Topic 2: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: "We Have
Been Subverted"
Article: click here
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born Dutch citizen and former member
of Dutch parliament. When she was growing up, her family
moved around to many countries in Africa and the Middle East.
Good at languages, she adapted well.
She found her way to Holland, which welcomed her into their
cradle-to-grave welfare system. She came to the conclusion
that European society was frankly better than the Islamic
societies she had lived in before. She became a staunch fan of
Western Civilization and critic of Islam. She now has to
be accompanied by bodyguards to protect her from
Islamists who want to kill her for the things she says.
This article explains how she feels that Western Civilization
is under attack from two forces and losing the fight --
against the woke left, and radical Islam.
The article was written last year -- before Trump got elected
to his second term.
If you believe this article, some of
the Republic Party's recent actions:
- Trump destroying any DEI organization
within his reach.
- Trump attacking the universities demanding ideological
change
- Red states banning course material in public schools
that makes anyone "uncomforable" about their
ethnicity.
seem appropriate and justified.
|
Topic 3: Charlie Kirk's Critics
Article: click here
I disagree with a lot of things Charlie Kirk said, but
I have a lot of respect for his willingness to go to college
campuses, surrounded by people nearly all of whom hate
everything he stands for, and debate all comers.
Communication across the political divide is something
that is desperately needed nowadays.
The article above (paywalled -- pirate version
here)
is written by
Nichole Hannah Jones, the author
of the extremly racist and hateful
1619
Project which insulted the United States and the
founding fathers any way she could, which got basic
facts wrong, and which spun a tale of 400 years of
American history without a single white person doing
any virtuous act. It claimed that the defining trait of
the United States was slavery, ignoring the fact that
in 1619, slavery was practiced in
places all over the world, including by Africans. (The
primary way that white slave-traders obtained slaves
in 1619 was by purchasing them from African
slave-traders. The going rate
was a barrel of rum per slave).
Hannah Jones says that since Kirk was, in her eyes, a
"bigot", his life and work
shouldn't be celebrated. Rough words coming from
one of the most hateful, celebrated, influential racists in
the country!
Unlike Charlie Kirk,
Nichole Hannah Jones lacks the courage and the intellect
to go into a room where 90% of the people hate everything
she stands for and debate all comers. She cowers in the
all-black Howard University, where she rarely comes into
direct contact with the white people she despises,
insulated from any reaction they might have to her
constant abuse.
Her response to any criticism is to
label the critic a "bigot".
Mistakes she makes in this article
reflect the fact the she is deeply
immersed in the woke liberal bubble, out of touch
with reality, and avoids ever having
direct conversations with
convervatives.
- She says the Trump praised
white supremacists and neo-Nazis
who marched in Charlottesville as
"very fine people" while Trump supporters
generally know that that quote was taken out of context
and if you read the transcript of the
whole speech, he explicitly condemned
them.
- She said Charlie Kirk said all
black women "lack brain power" but if you look at the
exact quote, he was talking about four specific women, not
"all". It should be noted
that when Biden was about to appoint a Supreme Court
justice, he announced that it would be a black woman
before even beginning the search, so it's hardly
a stretch to claim that Ketanji Brown Jackson, one
of the four women Kirk mentioned,
was an affirmative
action hire.
- Like most liberals, she
said "Replacement Theory"
is "racist", and, I assume, untrue in
her eyes. The
theory is that the Democratic Party favors high rates
of immigration
because they think American white Christians are the
worst people in the world, so diluting them with
anybody else is an improvement. But
liberals on the coasts make absolutely no secret of their
extreme contempt
for white Christians in red states, and the
immigration policies
that Democrats put into place
when in power are completely
consistent with what Replacement Theory
predicts. So what, exactly, is the evidence
against Replacement Theory?
- She says it's "racist" for Kirk
to point out that the black crime rate is high. What
is her position here? How does she feel that
it's just fine for
her to constantly shit on whites for things that
happened centuries ago while it's wrong for
Kirk to be talking about something that continues
to go on right now?
- Is she so deeply embedded in the woke bubble
that she is ignorant of the fact that black
crime rates are
radically higher than
white ones?
- Most likely, she subscribes to the woke rules of
debate, which are that supposedly
"oppressed" demographics are entitled to
crap all over supposedly "privileged" ones
who are forbidden to answer back, even in
self-defense.
This other article is by
a lesbian feminist who is offended by things Kirk said
about women, rather than blacks. The article
is paywalled, a pirate version is
here.
She seems to be
arguing that Charlie Kirk's ideas are so
offensive that civil debate with him is the wrong idea,
and there really isn't anything wrong with
celebrating his assassination. She outright says
that for civility to be appropriate "we would have
to have nothing at stake" which is practically
never the case, so apparently, she doesn't believe
in free speech at all. I'm not sure she
even understands Kirk's position on women.
|
