Sir Humphery Appleby: He’s also against oppression and persecution in Africa.
Prime Minister Jim Hacker: So are we.
Sir Humphery Appleby: Yes but he’s against it when practiced by black governments as well as white ones.
Prime Minister Jim Hacker: You mean he’s a racist..
Yes Prime Minister The Bishops Gambit 1986
Yesterday I complemented Mark Steyn for mentioning Molly Norris, the US cartoonist who remains in hiding for offending Islamists.
A second complement is due for his performance at a Canadian debate informing a group of left wing students of the Mass rapes taking place in Europe that our friends in the media and their feminists allies have done their best first to ignore
American feminists, who have incited irrational hysteria over a non-existent “rape epidemic” on U.S. college campuses, will ignore this news. American feminists never said a word about the Rotherham Horror, in which English girls as young as 11 were pimped out by Muslim predators. American feminists don’t want to call attention to certain crimes committed by certain criminals, and it is not just Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton that feminists demand that we ignore. The feminist movement in the United States is controlled by the Democrat Party, and therefore rape is just a talking-point to them, an “issue” that feminists help Democrats exploit for partisan purposes. Because feminists are dishonest partisans, their agenda requires a lot of deliberate falsification — the phony “1-in-5” statistic, the UVA rape hoax, etc. — and it also requires feminists to ignore a lot of actual rapes which do not fit the Democrat Party-approved propaganda narrative.
and when that wasn’t possible to make taking about the subject verboten
there was no precedent in Germany or the rest of Europe for mass peacetime sexual assaults, much less ones where the police merely look on. “I have never experienced such a thing in any German city,” a victim told the New York Times. But people who did name the attacks for what they were—a manifestation of Muslim misogyny and an alarm bell regarding mass immigration—were vilified as racists. An old-school German feminist, Alice Schwarzer, denounced the New Year’s assaults as a “gang bang” designed to terrorize women; she found herself condemned by other feminists and “antiracists.” Victims refused to give their names to reporters for fear of being pilloried on social media for xenophobia. Specious moral equivalencies poured forth: not only were the attacks a mere subset of everyday Western antifemale violence, but also ordinary citizens connecting those attacks to the out-of-control migrant situation were no different from the attackers themselves. Ralf Jäger, minister of the interior for the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, announced: “What happens on right-wing platforms and in chat rooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women.”.
It’s what made this reply from Steyn so devistating in his debate:
In the end I suspect the root problem between the two cases, Islamic violence against women in the west and the disappearing of Molly Norris is the same.
To acknowledge the rapes in Europe that are the provence of the Islamic immigrants is a problem is to require the need to do something about it, even if it means entering “islamic” areas in the west to enforce law.
The same with Molly Norris, to acknowledge that the threats against her life and safety is a violation of all that America stands for is to admit that those making the threats, Islamists, must be stopped and to further acknowledge that said Islamists have enough sympathiezers in the US to carry out the threats that have ensured Molly Norris doesn’t exist.
Much easier to instead critique white 1st world college students, western cartoonists or states like Georgia and North Carolina where you don’t risk getting your throat cut for attacking them.
I’m back trying to get that very elusive $61 a day for DaTipJar
I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar
Please consider Subscribing. We are currently 116.3 subscribers at $10 a month to make our goal every day without further solicitation but the numbers are even more interesting:
If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.
Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
|Choose a Subscription level|