She was born as a slave, escaped, and helped others to escape. She changed her name later and I have forgotten both names. Sorry, I have no plans to memorize either name.
Her escape maneuvers and liberation were "good things" but they were mostly good for her and several people similar to hers. What she did may be viewed as her unsurprising care for her own interests. I just don't think it's right to say that those deeds were great acts for the United States of America or the mankind. For such reasons, I consider this replacement of Andrew Jackson to be a political kitsch of a sort or, as Donald Trump unsurprisingly said after I wrote the previous part of the sentence, it is pure political correctness. (Trump would place the "fantastic" woman on a bill no one uses.)
I am confident that most Americans have the same feeling but they're not even allowed to safely make this point because they're no longer in charge of their country and they have lost much of their freedom.
But back to the main topic.
Two weeks ago, Larry Summers wrote an essay for the New York Post arguing that anti-Semitism ended up being the only "hate" allowed in campus "safe spaces". It just happened that two days ago, Harvard Law Record (the oldest school-affiliated newspaper in America) told us about the Harvard talk that Tzipi Livni, Israel's most influential female politician, gave last Thursday.
Questions and answers began and a student in the back of the room asked a "question":
How is it that you are so smelly? ... A question about the odor of Ms. Tzipi Livni, she’s very smelly, and I was just wondering.Now, this is truly disgusting – because it's just so utterly personal and biological. And because it creates some association in people's minds (including yours) that simply cannot be easily erased.
Needless to say, the intense propaganda about the smell of the Jews was a part of the Nazi regime's algorithm to dehumanize all the Jews. Even if the comment had nothing to do with her being a Jew (as the "forced apology" letter by student tries to pretend – he didn't have a clue that it could be interpreted as anti-Semitism, we hear, wow!), it's just distasteful. People shouldn't be publicly shamed in this intimate way even if the observation were right. And when the shaming is done by someone who studies to become a lawyer at the world's most famous school?
Is it true that some malodor can be detected near the politician? I don't know. I ignore this piece of information, partly because the student was located on the opposite side of the full room, so he couldn't have safely determined who was the source of the smell if there was one at all. Years that I have spent in the environment with Jewish folks don't confirm stereotypes of this kind.
All of this is ironic because Livni is a left-wing politician and she could be criticized by her more conservative opponents in Israel, too. I was still betting that this hostile attack wasn't an attack from the right (one reason is that there's almost no "Right" in the People's Republic of Cambridge). Instead, I thought that it had to be an attack from a clueless nasty member of the unholy alliance of the leftists and Islamists.
After some research, e.g. using Twitter, I learned that the name of the 3rd year student was Husam El-Coolaq (Husam El-Qoulaq as spelled by himself). Harvard has been doing everything it could to conceal this important information. It's politically incorrect to learn that the "nice" Arabs are the true heirs to the ideas of Adolf Hitler, isn't it? This blog may very well be the only widely read outlet where you can learn it.
Gene Day who often enriches us by his talk about the nice Muslims in California will be happy to learn that Husam El-Coolaq was born in San Diego.
It wasn't hard to verify that just a few days ago, the Arab student belonged to the leadership of anti-Israel student organizations. These people constantly whine and claim to be victims. But it's OK for these individuals to go full Auschwitz. Except for a soft "disapproving" letter by the dean Martha Minow, there hasn't been any backlash. At Harvard, you're not allowed to mock feminism but to publicly shame top Israeli politicians by claims that they stink is just totally OK. It's welcome, isn't it? This verbal Palestinian terrorist is fighting for the oppressed classes, isn't he?
Now, an "apology" by this student was published. He was a member of Justice for Palestine and a leader of BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) but the readers (who are not told about his identity) are urged to believe that he didn't know that the claim could be interpreted as a sign of anti-Semitism? I mean, this is just absolutely incredible. The people are being manipulated maximally. When you learn about the identity of the student – which most people aren't allowed to – you can't have the slightest doubt that Livni was being shamed because of her being Jewish.
The "apology" letter was arguably written and published to show everyone that it's just perfectly fine to behave in this way at the Harvard Law School. The people who allowed him to publish the "apology" letter know his name as well as we do and they therefore know that the claim that the shaming had nothing to do with her being Jewish is a self-evident lie. But they encourage this terrorist to spread these lies, anyway, because these lies is what the pathological politically correct discourse at Harvard and much of the U.S. wants.
This Arab guy isn't good enough for the Harvard Law School and it's likely that most Arab guys and girls could only get to the school because of the affirmative action that has run amok. But to make this easily justifiable statement is surely more politically incorrect at Harvard than to adopt the Nazi algorithms to dehumanize the Jews, isn't it?
A 15-minute Czech video named "Let Us Play Sir" (shot near Cologne Upon Elbe) showing that our society is getting brown. The Muslim immigrant arrives from Turkey to meet the two brownshirts around 7:10. ;-)
Breivik won a complaint
Meanwhile, in Norway, Anders Breivik succeeded with the complaint that his human rights were trampled upon because he was too lonely in the prison. It reminds me of the joke about the killer of his own parents who demanded to be freed because he's an orphan.
Breivik's complaint that his PlayStation in the prison didn't have the latest firmware was disapproved by the court, however. Any any rate, I have a problem to imagine that the leader of the whites in their existential war against Islam is a guy who cries because he feels homesick.
Legal advantages for Muslims don't quite avoid Czechia, either
Meanwhile, in Czechia, sociologist Petr Hampl wrote about two lawsuits that indicate that the concept of "Untermenschen" and "Übermenschen" is being revived: Muslims get a qualitatively more favorable treatment.
First, the boss of the Bloc Against Islam (and entomologist) Mr Martin Konvička was charged with something, a statement claimed to be of racist character. But it's pretty clear, as Hampl points out, that the real reason why Hampl is being harassed is his idea – he's been vigorously defending and explaining for years – that Islam isn't a pure religion but mainly a perverted totalitarian ideology. Because of this aspect, a hypothetical loss of Mr Konvička in the court may basically outlaw the discussions about Islam in the whole country.
The second example Mr Hampl offers is a lawsuit against a medical high school in Prague that dared to demand that a female Muslim student avoids the Islamic outfit (the school banned jihad or hijab or what's the exact word) – even though totally analogous restrictions of clothing are routinely applied to the traditional white students (you hopefully understand why chaos in physicians' clothing could be counterproductive). This is also a revival of the "Untermenschen" concept – as well as a possible result fully compatible with Islam – because according to the Islamic teachings, the conquered population isn't allow to criticize Islam while the Muslims' criticisms of the conquered population remains unrestricted.
(A top lawyer Aleš Rozehnal argues that the legality of the ban of the hijabs by the school is directly guaranteed by the Czech Constitution. Our being a secular country means that the government or any institution of the state has no right or power to restrict schools' or companies' or individuals' approach to religious questions. Also, schools have the task to be neutral forums where people may be exposed to many ideas equally – and which also teach the students to appreciate the equality of sexes and other things. Hijabs conflict with all these things.)
The double standards putting the white Europeans into a huge disadvantage are self-evident, Hampl says, and links to a shocking video promoting the killing of the Europeans whose authors and propagators haven't faced any problems at all.
Hampl also says it's scary that both lawsuits I mentioned above were filed by the Czech government. He also says that the proponents of the "Untermenschen" – the SJWs – have spread across the political spectrum. Jiří Dienstbier is a social democrat, Robert Pelikán is from the billionaire's ANO, Anna Šabatová is basically green (but partly Christian Democrat), and these folks enjoy quite some support from numerous intellectuals. So these are not acts of an isolated lunatic but something whose existence is systemic.
Do we want the Muslims and Islam to be above the law? Do we want our societies to resemble Indonesia where a Christian woman just chose to be lashed (and not jailed) for her selling bottles with a beverage even though she doesn't worship the religion that makes it illegal to sell beverages?
Just like 70 years ago, the state apparatus has apparently gotten mad. It's not bringing citizens to concentration camps but it's throwing them to the Islamic extremists to be raped, beheaded, or tortured. Bearded men are chuckling in the background, realizing that "Allah managed to fool the infidels' minds". In reality, the government officials were fooled by subsidies, their lazy lifestyle, lousy education, unfulfilled ambitions, and a long-term training in despising the ordinary citizens. The real cause differs from the unreal one but the effects are the same.
Merkel about "post-war German refugees"
In a short essay titled German chancellor surpasses the limits of bad taste, Czech ex-president Klaus mentions an incredible remark by Angela Merkel at a congress of the Federation of Expellees – more precisely, as Klaus says, a union of Germans who were sent home as a revenge for the terrible evil that they and their nationalism and expansionism had caused during several years before 1945.
But he comments on her incredible statement over there that Germany has had a great experience with the incorporation of the expellees/refugees in and after 1945 and this great example may be built upon now, too. Wow. What she forgot to mention was that the people who came to Germany in and after 1945 were Germans and members of the German culture that they previously tried to spread – sometimes aggressively – in countries such as ours. Therefore, they couldn't have faced any of the "problems with integration" that the folks from the Muslim world face today. The analogy is obviously totally nonsensical.
The chairman of the federation said that "we have to be role models for humanity and solidarity". Did the word "we" refer to the Germans or the expellees, Klaus asks? I am not 100% sure what he wants to say by this question but I think that his point is that the chairman implicitly realizes that there's no real difference between the two groups, even though the claim that such a difference exists would be necessary for Merkel's claim not to be ludicrous.