I hope that ‘The Nicies’ will have more episodes to come on the ‘This is Not Reality Show’
Recent Comments
RSS feed
Freedom School: more panelists
March 31, 2014 — xanthippaOn the weekend, I posted my little speech from the Freedom School.
My good friend Elsa’s much longer – but most excellent – speech is here.
I was part of the panel on Political Correctness: in my never-humble-opinion, ‘Politically Correct speech is an example of the worst kind of ‘hate speech’.
Some of my co-panelists had quite excellent things to say, quite worthy of your attention. (And, not all of my co-panelists’ speeches are out yet – editing takes time – but, here are the ones that are.)
Please note that Valerie Price, in her speech, calls attention to the plight of Free Dominion:
And, here is Janice Fiamengo, a professor at Ottawa University whose Ottawa speech last Friday had experienced such heckling…
Aside: at that conference, Dr. Fiamenco and I had a most excellent discussion about the book ‘Reading Lollita in Teheran’ – we both loved it and I would recommend that book to everyone!!!
Freedom School 2014: Valerie Price
March 11, 2014 — xanthippaOn January 31st/February 1st 2014, the Freedom School conference was held in Edmonton, Canada.
My friend Valerie Price had been on the same panel focusing on Political Correctness as I was.
Here is her speech:
Why ‘moderate Muslims’ are silent
March 3, 2014 — xanthippaSometimes, it takes me a really long time to ‘get’ even the most obvious of things – I know I am a very, very slow thinker. But, I really ought to have seen this one clearly much, much earlier…
Like many others, I understand perfectly well that the first targets of fanatics within any group (and this applies not only to human groups) are the moderates within the ranks of that group. This makes it that much more important for these moderates to speak up, in order to preserve themselves and protect their group from being overtaken by the extremists.
We have seen this though our history and the modern-day Muslim community is no different from the rest of us.
Yet, most of the voices we hear speaking ‘for the Muslims’ in today’s world are increasingly more and more only the radicalized ones…
In the past, I, too, have asked: “Where are all the moderate Muslims and why are there so few of their voices being heard?”
Now, I think I’m beginning to understand…
In order to explain, please, indulge me in telling you a story or two.
When my mother was just an iddy-biddy baby, following WWII, the communists took over my homeland and stole her grandparents’ properties. Her mom’s daddy made (and repaired) washing machines and her mom’s mommy operated a chain of stores that retailed them. Her daddy was a top engineer at her grandpa’s factory, but had been born to a farming family. Very successful farming family. Her daddy’s mom was actually one of those women who went to work in the fields even in early stages of labour, went home to give birth – and returned to the fields afterwards. No joke! That is how hard they worked – and it showed: the were known far and wide as THE people to go to for help with anything, without any obligations in return.
Yet, when the communists were in power, they labelled my grandpa as ‘a son of a kulak‘ – a deeply pejorative term in the 1950’s for a person living behind the Iron Curtain.
What I am trying to say is that even in one of the most industrialized countries in the world at that time (as Czech was), a country where people had unlimited ‘class mobility’ (my own grandfather had gone from ‘farmer’ to ‘engineer’ to ‘industrialist’), it took very little for his status to ‘devolve’ to that of ‘a son of a kulak’…
I must stress, before WWII, Czech was philosophically a fully ‘Western’ country, with emphasis on individual rights, even if located in Central Europe.
Yet, it took a few short years for the decades of individualism to devolve into judging a person by their parents’ and other relatives’ actions. Guilty by blood association!
Now, please, let me jump to the second story.
This one takes place in Canada in the late 1990’s. I had been running my own company and an ex-employee of mine approached me with a very unusual request…
When I had first hired him, I had not realized I already knew his father. I had met him about 5 years earlier, at a party, under the table – we were both trying to sneak food to the host’s dog. Anyhow, he was a capable young man and worked his way up, so that for about 5 years, he had been my second-in-command, and only left because his dream opportunity of working in the intelligence community presented itself. By this point, I saw him as more of a brother to me than an employee and we not only parted on the best of terms, but remained close.
