The issues faced by the reader in Breitbart’s article on Syrian refugees:
… are firstly the poor grammar in the first main paragraph but that’s something for another post, including the fact that it was written by a Millennial girl, Virginia Hale, then it’s the question of authenticity of sources. Should the latter satisfy, then we get to the questions the article raises.
Despite the persecution of Christians at the hands of Islamic extremists in Syria having been declared genocide by the U.S., the European Union (EU) and even British MPs themselves in a 2016 parliamentary vote, the 1,112 Syrians that Britain resettled in the first three months of 2018 consisted only of Muslims.
The Barnabas Fund, an aid agency which supports Christians persecuted for their faith, obtained the figures via Freedom of Information requests after “a protracted tussle with the Home Office”, The Sunday Times reports.
If you accept that much, then some questions immediately arise, of which the biggest is why, if the government outlaws any discrimination according to race, colour or creed, would one creed be targetted and a different one encouraged?
The answer to this is FCO and other govt dept bias, something present since Balfour days and even joked about in Yes Minister. The simple answer is that the UN is decidedly on the Muslim side and directives come out of the UN with regularity, the EU being in line with the UN and the UK being in line with the EU [see May’s Chequers plan].
My mate in Russia was a good little communist in the sense that every kid was in Soviet days but his philosophy was a mix of humanitarianism and Christianity – most in Russia at ground level seem to still harbour those roots and high profile scenes of Putin kissing the Patriarch reinforce this.
There are certain characteristics of the sort of Christian you find in Russia, Syria, Egypt – they’re far more orthodox in the non-formal sense, i.e., unlike the west’s so-called Christians who support the faux Pope’s and the CofE synod’s global agenda, these persecuted and formerly persecuted people are Christian in the real, historical sense.
And the FCO and all other departments are not putting up with that.
It’s actually a double whammy because it’s not only the left behind this and the godless overlords who run the world, but many of our own lot, the so-called Deplorable or vaguely populist, vaguely centre-right pundits and readers also tacitly supporting this discrimination because their model of Christians is paedo priests, intolerant nuns, humourless thou-shalt-nots and other undesirables.
There’s very little I’ve seen from such colleagues of a real understanding of the simple believing, love-thy-neighbour type Christians who are the ones persecuted in other countries, plus here if they bake cakes. You know – the historical ones who ran the early hospitals and offered succour to the unfortunate, who tended vineyards – that model is not allowed to be seen today. Faith, hope, charity. The Venerable Bede, Florence Nightingale, so many others. Only paedo priests, vicious nuns and a false Pope which I do not disagree in the slightest are a major blight on the world.
And much of the trouble comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of “turn the other cheek”, interpreting that as lay down and suffer the persecution instead of standing up to it.
Another major obstacle to understanding here is that whenever one attempts to analyse what exactly our cultural roots are – say in Britain and America – then all sorts of people come out of the woodwork, claiming theirs are the only true roots, e.g. the pagans, the Masons, the Big Science as God religion and so on.
All of which does not address the hypocrisy of the govt depts if they are discriminating along these lines, as it goes dead against their charter.
Years ago, I became a volunteer with the CAB and did their training courses. Well, the hypocrisy was rampant – not only did they spout govt policy, which they were always bound to do and I had no issue with that, but their principals, their key people just above ground level, were fervent PC globalist leftist, however you wish to define this blight we are suffering.
Just to be naughty, I put my hand up and asked a question in a session on discrimination, which thus far [in that session] had only spoken of women and minorities.
“What happens if a businessman comes to the CAB needing advice?”
Oh, they didn’t cater for that demographic, businessmen could stand on their own, this was for “people”, “citizens” only.
“Yes but aren’t businessmen human? Are they not also citizens? And we’ve heard today only about ethnic minorities and women, who are hardly a minority, but nothing about the discrimination against men.”
At that point, many women at the table nodded along.
“And what of smokers?”
He handled it well by his PC lights, saying I’d made a good point, now let’s move on.
Why are these people so fanatically, maniacally, so hypocritically, brooking no dissent of any kind?
And the answer is that there is a very hardline element running society now – we see it openly in things like Common Purpose [posts passim] but it also comes out in things like the Scottish Arts Council years ago and Julia Middleton trying to strong arm the meeting into accepting that the govt “ran” the Arts, backed by her brainwashed, selected participants.
“The govt runs” is also the theme in this next article:
The so-called “Music Modernization Act,” which already passed the House and is working its way through the Senate right now, would create, by government force if passed and signed into law, a “collective” that pays out to various parties. The major problem with said “collective” is that it would be run by the government, specifically the U.S. Copyright Office, making it prone to cronyism, corruption, and mishandling of intellectual property.
“The so-called ‘middle-ground’ Music Modernization Act will destroy the private sectors’ progress by creating a federal mechanical license ‘collective’ which would collect payments and distribute them to the correct parties,” Bryan Crabtree, a pro-Trump author, wrote in NewsMax:
This collective would be funded by a new fee on music services and housed at the U.S. Copyright Office. The bill is a solution in search of a problem. The creation of the collective threatens to pull the rug out of the marketplace, killing competition and establishing yet another monopoly in the music industry. Likely, the government would select just one or perhaps two services as their policeman on the beat. The most politically astute are the ones that often walk away with the deal, and by no means should anyone consider The Music Modernization Act to be an exception.
The bill passed the House with bipartisan support and made it through the Senate Judiciary Committee already.
We’re onto the subject of cronyism here but the principle is the same – favouring one small group over others, directly flying in the face of official Them policy in every western nation. If anything Them say is to be believed, then ALL forms of favouritism are out, right?
Wrong, as we all know.
Which brings me to the underlying principle – policy based on falsehoods [see the Project Fear moves over the weekend pushing the dire consequences of Brexit], let alone the cognitive dissonance arising from same.
Then there is the censoring of views opposing this hypocrisy and one need look no further than the red crosses people are putting in their Twitter names now across the world. I opened Twitter just now and voila – here it is right before my eyes:
It is protesting against the shadowbanning of conservative voices by our Jack who runs Twitter. Shadowbanning is when someone’s tweet does not show up in searches, they never trend. It’s deliberately done by Twitter, plus mass loss of followers.
Which raises another curious point – why are these supposed champions of capitalism such socialists, in the sense of supporting Them-ist policies worldwide?
The answer to that could be shrewd business in that kickbacks and an eased path await those knuckling down or else our Jack actually believes the guff he is discriminating by. If the latter, it is worrying – look at the NFL for example and the kneeling issue.
I myself am so used to discrimination now that it no longer bothers me – even at OoL a few years back, one of the admins took his bat and ball and went home over my “proselytising” as he put it. He took half the then readers who were heavily into this libertarianism we subscribe to, the right to put different views … but not those views they don’t like, even if those views are attacking things said which were quite incorrect.
This attitude is pure SJW in itself and yet they are supposedly against PC SJWism.
I’m calling out hypocrisy here in the libertarian area of politics. If you go to Samizdata, you see some astoundingly wrong ideas mixed in among the sane ideas put by others. I can name the wrongthinking authors right now, sucked in by the World Push just as much as any leftist PCist they rail against.
The bottom line is that if you’re going to make definitive statements about what is right and wrong, then obviously you are going to put ‘wrong’ people on your proscribed list and in this is always the danger of hypocrisy and inherent prejudice – that’s just logic.
On my proscribed list are socialism, govt [and lackeys’] coercion of people who just want to live their lives in peace [bansturbators are included in this], also proscribed are PCism and SJWism, “modern” women who have gone astray and are basically just pink pussy hat SJWs, the rainbow coalition so loved by AMW … plus a few others. I always offer evidence for those being on that list – you read the posts, you know that.
And this is why, as I constantly bang on about, we need a loose coalition on our side which firstly recognizes shades of difference of opinion on the details, whilst agreeing on the fundamentals. For example, Brexit is one of the fundamentals, liking the direction of Italy and Hungary is another, but not of Macron and Soy Boy and then all the things Julia bangs on about at OoL.
In 2010, one thing the short lived Albion Alliance was about was not to get too complicated, not to put too many things on the policy platform – just stick to one or two. We chose Direct Democracy and Brexit as our two. Thus our disagreements on other things did not surface.
The second thing was that we can only really do one thing at a time. There’s no way we can tackle the immigration issue unless there is first Brexit and an end to open slather migration. Gerard Batten is held to be soft on immigration and he may well be but he does make a good point about let’s secure Brexit first, with massive public support [latest poll 64%].
That’s the point AMW kicks in about immigration, just as in the other countries of Europe now. After that we can fight over the rainbow coalition and fall out among ourselves. But for now let’s stick to one issue, then the next, and so on.
Yesterday on Twitter, one poster called for a coalition of those forces we represent and then ruined it by saying that it needed a new party. No, it does not need a new party because parties have manifestos. Try writing a manifesto with all of our disparate views, when we’re only bound by certain key views. It’s a divisive splinter movement waiting to fall apart.
Instead, let’s act as a loose alliance trying to address one issue at a time which we seem to be agreed on. We don’t have our narrative handed down from above, polished by some politburo somewhere and distributed, we don’t have the financial clout.
UKIP has said Brexit is first. AMW says immigration is first. I happen to believe both are vital to address. Look at the alternative – LibLabConGreen. Look at what they’re doing to Kate Hoey and Frank Field.
So surely we must add a third here [and this post has addressed this at the top] – govt and its lackey’s push to control every aspect of our lives.
That’s a bit different to Brexit per se and immigration as an issue but is of much, if not of more importance – this is the one we’ve been fighting for decades now and involves the UN and EU, therefore it does bring in Brexit in the end. It certainly brings in Islam, the most top down coercive force outside of Them themselves.
1. Govt interference in our lives;
3. Immigration …
… in whichever order you would like them to be. Would you agree that they’re our Big Three? [I place Islam inside the immigration one here.]