America smashes its moral compass and drags the world behind it

Obama repudiated UN Jew-bashing at Durban. Biden has embraced it

Melanie Phillips

Apr 30

Durban protesters, 2011. Credit: Natasha Mozgavaya

For eight years, the administration of former President Barack Obama behaved as if the security needs of the State of Israel were such an irritating impediment to American foreign-policy aims that it had no compunction in brutally swatting them aside.

As a result, the Obama years were very difficult for Israel. Appallingly, it looks as if the Biden years may be even worse.

Much concern has already been expressed about President Joe Biden’s posture of appeasement towards Iran, along with other moves such as his withdrawal of support from Saudi Arabia and his decision to cut and run from Afghanistan. This has thrown some of the world’s most dangerous places into a state of even more dangerous flux.

Until now, it was possible to believe that his administration was merely hopelessly naive, appeasement-minded or delusional as a consequence of its utopian liberal ideology, and that Israel just happened to be particularly vulnerable to its correspondingly bone-headed blundering in the Middle East. Now, however, there is evidence that the administration is driven by actual malevolence towards both Israel and Zionism itself, which lowers it into a pit of infamy fouler even than Obama’s hostility and disdain.

That evidence concerns the infamous 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance that was held in Durban, South Africa, a few days before the 9/11 attacks.

This was an eye-watering, anti-Israel, anti-Jew hate-fest, whose sole purpose was to demonise and delegitimise Israel under the Orwellian banner of “human rights” and which erupted into openly Nazi-referenced antisemitism.

The notorious, forged handbook of deranged Jew-hatred, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was distributed to attendees. Leaflets saying Hitler should have finished “his job” circulated, along with fliers depicting him asking “What if I had won?” and receiving the answer: “There would be NO Israel and NO Palestinian bloodshed.”

Jewish participants feared for their safety as activists chanted “Zionism is racism, Israel is apartheid,” and “You have Palestinian blood on your hands.” The Jewish Centre in Durban was forced to close because of threats of violence.

The conference’s NGO Forum attacked every Jewish organisation in attendance and passed a resolution calling Israel “a racist apartheid state,” guilty of the “systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing … and state terror against the Palestinian people”.

The conference’s final declaration brought this verbal pogrom to its climax by listing only the Palestinians as “victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

It thus singled out Israel alone as an instigator of those evils. The sheer lunacy of such a claim, identifying the Jewish state as so monstrous that it was in a category all of its own, placed that declaration itself squarely in the frame of classical antisemitism.

In 2011, the United Nations organised a meeting to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Durban conference. The United States, along with thirteen other countries, boycotted it.

In a strong statement, the Obama White House explained that this was because the meeting would reaffirm in its entirety the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action “which unfairly and unacceptably singled out Israel.” The United States, it said, “did not want to see the hateful and antisemitic displays of the 2001 Durban Conference commemorated”.

Durban 2001 indelibly marked the moral collapse of the United Nations. It was the point at which the “anti-racist” and “human rights” movement turned itself into a propulsive motor for antisemitism, serving as the launching pad for the campaign of demonisation, delegitimisation and destruction of Israel that has continued ever since.

The countries that in 2011 boycotted the Durban process held the line against this bigotry. That was then. Now, shockingly, the United States has obliterated that line. Last month, it reversed the Obama administration’s Durban position.

Having just rejoined the UN Human Rights Council, America promoted a statement of commitment to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance linked to “recalling the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action”.

Obama had repudiated this declaration on the grounds of its unjust demonisation of Israel and the “hateful and antisemitic displays” around its creation. The Biden administration has embraced it.

Now there is to be a yet further attempt to re-weaponise Durban. In September, the United Nations plans to hold a 20th-anniversary meeting where the original declaration will be reconfirmed.

As the blogger “Elder of Zion” has observed, given America’s endorsement of Durban at the Human Rights Council it’s entirely possible that the Biden administration will attend the September meeting — and thus associate the United States with what the Obama White House condemned as a commemoration of the “hateful and antisemitic displays of the 2001 Durban Conference”.

Shocking as all this is, it makes perfect sense in light of the Democrats’ embrace of intersectionality and identity politics. Intersectionality holds that Jews and the State of Israel are “white privileged” oppressors (even though most Israeli Jews are brown-skinned, coming from regions of the Middle East).

