109 Replies to “Baby Boomer Children’s Network”

  3. Before Assud, Hamas’ use of a Mickey Mouse character called Farfur to preach hate gained worldwide condemnation.
    Oh yeah. Worldwide. Like it was on the CBC and in the Globe.

  5. Isn’t it racist to be pointing these things out to JQ Public? We’re creating hatred and fear of muslims by showing these things.
    So say the leftist idiots who sometimes come by here to post.

  6. You know what Hamas should do next?
    Send around a Holocaust tattoo photo, and then reveal that they actually faked the photo. You know, as a joke they were trying to pull on a guy who’s fighting anti-Semitism.

  7. I found it strangely satisfying when the “Jew” beat the living crap of Fartfur in the last episode that he was “martyred” in.
    This some of the most blatant propaganda I have ever seen. Anyone with half a brain would see right through it.
    I guess that’s why most Islamic terrorists are not too bright.

  8. You know what Hamas should do next?
    They should totally fake a Holocaust tattoo, take a photo of it, then send it to a prominent Canadian blogger who works for the Canadian Jewish Congress and actively tries to counter anti-Semitism. And then they should reveal it was a prank, designed to make the guy look bad! He’d be sooo embarassed! (And, at the same time, you’ve totally devalued Holocaust memory and victims – a twofer!)
    What’s even more ingenious is that when people call Hamas on faking the tattoo, the Hamas guys just have to look all innocent, shrug their shoulders, and be like all, “What? It was just all a bunch of numbers? That Jewish-loving guy assumes too much!”
    It’s a move fit for a bunch of terrorists and anti-Semites, I’d say.
    But what say you?

  9. Ringo,
    That you can’t see the difference between the two makes you the demented leftard you are.
    Your comment says far more about your lack of reasoned analysis of reality than it does about anyone else.
    That kind of moral blindness is the reason our society is in the peril it is.
    And I hope you don’t think Kinsella is fighting anything. He ain’t done jack. He and the worm are harassing nobodies because that’s what bullies do.

  10. Johnny,
    Your right, and they would be roundly criticized for it, but not for the Bunny cartoon.
    Actions reveal where the priorties lay. So protecting someones web honour is more important than them actually living up to their pre billing.

  11. Funny, the CJC seems to think Warren’s done quite a bit, actually. I guess you’ll have to take up your complaints with them.
    Now go back to defending Kate’s fake Holocaust tattoo photo. Or, sorry, that photo of the numbers that had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

  13. Are the CJC the same group who thinks Hamas killing Jews is none of its business but saving Darfur is?
    Is the CJC the same people who fight Nazis by crushing the liberties of Canadians in the same way that fascists and communists and other totalitarian thugs do, by eliminating free speech?
    Funny, I seem to have read many criticisms of the CJC by other Jewish organizations and Jewish writers.
    The CJC is an organization of Canadian Jews who speaks only for themselves. That they just happen to be Jewish gives them no more right to speak on behalf of all Jews than NAC has the right to speak on behalf of all women. There is no one official “voice” of all Jews any more than there is one official group who speaks for any other group. There are just self-interested groups claiming to.
    And hiring Kinsella isn’t there finest hour.

  14. Kate, I think this is much ado about nothing. I mean, really. If Islamists posed as much of a threat as you seem to think they do, Warren would have posted cell phone photos of their washroom graffiti by now.

  16. JohnnyRingo wrote:
    “You know what Hamas should do next?
    They should totally fake a Holocaust tattoo, take a photo of it, then send it to a prominent Canadian blogger who works for the Canadian Jewish Congress and actively tries to counter anti-Semitism. And then they should reveal it was a prank, designed to make the guy look bad! He’d be sooo embarassed! (And, at the same time, you’ve totally devalued Holocaust memory and victims – a twofer!)
    What’s even more ingenious is that when people call Hamas on faking the tattoo, the Hamas guys just have to look all innocent, shrug their shoulders, and be like all, “What? It was just all a bunch of numbers? That Jewish-loving guy assumes too much!”
    It’s a move fit for a bunch of terrorists and anti-Semites, I’d say.
    But what say you?”
    What say I?? Very little, for here I sit, slack jawed in amazement at this lunatic attempt at moral equivalence.
    Terrorists and anti-semites? You wouldn’t know either if they flew a jumbo jet into a skyscraper …. Oh wait …. never mind.

  17. Isn’t it funny that in the face of real anti-Semitism, real hate, real violence, all the leftards can do is bash Canadian conservatives for fictitious evils which dwell only in the poisoned minds of the delusional?
    What the posted story is about is real. This is the most vile, evil propaganda and all the infantile left can do is equate this with a prank. I found Kate’s prank a little over the top but to equate it with teaching violence and hate to children is the work of a defective mind.
    When we accuse the left of moral blindness and relativism, this is what we refer to. It’s indescribable, really.
    Not one of you has stated: even though we reject Kate, what Hamas has done is pure evil. You lot can’t even do that. Pathetic vermin scum you all are. You yell Racist! and Hate! all the time but obviously don’t understand either concept.
    Perhaps this disease is one of comfort. We in the west have been so lucky for so long that we no longer understand human nature and the lessons of history. We’ve never come face-to-face with real evil so we have to invent a child’s fantasy of evil to fight while ignoring what the rest of the world suffers as normal. It’s like the left are permanent children – unable to grow up.
    I don’t expect a rational, intellegent or mature response from the likes of Ringo or Volik – they’re incapable of it.
    I just wish some shrink would do a study to try and cure their stupidity.

  18. Johnny,
    So what level of condemnation is required for those who are disrespectful of the memory of those who suffered in the Holocoust. And what positions might be considered inappropriate for them…just curious.

  19. There’s no moral equivalence. I just think it’s a move that Hamas, given their nature, would likely emulate. I mean, you’ve got the whole using the Holocaust for an online prank thing down; you’ve got the attack on a guy who fights anti-Semitism well established; meanwhile, you’ve got a campaign of unrestricted free speech that, by the by, benefits Nazis and puts minority groups at risk with the removal of Human Rights Commission well underway…I mean, think about it. What Islamofascist wouldn’t think it’s a great idea?
    SDA…it really is your one stop shop.

  20. Ringo illustrates my point quite well, I’d say…
    Yup, without thought Nazis, the 4 stormfront losers would be runing the country in 10 minutes throwing minorities into gulags.
    Yup. Without crushing fundamental freedoms, our priviledges are at risk.
    You haven’t figured out that free speech helps you, too, have you? The left yelling “nazi!” at everyone who isn’t a leftard could be hauled in front of some kangaroo court, too. You ever think of that? Of course not.
    You’re contemptable.
    And hamas wouldn’t make fun of the holocaust as they deny it took place at the same time they want to finish what Hitler started. Idiot.

  21. Stephen,
    Something tells me Kate will be better suited to answer that question. Ask her now…and then ask her in a week.

  24. Why would I be? It was in a satirical film, produced by a Jewish guy named Mel Brooks, that was aimed at, among other targets, anti-Semites and Nazis. Context, people, context.
    Holy mary mother of god, do you guys miss the point of everything?

  26. “Context, people, context.”
    Johnny, you’re just too funny. For a guy who doesn’t get context (if you did you wouldn’t still be ranting on about how Warren punk’d himself), now you’re going to lecture us about context… You know you’re not even in the game don’t you?
    BTW, making a comedic satire about one of the most heinous mass murderers of our time is very disrespectful of his victims, don’t you think? Or is it ok because a Jew made it? Let’s be consistent here.
    BTW2 “guy who fights anti-semitism well-established” You talkin’ about WK? Warren follows the paycheck. He’ll fight for whoever is prepared to drop the coin. The CJC and WK and anti-sem are simply the cause du jour. I thought you knew your history?

  27. Tell ya what, I think what Kate is interested in, at this point, is notoriety. This is her way of saying “Bite me!” OK. So we are all aware that Kate is her own girl and she rides a motorcycle and she has the right to promote as much illwill as she likes. Good.
    I would love to hear Kate come out of the closet, though, and take a little responsibility for what she’s doing. I mean, someone here the other day suggesting I am a “link whore”, so can I fairly suggest Kate is an “attention whore”?

  28. Warwick, I get that you’re just fine with making light of the Holocaust to pull one over on ole Warren. I get that. But you know, a whole lot of people don’t get that.
    Before this week is out, I’ve a funny feeling that a whole lot of people – outside of the blogosphere, that is – are going to know exactly what was pulled here. If Warren is good at anything, he’s good at getting his message out to a whole lot of people. Take this thing public, and a lot of people are going to be wondering who in the heck thought it was a good idea to perpetrate the image of a Holocaust tattoo for laughs.
    Because, at least in my opinion, that doesn’t fly in society. Go ahead, back up your arguments with the whole HRC/Levant/Steyn approach. In fact, I’m pretty sure ole Warrsy is begging for you to make that argument, loudly, in public. I humbly submit that most Canadians – you know, those millions of Canadians who don’t spend their days with you in the echo chamber – will wonder why the heck you want to gut human rights protections, and ensure that Nazis have the same right to free speech as you or I. People will listen to you, sure – and then they’ll ask what planet you’re from. Throw the Holocaust tattoo prank on top of that, and they’ll soon be asking questions about public safety and involuntary committal laws.
    And, I suspect, Warren knows this only too well. So do his friends in the media, the government and across any number of interest groups.
    I could be wrong. He may have written off the whole thing…but I doubt it.

  29. John D, remember, Think, before action. Think. You keep getting the order wrong… dyslexia can be something of an impediment for a wannabe writer.

  30. Daly,
    You can say you want to have sex with lab rats for all I care.
    As for Kate’s responsibility, don’t make me laugh. For the people who missed the point and reverted to the perpetually offended at the risk of noticing their own hypocrisy, suck it up.
    I didn’t hear any of you yell “anti-Semite” every time some leftard university department or union sets up a new boycott of Israeli scholars. Especially in light of their lack of a boycott to the people who brought you the Jew-Hating Bunny for 4 year-olds.
    How’s that for context?
    Why is the left perpetually inventing fictitious evils at the same time ignoring real evils? Are you that blind? Is it masochism? Stupidity? Paranoid delusions? What?
    The movie “Life is Beautiful” was a comedy that used the holocaust as a backdrop. I don’t see it as different than what Kate did. In neither case was the Holocaust the point.
    Mel Brooks made comedy about the Nazis because he is smart enough to know that ridicule is the best way to counter bad ideas. Kate was going after a pretentious windbag who would crush our rights and liberties. She didn’t go after the Holocaust.
    Why are leftards so thick?

  31. Ringo, again, you’re just too cute. You do realize that you guys lost the last election don’t you? The word is already out that WK got his ass handed to him this weekend. Even his friends are snorkling behind his back, if not to his face, about how badly he botched this. You keep trying to make this Kate’s problem. Its not. Its Warren’s spitball, not hers. Warren dragged in the holocaust, not Kate. Warren got indignant, not Kate. Warren got egg on his face, not Kate. Take your threats and stuff ’em. Some of the people who play on SDA are media, the government and across any number of interest groups… capiche?
    “soon be asking questions about public safety and involuntary committal laws.” LOL! Leftard twit.
    Now, to get back to the thread – see the elephant in the room yet?

  33. Ringo,
    “will wonder why the heck you want to gut human rights protections”
    Well smarty-pants, point to the Canadian Charter of Rights and tell me what section contains the right not to be offended.
    Then look up the part about Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and Freedom of Association and notice that they are not regular rights but FUNDAMENTAL human rights. These are also in the UN equivalent of which Canada is a signatory.
    You want to continue a system where real rights are crushed in favour of group privileges. Your delicate sensibilities are NOT more important than FUNDAMENTAL human rights.
    Clearly you need to look up what human rights are. You clearly don’t understand the concept.
    “Before this week is out, I’ve a funny feeling that a whole lot of people – outside of the blogosphere, that is – are going to know exactly what was pulled here.”
    I doubt it. The media will say what it wants to say which is rarely correspondent with the facts. The “public” are sheep. Exhibit A is the poll in the UK where people thought Winston Churchill was a fictional character. The public will continue to be spoon-fed the pabulum the elites want them to know.

  35. JohnnyRingo said:
    “Canadians … will wonder why the heck you want to gut human rights protections, and ensure that Nazis have the same right to free speech as you or I”
    thereby demonstrating that he is a little unclear on the concept. [And by a little unclear I mean clueless.]
    I think Kate’s prank was tacky, but I’ll take her understanding of human rights over JohnnyRingo’s every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
    And while I’m at it, I’ll just point out that the Enriching Their Folklore post was the perfect follow up to Silence Wikipedia. The juxtaposition of the responses to two examples of objectional or offensive use of free speech is the real lesson here.

  36. Would you and the other self appointed thought police allow regular people to speak of gay’s once you have ruled your Nazi topic “unspeakable”, Johhny Dingo Ate My Baby?
    How about muslim people, or Islam?
    Would you ball licking jackbooted freaks allow us the dispicable topic of, dare I say it, Indians?
    Black people? (Out loud I said it)
    Which identifiable group wouldn’t you pimp yourself out for.
    You are a Nazi idiot.
    Hitler would have been a zit on the ass of human suffering if it wasn’t for totally partisan crack lickers like yourself, who would silence all dissent, by the use of government force.
    I will gladly die, like my brother before me, to protect my freedom from coward PsOS like you.
    GFY

  38. I thoroughly enjoyed The Great Hoax of 2008, but I’m getting an equal amount of enjoyment from the pissant whining from people like ringo and daly.
    Good point, Skip. Even people that side with kinsella must be wondering why their Machiavellian (Mickey-avellian?) backroom boy got his butt handed to him. This is the big time strategist that kicks ass?
    From the start of this feud he’s responded with nothing but abuse, threats and crude sexual innuendo. There’s your poster boy, libs.

  39. I will just be glad when Israel stops pussy footing around and takes out Hamas and the Hezzassholes.

  40. Not only are the right, right, we have to protect the snivelling cowards on the left.
    There are days when you just want to say fuck it, let the muslims bring in sharia law and literally beat the left into the ground with it. The left are so stupid they believe the muslims with just use sharia law against each other, won’t apply to them. The left are ok with the muslims treating their females like dogs, and killing the gays within the muslim community. So dumb they don’t understand it is the infidel they really want a go at.
    Do you suppose when the stoning to death of females for being females, and watching gays on fire hanging by one leg off a bridge comes in vogue, the left will realize their stupidity?

  41. Warwick – let it go. Yes, what Kate got Warren to do to himself was righteous, appropriate, and well-deserved. The “tears on command” crowd refuse to acknowledge it because they would then have to stop living in the past and be forced to confront the present.
    Now, to the point: why should the racism of Hamas elicit a racist response from us? We ghettoize the Jews (many still do it to themselves) by accepting the Hamas/Islamofacist bloodlust as merely a Jewish thing. This is a flat-out lie: it is a human thing – no quibbles, no categorization. Some people want to murder, in some of the most horrible ways possible, other people. I’m people too. I object. If you think the present “unpleasantness” in the mideast is “a Jewish problem”, or that the holocaust was “a Jewish problem”, then you are merely timid little racists hoping to duck the problem a little longer. Hey, maybe the horse will sing!
    A salute to our hostess for busting the racist chains of our social pieties and refusing to bow before the current gods of the marketplace.
    Let the dead bury the dead. What are you going to do for the living?

  43. Tenebris,
    I sure as hell hope you didn’t also refer to me in your second paragraph.
    No one said Hamas is only a Jewish thing – or was 9/11 not a hint? Islamic fascism and imperialism is a threat to all groups including the rights of their own people. No one said different.

  44. Kinsella isn’t fighting against anti-semitism; he’s fighting only for his own ego. And he does this by aligning himself with parties that self-define themselves as Warriors, as Heroes Against Evils..such as racism.
    That’s the Liberal Party, which based its electoral victories in large party by balkanizing immigrants into separate Groups (known as Identity Politics). Then, it funded these Groups to remain unintegrated and unassimilated and adversarial with everyone else; it funded their separate schools, foundations, ‘cultural’ centres. And in return – it got their votes. Lots of votes.
    Did the Liberal Party give a damn about the ethical and human rights values of any of these groups? Not a bit. All were equal, all were valid voters and workers in the election campaign. So, whether it was Hezbollah or the CJC, the Liberals were there.
    Kinsella operates the same way. He wants something, which is to be thought of as a Hero, a White Knight. He’s for all and every minority group. That requires publicity – eg, the swastika in the boy’s washroom, which to him, meant The Nazis are Coming.
    But think about what he did to retain his hero status. He rejected changing Section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act. We’ve been all through why it’s a violation of human rights in itself. But Warren, rather than arguing about it, set himself up as the Savior of Minorities Who Feel Offended, by a totally false analogy.
    Compare:
    Dogs are animals
    Cats are animals.
    Therefore dogs are cats.
    Warren told us:
    Ezra Levant/Conservatives are against Section 13.1
    White Supremacists are against Section 13.1
    Therefore, Conservatives are racist White Supremacists.
    That’s what Kinsella wrote on his blog.
    There’s no need to rush to defend Kate or any conservative as being against the Holocaust. It isn’t the issue. What IS the issue, is Kinsella and other Liberals who, without thought, without evaluation, support each and every claim of ‘hurt feelings’ via the HRAct Section 13.1.

  45. …..will wonder why the heck you want to gut human rights protections, and ensure that Nazis have the same right to free speech as you or I.
    They should. There is no right corresponding to free speech that one gets protected from being offended, you numbskull.
    I’ll give you a “why”, because with our heritage of English Common Law evolved over a thousand years our speech is free and absolute. It’s not for you or me or the state to decided who is shut up. If a handful of idiotic Nazis want to post garbage in a newslettler, on the internet or take their case to talk radio, then, let them. It’s words, not bullets. They’ve been around for 60 years and haven’t so much as taken over a gas station or given anyone a heart attack with their statements. Are they offensive numbskulls, sure, and obviously 99.9% of the population ignores them. That’s the point in a free society. We decide what to ignore rather than the state censors speech.
    The University of Colorado did not fire Ward Churchill for his bilious remarks. He was fired for blatant plagarism. Fire.org, a conservative watchdog organization protecting free speech on campuses, would have defended him if he was fired for his statements only. The ACLU, an organization over-represented with Jewish attorneys, years back defended a Nazi march in Skokie IL, in spite of how disgusting they viewed them, because the right to free speech trumps the speech itself. You don’t arbitrarily give that right away to the state.
    Little numbskulls like yourself are truly more dangerous in a free society than a handful of sad little Nazis sympathizers.
    “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”…..Voltaire.

  46. Apologies up front for the length of post.
    JR,
    I just want to understand something.
    If the use of symbol or a word (in a non satirical way) is considered offensive and worthy of banning. And those who use them, either directly or indirectly through promotion are not worthy of protection and are somehow equivalent to Nazi’s and their horrendous ideology.
    What Should I to make of this given the above.
    http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?m=11&y=07&entry=entry071121-093959 proudly and prominently displayed, rightfully so because the music was damn good.
    Lets get a closer look
    http://cgi.ebay.com/JOY-DIVISION-LOVE-WILL-TEAR-WHT-BORDER-25×36-POSTER_W0QQitemZ200199549402QQihZ010QQcategoryZ108824QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
    And lets look at a definition of the name
    http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/joy-division-(world-war-ii)/
    And lets take a look at the cover of their first EP
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Ideal_for_Living
    Hitler Youth as far as I can tell.
    So applying the same equation we end up with the same hypocrite answer. Am I to assume that we should conclude that Mr Kinsella doesnt take the Holocoust as a serious matter because he prominently displays in his office a poster with a band name that makes frivolous or attention grabbing reference to an alleged use of holocoust victims?
    It is about context, because Joy Division was a band and the name was to attract attention to its music. There were controversies about them, significant ones and the same arguments were had when they hit the music scene. Apparently the arguments dont matter now because it really didnt mean anything because Joy Division or their quasi Nazi named follow up band (New Order) werent about Fascism or anti semitism…..
    The purpose is to demonstrate the faux outrage going on. It is really is a little much
    So warren deserves his props for being a racism fighter (I really mean that, it is a sincere comment) But the contradictions are huge, which when someone is so vigourous in their request to limit general rights, has to make you wonder what the motivatition is when there are inconsistent applications.
    You ask a question do Nazi’s have the same rights to free speech as you and I. Well I think there are similar LIMITS, since my right to free speech isnt absolute (fire in a crowded theatre, threats etc) I assume their limits are the same. The discussion is about where does the threat begin in their communication, since we all agree that threats of death are limited speech. And are the sanctions on those threats evenly applied to all threats regardless of source.
    The best laws are general, apply to all, rather than point solutions, targetting one group. White Supremicists and neo nazi’s hold repugnant ideas that deserve condemantion when they gather any prominence, but we should be able to contain and starve these ideas with laws that are equally applied, which means it shouldnt be able to be used for unintended targets, which appears to be happening at this time under Section 13. Even Mr Kinsella has said the law needs reform since the driftnet appears a little large.
    The prank, has a context. Everyone can make their own decision if it was funny or not, clever or not in good taste or not. What I am surprised at is that there would be a threat…”wait a week”….however the threat, I am assuming legal action, is the right of whoever brings it.
    This isnt about agreeing with the noxious ideas of Nazi’s and white supremicists, and the sophomore rhetoric trying to tie people Nazi’s is unbecoming, I really think the responsbility about the level of debate is quite equally shared.
    The goal should be about ensuring that there isnt an abuse of law that brings the law itself into disrepute, which comes from inconsistent application and/or over application.
    I wish white supremicists didnt exist, quite frankly I dont believe there are many of them around. But you’ll never eliminate all of them and the process of trying to do that will cause a backlash. Warren knows this, which is why he is properly concerned about the Macleans and Levant cases (specious, his word)
    So where does that leave us. Section 13 is in need of reform or elimination, of that there is general agreement….which option and how far to take it is the real question.

  48. Stephen,
    If your post was for Ringo, you waste your time.
    Otherwise, good post. I’m not sure I’d assume that Kinsella would know of the controversy of Joy Division or its meaning (I wasn’t and I own their compilation album as well as a bunch of New Order from the 80’s.)
    New Order was launched by airplay by the Gay community so purhaps Kinsella only knows part of the story. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt he wouldn’t extend to others.

  49. Thanks Warwick. I am sure WK knows the source of the name, being an afficionado of the music scene he would be keenly informed.
    As well, you couldnt be on a campus in the early 80’s and not be aware of the criticism, especially if you are concerned about things that are potentially anti semitic.
    The point is, there is no point. You can generate outrage, concern and fury (in an hour no less) about many things. The question remains not whether there is a right to express the outrage, there is, but where the state steps in.
    It is a problematic which outrages, as defined by the outraged, that the state should become involved in. Better as a general rule. This is the essence of the problem. As demonstrated in my earlier post, you can spin whatever you want based on spewing allegation and and pointing to relationships or common positions.

  50. Warwick, Skip, Stephen et al:
    How dumb are you guys? I know it’ll be a surprise to you but you might want to consider that Ringo, John D and others might possibly be trolls. Keep on feeding them and taking their sucker bait and they’ll be with us forever.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation