Saturday, 17 January 2015

Why Charlie Hebdo Would Not Happen Here - Canadian MGTOW

Why Charlie Hebdo Would Not Happen Here - Canadian MGTOW

Butt Hurt Cream!
Butt Hurt Cream!

The Video

 Video Transcript

This is Canadian MGTOW.  Having fun, and not giving a shit...

Today's video is called, Why Charlie Hebdo Would Not Happen Here.

On 7 January 2015, two Islamist gunmen (directed by an "Al Qaeda cell in Yemen") forced their way into and opened fire in the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, killing twelve, including staff cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Honoré, Tignous and Wolinski, economist Bernard Maris and two police officers, and wounding eleven, four of them seriously.

Some people in Canada, and North America as a whole, said that couldn't happen here. Regular bullshit lines like, "we don't allow as many immigrants from 'that' part of the world", or just blind faith in our security agencies.  It's not an organization, not a government body, not even an organized army, yet if permeates every section of everyday life.  No, what really would prevent an attack would be a force that is the twin sister of feminism. No, it's not equality.  No, it's not freedom.   It's political correctness.

One opinion piece on Sun News asked the question what if Charlie Hebdo was published somewhere else like Britain.  What follows are some of their speculations mixed with my own of what would happen if Charlie Hebdo was published in Canada.  I'll let my American viewers make their own judgements, on how things might of turned out if Charlie Hebdo was published in the US.  Perhaps they can play the game of W.W.O.D. 

What would, Obama Do?

Our universities would, when they are not busy stifling debate, would forbid the magazine on campuses, while a few students would protest outside of the Hebdo office. This would eagerly be covered by the CBC.  For those outside of Canada, it is our national, publicly funded broad caster, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  Quite often derided as being the Communist Broadcasting Corporation for its leftist views.  Quite recently, in real life,  David Studer, the head of journalism standards and practices at CBC, sent a note to staff saying they would not offend Muslims. "We are not showing cartoons making fun of the Prophet Mohammad. Other elements of Charlie Hebdo's con-tent and style are fine, but this area should be avoided as, quite simply, it's offensive to Muslims as a group," Studer wrote.  CBC's standards include offending Catholics but keeping Muslims happy.  When Pope Benedict resigned, the CBC had no problems showing cartoons about this news event, including one of the Pope embracing a Swiss Guard, while saying "Free at last." The cartoon implied that the Pope had resigned to be with his gay lover.  I guess offending Catholics is okay.  They are a group of typically white men, and we all know that it is open season on white men.

Naturally, the next step would be a petition.  Our social justice warriors, would demand bookstores, grocery stores, basically anyone from selling the magazine.  They would claim islamaphobia, while ignoring that other religions that are mocked as well.  The stores would relent, thinking 1000 butt-hurt people represents 100,000 customers, and stop carrying the magazine.  Some smaller obscure stores would carry it but nervously put in behind the copies of Hustler and Penthouse.  Our biggest book retailer, Indigo,  would pull the magazine well before the hoopla.  The instance anything mocked Jewish people or Israel, the head of the chain, Heather Reisman, would pull it.  Not a far stretch of the imagination.  She made news years ago, when she refused to carry copies of Hitler's book, Mein Kumph.  You won't find it on any shelves in her stores, as you have to special order it.

Of course, what is a petition without a hash-tag?  These Hash-tags would be something un-original like "Stop Charlie".  Something more honest would be, "Because Butt Hurt", "Stifle Debate", "End Free Speech",  "Accommodate Everything", "Gutless",  and "Fear their Religion."

Of course no twitter storm goes un-exploited.  The Liberal party leader, and male feminist, Justin Trudeau, would jump behind it, as well as the NDP.  To protect their re-election prospects, the Conservatives would jump on board.

One of the magazine's editors would visit one of the universities to speak about "freedom of the press", but would be shouted down at the beginning of his talk with chants of "Racist", "Islamophobe", and some 4 word chant that rhymes.  Some students, unaware of history, will find it cute to burn the magazines on campus.  Those who think this is far-fetched, it is not.  Anyone deemed to be an anti-abortionist, right-wing (as was the case with Ann Coulter), or, gasp..., a men's right's advocate, would of seen these talks cancelled, shouted down, or worse. In the case of a men's rights speaker, they first shouted him down, then pulled the fire alarm, effectively ending the lecture.   Recently, one professor of Islamic studies and journalism, was quoted as saying that Prime Minister Harper using the word barbaric to describe the terrorist attack at Hebdo, was "too much" and gives the discussion a "moralistic tone."  Sadly, this professor is training the next generation of journalists.  They "might" be brave enough to say, "I am Charlie.", but won't show the cartoons.  Perhaps in the future, these attacks will simply be referred to as, "Ballistic Vandalism."

Continuing on with this theoretical scenario....

 Naturally a complaint would be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It's purpose is to investigate, and settle complaints of discrimination, in employment and in services under federal jurisdiction.  Under the Employment Equity Act, they ensure that equal opportunities are provided for Canada's four most cherished groups:  Aboriginal people, the disabled, visible minorities, and of course women.  They will simply complain that Hebdo does not employ enough visible minorities.  More fodder for the mainstream press.

Defeated, the editor would leave the hall, through a throng of protestors.  The editor would be jostled, lose his balance and bump into someone who immigrated from Syria.  The immigrant would fall to the ground, cameras focussed on her pained and surprised expression. Bonus points if the Syrian was wearing a hockey jersey, and the fall caused him to spill his drink, Canada's national drink, Tim Horton's Coffee. This would surpass the time a protestor got too close to the previous prime minister, and was pushed away by the leader.  He simply used his hand to push the protestor's face out of the way, but it was a topic of debate for weeks.   I found it charming when the Prime Minister later told reporters that he, "Took him out."

The national news would feature 4 or 5 person panels debating the recent events, but it would be a joke, because all the panelists would be from left leaning media outlets.  All would agree that things were escalating, and that someone might get seriously injured, or killed!  What if the coffee that was spilled, had burned a hemophiliac baby in a stroller?  What if this lead to hate crimes against the place that sells falafels?  We are all foodies aren't we? Oh, and I just love Hummus!

Eventually some reporter would dig up dirt on the editor.  They would find out he made legal campaign contributions to a politician who made an off-colour remark 17 years ago.   Leaked police records would show the high cost of police protection during the various protests and failed lecture attempts.  An investigative report on TV would exclaim that the editor never travelled anywhere in the middle east, so he simply must be racist.  A grocery store cashier would be interviewd, in a dark room, and his voice electronically altered.  The explosive relevation would come forward that the editor would buy bread every week, but it would always be WHITE bread!

Various immigrant groups, social justice groups, and a high profile lawyer, would take legal action against the magazine.  In Britain they would make reference to 3 different laws; incitement to racial hatred, malicious communications, and public disorder.  In Canada it would be a more streamlined process, and simply fall under the umbrella of a hate-crime!  Whether the case was one or not, with declining sales, negative press, and various employees leaving for quieter and safer jobs, the magazine would fold, much like most Canadian magazines eventually do under the crush of American publishing giants.  In the rare event that the magazine moved overseas, and a similar attack occurred at their new location the dialogue would be, "Good thing  they moved out of Canada!  Those could of been Canadians that were shot!"  Any mention of free speech would be absent as the discussion would inevitably turn to gun control, and how much safer we are to live in a country like Canada where we are truly free to express ourselves.

The policy of APPEASEMENT never works to protect any country's security.  If you are MGTOW, you know how debating, or even questioning  a feminist can devolve into name calling and being branded out of hand, as a misogynist.  As the evil twin sister of feminism, this political correctness serves only to shut down debate.  I used to think it was just a way for a hyper-sensitive, idiot,  to be a grammar nazi.  In truth, it is intellectual terrorism.  It does nothing but kill discussion.  Once you control the language, you control the thoughts.  In the end, political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hate.

With bullying being such a hot topic for the past 5 years, how do these politically correct minions reconcile their political correctness on the one hand, and their stance of bullying on the other.  Do they not see that this is bullying by a small group?  Perhaps, this is why political correctness is a constantly moving line. Growing up in Canada in the 1970s, disabled people were simply referred to as, crippled.  This later changed to handicapped, which later changed to physically disabled.  Physically disabled, then changed to, physically challenged.  But I guess no one likes a challenge, so now it is being called, "Differently abled."  What will they call it next?  Walking intolerant?

In conclusion, the terrorists have already won, and quite a while ago too.  Islamic fanaticism thrives on secrecy, censorship and fear, threatening all those who dare raise their voices against it.  Most media in Canada have not shown the cartoons.  So when fanaticism arrives here and goes nuclear, will our journalists simply "Duck, and Cover."  I think so.

This concludes this article... If you enjoyed this video, please comment, rate and subscribe.  Thank you. This is Canadian MGTOW, signing off! Save yourself! Go MGTOW...

No comments: