21 December 2009

The Most PC Thing You'll Ever Read

Go on, have a look. It's basically a guy whining that Rage Against the Machine don't deserve to be Christmas #1 because he doesn't share their opinions. How so?
  • They have "images of books" on their website. He doesn't like the books in question.
  • They also like Che Guevara, Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.
  • Their guitarist, among other things, once said "A great song should destroy cops and set fire to the suburbs", which Edmund Standing takes very literally indeed
You'll notice in the article, there is zero analysis of Rage's music or even lyrics. You wouldn't expect similar for the fucknut right's artists. You don't hear Edmund Standing laying into W.B. Yeats for his politics, or Wagner for his fruity views on Jewish people. Does he refuse to watch Briget Bardot films because of her disgraceful views on Muslims? When he was at university, did he start yelling in the lectures every time someone mentioned Heidegger? I imagine if we were getting 'Peaches in Regalia' to Christmas #1, he wouldn't be condemning Frank Zappa and listing the faults of libertarianism. His objection to Chomsky is especially nasty, slandering him as a "pseudo-academic" despite the article he links to, '200 Chomsky Lies', only making one passing reference to linguistics. Would he also refer to Chris Brand as a 'pseudo-psychologist' because of his views? Actually, speaking of racist gobshites, hasn't Dannii Minogue said enough stupid shit to disqualify the X-Factor from another Christmas #1?

This is a textbook case of what the right-wing call 'political correctness'. Getting all oversensitive about certain opinions, making some athletic leaps of logic and then coming over all censorious towards anything associated with anything they disagree with. Deciding who should be where in the charts based on their politics, using a bad Brecht play you saw a few years ago to dispute Marxism, that sort of thing. That Chomsky one's a classic actually, I've come across that before. Some horse's arse with zero interest in L1 acquisition disputing his professional credentials because of his privately held beliefs. At least when Kilroy got sacked, he'd had a shit chat show anyway.

I always wondered why these people saw 'PC' everywhere, why they were so disgusted at writers like Polly Toynbee, who they seem to imagine as fifty feet tall with Communist lasers for eyes. Now I know. It's because they imagine we lefties think just like them, and are just doing exactly what they would do in the same position. The only reason they're ever upset about PC is because it's happening to them.

Of course, I've just completely failed to mention Rage's music or lyrics, so I should point out that 'Sleep Now in the Fire' has the best lyrics (which, isn't really saying much from my point of view) and (apologies for the youtuber visuals) 'Ashes in the Fall is just generally an awesome, awesome piece of music. Especially the Gang of Four-ish bit in the middle.

20 December 2009

Exploiting Misogynist Killings Like a Rat up a Drainpipe

What did I tell you? WHAT DID I TELL YOU? Three days and already the Goren murder is being exploited. Read the post, look at the quotes it highlights. One accuses the government of ignoring a root cultural cause:
The Government has also been turning a blind eye to the problem [of fundamentalism], which only makes things worse.
This one also seems to miss the point a little, as I'm not convinced this was a particularly fundamentalist family.

A few speculate as to why the government is failing to prevent honour killings:
It’s a betrayal of these women to be PC about this. Look at the figures. Asian women in Britain are three times more likely to commit suicide than their white friends.
instead of looking after the human rights of vulnerable young women you get accused of doing down the Asian community.
Is this because forced marriage is not a problem in those areas, all of which have some of the largest Asian populations in Britain? Or is it because authorities there are failing to use the powers for fear of creating offence? I am afraid it is the latter.
And this one actually specifically mentions multiculturalism and diversity:
Serious crimes are being treated as a matter for diversity officers rather than for the police and the courts… stop trying to excuse forced marriage as just a price to pay for multicultural diversity.
But, notice, only as red herrings, only as reasons why honour killings are tolerated, not actually as problems.

All the articles quoted were pretty good, and I basically agreed with most of all of them. But look how the overview read them:
Campaigners against so-called honour killings have spoken with one voice against multiculturalism after Tulay Goren’s father was jailed for her murder.
So-called honour crime, and the alien value systems that breed it
the murder of Tulay Goren has uncovered yet more criticism of the multicultural doctrine and political correctness
It is time for campaigners and politicians who question the benefits of multiculturalism to join forces
There's even a cheap shot blaming Labour.

We even get a bonafide iylismwdyglt when a verbose commenter goes even further:
Namely; people who wish to live in the UK or elsewhere, should be in no doubt, not even a shadow of a doubt, that entertaining such slave, misogynist attitudes have no place or business in the civilized world. And should they wish to act out their way of life, just to feel at home [...] they shall be removed right back to wherein they came and where such attitudes are acceptable and obviously such an “honorable” way of life for them. Better still do not come here in the first place. It is that simple! [...] All cultures are very far from being equal.That is a fact of life, take or leave it! Everyone, with the exception of children, mentally under developed and the out dated advocates of PC/MC creed know that much.
A few articles speculate about why our society fails to protect women from honour killings. A (Tory?) blogger twists it a little way so it's about multiculturalism. Along comes your comment monkey, suddenly the issue is who should and should not be allowed to live where, whose culture is best and whether right of residence should be tied to personal values.

I'd also like to explain why I don't put the bunny ears when I talk about honour killings or consider the term some kind of deformation of the language. I'm not particularly bothered about whether the killings were honourable. Apart from good old-fashioned sabres at dawn, I can't think of an occasion where any killing ever was honourable. It should be taken as read that we don't agree with any crimes, that we don't ever confuse motive and justification. But that's the implication of any objection to the term 'honour killing'.

On top of that, there's a reason Mehmet Goren would have preferred to see his daughter dead than married to the wrong man, while almost nobody in Europe is holding their duelling wounds open to get a better scar. 'Honour', as a concept, is valued and defined differently in different cultures. In the West, it's largely seen as outdated and subordinate to reason, rule of law, personal freedom and loving your children. Hence settling our disputes verbally in court and letting our kids marry whoever they want. We could only achieve this by devaluing honour as a cultural value, something we should obviously be encouraging as much as possible in cultures that kill for it. Acting as if honour is always good and needs to be protected with punctuation is tacitly devaluing the seriousness of the crimes committed in its name, like claiming Osama Bin Laden is not a "real" Muslim. Accepting that honour is just one of many shifting cultural values and declining to pass judgement on them lets us examine motives without approving of them. It allows us to separate our judgement of someone's actions with our judgement of their values, and so we should, as in the end, it was her father's actions and not his cultural values which killed Tulay Goren.

17 December 2009


Well, I reckon this story will trigger a fierce debate about honour killings, women in Islam and "multiculturalism". By which I mean a bunch of people will use this as a stick to beat Muslims with. Now, I've mentioned this before, and it'll be good to see it in action. We all know this is going to trigger anti-Islamic sentiment, but watch how it works.

Basically, behind the killing were Mehmet Goren's Southern Turkish/Islamic cultural values of family honour and paternal authority. Watch how quickly the debate shifts from the second half of that to the first. Watch how the opposition switches from feminism and individual rights versus honour and patriarchy, to mono- versus multiculturalism. Watch how disgust at the killer, sympathy for the murder victim and admiration for the courage of the key witness become sidelined by rage at the culture they shared. Watch how discussions of culture shift from what to whose values. And watch how professed concern for Muslim women soon reveals itself as masked hatred.

05 December 2009

Epic Xenophobia Failure

Switzerland, Switzerland, Switzerland, if you're going to pretend your attacks on Islam aren't just about Islam, don't try and do it by laying into the Jews. Surveys consistently confirm them as the most popular darkies and heathens among far-right not-racists across Europe, and have done for decades.

Besides, normally when the PC brigade do the Jew test on not-Nazis, you can just say it's crass and Muslims and Jews aren't comparable. Trying to be consistent by chucking in some anti-Semitism just does our job for us. Idiot.

02 December 2009

I'm Confused

You know what Libertarians like? You know what they fucking love? Absolutely bum to bits? Banning shit. Yeah, take THAT, pointy tall symbol.

In other news, the Communist blogosphere is erupting with support for the bankers, prominent Zionists have pledged their support to cancelling the whole Israel thing, and nothing makes sense any more.

PS: Pigdogfucker has more.

01 December 2009

Vague Weapon

Oliver Kamm spouts some libellous wank about MediaLens. He uses the phrase "genocide denial", which I think is quite clever. Of course, one problem is that what he's accusing them of:
We sparked off "several hundred e-mails" - perhaps as many as 500 - affirming that Chomsky had +not+ denied there had been a massacre in Srebrenica.
Technically, of course, this is genocide-denial-denial. Another problem is that well, it's not like Holocaust denial or Srebnica denial, or any other denial of specific historical events. Basically, you can accuse almost anyone of genocide-denial so long as there is one genocide they don't think really happened. This can, if you want, include the Thetan genocide or any you happen to make up. It's vague.

The awesome thing about it though, is that it's not like Holocaust denial or Srebnica denial, or any other denial of specific historical events. Basically, you can accuse almost anyone of genocide-denial so long as there is one genocide they don't think really happened. This can, if you want, include the Thetan genocide or any you happen to make up. It's vague. And it sounds almost as bad as Holocaust denial, and makes your victim sound like a far-right conspiracy-nut, even if all they've done is claim the Alderaan genocide to be fiction.

Incidentally, recent historical sources show quite clearly that Oliver Kamm perpetrated an act of genocide on Belgians in 1885. Ask him. He won't deny it.