According to this dogma, Israel can’t be the victim of Iran or the Palestinian Arabs (although it indubitably is), and no people of colour can be antisemites (which some indubitably are).

Proponents of intersectionality view only white people as a threat. This is now the view of the Biden administration. In his address on Wednesday night to Congress, Biden said, according to the prepared text on the White House website (when he actually delivered the speech he managed to mangle his words): “The most lethal terrorist threat to the homeland today is from white supremacist terrorism.”

He made similar remarks in February when he said white supremacists were “the most dangerous people in America,” calling them “demented”.

But he doesn’t think those Palestinian preachers and officials who say things like the Jews are “thirsty for blood to please their god” or that the Jews were forced out of Europe in the past because of the threat posed by their “evil nature” are demented. He doesn’t think the Iranian leaders who deny the Holocaust, allege a Jewish conspiracy to replace Islam by western imperialism and claim Jews seek to dominate the entire world are demented.

Instead, he treats the Iranians as rational actors with whom he wants to negotiate and into whose terrorist activities he intends to help funnel billions of dollars. And instead of acknowledging the Palestinians’ exterminatory antisemitism as demonstrating “racism, xenophobia and related intolerance,” he declares them to be the principal victims of such attitudes.

When Britain’s Labour Party was in the grip of its hard-left, anti-Israel and antisemitism-promoting leader Jeremy Corbyn, there were Americans who took comfort in the belief that such a development couldn’t happen in their own country. In fact, the Biden administration is even more baleful.

Whether Biden is too mentally fragile to grasp what he’s doing or whether he has made a cynical calculation of where his interests lie in today’s increasingly radical Democratic Party, it would seem that there’s a puppet of the hard left in the Oval Office.

And it’s not just America and Israel which are likely to feel the impact of this.

When the United States boycotted the 2011 Durban meeting, so did many other nations besides Israel. Now the reverse has happened. Every other nation that boycotted Durban 2011 signed the US-led Human Rights Council statement supporting the original Durban Declaration.

The demonisation of Israel has helped smash the cultural moral compass of the west. Now America is smashing its moral compass in politics, too — and as a result is dragging the rest of the so-called civilised world behind it, to the potential endangerment of all.

Jewish News Syndicate

Advertisement

Ottawa’s move to regulate video posts on YouTube and social media called ‘assault’ on free speech

Critics say if the Bill C-10 amendment is really meant to control the online posting of unlicensed music, TV and movies, a copyright approach would be the proper mechanism

Arwen~

This is indicative of communist countries,…this should alarm every Canadian, no matter your political leaning, Our freedoms and rights are not gov’t given, but gov’t is supposed to protect those freedoms and rights. If you pay attention to the bills and legislation that has been tabled and passed coming from the Trudeau gov’t and ones he failed to pass because of pushback, you will recognize this gov’t is a threat to Canadians democracy and freedom.
Note the timing in this as well..it is not the first time Trudeau has tried to do a power grab during COVID. That speaks volumes.

Push back against this Canadians!

Author of the article:Anja Karadeglija

Publishing date:Apr 26, 2021  •  23 hours ago  •  4 minute read  • 

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault.
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault. PHOTO BY ADRIAN WYLD/THE CANADIAN PRESS/FILE

The Liberal-dominated House of Commons Heritage committee has cleared the way for the federal government to regulate video content on internet social media, such as YouTube, the same way it regulates national broadcasting, under a new amendment made to a bill updating the Broadcasting Act.

Critics denounced the move to give the country’s broadcast regulator the ability to oversee user-generated content, and said it amounted to an attack on the free expression of Canadians, particularly in light of Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s recent plans to give Ottawa power to order take-downs of online content it deems objectionable.Black Conservative addresses an Alberta Christian University and a free speech fight… 

“Granting a government agency authority over legal user generated content — particularly when backed up by the government’s musings about taking down websites — doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy,” said Peter Menzies, a former commissioner of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission.

“It’s difficult to contemplate the levels of moral hubris, incompetence or both that would lead people to believe such an infringement of rights is justifiable,” said Menzies.

Last Friday afternoon, MPs on the committee made changes to the government’s bill updating the Broadcasting Act. Bill C-10 was introduced by Guilbeault in November, to clarify the CRTC’s ability to regulate TV and movie streaming services, such as Netflix. The bill doesn’t include details of what that regulation will look like, but once the bill passes the government plans to instruct the CRTC to draft rules requiring online services to contribute to and promote Canadian content.

When the Liberal government introduced C-10, user-generated content, such as an individual Canadian posting a YouTube video or a TikTok clip, was originally exempted. But that exclusion for user content was removed by committee MPs on Friday.

A spokesperson for Guilbeault said the government’s intent behind removing the clause was primarily to allow for better regulation of music streaming on social media platforms, such as playlists of songs posted online. Guilbeault’s press secretary, Camille Gagné-Raynauld, said C-10 “specifically targets professional series, films, and music,” and said there are safeguards in place, including that individual Canadians wouldn’t be considered broadcasters under the legislation.

University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist said even if the bill means Canadian users won’t have to report to the CRTC themselves, their online videos on platforms like TikTok or YouTube “would be treated as a program subject to Canada’s broadcast regulator.”

That is an infringement of Canadians’ rights, Geist said. “In a free, democratic society we don’t subject basic speech to regulation in this way. Of course there are limits to what people can say, but the idea that a broadcast regulator has any role to play in basic speech is, I think, anathema to free and democratic society where freedom of expression is viewed as one of the foundational freedoms.”

The bill is only one piece of a multi-pronged effort by the Liberal government to impose new rules on Big Tech and other online companies. Other Liberal initiatives include a separate bill targeting online hate content set to be introduced shortly. Guilbeault has said the government would consider blocking content as a last-resort option. The government has also proposed blocking websites hosting copyright-infringing content as part of another consultation on updating copyright law.

But critics say that if the government’s amendment to Bill C-10 is really meant to control the online posting of unlicensed music, TV and movies, a copyright approach would be the proper mechanism.

“That is a copyright law issue,” said Emily Laidlaw, Canada research chair in cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary. The way C-10 is worded is also overly broad, she said, because it captures any user-generated “programs.”

If the intent is to use the Broadcasting Act to protect copyrights owned by corporate studios, Geist said “it’s disappointing to see the government prioritize lobbying pressure from the music industry over the free-speech interests of millions of Canadians.”

Conservative MP and heritage critic Alain Rayes put out a statement Monday criticizing the amendment, saying his party would “continue to stand up for the freedoms of Canadians who post their content online and oppose C-10 at every stage of the legislative process.”

Even if the CRTC doesn’t follow through with its new powers and chooses not to implement any regulations covering user-generated content, the fact that the law would now enable the regulator to do so is problematic, said Menzies.
“They would still hold the hammer of legislative power over everyone’s head and that would intimidate free expression. Even without conditions, people would still be speaking with the CRTC’s permission,” Menzies said.

Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms programs at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said that even if the CRTC isn’t currently interested in putting specific regulations on user-generated content in place, the legislation creates the potential for Ottawa to do so later.

“With legislation when you open up a regulatory door, even if you don’t step though it, you’ve opened up that door for any future governments to step through,” she said.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ottawas-move-to-regulate-video-posts-on-youtube-and-social-media-called-assault-on-free-speech

Fight the censorship bill. Defend free speech.Bill C-10 is “hammer” to “intimidate freedom of expression”, says one former CRTC commissioner.Click here to sign up and fight the bill.https://forms.gle/jfkdQSEGZZpQSm9KA

French generals who called for military rule if President Macron cannot stop ‘Islamists’ from ‘disintegrating society’ will be punished, government declares

Martel ” As ever the msm and political class aim to gun down the messenger or messengers, in this case 20 former high-ranking members of the French military, without pausing for a moment to consider why such men were moved to write such a letter.  These are officers who have served France loyally and at the highest level and they know that something is very wrong in France and believe it needs addressing and quickly. It is a shame the political classes are not forged from similar metal.”

Twenty retired French generals call for MILITARY RULE in the country | Daily Mail Online

Johnny Rotten is dead right about wokeness

The punk legend has slammed the new puritans as ‘vicious’ and ‘divisive’.

SPIKED26th April 2021

Johnny Rotten is dead right about wokeness

Punk legend Johnny Rotten – real name: John Lydon – has blasted wokeness, saying it is ‘nonsense’ that ‘can only lead to trouble’.

In an interview in Times2, the former Sex Pistols frontman said proponents of wokeness ‘aren’t really disenfranchised at all’.

‘They just view themselves as special. It’s selfishness and in that respect it’s divisive and can only lead to trouble. I can’t believe that TV stations give some of these lunatics the space. Where is this “moral majority” nonsense coming from when they’re basically the ones doing all the wrong for being so bloody judgmental and vicious against anybody that doesn’t go with the current popular opinion?’

He also condemned tearing down statues and other woke assaults on our past.

‘I heard some nonsense about somebody not wanting [“Rule, Britannia”] played. But stop it. It’s a song. You can’t go back and rewrite history. If you start eliminating those things, well, you have no future. That’s kind of what I was warning about when I wrote [“God Save the Queen”]. I could see this shit coming.’

Lydon blames wokeness on ‘horribly, horribly tempestuous, spoiled children coming out of colleges and universities with shit for brains’.

He’s right. The proponents of identity politics say they are being inclusive. But it is inherently divisive. It is a movement mostly made up of privileged narcissists who claim the moral high ground, from where they then pitch different groups against each other and demonise anyone who steps out of line.

Who could be surprised that Lydon’s punk instincts would lead him to rebel against wokeness? Just as he revolted against the stifling and stuffy conservative establishment of the 1970s, now he is taking a welcome swipe against today’s elites who pretend to be progressive but are just as dull, conformist and puritanical. The world needs more Johnny Rottens.

Johnny Rotten is dead right about wokeness – spiked (spiked-online.com)

Outrage as France’s highest court rules a killer ‘who screamed Allahu Akbar while throwing a Jewish woman from her balcony to her death’ cannot be tried because he was psychotic from cannabis at the time

  • Kobili Traore battered Sarah Halimi and threw her out of a window in April 2017
  • Traore was high on cannabis at the time he killed Ms Halimi, who was 65
  • The killer shouted Allahu Akbar as he threw the Jewish woman to her death 
  • France’s appeal court ruled Traore cannot be tried for her murder as he was psychotic at the time from smoking up to 15 cannabis joints a day

By DARREN BOYLE FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 14:28 EDT, 18 April 2021 | UPDATED: 21:41 EDT, 18 April 2021

Sarah Halimi, pictured, was killed and thrown from her balcony by Kobili Traore in April 2017 while the drug dealer was suffering a cannabis-fueled psychotic episode

Sarah Halimi, pictured, was killed and thrown from her balcony by Kobili Traore in April 2017 while the drug dealer was suffering a cannabis-fueled psychotic episode 

France‘s top court will not prosecute a Muslim man who shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he allegedly pushed a Jewish woman from the balcony of her apartment block because he was in a psychotic state from cannabis.

The Court of Cassation’s Supreme Court of Appeals upheld a previous ruling that the defendant, Kobili Traore, cannot be held criminally responsible for the killing of Jewish woman Sarah Halimi in Paris in April 2017 after smoking up to 15 cannabis joints a day triggered a psychotic episode.

According to French newspaper Le Parisien, Halimi, who was 65, was beaten before being thrown from her apartment building.

Traore reportedly shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ (‘God is great’ in Arabic) as he pushed the Jewish woman to her death. He is also claimed to have said: ‘I have killed the devil.’ 

Wednesday’s decision to not allow the defendant to take the stand as he was not considered criminally responsible has angered Jewish and anti-racism groups.

The heavy cannabis user has remained in a psychiatric facility since the victim’s death in April 2017.

According to the New York Times, Traore was also dealing drugs from his flat and was paranoid because of his drug use. French judges ruled Kobili Traore's heavy cannabis use caused a 'delirious fit' while carrying out the killing and was therefore not mentally fit to stand trial+2

French judges ruled Kobili Traore’s heavy cannabis use caused a ‘delirious fit’ while carrying out the killing and was therefore not mentally fit to stand trial

One psychiatric report said a religious icon hanging from Halimi’s door ‘amplified the frantic outburst of hate’. 

The court said he suffered a ‘delirious fit’ while carrying out the killing and was therefore not responsible for his actions.

Halimi’s death has sparked debate over increasing anti-Semitism among Muslim youths in predominantly migrant areas of Paris.

French President Emmanuel Macron previously criticised the lower court’s decision in January last year, adding that there was a ‘need for a trial’ despite the judge ruling that the defendant was not criminally responsible.

Jewish groups said the decision highlights France’s failure to deal with growing anti-Semitism.

