. the ‘NAMs’? Aren’t the NAMs the ones who always complain and make demands, while the docile and amiable Asians are on our team, you know, ‘Whitesandasians’? I guess Congressperson Meng has not heard that.

Some internet commenter on this story asks ‘when did Oriental become a taboo name?’ Apparently after the Civil Rights coup, when blacks demanded, first, to be called ‘colored’ and then ‘black’ and later, ‘African-American.’ I remember when I was in college towards the end of the 70s and a Japanese-American (Nisei) professor of mine told us that the word ‘Oriental’ was offensive and must not be used in his class, nor was the abbreviation ‘Jap’ to be uttered or written. We all obediently complied, no questions asked. Because Hiroshima, because Internment camps. Victimhood trumps all.

So yes, the word Oriental has long since been banished though the news hasn’t filtered down to all. But why? Oriental, in old books, was used to describe not just East Asians like Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans, but anyone who came from East of the Mediterranean Sea. Literally. Middle Easterners were called Orientals. Even Eastern European Jews, during the days of the Ellis Island influx, were called Orientals by the German Jews who had arrived in this country much earlier. Oriental just designates a direction.

Offense is in the eye or ear of the beholder. And that’s what’s wrong with a lot of these language-purging edicts: someone, somewhere, declares that they are ‘offended’ by a certain word and on the strength of a few complaints, in a country of 310 million plus, that word is forbidden and its user called a ‘bigot’ or a ‘hater’ or a ‘racist’.

Minorities of whatever sort claim that they cannot be ‘racists’ or bigots because to be a racist necessitates the possession of power, and they claim to be powerless. ‘Racism is prejudice+power’, so the PC commissars have declared. But if being able to complain and get words banned, or have people fired from their jobs and banished to the outer darkness is not ‘power’, I would like to know what is. If having the whole of society cater to you for fear of being denounced is not power, I’d like to know what power may be.

Having that kind of power, and yet mewling about how one is oppressed and helpless and wronged and victimized at every turn is worse than disingenuous; at best it’s play-acting. At worst it’s deception and manipulation. And on it goes, where it stops, nobody knows. Obviously it won’t stop as long as it profits some people in some way, and not just in a monetary way.

As for the word ‘negro’, doesn’t anyone remember how the now-sainted MLK used to use that word in reference to his race in his speeches and writings? Obviously the young don’t know that; they know only what they are spoon-fed in school. They appear not to know that the term ”African-American” was not even used until the mid-70s at least. The term ‘Afro-American’ was introduced, didn’t catch on, and later the seven-syllable and much more pompous-sounding ‘African-American’ was chosen as the correct term.

And just as with the innocuous ‘Oriental’, the word ‘negro’ is a simple designation, meaning ‘black’ in Latin. How is that anything other than just descriptive?

Trouble is, words and names acquire connotations and associations. For example if my surname is one that some heroic person shares, my name gains a certain prestige. If, on the other hand, I have relatives of the same surname who get their names on the police blotter every week, my name’s prestige is damaged. People make a ‘name’ for themselves in a good sense — or not. As people make the place, people can ‘make’ a name, for better or worse. And once that name or brand has been tarnished — maybe a name change is the thing to do. But though people can change a place or tarnish a once-good name, a name can’t change the person who bears it.

Truth is ‘incendiary’

But these remarks wouldn’t have been ”incendiary” even a few decades ago.

And for the ”progressives” who got outraged because he made a comparison to animal behavior: if we are all ”apes” descended from a series of lower forms of life going back to the amoeba, or to the ”primordial soup” of eons ago, then why the offense-taking?

Isn’t that being ‘species-ist‘? Aren’t we all egalitarians here?