Which is why I was thrilled when he brought his girlfriend to meet me – and asked what my opinion of her was. He thought she was ‘the one’, and I was happy to tell him I thought she was intelligent, beautiful and a perfect match for him. They truly made a wonderful couple and I was very happy for them.
Yet, the path to their happiness was more complicated than I could have suspected!
When he had proposed to her, he came to me with a most unusual request: would I please write a letter to the government of Iran to certify that I was still his employer, and that he had a sufficient income to comfortably support a wife and a family?
His fiance had not been born in Iran – she was born in Italy, to Iranian emigres.
Yet, if she were to get married without this certificate to the Iranian government that her fiance had sufficient income to properly support her and her children, the extended family she still had in Iran would be penalized for her parents’ acceptance of a marriage proposal without this document!!!
And, he did not want them to know of the particulars of his current work for the Canadian government, and so he had approached me for help…and as I had right away contracted him to do a ‘job’ for me, I could honestly write that letter – which I did.
Ok, enough stories…let us now look back to the origins of Islam.
Islam originated in Arabia in a deeply tribal society.
‘Right and wrong’ were not based on any absolute morality, but on tribal membership: ‘right’ was what the leaders/members of your tribe deemed was ‘right’, ‘wrong’ was what their opponents/enemies deemed was’right’…
In such a tradition, ‘morality’ is a vastly different concept from what it is the ‘individualist’ tradition (though not nearly as different from the ‘communitarian’ tradition…which may explain the ‘socialist’ empathy for the Islamists): rather than measuring ‘right vs.wrong’ based on some objective values (whatever their source), ‘right vs. wrong’ becomes ‘what gives an advantage to our group’ vs. ‘what gives an advantage to their group’.
In a tribal society, members of one clan/family are interchangeable for each other.
Aside: Actually, that is where the ‘Western’ tradition of ‘bridesmaid’ and ‘groomsmen’ originates from: if the bride or the groom were found to be unsuitable for the marriage union, the next-best-maid/groomsman’ would step in and replace them so that the clans could enter into a socioeconomic union through that particular marriage contract.
In such a society, if one member of a family/clan steps out of line, any other member of the family/clan can be harmed/killed in retaliation… because the bloodline’s ‘politics’ is answerable for by ALL the members of the bloodline. Thus, if one of your relatives commits a crime, and cannot be caught, it is ‘fair’ for YOU to pay the price. The ‘individuals’ are subordinate to the ‘clan’, instead of having individual rights and freedoms.
Now that I have set the stage, I need to go a bit into the history of the Koran.
Mohammed, the Islamic prophet, had, at one point, been excommunicated by both his mothers and his father’s Arabic clans. Thus, Mohammed had been forced to seek shelter with other communities.
During this period, he had spent time with a Christian sect, and when he had been excommunicated from there, with a Jewish sect. It was only after he had been excommunicated from the Jewish sect that his uncle had agreed to adopt him and thus gained a permission for him to re-enter the Arabic society…which is where he caught the eye of his uncle’s employer, Khadija, who then extended her protection over him by marring him (and thus defying her society’s standards).
While among the Christians. Mohammed saw just how splintered the Christian sects had become: some believed that Jesus was the son of God who died on the cross and was bodily resurrected and lifted into heaven, others believed that he was a human who had been crucified and died on the cross, others yet believed that (whether the son of God or Man), he had escaped death on the cross (either by the use of a substitute or because he had been removed while unconscious but still alive and had then been revived by Esenne healers). Yet other Christians believed that Jesus Christ could never ever have been imprisoned in a corporal body by ‘Rex Mundi’, but had always been a being of pure energy…
Mohammed really, really did not want his religious movement to be fractured among various factions the way Christianity had become. Therefore, he said often that his revelations were literal and not open to interpretation – and that is why he stated clearly an openly that anyone who wishes to or attempts to ‘reform’ Islam of interpret any passages in any other way than literally is ‘a hypocrite’ and ‘an apostate’ and, according to the Koran, ‘hypocrites’ MUST be put to death…
Summary:
Mohammed decreed that anyone who attempts to interpret his teachings in any way other than literally is a ‘hypocrite’ and that ‘hypocrites’ MUST be put to death…and it comes from a tribal society which holds ALL members of a family/clan accountable for the tansgressions for all of your relatives…
Thus, if a moderate Muslim in Canada, the US or another Western country speaks up against the extremists’s interpretations of Islam, their (even distant) blood relatives who live within Islamists’ jurisdiction will pay the price for it with their lives.
It is one thing to stand up to an oppressor if it is your own life/well being on the line: it is quite different if your relatives, even distant relatives and their children might be killed for you speaking your mind!!!
And THAT FEAR – not for their own selves, but for the well being of their even distant relatives’ children – is why most moderate Muslims are silent…
After all, if it were not just your own neck, but the necks of your cousins’, their children, and their children’s children – how likely would YOU be to stand up to the radicals?!?!?
Ezra Levant & David Harris – Sugar-coating Islamic terrorism
February 5, 2014 — xanthippaThis is quite distressing.
We have seen the purging of essential information from police and military training manuals in the US, but at least up here, in Canada, we have a Prime Minister who is not afraid to say out loud that the greatest threat to Canada’s security is Islamic terrorism.
Yet, we are seeing this same linguistic purging going on in CSIS?!?!?
This is not good, not good at all.
When political correctness trumps public safety, we are all …….’d!
Having said this, I am not surprised.
Over the years, I have interacted with a large number of high level civil servants – and not only do I speak their language, I am very, very familiar with their thought patterns and behaviours. For example, when Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was firs elected, I heard conversations among the highest echelons of the civil service on how best to circumvent the government’s will, how to intentionally introduce flaws into programs they are ordered by the government to implement so as to make the elected officials look foolish, and so on. (The mandarins did not know I was not on their team….)
Which is why, whenever someone raises the issue of term limits of elected officials, I suggest that we create term limits for how long an individual may serve in the civil service, regardless of the level. After all, inexperienced elected officials and VERY experienced apartchicks does not a good governance structure make!
I would recommend capping any individual’s term limit to work for ANY level of the civil service at no more than 12 years…
But, I digress…
This year, for Christmas, I bought my kids each a copy of Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art of War’.
One of the first lessons it teaches is that if you cannot name/define the enemy, you have already lost.
Keep that in mind as you watch this video, which shows that increasingly, our security forces are not permitted to name/define the enemy.
Sad, so sad…
CodeSlinger: School ditches rules and loses bullies
February 1, 2014 — xanthippaAs I have been busy for the last few days attending Essentials of Freedomconference in Edmonton, Alberta, (they have been kind enough to ask me to say a few words on the topic of Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness), I have been a little busier than usual. (More on this later!)
CodeSlinger has been very gracious and has stepped in with a most excellent guest post (note – edited to insert source links):
The title refers to an article on stuff.co.nz and another article on TVNZ.
In a two-year-long experiment, four elementary schools in New Zealand got rid of all safety rules governing playtime at recess and lunch break. Kids could go back to climbing trees, skateboarding, bike-riding, or playing such barbaric games as dodge ball, bull rush, or tag. Just like they used to, before the nanny state ruined everything.
Of course, the playground immediately descended into mayhem, the infirmary was flooded with injured children, and the learning environment was hopelessly disrupted…
NOT!
Actually, when you let children play vigorously, and you give them freedom, the children are better behaved overall, more able to concentrate in class, and less likely to get hurt at play.
Oh, the horror!
The progressive matriarchs and their metrosexual disciples, who hold the school system in their politically correct clutches, were left palpitating in scandalized disbelief. To them, vigorous play is violent and dangerous, and freedom is the deplorable result of inadequate supervision. And evidence to the contrary is simply not acceptable!
These same progressive matriarchs and metrosexuals, who manufacture clueless, helpless, fearful people by never letting kids take a risk, were shocked and outraged to find that kids are actually pretty good at not hurting themselves or each other when you let them do what they want.
“The great paradox of cotton-woolling children is it’s more dangerous in the long-run,” says Grant Schofield, a professor of public health at Auckland University of Technology. We need a university professor to tell us this? Well, apparently, progressives do. You can tell he’s talking to progressives, because he calls this a great paradox. Normal people just
call it obvious.
These same progressive matriarchs and metrosexuals, who think that social order can only by maintained by breaking young spirits to the yoke of collectivism, were confused and distressed to discover that kids have neither the time nor the inclination to get into trouble when they’re busy playing interesting and energetic games.
“The time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It’s during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school,” says Bruce McLachlan, Principal of Swanson Primary School in Auckland. But his words are lost on progressives, who are too intent on undermining religion and tradition to admit the truth of
age-old proverbs like, “idle hands are the Devil’s playthings.”
These same progressive matriarchs and metrosexuals, who think the purpose of a primary education is to turn boys into little girls, were perplexed and disturbed to observe that kids have a much easier time sitting still and concentrating in class when you let them burn off enough energy during recess.
This is especially true of boys. Girls don’t find it that hard to conform to the sedentary, structured classroom setting. But healthy young boys have enormous amounts of energy, which they simply cannot keep bottled up. Therefore, progressives forbid them from burning it off, and then punish them when they can’t sit still. And when that doesn’t work, reach for the
drugs. Progressives call this “positive socialization,” but normal people call it punishing boys for being boys.
Four schools in Auckland were involved in the experiment and all reported similar findings: bullying and vandalism dropped sharply, the time-out area was completely emptied out, playground accidents were reduced, and classroom performance was improved.
In spite of these dramatic successes, only one of these four schools cared enough to make this way of doing things permanent. (Note: the principal of that school was a man.)
Still, one is better than none, and we can hope that this is the first hint of the beginning of the end of the politically correct progressive stranglehold on our public schools.
But as of right now, it’s obvious that the vast majority of school principals care much more about the politically correct progressive agenda than they do about the well-being of your kids.
Remember that, next time progressives exhort you to think of the children!
Lifetime gag order kills Free Dominion
January 25, 2014 — xanthippaSad, but true.
This message has replaced Canada oldest right-leaning online political discussion forum:
As of today, January 23, 2014, and after 13 years online, Free Dominion is closing its doors to the public. We have been successfully censored.
Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith issued an order in the Richard Warman vs Mark and Connie Fournier and John Does defamation case heard September, 2013. In addition to ordering that we must pay Warman $127,000, Justice Smith issued an injunction against us ordering we that never publish, or allow to be published, anything negative about Richard Warman. This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court. If that happened –unlike in the Ottawa courtroom where we were blocked at every turn from presenting a defense– we actually would have no defense. We would both go to jail. This life sentence was imposed for our terrible crimes of voicing our honestly held beliefs and allowing others to do the same. Defamation law, in its current state, is entirely inadequate and counterproductive when applied to the internet. Now it is being used as a tool of censorship. Effectively!
We are assessing our options.
In faith,
Mark and Connie Fournier“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier
Accommodating sexism?
January 9, 2014 — xanthippaIn the Fall 2013 semester, a York University student asked to be exempt from taking part in a workshop with fellow students because some of them were female and his religion practiced gender apartheid:
‘“One of the main reasons that I have chosen internet courses to complete my BA is due to my firm religious beliefs, and part of that is the intermingling between men and women,” he wrote, adding “it will not be possible for me to meet in public with a group of women (the majority of my group) to complete some of these tasks.”’
The professor thought about it, consulted an Orthodox Jewish scholar and two Islamic scholars (all three thought the accommodation was not required), talked it over with other faculty members, did a ‘hypothetical’ survey on it in another class… and ultimately decided he could not institutionalize sexism and explained his reasoning to the student:
‘After getting wind of the resolution — as well as Mr. Grayson’s stated refusal to honour his accommodation — the student cheerfully backed off.He attended the group session without protest and even wrote a memo to Mr. Grayson thanking him “for the way you have handled this request.”
“He’s a reasonable guy,” said Mr. Grayson.’
In a reasonable world, that would have ended the matter, non?
But, York University dean/administration is not in a reasonable world…
‘Nevertheless, the rejection incensed university brass. According to Mr. Grayson, on October 18, he received a letter from the Dean of the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies ordering him to accommodate the student’s wishes.…In an October 18 email, the Dean specifically told Mr. Grayson that if he was worried about the “course experience of our female students” he would make sure they “are not made aware of the accommodation.”’
In other worlds, it’s OK to marginalize girls women as long as you don’t worry their pretty little heads about it, right?!?!?
There has been a lot of discussion of this – and guesses about the unnamed student’s religion. Professor Greyson himself consulted Orthodox Jewish and Islamic scholars and, given the Canadian demographics, it’s dollars to doughnuts he hit the bulls-eye. But, there is a big difference between the teachings of Islam and Orthodox Judaism: Orthodox Jews must adhere to their religious laws regardless of where they live while Muslims must only adhere to their religious laws while they live in an Islamic country.
And, since the student accepted the professor’s explanation that the requested accommodation could not happen under Canadian law happily and cheerfully and submitted to the secular law without any problems – I believe this student is a Muslim.
This is something that is very important, but, which is not really being brought up in any of the discussions of this case that I am aware of.
A little background: when I came to Canada in my teens and was in an ESL (English as a Second Language) class, I became best friends with Neda. She came to Canada with her family from a Sharia adherent country.
Her father, a pious, Mosque-attending Muslim, explained it in the following way:
In Sharia-adherent countries, women are treated like cattle (that was the word used – it shocked me when I heard it). He did not want his daughter to be treated like that, he wanted her to grow up as a free and equal human being. But, that would not be possible in an Islamic country.
In his wisdom, Mohammed taught that when Muslims are in a non-Muslim country, they are bound by the laws of that country. If the laws of that country transgress against Sharia, a good Muslim must still try to follow Sharia. BUT, if this would be difficult or if it would make the Muslims look bad in the eyes of the non-believers, then, Allah is merciful and he revealed that the Muslim may break the rules of Islam in order to get along/fit in/conform.
Even if it were to drink alcohol or eat pork, if no transgression was intended, then none was incurred!
So, by bringing his daughter to Canada, she could integrate into Canadian society and live a life as a free person, and as long as no transgression is intended, none is incurred and she would not be punished and go to hell!!!
Back to the York situation: it may be that this student (if, indeed, he were a Muslim) did exactly that! He asked for an accommodation because he was trying his best to follow Sharia in a non-Islamic country. When the accommodation was refused, he was happy to comply with the Canadian law that prohibits discrimination based on gender – as per Mohammed’s teachings.
The student did his best to follow Sharia, but could not – and thus he did not transgress!
In my never-humble-opinion, many Muslims who do not wish to live under Sharia but are still believing Muslims live in our country precisely because of this specific rule: if the country they live in is not Islamic, not following the strict rules of Sharia is not a transgression.
Really.
It is only the Islamists, the ones who are trying to change the laws of Canada, who demand accommodation and refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer, that are the problem – and by insisting on accommodation even in violation of Canadian law, they commit apostasy. Only the Islamists, who wish to change Canada into a Sharia state will not obey Mohammed’s command to obey the laws of the non-believers countries when there!
It is precisely from these people that Muslims like my friend came to Canada to get away from. We must not fail them now by accepting Islamists as the ones who speak for Canadian Muslims!!!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 