The decision to block the prosecution of Traore was condemned by Jewish representatives as the attack was anti-Semitic. While throwing his victim from the balcony Traore called out 'God is Great' in Arabic before claiming he had just 'killed the devil'

The decision to block the prosecution of Traore was condemned by Jewish representatives as the attack was anti-Semitic. While throwing his victim from the balcony Traore called out ‘God is Great’ in Arabic before claiming he had just ‘killed the devil’

Francis Kalifat, president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, said: ‘From now on in our country, we can torture and kill Jews with complete impunity.’

The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism said after the decision: ‘This is an additional drama that adds to this tragedy.’

Meanwhile, the victim’s family has said they plan to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Muriel Ouaknine Melki, the lawyer for the victim’s brother, said: ‘It’s a bad message for French Jewish citizens.’

The court accepted that Traore, now in his early 30s, had anti-Semitic views linked to the killing, but accepted the defence’s claim that he was psychotic at the time and should be placed in a psychiatric institution.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9484697/Outrage-Kobili-Traore-avoids-trial-killing-Sarah-Halimi-high-cannabis.html

French police worker’s killer watched jihadist videos before attack: prosecutor

So now cops are racist even when they save a black person’s life?

The fury over the killing of Ma’Khia Bryant has exposed the cynicism and hypocrisy of the woke elites

BRENDAN O’NEILL
EDITOR 22nd April 2021

So now cops are racist even when they save a black person’s life? That’s the warped logic of the fury over the shooting of Ma’Khia Bryant. Bryant was a 16-year-old African-American girl who was shot dead by police in Columbus, Ohio on Tuesday, not long before the verdict in the Derek Chauvin case was read out. Cue online anger and activist rage. ‘Black lives matter!’, people cried. Yes, they do. Which is why that police officer shot at Bryant – because she was about to stab another black girl. ‘Black lives matter’ seems to have been the motivation for the cop’s behaviour.

The speed with which the killing of Bryant was folded into the woke, BLM narrative was extraordinary. And foolish. Because it quickly became very clear that this incident was more complicated than the virtue-signalling set realised. Police were called to a confrontation between young women in Columbus. Part of the bodycam footage from the officer who shot Bryant – Nicholas Reardon – has now been released. It clearly shows that Bryant was carrying a large knife and was closing in on one of the girls. Bryant seemed ready to lunge. Reardon opened fire. He saved a black girl from possible death or certainly from serious injury. Racist? Get real.

If BLM’s online army had waited for all the information, they wouldn’t have made such arses of themselves. Another cop killing another black person, they all sighed. Get ready to protest again, they said. LeBron James tweeted an image of Nicholas Reardon with the words ‘YOU’RE NEXT’ and the hourglass emoji, the implication being that Reardon was another Chauvin and he would soon get his just desserts. For helping a black girl who seemed to be in imminent and mortal danger? James later deleted the tweet, when more facts came out, but not before it was liked and shared thousands of times.

Perversely, even when it became widely known that Bryant was armed and seemed ready to use her weapon against another young black woman, some in the woke lobby doubled down on their fact-lite BLM-style blather. Valerie Jarrett – who had been a senior adviser, no less, to Barack Obama when he was president – said: ‘A Black teenage girl named Ma’Khia Bryant was killed because a police officer immediately decided to shoot her multiple times in order to break up a knife fight… #BlackLivesMatter.’ Not an iota of empathy for a cop who found himself in a very difficult situation. Not an ounce of appreciation for the fact that his actions helped to save a black life.

Some observers and activists came off as incredibly cavalier about the danger the young black woman in Bryant’s sights found herself in. It was just a knife fight, right? Filmmaker and activist Bree Newsome breezily said that ‘teenagers have been having… fights involving knives for eons. We do not need police to address these situations by showing up to the scene and using a weapon against one of the teenagers.’ Newsome, like many other members of the comfortable woke elite, supports defunding the police. If the police in Ohio had been defunded, and if they had failed to ‘show up’ to this knife fight, a young black woman would likely have been killed or terribly injured. Does that black life matter?

The woke set has gone from saying that unarmed black people should not be killed by the cops – a proposition that every normal person agrees with – to essentially saying that a knife fight should have been allowed to go ahead. Why get so het up about it? It’s just knives and girls. As Philip Klein at National Review put it, there now seems to be a ‘let-teenagers-knife-fight caucus’. ‘[T]he idea that cops need to take a step back and let teenagers stab it out with each other is completely insane’, he says. And the vast majority of people will agree with him. It is only the privileged graduates who make up what passes for ‘anti-racist’ activism these days who want the cops defunded.

Just as the cry of ACAB (‘All Cops Are Bastards’) in the UK has become the preserve of hyper-middle-class professional agitators who live largely cushioned, comfortable lives, so the view of all police action as problematic tends to be held by the kind of folks in the US who have got rich from wokeness and don’t need to worry about what goes on in those faraway rough neighbourhoods. Let them have their knife fights.

Of course there is a discussion to be had about the American police’s use of lethal force. The militarisation of US police forces is concerning. Could Ms Bryant have been stopped with a shot to the leg? That needs to be considered. Hopefully an investigation into the matter will provide us with a greater insight into whether Reardon might have behaved differently, and what the police in general should try to do in situations of imminent violence. But the narrative that was instantaneously weaved around the killing of Ms Bryant was not about having a cool, rational discussion about how police should respond in life-and-death scenarios. Rather, it was about creating another simplistic morality tale that would allow the privileged activists of BLM, Antifa and other woke outfits to posture once again against the evils of the world.

The tragic Bryant affair really reveals the moralistic impulse behind contemporary ‘anti-racism’. What we have in wokeness is not a continuation of the historical struggles for greater racial equality and fairer forms of justice, but rather a constant hunt for proof that white supremacy still stalks the US and that we need experts, activists and the occasional riot to keep it in check.

It is this tendency – this need, in fact – to read every situation and encounter through the lens of racism that led so many to assume that Reardon was another racist cop and Bryant was another George Floyd. In the 21st century ‘anti-racism’ has become an industry. It provides many people with moral authority, financial comfort and a sense of virtuous power. They were not about to let another possible white-cop-vs-black-person situation go unexploited. They need this stuff. And the girl who was in danger from Bryant? Meh. Not all black lives matter, it seems.

So now cops are racist even when they save a black person’s life? – spiked (spiked-online.com)

Derek Chauvin – the devil the woke elites needed

Arwen~ For the record, I do not agree with the demonizing of Chauvin…the police body cam and transcript showed a very different perspective and could have had a different outcome in the verdict. So I do not agree with the author’s view of Chauvin, but I do agree with many points made and how this was used.

BRENDAN O’NEILL
EDITOR21st April 2021

Derek Chauvin – the devil the woke elites needed

ShareTopicsPOLITICSUSA

I don’t care what happens to Derek Chauvin. Throw away the key. He did an unspeakable thing to George Floyd. His inhumanity was clear to all in that photo of him callously kneeling on this gasping, dying man. A jury, in its democratic wisdom, has found Chauvin guilty of murder. And that’s that.

But I do care about what became of Chauvin’s trial, what it was turned into. In the global whirlwind of commentary and condemnation that swept around the trial of one police officer in Minnesota, something else was taking shape. This became a trial of the United States itself. A trial of American history. And a trial of so-called whiteness. And that is something that should concern us all.

For it speaks to just how insidious the politics of identity has become. And, even worse, to the likelihood that racial division will actually intensify, in a new, woke form, off the back of this guilty verdict against Chauvin.

What is most striking about Floyd and Chauvin is how both have been turned into symbols. Floyd has attained saintly status in the woke world. The perfect victim, his iconic image reproduced in cities across the globe. Anyone who questions his saintliness, or uses his icon for humorous or insulting purposes, is liable to be branded a blasphemer. And Chauvin has been turned from a white police officer into a symbol of whiteness itself. He is seen to typify the rage and entitlement that are apparently the original sins of everyone who has the ‘privilege’ to be born white.

As a result, Floyd and Chauvin’s encounter in Minneapolis on 25 May 2020 is no longer seen as the tragic, desperate, cruel affair that it was, but rather as the perfect distillation of 300 years of American history. As proof of the wickedness of whiteness and of the continuing, unchanging oppression of black people. As a graphic testament to the truth of the woke narrative and its depiction of America as a white-supremacist nation.

In some ways, the Floyd and Chauvin encounter has become the origin story of the religion of identitarianism. The rapid, relentless globalisation of George Floyd’s icon and of the Black Lives Matter slogan – courtesy of the capitalist elites, the social-media oligarchs and celebrity influencers, all of whom played a key role in creating the global deity of Floyd and the global devil of Chauvin – speaks to how central this horrific story has become to the identitarian agenda in the 21st century.

The intense politicisation of the George Floyd tragedy, the treatment of both Floyd and Chauvin as representatives of their races, gave rise to something very worrying indeed – the idea of collective guilt. It isn’t only Chauvin who is guilty of dehumanising a black man. All white people do this, apparently. This is why, shortly after the killing of Floyd, the Archbishop of Canterbury called on ‘white Christians’ to ‘repent of our own prejudices’. It’s why we saw footage of white people in the US actually repenting, bowing down and pleading with blacks for forgiveness for the crimes of history.

It’s why even Time, that most mainstream of publications, could publish a piece saying: ‘White people have inherited this house of white supremacy, built by their forebears and willed to them.’ ‘White people, you are the problem’, said a Chicago Tribune piece on the killing of George Floyd.

So the problem wasn’t just Derek Chauvin and his callous, murderous behaviour. It was you and me, too. All white folks. We must share in his guilt. To see how reactionary and regressive this is, just imagine if, following a murder committed by a black man, a mainstream newspaper published the headline: ‘Black people, you are the problem.’ Just imagine that.

The collectivisation of Chauvin’s guilt, the projection of it on to all white people, confirmed how backward and dangerous the politics of identity is. It confirms that the new identitarianism deals almost exclusively in racial thinking, racial stereotypes and chilling ideas of racial guilt.

The new wokeness is not a continuation of earlier struggles against racial oppression, which were about liberating people from the prison of racialisation, from their reduction to mere racial creatures. On the contrary, it rehabilitates racialisation. It sees only racial blocs, not individuals. It collectivises the guilt of individual whites in the same way old-school racists once collectivised the guilt of individual blacks or individual Jews. And it re-educates us, through such regressive ideologies as critical race theory, to conceive of ourselves and everyone else as mere racial emblems. The association of all white people with the crimes of Derek Chauvin should give everyone pause for thought about the dark road politics is heading down right now.

And of course America was put on trial too. The angry uprisings that followed the killing of Floyd were not merely protests against racism. Rather, they were swept up into the broader identitarian impulse to depict America as a republic born in sin and American history as one crime after another.

The riots, the statue-smashing, the cancellations, the censorship, the frenzy of erasure against ‘problematic’ historical figures, the attempt to replace the actual founding date of the United States of America by scrubbing away 1776 in favour of 1619 – all of it spoke to the grim weaponisation of a tragic violent encounter to the end of furthering the misanthropic anti-Americanism and neo-racialism of the increasingly influential woke agenda.

Chauvin is guilty. It’s been established. Many Americans will rightly be celebrating. But the resolution of this case is unlikely to herald a new era of American unity or justice. On the contrary, it will be used to further institutionalise the hyper-racial ideologies of the new elites. All genuine progressives should be very concerned about that.

Derek Chauvin – the devil the woke elites needed – spiked (spiked-online.com)

Canada: Scientists & MDs Urge the Province of Ontario to Hold an Open Scientific Debate

“Why have early multidrug treatment measures, proven to be highly effective and including but not limited to ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, doxycycline, azithromycin and other compounds used routinely in other countries, not being employed to save lives in Ontario, an action that would virtually eliminate the perceived need for lockdowns, school closures, masking among other things.”

Arwen~ Lifesaving treatment withheld from Canadians, that is unconscionable and beyond wicked! Most Canadians are probably not even aware. I learned about this last year when speaking to a medical professional. Meantime, a clinically untested vaccine ( which is not a vaccine), and you can still get C-19 and spread it, that is approved for Canadians.

Eyes opened yet?

Presented without comment: Full clip of Candace Owens reacting to Derek Chauvin verdict

Arwen~ A very dangerous precedent has now been set. Key evidence that could have, would have changed the course of the trial and outcome was not allowed. Truth was sacrificed in order to keep a racist narrative alive.

https://notthebee.com/article/candace-owens-reacts-to-derek-chauvin-verdict?fbclid=IwAR39v5Q2HWh8jPPSBXlePQ9yAbE3uwMjmvTGQbhjKqe1lO7jJ297LFBoLY8

%d bloggers like this: