Kates Playgroundfree Stream

In rtard in r'tard I'm r'tard!

have a decidedly Blog is an exercise very difficult. Seeing Desouche videos lately, I noticed the "details" which seemed interesting. But today, when I finally decided to write, I discovered that the offending videos had disappeared in the maze of internet ... You'll have to take my word (I'm sure it will be easy) and I have to believe my memory (more difficult).

First, there was the video this article, which no longer exists.

Rokhaya Diallo is not his first attempt and is almost as fascinating (but less common) than Houria Bouteldja. But what really made me smile, it was to hear in this show, indignant cons a "blind justice" . I think she mentioned that the accused were reported by an anonymous witness and paid. It was really a case of "blind justice," Mrs. Diallo prostestait length, which apparently did not realize it was a compliment ...

The committed artist says his work is an indictment of blind justice that ravaged France. The statuette is black, Halde considering filing a complaint of discrimination.

is still fascinating that this activist may not know this stuff. But very revealing past (a past close enough), we have argued that people of color were punished more severely than whites, and claimed it would be a blind justice. Now, the outrage that justice dares to attack these "young", without taking account of their color / social background / etc.

We at least agree on one thing, Mrs. Diallo and me: the term "black" is unnecessary and quite ridiculous.

But I do not care, I say negro.

short. One suspects that the mistake was inadvertent and solely from a lack of culture, although it is indicative of a mindset.

In another video that had caught my attention, however, no doubt: it was not a blunder. It really makes me despair of not being able to lay hands on it, but I'm starting all the same, because I think the remarks were significant.

It was a show about the sausage-drink booze before the ban seems to me there. In the camp pro-drink, Ivan Rioufol and an editor of Response Layman, a son of Muslims elsewhere, in his own words. In the camp of the pro-ban, a "citizen of the Goutte d'Or" (apparently an old lefty) and one head of SOS Racisme, a Dhim ... forgiveness, one white.

Beautiful face, with blue eyes who burst on the screen under his black hair. Normally, men like that make you want to spread their genes: he, from the first moment, I wanted to kill him with a vegetable peeler. And no, not just because he representing SOS Racisme, but because he was so obviously immoral that I bristled the hair. It's an experience fascinating to see someone so beautiful that it should be attractive, except that from the first moment you feel that someone infected . And obviously, this was confirmed when he opened his mouth ...

Rioufol Ivan, I think he, at one time or another, spoke of Islam, the term generally accepted to separate Muslims and bad Muslims nice. (While the representative Response Lay tried vaguely to be heard to say that the problem is not Islam but Islam - nobody listened).

And then, surprise, the representative of SOS Racisme was resumed on the that word and it comes out something in this style here: "You talked about Islam, it is proof that [insert usual accusations]. If you had talked about the current sectarian as Salafism or [I forgot the name], okay, but you talked about Islam. "

You understand now why he lost this video, so the exact quotation, kill me? It was the first example - to my knowledge - a new rule of Newspeak: it is more acceptable to separate Islam and Islamism to condemn it. Salafism, a term including a handful of people must know the direction is wrong. Islamism, a term behind which everyone took refuge is good.

Nevermind that it makes no sense. Does "Islam" made sense, anyway? The important thing is simply to confuse the marks, destabilize the thought, change the language fast enough that nobody knows how to speak, until he is no longer any word for an Islam that can not not want. For when the word no longer exists, we know what becomes of the concept ...

Who has a vegetable peeler?

There remains only one solution, in my humble opinion. That said, regular and strong, that the representative failed to Secular Response to say at this time. Who cares of Salafism. Who cares of Islamism. It is Islam that we reject. course, this attracts more or less extreme protests. But to use another word, go into a game whose rules are constantly changing and that we can only lose. We must refuse to play.