Our freedom of association right is a choice extortionist conformist gangster criminal slavers (aka libertine "liberals") are trying to forcefully take away from us.
It's obviously at least 13X cheaper to take care of muslim losers in their own countries or in the adjacent Arabic-speaking islamic shiiteholes - so this "migrant" scheme must be about something else entirely. Now, what could that be?
"Multiculturalism was made up by self-loathing rat bastards to pretend that inferior cultures and superior cultures are equal. It exists to tell nice lies about rotten cultures and rotten lies about great cultures. The UN exemplifies this lie, with “Islam means peace” its biggest lie."
- The Sheik -
As always, the world is divided into hard-working individualist Makers vs criminal gangster extortionist Takers.
Socialism is extortion.
Fascism is extortion.
Islam is extortion.
Perpetual extortion is slavery.
CAPISCE?
;-)
Lazy self-hating victimology-spewing masochists always want to dilute the blame for their self-inflicted problems onto groups and gangs of other people.
Nationalism is people exercising their right to freedom of association.
Communism denies all individual human any and all rights and forces people to associate with criminal oppressors.
"Racism" shames (white) people to give up their free-association rights in order to accept criminals.
But "racism" is simply the result of generations of free-will freedom of association rights choices.
ALL people prefer to associate with those who are like them.
Without this inherent "racism" there would be NO "races!"
So the pretense that only whites are racists, could only be true if there were only two races on Earth - the white race, and everyone else (which would be a single other race, and not the Negroes, Asians, and Dravidians - ALL of whom currently outnumber the whites because they prefer to have more sex with the people like them whom they have chosen to freely associate with)!
That's proof that the heedless delinquent libertine globalist agenda is indeed only out to destroy one race but not any of the others!
Do liberals insist there should be an invasion of whites or Asians into Africa, to dilute the Negro race, for the sake of "equality and diversity!"?
No.
Do they insist hordes of Dravidians, whites, and Negros be imported into Asia, for the same fake "reasons!"?
NO.
Do they insist India should be invaded by Asians, whites, and Negroes, to dilute the Hindu Dravidians?
Again - NO!
BOTTOM LINE?
"Racism" is merely the result of people exercising their freedom of association rights.
Again: Without "racism" there would be no "races." Thus every race is inherently "racist," and the more populous, global majority ones obviously (from the results) are the most "racist" of them all.
Which makes the white race, which comes in at only between 7-15% (if one includes all the other members of the 'Caucasians,' such as Arabs and Jews) the LEAST racist race of them all!
Further, the globalist liberal "racism" scam is really the exact opposite of what it pretends to be:
it pretends to equalize the racial disparity caused by racist whites in only white countries.
Remember: whites are actually THE global minority - so liberal "anti-racists" are really insisting it's not fair that the global minority isn't letting the global majorities further dilute them in their own lands!
It's obvious that freely-associated peer groups, once they attain some measure of expert authority in their chosen fields of endeavor, (whether by actual merit, or by incestuous self-promoting cronyism) will be challenged by other groups whose members are comprised of other freely-associated peer groups (or "tribes").
But this common occurrence does not mean that the group with the power - whether held only because of its current majority (might-made-right) status, or not (as in: by merit) is any more or less "racist" or "biased" than the (supposedly minority) of newcomer group/s opposing it.
To slanderously pretend that the existing group only attained and maintains its power through the racist exclusion of others is just as faulty a lack of logic as is claiming those other groups now deserve to be in charge simply because they are in a ("poor, oppressed") minority and/or assert, without evidence - that they have been racially discriminated against in the past, and so now demand reconciliation and reparations.
I'm talking about companies the membership of which can allegedly be regulated by the government (and I say "allegedly" because while in practice this is always being tried by legislative over-reach, in logic it really can't be, as merit-based hiring affects the companys' bottom lines) and/or their clients (i.e: all citizens equally, which makes sense, because everyone's money is worth the same, and everyone who becomes a citizen and agrees to the Golden Rule equally deserves the rights thereby earned by all others who have also agreed to adhere to it's responsibility).
Government-regulated promoting, hiring or clientele (as in: assigning the availability of university student placements) based on racial "diversity" is a crime: one which has severe financial costs to any society. It's a crime which is already technically illegal, being "under color" (or cover) "of Law!"
Doug Ford’s first new position as Ontario’s premier-to-be is that he’ll stop the annual anti-Israel protests called “Al-Quds Day.”
“Our government will take action to ensure that events like Al-Quds Day, which calls for the killing of an entire civilian population in Israel, are no longer part of the landscape in Ontario,” the Progressive Conservative premier-designate tweeted on Sunday.
Our government will take action to ensure that events like Al Quds Day, which calls for the killing of an entire civilian population in Israel, are no longer part of the landscape in Ontario.
How this squares with Ford’s campaign pledge to hold Ontario universities to hard standards in support of free speech, or even exactly what power he’d use to stop future Al-Quds Day observations, isn’t obvious.
"Somehow" as if it's absolutely impossible to stop any crimes at all, much less death-threats and calls for genocide. "Arresting criminal mobs? That's silly! Why bother?"
So, it also clearly "isn't obvious" to leftopaths like Reevely the weevil here how free speech and genocidal death-threats might not be exactly the same thing?
Asked to elaborate on both points Monday — what action? — his people didn’t respond. Maybe they don’t know.
Then he tries a red-herring deflection, choosing some harmless definitions:
Al-Quds Day started in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, which says a fair bit right there. “Al-Quds” is the Arabic for “Jerusalem,” and Al-Quds Day is a conscious response to Israel’s Jerusalem Day, a national holiday to mark Israel’s taking of the city in the 1967 Six-Day War. Always on a Friday at the end of Ramadan, the observance links Muslim religious obligation to support for Iran’s political aspirations in the Middle East. Specifically, its demonization of Israel and determination to evict Jews from East Jerusalem.
Even if Al-Quds Day is packaged as criticism of Israeli government policy, organizers would have to take immense care to keep speakers from spilling over into anti-Semitism. Historically, they have not taken that care.
The speeches vary from year to year but there’s a record of Holocaust denial and warnings about how death comes to all oppressors amid the chants to end Israeli Apartheid, just like Hamas and Hezbollah banners are mixed in with the Palestine flags.
Hate speech is criminal in Canada and B’nai Brith in Toronto says it’s filed a police complaint against a speaker who said he prays for “justice throughout the world” through “the eradication of the unjust powers, such as the American empire, such as the Israelis and Zionists, in the same way that we saw the British empire wither away.” The sun eventually set on the British empire, said Kitchener’s Shafiq Huda in a recording B’nai Brith posted, and God willing the sun will set on “the Zionist empire, the American empire” as well.
Parsing whether that’s legally hate speech — let alone a call to genocide — might take some doing. I mean, it’s not nice, but that’s not the standard.
So why pick a pathetic quote chosen by B'nai B'rith as if it's seminal?!
Even if it is criminal hate speech, we punish people after they commit crimes, not before.
And yet somehow genocidal death-threats are considered crimes in them selves. Funny thing, that - maybe because they are psychological attacks?
Beyond that, he's also wrong: it's perfectly kosher to punish people for "only even merely" attempted crimes, because in criminal law, only intent counts!
;-)
Unpopular political views get the constitution’s most thorough cover from censorship.
Who gives a shit what Turdeau Sr.'s leftopathic crime-constitution says?! And what's this pretense - that holding rallies to incite violence and call for mass-murder and genocide are merely unpopular political views or otherwise harmless opinions?! Endorsing crimes IS a crime! Why isn't David Reevely in JAIL yet?!
Compare a ban on Al-Quds Day protests to how several provinces, recently including Ontario, have handled aggressive protests outside abortion clinics.
Why should we?! This is at best only an Argumentum Qu Quoque fallacy!
Faced with evidence that those protests are sometimes used as cover to physically confront particular women going into those clinics, governments have said you can still protest abortion, still call abortion doctors baby-murderers, still demand changes to the law. You just have to do it half a block away.
So you're saying you can always threaten people with death if you're far enough away from them when you do it? Because bullets don't exist?!
Toronto’s Al-Quds Day thing drew about 500 people this year; Ottawa’s, maybe a few dozen. The Toronto protest typically travels from Queen’s Park to the American consulate-general a few blocks south, interfering with some traffic and taking up some public space.
So genocidal death-threat rallies inciting violence only temporarily plug traffic?
Nothing sinister ever really comes from them, (say, in Nigeria) so ignore them?
Ford talks about forbidding these things not just in Toronto or on the grounds of the legislature but everywhere in Ontario. Ottawa’s was so small hardly anybody noticed it. Both of them burned themselves out pretty quickly, as protests usually do. Police kept an eye on Toronto’s but didn’t interfere, because what’s the point. Everyone gets tired and goes home.
i.e: "What's the point of stopping small rallies calling for universal genocide?" (HINT to leftopaths: because it's easier to arrest the few than the many?)!
One way to bring a lot more attention and energy to the demonstrations is to turn them into annual showdowns over free speech.
Right. The best way to solve problems and stop crime is always to ignore it.
Student groups are quite good at this. So many right-wing cranks have been “de-platformed” by left-wing cranks now that the newly elected government promises to create an investigative agency to assess how hard universities fight to defend minority views not just in classes but in the use of their facilities — and to take away funding if they aren’t vigorous enough in making sure the crank of the month gets to talk when a campus club wants to bring him or her in.
So "de-platforming" (violent riots threatening and maiming people) is legit too?
(Maybe Al-Quds Day protests would be best held at the University of Toronto and University of Ottawa, where the province would … insist they be allowed? That doesn’t sound right.)
You leftists claim it's the poor oppressed muslims' holy right and duty to "protest" other people being allowed to live unmolested in their countries, by holding mass-rallies issuing genocidal death-threats to be "free speech," and insist that the extortionist criminal gangsters be allowed to hold them as if they were the same as peaceful protests!
If what we’re after is endless escalations, arguments that the other guys said something worse first, politicians interfering with protests in advance and police officers deciding on the spot what’s legitimate speech and what isn’t, this is all off to a good start.
Sure, because defending yourself is just as bad as the criminals' aggressions!
